JUDGMENT (ORAL) Per A.K. Trivedi, J.- Appellants of both these two appeals out of whom appellant Devendra Shah has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 148 of the IPC and been directed to undergo RI for life under Section 302 of the IPC but having no separate sentence with regard to Section 148 of the IPC, while remaining appellants namely Darshan Sah, Ramjee Sah, Pati Lal Sah and Ramanand Sah have been found guilty for an offence under Sections 323, 148 of the IPC and been directed to undergo RI for one year under both count respectively with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.01.1989 passed by the learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge. Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 237 of 1989 led institution of instant appeal. 2. PW 6 Sanjay Kumar Singh gave his fardbeyan (Ext. 1) on 20.01.1987 at 10.30 a.m. at P.M.C.H" Patna disclosing therein that on 16.01.1987 at about 9.00 a.m. his co-villager Devendra Sah and Bindeshwar Sah were quarreling over construction of drain wherein his father intervened and scolded Devendra Sah as he was on wrong footing. Meanwhile on an order of Pati Lal Sah (his father). Devendra Sah, Ramji Sah, Darshan Sah and Rmnanand Sah armed with lathi, bhala, khanti and Spade began to assault. Devendra Sah gave khanti blow over head of his father Rajbanshi Sah causing severe injury thereupon and on account thereof, he became unconscious and fell down. Even then, assault continued. On hue and cry Ram Swarath Singh. Birendra Singh, Wali Singh along with others arrived at the place of occurrence seeing whom, the accused persons escaped there from. It has further been disclosed that the villagers have chased Devendra Sah and have also assaulted him. Then thereafter his father was lifted to Sadar Hospital, Hajipur there from, was referred to P.M.C.H. He is still unconscious and as per opinion of the doctor, his condition is not well. 3. The aforesaid fardbeyan was accordingly transmitted to Lalganj police station as the place of occurrence lain within its jurisdiction, and on the basis thereof Lalganj P.S. Case No.5 of 1987 was registered. During course of investigation the injured had died and that being so, the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302 along with other ancillary sections where under cognizance was taken. During course of investigation the injured had died and that being so, the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302 along with other ancillary sections where under cognizance was taken. Ultimately the appellants faced trial and convicted hence this appeal. 4. Defence case as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this false and concocted case which has purposely been filed as a counter-blast to the case already instituted at the end of appellant Devendra Sah. In the aforesaid background, there has been complete denial of occurrence as suggested by the prosecution. To support the same, the defence had examined witnesses as well as also exhibited relevant documents. 5. While assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court it has been urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that the finding on its own happens to be inconsistent as well as conflicting which is itself apparent from the judgment impugned. Further submitted that the learned trial Court had fairly conceded that there happens to be discrepancy amongst the prosecution witnesses with regard to place of occurrence but treated it as a minor discrepancy, laches on part of prosecution on this score. It has further been submitted that there happens to be admission on the part of the prosecution witnesses that the dispute was going on amongst the family members that means to say appellants Devendra Sah at one side while Bindeshwar Sah at other having no occasion for the deceased to interfere in between. Having his presence along with others is suggestive of the fact that they have taken side of Bindeshwar Sah and possessing such status were aggressors who indulged in brutal assault of appellant Devendra Sah on account of sustaining injuries on his person, appellant Devendra Sah rushed immediately to the local State dispensary to save his life and was admitted there and during course thereof, his fardbeyan was recorded. Admission on the part of the prosecution witnesses to that extent and further accepting presence of police officials in the village on the pretext of investigating the earlier case instituted on the fardbeyan of Devendra Sah and keeping silent for such long period clearly suggests that instant case has been setup by the prosecution only as a counterblast to save their skin. It has further been submitted that there happens to be inordinate delay in recording of the fardbeyan and in likewise manner having it received by the Magistrate. It has further been submitted that during course of deposition during trial, the