JUDGMENT 1. Having allegedly murdered, Bahadur Singh, having been convicted for offence under section 302/34 IPC, and having been sentenced to life imprisonment, and imposed with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and further directed to undergo simple imprisonment of six months in default thereof, by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Sikar, Camp Neem Ka Thanau, judgment dated 20.5.2004, the appellant, Rohitash Singh, has approached this court. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 13.9.2003 at 10.15 P.M., Police Station Ajeetgarh received an information through wireless that a dead body of a man is lying in a farm in village Bhojmed. Immediately, the police went to the village. There, at 11.45 P.M., the complainant, Jai Singh (P.W. 17) gave a written report (Ex.P.25) to the SHO, Police Station Ajeetgarh. In the report, he claimed that Bahadur Singh is his nephew who used to run a Kirana (grocery store in their village. On 13.9.2003, around 11.00-12.00 O'clock in the morning Bahadur Singh had gone to the farm of Shankar Balai in order to answer the call of nature. At that time, the complainant was looking after his buffaloes in his farm. Around 5.00 RM Moti Singh, a child from the village, came and informed him that Bahadur Singh's body is lying in the field belonging to Shankar Balai. Immediately he, his sister-in law, Ladi, Bahadur's mother, Kesa' Kanwar, and his other sister-in-law, went to the farm of Shankar Balai. There amongst the Bajara crop, they found the dead body of Bahadur Singh. His body had many injuries upon it. The Bajara crop and the grass were crushed around the place where the body was discovered. According to him, some unknown persons had killed Bahadur Singh after assaulting him In the western direction of the dead body, Bahadur Singh's pants, water pot (Lota) and shoes (Jooti) were lying. His excretion was also there. He further claimed that he and his nephew are having animosity with Ram Kumar Singh and his sons, Prakash Singh, Rohitash Singh, Gopal Singh, and ons Bhagwan Singh. He suspects that either these persons have killed Bahadu' Singh, or they have gotten Bahadur Singh killed by someone else According to him, this incident has occurred at a place called "Sanwalpura Tanwaranki" where the farm is situated. The report was sent to the police station. He suspects that either these persons have killed Bahadu' Singh, or they have gotten Bahadur Singh killed by someone else According to him, this incident has occurred at a place called "Sanwalpura Tanwaranki" where the farm is situated. The report was sent to the police station. On the basis of the said report, a formal FIR (Ex.P.26), namely FIR No. 142/03 for offence under section 302 IPC, was chalked out and the investigation began. 3. The police arrested two persons, namely Rohitash Singh (the appellant before this court) and Tej Singh. Since both of them were adult, the, were tried by the trial court. The police also arrested Gopal Singh and Rar Singh. Since they were juvenile delinquents, their case was referred to the Principal Juvenile Justice Board. After the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against Rohitash Singh and Tej Singh before the Additional Chie Judicial Magistrate, Neem-Ka-Thana. The case was committed to the Additional Sessions Court, Neem-Ka-Thana. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty witnesses: and submitted thirty-eight documents. In turn, the defence examined a single witness and submitted ten documents. After going through the oral and the: documentary evidence, by judgment dated 20.5.2004, the learned Judge convicted both Rohitash and Tej Singh for offence under Section 302 IPC an sentenced the appellant, as aforementioned. This court is informed that Ti Singh did not file any appeal against the said judgment; subsequently, In expired in the prison. 5. Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav the learned counsel for the appellant, has raise i the following contentions before this court: firstly, the appellant has been falsely implicated because of the animosity that existed between the complainant's family and the appellant's family. 6. Secondly, this is a case of blind murder. Bahadur Singh's body was discovered in the evening, but the assailants were unknown. In order to falsely implicate the appellant, the complainant and the police have created three eye-witnesses, namely Ram Singh (RW. 3), Babu Singh (RW. 10) and Mohan Singh (P.W. 16). The falsity of the case would be made obvious. 7. Thirdly, according to Jai Singh (RW. 17) and according to the FIR [lodged by him, at the time of lodging of the FIR he did not know the names of the assailants. However, Prem Singh (RW. 3), Babu Singh (RW. 10) and Mohan Singh (P.W. 16). The falsity of the case would be made obvious. 