JUDGMENT Per Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J. Two sets of criminal appeal bearing Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 265 of 1990 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 298 of 1990 have been filed by the respective appellants. However, during pendency of both the appeals the sole appellant of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 298 of 1990 namely, Jang Bahadur Singh died and on account thereof, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 298 of 1990 abated vide order dated 5.4.2013. Now remains Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 265 of 1990, which stood against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 10.7.1990 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 408 of 1978/93 of 1983 convicting Jang Bahadur Singh (since deceased) under Sections 302, 148 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to undergo imprisonment for life tinder Section 302, IPC as well as rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 148, IPC Appellants Satya Narain Singh and Gorakh Singh have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 323, 325/149 and 302/149, IPC and each of them have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year rigorous imprisonment for six months rigorous imprisonment for four years and imprisonment for life respectively. In likewise manner, appellant Mahendra Tiwari, Brij Bihari Tiwari, Sudama Tiwari, Biswanath Tiwari, Babudhan Tiwari, Sheo Narain Singh, Sunil Tiwari and Sri Bhagwan Singh have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 147. Indian Penal Code 325/149, IPC 302/149, IPC and each of them have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, rigorous imprisonment for four years and imprisonment for life respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution, as is evident from the fardbeyan (Ext. Indian Penal Code 325/149, IPC 302/149, IPC and each of them have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, rigorous imprisonment for four years and imprisonment for life respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution, as is evident from the fardbeyan (Ext. 3) given by PW 6 Birendra Prasad Verma on 20.11.1977 at about 8.30 a.m. at Sasaram Hospital before the Officer Incharge of Dawat Police Station alleging inter alia that on 19.10.1977 at about 11.00 a.m. while he was returning to his house after inspecting his field and reached near Bathan he saw 12-14 persons sitting there out of whom he identified Bhuwneshwar Singh, Gorakh Singh Yadav, Satya Narain Singh Yadav, Mahendra Tiwari, Brij Bihari Tiwari, Sudama Tiwari, Biswanath Tiwari, Babudhan Tiwari, Sheo Narain Tiwari, Sunil Kumar Tiwari, all armed with lathi, while Jang Bahadur Singh armed with bhala, Sri Bhagwan Singh armed with bhala, Kesho Dushad armed with lathi. As he tried to cross them, he was apprehended by Bhuwneshwar Singh and on his order Gorakh Singh and Satya Naraian Singh Yadav began to assault him while rest encircled him. On account thereof, he raised an alarm attracting his brother Mahendra Prasad Verma and Surendra Prasad Verma who too were assaulted by them with lathi. During midst thereof his father Baban Lal came and began to forbade them over which on the orders of Bhuwneshwar Singh, Jang Bahadur Singh pierced boola at his right 'Panjra', due to which he fell down. Thereafter, others also assaulted him with lathi causing instantaneous death. Seeing his father dead, all the accused persons escaped therefrom. Shivjee Tiwari, Kawaldip Tiwari along with others have been cited as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. He along with both of his brothers sustained severe injuries on account of the assault having made by the accused persons. Thereafter, he along with his brothers were rescued with the help of his villagers along with inhabitants of Haldiha village and were taken to Sasaram Hospital for treatment. The motive for occurrence has been shown as they got their land released from the accused Bhuwneshwar Singh which was given to him on "money (Batai)". Accused had earlier also indulged in criminal action and for that Sanha entry was made. 3. The motive for occurrence has been shown as they got their land released from the accused Bhuwneshwar Singh which was given to him on "money (Batai)". Accused had earlier also indulged in criminal action and for that Sanha entry was made. 3. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Dawat P.S. Case No. 10 of 1977 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302 of the Indian Penal Code whereupon the investigation commenced and after concluding the same, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused and in the aforesaid background, the appellants including others have faced trial and ultimately met with the conviction. 4. The defence case as is evident from the mode of cross-examination as well as from the statements recorded under Section 313, Cr PC is that of innocence as well as of complete denial of the occurrence. 