JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 26.5.2010 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 2010 whereby the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as the “accused” for brevity sake), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 4.10.2009 at about 5.00 P.M., accused was seen administering beatings to deceased Salo Ram. Salo Ram became unconscious and fell on the ground. He was removed to house. Thereafter, he died. The matter was reported to the police. Investigation was conducted. The post-mortem report was obtained. The investigation was completed and the challan was put in the Court after completing all the formalities. 3. Prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses in all to prove its case against the accused. Accused was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him, he has never administered beatings to Salo Ram nor his death was caused by the beatings administered to Salo Ram. Learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused, as noticed hereinabove. 4. Ms. Bhavna Dutta has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. 5. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General has supported the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. PW-1 Saroj Kumari has testified that she was returning home at 5.00 P.M. When she reached near Chachu’s house near the water tap, accused Bijo Ram was giving beatings to her father-in-law. He was also abusing him. Accused had also caught Salo Ram from his arms. She enquired from the son of accused, namely, Hans Raj, as to why they were giving beatings to Salo Ram. Accused Bijo Ram gave beatings with fist blows on the neck and upper part of the body (face). Salo Ram fell down. She kept the grass at her house and immediately rushed to the spot. One Mohinder Singh, Teacher was also present on the spot. He has also seen the accused giving beatings to Salo Ram and abusing him. Accused Bijo Ram gave beatings with fist blows on the neck and upper part of the body (face). Salo Ram fell down. She kept the grass at her house and immediately rushed to the spot. One Mohinder Singh, Teacher was also present on the spot. He has also seen the accused giving beatings to Salo Ram and abusing him. Her father-in-law had fallen down with his face downward. He was speechless. Tek Chand, her brother-in-law also came on the spot and thereafter they lifted Salo Ram and took him to their house. Accused left the spot hurling abuses. She did not know what was the intention of the accused to give beatings to Salo Ram. Volunteered that there was a land dispute between the accused and Salo Ram. Salo Ram received injuries on his forehead and neck. Her father in law died on the next day. The matter was reported to the police. Her statement was recorded vide Ex.PW-1/A. The police visited the spot. The clothes worn by Salo Ram were stained with blood and the blood oozed out from his nostrils and forehead. They had called a doctor from Sudkund for treatment of injuries sustained by Salo Ram. He died on 5.10.2009 at about 3.00 P.M. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that they had brought Salo Ram to their house at about 5.00 P.M. He was given milk. He could not take food. She could not recollect the name of Chachu. The water tap was located at a distance of about 21 mtrs. from the house of Chachu. Chachu was not present at house at that time. There was a Khurli near the water tap. She reached at about 5.00 P.M. with grass near the water tap but did not stop there. She did not try to rescue her father-in-law. She also did not raise hue and cry that the accused was giving beatings to Salo Ram. They had called Chachu to their house and told that the accused has given beatings to Salo Ram. They did not inform the police on that day. However, telephonic message was given to the police by the Pradhan. Her statement was recorded on 5.10.2009. 7. PW-2 Mohinder Singh has deposed that at a distance of 50 meters from his house, there is a water tap and Khurli. He heard some noise and went to the spot. They did not inform the police on that day. However, telephonic message was given to the police by the Pradhan. Her statement was recorded on 5.10.2009. 7. PW-2 Mohinder Singh has deposed that at a distance of 50 meters from his house, there is a water tap and Khurli. He heard some noise and went to the spot. He saw that Salo Ram was lying on the ground. Bijo Ram was also standing there at a distance of 2-3 meters. He lifted Salo Ram and gave him support of a ‘Beed’. Saroj Kumari came there after some time. The spot was not visible from his house. Salo Ram was lying unconscious. When he lifted Salo Ram, blood was oozing out from his forehead. Thereafter, Tak Chand and his wife, Hilo Devi also reached there. Salo Ram was taken to his house by lifting him on his back by Tek Chand. He came to know on the next day that Salo Ram has died. He did not notice injury on his person minutely. He was declared hostile. He was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He has admitted that his statement was recorded by the police. He has denied the suggestion that he had stated that he had seen the accused giving beatings to Salo Ram with kick and fist blows. He has also denied the suggestion that he has stated to the police that the accused threw down the deceased with his neck downward. 