JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.—State has preferred this appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the judgement and order dated 25.8.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Chitrakoot in S.T.No. 157 of 2008 arising out of case crime No. 963 of 2008, State v. Shiv Autar, Ram Autar, Raja and Nathu under Sections 302 read with 34 and 506 IPC whereby learned trial Court has acquitted all the accused persons from the charges levelled against them by giving them benefit of doubt. 2. We have heard learned AGA for the appellant and have gone through the impugned judgment. Briefly stated the prosecution case, is that on 3.9.2008 a written report was lodged at P.S. Pahadi, District Chitrakoot by the informant Kusma Devi to the effect that in the intervening night of 2/3.9.2008 when her son, husband and she herself were sleeping at their ‘Dera’, at about 1.00 a.m. she and her husband got awaken after hearing the shrieks of her son Ballu and saw accused Shiv Autar having a spade, accused Ram Autar and Raja having ‘Barchhis’ in their hands, inflicting injuries on their son. When she and her husband shouted for help, the accused persons gave a fatal blow by the spade they were carrying, on the head of her son. As a result Ballu died on the spot. After committing the murder of Ballu the accused persons threatened the informant and her husband not to dare to lodge any report otherwise they would also be killed. 3. On the basis of this report a case against accused persons was registered and the matter was investigated. The investigating officer inspected the spot and he recovered a Barchhi and a spade from there. The inquest and the post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and after conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused persons. The case was committed to the Court of sessions where charges were framed against the accused persons, who denied the charges and claimed their trial. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as nine witnesses. The mother and father of deceased Ballu were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively. Apart from these two witnesses no other witness of fact was produced by the prosecution. The remaining witnesses produced by the prosecution are of formal character. 5. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as nine witnesses. The mother and father of deceased Ballu were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively. Apart from these two witnesses no other witness of fact was produced by the prosecution. The remaining witnesses produced by the prosecution are of formal character. 5. Learned trial Court after a detailed analysis of the prosecution evidence found that the oral evidence led by the prosecution does not coincide with the medical evidence as P.W.7, Dr.Karan Gautam has categorically stated that the ante-mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased could not possibly be sustained by him in a lying down condition. The learned trial Court also found several discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the witnesses making prosecution case unreliable and gave the accused persons benefit of doubt. 6. The aforesaid order of acquittal has been challenged by the State in this appeal on the ground that the learned trial Court has illegally acquitted the accused persons despite the fact that the prosecution has successfully proved its case by adducing sufficient cogent evidence against the accused persons. 7. After having heard learned AGA and after a perusal of the impugned judgment it appears that the prosecution in this case has produced only two witnesses of fact, who are the parents of the deceased. The statement of P.W.1, Smt. Kusma shows that she has admitted the fact that her husband was suffering from illness and was bed ridden since several days prior to the occurrence. She has stated that her brother Ram Lakhan had come to village at 7.00 a.m. on the next day of occurrence. Darogaji after inspecting the dead body had told her about the injuries sustained by her son. Darogaji had himself written the FIR on his own. Darogaji had taken her thumb mark on the FIR (Ext.Ka.1) at the police station. What was written on that paper was never read to her. By the aforesaid statement of P.W.1, the FIR which is the foundation of any criminal case becomes doubtful. 8. P.W.1 has further stated that his son was wearing a blue pant, shirt,vest and sandle while leaving the house for sleeping at ‘Dera’. What was written on that paper was never read to her. By the aforesaid statement of P.W.1, the FIR which is the foundation of any criminal case becomes doubtful. 8. P.W.1 has further stated that his son was wearing a blue pant, shirt,vest and sandle while leaving the house for sleeping at ‘Dera’. To the contrary the investigating officer, P.W.6 has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence he saw the deceased lying on the cot wearing only a blue coloured underwear. He did not find any clothes on his cot or near the cot. No shoe or sandle was found by him in the ‘Dera’. Even he did not find any blood on the spot. 9. The second witness produced by the prosecution P.W.2 Bhullu was aged about 85 years at the time when his statement was recorded in the Court. Due to physical infirmity and illness of P.W.2 he could not be cross-examined by learned defence counsel. Hence his statement-in-chief without the defence having an opportunity to cross-examine has no evidenciary value. 10. Thus the entire prosecution case rests on the sole testimony of P.W.1 in this case. But the statement of P.W.1 apparently suffers from various contradictions and embellishment making the prosecution story undoubtful and unworthy of credence. 11. She has stated about her clothes and clothes of her deceased son being soiled with blood but the investigating officer has not recovered any blood stained cloth as there is no recovery memo about the same. The fact regarding the deceased sleeping in ‘Dera’ without wearing anything except underwear, in the month of September when the weather is not so hot, also raises a doubt in the prosecution story. 12. The doctor has categorically stated that it is not possible for a person lying on a cot to sustain such type of injuries. The weapons used in the occurrence have been recovered from a place accessible by general public and the recovery also appears to be doubtful. 13. One more fact making the prosecution story unreliable is that P.W.9, Brijesh Dwivedi, who is a witness of inquest has clearly stated that till the time of inquest the names of assailants could not have been ascertained. It is worth mentioning that the names of the accused persons are mentioned in the FIR itself. 13. One more fact making the prosecution story unreliable is that P.W.9, Brijesh Dwivedi, who is a witness of inquest has clearly stated that till the time of inquest the names of assailants could not have been ascertained. It is worth mentioning that the names of the accused persons are mentioned in the FIR itself. The FIR has been promptly lodged on the next day of the of occurrence i.e. 3.9.2008. The occurrence has taken place in the intervening night of 2/3. 9.2008. Then what could have been the reason that till the time of inquest the names of assailants could not be ascertained ? 14. Learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused persons keeping in view the aforesaid discrepancies and doubts in the prosecution case. 15. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment requiring any interference by this Court. Therefore the leave to appeal cannot be granted. The application for leave to appeal is rejected and as a consequence the State appeal is dismissed. ——————