JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Vide this judgment, the above mentioned appeals will be disposed of as these have arisen out of a common incident. 2. FIR No.5 dated 9.1.2000 was registered at 9 a.m. at Police Station Mahendergarh on the basis of statement made by complainant Sher Singh against appellants Prem Singh, Raj Kumar and Ajay Singh under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short). Complainant Sher Singh made a statement before ASI Chand Singh at 9 a.m. on 9.1.2000 that Mani Ram was his younger brother. Complainant and his brother Mani Ram were residing separately and were agriculturist. A day before, at about 4.30 p.m., complainant along with Mani Ram, Jagdish, Bani Singh, Hoshiar Singh, Zile Singh and Satbir were playing cards at a vacant place in front of the house of Jagdish. In the meantime, Prem Singh came there and took away Mani Ram with him. However, Mani Ram did not return back home. Parveen son of the complainant and Premwati wife of Mani Ram went looking for Mani Ram. At about midnight, when they reached near the house of Nanak Ram Parjapati, they saw that Ajay and Raj Kumar were coming while lifting Mani Ram. On seeing Parveen and Premwati, they fled away from the spot after leaving Mani Ram in the street near the house of Nanak Ram Parjapati. Parveen and Premwati then narrated the above occurrence to the complainant. About 20/ 25 days earlier an altercation had taken place between Mani Ram, Ajay and Raj Kumar qua a motocycle. There was a possibility that Ajay, Raj Kumar and Prem Singh had committed the murder of Mani Ram in connivance with each other after administering some poisonous substance to him in liquor. There were marks of injuries on the right eye and cheek of Mani Ram. 3. After registration of the FIR, on the basis of the statement of the complainant, the prosecution case was set in motion. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the accused. Charge was framed against accused under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 14 witnesses. 4. PW-2, Dr.Ashok Kumar Yadav deposed that on 9.1.2000, he had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Mani Ram at 1.30 p.m along with Dr.Rekha Yadav. Charge was framed against accused under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 14 witnesses. 4. PW-2, Dr.Ashok Kumar Yadav deposed that on 9.1.2000, he had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Mani Ram at 1.30 p.m along with Dr.Rekha Yadav. They found following injuries on the person of the deceased:- “1. There was a bluish red contusion of 8 x 6 cms size around right eye, right side of forehead and temporal. Sub conjunctival reddish hemorrhage was present in right eye. On dissection, there was fracture of right frontal and temporal bone. Clotted blood was present in sub-dural, subarocrachnoit tissues on further dissection there was laceration of brain tissues corresponding to the fracture. 2. There was 3 x 1 cm was brown coloured abrasion on left cheek. 3 cm from the angle of mouth. 3. There was a bluish red contusion, just lateral to left nostril.” 5. In their opinion, the probable time between the injuries and death was within few months and between death and postmortem examination was within 24 hours. The injuries on the person of deceased Mani Ram could be caused with blunt weapon. 6. The complainant, while appearing in the witness box as PW-9, deposed that on 8.1.2000 at about 4 p.m. they were playing cards in the area of village in the plot of Jagdish. The complainant was accompanied by Hoshiar Singh, Prem, Jagdish. Mani Ram, Zile Singh, Bani Singh and Satbir were playing cards near them. Prem asked Mani Ram as to whether they should leave the place and thereafter both of them went away. On the same day, at about 11 p.m., he came to know that condition of Mani Ram was bad. Premli (described as Premwati in the FIR) wife of Mani Ram, came to him and started crying and told him qua the bad condition of Mani Ram. He saw the dead body of Mani Ram lying near the house of Nang potter. There was injuries on the person of Mani Ram. He returned back to his house and narrated the said facts to his cousin Jagdish. Premli told him that she had seen the dead body of Mani Ram being carried by accused Ajay and Raj Kumar. Some villagers had gathered near the dead body. There was injuries on the person of Mani Ram. He returned back to his house and narrated the said facts to his cousin Jagdish. Premli told him that she had seen the dead body of Mani Ram being carried by accused Ajay and Raj Kumar. Some villagers had gathered near the dead body. The complainant was unable to arrange for a vehicle due to night time and in the morning he reached the bus stand and met ASI Chand Singh and made a statement before him. Then he accompanied the police to the place of occurrence, where the dead body of Mani Ram was lying. He told the ASI that a quarrel had taken place between Mani Ram, Raj Kumar and Ajay qua a motorcycle. Prem accused was also a party to the murder. 7. PW-10 Premli deposed that Mani Ram deceased was her husband. On 8.1.2000, her husband did not return back home up to 11 p.m./ midnight. She went to the house of Parveen and asked him to accompany her to search her husband. When they reached near the house of potters, she saw Raj Kumar and Ajay carrying the dead body of her husband. On seeing them, both the accused threw the dead body and ran away. When they saw the dead body , there was injuries on the face of her husband. She came to the house of Sher Singh, her brother-in-law, and narrated the facts to him and thereafter, she became unconscious due to shock. 8. PW-11 Mahabir deposed that on 8.1.