JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. These appeals are instituted against the judgment dated 30.12.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Case No.1-K/VII-2010, whereby the accused Gurpreet alias Goldi, Lakhbir alias Kheera and Kulwinder alias Gopi were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304 (Part-I) and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code by giving them benefit of doubt. Accused Lakhbir alias Kheera was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused Gurpreet alias Goldi and Kulwinder alias Gopi were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. One of the accused Sarvjeet alias Mangi was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 302, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused Gurpreet alias Goldi, Lakhbir alias Kheera and Kulwinder alias Gopi were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 304 (Part-I) of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 304 (Part-I) of the Indian Penal Code. The accused Lakhbir alias Kheera was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The accused Lakhbir alias Kheera was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. These appeals are instituted by the State against the judgment dated 30.12.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Case No.1-K/VII-2010, acquitting the accused Gurpreet alias Goldi and Kulwinder alias Gopi for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, accused Lakhbir alias Kheera for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B and 302 and the accused Sarvjeet alias Mangi for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 302, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The State has also prayed for enhancement of the sentence so awarded to the accused under Sections 304, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the injured PW17 Sohan Singh alias Shainti informed the police that on 22.8.2009 at 9.00 A.M., he along with deceased Daljinder alias Kaka left their houses on motorcycle for Chintpurni and Brijeshwari Devi Temples, Kangra. They reached at village Mullapur at 10.00 A.M. They met accused Lakhbir Singh alias Kheera and Kulwinder alias Gopi in Indica Car. They attempted to hit them with the car, however, they escaped. They scuffled with them and also threatened that they would see them. The accused Sarvjeet alias Mangi was also present on the spot. Their motorcycle developed some snag. The accused Sarvjeet Singh alias Mangi told them that the quarrel may take place again and advised them to leave the place on his motorcycle. He assured them that he would leave their motorcycle in the village after getting it repaired. Thereafter, both of them took the motorcycle No.PB-10CB-8805 of Sarvjeet Singh alias Mangi and left towards Chintpurni temple and reached there at 10.30 P.M. They stayed in a hotel. In the morning, they left for Brijeshwari Devi temple. The accused Sarvjeet Singh alias Mangi remained in their contact telephonically to know about their location. They paid obeisance at Brijeshwari Devi Temple. On 23.9.2009 at 5.00 P.M., they started their journey to return to the house. They halted at 2-3 places. In the morning, they left for Brijeshwari Devi temple. The accused Sarvjeet Singh alias Mangi remained in their contact telephonically to know about their location. They paid obeisance at Brijeshwari Devi Temple. On 23.9.2009 at 5.00 P.M., they started their journey to return to the house. They halted at 2-3 places. At 7.00 P.M., when he and Daljinder alias Kaka were 1516 kms away from Kangra on motorcycle towards Chintpurni, an Innova vehicle came from Ranital side and its driver suddenly turned the vehicle towards them and hit their motorcycle, as a result of which, both of them fell down. Three persons came out of the vehicle armed with sticks and inflicted injuries with sticks, as a result of which, he and the deceased became unconscious. He identified the assailants to be Gurpreet alias Goldi, Lakhbir alias Kheera and Kulwinder alias Gopi, residents of Bhundri. According to the complainant, on earlier occasion also, a quarrel took place with the assailants and the matter was got compromised by Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Daljinder Singh succumbed to the injuries. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up in the trial court after completing all the codal formalities. 5. The prosecution examined as many as thirty five witnesses in support of its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of the prosecution and claimed innocence. Learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused Gurpreet alias Goldi, Lakhbir alias Kheera and Kulwinder alias Gopi and acquitted the accused Sarvjeet Singh alias Mangi vide judgment dated 30.12.2010, as stated hereinabove. Hence, the appeals. 6. Mr. Anup Chitkara and Mr. Narender Thakur, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused, have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 7. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General, has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. He then contended that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in law by acquitting the accused Sarvjeet Singh alias Mangi. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment and record carefully. 9. PW1, Shyam Lal, deposed that Raj Kumar alias Raju is his younger brother. He then contended that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in law by acquitting the accused Sarvjeet Singh alias Mangi. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment and record carefully. 9. PW1, Shyam Lal, deposed that Raj Kumar alias Raju is his younger brother. On 23.8.2009 at about 7.15 P.M., one truck driver told them that on National Highway near Dhundani Baag some accident had occurred and two persons along with a motorcycle were lying on the road. Raju telephonically informed the Police Post Ranital. ASI Manohar Chaudhary visited their shop within half an hour. The accident took place at about half kilometer from their shop. They did not visit the place of occurrence. Police took both the injured persons to Medical College and Hospital, Tanda. In cross-examination, he deposed that he did not see the persons, who met with the accident. He did not know the registration number and make of the motorcycle, which met with an accident. He also did not know the owner or driver of the truck, who had given them the information about the accident and the injured persons lying on the road. 10. PW2, HC Manoj Kumar, deposed that on 23.8.2009 at 7.35 P.M. he was on traffic duty at Kangra Town. He received telephonic message from Police Station Kangra that some accident took place at Dhundani Baag on NH-88 and he was directed to proceed to the spot. He visited the spot along with Constable Manjeet Singh on motorcycle. ASI Manohar Lal, Incharge Police Station Ranital along with HHC Dharam Chand was present there. The accidental motorcycle was lying on the left side of the road. The injured were not present there. ASI Manohar Lal informed him that he had already shifted both the injured to Medical College and Hospital, Tanda for treatment. According to him, there was no eye witness of the accident. Since the motorcycle was having dents and scratches, he presumed that some accident might have taken place. The injured were not present there. ASI Manohar Lal informed him that he had already shifted both the injured to Medical College and Hospital, Tanda for treatment. According to him, there was no eye witness of the