Judgment : Mr. Jain, J. In D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 391/2006 accused-appellant Uda and in D.B.Cr. Appeal No.446/2006 accused-appellants Ratan Lal and Heera have challenged the veracity of judgment dated 22.3.2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 128/2005 by which the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Udaipur had convicted and sentenced all the three accused-appellants as follows: (1) Sec. 302, IPC : Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- and, in default of payment of fine, six months- additional rigorous imprisonment. (2) Sec. 450, IPC : five years- rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- and, in default of payment of fine, three months- additional rigorous imprisonment. (3) Sec. 323/34, : six months- simple imprisonment. IPC 2. The trial court has also ordered that all the substantive sentences of each of the accused-appellants shall run concurrently. 3. Since both the appeals are against one and the same judgment, so they are being decided here by a common judgment. 4. It has been argued on behalf of the accused-appellants that the judgment of the trial court is totally against the facts as well as against law. It has also been argued that PW-1 Smt. Pooni Bai is not a witness of sterling worth and she should not have been blindly relied upon by the trial court to convict the accused-appellants. It has also been argued that there was delayed examination of Smt. Pooni Bai under Section 161, Cr.P.C. causing doubt in the prosecution story because she has not named Heera and Uda as assailants of her husband Navala. It has also been argued that Uda was said to be having an axe at the time of the incident, though allegedly, a ' latth- was recovered from him. It has also been argued that there was no motive for Uda and Heera to cause death of Navala. Alleged recoveries from the appellants are not duly proved as per the the appellants but it has also been argued that blood stains on axe have not been proved to be of blood group of Navala. It has also been argued that there was no motive for Uda and Heera to cause death of Navala. Alleged recoveries from the appellants are not duly proved as per the the appellants but it has also been argued that blood stains on axe have not been proved to be of blood group of Navala. It has been argued that Navala and Smt. Pooni have received injuries but it is not proved that who had caused those injuries and in the circumstances, it has been prayed by all the accused-appellants that the judgment of the trial court should be quashed and they should be acquitted from all the charges for which they have been convicted. 5. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the trial court and the prosecution case is well proved against all the accused-appellants. It has also been argued that minior discrepancies and minor contradictions, if any found in the statements of the prosecution witnesses should be ignored to do the substantive justice in the matter. 6. In the light of the aforesaid arguments, we have perused the record and also perused the statements of the witnesses. The prosecution story starts with FIR Ex.P.1 which was lodged by PW-2 Lalu Ram. In this FIR, it was mentioned that accused-appellant Ratan Lal was not having good relations with his son Navala and he was determined not to give any share in his land to his son Navala. Because of this pre-occupation he was not happy with his son Navala because Navala was claiming share in his father- s land and because of this pre-occupation, he committed murder of his son Navala by using an axe (kulhari) for this purpose. This report was lodged at Village Amleta by Lalu Ram and on this report, Sangram Singh, ASI of Police Station, Falasiya, District Udaipur had chalked FIR No. 72/2005 in registers of FIR. In this FIR, Uda and Heera were not named in the list of assailants by Lalu Ram. 7. Lalu Ram (PW-2) has been declared hostile by the prosecution. He has denied his police statement Ex.P.5 which was recorded by the police on 28.6.2005 itself. It is pertinent to mention here that no one else than Ratan Lal was named as only assailant who had allegedly committed the murder of his son. 7. Lalu Ram (PW-2) has been declared hostile by the prosecution. He has denied his police statement Ex.P.5 which was recorded by the police on 28.6.2005 itself. It is pertinent to mention here that no one else than Ratan Lal was named as only assailant who had allegedly committed the murder of his son. No question has been asked to this witness by the Public Prosecutor that if Uda and Heera were also involved in the crime of murder then why he is abstraining from naming them also as assailants. Thus, the statement of Lalu Ram (PW-2) apparently creates doubt in the prosecution story regarding involvement of Uda and Heera in the alleged crime of murder. 8. Sangram Singh, ASI has been examined as PW-8 in the case. He states that at Police station, Falasiya, he had received information that a murder has been committed at village Amleta. He further states that he rushed the spot immediately along with his subordinate police employees. He says that on the spot in village Amleta, Lalu Ram had given the oral information which was recorded as Ex.P. 1. He narrates formalities done by him during investigation but not a single question has been asked to him that if Uda and Heera were also involved in the crime of murder, then why he did not ask Smt. Pooni or Lalu Ram about this fact. Thus, it can be said that Sangram Singh also leaves a doubt in the prosecution story regarding involvement of Uda and Heera in the crime of murder. 