JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred by accused-appellants Nauratmal, Jeevan Lal, Ramesh alias Rameshwar and Mst. Badami against the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ajmer dated 5/3/1982 whereby, they were convicted for offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-. During pendency of appeal, Mst.Badami Bai died and this appeal in so far as accused-appellant No. 4 - Mst. Badami Bai is concerned, stands abated. Appeal survives only on behalf of three accused-appellants Nauratmal, Jeevan Lal and Ramesh @Rameshwar. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that a report was submitted to SHO Police Station by complainant Mohan Singh at 8.15 p.m. on 31/5/1981 alleging therein that her daughter Manju aged 10 years had been having stomach ache for past five years. Informant later learnt that Badami Devi, widow of Moan Kumhar, who is considered witch glanced over her daughter, due to ill effect of which, her daughter was taken sick. When he requested Badami Devi to spit over her daughter so that she may came out of evil effect, she refused to do so. In the meantime, Jeeven son of Badami Devi came there and starting abusing him as to why he has called his mother as a witch. Informant thereupon told Jeevan about similar experience with the wife of Naurang Shah. Thereupon, Jeevan persuaded his mother and when Badami spitted over Manju, his daughter, she became alright. Even then, his (informant) elder brother Lal Singh took Manju to the hospital at Jethana. In the evening about 7.30 p.m. when his brother carrying Manju in his lap was coming from the bus stand towards his house. Complainant and Ratan Singh were following him. Nauratmal, another son of Badami Devi intercepted his brother. His other two brothers Jeevan and Ramesh caught hold of Lal Singh. Nauratmal poured over the body of Lal Singh tagari (iron pot) full of petrol and Badami, who was standing there lit fire by match stick, as a result of which, his brother and daughter started burning. His brother cried for help. When informant and Ratan Singh rushed to save them, the accused stood in the way armed with lathis in their hands and did not permit them to go near them. With great efforts, the complainant succeeded in putting-off the fire and took them to the hospital. His brother cried for help. When informant and Ratan Singh rushed to save them, the accused stood in the way armed with lathis in their hands and did not permit them to go near them. With great efforts, the complainant succeeded in putting-off the fire and took them to the hospital. Doctor was not available in the hospital at Peesangan therefore complainant took them to the Victoria hospital at Ajmer with Sureshchand Soni and Ratan Singh. It was mentioned that his brother and daughter have been completely burnt and there is little chance of their survival. 3. A first information was lodged at the police station on that basis for offence under Sections 326, 341 & 307 IPC. Lal Singh and Manju both expired on 3/6/1981 and therefor offence u/S.302 IPC was added. Accused were arrested and the challan against five accused persons was filed. Accused were committed to the court of Sessions and thereafter the case was made over to the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ajmer for trial. Charges for offence u/S.302/34 and 324/34 IPC were framed against the accused but they denied the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents but defence in support of their case, neither produced any witness nor any documentary evidence. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced all the accused-appellants in the manner indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned senior counsel for the accused-appellants and Smt.Rekha Madnani, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. 5. Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that the trial court has convicted the accused-appellants for offence under Section 302/34 IPC even though, there is no evidence on record to connect them with the crime. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that deceased died as a result of pouring of oil over their body. Neither clothes of the deceased nor other articles were sent to the forensic science laboratory for the test of presence of petrol or kerosene. Learned senior counsel submitted that there was the possibility that deceased while going home, halted in front of the restaurant/shop of the accused and their clothes caught fire rising of the furnace (bhatti). Neither clothes of the deceased nor other articles were sent to the forensic science laboratory for the test of presence of petrol or kerosene. Learned senior counsel submitted that there was the possibility that deceased while going home, halted in front of the restaurant/shop of the accused and their clothes caught fire rising of the furnace (bhatti). The place of incident i.e. site plan Exh.P.7 clearly indicates that the incident took place in the main market and there were many shops on either side and front of the shop of accused. It was argued that Badri Lal (PW5) does not support the incident as alleged. What transpires from his statement at the maximum is that on hearing the sound of sudden flame, he came out and found Lal Singh burning in front of the shop of Nauratmal. A girl was in his lap and she also caught fire. At that time, Nauratmal, Ramesh and Jeevan were standing in the verandah of their shop. This witness denied presence of any other accused on the spot and also does not corroborate the fact that these accused had lathis in their hands. What this witness stated in statement recorded u/S.161 Cr.P.C. is not known as such statement has not been made available either to the defence or to the court and has been suppressed. This shows that this witness was a planted witness. The learned trial court has erred in law in taking into consideration statement of Mohan Singh (PW16). Though this witness also is not reliable because he was not an eye-witness and secondly, his statement is full of contradictions and he failed to prove the incident. Learned senior counsel argued that Smt. Bhagwati (PW11) wife