Hon'ble GOMBER, J.—Both the above mentioned appeals, although decided by separate judgments passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 and Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bundi on 24.9.2003 and 25.4.2006 in Sessions Case Nos. 136/2001 and 48/2005 respectively, arise out of FIR No. 74/2000 registered on 13.4.2000 at Police Station Talera on the basis of written report Ex. P.3 submitted by PW.3 Harjeet Singh. Hence are being decided by a common order. 2. Out of the appellants of Appeal No. 1456/03, four namely Ajit, Baldev, Gurdeep and Trilok Singh sons of Amrik are real brothers and Mangal Singh is their gainer brother-in-law. Whereas appellants of Appeal No. 446/06 namely Mahal Singh and Tahal Singh are the sons of Mangal Singh- appellant No. 5 of Appeal No. 1456/03. 3. By way of these two impugned judgments dated 24.9.2003 and 25.4.2006, accused appellants of Appeal No. 1456/03 namely Mangal Singh and Trilok Singh have been convicted for offence punishable u/S. 302 IPC simplicitor and all the five (Ajit, Gurdeep, Baldev, Mangal and Trilok) were convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 148 and 323, IPC. 4. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in Ex. P.3, written report, are that on 12.4.2000 the complainant Harjeet Singh's elder brother Jaswant Singh (the deceased) and his maternal father-in-law Hajara Singh, had come to his village from village Ajeta to celebrate Baisakhi falling on 13.4.2000. Further that Amreek Singh, the father of appellants Ajit, Baldev, Gurdeep and Trilok on one side and complainant's brother-in-law (loser) Ranjeet Singh on the other side, had a dispute with regard to the common way and there had been a litigation between the two wherein Ranjit Singh was ordered to give way from his field to the father of appellants No. 1 to 4. He alleged that on 12.4.2000, in the presence of complainant's elder brother (deceased) Jaswant Singh @ Jassa, a wordly wrangle had taken place between Ranjeet Singh and Amrik Singh's son qua the dispute regarding the common way and on the day of Baisakhi i.e. 13.4.2000, all the family members of the complainant and also his brother-in-law's family, went to Gurudwara in Badgaon (Bundi) and returned back at about 8.45 pm. The guests i.e. the deceased Jaswant Singh and complainant's maternal father-in-law Hajara Singh also came by Ranjit Singh's jeep but stayed back in complainant's house for dinner. The guests i.e. the deceased Jaswant Singh and complainant's maternal father-in-law Hajara Singh also came by Ranjit Singh's jeep but stayed back in complainant's house for dinner. At about 9.00 P.M. deceased Jassa and PW.1 Hajara Singh went to Harjeet Singh's tube-well situated in his field in order to wash themselves. 5. According to the complainant, at about 9.30 pm a loud ruckus was heard and on hearing the same the complainant and his brother Ram Singh ran towards the tube-well and his brother-in-law Ranjeet Singh also reached there and they saw Ajit, Baldev, Gurdeep, Trilok, Mangal and his two sons Mahal and Tahal Singh assaulting Jaswant Singh and Hajara Singh with swords and gandassas. On the intervention of these persons the accused persons drove in accused Mangal Singh's tractor-trolley towards Kalpuria canal. 6. On reaching the site, the complainant saw that Jaswant Singh had suffered a sword below on his head consequent thereto he died on the spot and Hajara Singh also suffered serious injuries on his head, who was removed to Bundi hospital by him, his brother-in-law and father-in-law and the police was telephonically informed. 7. On the basis of Ex. P.3, FIR No. 74/2000 was registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 323 IPC, and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the five above named appellants of Appeal No. 1456/2003 whereas on account of other two appellants absconding, the same was kept pending under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `the Code'). On receipt by committal, the learned trial judge framed charges for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307 read with 149 and 323 IPC to which they denied and claimed trial. 8. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded u/S. 313 of the Code and all incriminating material and circumstances were put to them. They alleged false implication and examined DW-1 Dr. Ajay Kushwaha in defence who proved the injury reports of accused Trilok Singh and Ajeet Singh as Ex. D-11 and Ex. D-12, respectively, and exhibited other documents including the previous statements of prosecution witnesses given before police. 9. They alleged false implication and examined DW-1 Dr. Ajay Kushwaha in defence who proved the injury reports of accused Trilok Singh and Ajeet Singh as Ex. D-11 and Ex. D-12, respectively, and exhibited other documents including the previous statements of prosecution witnesses given before police. 