9. Then comes the statement of P.W-1 Smt. Pooni w/o Navala (since deceased). She was examined in the court on 19.10.2005 and her police statement Ex.D.1 was recorded on 30.6.2005. It is surprising to note that murder was allegedly committed on 28.6.2005 in presence of Smt. Pooni but her statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer on the very same day and she has been examined after about two days, though she was found present by the Investigating Officer on the day of murder in the village Amleta itself. In this intervening period, certainly Smt. Pooni was tutored to implicate other persons in the incident, though in the first information, it was only Ratan Lal who was named as a killer of her husband. In this intervening period, certainly Smt. Pooni was tutored to implicate other persons in the incident, though in the first information, it was only Ratan Lal who was named as a killer of her husband. In her police statement, Smt. Pooni has implicated her ' nandoi- Heera and ' Phuphi-sasur- Uda also in the alleged crime of murder. It has been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that delay of forty-eight hours in examination of Smt. Pooni under Section 161, Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer could not be taken seriously by the court in this case but we cannot ignore the judgment of the Hon- ble Apex Court in Ranbir & Ors. v. State of Punjab, 1973(2) SCC 444 : ( AIR 1973 SC 1409 ), wherein it was observed that ' the question of delay in examining a witness during investigation is material only if it is indicative and suggestive of some unfair practice by the investigating agency for the purpose of introducing a got-up witness to falsely support the prosecution case, though, it is essential that the Investigating Officer should be asked specifically about the delay and the reasons thereof.' 10. In the case in hand, we have gone through the statements of Sangram Singh, ASI as well as of Lalu Ram and we find that both these witnesses have not given any explanation of the fact that when soon after the alleged murder, Smt. Pooni was available on the spot of murder in the village and the police had also reached the village in the early morning before sunrise then why she was not interrogated quickly. In this case, it is also pertinent to mention here that no motive has been alleged against accused-appellants Uda and Heera and in the circumstances of the case, it can safely be said that Uda and Heera were falsely implicated by Smt. Pooni in the alleged murder of her husband perhaps because of some ulterior motive on the part of Smt. Pooni. 11. Now, we will have to examine the statement of PW-1 Smt. Pooni. She states that in the sad night when she lost her husband, it were Ratan Lal, Heera, Uda and Jeeva who had committed murder of her husband Navala. 11. Now, we will have to examine the statement of PW-1 Smt. Pooni. She states that in the sad night when she lost her husband, it were Ratan Lal, Heera, Uda and Jeeva who had committed murder of her husband Navala. She states that in the midnight, she was sleeping with her son on one cot and her husband was sleeping nearby on another cot and then Ratan Lal, Uda, Heera and Jeeva, all the four persons trespassed her house, Ratan Lal and Uda were having ' Kulhari- in their hands and Heera and Jeeva were having ' latth- in their hands and Jeeva was carrying a light also in his hand. She states that Ratan Lal attacked her husband with the help of an axe causing fatal injuries on his head, hands and back. She states that other three persons were also giving beating to her husband. In her examination-in-chief, she has not mentioned any overt act of persons other than Ratan Lal. Perhaps it was because of the fact that she is falsely implicating three more persons along with Ratan Lal, then she was not knowing how to develop a story by mentioning different overt acts against different assailants. 12. In her cross-examination, Smt. Pooni states that it was raining in the night of the incident. She further states that because of rains all the assailants had covered their face with the help of a blanket. She admits that in the darkness she did not make any hue and cry but in the morning, she had gone to call the neighbours and then before dawn, the police had reached the spot. She admits that she had not mentioned the names of assailants to police in the morning but later on, after consultation with her parents, she had named all the four persons as assailants. She says that she was also beaten by Jeeva. It is pertinent to mention here that Jeeva had not been charge-sheeted by the police. In her cross-examination, she further admits that after consultation of forty-eight hours, she and her parents came to the conclusion that Uda, Heera and Jeeva should also be implicated in the alleged crime of murder. She states that Jeeva had also given five or seven blows of ' latth- to her husband. She admits that Uda and Heera had no animosity with her husband. 13. She states that Jeeva had also given five or seven blows of ' latth- to her husband. She admits that Uda and Heera had no animosity with her husband. 