JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. By judgment and order dated 24.05.2006 in Sessions Case No.28 of 2005, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fourth Fast Track Court, Gandhidham-Kachchh, convicted one Kesha Ganga Harijan, the appellant herein, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default simple imprisonment for one year. He was also convicted for the offence of breach of Section 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and was sentenced under Section 135 of the Act to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 250/- and to further undergo two months' imprisonment on default of payment of fine. Both the sentences were directed to be undergone concurrently. The present Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code') is directed against the conviction and sentence recorded in the aforesaid judgment. 2. The victim was one Bhima Jivan Harijan, who, according to the prosecution case, died because of the stick blows given by the appellant at around 6.00 a.m. in the morning of 30.03.2005. The prosecution case as revealed from the complaint (Exh.9) filed by one Ramji Jivan, real brother of the victim, was that when he was brushing his teeth in the morning, he saw the accused giving blow after blow of a curved stick to the victim who was sleeping on a cot. At that time, one Vasa Punja Harijan arrived and asked the accused as to why he was beating the sleeping person. The accused excitedly stated that Bhima (the victim) had played role in breaking his betrothal. It was stated in the complaint that earlier altercation had taken place between the victim and mother of the accused regarding engagement of the accused, who acted in reprisal. The victim was taken to Rapar Civil Hospital, where he was declared to be dead. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and proved 13 documents evidences at the trial. 2.1 As per the defence, the victim Bhima had on the previous night climbed up nine feet high wall of one Mohan Vasa's house and while he was hurling abuses from top of the wall against the accused and his mother, he slipped from the wall and fell down on the bricks and woods lying on the ground and suffered injuries to which he succumbed. In the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code it was stated that he was excommunicated before one month and the other side was to compromise if Hari Bhala paid one lakh rupees and that false testimony was given and he was falsely implicated. 3. Learned advocate for the appellant Mr. Pratik Barot took the Court through the evidence on record and submitted that the trial court had seriously erred in convicting the appellant. He highlighted inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of two eye witnesses (PW-1 and P.W.-3). It was submitted that medical evidence and the kind of injuries suffered by the deceased and absence of blood marks on the cot dislodged the entire prosecution case. According to learned advocate, recovery of the weapon was not duly proved and there was no evidence of motive for the accused to commit the crime, and if anyone had any motive, it was one Hari Bhala, uncle of the deceased, who had reason to kill the victim. 3.1 Learned advocate for the appellant relied on the judgments in Vikramjitsingh @ Vicky v. State of Punjab, (2006)12 SCC 306 , Smt. Omwati v. Mahendra Singh, 1998.9 SCC 81, Aftab Ahmed Ansari v. State of Uttaranchal, AIR 2010 SC 773 and Deendayal v. Rajkumar @ Raju, 1999 Cr.L.J. 467 (S.C.) in support of his submissions. 3.2 On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment by contending inter alia that the incident was seen by the natural eye witnesses, whose account of the incident was strong evidence to prove that the appellant had beaten the victim with a stick, while he was sleeping on a cot, and for that the motive and intention was clearly suggested in so far as the victim had broken the engagement of the accused. According to learned A.P.P. it was proved from the postmortem report (Exh.13) and the evidence of doctor (PW-11) that the injuries were fatal, inflicted by a weapon such as stick used by the accused and they were the cause of death. 4. A graphic description of occurrence of the incident is available from the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 who claim to be the eye witnesses. 4. A graphic description of occurrence of the incident is available from the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 who claim to be the eye witnesses. Ramji Jivan (PW-1 Exh.8), real brother of the victim deposed that on the day of the incident, in the early morning at around 6.00 a.m. while brushing his teeth, he saw his brother, who was sleeping on the cot lying in the street, being beaten with stick blows by the accused. According to P.W.-1, one Vasa Punja arrived at that time, and asked the accused as to why he was beating a sleeping person and the angry accused stated that the victim was instrumental in breaking his betrothal. 4.1 Vasa Punja (PW-3 Exh.14) also deposed that he was outside his house and washing his face on that morning and the victim was sleeping on the cot outside his house. At that time he saw that accused was giving the victim stick blows; and upon hearing shouts of the victim, his brother Ramji (PW-1) came out of his house and seeing him the accused ran away. 4.2 The evidence of P.W.