witnesses have changed their version to suit with the finding recorded by the doctor during course of conduction of postmortem examination. It has also been submitted that the learned trial Court had exercised the concept of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in mechanical manner without placing incriminating material whatsoever brought against the appellants during course of evidence led on behalf of prosecution and so, those parts of incriminating materials which have not been confronted with to the appellants, can't be used against them and as has been used, for that reason the judgment impugned has become vitiated. So submitted that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has failed to substantiate its case. 6. On the other hand while supporting the finding recorded by the learned trial Court it has been submitted on behalf of learned APP that the learned trial Court while recording finding of guilt against the appellants had taken into consideration all pros and cons visualizing from the record. It has further been submitted that from Ext. A, fardbeyan of appellant Devendra Shah, as the occurrence in the background of construction of drain is admitted one in likewise manner presence of PW 6. PW 5, Bindeshwar Sah along with deceased at the place of occurrence so alleged has already been admitted. Therefore, the defence by his own admission had admitted presence of deceased at the place of occurrence then in that event it was incumbent upon the defence to explain the injuries sustained by the deceased Rajbanshi Singh. It has further been submitted that the evidence of the witnesses are to be considered in its totality without segregating and in isolation. When the evidence in its entirety is taken into consideration the prosecution case is found fully proved. It has further been submitted that the evidence of the witnesses are to be considered in its totality without segregating and in isolation. When the evidence in its entirety is taken into consideration the prosecution case is found fully proved. Not only this, it has also been submitted that there happens to be consistency amongst the ocular as well as medical evidence therefore the finding recorded by the learned lower Court did not require interference. However, fairly concedes that from finding of the learned lower Court as recorded under paras 8 and 9 of the judgment, the instant case comes within the purview of Section 304 (1) of the IPC along with its allied sections and not under Section 302 of the IPC. Hence the appeal be dismissed with aforesaid modification. 7. Prosecution had altogether examined 8 witnesses out of whom PW 1 Birendra Singh. PW 2 Braj Kishore Singh, PW 3 Ram Swarath Singh, PW 4 Shri Narayan Singh, PW 5 Wali Singh, PW 6 Sanjay Kumar Singh. PW 7 Sohan Pd. Chaudhary and PW 8 Shrinath Rai as well as it also exhibited Ext. 1 fardbeyan, Ext. 2 Post-mortem report, Ext. 3 formal FIR. The defence had also examined two D.Ws. out of whom D.W. 1 is Nand Kishore Rai while D.W. 2 is Brajbhusan Prasad as well as it had also exhibited Ext. A fardbeyan of appellant Devendra Sah. Ext. B endorsement over fardbeyan, Ext. C Kewala dated 10.04.1969. 8. Right from the fardbeyan to the evidence all the material prosecution witnesses i.e. PW 1 Birendra Singh. PW 2 Braj Kishore Singh, PW 3 Ram Swarath Singh, PW 6 Sanjay Kumar Singh, deceased Raj Banshi Singh alone have sustained injury while he along with others had gone to the place where quarrel amongst Devendra Shah as well as Bindeshwari Sah was going on for construction of drain. There is also consistency amongst the PWs with regard to assault made by appellant Devendra Sah. Darshan Sah. Ramjee Sah, Pati Lal Sah and Ramanand Sah on an order of Pati Lal Sah. During said course, it has also been found that appellant Devendra Shah had inflicted khanti blow over head of deceased Rajbanshi Singh while others have assaulted him with spade. lathi and bhala though independent blows have not been shown to be hurled with the respective weapons by the appellants separately. During said course, it has also been found that appellant Devendra Shah had inflicted khanti blow over head of deceased Rajbanshi Singh while others have assaulted him with spade. lathi and bhala though independent blows have not been shown to be hurled with the respective weapons by the appellants separately. The aforesaid allegation on its face is also found to be corroborated by the evidence of PW 7 Dr. Sohan Pd. Chaudhary who conducted post-mortem (Ext. 2) and found the following injuries :- (I) Stiched wound of size 1", 1/2" & 3/4" on forehead on frontal region, face was smeared with blood. (II) Blood from nose. (III) Bruise of size 3" x 1" on left eye and there was sub conjectival haemorrhage. (IV) Bruise of size 3" x 1" behind left ear. (V) There was total 13 teeth in upper row and 11 teeth in lower row and there is no evidence of fresh fracture of dislocation of teeth. (VI) There is no other external injury. On dissection massive haematoma underneath the scalp were present in peiltal. Both temporal and occipital region. There was a depressed fracture of left temporal bone of size 2-1/2" x 2-1/2". There was massive extradual and subdural haematoma of brain. Brain was contused at the site of fracture. Version in genial was conjested. Time since death within 24 hours approximately. Cause of death is head injury. Nature of weapons is hard & blunt substances. 