JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Sri Shailendra Nath Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant and Sri Vishal Kumar Sharma holding brief of Sri H.N. Sharma, appearing for the respondents-accused. 2. This is an appeal preferred by the State of U.P.- appellant under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 10.11.1983 passed by Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar in Criminal Sessions Trial No. 135 of 1981, whereby respondents-accused namely Harish Chandra Gupta, Amar Singh and Phool Singh were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 3. Brief facts of the case are that First Information Report of the incident was lodged by Lal Singh (P.W.1) on 15.9.1980 at 3.30 p.m. at Police Station-Shikarpur, District-Buland Shahar, reporting that Harish Chandra resident of Poothri Khurd who had married to Maha Devi about 7-8 years back had assaulted her with Khurpa in the field where she had gone to cut maize crops. On hearing the alarm raised by her, the complainants, Bishamber, Sumera, Badlu reached the spot and saw Harish Chandra assaulting his wife Maha Devi with a khurpa. On being challenged by the complainant and the witnesses, Harish Chandra ran away with the weapon. The motive is said to be that Harish Chandra wanted his wife to reside with her parents as there were differences between them, whereas his wife Maha Devi wanted to live with her husband. In this regard, Panchayat was also held a number of times to settle their dispute, but it ultimately resulted in the aforesaid incident. 4. Check report (Ext. Ka-1) was prepared on the basis of report lodged by the complainant-Lal Singh. On that basis a case was registered in the General diary at serial No. 243 on 15.9.1980 as Case Crime No. 259 of 1981 under Section 307 IPC. The investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Vijai Singh Yadav who reached at the place of occurrence alongwith constable Chetan Prakash, Mahendra Pal and Virendra Singh. He found Maha Devi lying in an unconscious position, in the field whom he sent to the Shikarpur Hospital through constable Chetan Prakash and Mahendra Pal. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of alleged eye-witnesses Sumera and Bishamber, prepared the site plan and found the blood lying on the spot and collected blood-stained and plain earth. The same were sealed in two separate tins. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of alleged eye-witnesses Sumera and Bishamber, prepared the site plan and found the blood lying on the spot and collected blood-stained and plain earth. The same were sealed in two separate tins. From the place of occurrence, recovery of key ring and a pair of plastic chappel was also made. The injuries received by Maha Devi as per medical examination conducted by Dr. P.C. Agarwal, are thus: 1. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 through and through transversally on the right face up to right angle of the mouth, tail post (backward). 2. Incised wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle, 2 cm below No. 1. 3. Incised wound 8 cm x 2 cm x depth not probed, on right side neck, 1 cm below injury No. 2. 4. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x muscle on right side neck, 1 cm below injury No. 3. 5. Incised wound 5 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle on the left side neck 4 cm below lobule of left ear. 6. Incised wound 8 cm x 2 cm x muscle 3 cm below injury No. 5. 7. Incised wound 1 cm x .5 x muscle on the left upper lip. 8. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle, on the left side, nose bridge. 9. Incised wound 2 cm x 1/4 cm x skin, on the left cheek. 10. Incised wound 3 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle on the dorsum of left hand. 11. Incised wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle on the dorsumof ring finger. 12. Two incised wounds 1 1/2 cm x 1 x skin and 1 cm x 1/2 cm x skin, 4 cms apart from each other on the dorsal surface of right hand on right wrist. General condition was very very low, unconscious and in shock. Injuries kept under observation. Caused by sharp edged weapon. Duration fresh. 5. Maha Devi succumbed to her injuries and as the accused Harish Chandra had run away, the Station Officer took the investigation himself on 26.9.1980 and he recorded the statement of Phool Singh. General condition was very very low, unconscious and in shock. Injuries kept under observation. Caused by sharp edged weapon. Duration fresh. 5. Maha Devi succumbed to her injuries and as the accused Harish Chandra had run away, the Station Officer took the investigation himself on 26.9.1980 and he recorded the statement of Phool Singh. S.I. Lakshmendra Kumar prepared the inquest report, sketch of the dead body, challan report and papers for conducting the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased and the same was sent alongwith relevant papers through constable Kali Ram and Sammiullah Khan in sealed condition to the mortuary. S.I. Ishwar Chand then was entrusted the investigation of the case on 9.11.1980 who recorded the statements of informant Lal Singh, Suresh, Bishamber and Om Prakash. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused on 19.12.1980. 6. The prosecution in support of its’ case examined PW-1, Lal Singh, P.W.-2, Sumeri, P.W.-3, Om Prakash, P.W.-4, Dr. M.P. Agarwal, P.W.-5, Dr. P.C. Agarwal, P.W.-6, Bishamber, P.W.