9. The explanation given by the accused Ajeet Singh was that the deceased and PW.1 were aggressors and that they had attacked so as to kill him because on his report against the brother of complainant regarding his impersonification in an accident case, criminal case was registered and the notices for obtaining his hand writing/thumb impression were received from Todaraisingh court and that he had to appear before the court on 14.4.2000 for the purpose. 10. The accused Mangal Singh, Mahal Singh and Tahal Singh took a plea of alibi. The explanation of Baldev Singh and Trilok Singh was that they were busy on the thresher in their field and on hearing the cry of Ajeet Singh and Dev Lal who were about to eat their dinner, they rushed and saw the deceased and Hajara Singh causing beating to Ajeet Singh and Trilok Singh, while trying to save his brother Ajit Singh, sustained injuries. According to him the deceased sustained injuries by the sword of PW.1 Hajara Singh himself as they both had come to their field to do away with Ajit Singh, who had to appear for handwriting specimen before Todaraisingh court on 14.4.2000. 11. The learned trial Judge, on the basis of material before it, recorded a finding of conviction of all the five accused persons and sentenced as under: Mangal Singh and Trilok Singh u/S. 148 IPC: Two years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- in default whereof to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. u/S. 302 IPC: Life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2000/- in default whereof to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. u/S. 307/147 IPC: Seven years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default whereof to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. u/S. 323 IPC: Six months' simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- in default whereof to further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment. Ajit Singh u/S. 148 IPC: Two years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- in default whereof to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. u/S. 302/149 IPC: Life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. u/S. 323 IPC: Six months' simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- in default whereof to further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment. Ajit Singh u/S. 148 IPC: Two years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- in default whereof to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. u/S. 302/149 IPC: Life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2000/- in default whereof to further undergo three month's simple imprisonment. u/S. 307 IPC: Seven years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default whereof to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. u/S. 323 IPC: Six months' simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- in default whereof to further undergo fifteen days' simple imprisonment. Gurdeep Singh and Baldev Singh u/S. 148 IPC: Two years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- in default whereof to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. u/S. 302/149 IPC: Life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2000/- in default whereof to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. u/S. 307/149 IPC: Seven years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default whereof to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. u/S. 323 IPC: Six months' simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- in default whereof to further undergo fifteen days' simple imprisonment. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 12. So far as the appellants of Appeal No. 446/2006 are concerned, separate trial was conducted later wherein 16 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and 36 documents were exhibited and in defence these accused did not lead any evidence and on being put all the incriminating material and circumstances, they alleged false implication and exhibited 16 documents. 13. The learned Sessions Judge also recorded the finding of conviction vide judgment dated 25.4.2006 in Sessions Case No. 48/2005 against the accused Mahal Singh and Tahal Singh and sentenced them as under: u/S. 302/149 IPC: Life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2000/- each in default whereof to further undergo additional three months' simple imprisonment. u/S. 307 & 307/149 IPC: Seven years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default whereof to further undergo additional one month simple imprisonment. u/S. 148 IPC: Two years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- each in default whereof to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 14. The impugned judgments have been assailed on various grounds. 