accident. Since the motorcycle was having dents and scratches, he presumed that some accident might have taken place. He prepared Ruqua, Ext.PW2/A and sent the same to Police Station, Kangra, for registration of the case through Constable Manjeet Singh at 8.30 P.M. Since the accidental motorcycle was lying on the extreme left side of the road and the road was wide enough to pass the vehicles from both side, he presumed that rider had driven the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, which caused accident. He prepared the site plan, vide Ext.PW2/B. He also took photographs of the motorcycle and road vide Ext.PW2/C-1 to Ext.PW2/C-4 from his service camera. The camera was digital. The motorcycle was taken into possession vide memo, Ext.PW2/D. The motorcycle was mechanically examined vide report, Ext.PW2/E. On 3.9.2009, he proceeded to Arora Hospital Ludhiana and recorded statement of Sohan Singh in the presence of Dr. K.K. Arora, Ext.PW2/F. In cross-examination, he admitted that in Ruqua, Ext.PW2/A, he had mentioned that the motorcycle No. PB-10CB-8805 met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of its rider. At the time of preparation of Ruqua, Ext.PW2/A, he did not know who was driving the motorcycle. He also admitted that on the basis of Ruqua, Ext.PW2/A, a case under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code was made out. He admitted that on 23.8.2009 he did not find any evidence on the spot that the motorcycle No. PB-10CB-8805 met with an accident with some other vehicle. He also inquired from the shopkeepers about the accident, but they told that they had not seen any accident. He also admitted that there were shops and other establishments at Ranital. There were three toll tax barriers to enter district Kangra from Punjab. One was Mehatpur Barrier, second was Kandhwal Barrier and the third was Gagret Barrier. He also admitted that it could be verified if a vehicle of particular registration number entered from District Kangra from Punjab on a particular date. There were three toll tax barriers to enter district Kangra from Punjab. One was Mehatpur Barrier, second was Kandhwal Barrier and the third was Gagret Barrier. He also admitted that it could be verified if a vehicle of particular registration number entered from District Kangra from Punjab on a particular date. He further admitted that no record of any toll tax barrier regarding entry of any vehicle in order to verify the entry in district Kangra from Punjab has been placed on record. He himself did not inspect the record of any toll tax barrier to know about the entry of any particular vehicle from Punjab to District Kangra. He also admitted that the road at the spot was wide enough for the safe passage of the vehicles. He admitted that no application was shown to him on the court file on the basis of which he had sought the opinion of the doctor at Ludhiana whether Sohan Singh was fit to make statement or not. He also admitted that opinion given by the doctor at Ludhiana is not on the court file showing that Sohan Singh was unfit to make statement on 27.8.2009. He admitted that no Ruqua or any document is on the court file to show that Dr. K.K. Arora at Ludhiana had informed him on 2.9.2009 that Sohan Singh had re-gained consciousness and that he could come and record the statement. He volunteered that he received telephonic message only. 11. PW3, Raj Kapoor, deposed that on 23.8.2009, at about 7.00 P.M., one truck driver told them in the shop that two injured along with motorcycle were seen lying by the side of the road. He telephonically informed Police Post Ranital and the police visited the spot. He along with police party went to the spot and lifted the injured from the spot and arranged one private vehicle in order to send them to Medical College and Hospital, Tanda. In cross-examination, he deposed that he did not know name of the owner or driver of the truck, who came to his shop to inform about the accident. He did not ask the person who had informed about the accident that whether he had seen the occurrence or not. He admitted that there is a high density of traffic on the road throughout day and night. 12. He did not ask the person who had informed about the accident that whether he had seen the occurrence or not. He admitted that there is a high density of traffic on the road throughout day and night. 12. PW4, ASI Manohar Lal, deposed that on 23.8.2009, a motorcycle was lying on the national highway at Dhundani Baag. He informed Police Station Kangra regarding the accident. He along with HHC Dharam Chand No.555 visited the spot on motorcycle. One Raj Kapoor and other persons were already present at the spot. The injured were lifted from the spot and taken in a private vehicle to Medical College and Hospital, Tanda. Both the injured sustained injuries on their heads and faces. There was no mark to ascertain that any other vehicle had hit the motorcycle. There was no eye witness of the accident. From the spot inspection, it appeared that due to high speed, the rider could not control the motorcycle and struck against the hillock, resulting into accident. In cross-examination, he deposed that he asked the persons present on the spot about the accident, however none of them had seen the accident. He did not notice any skid marks of any vehicle at the spot. He did not find any evidence on the spot that any other vehicle had collided with motorcycle. He also admitted that he had observed that the motorcycle struck against the hillock due to rash and negligent driving. 13. PW5, Dharam Chand, deposed that the Investigating Officer, Traffic Wing Kangra, HC Manoj Kumar visited the spot and he took into possession motorcycle No.PB 10CB-8805 along with RC vide seizure memo, Ext.PW2/D. 14. PW6, Shiv Charan, deposed that on 24.8.2009, he mechanically examined the motorcycle No. PB-10CB-8805 at Police Station Kangra and issued mechanical inspection report, Ext.PW2/E. The damage caused to the motorcycle was possible with a collision by some other vehicle from the front. However, he volunteered that the damage so caused to the motorcycle could be due to fall from a height. In cross-examination, he deposed that he is not a qualified graduate in auto-mobile engineering. He admitted that if the motor cycle is driven in a high speed and if it hits the stone or boulder by the side of the road, then the damage as mentioned in report, Ext.PW2/A is possible. In cross-examination, he deposed that he is not a qualified graduate in auto-mobile engineering. He admitted that if the motor cycle is driven in a high speed and if it hits the stone or boulder by the side of the road, then the damage as mentioned in report, Ext.PW2/A is possible. He admitted that he had not mentioned the reasons in Ext.PW2/E how the damage was caused to the motorcycle. He admitted that the Investigating Officer never sought his opinion as to how damage was caused to the motorcycle. 