of Lal Singh also does not support the prosecution story. Conviction of the appellants cannot be therefore justified. It was argued that injured persons were immediately taken to the Victoria Hospital at Ajmer but no injury report has been placed on record as to what was their condition. It was also not proved that they were not in a position to give any statement. Learned senior counsel argued that the deceased had survived for four days. There is no evidence on record to say that during they were hospitalized for four days, they did not regain consciousness so as to give their statements. There is thus no explanation as to why their statements were not recorded. Learned senior counsel argued that the deceased had survived for four days. There is no evidence on record to say that during they were hospitalized for four days, they did not regain consciousness so as to give their statements. There is thus no explanation as to why their statements were not recorded. 6. Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned senior counsel for the appellants argued that Mohan Singh (PW16) informant himself turned hostile and does not fully support the prosecution case. His statement was twice recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. First statement was recorded on 31/5/1981 vide Exh.D1 and second statement was recorded on 10/6/1981 vide Exh.D2. Learned senior counsel argued that Shankar (PW3), Ram Kishan (PW4), Bhagwati (PW11) & Mohan Singh (PW16), have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. Baldevlal Naik (PW5), who is a barbour and had his shop adjacent to the shop of accused Nauratmal, does not prove that informant Mohan Singh was present at the time of incident. Similarly, Heera Lal (PW6) also does not prove presence of informant Mohan Singh. Heera Lal (PW6) has stated that he heard the sound of sudden flames but does not admit the presence of Mohan Singh and he also does not say that Manju, Bhagwati and Badami received burn injuries. All that this witness has alleged is that accused-appellants were armed with lathis but there is no allegation of causing any injury to any of the persons by use of lathi. Neither there is any corresponding injury nor lathi has been recovered at the instance of the accused. Statement of Heera Lal (PW6) was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. belatedly by the police on 10/6/1981. Jameel (PW7) motbir witness of recovery of tin container, iron rod, iron pot (tagari) was not believed by the trial court. Fateh Mohd. (PW8) has proved the site plan (Exh.P8), which was prepared on 31/5/1981. Neither the parat/tagari (iron pot) nor tin container (peepa) was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory to ascertain the presence of petrol/kerosene. Bhagwati (PW11) is also motbir witness of site plan (Exh.P.8). This witness is an injured witness but she has also been declared turned hostile. She also does not say about the presence of Mohan Singh the informant, at the place of incident. Her statement that she caught hold of deceased, cannot be believed or else, she would have also received burn injuries. This witness is an injured witness but she has also been declared turned hostile. She also does not say about the presence of Mohan Singh the informant, at the place of incident. Her statement that she caught hold of deceased, cannot be believed or else, she would have also received burn injuries. Ratan Singh (PW12) has also been declared hostile. This witness also does not state about presence of Mohan Singh. Janwari Lal (PW13) is an eye-witness, whose statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. belatedly on 5/6/1981, has also been turned hostile. He also does not prove presence of Mohan Singh, the informant. Nemi Das (PW14) also does not prove presence of accused persons. He is a planted witness, whose statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 10/6/1981. Even this witness also does not prove the presence of Mohan Singh nor does he say about the presence of deceased Manju. Badri Lal (PW15), who was also a motbir witness, does not say anything about the presence of Mohan Singh. Mohan Singh (PW16) himself stated that when he reached the place of incident, Shankar Bawari told him that Naurat etc. have put the deceased on fire, whereas Shankar Bawari (PW3) has turned hostile and has not supported that version. 7. Learned senior counsel argued that conduct of Mohan Singh (PW16) is highly unnatural because it cannot be believed because if his brother and daughter, having suffered so severe burn injuries, were being removed to hospital, why would he not accompany them to the hospital at Ajmer. Learned senior counsel argued that while Mohan Singh (PW16) does not state anything in examination-in-chief but in cross-examination he has changed his version that he put-off the fire by use of towel and when was asked about the towel, he stated that he sent the towel with his daughter, who died later in the hospital. He gave towel to the police for the first time on 3/6/1981. This witness has admitted in the cross-examination that he rushed from the bus stand after hearing hue and cry but admitted that the incident of fire having took place in front of shop of Naurat was not visible from the bus stand. Ratan Singh is his cousin. Bhagwati (PW11) stated that she was following deceased Lal Singh from some distance. This witness has admitted in the cross-examination that he rushed from the bus stand after hearing hue and cry but admitted that the incident of fire having took place in front of shop of Naurat was not visible from the bus stand. Ratan Singh is his cousin. Bhagwati (PW11) stated that she was following deceased Lal Singh from some distance. She stated that she could not say who put Lal Singh on fire but he saw him burning in front of the shop of Naurat and at that time, Manju was in his lap. Ratan Singh (PW12) has also not supported the version of Mohan Singh (PW16). It is submitted that Mohan Singh (PW16) has made lot of improvements over his previous version. While in the first information report, he described the manner in which deceased were put to fire alleging that