5. While assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court, it has been submitted on behalf of the' appellants that it is a peculiar case wherein prosecution knowingly and intentionally left the independent witnesses and instead thereof examined only those witnesses who were not at all shown their status to be an eye-witness to the occurrence during course of their statements under Section 161. Cr PC. It has further been submitted that possessing the said status the evidence of PW 1 as well as PW 4 should not be taken into consideration. It has also been submitted that PW 3 never turned up for cross-examination and in the aforesaid background her evidence has become inadmissible in the eyes of law. Others the so-called injured witnesses, after going through their depositions, it is evident that neither they sustained any injury at the hands of the appellants nor they deposed as well as narrated the prosecution case fairly. There happens to be inconsistency visible amongst their evidence and on account thereof each of the injured witness contradicts the status of others to be eye-witness to the occurrence as well as sustained injuries at the hands of appellant during commission of said occurrence. 6. There happens to be inconsistency visible amongst their evidence and on account thereof each of the injured witness contradicts the status of others to be eye-witness to the occurrence as well as sustained injuries at the hands of appellant during commission of said occurrence. 6. It has further been submitted that from the conduct of the prosecution itself, it is apparent that they have concealed the real genesis as well as the manner of occurrence and further with the help of their maternal uncle who also happens to be a doctor at Sasaram, reached to Sasaram and got themselves admitted at Sasaram Hospital, otherwise the nature of injuries suggest that those could have been properly cared in Primary Health Centers at least at Bikramganj where the State Dispensary lies. That is sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution with regard to genuineness of their assertion that they had sustained injuries at the hands of the appellants. 7. At this juncture proprietary of the prosecution version has also been raised and to support the same it has been submitted that from the evidence of the informant-PW 6 it is apparent that they have stayed for some time at the Bikramganj Police Station where he had informed the Police Officials regarding the occurrence. However, no such version have been brought up on the record. In likewise manner, it has also been submitted that from the evidence of PW 8 the Investigating Officer it is evident that before his arrival at Sasaram Hospital, the Police Official of Sasaram Police Station had already arrived and had issued the respective injury reports. At this moment it has been argued on behalf of the appellants that when Police Official was present who inspected each of the injured issued the injury report then in that event it was expected as a natural conduct on the part of the injured to have narrated the prosecution version. Surprisingly, the prosecution kept mum. In the aforesaid background it could be safely 'said that present fardbeyan (Ext. 3) is nothing but an afterthought story. 8. It has also been argued on behalf of the appellant that from the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW 8), it is evident that he had already arrived at the place of occurrence on 20.10.1977 at about 5.00 a.m. and proceeded with investigation wherein he had prepared the inquest report (Ext. 3) is nothing but an afterthought story. 8. It has also been argued on behalf of the appellant that from the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW 8), it is evident that he had already arrived at the place of occurrence on 20.10.1977 at about 5.00 a.m. and proceeded with investigation wherein he had prepared the inquest report (Ext. 4) and send the dead body for postmortem. Again, there happens to be no step taken by the prosecution to give narration of the incident. Not only this once the Police Official proceeded with investigation then in that event certainly Ext. 3-fardbeyan is found to be hit by Section 162 of the Cr PC. 9. Now coming to the medical evidence, it has been submitted that from the inquest report (Ext. 4) in consonance with the post-mortem report (Ext. 6), it is evident that both are inconsistent so far as nature of injuries are concerned. On account thereof, there happens to be doubt with regard to the correct and genuine version of the prosecution. 10. While criticizing the ocular evidence it has been submitted that apart from material contradictions persisting in the evidence of the injured witnesses there happens to be inconsistency on each and every material aspect arid the objective finding of the Investigating Officer with regard to place of occurrence makes their version unreliable uncrediworthy. 