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. he had gone to the fields to ease himself. There he heard the cries ‘save me save’. He recognised the voice as that of Mani Ram. He came to the pathway on hearing the noise and saw that Prem had caught hold of Mani Ram from behind and accused Raj Kumar and Ajay were causing injuries with brick bat on the face and head of Mani Ram. He inquired from them as to why they were inflicting injuries on the person of Mani Ram. Accused told him that they had some dispute with him qua a motorcycle and, therefore, they were giving beatings to him. He told them that the matter had already been settled. He inquired from them as to why they were inflicting injuries on the person of Mani Ram. Accused told him that they had some dispute with him qua a motorcycle and, therefore, they were giving beatings to him. He told them that the matter had already been settled. Thereafter, he went to his tubewell and on the next morning he left for Charkhi Dadri to meet his aunt and returned back to the village on 14.1.2000. 9. PW-12 Inspector Samay Ram deposed that on 9.1.2000, on receipt of information from ASI Chand Singh, he reached the spot and carried out the inquest proceedings. The dead body of Mani Ram was sent for postmortem examination to the hospital. He recorded the statement of Ram Sarup, Sarpanch, who identified the dead body. On 10.1.2000, he again visited the spot and recorded the statements of Zile Singh, Bane Singh and Hoshiar Singh. Investigation of the case was taken over by Inspector Inder Singh after 13.1.2000. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not remember if Premli, widow of the deceased, had come to him for making her statement. In case, she had appeared before him he would have recorded her statement. 10. PW-13 DSP Inder Singh deposed that on 14.1.2000 he visited the village and correctly recorded the statements of Premli, Mahabir, Satbir and Parveen. He arrested all the accused on the same day. On the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by accused Ajay, pair of shoes and socks of the deceased were recovered from the disclosed place. 11. After the close of prosecution evidence, accused, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short), prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. Accused did not lead any evidence in their defence. The trial Court vide judgment/ order dated 19.4.2001 convicted and sentenced the appellants for offence under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. Hence, the present appeals by the accused. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR. The FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of the brother of the deceased wherein, he had stated that accused Ajay and Raj Kumar were seen with the dead body of Mani Ram by Premli and Parveen. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR. The FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of the brother of the deceased wherein, he had stated that accused Ajay and Raj Kumar were seen with the dead body of Mani Ram by Premli and Parveen. However, during investigation, statement of Mahabir s/o of the complainant was recorded, wherein, he stated that he had seen the accused inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased. Thus, during investigation, a new version was introduced by the prosecution. Statement of the wife of the deceased was also recorded after delay. The dead body of the deceased was recovered from thickly populated area, whereas, as per the prosecution version, the murder had been committed in the fields. There was no reason for the appellants to have brought the dead body from the fields to the place from where it was recovered. 13. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution witnesses had duly proved the prosecution case. The accused had committed the murder of Mani Ram as there had been an altercation between the deceased and accused Ajay and Raj Kumar about 20/25 days prior to the occurrence in connection with a motorcycle. The wife of the deceased had seen accused Ajay and Raj Kumar carrying the dead body of Mani Ram. Accused Prem Kumar had taken away the deceased with him and, thus, the deceased was last seen in the company of Prem Kumar. 14. In the present case, initially, the complainant had stated in his statement before the police that Prem Kumar had taken away the deceased at about 4 p.m. with him, while the deceased was playing cards with the complainant and others. Premli, wife of the deceased, as well as Parveen had seen Raj Kumar and Ajay carrying the dead body of Mani Ram. The statement of the complainant was recorded on 9.1.2000. Thereafter, on 14.1.2000, the investigating officer, PW-13, Inder Singh recorded the statements of PWs Premli, Mahabir and Satbir and Parveen. PW-11 Mahabir, who is none other than the son of the complainant, deposed that he had seen the accused inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased. Thus, during the investigation of the case, the investigating agency has tried to introduce eye witness account qua the occurrence. PW-11 Mahabir, who is none other than the son of the complainant, deposed that he had seen the accused inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased. Thus, during the investigation of the case, the investigating agency has tried to introduce eye witness account qua the occurrence. Since the eye witness account was not part of the FIR, it becomes essential to scrutinize the statements of the witnesses carefully. 