7. Thirdly, according to Jai Singh (RW. 17) and according to the FIR [lodged by him, at the time of lodging of the FIR he did not know the names of the assailants. However, Prem Singh (RW. 3) and Mohan Singh (P.W. 16) both claim that prior to lodging of the FIR, they had informed the complainant about the entire incident, including the names of the assailants. Yet surprisingly, neither the names of the assailants, nor the names of the eye-witnesses have been mentioned in the FIR. 8. Fourthly, the three eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution are planted witnesses. All three of them claim that they are related to Bahadur Singh; all three of them claim that they had seen the incident from a knoll (Doongari); all three of them claim that they had gone to look at Bahadur Singh; all three of them claim that he was still alive, yet none of them either reported the case to the police, or took any step to save Bahadur Singh. Thus, their conduct is highly unusual as they claimed to be relatives of Bahadur Singh. 9. Fifthly, all the three eye-witnesses are related to Bahadur Singh. Thus, I they are interested witnesses. Hence, their testimony should be accepted only I after due corroboration. But there is no corroboration in the present case. 10. Sixthly, according to the eye-witnesses, Bahadur Singh was assaulted by the appellant using a wooden stick and by another assailant using an iron rod (Saria). Yet, according to Dr. Shiv Dayal Raipuria (P.W. 4), the deceased had suffered punctured wounds. These wounds cannot be caused by a wooden stick, or by an iron rod. Thus, there is a contradiction between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. 11. Seventhly, Prem Singh (PW. 3) claims that he was the sole eye-witness of the incident. Yet Babu Singh (RW. 10) claims that he and Prem Singh had climbed the knoll, and had witnessed the incident together. On the other hand, Mohan Singh (P.W. 16) claims that when he had seen the incident from the knoll, there was no one around. Thus, there are contradictions in the testimonies of the alleged eye-witnesses. 12. Yet Babu Singh (RW. 10) claims that he and Prem Singh had climbed the knoll, and had witnessed the incident together. On the other hand, Mohan Singh (P.W. 16) claims that when he had seen the incident from the knoll, there was no one around. Thus, there are contradictions in the testimonies of the alleged eye-witnesses. 12. Eighthly, although according to the prosecution, a wooden stick was recovered from the appellant, but the said recovery has not been supported by the independent witnesses, namely Data Ram (P.W. 19) and Khuta Ram (RW. 20). Although according to the FSL Report, (a report submitted by the prosecution, but not exhibited during the trial), the wooden stick did have human blood, but as the police has planted three eye-witnesses, a distinct possibility does exist that the human blood was also placed by the police upon the wooden stick. 13. Ninthly, according to the prosecution, there are two different motives of the alleged murder. According to Kesar Kanwar (P.W. 8), one of appellant's brother had written a letter to Bahadur Singh's cousin sister, who happens to be the daughter of the complainant. Due to this letter, certain dispute had arisen between the families. Yet, on the other hand, according to Mamta (RW.6), the appellant's mother had done "something wrong" for which Bahadur Singh was angry with them. Therefore, an animosity had arisen between the families. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution has not been able to explain the real motive behind the murder. 14. Lastly, admittedly, an animosity does exist between the families for whatever reason. Therefore, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. 15. On the other hand, Mr. N.S. Dhakad, the learned Public Prosecutor, has made the following submissions: firstly, the FIR need not be encyclopedic in its scope. Therefore, even if the names of the assailants have not been mentioned in the FIR, it would not dilute the importance of the FIR, or the veracity of the prosecution case. Moreover, it is not essential to name the eye-witnesses in the FIR. The purpose of FIR is merely to initiate the criminal process. Therefore, absence of names of the assailants, or the names of the eye-witnesses in the FIR would not cast any doubt on the prosecution case. 16. Secondly, although the eye-witnesses are related to the deceased, their testimonies have ample corroboration from other evidence. The purpose of FIR is merely to initiate the criminal process. Therefore, absence of names of the assailants, or the names of the eye-witnesses in the FIR would not cast any doubt on the prosecution case. 16. Secondly, although the eye-witnesses are related to the deceased, their testimonies have ample corroboration from other evidence. Thus, their testimonies cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are interested witnesses. 17. Thirdly, some minor contradictions are bound to exist in the testimonies of the witnesses both due to lapse of time, and due to the fact that witnesses are Illiterate villagers. However, the minor contradictions, at times, are proof of the veracity of the statement. Thus, minor contradictions are not fatal to the prosecution. 