11. On the other hand it has been submitted by the learned APP that the status of injured witnesses have been recognized at upper ladder than the witnesses of general category. The presence of injuries over the persons of the witnesses is suggestive of their presence at the place of occurrence as well as sustaining of the injuries in the manner as suggested by the prosecution. In the aforesaid background, the evidence of the injured witnesses should not be brushed aside on the flimsy grounds. 12. Referring relevant paragraphs of the evidence of the injured witnesses, it has been submitted that they not only stood the test of cross-examination rather they happens to be consistent over the manner as well as the genesis of the occurrence and on account thereof conviction as well as sentence recorded by the trial Court needs no interference. 13. It has also been submitted that there happens no ambiguity so far as medical along with ocular evidence is concerned. 13. It has also been submitted that there happens no ambiguity so far as medical along with ocular evidence is concerned. In likewise manner, it has been submitted that only natural human error is found whereunder there appears to be some slap slow visibility otherwise the investigation had properly been conducted by PW 8. So the judgment of conviction and sentence is fit to be affirmed. 14. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution had examined altogether 11 witnesses. Out of whom PW 1 is Laxman Tiwari, PW 2 is Mahendra Prasad Verma, PW 3 is Kanak Lata Verma, PW 4 is Roopa Kali, PW 5 is Surendra Prasad, PW 6 is Birendra Prasad Verma, PW 7 is Ramjee Prasad, PW 8 is Lal bahadur Singh. PW 9 is Dr. Ganesh Prasad, PW 10 is Sheo Balak Lal and PW 11 Satyendra Kumar Srivastava. Side by side also exhibited signature of respective witnesses over respective documents-Ext. 1 series-respective injury reports of respective injured-Ext. 2 series fardbeyan-Ext. 3-inquest report-Ext. 4-respective seizure list-Ext. 5 series-postmortem report-Ext.-6 and formal FIR-Ext. 7-X-ray plates have been marked 'X' and 'Y' for identification while the fardbeyan of counter case bearing Dawat P.S. Case No. 11 of 1977 filed by one of the accused Jang Bahadur Singh (since deceased) has been marked 'Z' for identification. 15. So far as status of the witnesses are concerned, PW 1, seems to be eye-witness to the occurrence while PWs 5 and 6 are injured, PW 4 is their mother. That means to say wife of the deceased, PW 3 did not turn up for cross-examination and as such her evidence remains incomplete. PW 7 is the doctor who had examined all the three injured while PW 9 is the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem over the deceased Bachan Lal, PW 8 happens to be the investigating authority. PWs 10 and PW 11 are the formal witness. 16. After going through the records we have noticed that instant sessions trial since its beginning that means to say right from the inception of the case happens to be suffering from lacuna and for that the evidence of PW 8. Investigating Officer is to be taken first. PWs 10 and PW 11 are the formal witness. 16. After going through the records we have noticed that instant sessions trial since its beginning that means to say right from the inception of the case happens to be suffering from lacuna and for that the evidence of PW 8. Investigating Officer is to be taken first. From his examination-in-chief alone it is apparent that he had claimed to have gone to Sasaram Hospital where he had recorded the fardbeyan of PW 6 Birendra Prasad Verma as well as he also examined the remaining two injured. He had also seen all the three injured and had issued the injury reports. During cross-examination at paragraph 5 he had controverted the aforesaid disclosure by stating that he had not prepared and issued the injury reports to all the three injured because of the fact that the same had already issued by the Police Officer of the Sasaram Police Station. This part substantiate the fact regarding presence of Sasaram Police officials at Sasaram Hospital much before arrival of PW 8 at Sasaram Hospital, Conspicuously PW 2, PW 5 and PW 6 kept mum on this very score. That means to say the prosecution to the reason best known to it either had concealed the earlier version or had any how managed for arrival of PW 8 so that he could be properly managed and then the instant FIR (Ext. 3) has been brought into existence. Non-disclosure by injured 'witnesses regarding occurrence before Sasaram Police is a fact which creates doubt over authenticity of the prosecution case. 17. The suspicious conduct of the prosecution on this very score is found additionally supported with the evidence of PW 6, the informant who had clearly stated that from the place of occurrence they came to Piro and from there they came to Bikramganj where they stayed at the Police Station and had informed the Officer Incharge of Bikramganj Police Station regarding the occurrence. He had further narrated that he had not filed any written report rather he had orally narrated and paragraph 15 of his cross-examination deals with the same. Again the prosecution failed to place whether any FIR was registered on the basis