15. The statement of PW-11 Mahabir does not inspire confidence. The said witness is nephew of the deceased and the son of the complainant. It is surprising that the said witness after witnessing the occurrence left the spot and returned back to his village on 14.1.2000. The said witness did not bother to narrate the occurrence to his father. As per PW-11, he had left for Charkhi Dadri at 4 a.m. on 9.1.2000. As per the prosecution witnesses, the dead body of the deceased had been spotted at about 11 p.m./ midnight on 8.1.2000. Although PW-11 Mahabir deposed in his cross-examination that he was residing separately from his father but he was residing in the same village and it is not believable that the news qua recovery of dead body of Mani Ram had not reached him before he left for Charkhi Dadri. Moreover, in normal circumstances, PW-11 was expected to have intervened and rescued his uncle from the hands of the accused. Rather PW-11, after witnessing the occurrence, went away and did not bother to narrate the same to any one before making his statement to the police on 14.1.2000. As per PW-11 he had gone to the house of his aunt (sister of the deceased) after witnessing the occurrence in connection with the engagement of her daughter. The postmortem examination was conducted on 9.1.2000 and thereafter the dead body must have been handed over to the family members of the deceased. PW-11 and his aunt must have participated in the funeral ceremony of Mani Ram and his other last rites. The act and conduct of PW-11 in not reporting the occurrence to the police immediately makes his statement untrustworthy and it appears that during investigation of the case, PW Mahabir has been introduced by the prosecution to create an eye witness account qua the occurrence. Hence, the statement of PW11 Mahabir is liable to be disbelieved and cannot be relied upon. 16. Hence, the statement of PW11 Mahabir is liable to be disbelieved and cannot be relied upon. 16. There is another material flaw in the prosecution case. PW-10 Premli, wife of the deceased, had seen accused Ajay and Raj Kumar carrying the dead body of her husband in the street. At that time, Premli was accompanied by her nephew Parveen, son of the complainant. It is not understandable as to why the statements of Premli or Parveen were not recorded by the Investigating Officer immediately after the occurrence. Although the complainant has mentioned in his statement before the police that he had been told by Premli and Parveen that they had seen accused Ajay and Raj Kumar carrying the dead body of Mani Ram in the street but there is no plausible explanation on record as to why the statement of Premli or Parveen were also not immediately recorded by the Investigating Officer. The statements of Parveen and Premli were recorded on 14.1.2000. The delay in recording the statements of PWs Premli and Parveen (not examined during trial) makes the prosecution case doubtful. PW-12, Inspector Samay Ram has deposed that in case Premli was present at the spot, he would have recorded her statement. The said witness remained at the spot from 10.30 am to 11.30 p.m. on 9.1.2000. It is not believable that Premli was not available for making her statement during such a long period. PW- 10 Premli, in her cross-examination, deposed that on the next morning, police had come to her house at about 9/ 10 a.m. Since the police had visited the house of Premli then the fact that her statement was recorded after a long delay makes her statement doubtful. 17. Admittedly, the distance between the village of the complainant and police station Mohindergarh is about 5 km. The occurrence as per the prosecution case had taken place at 10.30 p.m. and the accused Ajay and Raj Kumar were seen carrying the dead body of Mani Ram at about 11 p.m./ midnight. However, the complainant reported the matter to the police at 8.15 p.m. on 9.1.2000. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the delay in reporting the matter to the police gains significance and makes the prosecution case doubtful. There is another aspect of the matter which renders the prosecution story doubtful. However, the complainant reported the matter to the police at 8.15 p.m. on 9.1.2000. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the delay in reporting the matter to the police gains significance and makes the prosecution case doubtful. There is another aspect of the matter which renders the prosecution story doubtful. As per the prosecution story, the murder of Mani Ram was committed in the fields, whereas, the dead body of Mani Ram was recovered from the street which is surrounded by houses. 18. There was no occasion for the accused to have committed the murder of Mani Ram in the fields and then walk along with the dead body of the deceased in the populated area. In normal circumstances, the assailants would leave the dead body at the place where the murder is committed and not shift the same to another place in the fear of being caught. In these circumstances, the prosecution version that accused Ajay and Raj Kumar were seen carrying the dead body of the deceased in the street along which there were many houses of potters does not inspire confidence. It has also come in evidence that the dead body was recovered at a distance of 300 yards from the house of the deceased. It is also not believable that the accused after committing the murder of Mani Ram in the fields would have brought the dead body near the house of the deceased. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case it transpires that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. The possibility that the appellants have been falsely involved in this case cannot be ruled out. 19. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed. The impugned judgments/ orders of conviction and sentence are set aside. Consequently, the appellants are acquitted of the charge framed against them. ----------0BSK0----------