1000/- each in default whereof to further undergo additional one month simple imprisonment. u/S. 148 IPC: Two years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- each in default whereof to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 14. The impugned judgments have been assailed on various grounds. Following submissions were advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. (i) The first submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants was predicated to the fact that the true genesis of the occurrence was suppressed by the prosecution and that the incident has not occurred in the manner and at the place in/at which it is alleged to have occurred. According to him it were the deceased and the injured who were aggressors. (ii) The second submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants was predicated to the fact of there being no light at the place of occurrence and that this fact was extremely important because, admittedly, the deceased and injured were residents of Ajeta village and had, in their life time, come to Kalpuria village for the first time and did not know Amrik Singh or his sons. In such a circumstances, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants was that PW.1 Hajara who was the only person accompanying the deceased, could not have named or identified the assailants. (iii) The third submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants was that there could not be any earthly reason for accused to form an unlawful assembly to commit murder of Jaswant alias Jassa Singh or murderous assault on Hajara Singh whom they did not even know and who came to that village just for Vaisakhi and that too for the first time in their life. (iv) The fourth submission advanced was that the learned trial court has not tried to appreciate the explanations given by the accused persons in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that the complainant party had immediate grudge against accused persons as they had lost legal battle and had been ordered to give way to Amreek Singh and his sons and also that on Ajit Singh's complaint about his impersonification by the brother of complainant in an accident case, the notices for obtaining his specimen signatures had been issued by Todaraisingh court and Ajit Singh accused as also Surjit Singh (the brother of complainant) had to appear before the court on 14.4.2000 i.e. the next day of occurrence and that it was the complainant party who, in order to get Ajit Singh away, called their two relatives i.e. deceased Jassa Singh and injured Hajara Singh who had criminal back ground and that the two came to the field of accused persons as aggressors when they were busy winnowing their crop by thresher. (v) The fifth submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the injuries sustained by Trilok Singh and Ajit Singh have not been explained by the prosecution and that whatever happended, has happened while exercising their right of private defence. (vi) The last submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants was that there have been material improvements and contradictions between the statements of PW.1 Hajara Singh who can only be said to be present with the deceased, made before police and before the court and that recovery of weapons was not proved. 15. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor, supporting the impugned judgment, vehemently argued that no error of law or fact has been committed by the learned trial Court and that the judgment does not warrant any interference. 16. We have considered the rival contention advanced by both the sides and perused the impugned judgment as also the record. 17. In order to appreciate the arguments, we intend to re-appreciate the evidence of the most important witness PW.1 in the light of overall circumstances of the case. 18. 16. We have considered the rival contention advanced by both the sides and perused the impugned judgment as also the record. 17. In order to appreciate the arguments, we intend to re-appreciate the evidence of the most important witness PW.1 in the light of overall circumstances of the case. 18. But before dealing with the evidence of PW.1 Hajara Singh injured who was the only one who accompanied deceased and was present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and on whose version entire prosecution case hinges, we shall first deal with the medical evidence of Dr. Mahendra Singhal who conducted autopsy on deceased Jaswant Singh alias Jassa. 