JUDGMENT 1. By this appeal filed u/s.374(2) Cr.P.C. the accused appellants have challenged the judgment dated 19.06.2008 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Aklera, District Jhalawar, in Sessions Case No.79/2007 whereby he has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as under: (i) For the offence u/s.147, IPC, sentence of 6 month simple imprisonment to each of the accused appellants. (ii) For offence u/s.323, IPC, sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment to each of the accused appellants. (iii) For offence u/s.302/149, IPC, sentence for life imprisonment to each of the accused appellants. Further the fine of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed to each of the accused appellants, in default of which, they are to further undergo three months additional simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Instant case was initiated on a Parcha Bayan of Shiv Narain which formed the basis of a First Information Report registered on 23.09.2007 at Police Station Balta District Jhalawar. According to the Parcha Bayan, when the informant was sitting on a Chabutra near the hand-pump, the accused appellant Prem Singh, Radha Kishan, Roshan, Birma, Kailash, Mohan, Roop Lal and Dev Singh came armed with weapons likz Lathi, gandasi etc. On reaching the place of incident, the accused persons gave beating to the members of the complainant party. Accused Prem Singh who is said to have been armed with gandasi inflicted injuries on the elbow of left hand. When the informant ran towards the residence, his father Bapu Lal came to rescue but he was also given beating. After hearing the hue and cry, uncle of the informant namely; Balram came in front of the house of Kanwar Lal, who was encircled and given beating by Lathi and gandasi on the neck. As a result of the said beating, his uncle fell down. Further the accused had given beating by pelting stones, fist blows and lathi blows etc.At that time, Dhanna Lal also came there. He was inflicted injuries by pelting stones. Further it was stated in the Parcha Bayan that his uncle Balram had died on the spot. At the time of the incident, Kalu Lal, Gordhan, Banne Singh and Radha Kishan were present and they had witnessed the same. He was inflicted injuries by pelting stones. Further it was stated in the Parcha Bayan that his uncle Balram had died on the spot. At the time of the incident, Kalu Lal, Gordhan, Banne Singh and Radha Kishan were present and they had witnessed the same. On the aforesaid report, a regular first information report was chalked out and immediately, the police came into action by sending the Head Constable, Laxmi Narain to the police station for registration of the report. Accordingly, the first information report was registered at 10.40 A.M. on 23.09.2007 as FIR No.l 16/2007, for offence u/s. 147,149,149,323 and 302 IPC. Thereafter on conclusion of investigation challan was filed before the concerning Magistrate. 3. The case being triable by the court of Sessions, was committed to the concerning court. In the presence of the accused persons before the trial court, the question of charge was considered and the same was framed against them for offence u/s. 147 and 302/149 IPC to which they denied and claimed for trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution had produced 19 witnesses and also the documents collected during the course of the investigation. Thereafter, the statements of the accused appellants were recorded u/s.313 Cr.P.C. Defence, however, did not produce any evidence in support of their case. All the accused persons had stated at the time of their examination that they have been falsely implicated in the case. It was further stated by them that the villagers pelted stones as a result of which the complainant party had sustained injuries. They had not caused any injury to the accused persons. After conclusion of the trial, the accused appellants were convicted and sentenced by the learned court below for the offence aforementioned. 5. It would be pertinent to mention here that the prosecution case was based mainly on the testimony of 4 witnesses namely; Kalu Lal, Gordhan, Baid Singh and Radha Kishan. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, Baid Singh was never produced by them. Other three prosecution witnesses produced were injured persons namely; Shiv Narain Bapu Lal, and Dhanna Lal. Out of the aforesaid witnesses, Gordhan (PW1), Kalu Lal (PW2) and Radha Kishan (PW15) did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, Baid Singh was never produced by them. Other three prosecution witnesses produced were injured persons namely; Shiv Narain Bapu Lal, and Dhanna Lal. Out of the aforesaid witnesses, Gordhan (PW1), Kalu Lal (PW2) and Radha Kishan (PW15) did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. The remaining three witnesses, on which entire prosecution case is hinges are Shiv Narain (PW16) (informant), Bapu Lal (PW17) and Dhanna Lal (PW18).It would also be relevant to mention here that the injury which has been sustained by these witnesses as revealed, from Ex.P28, Ex.P29 and Ex.P30 are as under: (A)"Ex.P28 Injury report of Shri Shiv Narayan dated 23.09.2007 (1) Bruise 8 x 5cm Around left elbow simple blunt P = 84/mts, BP =120/80, DOI-within 24 hours Adv. X-ray left elbow/AP lateral view Opinion : Reserved to be given after X-ray report. Opinion : X-ray show no evidence of bony injury. 20.10.2007 Above-mentioned injury is of simple nature, implicated by blunt weapon and is of duration within 24 hours. Sd/20.10.2007 (B) Ex.P29. Injury report of Shri Bapu Lal dated 23.09.2007 (1) Lacerated 2 x 1cm little finger of simple Blunt P-80/mts wound right hand BP-110/70 (2) Abrasion 3 x 2cm just below left Simple Blunt Duration of knee injury within 24 hours. Opinion: Both injuries are of simple nature implicated by blunt weapon & are of duration within 24 hours. sd/-23.09.2007 (1P.M.) (C) Ex.P30 - Injury report of Shri Dhanna Lal dated 23.09.2007 (1) Lacerated 1.5x0.5cm over right Simple Blunt P = 82/mts wound parietal bone BP =120/70 (2) Abrasion 3 x 2cm Dorsal aspect of right fore-head, 7cm below elbow joint Simple Blunt Duration of injury within 24 hours, (3) Abrasion 5 x 2cm Center of forehead Simple Blunt Opinion: All injuries are of simple nature, implicated by blunt weapon and are of duration 24 hours. Sd/-23.09.2007(1 P.M.) A perusal of the aforesaid injury reports of prosecution witnesses, goes to show that they were all simple in nature and by blunt weapon. They could have been sustained of some other occasion than the instant case. 6. Now, this court is to consider the testimony of three prosecution witnesses, Shiv Narain, Bapu Lal and Dhanna Lal. A close scrutiny of the statements of aforesaid witnesses needs to be made. 7. They could have been sustained of some other occasion than the instant case. 6. Now, this court is to consider the testimony of three prosecution witnesses, Shiv Narain, Bapu Lal and Dhanna Lal. A close scrutiny of the statements of aforesaid witnesses needs to be made. 7. The learned counsel for the accused appellants has submitted that after taking into consideration the over all facts of the case of the prosecution and the evidence on record, a shadow of doubt is casted. The very incident and the manner in which the same has taken place, as per the prosecution case, cannot be believed. Further he has submitted that the star prosecution witnesses do not have credibility worth the name. A perusal of the statement goes to show that there are improvements, inconsistencies and contradictions. He has also submitted that the prosecution has rather failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it has been submitted that the accused appellants deserve to be acquitted as the charges against them have not been proved. 8. The prosecution, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned court below and submitted that it is based on the evidence on record which cannot be said to be untrustworthy. It is submitted that the incident did take place, the accused appellants came duly armed with weapon at the place of incident and they had inflicted the injuries on the members of the complainant party. It has also been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the injuries sustained by the members of the complainant party is duly established by the medical evidence on record as well as the testimony of medical jurist Dr. Veer Bhan Chanchlani (PW14). On the said premise, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the finding arrived at by the learned court below, is based on the legal evidence on record and the same does not call for any interference. 9. We have thoroughly considered the fats and circumstances of the case, material on record and the submissions made by the counsel for,rival parties. 10. At the outset, it may be mentioned that both the parties .in the present case, have come out with the case that there was enmity between them. 9. We have thoroughly considered the fats and circumstances of the case, material on record and the submissions made by the counsel for,rival parties. 