15. PW7, Kulwant Singh, deposed that injured Sohan Singh alias Sainti is his son. According to him, about 8-10 days prior to the occurrence, the accused Kheera came to his house and threatened him that he should advise Sohan Singh to leave company of Daljinder alias Kaka to avoid any unwanted incident. All the three accused namely Kheera, Goldi and Gopi along with deceased Kaka were involved in illicit trade of poppy husk. Later on, deceased Kaka left the company of the accused persons in the trade of poppy husk which led to the enmity between them. About 8-10 days prior to the incident, accused Kheera tried to hit his son with his Indica Car at village Bhundari, but he rescued himself. He along with Sohan Singh went to Sarpanch Gurmeet Singh to report the matter. A compromise was effected amongst Goldi, Kheera and Sohan Singh verbally. On 23.8.2009, Sarpanch Gurmeet Singh called him. He visited his house at 9.30 P.M. Sarpanch Gurmeet Singh told him that he had received information from Kangra Police that Kaka alias Daljinder and Sainti alias Sohan Singh had met with an accident at Kangra and they were admitted in Medical College and Hospital Tanda. He along with Sarpanch Gurmeet Singh, father of Kaka, namely, Harbans and Balbir visited the Tanda Hospital. On 24.8.2009 Daljinder Singh alias Kaka died in PGI Chandigarh. After Sohan Singh regained consciousness, HC Kangra Police, recorded statement of his son in his presence and Doctor K.K. Arora. On 7.9.2009, he produced before the police blood stained clothes of his son, i.e. pants, shirt and vest, which he had worn at the time of occurrence. On 24.8.2009 Daljinder Singh alias Kaka died in PGI Chandigarh. After Sohan Singh regained consciousness, HC Kangra Police, recorded statement of his son in his presence and Doctor K.K. Arora. On 7.9.2009, he produced before the police blood stained clothes of his son, i.e. pants, shirt and vest, which he had worn at the time of occurrence. The clothes were sealed in a parcel and taken into possession by the police vide Ext.PW7/A. In cross-examination, he did not remember when his first statement was recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Before 2.9.2009, he did not visit the Police Station Kangra for recording his statement by the police. He came to know from the deceased Daljinder Singh that he had indulged in the illegal trade of sale and purchase of poppy husk. He also admitted that he or his son never made any complaint to Police Post Bhundari or Police Station Sidwanwet that Lakhbir and Kulwinder had tried to hit his son with Indica Car. 16. PW8, Mohan Singh, deposed that he knew all the accused. About one month prior to the death of Daljinder Singh, accused Lakhbir Singh alias Kheera met him in the village and warned him that his brother Sohan Singh should leave the company of Daljinder Singh alias Kaka otherwise he would kill Daljinder Singh. Later on, his brother and Daljinder told him that they were having no ill-will against the accused Kheera. In cross-examination, he deposed that prior to 7.9.2009 he never met Kangra Police to make statement. 17. PW9, HC Tilak Raj, proved copy of the compromise, Mark PW9/A. In cross-examination, he admitted that the cause of dispute was not mentioned in compromise, Mark PW9/A. 18. PW10, HC Munshi Ram, deposed that on 21.9.2009, the accused Gurpreet Singh alias Goldi made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act vide Ext.PW10/D before the Investigating Officer that on 23.8.2009, Gurmeet, Lakhbir Singh alias Kheera and Kulwinder Singh alias Gopi pointed out the place where the alleged occurrence took place. On 21.9.2009, Satpal, son of Amrik Singh, produced one Innova Car bearing No. PB-10CP-8985 along with R.C., which was taken into possession vide seizure memo, Ext.PW10/E. On 23.9.2009, accused Gurmeet Singh alias Goldi made statement in his presence that he could get recovered an iron jack. Memo, Ext.PW10/F, was prepared to this effect, which was signed by him and witness Balbir Singh. Memo, Ext.PW10/F, was prepared to this effect, which was signed by him and witness Balbir Singh. On the same day, accused Lakhbir Singh alias Kheera made a disclosure statement that he could get recovered Baseball stick. Memo, Ext.PW10/G was prepared to this effect. On the same day, accused Kulwinder Singh alias Gopi made a disclosure statement that he could get recovered wooden stick baseball. Memo, Ext.PW10/H was prepared to this effect. On 24.9.2009, accused Kulwinder alias Gopi made a disclosure statement and got recovered baseball wooden stick vide memo, Ext. PW10/J. Lakhbir Singh alias Kheera got recovered baseball stick. Memo, Ext.PW10/K, was prepared to this effect. On the same day, the accused Gurpreet Singh got recovered iron jack vide memo, Ext.PW10/L. Baseball sticks, Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 were taken into possession vide seizure memo, Ext.PW10/K. In cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of alleged recovery of baseball sticks, Ext.P5 and Ext.P6, no local witness was associated by the Investigating Officer. He volunteered that the spot was an isolated place. He also admitted that the baseball sticks, Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 were not sealed on the spot. He could not say who had summoned Balbir Singh, s/o Ajeet Singh to be a witness in the seizure memos, Ext.PW10/J, Ext.PW10/K and Ext. PW10/L. 19. PW11, Gurnam Singh and PW12 Amarjeet Singh are formal witnesses. 20. PW13, Jagdev Singh, deposed that he is the owner of motor repair workshop at Jagroan Road Mullapur. Nothing had happened in his presence. He was declared hostile. In cross-examination, he denied that at about 11/11.30 A.M., motorcycle No.PB-10V-8805 on which Lakhbir Singh and Sarvjeet Singh and another motorcycle No.PB-41B-3783, on which Sohan Singh and Daljinder Singh residents of Bhundari came in front of his shop. He denied that there was exchange of some hot words between Daljinder, Sohan Singh, Lakhbir and Kulwinder. 21. PW14, Constable Sunil Kumar and PW15 Madan Lal are formal witnesses. 22. PW16, Satpal Singh deposed that he is owner of Innova vehicle bearing No. PB-10CP-8985. His vehicle was never taken to Himachal Pradesh as there was no permission/permit to ply the same in Himachal Pradesh. He was declared hostile. In cross-examination, he denied that he engaged Gurpreet alias Goldi as driver. 23. PW17, Sohan Singh, deposed that Daljinder Singh was his close friend. He knew all the accused. Accused Kheera was suspecting illicit relations of Manu with Daljinder Singh alias Kaka. He was declared hostile. In cross-examination, he denied that he engaged Gurpreet alias Goldi as driver. 23. PW17, Sohan Singh, deposed that Daljinder Singh was his close friend. He knew all the accused. Accused Kheera was suspecting illicit relations of Manu with Daljinder Singh alias Kaka. However, there was no such relation between Manu and Kaka. The accused Kheera was involved in trafficking of poppy husk. Daljinder alias Kaka associated Kheera in the trafficking of poppy husk for little period. Kaka knew all the hideouts of accuse d Kheera in the illicit trade of poppy husk. On 22.8.2009, he along with Daljinder Singh alias Kaka proceeded from their houses on a motorcycle to visit Chintpurni and Kangra to pay their obeisance. They reached at Mullapur at about 10.00 A.M.. Chain of the motorcycle was defected. They visited Mullapur to get the chain repaired. Lakhbir alias Kheera and Kulwinder alias Gopi, who were in Indica car being driven by accused Kheera attempted to hit their motorcycle with the car, but they saved themselves. Thereafter, both the accused manhandled and abused them. At that time, the accused Sarvjeet alias Mangi was also present there along with his motorcycle. The accused Mangi knew that they were going to Chintpurni and Kangra. He advised them to proceed on his motorcycle to avoid further dispute with Gopi and Kheera. He assured them that after getting repaired, he would leave the motorcycle in the village. They agreed and proceeded further on the motorcycle of accused Mangi. The registration number of motorcycle was PB-10CB-8805. He along with Daljinder alias Kaka reached Chintpurni at about 11.00 P.M. and stayed there overnight. The