Badami lit fire by match stick and in his subsequently recorded statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exh.D1) on 31/5/1981, he alleged that accused had tied a cloth over the iron rod and soaked the same in oil and lit the fire from the furnace and with the use of same, they put the fire on the body of deceased. Learned senior counsel argued that in view of nature of burn injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report, blisters and sproutings could be possible only if deceased, halted in front of the restaurant of accused having a furnace and their clothes caught fire from rising flames of the furnace, which is also corroborated from the fact that Mohan Singh had received burn injuries only on the right side of his body. Learned senior counsel argued that neither presence of petrol nor kerosene has been established. Not only the container but also the iron pot (tagari) was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for testing the presence of petrol or kerosene. Samples of soil were also not lifted from the place of occurrence to verify the presence of petrol or kerosene. Eye witnesses Smt. Bhagwati (PW11) wife of deceased Lal Singh, Ratan Singh (PW12), Janwari Lal (PW13) & Nemi Das (PW14) have turned hostile. Learned trial court was therefore wholly unjustified in convicting the accused-appellants for the alleged offences. 8. Learned senior counsel also submitted that statement of Balveer Singh (PW17) has also not been correctly appreciated by the learned trial court. Learned trial court was therefore wholly unjustified in convicting the accused-appellants for the alleged offences. 8. Learned senior counsel also submitted that statement of Balveer Singh (PW17) has also not been correctly appreciated by the learned trial court. This witness has not given any explanation as to the delayed dispatch of the FIR to the Magistrate. While the investigation officer Balveer Singh (PW17) has stated that shop of the accused was got opened from Rajendra Kumar, nephew of the accused, who brought the key from the house of accused, whereas informant Mohan Singh (PW16) stated that a blacksmith was called to break upon the lock. The investigation officer has also not given explanation why the container in which petrol was kept and poured over the body of the deceased was not sent to the FSL for testing the presence of petrol. He has also not given any explanation why medical reports and bed head ticket of the deceased were not procured from the Government Hospital at Ajmer. The prosecution has also not produced the doctors of the hospital at Peesangan, before whom the deceased were brought immediately first in point of time. Learned trial court could not have therefore sustained conviction of the appellants only on the basis of statement of Badrilal (PW5) and Heera Lal (PW6). These witnesses too have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Therefore, prosecution would be bound by their statement to the extent they support the stand of the defence. In this connection, reference is made to the statement of Badrilal (PW5), who has a shop adjacent to the shop of accused Naurat Mal. He has stated that he at about 7.30 p.m. heard the noise of spurt of flames (bhabhak) from the adjoining shop and when he came out the shop, he saw Lal Singh burning in front of the shop. He was carrying a girl in his lap, who fell on the ground and was also burning. He has stated that all the three male accused and one Jeevan and Ramesh were in the verandah of their shop but he did not see any female accused there. In cross-examination, he has stated that 50-60 persons assembled there. Deceased Lal Singh was 5 feet away from the furnace in front the shop and the furnace was on but he did not see any frypan (kadahi) there. In cross-examination, he has stated that 50-60 persons assembled there. Deceased Lal Singh was 5 feet away from the furnace in front the shop and the furnace was on but he did not see any frypan (kadahi) there. This witness has stated that police recorded his statement within two hours of the date of incident but on specific query during cross-examination by the court, the Public Prosecutor admitted that the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of this witness at that time was not available on record. Learned senior counsel argued that an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for depriving the defence of its valuable right to confront this witness with such statement. Heera Lal (PW6) has also stated that he had a shop in the market close to the shop of accused Naurat Mal. His shop is away from the shop of Nauratmal with the gap of 10-15 shops. Upon hearing the sound of spurt of flames, he reached the place of incident and saw Lal Singh in burnt condition running towards the hospital. At that time, all five accused were standing at the shop armed with lathis in their hands. This witness has stated that the people gathered there apprised him that accused Jeevan and his two brothers poured petrol on Lal Singh and burnt him. In cross-examination, he further stated that his shop is 100 yards away from police station. He can see a person from a distance of 20-25 yards because of poor vision. He did not tell the police the names of those person, who told him that those accused poured petrol over the body of Lal Singh. Police came to record his statement either on third, fourth or fifth day. Learned senior counsel submitted that statements of these witnesses cannot be believed because his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has also not been produced by the investigation officer before the court in absence of which, defence case got prejudiced. 