19. Out of 19 prosecution witnesses in the first trial and 16 witnesses in the second case, PW.11 Dr. Mahendra Singhal and PW.16 are the Medical Officers who conducted postmortem of deceased Jaswant Singh alias Jassa and prepared postmortem report Ex. P.21 and found following external injuries on his person: (i) Incised wound with bone of skull cut in 2 half "10 x 2" x whole length skull upto base. Injuries extending from middle nose, forehead, parietal region, occipital region (Ant. Half). (ii) Incised wound 1-1/2" 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4" upper 1/2 of Lt. Ear. (iii) Incised wound 4" x 1/2" x bone deep Rt. side of parietal region of middle of bone. It was parallel to injury No. 1. All the three injuries were ante mortem. On internal examination, the following injuries were found: Scalp Skull Bones (Vertex) : fracture (#) occipital bone (Ant. half parietal bone frontal bone with middle line. Membrance: Removed completely (lacerated) not found in place. Brain : Completely lacerated found out of skull cavity. Base of Skull : Fracture (#) posterior middle cranial bones. 20. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was neurogesic shock due to head injury. On the basis of above medical and other related evidence it is established that the death of deceased Jassa Singh was homicidal. The question as to who can be said to be responsible for the said homicidal death is being dealt later while discussing the other prosecution evidence. 21. PW.1 Hajara who is claimed to have received injuries on his person was medically examined by PW.16 Dr. Anil Arora who examined PW.1 Hajara Singh and found following injuries on his person as shown in Ex. 21. PW.1 Hajara who is claimed to have received injuries on his person was medically examined by PW.16 Dr. Anil Arora who examined PW.1 Hajara Singh and found following injuries on his person as shown in Ex. P. 26: (i) Incised wound 5" x 3/4 cm x bone deep in the middle of scalp. (ii) Swelling with bruises black bruises 4" x 3" at right side of neck. (iii) Bruises reddish in colour 12" x 1" with 1 cm clear into spinal area at left side of back from middle of upper bruises of scalp receiving up to middle upto 12 rib. (iv) Reddish brownish rounded bruises 1" x 1" at lower back 10th 11th ribs. (v) Reddish bruises 5" x 1" at above the right buttock. (vi) Swelling 3" x 3" upto back at scalp. X-ray was advised for injury No. 1 but as per opinion given by Radiologist Dr. Arvind Sharma dated 15.4.2000, there was no bony injury found, hence the injury No. 1 in Ex. P.26 was opined as simple in nature. 22. Besides PW.1 Hajara Singh, other witnesses claiming to be eye witnesses were PW.3 Harjeet, PW.5 Ram Singh, PW.6 Gurnam Singh and PW.8 Ranjeet Singh. 23. PW.2 Dev Lal who is stated to be present at the time of occurrence in the field of the accused persons, has been declared hostile but his evidence is very important. PW.4 Nathu Lal is formal witness for Panchama Lassh, PW.7 Rambhajan, constable is carrier of written report Ex. P.3, PW.9 Pratap Singh is also formal witness for recovery memos of weapons Ex. P.13, Ex. P.14, Ex. P. 15 and Ex. P.16 being gandasa from Ajit Singh, Sword from Trilok Singh, Kulhadi from Baldev Singh and lathi from Amrik Singh (strangely Amrik Singh is not accused in the case) but this witness was declared hostile and claimed to have signed blank papers. 24. In the same manner, PW.15 Man Singh and PW.18 Ram Lal are the formal witnesses of Ex. P. 24 and Ex. P. 25 recovery memo of sword from Trilok Singh who are also hostile but admit their signatures denying any recovery made in their presence. 25. PW.10 Gulzar is Hajara's brother who is formal witness of seizure memo Ex. P.1 of blood stained shirt of Hajara Singh. PW.12 Ghanshyam Constable is carrier of sealed case property packets to FSL who obtained receipt Ex. 25. PW.10 Gulzar is Hajara's brother who is formal witness of seizure memo Ex. P.1 of blood stained shirt of Hajara Singh. PW.12 Ghanshyam Constable is carrier of sealed case property packets to FSL who obtained receipt Ex. P.22 PW.13 Ramkaran, ASI, is stated to have chalked FIR Ex. P.12 at 2.00 a.m. on the basis of written report Ex. P. 3 brought by Ram Bhajan Constable. PW.14 Abdul Shahid is Malkhana Incharge who had kept the articles in the Malkhana. 26. PW. 13/16 Shammiullah Khan is the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation and during investigation prepared site plan Ex. P.4 the next morning which is the present case is a very important document. It shows that dead body of deceased was found lying at mark "F" which is the field of complainant party whereas in Ex. P.4 site plan mark "X" is the place where blood stained soil, pieces of broken sword, human hair (deceased was turban Sikh) and a broken piece of bone of skull were found. 27. It is true that the site plan is never treated as substantive evidence in law. Of course, the importance of a site plan has not to be belittled. The site plan is the only document available before a court which is charged of the duty to appreciate and evaluate evidence which helps the court recreating the memorabilia as to what happened at the spot. 28. In the instant case, it has been admitted by PW.1 during his cross examination - "yet sahi hai ki Jassa jahan gira wahan khun hi khun ho gaya tha," whereas the place marked "F" where deceased was shown lying in Ex. P.4, there was no blood, instead it was in the field of accused persons along with the broken sword, hair, skull bone etc. which clearly suggests that the incident took place in the field of accused and not in complainant's field. Men may lie but circumstances do not. 29. PW.1 Hajara Singh is himself injured and is an eye witness and when the case is an eye witness account, the court has to carefully scrutinise the version of eye witnesses to draw a conclusion as to whether their testimony is trustworthy and reliable enough to sustain the conviction of the accused. 