18. Fourthly, according to the FSL Report, human blood did exist on the wooden stick recovered from the appellant. Therefore, the FSL Report does buttress the case of the prosecution that it is the appellant who, along with three other assailants, had killed Bahadur Singh. 19. Lastly, in a case of direct evidence, motive is irrelevant. Hence, even if the prosecution has failed to prove the motive behind the murder, it does not weaken the prosecution's case. Hence, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment. 20. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, examined the record, and perused the impugned judgment. 21. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that the FIR need not be encyclopedic in its scope. Since the purpose of a FIR is to initiate the criminal process, it merely needs to indicate the commission of a cognisable offence. Therefore, the non-mentioning of the names of the accused in the FIR is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution [Ref. to Mritunjay Biswas v. Pranab @ Kuti Biswas and Ano. (2013) 12 SCC 796 , and Ramesh v. State through Inspector of Police AIR 2014 SC 2852 ] , However, each case has to be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Therefore, although the appellant cannot ipso facto claim the benefit of the non-mention of his name in the FIR, but the issue is whether such an omission casts a shadow of doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case or not? 22. Armed with three eye-witnesses, the prosecution appears to have a strong case in its favour. Therefore, although the appellant cannot ipso facto claim the benefit of the non-mention of his name in the FIR, but the issue is whether such an omission casts a shadow of doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case or not? 22. Armed with three eye-witnesses, the prosecution appears to have a strong case in its favour. But a closer scrutiny of the evidence reveals chinks in the armour of the prosecution. 23. Interestingly, Jai Singh (P.W. 17) states in the FIR that he was informed about the death of Bahadur Singh at 5.00 O'clock in the evening by Moti Singh, a child from the village. Moreover, neither in the FIR, nor in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.RC. does he mention the names of the assailants. In both the FIR and his 161 Cr.RC. statement he clearly states that "unknown persons" have killed Bahadur Singh, although due to animosity between the appellant's family and his family he does suspect them to be either the assailants, or who have conspired to kill Bahadur Singh. Hence, in the very first statement given to the police, Jai Singh does not mention the names of the assailants. This omission in his 161 Cr.RC. statement was pointed out to this witness, but he denied having made this omission in his statement. 24. Curiously Prem Singh (RW. 3) and Mohan Singh (P.W. 16) claim that at 5.00 P.M. they had informed Jai Singh about the entire incident. If they had, indeed, informed Jai Singh about the incident, it is rather surprising that Jai Singh feigns ignorance and claims that Bahadur Singh has been killed by unknown persons. This anomaly clearly proves that till the filing of the FIR, Jai Singh had no clue about the identity of the culprits. Therefore, the statement of Prem Singh (RW. 3) and Mohan Singh (RW. 16) is not corroborated by the information given by Jai Singh in the FIR, or by his statement given under section 161 Cr.RC. This is one indication that Prem Singh (RW. 3), Babu Singh (RW. 10) and Mohan Singh (P.W. 16) are not genuine eye-witnesses. 25. The three eye-witnesses, Prem Singh (P.W. 3), Babu Singh (P.W. 10) and Mohan Singh (RW. 16) are the star witnesses of the prosecution case. Prem Singh (D.W. 3) claims to be Bahadur Singh's cousin brother; Babu Singh (RW. 3), Babu Singh (RW. 10) and Mohan Singh (P.W. 16) are not genuine eye-witnesses. 25. The three eye-witnesses, Prem Singh (P.W. 3), Babu Singh (P.W. 10) and Mohan Singh (RW. 16) are the star witnesses of the prosecution case. Prem Singh (D.W. 3) claims to be Bahadur Singh's cousin brother; Babu Singh (RW. 10) is Bahadur Singh's uncle; Mohan Singh (P.W. 16) also claims to be Bahadur Singh's uncle. Thus, all three of them are closely related to the deceased. 26. Prem Singh (RW. 3) claims that "on the fateful day, he along with Ranjeet Singh, Sualal, Sawai Singh and Bhagwana Ram were digging soil from the knoll. Around 11.00 A.M., he saw Rohitash, Tej Singh, Gopal and Ram Singh going behind the knoll. Tej Singh and Rohitash had wooden sticks in their hands. Suddenly he heard shouts from Shankar's field. He claims that he came out of the mine and climbed on the top of the knoll. From there he saw that Tej Singh, Rohitash, Gopal and Ram Singh were assaulting Bahadur Singh." According to him, "he was the only person who had climbed the knoll as no one else had come out of the mine to see what was happening". Further, according to him, "Tej Singh and Ram Singh had caught hold of Bahadur Singh, and Rohitash and Gopal were assaulting him". 