udgment B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. By this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused appellant Vasanta questions his conviction vide judgment dated 17.06.2011 in Sessions Trial No. 127 of 2008 by Additional Sessions Judge Achalpur under Section 302 read with Section 506 of Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine Rs. 3000/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for six months. For offence under Section 506 rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.1000/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment of three months has been imposed. 2. Briefly stated prosecution alleges that Vasanta has murdered one Kishori Uike on 07.05.2008 at village Karajgaon. Said Kishori with his wife Ramuti Uike and her son Dinesh were present in their house. Kishori had consumed liquor and was sleeping on cot. At about 5 p.m. accused Vasanta pulled Kishori from cot and beat him severely with crowbar. Ramuti and her son tried to resist but Vasanta threatened them. Listening hue and cry some passers by gave call from out side and accused Vasanta ran away. He returned after about 1½ hours to 2 hours i. e. at about 7 p. m., pulled Kishori out of house and started beating him by means of a crowbar and stick. When Ramuti interfered she was also beaten by means of fists blows and kicks. Kishori sustained fractures and bleeding injuries. Vasanta then dragged Kishori back into the house and pushed him below the cot and went away. Entire night Kishori was in pain but Ramuti-handicapped lady and her minor son Dinesh under threats delivered by Vasanta, could not intimate the incident to any body. In the morning Ramuti noticed that Kishori was dead and she sent her son Dinesh to call elder brother Jaisingh of deceased Kishori. Jaisingh came and found Kishori lying on cot with severe injuries on his person and dead. Jaisingh lodged report with Police Station Shirajgaon. Investigation commenced, spot panchanama, inquest etc. was drawn, body was sent to postmortem. Multiple trauma caused due to heavy blood loss was found to be the reason for death. Accused Vasanta was then arrested. At his behest and in presence of Panch as crowbar concealed by him at the house of deceased was produced and seized. Blood stained clothes of accused Vasanta were also seized. was drawn, body was sent to postmortem. Multiple trauma caused due to heavy blood loss was found to be the reason for death. Accused Vasanta was then arrested. At his behest and in presence of Panch as crowbar concealed by him at the house of deceased was produced and seized. Blood stained clothes of accused Vasanta were also seized. Blood samples were also collected and articles were sent to Chemical Analyser for analysis. Police found that 7 to 8 days prior to occurrence of this incident, there was quarrel between deceased and accused. Deceased had caused head injury to Vasanta and Vasanta had then given threats to deceased. Accused no. 2 Sunita had illicit relations with accused Vasanta which was not liked by deceased and there was even allegations of Sunita participating with accused Vasanta in causing hurt to deceased. 3. Police then recorded statements of Ramuti, her son Dinesh, neighbour Sushila under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code before Judicial Magistrate First Class Chandur Bazar. Other statements were also recorded. Charge sheet was then filed against Vasanta and Sunita in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Chandur Bazar who committed the matter for trial. The defence of accused No.1 and 2 was of false implication by Ramuti at the instance of one Ashok Nachane who was on enemical terms with Vasanta. By impugned judgment, Additional Sessions Judge Achalpur has acquitted accused no.2 Sunita and punished Vasanta under Section 235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code under Section 302 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. 4. We have heard Ms. Bhatia (appointed) counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Fulzele for respondent. 5. Ms. Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant points out that distance between Karajgaon and police station at Shirajgaon is about 90 kms. She submits that as per Jaisingh, even by motorcycle time of about one hour is required to reach Shirajgaon. P.W. 3 Jaisingh came to know of death in the morning on 08.05.2008 and then proceeded to Shirajgaon. Hence First Information Report could not have been registered at 7.20 a. m. on 08.05.2008. He brought police to the spot, police completed some formalities and he again went back with police. Thus F.I.R. could have been registered only after he went back. She contends that this shows that prosecution has falsely implicated Vasanta in the crime. Report at Ex. 38, therefore is a fabricated document. He brought police to the spot, police completed some formalities and he again went back with police. Thus F.I.R. could have been registered only after he went back. She contends that this shows that prosecution has falsely implicated Vasanta in the crime. Report