of oral statement made by PW 6 before the Officer Incharge of Bikramganj Police Station. He had further narrated that he had not filed any written report rather he had orally narrated and paragraph 15 of his cross-examination deals with the same. Again the prosecution failed to place whether any FIR was registered on the basis of oral statement made by PW 6 before the Officer Incharge of Bikramganj Police Station. It is true that PW 8 was not cross-examined by the defence on that very score but that would not leave the investigating authority from his responsibility to investigate the case in impartial manner and collect the relevant materials which could be placed before the Court for better appreciation. Therefore, from the evidence as stated above, it is crystal clear that any how the prosecution had, with the intention best known to the prosecution itself tried to suppress the initial version which as it appears on account of conduct of the prosecution must be found adverse to their interest. 18. The second aspect refers with regard to admissibility of Ext. 3. To adjudge the same it is better to look into the evidence of PW 8 again. From paragraph 6 of cross-examination he had clearly stated that he had arrived at the place of occurrence on 20.11.1977 at about 5.00 a.m. He had prepared the inquest report of the deceased and then sent the dead body for post-mortem. This prosecution witness had not disclosed that any family members of the deceased had come forward to record fardbeyan. It is also surprising that without having properly informed that injured were admitted to Sasaram Hospital how the PW 8 proceeded and got the Ext. 3 recorded at the Sasaram Hospital. 19. The Investigating Officer while proceeding with investigation of a case more particularly relating to a cognizable offence is supposed to have based upon an information which should at lest satisfy with the ingredient of FIR in terms of Section 154, Cr PC. In case there happens to be defection on the part of police official on this score then the whole investigation is bound to suffer with melody as any kind of subsequent information accepting as FIR virtually became non-est in the eye of law on account of presence of Section 162, Cr PC, which keeps a bar over its admissibility. Preparation of inquest report is a part of the investigation. When investigation had commenced then in that circumstances Ext. Preparation of inquest report is a part of the investigation. When investigation had commenced then in that circumstances Ext. 3 (fardbeyan) as found appears to be inadmissible in the background of presence of Section 162 of the Cr PC 20. When the evidence of PW 9 the doctor is gone through it is apparent that following ante mortem injuries were found over the dead body of Babban Lal:- 1. One perforating wound below the angle lower of right scapula. 2. On dissection of this wound : found one perforating wound in the middle to be 1-1/2" depth and 1/2" in width. The above injury was caused by a pointed instrument such as bhala. 3. One contusion 3" x 2-1/2" on the from of right thigh in the lower part. 4. One lacerated wound 4/4" x 1/6" skin deep behind left index finger in the middle. Injury No. 2 and 3 were caused by some hard and blunt substance such as lathi while injury No. 1 was caused by sharp pointed weapon. 21. When the medical evidence is taken together with Ext. 4-inquest report, the same is found to be totally inconsistent and on account thereof either of the versions became doubtful in the background of the fact that the prosecution had got ample and sufficient time to fabricate its story during the intermediary time. 22. Having the aforesaid infirmities available on the record now we proceed to adjudge the version of the prosecution on the basis of ocular evidence. From the evidence of PW 8 at paragraph 14, it is apparent that status of PW 1 at an earlier occasion was that of a hear-say witness while during course of trial he posed himself to be an eye-witness to the occurrence and on account thereof his examination-in-chief consists material contradiction. 23. As per fardbeyan, the informant had extended complicity of appellant Gorakh Singh and Satya Narain Singh Yadav to the extent of causing injuries to him by means of lathi as well as Jang Bahadur Singh to be assailant of his father deceased Babban Lal by means of bhala. When the evidence of injured witnesses are taken together it is evident that PW 2 Mahendra Prasad Verma had alleged Gorakh Singh and Satya Narayan Singh to be the assailants of Birendra Prasad Verma, Satya Narain Singh and Bhuwneshwar Singh to be his assailants. When the evidence of injured witnesses are taken together it is evident that PW 2 Mahendra Prasad Verma had alleged Gorakh Singh and Satya Narayan Singh to be the assailants of Birendra Prasad Verma, Satya Narain Singh and Bhuwneshwar Singh to be his assailants. Sheo Narain Singh and Keshav Dushad to be assailant of Surendra Prasad Verma by means of lathi. He had also shown Jang Bahadur Singh to be armed with farsa and had assaulted with the same over Babban Lal. PW 5 had stated that he had seen Satya Narain Singh and Gorakh Singh assaulting Birendra, Satya Narayan and Bhuwneshwar assaulting his brother Mahendra and Keshav assaulted him (Surendra). Jang Bahadur Singh had given bhala blow. In paragraph 8 he had clearly stated that his brother had informed the PW 5, PW 6, in likewise manner had stated that Satya Narain and Gorakh Singh had assaulted him with lathi. On alarm, when his brother had arrived, they too were assaulted by the accused persons. Then thereafter his father arrived who was given bhala blow by Jang Bahadur and on account thereof he died. Others have also assaulted him with lathi. 