30. 29. PW.1 Hajara Singh is himself injured and is an eye witness and when the case is an eye witness account, the court has to carefully scrutinise the version of eye witnesses to draw a conclusion as to whether their testimony is trustworthy and reliable enough to sustain the conviction of the accused. 30. As per prosecution story, the deceased Jassa Singh and PW.1 Hajara Singh had gone to the tube-well to wash themselves at about 9.00 PM and said tube-well was in the fields of Harjeet Singh informant and Ram Singh (both brothers) living next to each other and their fields were on the rear side of their houses shown at mark "H" and "I" in Ex. P.4 site plan. 31. We shall therefore, look into the evidence of this witness in little detail because all other relatives i.e. Ram Singh, Harjeet Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Gurnam Singh rushed from their houses only after hearing the ruckus and their houses are at a distance from the place of occurrence. Although they claim to have seen the incident from a distance of ten steps, but when confronted with their police statements i.e. Ex. D2 of PW.3 Harjeet Singh, complainant, Ex. D1 of PW.1 Hajara Singh and Ex. D3 of PW 5 Ram Singh, there are material improvements and contradictions. PW.3 Harjeet Singh, PW.5 Ram Singh, and PW.8 Ranjeet Singh admittedly reached the place of occurrence after hearing the ruckus and it is only PW.1 Hajara Singh who accompanied the deceased Jassa alias Jaswant Singh. There is also no evidence to show that there was light at the place of occurrence. 32. PW.1 Hajara Singh was confronted with his police statements Ex-D1 where Jaswant Singh was stated to be carrying sword and Hajara Singh injured as `danda'. He denied having made any such statement. In the same manner he denied having made statements before police in Ex. D1 about Jaswant Singh going to his brother-in-law Gurnam Singh's house straight from the canal. When confronted with Ex. D1 about the deceased and injured not going to Harjeet Singh and Ram Singh's house, he denied having made any. The defence version was put to all the witnesses right from the very beginning during their cross examination. 33. According to him Ajit Singh gave Jassa a gandassa blow and after sustaining the injury he fell down in his presence. D1 about the deceased and injured not going to Harjeet Singh and Ram Singh's house, he denied having made any. The defence version was put to all the witnesses right from the very beginning during their cross examination. 33. According to him Ajit Singh gave Jassa a gandassa blow and after sustaining the injury he fell down in his presence. According to him where Jassa fell there was blood all over but in Ex. P.4 site plan, blood stains were found in accused persons field whereas his body was found lying, by the Investigating Officer, in complainant's field when in the morning he prepared site plan Ex. P.4. 34. There are contradictions in his statements. Although learned trial Court has observed these to be minor contradictions but, in our considered view the police statements made by the only eyewitness who was accompanying the deceased immediately after the incident, cannot be overlooked specially in view of the other circumstances i.e. Ex. P.4 site plan which is a material document as discussed above. 35. There is another important aspect with regard to his statements. As per PW.5 Ram Singh who claimed to have seen the incident from a distance of ten steps, stated in his cross examination that he saw the accused assaulting the deceased. According to him in the beginning Trilok Singh inflicted injury on Jaswant Singh and after his fall, Mangal Singh and then Mahal Singh inflicted injuries upon him. He further stated that Hajara Singh had already sustained injuries and when they reached he was lying there. If his statements are believed, then Hajara Singh PW.1 cannot be said to have seen the accused assaulting Jassa Singh but that is not the case. 36. Besides PW.1 Hajara Singh injured there is only one independent witness and he is PW.2 Devlal who, although, deposed at variance with his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and was declared hostile, but his statements cannot be discarded in toto just because of his being hostile. 