8. PW-3 Tek Chand is the son of Salo Ram. He has deposed that on 4.10.2009 at about 4.30 - 4.45 P.M., he was present in his house. He heard from Saroj Kumari, his younger sister-in-law, that accused was giving beatings to his father near water tap. He alongwith his wife, Hilo Devi, went to the spot. He saw that his father was lying above the water tap near the water tank meant for animals. Mohinder Singh was lifting his father. The accused was in his fields. He inquired from the accused, but he replied that he did not give beatings to his father. He lifted his father and brought him to their house. They called the doctor from Sidkund. He advised them to take Salo Ram to Chamba Hospital for treatment. When they were arranging to take Salo Ram to Chamba Hospital, in the meantime, his father died. He lifted his father and brought him to their house. They called the doctor from Sidkund. He advised them to take Salo Ram to Chamba Hospital for treatment. When they were arranging to take Salo Ram to Chamba Hospital, in the meantime, his father died. His father died due to beatings given to him by the accused. The matter was reported to the Pradhan Jaram Singh. He reached the spot after half an hour and then the Pradhan telephonically informed the police about the occurrence. His father was raising objection qua the encroachment having been made by the accused on the Government land and due to such enmity, the accused had given beatings to his father. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that his father had reported the matter to the Patwari. He could not give the date and time when such report was made to the Patwari. He was not aware about any proceedings initiated against the accused. His statement was recorded by the police. 9. PW-4 Dr. M.M. Marol has conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Salo Ram on 6.10.2009. According to him, the probable time that elapsed between injury and death and between death and post-mortem was 24 hours. The post mortem report is Ex.PW-4/B. 10. Statements of PW-5 Chaman, PW-6 Vinay Kumar, PW-7 Pawan Singh, PW-8 Constable Neeraj Singh, PW-9 constable Pawan Kumar, PW-10 Constable Madan Singh and PW-11 Cosntable Prabhat Chand are formal in nature. 11. PW-12 Karan Singh has deposed that on 8.10.2009 Inspector R.P. Jaswal handed over the investigation of this case to him. He alongwith constable Pawan Kumar and accused visited the spot at village Manglera. Accused identified the place of occurrence. The clothes of the accused were taken into possession in presence of witnesses Chaman Singh and Surinder Singh vide memo Ex.PW-5/A. These were sealed in a parcel with six seals of seal ‘K’ and the specimen of the seal used Ex.PW-12/A was taken separately and the seal after use was handed over to witnesses Chaman Singh. Case property was deposited with the MHC Police Station, Sadar, Chamba on the same day. 12. PW-13 Atma Singh has deposed that he received telephonic information on 5.10.2009 at 8.40 P.M. through Jaram Singh Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Sidkund. Case property was deposited with the MHC Police Station, Sadar, Chamba on the same day. 12. PW-13 Atma Singh has deposed that he received telephonic information on 5.10.2009 at 8.40 P.M. through Jaram Singh Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Sidkund. An entry to this effect was made in daily diary vide entry No.38 Ex.PW-9/B. Thereafter, he alongwith other police officials, ASI Karan Singh, Constable Prabhat Singh, Constable Neeraj Singh, Constable Pawan Kumar and constable Latif Mohammad visited the spot. Dead body of Salo Ram was found inside his house and at that time 25-30 persons were found sitting there. Photographs were also taken. Statement of Saroj Kumari was recorded under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Ex.PW-1/A on the basis of which rukka was sent to Police Station, Sadar, Chamba with his endorsement Ex.PW-13/A through constable Prabhat for registration of case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Site plan Ex.PW-13/B was prepared. Dead body was sent to District Hospital, Chamba for post mortem through constable Pawan Kumar and constable Latif Mohammad. Clothes of the deceased which he was bearing at the time of his death were handed over to him by Tek Chand, which were Ex-P-1 shirt and Pajama Ex.P-2. These were packed and sealed in a parcel and sealed with seal ‘A’ at eight places. Seizure memo Ex.PW-3/A to this effect was prepared. Application Ex.PW-4/A was sent alongwith dead body for post-mortem. He obtained post-mortem report Ex.PW-4/B. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that no blood was found lying on the spot. He has not taken into possession clothes of the accused. 