24. When the aforesaid version is tested with the objective finding of the Investigating Officer-PW 8, it is evident that the place of occurrence happens to be a gali near residential house of Raghu Ahir and the Baithka of accused Satya Narain Singh. He had found trampling mark at the place of occurrence. He had not found blood at that very place as is evident from paragraph 7 of his cross-examination. Whatever blood was found by PW 8 that was only at Darwaja of prosecution party where dead body was found. Further from the evidence of PW 8, paragraph 15, 17 and 18, it is evident that there happens to be visibility of material contradiction in the evidence of injured eye-witnesses. 25. PW 4 is the mother of all the injured witnesses who had arrived at the place of occurrence after hearing the alarm and found her husband murdered as well as her sons were brutally assaulted. Though she had stated that when she rushed. 25. PW 4 is the mother of all the injured witnesses who had arrived at the place of occurrence after hearing the alarm and found her husband murdered as well as her sons were brutally assaulted. Though she had stated that when she rushed. she had seen the accused persons who were indulged in assaulting her husband out of whom she had named accused persons but the aforesaid version had itself been controverted in paragraph 3 of her examination-in-chief wherein she had stated that she had seen her husband lying dead. She had seen the injuries over the person of her husband as well as her sons. 26. Evidence of PW 7 suggest presence of following injuries over the person of injured (1) Surendra Prasad Verma : 1. Pain and swelling on left arm. 2. Lacerated injury on scalp skull above right ear 1" x 1, 3" x 1" x skin deep. 3. Pain and swelling on left arm. 4. Ecchymosis at back at three places 1" x 1", 3" x 1" and 4" x 1”. 5. Pain over left fore arm. All these injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance like lathi. Injury No. 1 is grievous and not one simple. Following injuries were found on the person of (2) Birendra Prasad Verma: 1. Echymosis on back of three places 4" x 1/2", 3" 1/2", 3" x 1/2". 2. Abrasion of the face of the nose 1/2" x 1/4". 3. Pain and Swelling on shoulder and elbow. 4. Echymosis over chest 6" x 2". 5. Ecnymosis on fact on upper part at three places 4" x 1/2", 3" x 1/2" and 3" x 1/2". All these injuries were caused by hard blunt substance such as lathi. Nature was simple. Age within 12 hours. (3) Mahendra Prasad Verma was examined and following injuries were found on his person : 1. Pain and tenderness of right fore arm and shoulder. The X-Ray shows fractures of right ulna. The injury was caused by hard blunt substance as by lathi. Age within 12 hours Nature was grievous. None of the injuries have been found or diagnosed by PW 7 to be such in nature which could have forced all the injured to rush to Sasaram to save their lives. The X-Ray shows fractures of right ulna. The injury was caused by hard blunt substance as by lathi. Age within 12 hours Nature was grievous. None of the injuries have been found or diagnosed by PW 7 to be such in nature which could have forced all the injured to rush to Sasaram to save their lives. Save and except injury No. 1 of Surendra Prasad Verma, though authenticity remains in mist on account of fracture of right forearm, has been shown grievous in nature. All other injuries over his person as well as over the person of remaining two injured Birendra Kumar Verma and Mahendra Prasad Verma happens to be superficial in nature which in the opinion of the doctor could be manufactured even during friendship hands. 27. The aforesaid event is found suspicious in the background of the disclosure by the prosecution itself that the maternal uncle of the so called injured witnesses happens to be the doctor at Sasaram itself. 28. After giving our anxious look to the materials available on the record, it is apparent that the prosecution case is full of improbabilities infirmities on account of which it has not been able to place its case with clean hands. Each and every step taken by the prosecution shrouds in mist whereupon we are not at all convinced with the findings recorded by the trial Court. Consequent thereupon the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The appellants are on bail hence are discharged form the liabilities of their bail bonds. Appeal allowed.