10. At the outset, it may be mentioned that both the parties .in the present case, have come out with the case that there was enmity between them. Needless to say that enmity between the parties is a double edged weapon by which implication of the other side is also made without there-being any involvement from their side. As mentioned earlier, the prosecution had come with the case based on the evidence of 7 prosecution witnesses. However, before the learned trial court, three of the prosecution witnesses namely, Kalu Lal, Gordhan and Radha Kishan did not support the prosecution story and had to be declared hostile. One prosecution witness namely, Banne Singh was not produced before the trial court. Resultantly, three witnesses namely; Shiv Narain, Bapu Lal and Dhanna Lal remained on"the basis of which the entire case of prosecution is based. 11. Before considering the testimony and the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, it would be relevant to mention here that the injuries sustained by three witnesses are all by blunt weapon and a look to the postmortem report also goes to show that the deceased Balram had also sustained injuries by blunt weapon. Further it may be noted that neither any blood oozed out from the body of the deceased nor any blood stained mud was found at the place of incident. Similarly, no blood stained clothes of the deceased was ever recovered by the prosecution. The recovery so made by the prosecution is of the plain mud. The post-mortem report further mentions that the cause of death is; "In my opinion, the death is due to puncture of left Jugular vain. Further there were three specific injuries on the deceased mentioned by the medical jurist while conducting the post-mortem report. The said injuries were as under: (i) Bruise - 5 x 3cm - left side of neck inflicted by blood weapon. (ii) Abrasion - 3 x 3cm - right side of forehead. (iii) Abrasion -1 x 1cm left side of forehead. Apparently the injuries do suggest that they are not at all serious in nature and there was no injury by sharp edged weapon or any cut on the neck. 12. (ii) Abrasion - 3 x 3cm - right side of forehead. (iii) Abrasion -1 x 1cm left side of forehead. Apparently the injuries do suggest that they are not at all serious in nature and there was no injury by sharp edged weapon or any cut on the neck. 12. Shiv Narain (PW 16) had deposed before the learned trial court that he was given beating by gandasi which was horizontal. Further in the cross examination, he had deposed that he had sustained a cut wound on his elbow which was inflicted by a gandasi from the sharp edged side. It may be noted here that on a perusal of MLR of Shiv Narain (Ex.P28) it is revealed that there is no injury by sharp edged weapon. Moreover, the aid witness has specifically stated that no Marpeet' was given by Lathi. Again, the said witness had stated that deceased Balram had sustained only on) injury. He also stated that the deceased sustained a cut wound injury on the neck which was 2" in length but he has specifically stated that no blood had oozed out as a result of the said injury. He has also admitted that there were no stains of blood on the clothes of the deceased Balram.The prosecution witness Shiv Narain who is also the informant and it was on the basis of his Parcha Bayan that the regular first information report was chalked out, has further stated that he did not mention the name of Kalu Lal, Gordhan, Banne Singh and Radha Kishan in the Parcha Bayan, But a look at the Parcha Bayan Ex.P23 goes to show that the names of said persons have been very specifically mentioned. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution witness Shiv Narain has not narrated true facts in his testimony which certainly casts a shadow of doubt. The testimony of the said witness is not at all trustworthy and reliable. 13. Another star witness of the prosecution is Bapu Lal (PW17). He has stated before the trial court that the accused party came with gandasi and sticks. They had inflicted injury to his son i.e. Shiv Narain on hand by gandasi on his hand. In cross-examination, he has also stated that at the relevant time 500 persons assembled that place of incident and they were pelting stones to each other. He has stated before the trial court that the accused party came with gandasi and sticks. They had inflicted injury to his son i.e. Shiv Narain on hand by gandasi on his hand. In cross-examination, he has also stated that at the relevant time 500 persons assembled that place of incident and they were pelting stones to each other. Further he has deposed that when he tried to run away from the place of incident, he fell down. He has also stated that when Dhanna Lal and Shiv Narain were running away, they sustained injuries. According to him, deceased Balram had sustained injuries on the neck by a lathi which has