accused Mangi remained in touch with them on phone and he inquired about their journey, location and the stay. After visiting Chintpurni Temple on 23.8.2009, they proceeded further on motorcycle to Kangra. They reached Kangra by 1.00 P.M.. They visited Brijeshwari Temple and they returned from Kangra at about 4.30/5.00 P.M.. When they reached about 10/12 kms away from Kangra towards Chintpurni, they stopped their vehicle at Hotel and took tea. At that time also, accused Mangi inquired about their location on phone and Daljinder alias Kaka told about the details of our location to him. They proceeded from the hotel and after a little distance, one Innova car came from the opposite side and hit their motorcycle. Both of them fell down on the road. At that time also, accused Mangi inquired about their location on phone and Daljinder alias Kaka told about the details of our location to him. They proceeded from the hotel and after a little distance, one Innova car came from the opposite side and hit their motorcycle. Both of them fell down on the road. Gurpreet Singh alias Goldi, Lakhbir Singh alias Kheera and Kulwinder Singh alias Gopi came out from the Innvoa Car. Goldi was carrying jack and Lakhbir and Gopi were carrying base ball bats. About 3-4 persons were also in the Innova Car but, they were not known to him. Goldi gave jack blow on his face and Kheera and Gopi gave blows with baseball bats on other parts of his body. Daljinder alias Kaka tried to get up but the accused gave him merciless beatings. At that time, no other person was present on the spot nor any vehicle passed therefrom. They became unconscious on the road and the accused persons left them presuming that they were dead. He regained his consciousness and found himself admitted in Arora Hospital, Ludhiana on 2.9.2009. Next day, on 3.9.2009, police of Police Station Kangra visited the hospital. The police recorded his statement in the presence of Dr. K.K. Arora, vide Ext.PW2/F. He identified baseball bats, Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 and jack, Ext.P7. In cross-examination, he deposed that Daljinder alias Kaka was involved in the trade of poppy husk for about 6/7 months prior to his death. He volunteered that Daljinder alias Kaka was doing the business of sale and purchase of poppy husk with Lakhwinder alias Kheera. On 3.9.2009, he did not tell to the police in his statement that Daljinder alias Kaka was involved in the sale and purchase of poppy husk along with Lakhwinder Singh alias Kheera. In his subsequent statement, dated 10.9.2009, he had also not told the police that Daljinder Singh alias Kaka was doing the business of sale and purchase of poppy husk with accused Lakhbir alias Kheera. He admitted that in Ext.PW2/F dated 3.9.2009, he had not mentioned registration number of the Innova vehicle. He also admitted that in Ext.PW2/F statement dated 3.9.2009 it was not stated that who was driving the Innova vehicle. He also admitted that even in his subsequent statement dated 10.9.2009, the driver of Innova vehicle was not disclosed by him. He admitted that in Ext.PW2/F dated 3.9.2009, he had not mentioned registration number of the Innova vehicle. He also admitted that in Ext.PW2/F statement dated 3.9.2009 it was not stated that who was driving the Innova vehicle. He also admitted that even in his subsequent statement dated 10.9.2009, the driver of Innova vehicle was not disclosed by him. He admitted that in his statements dated 3.9.2009 and 10.9.2009 it was not stated that during investigation the police had shown him the Innova vehicle. He admitted that the baseball bats, Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 were not sealed in his presence. He had not read and gone through the seizure memos, Ext.PW10/J and Ext.PW10/K, pertaining to recovery of baseball bats, Ext.P5 and Ext.P6. He had also not read and gone through the seizure memo, Ext.PW10/L showing recovery of metal jack, Ext.P7. He admitted that the motorcycle No. PB-10CB-8805 did not belong to him or the deceased. 24. PW18, Karanbir Singh is a formal witness. 25. PW19, Head Constable Santosh Kumar, deposed that on 13.9.2009, he was present at Village Bhundari along with Investigating Officer. On that date, Harbans Singh produced one C.D. to the Investigating Officer in the presence of Gurmeet Singh and Balbir Singh containing threats of the accused Kheera to his son. The CD was sealed in a cloth parcel with seal impression “M” and taken into possession vide memo, Ext.PW19/A. He deposed that since the CD was not displayed in his presence, he could not say whose conversation was contained in the C.D. 26. PW20, Sanjay Kumar, deposed that on 23.8.2009, he had visited Chintpurni, Jawalaji and Brijeshwari Devi Temples at Kangra on his motorcycle bearing No.PB-25-7503. At about 6.45 P.M., when he reached at a place known as Ranital, he saw Innova vehicle parked by the side of the road. The accused Kheera, Gopi and Goldi were also present by the side of the said vehicle. One person, who was known to him, was sitting on the driving seat of Innova Car. He slowed down speed of the motorcycle, but he did not talk to the accused and proceeded on his way to home. The number of the Innova vehicle was PB-10-BV-9415. In cross-examination, he deposed that he did not stop his motorcycle even in his own village. 27. PW21, Dr. He slowed down speed of the motorcycle, but he did not talk to the accused and proceeded on his way to home. The number of the Innova vehicle was PB-10-BV-9415. In cross-examination, he deposed that he did not stop his motorcycle even in his own village. 27. PW21, Dr. R.K. Sharma, deposed that on 23.8.2009, he medically examined Daljinder Singh vide MLC, Ext.PW21/B and observed following injuries:- (i) Cut injury on right side of forehead extending below right medical side of eye with clotted blood. (ii) Multiple abrasions on all over body. (iii) Cut lacerated wound on left ear lobule. He also medically examined Sohan Singh vide MLC, Ext.PW21/C and observed following injuries:- (i) Massive facial injury with bleeding from mouth and nose. (ii) Fracture of mandible and maxilla with dislocation of teeth with bleeding. (iii) Multiple abrasion on both arms and both legs. (iv) Superacondinal fracture of right arm. He gave his final opinion, Ext.PW1/D on the reverse of Ext.PW1/C. The probable duration of injuries was within three hours caused by blunt weapon. He admitted that the injuries sustained by the injured were possible if the injured have travelled on motorcycle and if motorcycle was hit by another vehicle and if the injured were given beatings with baseball sticks and iron jack of the vehicle. In cross-examination, he deposed that after 23.8.2009, the police did not come to him to know his opinion whether the injuries mentioned in Ext.PW21/B and Ext.PW21/C could be caused by baseball sticks and iron jack. He admitted that multiple abrasions, found by him in MLC Ext.PW21/B and Ext.PW21/C, could also be caused if a person rolls down on the road after hitting a stone or boulder. 28. PW22, Damandeep Singh, deposed that at the request of S.P. Kangra, at Dharamshala he provided the call details of Mobile No.097800-74897 vide e-mail dated 5th September 2009, Ext.PW22/A. In cross-examination, he admitted that particulars and addresses of the persons, who called on mobile phone Number 097800-74897 were not available with him nor they have been shown to him in the Court. He also admitted that names and particulars of the persons, who had received the calls from the said mobile number, have not shown to him in the court. He also admitted that names and particulars of the persons, who had received the calls from the said mobile number, have not shown to him in the court. He also admitted that no certificate had been furnished by him as required under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act about the supply of record, Ext.PW22/B. He also admitted that unless the names and particulars of the persons, who received phone calls from the above stated number, are not ascertained it cannot be said who had the conversation with the holder of above stated number. 