at Ex. 38, therefore is a fabricated document. In the light of defence taken under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code by appellant, she adds that Ashok Nachane was with P. W. 3 at that time. She also invites attention to evidence of P.W. 4 Dinesh who is claimed to be eye witness to point out various material omissions in his evidence. She contends that Dinesh had in the morning of 08.05.2008 told Jaisingh that he was not aware how Kishori expired and still in his statement recorded long after the alleged incidence, Dinesh had tried to support his mother Ramuti by explaining how accused Vasanta entered their house and beat deceased Kishori. The learned counsel has also read over to Court evidence of P. W.1 Ramuti another eye witness to show how her entire evidence is untrustworthy and unnatural. She contends that appreciation of evidence of Ramuti and Dinesh by learned trial Court is not in accordance with law. She points out that Ramuti is doing business of selling liquor at Chandur Bazar and in Court several cases under Prohibition Act are pending against her. She contends that Ramuti did not inform attack on her husband to anybody after Vasanta left the house though Kishori was bleeding and did not arrange for any medical treatment or attention. She submits that though houses of neighbours are at some distance, if Kishori was in pain and was bleeding, either P. W.1 or P.W. 3 could have gone to neighbours and sought help to save life of Kishori. 6. She submits that attack by using crowbar or stick is an omission and alleged crowbar or stick has not been shown to eye witnesses and their identity has not been established. The panch witness on recovery have turned hostile and report of Chemical Analyser on blood stains, on weapons and on full pant of accused is inconclusive. 7. Our attention is also drawn to postmortem report to show that deceased could have survived had he received medical attention within time. The judgments reported in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. The panch witness on recovery have turned hostile and report of Chemical Analyser on blood stains, on weapons and on full pant of accused is inconclusive. 7. Our attention is also drawn to postmortem report to show that deceased could have survived had he received medical attention within time. The judgments reported in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Subair @ Mohammad Subair and Others AIR 2009 SC 1189 : [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1544 (S.C.)] and State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Singh (2009) II Supreme Court Cases 106 are relied upon to demonstrate how conduct of such witnesses needs to be appreciated. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor in his reply argument has drawn support from judgment of trial Court. He contends that Ramuti is handicapped lady who was very weak and invites attention to her demeanour recorded by trial Court. He submits that lady was not in a position to depose while narrating the incidence. He further contends that in this situation there is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of P. W. 1 Ramuti and P. W. 4 Dinesh. He therefore prays for dismissal of appeal. 9. Fact that witnesses on recovery of alleged weapons have turned hostile is not in dispute. In fact, the trial Court itself in paragraph 33 of its judgment has held that in view of Chemical Analyser's Report Exs. 73 and 74 nexus of crowbar (Sabbal) or wooden log (Neem tree stick) with accused no.1 has not been established. It has also taken note of the fact that neither P.W.1 nor P.W. 4 were called upon to identify these weapons. However, trial Court finds that P.W. 13 Doctor Gavai has opined that said weapons or weapons like those Article' A' and wooden log could have been used to cause injuries as suffered by deceased. 10. Perusal of evidence of P.W. 1 Ramuti shows in cross examination the statement that date on which her husband died police had come to her house and inspected everything. Police enquired from her as to what happened but she did not disclose anything. She volunteered that she was under threat and fear at that juncture. She has further stated that her husband did not have any injuries when he returned home after completing his work of digging well. Police enquired from her as to what happened but she did not disclose anything. She volunteered that she was under threat and fear at that juncture. She has further stated that her husband did not have any injuries when he returned home after completing his work of digging well. She stated that earlier altercation which took place 8 days prior to 07.05.2008 was informed by her to police authorities but she could not explain why it was not finding mention in her statement before the Magistrate. She further could not explain why attack by using crowbar by Vasanta on her husband did not figure in her police statement. She also could not explain why fact that stick used was of Neem tree did not figure in her statement. She accepted that on the date of incident till 10 to 11 O'clock in the night persons were passing on road. She also accepted that she did not send her son for seeking help of any person to take her husband to hospital. She denied presence of persons residing in surrounding area when her husband was beaten. She stated that she was called by police authorities twice for recording her statement along with her son Dinesh. Ashok Nachane was present on those occasions. She denied that Ashok Nachane was present at Chandur Bazar Court when her statement was recorded. 