9. But now the question remains whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case as flashed. Admittedly occurrence happens to be of dated 16.01.1987 at about 9.00 a.m. The prosecution is completely silent at which time injured was lifted to Hajipur Sadar Hospital and on which date he was forwarded to P.M.C.H. PW 6, the informant, in his evidence had accepted that while he was at Hajipur Sadar Hospital and was to carry the injured to P.M.C.H., police had arrived. No fardbeyan was given by him. It is further evident from his cross-examination that while treatment of deceased Rajbanshi Singh was going on at P.M.C.H., police had come but again he failed to give his fardbeyan. He gave his fardbeyan subsequently which should be considered in the background of the fact that on 16.01.1987 itself Ext. A was already brought into existence at the behest of appellant Devendra Shah which the prosecution witnesses have already conceded. Not only this. He gave his fardbeyan subsequently which should be considered in the background of the fact that on 16.01.1987 itself Ext. A was already brought into existence at the behest of appellant Devendra Shah which the prosecution witnesses have already conceded. Not only this. the prosecution witnesses also conceded on the fact that police had visited during the intervening period at the village. Having police in and around the prosecution party, the prosecution party sat silently till the time when the fact of Ext. A was known to him and that happens to be clearly evident from Ext. 1, the fardbeyan wherein informant had stated that so many villagers have chased Devendra Shah and assaulted him. Surprisingly. during course of evidence none of the prosecution witnesses including the informant himself stick on that very point rather failed to acknowledge the same. The aforesaid deficiency and the unexplained time gap in consonance with presence of Ext. A as well as admission in the fardbeyan Ext. 1 is indicative of the fact that fardbeyan was unduly withheld just to counter with the allegation whatsoever been attributed by the appellant Devendra Shah through his fardbeyan (Ext. A) and on that very score, the prosecution case in its entirety looses its validity sanctity, truthfulness and credibility at least over manner as well as genesis of occurrence. 10. The learned lower Court in para-6 of its judgment had accepted discrepancy amongst the evidence of the PWs relating to place of occurrence but the same has been ignored by the learned lower Court on the ground that the witnesses are rustic. From the nature of evidence deposed by the respective prosecution witnesses it is evident that they have crossed the barrier to be called as rustic witness. Not only this, the witnesses who reside at the village are expected to be fully acknowledged with the boundary because of the fact that the same happens to be a day to day affair as well as time tested mode of identifying the particular plot. As such the finding recorded by the learned lower Court on that very score is found to be not at all convenience-able more particularly in the background of the fact that witnesses were categorically asked for to identify the actual place of occurrence as the same was not to be known to them by the survey plot number. As such the finding recorded by the learned lower Court on that very score is found to be not at all convenience-able more particularly in the background of the fact that witnesses were categorically asked for to identify the actual place of occurrence as the same was not to be known to them by the survey plot number. They have identified the place of occurrence with particular boundary and the differences having visualizing there from is suggestive of the fact that there happens to be (a) their non-presence at the time of place of occurrence (b) not a truthful witness. 11. Though the fardbeyan could not be treated as an encyclopedia of the occurrence but when there happens to be specific disclosure with regard to part played by an assailant, then in that event that has to be taken into account. In the fardbeyan there happens to be specific allegation against appellant Devendra Shah that he had inflicted khanti blow over head of Rajbanshi Singh (since deceased). When the evidence of witnesses have gone through, it is found that not only by means of khanti rather from the lathi portion of bhola back portion of spade as well as lathi was also used during commission of the occurrence by the assailants. With regard to Devendra Shah the witnesses confined their statement, but with regard to others, it happens to be in evasive manner. Because of the fact that no allegation has been disclosed or divulged with regard to assault made by other weapons than khanti which also could cause similar kind of injury identifying Devendra Shah as an assailant appears to be non-tenable. 