37. We have no hesitation in holding that PW.2 Devlal had turned hostile and deposed at variance with the case set up by the prosecution against the appellants, but that by itself, is not sufficient. The court has to see whether there is other clinching acceptable evidence pointing finger of guilt towards the accused persons which we do not find in the instant case. The court has to see whether there is other clinching acceptable evidence pointing finger of guilt towards the accused persons which we do not find in the instant case. Rather his evidence appears to be closer to the truth. 38. As mentioned above all other witnesses claiming to be eye witnesses are family members hence interested and have reached after hearing the ruckus from their respective houses which are at a distance that, at least, will need sometime to reach and the incident admittedly, has not continued for a long duration because PW.1 admitted that after Jassa fell, he was not inflicted any injury. These witnesses admit that the accused left in tractor trolley when they reached. 39. It is a cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and must prove the circumstances upon which it is relying to sustain a finding of conviction. This is clearly not so in the instant case. What had compelled the trial Judge to convict the accused, becomes a question mark. Circumstances have not been appreciated in the correct perspective and unmindful reliance has been placed upon them. 40. Moreover the prosecution has not ascribed any motive to the appellants for this crime especially when both i.e. the deceased and Hajara Singh had come to village Kalpuria for the first time and as per PW.1 himself, he did not know the sons of Amrik Singh nor did he ever see them. Then in such a situation when there was no light, except the tractor light, how could he have seen and named 7 accused persons including Mangal Singh and his two sons Mahal Singh and Tahal Singh. 41. Statements of PW.1 Hajara Singh, who was the best witness, are full of contradictions, improvements and embellishments. He cannot be said to be trustworthy and all this tilts the scale in favour of the accused, for no earthly reason has been shown for accused persons to form an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing Jassa Singh or Hajara Singh who came to this village for the first time and who were not known to the accused party. 42. Testimony of PW.1, even otherwise, does not inspire confidence. 42. Testimony of PW.1, even otherwise, does not inspire confidence. It is difficult to imagine that the accused persons who did not know the injured as also the deceased, since admittedly, both of them had come to Kalpuria village for the first time, would form an unlawful assembly with a common object to kill Jassa Singh or commit murderous assault on Hajara. PW.1 admits that he did not know Amrik Singh's sons and he never saw them. Strangely the witness claims to have seen those persons at night time even when there was no light, even when he did not know them before. His telling the names of assailants creates doubt and this fact itself makes his statements doubtful. 43. His admission, during cross examination, also reveals that his father Pritam Singh and Mangal Singh's father Kartar Singh are real brothers and that he and his father had filed litigation against Mangal Singh and Kartar Singh and that they were not on talking terms. It appears that PW.1 has also tried to settle his own scores. 44. It is not out of place to mention that accused Mangal Singh is the son-in-law of Amrik Singh and also father of accused Mahal Singh and Tahal Singh. Other four accused appellants are the sons of Amrik Singh with whom the informant's-in-law have inimical relations on account of giving of common way. The legal battle in this regard had been lost by complainant's brother-in-law Ranjeet Singh and he had been ordered by the court to give way to Amrik Singh and his sons (the appellants Ajit, Trilok, Baldev and Gurdeep). PW.1 though is injured, but his conduct, in our view, appears to be highly unnatural and unreliable. 45. On the other hand, it is amply proved that the injured PW.1 Hajara Singh is maternal uncle of Ranjeet Singh, whose land is adjacent to the land of Amrik Singh (whose four sons, son-in-law Mangal and two grand-sons (maternal) namely Mahal Singh and Tahal Singh) are accused here and deceased Jassa Singh was the elder brother of Ranjeet Singh's brother-in-law (gainer). 46. As per PW.19 Shammiullah Khan the Investigating Officer, the deceased Jassa Singh and PW.1 Hajara Singh both had a criminal back ground, as deposed by him, in response to the suggestion made by the defence counsel during his cross examination. 