11. Her examination-in-chief shows that 8 days prior to 07.05.2008 accused Vasanta had threatened her husband with life but it seems to be an omission. On 07.05.2008 at 6 p.m." accused Vasanta came and at that time Kishori was sleeping on cot. Vasanta inflicted blow of crowbar. Two boys who were going by road came to her house and then Vasanta went away. He returned after half an hour with stick of Neem tree. He took Kishori out of house by dragging him and then inflicted blows of stick of Neem tree on Kishori. She asked Vasanta not to beat Kishori. Vasanta gave blows and then brought her husband back in home and kept him under the cot. Vasanta then left for his house. He asked Kishori not to tell anybody, or else he would not keep anybody in her family alive to light the lamp. She and her son Dinesh then went to sleep, when Kishori was breathing in agony. Nobody was with them for taking her husband to hospital. Vasanta then left for his house. He asked Kishori not to tell anybody, or else he would not keep anybody in her family alive to light the lamp. She and her son Dinesh then went to sleep, when Kishori was breathing in agony. Nobody was with them for taking her husband to hospital. In the morning she found her husband dead. Trial Court has recorded that witness was then suffering from fits and her further examination-in-chief was required to be adjourned for some time. Later recording shows that Public Prosecutor requested for adjournment as lady required treatment. Her examination-in-chief was then resumed on 15.10.2010. She stated that in morning she found her husband lying in a pool of blood. Dinesh her son had gone for calling Jaisingh and Jaisingh after visiting her house went to Police Station to lodge report. In cross examination she has stated that police came at about 10 O'clock and her statement was recorded at Karajgaon police chowki. One or two months after death of her husband she was taken to Court of Magistrate Chandur Bazar for recording her statement. Again Court had recorded that witness was not feeling well and was suffering from fits and hence cross examination was adjourned. Little later Court has recorded that as stated by Public Prosecutor witness was not in a position to give evidence. Public Prosecutor informed that witness was handicapped and very weak lady unable to give evidence on that day. Court finds that she could not walk nor could she sit on her own and she was always in stammering condition. Matter was again adjourned. Her further cross examination has been completed on 09.04.2010. We have already dealt with that cross examination above. 12. P.W. 3 Jaisingh is elder brother of deceased Kishori who recorded First Information Report. His knowledge of incidence is derived from Ramuti only. He has stated that when he reached, his brother was lying on ground and there were blood stains on his clothes. He was having injury on his hand and he could not see other injuries as body of Kishori was covered. His cross examination reveals that when he lodged report Ashok Nachane was with him. Jaisingh has stated that he was unable to speak in Marathi and he did not know any other language except Hindi. He did not know whether his report was informed to police authorities by Ashok. His cross examination reveals that when he lodged report Ashok Nachane was with him. Jaisingh has stated that he was unable to speak in Marathi and he did not know any other language except Hindi. He did not know whether his report was informed to police authorities by Ashok. He was unable to state who translated his report in Marathi for police authorities. He stated in cross examination that when he made enquiry from Dinesh when Dinesh had come to his house, Dinesh told him that he was not aware how Kishori expired. First Information Report Ex.39 shows that information was received by Police Station at 7.20 a. m. on 08.05.2008. 