29. PW23, Gurmeet Singh, deposed that he was Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bhundari, Tehsil Jagroan, District Ludhiana since 2008. According to him, about three months before the death of the deceased, Ward Panch Kulwant Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh came to his house and informed him orally that Lakhbir Singh alias Kheera had given threats with dire consequences to his deceased son Daljinder Singh on landline and mobile phones and also used filthy language. He sent Chowkidar Mukhtiar Singh and called Lakhbir Singh alias Kheera, Gurpreet Singh alias Goldi and Kulwinder Singh alias Gopi in the Panchayat. The accused Lakhbir Singh alias Kheera orally apologized from the Ward Panch Kulwant Kaur and also ensure d that he would not repeat the same in future. He pacified the matter orally. 30. PW24, MHC Som Raj, is a formal witness. 31. PW25, HC Kuldeep Singh, deposed that on 23.8.2009, HC Manoj Kumar deposited one motorcycle No. PB 10CB 8805 with him. He entered the same at Sr. No.142 in Malkhana Register No.19. The Inspector/SHO Partap Singh deposited one parcel, Ext.P1 along with seal ‘O’ containing clothes of Sohan Singh. On 19.9.2009, ASI Avtar Singh deposited one parcel sealed bearing seal impression ‘M’ containing one audio CD along with sample seal ‘M’. On 24.9.2009, ASI Avtar Singh deposited with him two baseball bats, Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 and he entered the same in the Malkhana register. Parcel of clothes, Ext.P1, was sent to FSL Junga through Constable Ravinder No.1095 for chemical examination vide R.C. No.263/09. Jack, Ext.P7 was also sent to FSL Junga. He has admitted that abstract of the malkhana register was not on the court file and neither it was shown to him in the court. He volunteered that he had brought the original Malkhana register as well as RC register in the Court. Jack, Ext.P7 was also sent to FSL Junga. He has admitted that abstract of the malkhana register was not on the court file and neither it was shown to him in the court. He volunteered that he had brought the original Malkhana register as well as RC register in the Court. He admitted that the baseball sticks, Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 were deposited in the malkhana in unsealed condition. 32. PW26, Partap Singh Thakur, deposed that on 23.8.2009, Ruqua, Ext.PW2/A was received in the Police Station through Constable Manjeet No.1179, on the basis of which, FIR, Ext.PW26/A was registered by him. On 3.9.2009, after recording the statement of Sohan Singh by HC Manoj Kumar, a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. On 7.9.2009, he visited village Bhundari, District Ludhiana (Punjab). Kulwant Singh produced before him clothes of Sohan Singh, Ext.PW2 to Ext.P4, which were put in a parcel, Ext.P1 and taken into possession duly sealed with seal impression ‘O’ vide seizure memo, Ext.PW7/A. In cross-examination, he admitted that as per Ruqua Ext.PW2/A, upon which he had put his endorsement Ext.PW26/B, a case under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code was made out. He himself did not visit the spot. 33. PW27, Harbans Singh, deposed that Daljinder Singh was his son. According to him, all the accused were from his village and well known to him. He learnt from the villagers that the accused were dealing in the illicit trade of poppy husk etc. and that his son had also been associated by them in that trade. He advised his son to leave company of the accused and dealing in illicit trade. Due to this reason, he sent his son for pursuing a course in computer science at Chandigarh. His son left the society of the accused about 2-3 months prior to the murder. Thereafter, the accused Kheera alias Lakhbir started threatening with dire consequences to his son. Kheera threatened his son on mobile phone as well as landline phone. His wife Kulwant Kaur and his son went to the house of Kheera to request him not to give threatening. Kheera promised not to give threatening in future. On 10.8.2009, he along with his wife Kulwant Kaur reported the matter to Sarpanch Gurmeet Singh. A verbal compromise was got effected before the Panchayat. 34. PW28, Dr. His wife Kulwant Kaur and his son went to the house of Kheera to request him not to give threatening. Kheera promised not to give threatening in future. On 10.8.2009, he along with his wife Kulwant Kaur reported the matter to Sarpanch Gurmeet Singh. A verbal compromise was got effected before the Panchayat. 34. PW28, Dr. K.K. Arora, deposed that the injured Sohan Singh was admitted in his hospital on 24.8.2009 with multiple facial and head injuries. He was brought and admitted in unconscious stage. He was treated and operated upon by him. He found following injuries on his person:- 1. Fracture of maxilla (upper jaw) extending to floor of orbit left side. 2. Fracture of mandible at two sites with significant displacement. 3. Soft tissues injury of upper and lower lip. He managed plating of maxilla. Plating of mandible and inter-dental injury. Plastic surgery repair of upper and lower lip. He issued MLC, Ext.PW28/D. In cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of preparation of MLC, Ext.PW28/D, it had not been mentioned by him that the patient was unconscious and was not responding to the questions. 35. PW29, HC Surinder Kumar, is a formal witness. 36. PW30, Dr. Munish Wadhawan, conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Daljinder Singh vide post mortem report, Ext PW30/C. According to him, the cause of death was craniocerebral damage as a result of blunt force impact. All injuries were ante mortem in nature. 37. PW31, HC Rajesh Kumar, deposed that the case property, i.e. C.D. in a sealed parcel was sent for preparing its copy to FSL Junga by the MHC Rajesh Kumar. In cross-examination, he deposed that the C.D. had not been played in his presence. No transcripts of the contents of the conversation in the CD were prepared in his presence. He did not know whether the envelopes received by him was contained any certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act of the person or the official who had prepared the copies of the C.D. He had not brought the malkhana register in the court. 38. PW32, HHC Arjun Singh deposed that the FSL after preparing the copy of the CD handed over to him two sealed envelopes, Ext.PW31/A and Ext.PW31/B allegedly containing opinion and CD which he deposited in safe condition with MHC, Police Station Kangra on 11.9.2010. 38. PW32, HHC Arjun Singh deposed that the FSL after preparing the copy of the CD handed over to him two sealed envelopes, Ext.PW31/A and Ext.PW31/B allegedly containing opinion and CD which he deposited in safe condition with MHC, Police Station Kangra on 11.9.2010. In cross-examination, he deposed that the CD had not been played in his presence. No transcripts of the contents of conversation in the CD were prepared in his presence. No voice samples of any of the accused were taken by any police official in his presence. He did not know whether the envelopes received by him contained any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act of the person or the official who had prepared the copies of the CD. 39. PW33, ASI Raffo Dass, deposed that during the trial of the case under the directions of S.P. Kangra at Dharamshala and by order of the Court, the CD was dispatched to the FSL Junga vide letter, Ext.PW33/A for preparation of its copy. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not written to RFSL Dharamshala and FSL, Junga to supply them the transcripts of the conversation contained in the C.D.. He also admitted that no voice sample of any of the accused was collected by him before sending the CD to the laboratory. 40. PW34, Balbir Singh, deposed that two letters were produced by Harbans Singh to the police Mark PW10/A and Mark PW10/B and the same were taken into possession vide memo, Ext.PW10/C. Harbans Singh also produced one CD to the police in which threats of Kheera were recorded. The CD was sealed and taken into possession vide memo, Ext.PW19/A. During police custody, Gurpreet Singh alias Goldi made a disclosure statement to the police in his presence that he had concealed the iron jack under the used tyres at his house at Bhundri and he could get the jack recovered. The statement, Ext.PW10/F was recorded by the police. The CD was sealed and taken into possession vide memo, Ext.PW19/A. During police custody, Gurpreet Singh alias Goldi made a disclosure statement to the police in his presence that he had concealed the iron jack under the used tyres at his house at Bhundri and he could get the jack recovered. The statement, Ext.PW10/F was recorded by the police. The accused Lakhbir alias Kheera also made disclosure statement to the police that he had concealed baseball sticks at some distance ahead of Ranital by the side of the road and he could get the same recovered vide Ext.PW10/G. The accused Kulwinder Singh also made disclosure statement that he had also concealed baseball sticks at some distance ahead the place where Kheera had concealed the sticks and that he could get the same recovered vide Ext.PW10/H. The accused Goldi, Kheera and Gopi led the police party little ahead of Bahtu Pool on Kangra Jawalamukhi Road. Gopi got recovered one baseball stick and from little distance ahead accuse d Kheera got recovered another baseball stick. These were taken into possession vide memos, Ext.PW10/J and Ext.PW10/K. Thereafter, the accused Goldi led the police party near the gate of his house, from where he got recovered a blood stained iron jack concealed under the used tyres. Jack was taken into possession vide memo, Ext.PW10/L. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know what was written in the Ext.PW10/F, Ext.PW10/G, Ext.PW10/H, Ext.PW10/J, Ext.PW10/K and Ext.PW10/L. He admitted that in his presence no person, resident of Kangra or Ranital was associated by the police at the time of recovery of baseball sticks, Ext.P5 and Ext.P6. 41. PW35, ASI Avtar Singh, deposed that he visited the injured Sohan Singh at Arora Hospital, Ludhiana and recorded his statement. He also taken into possession compromise dated 16.8.2009 vide memo, Ext.PW9/D. He also deposed the manner in which the disclosure statements were made by the accused and the recoveries were effected. In cross-examination, he admitted that there were a number of shops, petrol pump and residences of the villagers at Ranital. He admitted that nobody had told him at the spot that the motorcycle No. PB-10CB-8805 was hit by some other vehicle. He had not produced any record of toll-tax barriers of Mehatpur and Gagret to show that Innova Car No.PB-10CP-8985 had entered the boundary of Himachal Pradesh on 22.8.2009, 23.8.2009 and 24.8.2009. He admitted that nobody had told him at the spot that the motorcycle No. PB-10CB-8805 was hit by some other vehicle. He had not produced any record of toll-tax barriers of Mehatpur and Gagret to show that Innova Car No.PB-10CP-8985 had entered the boundary of Himachal Pradesh on 22.8.2009, 23.8.2009 and 24.8.2009. He also admitted that there was no medical opinion of the doctor on the file to show that Sohan Singh alias Shainti was not fit to make statement from 27.8.2009 till 3.9.2009. He had not placed on record call details pertaining to 22.8.2009 and 23.8.2009 of cell phone of accused Sarvjeet alias Mangi. He did not collect any record or investigate the call details of Sarvjeet alias Mangi to the co-accused Gurpreet, Lakhbir and Kulwinder. He also admitted that there was no record on the court file regarding the cell phone owners, who had called on mobile No.097870074897. He also admitted that there were no documents to show that what were the mobile numbers of Gurpreet, Lakhbir and Kulwinder. He did not collect any record in this behalf. He also admitted that Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 were not sealed and remained unsealed till the same were produced in the court. He admitted that from 19.9.2009 to 22.9.2009, no disclosure statement of any of the accused regarding the recovery of weapon was recorded. He also admitted that in disclosure statements, Ext.PW10/D, Ext.PW10/F, Ext.PW10/G and Ext.PW10/H, no witness of Tehsil and District Kangra was associated by him. He also admitted that in seizure memos, Ext.PW10/J, Ext. PW10/K, Ext.PW10/L, no witness of Tehsil and District Kangra was associated by him. He also admitted that in all the memos, Balbir Singh, son of Ajeet Singh had been shown to be a witness. He admitted that Balbir Singh was resident of village Jagroan, District Ludhiana. He admitted that Balbir Singh did not know how to write or read Hindi. He admitted that the disclosure statements and seizure memos were in Hindi. He admitted that the statement of Dr.K.K. Arora was recorded on 20.2.2010 after the period of five and half months from the occurrence. He also admitted that in Ext.PW2/F, statement of Sohan Singh, name of driver of the vehicle had also not been mentioned. He admitted that the disclosure statements and seizure memos were in Hindi. He admitted that the statement of Dr.K.K. Arora was recorded on 20.2.2010 after the period of five and half months from the occurrence. He also admitted that in Ext.PW2/F, statement of Sohan Singh, name of driver of the vehicle had also not been mentioned. He also admitted that during investigation of the case they did not identify other 34 persons which Sohan Singh had mentioned in his statement, Ext.PW2/F. He admitted that there was no mention of baseball sticks and iron jacks in Ext.PW2/F. He admitted that no certificate was obtained under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act in support of the document, Ext.PW22/B. He also admitted that neither the abstract of the malkhana register was on the court file nor it was shown to him in the court to know when the case property and weapon of offence were deposited in the malkhana of Police Station and whether they were sealed or not. 42. What emerges from the evidence on record is that FIR bearing No.236/2009, Ext.PW26/A was registered at Police Station, Kangra, on 23.8.2009. According to the contents of the FIR, on 23.8.2009 at 7.35 P.M., an accident took place at Dhundani Baag, National Highway No.88. Constable Manjeet Singh visited the spot. ASI Manohar Lal was already present on the spot. The injured were shifted to Dr. RPGM College, Tanda. As per the spot inspection, motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-10CB -8805 met with an accident due to high speed and negligent driving. The FIR was registered under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. 