9. Learned senior counsel has cited the judgments of the Supreme Court in Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan : (2005) 5 SCC 272 and Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi) : (2005) 5 SCC 258 and argued that evidence of prosecution witnesses to the extent they did not support the prosecution case can be relied upon by the defence if such witness has not been declared hostile. In such a situation, evidence of such witnesses would be binding on the prosecution. Learned counsel while citing the judgment of Supreme Court in Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 argued that prosecution has in the present case produced wholly unreliable witnesses and therefore it would be highly unsafe to sustain the conviction of the accused-appellants in the absence of any cogent and legally admissible evidence, particularly when informant Mohan Singh (PW16), Smt.Bhagwati (PW11) wife of deceased Lal Singh, Ratan Singh (PW12), Janwari Lal (PW13) & Nemi Das (PW14) have turned hostile. These witnesses were cited as eye witnesses though on their version, they cannot be accepted as eyewitnesses. Even otherwise, they have not supported the prosecution case. Shankar Bawri (PW3) for whom Mohan Singh (PW16) has stated that he was informed by this witness that Nauratmal etc. had put the deceased on fire has also been declared hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. 10. It was argued that the Supreme Court in Vadivelu Thevar supra held that there are three categories of witnesses i.e. wholly reliable, unreliable and wholly not reliable. It was submitted that witnesses cited by the prosecution are wholly unreliable witnesses. Learned senior counsel submitted that part of the evidence of Badri Lal (PW5) and Heera Lal (PW6), who were declared hostile, has been relied by the learned trial court. Both these witnesses have stated that they saw the deceased burning in front of the shop of accused but at the same time, it is also important to note that there was a furnace with rising flames in front of shop, therefore possibility that deceased Lal Singh might have caught fire from such flames of the furnace, cannot be ruled out, which is also proved from the fact that deceased Lal Singh had burnt injuries only on his right side of the body. Learned senior counsel argued that Bhagwati (PW11) has been described to be an eye witness in the first information report, whereas, this witness in her statement has not claimed to be an eye witness and has rather stated that she cannot say as to how and in what manner her husband was put to fire but she saw him burning in front of the shop of accused Naurat and at that time, Manju was also in his lap. Both of them were burnt. Both of them were burnt. There are contradictions in the statements of Janwari Lal (PW13) and Nemi Das (PW14) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Nemi Das (PW14) has stated that he did not see any girl burning there. He only saw Lal Singh in burnt condition and he put-off his fire. This witness has stated that he did not see any accused present there. Learned senior counsel for the appellants also cited the judgment of Supreme Court in Devi Lal And Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan, (1971) 3 SCC 471 and argued that if the prosecution case is not accepted, prosecution cannot be allowed to set a new case. When the main prosecution witnesses are disbelieved, prosecution cannot seek to establish and set up a new case. 11. Per contra, Smt. Rekha Madnani, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the accused themselves could not set up a new case if they take such defence in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or otherwise adduce any evidence in defence that deceased Lal Singh and Manju caught fire due to flames rising from the furnace. It is submitted that deceased Lal Singh received burns on the right side part of his body because Bhagwati (PW1) and other witnesses have categorically proved that he was having deceased Manju in his lap and normally a right hand man would carry a child on is left side therefore, he might have received burns from right side, which side was unoccupied. When the petrol was poured over their body, it fell on the body of Lal Singh on the right side and also on Manju, who was in his lap in the left side thus, both of them caught fire. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Naurang Shah (PW9) even though was declared hostile but partially supported the prosecution case. He has proved recovery of empty iron container and also iron pot vide Ex.P.8 and Exh.P.9, respectively. This witness has admitted that when the iron container was sniffed by him and the police personnel, it had smell of petrol. This container was sealed by the police. Iron pot (tagari) had also bad smell but it could not be known what was it. This witness has admitted that when the iron container was sniffed by him and the police personnel, it had smell of petrol. This container was sealed by the police. Iron pot (tagari) had also bad smell but it could not be known what was it. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Jhanwari Lal (PW13) and Mohan Singh (PW16) have proved that Lal Singh, Manju and Bhagwati were present at the bus stand and they proceeded one after another towards their residence. While going to their residence, they passed through the road facing shop of the accused. Badri Lal (PW5), Heera Lal (PW6), Bhagwati (PW11) and Mohan Singh (PW16) have though been declared hostile but Badri Lal (PW5) and Heera Lal (PW6) have corroborated each other while saying that when they reached the place of incident, they saw Lal Singh and Manju burning in front of the shop of accused Nauratmal and they tried to put-off the fire. Ratan Singh (PW12) has stated that he saw deceased Lal Singh, Manju and Bhagwati being carried to the hospital in a hand pulled cart. Mohan Singh (PW16) has also proved that doctors were not available in the hospital at Peesangan therefore both of them were sent to JLN Hospital at Ajmer. Dr.V.D. Kavia (PW1) who conducted the post-mortem of both the deceased on 3/6/1981 has proved that their injuries were ante-mortem in nature and cause of death was opined to be ante-mortem burn injuries. He has proved the post-mortem report of deceased Lal Singh vide Exh.P.2 that he had superficial dry burns present over right ear, right side of neck, chest, right upper extremity, abdomen, complete back except the left outer part. Both buttocks and both the lower extremities. The burns at places shows scattered blisters and shows signs of early inflammation with application of dressing drugs over the burnt area. The chest hair are sieged and scrambled, no specific odour detected on affected parts. The burns at places are spurting in nature. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the fact that odour could not be detected when the postmortem was conducted on 3/6/1981, is explained from the fact that both the deceased were put to fire on 31/5/1981. Even if petrol or kerosene was used for burning them, this odour could not have possibly persisted for as many as three days. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the fact that odour could not be detected when the postmortem was conducted on 3/6/1981, is explained from the fact that both the deceased were put to fire on 31/5/1981. Even if petrol or kerosene was used for burning them, this odour could not have possibly persisted for as many as three days. It is not such a lacuna on which basis entire prosecution case can be discarded. Naurang Shah (PW9) has proved recovery of petrol container and iron pot vide Exh.P.8 and P.9, respectively, He has further stated that when petrol container was sniffed by him as well as police personnel, there was smell of petrol. Petrol was leaking from the container. Police personnel sealed that container. Smell was also coming from the iron pot (tagari) but they could not make out what it was Balveer Singh (PW17) investigation officer has also denied the fact that when he recovered tagari at the instance of accused Naurat vide Exh.P.9, it had smell of petrol but he could not make out what it was. Dr.VD Kavia (PW1) has also proved the injuries of Bhagwati and she had superficial and dry burns over the right arm and forearm including the hand upto mid of the arm. The burnt area showed signs of inflammation, with scattered blisters and no specific order detected. It was dressed with dressing drugs. Superficial and dry burns were over left forearm and burnt area are spurting. These injuries thus clearly prove that this witness tried to put-off the fire and in that process, received burn injuries in both her fore-arm, right as well as left. In response to suggestion given to this witness that the deceased could caught fire if oil was poured into the furnace, this witness has not ruled out the possibility of fire due to such reason. Most of the witnesses including Shankar Bawri PW3, Badri Lal (PW5) and Heera Lal (PW6) have proved that deceased Lal Singh and Manju were burnt in front of the hotel/restaurant of the accused and most of the witnesses have proved that at the relevant time the accused were standing in veranda of the shop having lathis in their hands. Most of the prosecution witnesses proved presence of accused Nauratmal, Jeevan Lal and Ramesh alias Rameshwar at the place of incident. Most of the prosecution witnesses proved presence of accused Nauratmal, Jeevan Lal and Ramesh alias Rameshwar at the place of incident. Mohan Singh (PW16) has also stated that when he was taking deceased Lal Singh and Manju in burnt condition to the hospital at Peesangan, Manju told him that Naurat and his mother have burnt them. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that when statement of Bhagwati (PW11) was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. vide Exh. P/10 on 3/6/1981 she stated that Nauratmal poured petrol over deceased Lal Singh and Manju and Badami lit fire by match stick. Though this witness in the court statement has not fully supported the prosecution case but she has stated that she followed Lal Singh from bus stand and when she reached near the shop of Nauratmal, she saw both, Lal Singh and Manju in burning position. Janwari Lal (PW13) though has been declared hostile but he has partly proved the prosecution case that Nauratmal and Ramesh were present in the shop and that he saw deceased Lal Singh and Manju burning in front of their shop. Badri Lal (PW5) has also proved the presence of accused appellant Nauratmal, Ramesh and Jeevan at the time of incident. Heera Lal (PW6) has also proved presence of all the three accused-appellants and other two that time in the shop. He has even stated that he has heard from the people present there that Jeevan and his brothers had put fire on the deceased after pouring kerosene over them. Learned Public Prosecutor therefore argued that testimony of even hostile witnesses can be looked into to the extent it is consistent with the prosecution case. Learned Public Prosecutor in this connection has relied on the judgments of Supreme Court in Prithi v. State of Haryana (2010) 8 SCC 536 , Akhtar and others v. State of Uttaranchal (2009) 13 SCC 722 & Jodhraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2007) 15 SCC 294 . It is therefore prayed that appeal be dismissed. 14. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is therefore prayed that appeal be dismissed. 14. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Examination of the record reveals that prosecution produced number of witnesses as eye witnesses and they are Shankar (PW3), Badri Lal (PW5), Heera Lal (PW6), Bhagwati (PW11) aunt of deceased Manju, Ratan Singh (PW12), Janwari Lal (PW13), Nemi Das (PW14), Badri Lal (PW15) and Mohan Singh (PW16), brother of deceased Lal Singh and father of deceased Manju. It is quite unfortunate that all of them have turned hostile. Nonetheless, we have to minutely examine their testimony to find out whether they support the prosecution case, if not fully, atleast in part and whether such evidence lend corroboration to other circumstances, which have been proved against the appellants by the prosecution. 