13. This brings us to deposition of child witness Dinesh. He was about 14 years when his evidence was recorded on 21.04.2010. It is not in dispute that police recorded his statement more than one month after the incidence. We have already noted evidence of Jaisingh that Dinesh had on 08.05.2008 told him in the morning that Dinesh was not aware as to how death of his father Kishori occurred. His evidence in chief is consistent with evidence of his mother. He also states in examination-in-chief that he did not tell anything to his uncle Jaisingh when he went to his residence. His cross examination shows that he could not explain why his police statement does not mention beating of Kishori by Vasanta by giving blows of Sabbal. He could not mention why fact of two persons going by road coming there and giving understanding to Vasanta did not find mention in his statement. He further stated that while giving statement to police and also to Magistrate, he has disclosed that Vasanta came back after 1 or 1½ hours. He could not explain why the said fact did not appear in his statement. Fact that stick used by Vasanta was of Neem tree did not figure in his statement before the Magistrate but he could not explain the omission. The fact that Vasanta give blows on hand and leg of his father does not find any mention before Magistrate but he could not explain the reason therefor. Further why fact that Vasanta gave beating to him did not appear in his statement to police or Magistrate could not be explained by him. Fact of Vasanta beating mother and omission in relation thereto also could not be explained by him. Further why fact that Vasanta gave beating to him did not appear in his statement to police or Magistrate could not be explained by him. Fact of Vasanta beating mother and omission in relation thereto also could not be explained by him. All these omissions are mentioned by trial Court in paragraph 32 of its judgment and thereafter in paragraph 34 of its judgment. 14. On record we also get deposition of P. W.14 Dr. Vijay Mohod who examined P.W.14 Ramuti on 08.05.2008. She was referred for examination by police station. Swelling on back near right scapula between scapula and spinal chord of size 2½ cm X 1½ cm vertical direction and swelling on back left side between left scapula and spinal chord of size 2 cm X 1½ cm was noted by him. He has stated that age of injuries was about 15-16 hours. However, it is apparent that Ramuti has not deposed before the Court about any such injury and appellant was not required to put any question to her in relation thereto. 15. Thus injuries noted by P. W. 13 Dr. Gavai who conducted postmortem examination on Kishori are as under: Injury No.1: contused lacerated wound 3 cm X 2 cm on left wrist. Injury No.2: Contused lacerated wound m3 cm X 2 Cm on left ankle. Injury No.3: Contused lacerated would 2 cm X 2 cm on right thigh. Injury No.4: Fracture on left Radio Ulna. Injury No.5: Fracture on left Tibia. Injury No.6: Fracture on right thigh (Femur). This witness in cross examination has stated that none of the injuries were on vital part of body and no major artery or blood vessel was cut. He has also opined that deceased would have survived had he been given treatment within time. 16. Material on record, therefore, shows some omissions which are vital in nature. Insofar as deposition of P.W.1 and P.W. 3 eye witnesses are concerned, except their evidence, prosecution could have collected an independent witness to connect the appellant with the crime. P. W. 1 herself is involved in selling illegal liquor and has got Court cases pending against her. It is therefore apparent that she can deal with police authorities and is aware of procedure also. P. W. 1 herself is involved in selling illegal liquor and has got Court cases pending against her. It is therefore apparent that she can deal with police authorities and is aware of procedure also. Merely because she is handicapped or cannot stand or sit of her own, the trial Court could not have labeled her as a weak lady Her conduct or conduct of her son aged about 13 years in allowing Kishori to lie in injured condition in house itself without any medial attention when he was bleeding & in pain, cannot be therefore accepted as natural or normal conduct. She did not give details to police though police was available and we find no justifiable reason for her to continue to be under any fear at least at that time. She also did not make clean brest of matter & avoided to explain injuries on her person. Entire material looked into by us above shows that evidence of Ramuti & Dinesh is not creditworthy and is insufficient to connect Vasanta with the crime. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Singh - (2009) II Supreme Court Cases 106 holds that omission on a vital point has to be regarded as a contradiction and it creates a serious doubt about the truthfulness of version of a witness. In State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Subair @ Mohammad Subair and Others AIR 2009 SC 1189 : [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1544 (S.C.)], some what similar conduct of witnesses was held un-natural and unbelievable, rendering their presence at the time of occurrence doubtful. 17. In this situation, we are not in a position to sustain his conviction either under Section 302 or 506 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly Criminal Appeal is allowed. Judgment dated 17.06.2011 in Sessions Trial No. 127 of 2008 delivered by Additiona1 Sessions Judge Achalpur, is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences as charged. Accused be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. The order as regards disposal of property stands. The fees of the learned counsel for the appellant are quantified at Rs. 5000/-. Appeal allowed.