27. In the cross-examination he admits that "besides him, 40-50 other persons were also working in the mines". He further admits that "near about the fields of Shankar, there are the houses of people belonging to Babaria community". He further claims that "having heard the shouts, no one else came to the scene of crime". He further admits that "having seen the incident, he did not tell anyone in the mine about it". He further claims that "at 11.30 A.M., he had gone to his village and told Jai Singh about the incident. Jai Singh immediately went to the police station". He further claims that "near the place of incident, there is a public school". 28. Babu Singh (P.W. 10), on the other hand, claims that he and Prem Singh both were working together; both had seen the incident from the knoll. According to him, only Gopal had caught hold of Bahadur Singh and other three were assaulting him. According to him, both Prem Singh and he went and told the incident to Bahadur Singh's mother. Babu Singh (P.W. 10), on the other hand, claims that he and Prem Singh both were working together; both had seen the incident from the knoll. According to him, only Gopal had caught hold of Bahadur Singh and other three were assaulting him. According to him, both Prem Singh and he went and told the incident to Bahadur Singh's mother. According to him, "when he and Prem Singh reached near Bahadur Singh, he was still alive and was shaking in pain. It is only after they had left the place of incident that he died". 29. In the cross-examination "he admits that he is Bahadur Singh's uncle (Phoopha)". He further admits that "prior to the incident, he did not know any of the accused persons". He further claimed that "he had told the police that when he and Prem Singh went near Bahadur Singh, he was still alive and was writhing in pain". He further claimed that "he had arrived around 5.00-6.00 PM. and had told the police about the incident on that very day". 30. Likewise, Mohan Singh (PW. 16) in his examination-in- chief deposed that "he had gone to the mines looking for the contractor, Mool Singh, but he could not find him. Instead, he met Prem Singh and Babu Singh. They heard shouts from the field of Shankar Balai. He climbed on the knoll. He saw Tej Singh, Gopal Singh, Ram Singh and one Bhagwan Sahai and one more person killing Bahadur Singh. According to him, Gopal had caught hold of Bahadur Singh, while others were assaulting him. He claims that thereafter he went to inform Bahadur Singh's mother about the incident". According to him, "by the time Prem Singh, Babu Singh and he himself had gone to look at Bahadur Singh, Bahadur Singh had died". In the cross- examination he admits that "Prem Singh, Babu Singh and he are related to Bahadur Singh. He further admits that "next to the fields of Shankar, there are houses of persons belonging to Babaria community. About 50-60 people live there". He admits that "although Prem Singh, Babu Singh and himself witnessed the incident, but they did not rush to Bahadur Singh's rescue". He further claimed that around 12.30 PM. "they had reached the place where Bahadur Singh was lying". He further claims that "Jai Singh was also with them at that time". About 50-60 people live there". He admits that "although Prem Singh, Babu Singh and himself witnessed the incident, but they did not rush to Bahadur Singh's rescue". He further claimed that around 12.30 PM. "they had reached the place where Bahadur Singh was lying". He further claims that "Jai Singh was also with them at that time". Lastly, he claims that "by the time police came, he had gone to his house". 31. A bare perusal of their testimonies clearly reveals that their depositions suffer from glaring contradiction. While Prem Singh (P.W. 3) claims to be the sole eye- witness, Babu Singh (PW. 10) claims that both Prem Singh and he witnessed the incident; Mohan Singh (.W. 16), on the other hand, claims that all three of them together witnessed the incident. They also contradict each other about who held Bahadur Singh and who assaulted him. 32. Most importantly, although Prem Singh was related to Bahadur Singh, yet he claims that despite seeing the incident, he did not tell any of the co-workers and the police about the incident. Moreover, according to Babu Singh (.W. 10), Bahadur Singh was still alive when they reached near him. Yet none of these three witnesses took any step to rush Bahadur Singh to the nearest medical facilities. According to Babu Singh (RW. 10), Bahadur Singh was trembling with pain, yet Babu Singh left him dying at the place. Thus, their conduct is against normal human conduct. Therefore, these witnesses are not genuine witnesses, but are fabricated ones. 33. Of course, the testimonies of interest witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground that they are related witnesses. But the court has to look for corroboration in order to ensure that the witnesses are genuine ones. According to Dr. Shiv Dayal Raipurai (P.W. 4), on 14.9.2003, he carried out the post-mortem of Bahadur Singh in the fields itself. According to him, Bahadur Singh had suffered multiple injuries all over his body. 34. According to the post-mortem report (Ex.P.9), Bahadur Singh had suffered following injuries:- "Well built and well nourished amputated (old) left hand cut above left elbow joint. Post mortem rigor mortis and post mortem lividity and dependent parts body hips, both shoulders and back are present. Dead body lying in superimposition wearing underwear and shirt, baniyan. Bleeding coming out (sic.) from left eye and left nose (sic.). Abrasion 3x2 cm. Post mortem rigor mortis and post mortem lividity and dependent parts body hips, both shoulders and back are present. Dead body lying in superimposition wearing underwear and shirt, baniyan. Bleeding coming out (sic.) from left eye and left nose (sic.). Abrasion 3x2 cm. over zygomatic arch, lateral to left eye. Multiple injury over left foot and leg, hole (?). 