15. Let us first begin with the examination of statement of Mohan Singh (PW16) informant, who is father of deceased Manju and brother of deceased Lal Singh. He has though supported part of the prosecution case with regard to dispute between the parties in the morning and stated that when deceased returned back from Jethana, he was present at the bus stand. While he was talking to Ratan Singh (PW12), Lal Singh, Bhagwati and Manju started towards their residence. He saw people rushing towards the bus stand and crying that they have been burnt alive. When he reached the place of incident, he saw that all the three were burning in front of shop of Nauratmal and people were trying to put-off fire. Accused-appellants and other women accused were standing in the shop. On enquiry by him, Shankar Bawari (PW3) told him that Naurat and others have put them on fire. He did not talk to any other person and rushed them to the hospital at Peesangan. Manju on the way told him that Naurat and his mother have burnt them. The doctors were not available at Peesangan and they were referred to Ajmer. He sent the injured to Ajmer Hospital with Suresh, Ratan Singh and Bhagwati and he himself went to police Station Peesangan for lodging the report. Manju on the way told him that Naurat and his mother have burnt them. The doctors were not available at Peesangan and they were referred to Ajmer. He sent the injured to Ajmer Hospital with Suresh, Ratan Singh and Bhagwati and he himself went to police Station Peesangan for lodging the report. This witness has disowned his first version given to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Exh.P.17 where he alleged that accused Naurat called his brother and accused Jeevan and Ramesh caught hold of him and Naurat poured petrol over him and Badami lit the fire by match stick. Significantly however, when he was confronted in the cross-examination, he stated that whatever he has alleged in the first information report and statement u/S.161 Cr.P.C., was correct and what he has stated today in the examination-in-chief was incorrect. On further cross-examination, on being asked as to why if he attempted to put-off the fire, did not receive any burn injuries, he explained that he had put-off the fire by use of towel and which towel he handed over to the police on 3/6/1981. He did not immediately hand over the towel to the police because towel was with deceased Manju, who was sent to hospital. In his statement u/S.161 Cr.P.C., this witness stated that Manju told him that it was either Naurat and his mother, who put them to fire. But there is no explanation from the prosecution side that when both the deceased, who caught fire on 31/5/1981, died on 3/6/1981, what was their mental condition, no record of their treatment and bed head ticket from the hospital at Ajmer has been produced to show whether they were conscious at that time or otherwise were able to give statement. This is indeed a serious lacuna on the part of the investigation officer. 16. Even though Mohan Singh (PW16) has turned hostile but the fact remains that what he was required to state in the examination-in-chief, he has stated in cross-examination that his earlier version in FIR and even in the statement given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. vide Exh.P.17 in which he stated that accused Naurat called his brother and Jeevan and Ramesh, caught his hands and Naurat poured petrol over his body and Badami lit fire by match stick, was correct. He has stated so in the cross-examination and has also stated that he told the police that after fire, that all the accused stood there having lathis in their hands. He stated so in specific terms that what he has stated earlier to the police is correct and what he has stated today in examination-in-chief is not correct. This may have been possible due to change of mind. This could be possible because he was witness to the murder of his own real brother and daughter and this might have pricked his conscious in the last minute. Delay in recovery of the towel, which he was using in putting-off fire, has been satisfactorily explained by him. His act in sending the towel with his daughter, who was admitted to hospital, was also quite natural. Even if his statement suffers from minor contradictions, those contradictions cannot be blown out of proportion. Though he has stated that he could not witness the incident from the bus stand but what he has stated is that he rushed to the place of incident and there he witnessed the incident. Contention that there was enmity between the parties because this witness has admitted in the cross-examination that a criminal case was registered against him in the court at Nasirabad on allegation that he quarreled with accused Jeevan in drunk condition. He denied the suggestion that proceedings under Sections 110 or 151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against him. 17. Contention that prosecution-witnesses have improved upon their earlier version so as to tune their statements with the post-mortem report considering nature of injuries also does not help the accused because Mohan Singh (PW16) in cross-examination has clarified stating that what he has stated earlier to the police vide Exh.D2 was correct and what he is stating today vide Exh.D1 that fire was lit by use of iron road tied with the cloth was not correct. Even if Shankar Bawari (PW3) has been declared hostile but he has denied part of the prosecution case by stating that when he was standing near Mahadev temple close to police station, upon hearing hue and cry, he rushed towards the hotel of Naurat. He saw brother of Mohan Singh and a girl burning and people were trying to putoff the fire by throwing sand upon them. There are two shops of accused Naurat at the place of incident on either side. He saw brother of Mohan Singh and a girl burning and people were trying to putoff the fire by throwing sand upon them. There are two shops of accused Naurat at the place of incident on either side. Accused Ramesh alias Rameshwar, who was in the shop of the eastern side and Naurat in the shop on the western side but this witness has turned hostile and disowned the statement given to the police on other aspects. This witness has stated that furnace was burning and frying pan (kadahi) was lying adjacent to the furnace. Ram Karan (PW4) has disowned his statement given to the police vide Exh.P.6 that Badami mother of Nauratmal scolded him for not taking any action against the complainant when they called his mother a witch and thereafter has denied having given statement to the police that Nauratmal told him that he would take revenge of this till the evening. Badri Lal (PW5) however has stated that his shop was adjacent