-1 revealed another aspect that one Panchiben, who was his own cousin sister and unmarried, was made to conceive by one Vela Pala. That Vela Pala was son of one Ganga Bhala, whose brother was one Hari Bhala, and Hari Bhala was the uncle of the accused. According to P.W.-1, he had good relations with the accused, his father and the uncle Hari before the incident took place, but as the girl was made pregnant by Vela Pala, it was decided not to have any relation with said Ganga Bhala and Hari Bhala, and also not to talk to the accused and his mother. It was decided that if one talked or maintained relations with them, one would pay rupees one lac and if that amount was not paid, such person would also be excommunicated. The witness also deposed that Kesha Ganga, the victim, and his mother were boycotted by the family and were not permitted to enter the village. P.W.-1 unequivocally admitted that the dispute with Kesha Ganga was not compromised as Hari did not pay rupees one lac. As the compromise did not work, he had come to depose in the case against the accused. P.W.-1 unequivocally admitted that the dispute with Kesha Ganga was not compromised as Hari did not pay rupees one lac. As the compromise did not work, he had come to depose in the case against the accused. This aspect in evidence and the admission of P.W.-1 about reason for his entering the box made him an interested and unreliable witness. He had stated that, since fifteen days prior to the date of incident, the victim had been in the village Davri, whereas P.W.-3 deposed that on the day previous to the date of incident, he had seen the victim in that village. They both stated that the victim was habituated to drink liquor, but one of them (PW-1) deposed that the victim had stopped drinking before six months, and the other pleaded ignorance about it. They both denied that the victim had died due to falling down from the wall. 4.3 Ladha Punja, brother of P.W.-3, who was a panch witness (PW-7 Exh.20), also described the incident stating that his house was at a distance of hundred feet, that he woke up in the morning hearing the shouts and on reaching the scene, found the victim having been severely beaten by the accused armed with a stick and also found blood on the cot and the mattress due to the blows given by the accused. What came out also from his deposition was that accused and his uncles were ex-communicated for their misdemeanors and the community had decided that anybody who talked with them would be required to pay penalty of rupees one lakh. He confirmed that Vela Pala was in family relation of the accused and had made the girl Panchi pregnant. 5. So far as the description of the incident and the place of occurrence are concerned, evidence of Girish Valji Vyas, Circle Officer, (PW-11 exh.30) who upon inspecting the place of offence, prepared the map (Exh.32) is relevant to the extent that it was shown that the houses of Bima Jivan, the victim, Mohan Vasa and P.W.-1 were separately located and the victim's house was opposite to the house of one Pancha Harijan. He (PW-11) stated that he did not measure the height of the wall of Mohan Vasa's house, nor mentioned the distance between the house of Mohan Vasa and the victim. He (PW-11) stated that he did not measure the height of the wall of Mohan Vasa's house, nor mentioned the distance between the house of Mohan Vasa and the victim. 5.1 All the other Panch witnesses (PW-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-6 and P.W.-9) were declared hostile and it is not necessary to discuss their evidence (exh.15, exh.17, exh.18 and exh.25 respectively) as it is of no consequence to the prosecution case. Harji Vela (PW-10 exh.26) was also a Panch witness, who stated about recovery of muddammal stick. Jayantilal Jethabhai Chaudhari (PW-14, Exh.38), P.S.I., Rapar Police Station, who forwarded the complaint of P.W.-1 for registration and who was also the investigating officer inter alia admitted that, during his investigation, any mattress with blood marks was not recovered, and that for that reason the mattress on which the deceased was sleeping was not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. He admitted that neither the apparels of the deceased, nor the muddamal stick had any blood marks. He did not record statement of Vela Pala, nor the statement of Dr. Das (PW-2) who treated the deceased and conducted postmortem. P.W.-14 having initially stated that P.W.-1 had come to the Police Station to lodge his complaint and in his presence disclosed the incident at Police Station; but in the last part of his deposition, he resiled and stated that he was quite unsure as to whether the complainant (PW-1) had given his complaint in the hospital or at the Police Station. 5.2 The panchnama of the scene of offence (Exh.21) recorded that on the cot where the victim was sleeping, a white mattress was found, but neither on the cot nor on the mattress there were blood marks. In the arrest panchnama (Exh.19), it was recorded that the clothes of the accused did not contain blood. The Forensic Science Laboratory report (Exh.39 & 40) also did not find blood marks on the clothes or on the stick. 