-7, constable Pali Ram, P.W.-8, Head Constable Lalta Prasad, P.W.-9, S.I. Lakshmendra Prakash, P.W.-10, S.I. Ishwar Chand and P.W.-11, S.I. Vijai Singh Yadav. Out of the aforesaid 11 witnesses, P.W. 1, 2, 3 and 6 were alleged eye-witnesses of occurrence whereas P.W. 4 and 5 were doctors Sri M.P. Agarwal and Sri P.C. Agarwal who had conducted the post-mortem of Maha Devi and attended to her injuries respectively. P.W. 7, Kali Ram was the carrier of the body of the deceased Maha Devi, whereas P.W.9 had prepared the inquest report and other connected papers. P.W. 10 and 11 were S.Is. who conducted the investigation. Charge was framed by the Sessions Judge against the accused on 21.7.1981. 7. The accused persons in their statements under Section 313 denied the charges and pleaded not guilty alleging their false implication in the case. The matter was committed to Court of sessions where it was registered as S. T. No. 135 of 1981. who conducted the investigation. Charge was framed by the Sessions Judge against the accused on 21.7.1981. 7. The accused persons in their statements under Section 313 denied the charges and pleaded not guilty alleging their false implication in the case. The matter was committed to Court of sessions where it was registered as S. T. No. 135 of 1981. It was stated by accused Harish Chandra that he had been married to Maha Devi, but denied the alleged strained relation with her and that he was at Delhi at the time of occurrence, whereas accused Amar Singh real brother of the accused who was also alleged to be one of the accused persons also denied his presence at the spot and stated that he used to reside with his in-laws at the time of occurrence and has been falsely implicated. Accused Phool Singh stated that he was a witness against P.W. Bishamber, whereas P.W. Sumeri had been given a beating by him for cutting his maize. P.W. Om Prakash was said to be a partisan witness of P.W. Bishamber. Accused Harish Chandra also filed a copy of plaint of suit No. 279 of 1979 and certified copy of order sheet in support of his case. 8. In their statements before the Court, Dr. P.C. Agarwal, P.W. 5, who had medically examined the injured at 8.00 p.m. on 15.9.1980 stated that Maha Devi (since deceased) had received injuries as detailed above. He found the general condition of the injured very very low. He stated that Maha Devi was brought to him in an injured and unconscious state and the injuries caused to her were fresh and by a sharp edged weapon. 9. Dr. M.P. Agarwal, P.W. 4 who had conducted the autopsy of the deceased at 4.30 p.m. on 18.9.1980 found the following ante-mortem injuries on the cadaver of the deceased : 1. Incised wound 3.1 cm x scalp left side head front of parietal region 12 cm above left ear. 2. Traumatic swelling left side head 6 cm above left ear. 3. Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle back of right wrist 4. Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle back of right hand. 5. Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm back of elbow. 6. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle left hand back. 7. 3. Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle back of right wrist 4. Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle back of right hand. 5. Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm back of elbow. 6. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle left hand back. 7. Incised wound right side face extending horizontally from right angle of mouth 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle. 8. Incised wound right side neck 6 cm x 2 cm x muscle just below right ramus of mandible. 9. Two incised wounds each 5 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle right side neck just below injury No. 8, both incised wounds at gap of 0.5 cm. 10. Incised wound left side upper lip 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle 11. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle extending from left side nose to medial canthus of left eye. 12. Incised wound left side neck 8 cm. x 2 cm x muscle just below left mandible. 13. Incised wound left side neck just below injury No. 12, 6 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle. 10. The post-mortem report shows that in the opinion of the doctor death was caused as a result of the injuries sustained by the deceased on vital organ, brain. 11. The story of prosecution appears to be that the aforesaid accused persons committed the murder of Maha Devi at about 1.00 p.m. in the jungle of Village-Poothri Khurd, within the jurisdiction of Police Station-Shikarpur, District-Bulandshahar. The first information report regarding said incident was lodged by Lal Singh, P.W.1 on 15.9.1980 at about 3.30 p.m. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that; there is no delay in lodging of the FIR; that the version given by the prosecution witnesses is supported by the medical evidence on record; that there is no enmity with the witnesses; that non showing of the cut meize crop in the site plan will not go to disprove the case for the prosecution which has been amply supported by the prosecution, but has not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned in this appeal. 13. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and the evidence on record, the trial Court by the impugned judgment dated 10.11.1983 decided the question as to whether Maha Devi was done away with by all or any of the accused persons said to be present at the time on the place of occurrence and in the manner as suggested by the prosecution. The Court recorded findings that the motive of strained relation between Harish Chandra and his wife suggested by the prosecution with regard to which panchayat is said to have been held in the village a number of time was not proved as Maha Devi is said to have no complaint with her husband Harish Chandra. Therefore, disbelieving the statement of P.W.3, Om Prakash viz. a viz. admission of Maha Devi, the trial Court held him to be unreliable witness and further that accused Harish Chandra therefore had no motive for committing the murder of his wife. The Court below also disbelieved the statement of remaining two accused witnesses on the ground that nothing was brought on record to establish that he had any motive to take any opportunity of committing murder. 14. It is evident from perusal of the first information report and the statement of informant that in addition to the complainant Lal Singh, only three persons of the village, namely, Bishamber son of Chheda Lal, Sumera son of Tunda Dhimar and Badlu son of Barta Jatava, were named as eye-witnesses of occurrence. In the trial, the prosecution examined Lal Singh as well as Bishamber P.W. 6 and found that two other witnesses namely Sumeri son of Bahadur and Om Prakas son of Khan Chand, were not named in the FIR. Sumer son of Tunda and Badlu son of Bharta named in the FIR, remained conspicuous by their absence in the witness box to support the prosecution case. The Court after examining the testimony of witnesses also found that the Investigating Officer never recorded the statement of P.W.2, Sumeri who had named Harish Chandra and his brother Amar Singh as the assailants of Smt. Maha Devi regarding the manner of assault in the occurrence but no role was assigned to Phool Singh. The Court after examining the testimony of witnesses also found that the Investigating Officer never recorded the statement of P.W.2, Sumeri who had named Harish Chandra and his brother Amar Singh as the assailants of Smt. Maha Devi regarding the manner of assault in the occurrence but no role was assigned to Phool Singh. The Court also found that P.W. 3, Om Prakash admitted that he had filed affidavit mentioning therein that he had seen accused Harish Chandra, Phool Singh and Amar Singh assaulting the deceased Maha Devi which further created doubt as to whether the Investigating Officer had ever recorded the statement of P.W.3, Om Prakash under Section 161 Cr.P.C. because according to this witness, he was interrogated 2-3 days after the occurrence. 15. As regards the testimony of complainant Lal Singh is concerned, the Court observed that he clearly stated in his cross-examination that P.W. Bishamber reached the spot after the departure of the accused and according to him, the Investigating Officer also had not reached the village in his presence. On the other hand, statement of Investigating Officer shows that he had recorded the statement of Lal Singh soon after reaching the spot on the day of occurrence at about 5.00 P.M and he had also recorded the statement of P.W. Bishamber on the same day at 7.00 p.m. 16. Thus on face of material on record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Court of session or its conclusion that testimony of P.W. 6, Bishamber is not worthy of reliance, is not possible. Furthermore, according to the informant, he had reached the spot after the accused had departed from the place of occurrence. Therefore, he could not have any opportunity to see the assailants committing the murder of Maha Devi on the spot, particularly in view of the fact that in his statement he had stated that he had only seen Harish Chandra assaulting Maha Devi with Khurpa. 17. In the circumstances, the Court below while acquitting the accused Harish Chandra, Amar Singh and Phool Singh of the charges levelled against them under Section 320/34 IPC by judgment and order dated 10.11.1983 has observed that the investigation conducted has not been above board. 17. In the circumstances, the Court below while acquitting the accused Harish Chandra, Amar Singh and Phool Singh of the charges levelled against them under Section 320/34 IPC by judgment and order dated 10.11.1983 has observed that the investigation conducted has not been above board. The finding recorded by the Court below for acquitting the aforesaid accused persons is as under: “Accused Harish Chandra, Amar Singh and Phool Singh are found not guilty and are acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The accused persons are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.” 18. It is culled out from record of this appeal and prosecution case that the appellant has failed to prove beyond doubt that the accused persons were ever present at the place of occurrence. There is no evidence that Phool Singh and other unknown persons who were standing in their field at the time of occurrence have participated in the offence of committing murder of Maha Devi (since deceased). 19. For all the reasons stated above, we agree with the view taken by the Court below regarding acquittal of accused persons as there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned in this appeal. We, therefore, concur with the finding of the Court below and uphold the judgment impugned in this appeal. 20. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.