43. PW1, Shyam Lal, testified that on 23.8.2009 at about 7.15 P.M., one truck driver informed him that near Dhundani Baag, National Highway, an accident took place and the injured along with a motorcycle were lying on the road. His brother Raju telephonically informed the Police Post Ranital. He did not know the registration number and make of the motorcycle, which met with an accident. He also did not know who was owner or driver of the truck, who had given them the information about the accident and the injured persons lying on the road. Similarly, PW3, Raj Kapoor, deposed that one truck driver told them in the shop that two injured along with motorcycle were lying by the side of the road. He also did not know who was owner or driver of the truck, who had given them the information about the accident and the injured persons lying on the road. Similarly, PW3, Raj Kapoor, deposed that one truck driver told them in the shop that two injured along with motorcycle were lying by the side of the road. He telephonically informed the Police Post Ranital and the police visited the spot. He also did not know name of the owner or driver of the truck, who came to his shop to inform them about the accident. He admitted that there is a high density of traffic on the road throughout day and night. PW2, HC Manoj Kumar, deposed that on 23.8.2009 he visited the spot along with Constable Manjeet Singh on their motorcycle. ASI Manohar Lal, Incharge Police Station Ranital along with HHC Dharam Chand was also present on the spot. He did not find any eye witness of the accident. According to him, the motorcycle was having dents and scratches. He presumed that some accident had occurred. He prepared Ruqua, Ext.PW2/A . He also presumed that since the road was very wide, the motorcycle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which caused an accident. He prepared the site plan, vide Ext.PW2/B. He also took photographs of the motorcycle and road vide Ext.PW2/C-1 to Ext.PW2/C-4. The motorcycle was taken into possession vide memo, Ext.PW2/D and the same was mechanically examined. The mechanical examination report, Ext.PW2/E was obtained. Thereafter, he visited Medical College and Hospital Tanda. In cross-examination, he categorically admitted that in Ruqua, Ext.PW2/A, he had mentioned that the motorcycle No. PB-10CB-8805 had met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by its rider. He also admitted that on the basis of Ruqua, Ext.PW2/A, a case under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. He further admitted that on 23.8.2009 he did not find any evidence or proof on the spot that the motorcycle No. PB-10CB-8805 met with an accident with some other vehicle. He made inquiries from the shopkeepers about the accident, but they told that they did not see any accident. He also admitted that there were shops and other establishments at Ranital. According to PW4, ASI Manohar Lal, there was no mark to ascertain that any other vehicle had hit the motorcycle. He made inquiries from the shopkeepers about the accident, but they told that they did not see any accident. He also admitted that there were shops and other establishments at Ranital. According to PW4, ASI Manohar Lal, there was no mark to ascertain that any other vehicle had hit the motorcycle. He also did not find any witness who had seen the accident. He categorically deposed that from the spot inspection, it appeared that due to high speed of the motor cycle, the rider could not control it and struck against the hillock. He did not notice any skid marks of any vehicle at the spot. He did not find any evidence or proof on the spot that any other vehicle had collided with the motorcycle. He categorically admitted that he had observed that accident took place when the motorcyclist struck against the hillock due to high speed and negligent driving. PW6, Shiv Charan, mechanically examined the motorcycle No. PB-10CB-8805 at Police Station Kangra. He issued mechanical inspection report, Ext.PW2/E. In cross-examination, he deposed that he is not a qualified graduate in auto-mobile engineering. He admitted that if the motor cycle is driven in a high speed and if it hits the stone or boulder by the side of the road, then the damage as mentioned in report, Ext.PW2/A is possible. He also admitted that he had not mentioned the reasons in Ext.PW2/E how the damage was caused to the motorcycle. He also admitted that the Investigating Officer never sought his opinion as to how damage was caused to the motorcycle. PW26, Partap Singh Thakur, also admitted that as per Ruqua, a case under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code was made out. He also admitted that while recording the statements of Shyam Lal and Raju alias Raj Kumar, they did not disclose that motorcycle No.PB-10C-8805 was hit by some other vehicle. He did not inspect the spot. He also admitted that as per the investigation carried out by PW2 HC Manoj Kumar, and HC Munshi Ram, a case of rash and negligent driving was made out. It is, thus, duly established on record that the accident had taken place due to high speed, rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle. The prosecution has failed to prove that the motorcycle was ever hit by Innova car. There was no eye witness of the accident. It is, thus, duly established on record that the accident had taken place due to high speed, rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle. The prosecution has failed to prove that the motorcycle was ever hit by Innova car. There was no eye witness of the accident. FIR, Ext.PW26/A, was also registered under Sections 279 and 337 at Police Station Kangra. 44. Now, the Court will advert to the manner in which the case was converted from Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code to Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 302, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 45. According to the prosecution case, PW17 Sohan Singh and the deceased Daljinder Singh decided to visit Chintpurni and Brijeshwari Temples in District Kangra. On 22.8.2009, they started their journey on their motorcycle. When they reached at village Mullapur, motorcycle deve loped snag. The accused attempted to hit them with the Indica car but they escaped. When they were getting their motorcycle repaired, one of the accused Sarvjeet Singh alias Mangi was also present there. He advised them to proceed on his motorcycle and assured that he would leave the motorcycle in the village after getting it repaired. They agreed to the suggestion of the accused Sarvjeet Singh and proceeded further on his motorcycle. The accused Sarvjeet Singh remained in their contact on phone and he inquired about their journey, location and the stay. After visiting Chintpurni Temple on 23.8.2009, they proceeded further on motorcycle to Kangra. They visited Brijeshwari Temple. When they were coming back from Kangra towards Chintpurni, one Innova car came from the opposite side and hit their motorcycle. Both of them fell down on the road. Three persons came out from the Innvoa Car. They were armed with dandas. They gave beatings to PW17 Sohan Singh and the deceased Daljinder Singh. They received injuries. They were shifted to Medical College and Hospital, Tanda. Daljinder Singh succumbed to his injures. Statement of PW17 Sohan Singh was recorded at Arora Hospital, Ludhiana vide Ext.PW2/F, on the basis of which, FIR was converted to Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 302, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code from Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. 