46. As per PW.19 Shammiullah Khan the Investigating Officer, the deceased Jassa Singh and PW.1 Hajara Singh both had a criminal back ground, as deposed by him, in response to the suggestion made by the defence counsel during his cross examination. Then the conduct of the PW.1 Hajara who is resident of other village Ajeta and who claimed to have come from Badgaon Gurdwara with his nephew (Bhana Ranjit Singh and his father in their jeep) to village Kalpuria, for the first time, to see his ailing sister (Ranjeet Singh's mother) gets down from jeep along with deceased Jassa Singh and does not go straight to his real sister's house and instead goes to Harjeet Singh's house. His explanation that being night time he thought of seeing the sister the next morning is also unbelievable because he came to Kalpuria only to see his ailing sister and accompanied Ranjeet Singh from Badgaon Gurudwara for the purpose but instead of going to the sister's house, went to Harjeet Singh's house. This conduct of Hajara Singh is also totally unnatural, especially when the jeep driven by his Bhanja Ranjeet Singh was going right to the witnesses' sister's house, therefore, his evidence does not inspire confidence. 47. Second strong circumstance is that as per prosecution story, the deceased Jaswant and Hajara are stated to had suddenly met the complainant party in Gurudwara on 12.4.2000 i.e. a day before Vaisakhi and had come to Kalpuria. According to PW.1 Hajara they used to come to Gurudwara every month on Amavasya day and used to meet their relatives from Kalpuria but were never offered invitation by even his Bhanja or Jija. All the witnesses have admitted that these two had come to Kalpuria for the first time. 48. Then as per the prosecution story, the jeep of Ranjeet Singh again went to Gurudwara on 13.4.2000 for Vaisakhi prayers in the morning and on way back from Gurudwara, besides Harjeet Singh, Jassa, Hajara, Gurnam Singh (Ranjeet's father), Kartar Singh and Shyam Singh had also come to Kalpuria at 8.45 PM. But except Jassa Singh and Hajara Singh, no one else got down on the way or at Harjeet's house. It is also not clear whether Jassa only was in Kalpuria on 12.4.2000 or both i.e. the injured and deceased. But except Jassa Singh and Hajara Singh, no one else got down on the way or at Harjeet's house. It is also not clear whether Jassa only was in Kalpuria on 12.4.2000 or both i.e. the injured and deceased. There is no mention of Hajara also being there on 12.4.2000 when worldly wrangle is said to have taken place between Ranjeet Singh and Amrik Singh's son and the accused party was threatened by complainant side for which Gurdeep accused also lodged report Ex. P.10 on 12.4.2000. 49. Then the statements of Investigating Officer read with site plan Ex. P.4 show that the place where the injured was found lying and where the dead body of deceased was lying, there were no signs of any incident taking place instead they were in the centre of field of Amrik Singh. There was blood stained soil, broken pieces of swords, a piece of bone, hair (the deceased was also a Sikh with turban) were found. It is clear from the site plan that there is a Dhora between the field of Amrik and that of Harjeet Singh, Ram Singh. The dead body of Jassa was found in Harjeet and Ram Singh's field. It has also come on record that when Harjeet Singh and Ram Singh rushed from their houses, after hearing the noise, they saw the accused running in a blue tractor owned by accused Mangal Singh. Although they have tried to support the prosecution case saying that they saw the accused inflicting injuries on the head of Jassa and Hajara but this fact cannot be forgotten that the complainant's field (i.e. the fields of Harjeet Singh, Ram Singh and Surjeet Singh) are on the rear side of the houses of Harjeet and Ram Singh. Although they have tried to support the prosecution case saying that they saw the accused inflicting injuries on the head of Jassa and Hajara but this fact cannot be forgotten that the complainant's field (i.e. the fields of Harjeet Singh, Ram Singh and Surjeet Singh) are on the rear side of the houses of Harjeet and Ram Singh. It is natural that anyone at a distance especially at night 9.30-40 P.M. when the family is busy in the dinner pursuits, and on hearing the noise from the field side, is bound to take a few minutes to run and reach there and looking to the three injuries out of which one is on head with sharp weapon and his falling and dying at the spot, shows that it must not have taken a long time and therefore the other witnesses including Ranjeet Singh whose house is even more far from the place of occurrence, could not have been the person inflicting the injury on Jassa or Hajara in the night time specially when there was no light. 50. All these circumstances compel us to hold that it is the complainant party, who was the aggressor and the place of occurrence was the field of accused and that after accused field in the tractor, the body of deceased Jassa and injured Hajara were moved to the complainant's field and it was all on account of Ranjeet Singh's lossing his legal battle with regard to his giving way from his field to Amrik Singh that the complainant party attacked the accused. 