13. Now, the Court will examine the statements of material witnesses PW-1 Saroj Kumari, PW-2 Mohinder Singh, PW-3 Tek Chand and PW-4 Dr. M.M. Marol. According to PW-1 Saroj Kumari, she was coming back to her house at about 5.00 P.M. She was carrying grass. When she reached near Chachu’s house near the water tap, accused Bijo was giving beating to her father-in-law. He was also abusing him. The accused had also caught Salo from his arms. Bijo Ram gave beatings with fist blows on the neck and upper part of the body. Salo Ram fell down. She kept the grass at her house and immediately rushed to the spot. One Mohinder Singh, who was also present on the spot, also saw the accused giving beatings to Salo Ram. Bijo Ram gave beatings with fist blows on the neck and upper part of the body. Salo Ram fell down. She kept the grass at her house and immediately rushed to the spot. One Mohinder Singh, who was also present on the spot, also saw the accused giving beatings to Salo Ram. According to her, there was some land dispute between the accused and Salo Ram. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that she reached at about 5.00 P.M. with grass near the water tap. She did not stop there. She did not try to rescue her father-in-law. She did not raise hue and cry that accused was giving beatings to Salo Ram. This is unusual and unacceptable conduct of PW-1 Saroj Kumari. In case she had seen accused giving beatings to her father-in-law, she should have stopped on the spot and tried to save her father-in-law. PW-1 Saroj Kumari instead of saving her father-in-law had gone to her house and after dropping the grass came back. She also did not raise hue and cry. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that there are five families in village Nandlera. 14. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivasharanappa and others vs State of Karnataka, (2013) 5 SCC 705 have held that the court cannot be oblivious to conduct that is too unnatural even taking into account unpredictability of human conduct and lack of uniformity in human reaction. Court must determine whether in circumstances of case, behaviour of witnesses concerned is acceptably natural allowing for variations and if behaviour is absolutely unnatural, testimony of witness may not deserve credence and acceptable. Their Lordships have held as under: “19. Court must determine whether in circumstances of case, behaviour of witnesses concerned is acceptably natural allowing for variations and if behaviour is absolutely unnatural, testimony of witness may not deserve credence and acceptable. Their Lordships have held as under: “19. In Gopal Singh and others v. State of Madya Pradesh, this Court did not agree with the High Court which had accepted the statement of an alleged eye witness as his conduct was unnatural and while so holding, it observed as follows : - We also find that the High Court has accepted the statement of Feran Singh, PW 5 as the eye witness of the incident ignoring the fact that his behaviour was unnatural as he claimed to have rushed to the village but had still not conveyed the information about the incident to his parents and others present there and had chosen to disappear for a couple of hours on the specious and unacceptable plea that he feared for his own safety. 22. Thus, the behaviour of witnesses or their reactions would differ from situation to situation and individual to individual. Expectation of uniformity in the reaction of witnesses would be unrealistic but the court cannot be oblivious of the fact that even taking into account the unpredictability of human conduct and lack of uniformity in human reaction, whether in the circumstances of the case, the behaviour is acceptably natural allowing the variations. If the behaviour is absolutely unnatural, the testimony of the witness may not deserve credence and acceptance.” 15. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lahu Kamlakar Patil and another vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 417 have held though there cannot be uniformity in human reaction, it is also to be borne in mind that if conduct of witness is so unnatural and is not in accord with acceptable human behaviour even allowing for variations, then his testimony becomes questionable and is likely to be discarded. Their Lordships have held as under : “22. Their Lordships have held as under : “22. The attack is based on the grounds, namely, that the said witness ran away from the spot; that he did not intimate the police about the incident but, on the contrary, hid himself behind the pipes near a canal till early morning of the next day; that though he claimed to be eye witness, yet he did not come to the spot when the police arrived and was there for more than three hours; that contrary to normal human behaviour he went to Pune without informing about the incident to his wife and stayed for one day; that though the police station was hardly one furlong away yet he did not approach the police; that he chose not even to inform the police on the telephone though he arrived at home; that after he came from Pune and learnt from his wife that the police had come on 21.2.1988, he went to the police station; and that in the backdrop of such conduct, his version does not inspire confidence and deserves to be ignored in toto. 26. From the aforesaid pronouncements, it is vivid that witnesses to certain crimes may run away from the scene and may also leave the place due to fear and if there is any delay in their examination, the testimony should not be discarded. That apart, a court has to keep in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations. Some witnesses get a shock, some become perplexed, some start wailing and some run away from the scene and yet some who have the courage and conviction come forward either to lodge an FIR or get themselves examined immediately. Thus, it differs from individuals to individuals. There cannot be uniformity in human reaction. While the said principle has to be kept in mind, it is also to be borne in mind that if the conduct of the witness is so unnatural and is not in accord with acceptable human behaviour allowing of variations, then his testimony becomes questionable and is likely to be discarded. 27. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, we shall proceed to scrutinize the evidence of PW-2. As is evincible from his deposition, on seeing the assault he got scared, ran away from the hotel and hid himself behind the pipes till early morning. He went home, changed his clothes and rushed to Pune. 27. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, we shall proceed to scrutinize the evidence of PW-2. As is evincible from his deposition, on seeing the assault he got scared, ran away from the hotel and hid himself behind the pipes till early morning. He went home, changed his clothes and rushed to Pune. He did not mention about the incident to his family members. He left for Pune and the reason for the same was also not stated to his family members. He did not try to contact the police from his residence which he could have. After his arrival at Pune, he did not mention about the incident in his sister-in-law’s house. After coming back from Pune, on the third day of the occurrence, his wife informed that the police had come and that Bhau, who had accompanied him, was dead. It is interesting to note that in the statement under Section 161 of the Code, he had not stated that he was hiding himself out of fear or he was scared of the police. In the said statement, the fact that he was informed by his wife that Bhau was dead was also not mentioned. One thing is clear from his testimony that seeing the incident, he was scared and frightened and ran away from the hotel. He was frightened and hid himself behind the pipes throughout the night and left for home the next morning. But his conduct not to inform his wife or any family member and leaving for Pune and not telling anyone there defies normal human behaviour. He has also not stated anywhere that he was so scared that even after he reached home, he did not go to the police station which was hardly at any distance from his house. There is nothing in his testimony that he was under any kind of fear or shock when he arrived at his house. It is also surprising that he had not told his family members and he went to Pune without disclosing the reason and after he arrived from Pune and on being informed by his wife that his companion Bhau had died, he went to the police station. It is also surprising that he had not told his family members and he went to Pune without disclosing the reason and after he arrived from Pune and on being informed by his wife that his companion Bhau had died, he went to the police station. We are not oblivious of the fact that certain witnesses in certain circumstances may be frightened and behave in a different manner and due to that, they may make themselves available to the police belatedly and their examination gets delayed. But in the case at hand, regard being had to the evidence brought on record and, especially, non-mentioning of any kind of explanation for rushing away to Pune, the said factors make the veracity of his version doubtful. His evidence cannot be treated as so trustworthy and unimpeachable to record a conviction against the appellants. The learned trial court as well as the High Court has made an endeavour to connect the links and inject theories like fear, behavioural pattern, tallying of injuries inflicted on the deceased with the Post Mortem report and convicted the appellants. In the absence of any kind of clinching evidence to connect the appellants with the crime, we are disposed to think that it would not be appropriate to sustain the conviction.” 16. PW-2 Mohinder Singh has not supported the case of prosecution. He was declared hostile. He had only heard noise. Thereafter, he had seen Salo Ram lying on the ground after reaching there. The learned trial court has placed strong reliance on statement of PW-2 Mohinder Singh recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Ex.PW-13/G. PW-13/G could only be used for the purpose of contradiction, but could not be used to convict the accused. Statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not signed by the person, who makes it. 17. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Swaroop and others vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004 SC 2943 have held that it is well settled that a statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be treated as evidence in the criminal trial but may be used for the limited purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness. Their Lordships have held as under : “23. Their Lordships have held as under : “23. We have also noticed that the High Court has attached undue importance to the statements made in the course of investigation and recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is well settled that a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be treated as evidence in the criminal trial but may be used for the limited purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness. We find that in paragraph 6 of the judgment, the High Court while dealing with the evidence of PW-7 has clearly treated the statement of PW-7, recorded in the course of investigation, as substantive evidence in this case. The High Court observed :- "He is consistent in his statement U/s. 161 Cr. P.C. that while he along with Kishore (PW-10) were sitting in front of the house of Kishore, which is just near the Shiv Temple, Ramswaroop and his sons Ram Kalyan and Hiralal armed with lathies came and gave beating to Bhanwar Lal and specifically head injury is attributed to Ramswaroop. In the statement in court, he only attributed injuries to Hiralal and Ram Kalyan. Even he is consistent on the fact that while Madan Lal and his mother came and tried to save Bhanwar Lal from these persons, they were caught hold by Dakhan and Ram Kanya and Dakhan and Ram Kanya have given beating to Madan Lal and his mother." 24. In our view the High Court ought to have considered his deposition rather than his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The inconsistency between the two versions is obvious from the fact that the prosecution had to declare the witness hostile. The approach of the High Court, therefore, is clearly erroneous.” 18. According to PW-1 Saroj Kumari, PW-2 Mohinder Singh has seen giving beatings to her father-in-law. However, PW-2 Mohinder Singh has deposed that he has not seen the accused giving beatings to Salo Ram. PW-3 Tek Chand is the son of Salo Ram. According to him at about 4.00 – 4.45 P.M., he heard from Saroj Kumari that accused was giving beatings to his father. However, PW-2 Mohinder Singh has deposed that he has not seen the accused giving beatings to Salo Ram. PW-3 Tek Chand is the son of Salo Ram. According to him at about 4.00 – 4.45 P.M., he heard from Saroj Kumari that accused was giving beatings to his father. PW-1 Saroj Kumari has never stated in her statement recorded under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and while appearing in the Court that she has informed PW-3 Tek Chand about the incident. He reached the spot. He also made inquiries from the accused, who was in the fields. According to PW-2 Mohinder Singh, accused was on the spot but according to PW-3 Tek Chand, accused was in his fields. He has no specific knowledge about the encroachment case alleged to have been brought to the notice of Patwari by his father. 19. According to PW-4 Dr. M.M. Marol, deceased died due to extra dural hemorrhage in occipital area. Though PW-4 Dr. M.M. Marol has given the details of injuries received by deceased, however, there is no corroborating evidence that it was the accused who gave beatings to the deceased. Post-mortem report Ex.PW-4/A is not a substantive piece of evidence. We hasten to add that the evidence of the doctor conducting the postmortem is not insignificant. 20. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh, (2002) 2 SCC 426 have held that post mortem report is not a substantive piece of evidence but evidence of such doctor is not insignificant. Their Lordships have held as under : “1. While it is true that the postmortem report by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence, but the evidence of the doctor conducting the postmortem can by no means be ascribed to be insignificant. The significance of the evidence of the doctor lies vis-a-vis the injuries appearing on the body of the deceased person and likely use of the weapon therefor and it would then be the prosecutor's duty and obligation to have the corroborative evidence available on record from the other prosecution witnesses.” 21. Deposition of PW-1 Saroj Kumari and PW-2 Mohinder Singh has not conclusively proved that it was the accused who has given beatings to deceased Salo Ram. The conduct of PW-1 Saroj Kumari in view of the circumstances is not acceptable. Deposition of PW-1 Saroj Kumari and PW-2 Mohinder Singh has not conclusively proved that it was the accused who has given beatings to deceased Salo Ram. The conduct of PW-1 Saroj Kumari in view of the circumstances is not acceptable. It is reiterated that in case accused was giving beatings to her father-in-law, she should have raised hue and cry and tried to save her father-in-law. She went to her house to drop the grass and then came back. PW-2 Mohinder Singh, as noticed above, has not supported the case of the prosecution except that he had reached the spot. He has not seen the accused giving beatings to the deceased. 22. Accordingly, In view of the analysis and discussion of the ocular as well as documentary evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 23. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.5.2010 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Chamba Division Chamba in Sessions Trial No.2 of 2010 is set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him by giving him the benefit of doubt. Fine amount, if any, already deposited by the accused is ordered to be refunded to him. Since the accused is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 24. The Registry is directed to prepare the release warrant of the accused and send the same to the Superintendent of Jail concerned in conformity with this judgment forthwith.