13. Apparently, Smt. Pooni is a witness, who for one or the other reason, has falsely implicated Uda, Heera and Jeeva in the alleged crime of murder, but to the extent of accused-appellant Ratan Lal, she is to relied upon because she has specifically stated that Ratan Lal had attacked her husband with the help of a ' kulhari- and he had caused injuries on head, hands and back of her husband. No cross-examination has been made regarding the implication of Ratan Lal by Smt. Pooni and so it can be said that the defence counsel has admitted the overt act of Ratan Lal while cross-examining Smt. Pooni. Perhaps, the defence counsel was busy in saving only other accused-persons without bothering for Ratan Lal. 14. PW-14 Kesha is father of Smt. Pooni and PW-15 Smt. Velu Bai is mother of Smt. Pooni. Kesha (PW-14) states that his daughter did not tell him the details of the incident. He does not say anything about forty-eight hours consultation of parents and daughter before falsely implicating persons other than Ratan Lal in the incident of murder. Smt. Velu Bai (PW-15) also states that it was a father and son- s dispute in which father had attacked son with the help of ' kulhari- and ' latth- . She states that perhaps Heera, Uda and Jeeva were also involved in the incident. She is not an eye-witness of the incident. 15. PW-5 Dr. Gurmit Singh had conducted the post-mortem of Navala s/o Ratna Garasia aged 45 years on 28.6.2005 and following injuries were found on the body of deceased Navala: (Vernacular matter omitted..........Ed.) 16. He further states that following injuries were found on the body of Smt. Pooni: (Vernacular matter omitted..........Ed.) 17. Smt. Pooni has specifically alleged that injuries on her body were caused by Jeeva and Jeeva was not charge-sheeted and so we have to do nothing about injuries of Smt. Pooni in these appeals. He further states that following injuries were found on the body of Smt. Pooni: (Vernacular matter omitted..........Ed.) 17. Smt. Pooni has specifically alleged that injuries on her body were caused by Jeeva and Jeeva was not charge-sheeted and so we have to do nothing about injuries of Smt. Pooni in these appeals. So far as injuries of Navala are concerned, undisputedly all his injuries including fatal injury No. 1 and 2 were caused by an axe by accused-appellant Ratan Lal, though some of the injuries were caused by sharp-edge of axe and some of the injuries were caused by him by using reverse side of axe. The injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and Navala, a young man of forty-five years of age, had died because of excessive bleeding as mentioned in the post-mortem report Ex.P.8. The injuries on head of Navala were also caused only by accused-appellant Ratan Lal as stated by Smt. Pooni. This fact could not have been certainly challenged in the cross-examination of Smt. Pooni. ' Kulhari- was recovered from possession of accused-appellant Ratan Lal by the police in presence of motbirs Bhuri Lal and Soni Ram. 18. PW-6 Soni Ram and PW-7 Bhuri Lal have also supported the factum of recovery of ' kulhari- from possession of accused Ratan Lal. PW-9 Chhagan Singh Rajpurohit, the then S.H.O. of Police Station Falasiya has also stated that on the basis of information Ex.P.19 which was given by accused-appellant Ratan Lal under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, he had recovered from the possession of accused-appellant Ratan Lal a ' kulhari- which was lying in his house. He states that seizure memo of ' kulhari- is Ex.P.10. So many other witnesses have also been produced by the prosecution to prove the formalities. 19. FSL report has been exhibited as Ex.P. 25 in this case. FSL report has not been challenged by the accused-appellants in the case and it mentions that ' kulhari- recovered from the possession of Ratan Lal was having stains of human blood on it, though the blood group on it could not be examined for certain reasons. 20. 19. FSL report has been exhibited as Ex.P. 25 in this case. FSL report has not been challenged by the accused-appellants in the case and it mentions that ' kulhari- recovered from the possession of Ratan Lal was having stains of human blood on it, though the blood group on it could not be examined for certain reasons. 20. In the circumstances of the case, the conviction and sentence of accused-appellant Ratan Lal under Sections 302 and 450, IPC, as ordered by the trial court does not call for any interference by this Court and hence D.B.Cr.Appeal No. 446/2006 of accused-appellant is hereby dismissed to the extent of accused-appellant Ratan Lal regarding these charges though he is hereby acquitted from the charge of Section 323/34, IPC for obvious reasons. He will have to serve the remaining part of the sentence under Sections 302 and 450, IPC only as ordered by the trial court by impugned order dated 22.3.2006. So far as appeals of other two accused-appellants Heera and Uda are concerned, they deserve to be accepted because the prosecution has not been able to make out any case of conviction on any count against two of them. Hence D.B.Cr. Appeal No. 446/2006 is accepted only to the extent of accused-appellant Heera and he is acquitted from the charges of Sections 302, 450 and 323/34, IPC and his conviction and sentence as ordered by the trial court by the impugned order dated 22.3.2006 are hereby quashed and set aside. Similarly, D.B.Cr. Appeal No. 391/2006 is also accepted and accused appellant Uda is also acquitted from the charges of Sections 302, 450 and 323/34, IPC and his conviction and sentence as ordered by the trial court by the impugned order dated 22.3.2006 are hereby quashed and set aside. Accused-appellants Uda and Heera are said to be in jail, they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Four copies of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur, out of which one copy of the judgment be kept for office record and one copy of judgment be given to each of the accused-appellants Ratan Lal, Heera and Uda. Record of the trial court along with one copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court immediately. Order accordingly.