51. The other very important factor as admitted almost by all the brothers of deceased is that their third brother Surjeet Singh had been involved in a criminal case of accident in which a woman had died while driving his tractor and he impersonified Amrik Singh's son Ajeet Singh and signed all documents in criminal trial as Ajeet Singh and on coming to know about this fact, after receipt of notice from Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Malpura, Ajeet Singh went to the court and lodged a criminal complaint against Surjeet Singh. It has also been admitted by the prosecution witnesses that on 14.4.2000 i.e. the next day of occurrence, Ajeet Singh accused had to go to Todaraisingh court for giving the specimen signatures so also Surjeet Singh, the brother of complainant. It has also been admitted by the prosecution witnesses that on 14.4.2000 i.e. the next day of occurrence, Ajeet Singh accused had to go to Todaraisingh court for giving the specimen signatures so also Surjeet Singh, the brother of complainant. They had been served with the notices issued from Todaraisingh court to appear on 14.4.2000 for this purpose. 52. The prosecution has tried to build a story showing motive of accused that worldly wrangle took place on 12.4.2000 between Ranjeet Singh and Amrik's son (which son out of the four is not clear) in the presence of the deceased and that the accused formed an unlawful assembly to commit the crime because of enmity with Ranjeet Singh. This story is totally unbelievable because if this was the motive then the murder or murderous assault should have been on the person with whom worldly wrangle took place or with whom the strained/inimical relations were and not with the brother of Ranjeet's Jija who was resident of other village and who had come for the first time in his life to village Kalpuria and who did not know Amrik Singh or his sons. 53. From whatever angle the circumstances and totality of the prosecution evidence including the admissions made during cross examination, we have no hesitation in holding that it is the complainant party and not the accused party who had some immediate grudge prompting them to commit the offence. The service of notice to appear on 14.4.2000 for signatures of Ajeet Singh for comparison is a very strong factor, besides the site plan Ex. P.4 showing the signs of incident in the field of accused persons which the complainant party has tried to suppress. 54. The destination of our discussion is a happy destination for the appellants and their learned counsel as we are of the considered view that the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants have force. It is clearly established that the prosecution has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the true genesis of the case. Men may lie but circumstances do not. Ex. P.4 site plan sufficiently proves this fact. 55. The learned trial Judge, being unmindful of various factors which gave a complete twist to the situation has arrived at a finding of conviction which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be sustained. 56. Men may lie but circumstances do not. Ex. P.4 site plan sufficiently proves this fact. 55. The learned trial Judge, being unmindful of various factors which gave a complete twist to the situation has arrived at a finding of conviction which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be sustained. 56. The explanation given by the accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they were in their field working on the thresher and the deceased and injured came laced with weapons and assaulted Ajeet Singh accused gets corroborated by the statement of PW.2 Dev Lal who is an independent witness and whose deposition appears to be closer to the truth. 57. Since the deceased and injured were aggressors, the accused were right within their jurisdiction to act in private defence. Even otherwise the deceased and injured carrying weapons while going to wash themselves to the tube-well also appears to be not a normal conduct. 58. For the forgoing discussions, we are of the considered view that the conviction of accused persons on the basis of such evidence cannot be sustained. Hence both appeals of appellants are allowed and they are acquitted of all the offences for which they were charged. The accused appellants except Trilok Singh are on bail. Their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as per section 437 -A Cr.P.C. 59. The accused Trilok Singh if not required in any other case, be set at liberty forthwith. On release, he will execute a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-, along with two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of trial Court which shall remain in force for six months. 60. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned jail and the record of trial court be returned forthwith.