5.3 The medical evidence comprised of testimony of Dr. Vimalkumar B. Das (PW-2 Exh.11), who examined the body of the deceased, conducted postmortem and prepared postmortem report (Exh.13). He described the injuries and stated that they were sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course. According to him, injuries were such as may be possible if one falls down on his left from nine feet high wall. Vimalkumar B. Das (PW-2 Exh.11), who examined the body of the deceased, conducted postmortem and prepared postmortem report (Exh.13). He described the injuries and stated that they were sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course. According to him, injuries were such as may be possible if one falls down on his left from nine feet high wall. In respect of an injury on the brain, he stated that it was possible if one falls on the bricks from a height. The description of injuries in the postmortem report (Exh.13) is reproduced hereunder:- "(1) Deep bruise over left lateral and posterior surfaces of neck and left surface of occipital scalp (below left ear) 25.00 cm long. x 6.00 cm width. Laceration of skin over mid point of bruise wound. 1.00 cm long x 1.00 cm width. (2) Deep bruise over above left claricle 10 cm x 5 cm. Laceration of skin over mid point of bruise 2cm x 1 cm. (3) Deep bruise over mid chest (mid sternum) 10.00 cm long x 5.00 cm width (4) Deep bruise over below left nipple. 7.00 cm long x 5.00 cm. Width. (5) Abrasion over below anterior knee joint of both leg. Right side 1 cm long x 1 cm width. Left side 1 cm long x 1 cm width. All the injuries are fresh and are due to hard and blunt object force." The cause of death mentioned in Exh.13 was: "Death due to cardiorespiratory arrest due to injury of vital organs like brain and its vessel. As a result of injury sustained over back of head." 6. The prosecution case was that the sleeping victim was mercilessly beaten by the accused armed with a stick and repeated blows were given on the abdomen, neck, chest and near the left ear. It was then natural that the victim would have bled because of injuries of blows. In this light, and viewed from the standpoint of the prosecution case, absence of blood on mattress, the cot, the clothes of the victim and the weapon used in the crime becomes conspicuous. The prosecution evidence is silent on this aspect. As against that the defence version that the victim had fallen down from a height and received injuries on the left side of the body provides a plausible explanation, particularly when, according to the opinion of the doctor (PW-2), they were possible by falling down. The prosecution evidence is silent on this aspect. As against that the defence version that the victim had fallen down from a height and received injuries on the left side of the body provides a plausible explanation, particularly when, according to the opinion of the doctor (PW-2), they were possible by falling down. And absence of blood marks on the mattress, cot or the stick with which the accused had allegedly beaten the victim, lent credence to the defence. 7. In appreciating the effect of the prosecution evidence on record regarding manner of assault, injuries suffered and absence of blood at the place of incident or on the objects connected with the offence, the following observations of the Supreme Court in Irlapati Subbaya v. The Public Prosecutor, AIR 1974 SC 830 are relevant: "5. We also find that the account given by the prosecution witness does not fit in with the medical evidence inasmuch as not only was the appellant said to have beaten the deceased with a stick on his head but another accused was said to have poked him on the chest with his stick first and then beaten him on his left hand, still another accused was alleged to have given a blow with a stick on the forehead of the .deceased, and the fourth accused was said to have struck the deceased on the left side of the head just above the ear. The three injuries indicated above show that no blow was' struck on the forehead of the deceased at all. The superficial abrasions below the knee could be very well due to the falling. Thus, there were really only two injuries on the head. It may be that the first injury was due to more than one blow on the head. The Doctor was, however, not questioned on this aspect. There were, in any case, certainly not four injuries on the body of the deceased. "6. The Doctor who performed the post mortem had said that the injury which caused the death could be due to striking the deceased's head with a blunt object like a stick but that "it is also possible that injury No.1 could be caused by "a stone of 3" or even more". The Doctor admitted that injury on-the knee could be caused by a fall on a rough surface. The Doctor admitted that injury on-the knee could be caused by a fall on a rough surface. He found the scalp was so profusely covered with blood that he could not completely examine the injury. Thus bleeding appears to have been considerable. Hence, absence of blood from the alleged place of occurrence appears to US to carry a significance which the High Court ignored." 8. On a critical examination of the relevant evidence, it is noticed that the evidence of two eye witnesses (PW-1 & P.W.-3) did not inspire confidence as to the description of the incident, leaving aside that there was no corroboration of their testimony by any other evidence on record. P.W.-1 & P.W.-3 contradicted each other in claiming that each of them reached first at the scene of offence and saw the accused inflicting blows to the victim. The versions of both appeared to be coached and concocted even as they vaguely stated that the victim was lying on the cot and the accused armed with a stick was beating him. The evidence did not suggest that any shouts were raised by the victim. The conduct on part of P.W.