to the shop of Nauratmal. When he was working in the shop, he heard the sound of sudden spurt of flames. When he looked out, he saw Lal Singh burning outside the shop of Nauratmal. He was having a girl in his lap, who fell on the ground and she was also burning. Nauratmal, Ramesh and Jeeven were standing in the verandah of their shop. In cross-examination, he has stated that first time when Lal Singh caught fire, he was only 5 feet away from the furnace. Unfortunately, this witness has disowned his statement given to the police, whereas in cross-examination he admitted that police has recorded his statement only two hours after the incident. Heera Lal (PW6) is also having his shop 10-15 shops away from the shop of accused Nauratmal and he also stated that he heard the noise of sudden spurt of flame (bhabhaka). When he came out, he heard people saying that Lal Singh has been burnt by someone. Even while he was burning, he was rushing towards the hospital. At that time, all accused were standing in their shops having lathis in their hands. People present there told him that accused Jeeven and his brothers have burnt Lal Singh by pouring petrol over their body. Jameel (PW7) is motbir witness of recovery of tin container, iron rod, iron pot vide Exh.P.8 & Exh.P.9. Fateh Mohd. At that time, all accused were standing in their shops having lathis in their hands. People present there told him that accused Jeeven and his brothers have burnt Lal Singh by pouring petrol over their body. Jameel (PW7) is motbir witness of recovery of tin container, iron rod, iron pot vide Exh.P.8 & Exh.P.9. Fateh Mohd. (PW8) has proved the site plan (Exh. P.8), which was prepared on 31/5/1981 in the presence of Naurang Shah and Bhagirath. Bhagirathdas (PW10) has also proved the site plan Exh. P.7. Naurang Shah (PW9) has also proved recovery of empty metal container and also iron pot vide Ex.P.8 and Exh.P.9, respectively. But he has made deviation from his earlier statement by stating that this recovery was made at the instance of accused Naurat, who opened the shop and not Jeevan. He was therefore declared hostile at the request of the prosecution. In cross-examination however he has proved the genesis of the incident. He has stated that his wife's name is Dhapu. She was also under the influence of evil souls and she used to get fits. His nephew also got sick. Upon his request when Badami spitted on him, he came out of effect of evil glance and became alright. This witness has given contradictory statement as to the manner in which the shop of the accused was got opened by the police. He stated that police called him at the time of recovery of iron container and iron pot (tagari) vide Exh.P.8 & 9, respectively. At that time, Jeeven opened the shop but soon thereafter he has stated that the lock of the shop was broken by calling the blacksmith. Then, he has further stated that when recovery was made at the instance of accused Naurat, even at that time, the shop was locked and again the blacksmith was called to get it opened. Bhagwati (PW11) wife of deceased Lal Singh has stated that when they were coming from the bus stand towards the house. Her husband Lal Singh was leading them. Manju was in his lap. She saw him burning in front of the shop of Naurat. Both, her husband Lal Singh and Manju were burning. When she tried to put-off the fire, her right hand and half face also got burnt. Her husband Lal Singh was leading them. Manju was in his lap. She saw him burning in front of the shop of Naurat. Both, her husband Lal Singh and Manju were burning. When she tried to put-off the fire, her right hand and half face also got burnt. Ratan Singh (PW12) nephew of deceased Lal Singh has also made similar statement that he was following the deceased from some distance therefore could not witness the incident but he saw Lal Singh, Bhagwati and Manju being rushed to the hospital at Peesangan in a hand pulled cart. Janwari Lal (PW13) has proved part of the prosecution case while saying that when he reached in front of shop of Nauratmal, he saw that Lal Singh was burning. Lal Singh rushed towards him, but he threw him onto the ground and put-off the fire. Nemi Das (PW14) has also stated that accused Naurat was running a restaurant near old bus stand in Peesangan. He saw Lal Singh burning from some distance. He also helped him in putting-off the fire. Both these witnesses Janwari Lal (PW13) and Nemi Das (PW14) have not stated anything about deceased Manju. Badri Lal (PW15) has proved recovery of burnt clothes of deceased Lal Singh and Manju vide Exh.P.15 and Exh.P.16, respectively. Balveer Singh (PW17) SHO PS Peesangan has proved the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. vide Exh.P.17 and site plan Exh.P.7. He has also proved the statements Exh.P.5, 12, 13, 18, 21 and 22. He has also proved that at the time of arrest, accused Badami had burnt marks over her left hand. She was medically examined. He arrested accused Jeevan and Ramesh on 1/6/1981. He has proved recovery of the petrol container from the shop of accused Jeevan vide Exh.P.23 at his instance. At that time, lock of the shop was opened by his nephew. Recovery memo of the container was prepared vide Exh.P.8, Iron Pot (Tagari) was recovered at the instance of accused Naurat vide Exh.P.9 from his shop. This witness has also proved the statement of Mohan Singh (PW16) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. vide Exh.D.2. He has explained why statement of Bhagwati recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. at Police Station Sadar Kotwali, Ajmer could not be filed with the charge sheet. This witness has also proved the statement of Mohan Singh (PW16) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. vide Exh.D.2. He has explained why statement of Bhagwati recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. at Police Station Sadar Kotwali, Ajmer could not be filed with the charge sheet. In response to the suggestion that informant Mohan Singh used to consume liquor and that criminal case was registered against him, he has stated that he cannot say about this without examining the record. Shabbir Mohd. (PW18) Sub Inspector of Police has stated that he recorded statement of Ram Karan (PW4) vide Exh.P.6 and Nemi Das (PW14) vide Exh.P.14. He has also recorded the statement of Mohan Singh Exh.D1. Statements of these witnesses thus clearly prove that the dispute between the parties had in fact arisen in the morning. 