12. Now coming to the conduction of the trial, it is evident from the questionnaire formulated by learned trial Court relating to performance of mandatory provisions of Section 313 (342 at earlier occasion) of the Cr.P.C. is found to be not at all satistying the ingredients prescribed there for. The appellants were successively examined on account of recall of a witness. After going through the questionnaire it is evident that none of the incriminating material which has been brought up on record by the prosecution by examining the witnesses has been placed before any of the appellant and in absence thereof certainly their interests have been prejudiced. The appellants were successively examined on account of recall of a witness. After going through the questionnaire it is evident that none of the incriminating material which has been brought up on record by the prosecution by examining the witnesses has been placed before any of the appellant and in absence thereof certainly their interests have been prejudiced. Because of the fact that by such laches the appellants have been deprived of an opportunity to explain the circumstances and the incriminating materials which have been placed during course of trial against them. Not only it happens to be an obligation on the part of the Court to confront the accused with all the incriminating material brought up against time during trial. so as much as, it also happens to be mandate of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. How the Court should proceed to record statement of accused, the Han'ble Apex Court thrashed the issue in Sharad Birdhicahnd Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1984 (4) SCC 116 it has been held : 143. Apart from the aforesaid comments there is one vital defect in some of the circumstances mentioned above and relied upon by the High Court, viz., circumstance Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17. As these circumstances were not put to the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 they must be completely excluded from consideration because the appellant did not have any chance to explain them. This has been consistently held by this Court as far back as 1953 where in the case of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, this Court, held that any circumstance in respect of which an accused was not examined under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be used against him. Ever since this decision, there is a catena of authorities of this Court uniformly taking the view that unless the circumstance appearing against an accused is put to him in his examination under Section 342 of the old Code (corresponding to Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973), the same cannot be used against him. In Shamu Balu Chaugule v. State of Maharashtra, this Court held thus : [SCC para 5. p. 440 : SCC (Cri) p. 58]. In Shamu Balu Chaugule v. State of Maharashtra, this Court held thus : [SCC para 5. p. 440 : SCC (Cri) p. 58]. The fact that the appellant was said to be absconding not having been put to him under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code could not be used against him. 144. To the same effect is another decision of this Court in Harijan Megha Jesha v. State of Gujarat where the following observations were made : [SCC (Cri) p. 653, para 3]. In the first place, he stated that on the personal search of the appellant a chedi was found which was blood stained and according to the report of the serologist, it contained human blood. Unfortunately, however, as this circumstance was not put to the accused in his statement under Section 342, the prosecution cannot be permitted to rely on this statement in order to convict the appellant. 145. It is not necessary for us to multiply authorities on this point as this question now stands concluded by several decisions of this Court. In this view of the matter, the circumstances which were not put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 have to be completely excluded from consideration. 13. Thus taking into account the legal infirmities as well as deficiencies persisting in the prosecution case, it looks difficult for us to concur with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. Consequent thereupon the same is set aside. These appeals are allowed. Appellants are on bail hence are discharged from liability of their respective bail bonds. Appeals allowed.