-1 in not trying to rescue his brother was not natural and undermined his credibility as an eyewitness. The geography of the site depicted in the map (Exh.32) indicated that it was a moholla where a cluster of houses were located. No resident from the nearby houses came out except P.W.-1 and P.W.-3, who stated to have only watched the incident as witness. 9. The inconsistencies in the evidence of these witnesses may look to be minor in the first blush, but when placed in the context of the entire evidence which also contains several other infirmities, the minor looking discrepancies become serious contradictions and would damage credibility of the prosecution case. The test whether the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the ocular version are of minor nature or of the nature which would harm the prosecution case, is that how those inconsistencies and discrepancies reflect themselves in light of and in conjunction of other evidence read in its totality. If the rest of evidence is cogent enough to prove the prosecution case, the inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses may become insignificant, but where the other evidence linked with such inconsistencies is weak and infirm, the inconsistencies would stand elevated to the level of contradictions. If the rest of evidence is cogent enough to prove the prosecution case, the inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses may become insignificant, but where the other evidence linked with such inconsistencies is weak and infirm, the inconsistencies would stand elevated to the level of contradictions. In the facts of the present case, the admission of P.W.-1 that he had come to depose as money was not paid by Hari Bhala and the settlement was not reached, struck at the root of his reliability as an independent witness and consequentially his entire testimony lost credence. 10. Prosecution tried to suggest the motive of the crime to be that the victim had broken the engagement of the accused with the daughter of Jiva Bhadu, their maternal uncle. That was not corroborated by any supporting evidence. It is relevant to quote the observations of the Supreme Court in Omwati v. Mahendra Singh, (1998) 9 SCC 81 : "No doubt, proof of motive is not necessary to sustain a conviction but when the prosecution puts forward a specific case as to motive for the crime, the evidence regarding the same has got to be considered in order to judge the probabilities. It is well settled that motive for a crime is a satisfactory circumstance of corroboration when there is convincing evidence to prove the guilt of an accused person but it cannot fill up a lacuna in the evidence." 10.1 In State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Singh, 2004 (13) SCC 147 Supreme Court held that combined effect of infirmities in prosecution case such as improbability of presence of eye witnesses at the scene of crime, their unnatural conduct, medical evidence, improbabalising ocular evidence, etc. were enough to render the prosecution case improbable. It was held that though individually some of the circumstances may not have affected veracity of prosecution version, the combined effect of infirmities noticed in the evidence by the High Court was sufficient to show that the prosecution case had not been established. In that case, the Apex Court noticed unnatural behaviour/reaction/conduct of the eye witness on whom the prosecution case was based, he remaining silent after witnessing the assaults on the deceased, and held that it was a relevant circumstance to cast serious doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution version. In that case, the Apex Court noticed unnatural behaviour/reaction/conduct of the eye witness on whom the prosecution case was based, he remaining silent after witnessing the assaults on the deceased, and held that it was a relevant circumstance to cast serious doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution version. 10.2 The further evidence to the effect that the victim was spotted in a different village a day prior to the date of the incident, that he was addicted to liquor and the internal family issues and rivalries amongst the accused, the victim, P.W.-1, P.W.-3, Vela Pala, Ganga Bhala, Hari Bhala and the admitted fact of excommunication and motive to depose against the accused raised reasonable doubts against the prosecution version. 11. A cumulative reading of evidence on record thus corrode the prosecution case. It pushed the prosecution version into the realm of mere possibilities. All links and limbs of the prosecution case remained weak and they could not prove involvement of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution theory on the whole did not inspire confidence and the discrepancies and contradictions in evidence as well as the possibility of false implication of the accused entitled him to benefit of doubt. 12. In the result, the impugned judgment dated 24.05.2006 of the Additional Sessions Judge Fourth Fast Track Court, Gandhidham, Kachchh in Sessions Case No.28 of 2005 and the conviction and sentence recorded therein against the appellant is set aside on account of insufficiency of reliable evidence. Accordingly, the appellant is acquitted by granting him benefit of doubt. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless required to be detained in connection with any other offence, on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount, in terms of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Petition dismissed.