18. Supreme Court in Prithi supra, held that even if a witness is declared hostile and is allowed to be cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor with the permission of court, his evidence remains admissible and there is no legal bar to record a conviction upon his testimony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence. In Akhtar supra, it was held by the Supreme Court that evidence of hostile witnesses can be relied upon to corroborate date, time and place of occurrence. In Jodhraj Singh supra, it was held by the Supreme Court that only because a witness, for one reason or the other, has to some extent resiled from his earlier statement, that by itself may not be sufficient to discard the prosecution case in its entirety. Keeping in view the materials available on record, it is permissible for a court of law to rely upon a part of the testimony of the witness who has been declared hostile. 19. Supreme Court in Attar Singh v. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No. 1091/2010 decided on 14/12/2012 held in para 13 of the judgment, as under:- "13. We have meticulously considered the arguments advanced on this vital aspect of the matter on which the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is based. This compels us to consider as to whether the conviction and sentence recorded on the basis of the testimony of the witness who has been declared hostile could be relied upon for recording conviction of the accused-appellant. This compels us to consider as to whether the conviction and sentence recorded on the basis of the testimony of the witness who has been declared hostile could be relied upon for recording conviction of the accused-appellant. But it was difficult to overlook the relevance and value of the evidence of even a hostile witness while considering as to what extent their evidence could be allowed to be relied upon and used by the prosecution. It could not be ignored that when a witness is declared hostile and when his testimony is not shaken on material points in the cross-examination, there is no ground to reject his testimony in to as it is well-settled by a catena of decisions that the Court is not precluded from taking into account the statement of a hostile witness altogether and it is not necessary to discard the same in to and can be relied upon partly. If some portion of the statement of the hostile witness inspires confidence, it can be relied upon. He cannot be thrown out as wholly unreliable. This was the view expressed by this court in the case of Syed Akbar v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1979 SC 1848 whereby the learned Judges of the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which had discarded the evidence of a hostile witness in its entirety. Similarly, other High Courts in the matter of Gulshan Kumar v. State, (1993) Crl.L.J. 1525 as also Kunwar v. State of U.P., (1993) Crl.L.J. 3421 as also Haneefa v. State (1993) Crl.L.J. 2125 have held that it is not necessary to discard the evidence of the hostile witness in toto and can be relied upon partly. So also, in the matter of State of U.P. v. Chet Ram reported in AIR 1989 SC 1543 : (1989) Crl.L.J. 1785 ; it was held that if some portion of the statement of the hostile witness inspires confidence it can be relied upon and the witness cannot be termed as wholly unreliable. It was further categorically held in the case of Shatrughan v. State of M.P., (1993) Crl.L.J. 3120 that hostile witness is not necessarily a false witness. Granting of a permission by the Court to cross-examine his own witness does not amount to adjudication by the Court as to the veracity of a witness. It was further categorically held in the case of Shatrughan v. State of M.P., (1993) Crl.L.J. 3120 that hostile witness is not necessarily a false witness. Granting of a permission by the Court to cross-examine his own witness does not amount to adjudication by the Court as to the veracity of a witness. It only means a declaration that the witness is adverse or unfriendly to the party calling him and not that the witness is untruthful. This was the view expressed by this Court in the matter of Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294 . Thus, merely because a witness becomes hostile it would not result in throwing out the prosecution case, but the Court must see the relative effect of his testimony. If the evidence of a hostile witness is corroborated by other evidence, there is no legal bar to convict the accused. Thus testimony of a hostile witness is acceptable to the extent it is corroborated by that of a reliable witness. It is, therefore, open to the Court to consider the evidence and there is no objection to a part of that evidence being made use of in support of the prosecution or in support of the accused." 20. In view of the settled proposition of law, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, recovery of petrol container and the iron pot and the fact that smell of petrol was in both of them and both when were sniffed were found having smell of petrol, clearly prove the guilt of the accused. Motive why they did so has also been proved by Mohan Singh (PW16) regarding the dispute, which took place between the parties in the morning when this witness called accused Badami as a witch and pressurised accused appellant Naurat to ask his mother Badami that she should spit over her daughter that she could came out of the ill effects of evil-souls. Accused appellant Badami has died and therefore her appeal has already abated. However, in so far as other accused are concerned, we after thorough examination of the record and the entire evidence as discussed above, are not persuaded to disturb the finding of conviction rendered by the learned trial court. 21. The appeal therefore fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******