been assigned to the accused Dev Singh.Thereafter, the said witness had stated that the injuries on the neck of deceased Balram was a result of cut which was 2" in length, The said fact as stated by the witness Bapu Lal, is totally contradictory to the medical evidence on record (post-mortem). It does not mention about any injury on the deceased by, a sharp edged weapon. On the contrary, a bare perusal of the post-mortem report, as mentioned above, goes to show that the injuries are not only simple in nature but there have not been any blood. In other words, the prosecution witness Bapu Lal has gone to the extent of making of a false statement by mentioning that Balram sustained injury by sharp weapon which is contradictory to the medical evidence on record, including the testimony of medical jurist. 14. The last witness of the prosecution is Dhanna Lal (PW18), the father of the deceased. He has categorically stated that when his son Bairam came at place of occurrence, he was given beating by Dev Singh with Farsi which resulted in injuries on his neck. As mentioned earlier, the medical evidence on record goes to show that there was not a single injury on the person of deceased which had been caused by sharp edged weapon. It is also important to note that the said witness has stated that he was going along with cattle near the place of occurrence when it had taken place. Further the prosecution witness Dhanna Lal had categorically stated that at the time of incident, he fell down. Likewise, it has been stated that deceased Balram had also fell on the ground from the side of his neck. Further the prosecution witness Dhanna Lal had categorically stated that at the time of incident, he fell down. Likewise, it has been stated that deceased Balram had also fell on the ground from the side of his neck. In other words, the fatal injury sustained by the deceased, where jugular vain is said to have been punctured is according to his father Dhanna Lal, on account of his fall on the ground from the side of the neck. It has also been mentioned by the said witness that the complainant party pelted stones which resulted in injuries to the members of accused party. It further goes to show that either the said witness was not present at the time of incident or he had not seen the incident when it took place. In these circumstances, the present; prosecution witness Dhanna Lal is not at all reliable, trustworthy and does not at ail support the case of the prosecution. 15. Besides, it is noteworthy that a bare perusal of the site plan (Ex.32) goes to show that the members of the complainant party did have their residences nearby, there was a hand pump on a public way but there is no iota of impression available at the place of incident which could suggest that the occurrence of Manpreet had taken place apart from the fact that no blood stained mud was found nor any such mud was ever recovered. There was no impression of any scuffle between persons who were more than 15 in numbers, from both the sides, so as to suggest that it was at the place given out by the prosecution story, that the Incident had ever taken place. This also creates a doubt on the story of the prosecution. 16. For the reasons given hereinabove and after thorough consideration of the evidence produced by the prosecution, we are of the considered opinion that they have failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution witnesses are not at all reliable much less to say that they have corroborated the version given by the prosecution. Even the place of occurrence, as given out by the prosecution, does not inspire confidence to us. Therefore, the benefit deserves to be given to the accused appellants. Resultantly, the conviction awarded to the accused appellants cannot be sustained and so also the sentence awarded to them. 17. Even the place of occurrence, as given out by the prosecution, does not inspire confidence to us. Therefore, the benefit deserves to be given to the accused appellants. Resultantly, the conviction awarded to the accused appellants cannot be sustained and so also the sentence awarded to them. 17. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 19.06.2008 is quashed and set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. The accused Dev Singh is in jail and he shall be released forthwith, if not required any other case. Accused appellants Prem Singh s/o. Shri Devilal, Mohanlal s/o. Shri Devihd, Kailash s/o. Shri Bherulal, Roshan s/o. Shri Devilal, Radhakishan s/o. Shri Devilal, Raghunath s/o. Shri Amarlal and Biram s/o. Shri Rodulal are on bail and they need not surrender. Their bailbonds be discharged. *******