2x2 cm. over tibia fibula upto muscle deep. Abrasion 6x4 cm. over posterior and lateral left leg. Bruise 4x4 cm. at lateral side of left leg. Bruise 6x4 cm. at anterior side of left leg joint at left thigh. Bruise 10x4 cm. over antolateral and one is vertilateral side injury over left leg. Abrasion 8x3 cm. over right leg and right thigh. Multiple abrasions over right thigh and right leg over buttock both. Bruise with abrasion 10x3 cm. over left buttock and 8x3 cm. vertical over left buttock. Bruise and abrasion at right buttock 12x3 cm. Abrasion with bruise over back horizontal 10x3 cm. vertical at right side of back. Bruise over right scapular region. Right hand is full swollen and a hole just above elbow joint upto bone 2x2 cm. abrasion and bruise over right hand is also present." 35. The cause of death was shock due to multiple injuries. The injury he had suffered on his left zygotic arch (kanpati) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. According to him, the post-mortem report is Exhibit-P9. 36. In his cross-examination, he admits that these injuries could not have been caused either by a wooden stick, or with an iron rod as some of these injuries were puncture wounds. According to him, the puncture wounds were caused with a pointed weapon, such as screw driver, or any other pointed object. But they are not caused by a wooden stick. Thus, the medical evidence contradicts the statement of the alleged eye-witnesses that Bahadur Singh was assaulted with a wooden stick, or with an iron rod. Therefore, the testimonies of these interested witnesses is not corroborated by the medical evidence. Thus, the three eye-witnesses are unreliable witnesses. 37. The investigation in this case is rather curious. Despite the fact that Babu Singh (RW. 10) admits in his cross-examination that he had never seen the assailants prior to the alleged incident, yet the police has not bothered to hold a test identification parade of the accused persons. Thus, the three eye-witnesses are unreliable witnesses. 37. The investigation in this case is rather curious. Despite the fact that Babu Singh (RW. 10) admits in his cross-examination that he had never seen the assailants prior to the alleged incident, yet the police has not bothered to hold a test identification parade of the accused persons. Although much has been made about the fact that according to Sanjay Sharma (RW. 15), Investigating Officer, a wooden stick was recovered at the instance of the appellant, but both the independent recovery witnesses, namely, Data Ram (RW. 19) and Khuta Ram (P.W. 20) have claimed that neither any wooden stick was recovered in front of them, nor any site-plan of the place of recovery was made before them. Thus, the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the alleged recovery of the wooden stick. Hence, the recovery cannot be believed. Furthermore, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that according to the FSL report, the wooden stick did contain human blood. However, considering the fact that police could go to the extent of planting three eye-witnesses, the possibility that the human blood was equally spread on the alleged recovered wooden stick, cannot be ruled out. 38. Considering the unreliability of the testimony of the three eye-witnesses, considering the lacuna in the investigation, considering the clear contradictions within the evidence produced by the prosecution, the prosecution has failed to prove its case to the hilt. 39. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is, hereby, allowed. The appellant Rohitash Singh S/o Ram Kumar Singh is, hereby, acquitted for offence under sections 302 read with section 34 IPC. It is, hereby, directed that Rohitash Singh shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other criminal case. 40. However, keeping in view the provisions of section 437-A Cr.P.C., the appellant, namely Rohitash Singh S/o Ram Kumar Singh is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only] and a surety bond in the like amount, before the trial Court. The bonds, so furnished, shall be effective for a period of six-months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Apex Court.Appeal Allowed. The bonds, so furnished, shall be effective for a period of six-months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Apex Court.Appeal Allowed. *******