46. Daljinder Singh succumbed to his injures. Statement of PW17 Sohan Singh was recorded at Arora Hospital, Ludhiana vide Ext.PW2/F, on the basis of which, FIR was converted to Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 302, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code from Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. 46. PW17 Sohan Singh has made material improvements while appearing in the court from his earlier statement, Ext.PW2/F. According to him, one of the accused Lakhwinder Singh alias Kheera and the deceased Daljinder Singh were involved in trafficking of poppy husk. He narrated the manner in which they proceeded towards Chintpurni Temple and agreed to take motorcycle of one of the accused Sarvjeet Singh alias Mangi and they were hit by an Innova Car. In Ext.PW2/F, PW17 Sohan Singh deposed that the accused were armed with dandas. However, in his statement recorded in the Court as PW17, he made material improvement by deposing that accused Goldi was carrying the jack and Lakhbir and Gopi were carrying base ball bats. Goldi gave jack blow on his face and Kheera and Gopi gave blows with baseball bats on other parts of his body. Daljinder alias Kaka tried to get up but the accused gave him merciless beatings. They became unconscious on the road and the accused persons left them presuming that they were dead. He regained his consciousness and found himself admitted in Arora Hospital, Ludhiana on 2.9.2009. Next day, on 3.9.2009, police of Police Station Kangra visited the hospital and recorded his statement, Ext.PW2/F. In cross-examination, he deposed that on 3.9.2009, he did not disclose to the police in his statement that Daljinder alias Kaka was involved in the sale and purchase of poppy husk along with accused Lakhwinder Singh alias Kheera. He in his subsequent statement, dated 10.9.2009, had also not told the police that Daljinder Singh alias Kaka was doing the business of sale and purchase of poppy husk with accused Lakhbir alias Kheera. He also admitted that in Ext.PW2/F dated 3.9.2009, he had not mentioned registration number of the Innova vehicle. He also admitted that the baseball bats, Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 were not sealed in his presence. He had not read and gone through the seizure memos, Ext.PW10/J and Ext.PW10/K, pertaining to recovery of baseball bats, Ext.P5 and Ext.P6. He also admitted that in Ext.PW2/F dated 3.9.2009, he had not mentioned registration number of the Innova vehicle. He also admitted that the baseball bats, Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 were not sealed in his presence. He had not read and gone through the seizure memos, Ext.PW10/J and Ext.PW10/K, pertaining to recovery of baseball bats, Ext.P5 and Ext.P6. He had also not read and gone through the seizure memo, Ext.PW10/L qua recovery of metal jack, Ext.P7. 47. PW21, Dr. R.K. Sharma, medically examined Daljinder Singh and Sohan Singh vide MLCs Ext.PW21/B and Ext.PW21/C. He gave his final opinion, Ext.PW1/D on the reverse of Ext.PW1/C. According to him, the probable duration of injuries was within three hours caused by blunt weapon. In cross-examination, he stated that after 23.8.2009, the police did not come to him to know his opinion whether the injuries mentioned in Ext.PW21/B and Ext.PW21/C could be caused by baseball sticks and iron jack. He admitted that multiple abrasions, found by him in MLC Ext.PW21/B and Ext.PW21/C, could also be caused if a person rolls down on the road after hitting a stone or bolder. PW28, Dr. K.K. Arora, testified that PW17 Sohan Singh was admitted in his hospital on 24.8.2009 with multiple facial and head injuries. According to him, he was brought and admitted in unconscious stage. The injured was treated and operated upon by him. He found injures on his person, as stated hereinabove. The patient was not fit to make the statement. He made an endorsement, Ext.PW28/B to this effect. The patient remained unconscious for 5-6 days after operation. When the patient became conscious and fit to make the statement he informed the Himachal Police because the police was in constant touch with him about the fitness of the patient to make statement. When he informed the Himachal Police, the police reached the hospital after some hours and recorded statement of Sohan Singh in his presence vide Ext.PW2/F. He issued MLC, Ext.PW28/D. According to him, the injures on the person of Sohan Singh were possible with blow of baseball sticks, Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 and iron jack, Ext.P7. In cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of preparation of MLC, Ext.PW28/D, it had not been mentioned by him that the patient was unconscious and was not responding to the questions. In cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of preparation of MLC, Ext.PW28/D, it had not been mentioned by him that the patient was unconscious and was not responding to the questions. He also admitted that at the time of preparation of MLC, the state of the body of a person whether he is conscious or unconscious is required to be mentioned. He admitted that he had not informed the local police at Ludhiana vide entry in the record. He also admitted that in MLC, Ext.PW28/D, the history of the case had not been recorded. He further admitted that there was no entry or any endorsement on the record that he had informed the police of Police Station Kangra that they should come and record the statement of the patient. He also admitted that there is no mention that the police of police Station Kangra had come to the Hospital on the receipt of information supplied by him and thereafter they recorded the statement of the patient. He also admitted that he did not give any written opinion that the patient was not fit to give statement. PW2, HC Manoj Kumar, deposed that on 3.9.2009, he visited Arora Hospital Ludhiana and recorded statement of Sohan Singh in the presence of Dr. K.K. Arora, Ext.PW2/F. Thereafter, the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 302, 307 and 506 were incorporated in the FIR. 48. The incident is dated 23.8.2009 and his statement was recorded on 3.9.2009. No written opinion was sought from PW28 Dr. K.K. Arora about fitness of PW17 Sohan Singh. There is no medical opinion to show that PW17 Sohan Singh was not fit to make statement before 3.9.2009. It casts doubt the manner in which statement, Ext.PW2/F was made by PW17 Sohan Singh, which led to registration of FIR under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 302, 307 and 506 against the accused. 49. PW7, Kulwant Singh is the father of injured Sohan Singh. He also deposed that all the accused namely Kheera, Goldi and Gopi along with deceased Kaka were involved in illicit trade of poppy husk. He also deposed that the accused Sarvjeet Singh alias Mangi had given his motorcycle to his son. On 7.8.2009, he produced before the police blood stained clothes of his son, i.e. pants, shirt and vest, which he had worn at the time of occurrence. He also deposed that the accused Sarvjeet Singh alias Mangi had given his motorcycle to his son. On 7.8.2009, he produced before the police blood stained clothes of his son, i.e. pants, shirt and vest, which he had worn at the time of occurrence. PW8, Mohan Singh, is the brother of PW17 Sohan Singh. His statement was recorded only on 7.9.2009. He admitted in his cross-examination that that despite warning of his father and opposition to the friendship, his brother continued his friendship with Daljinder Singh alias Kaka. He had also advised his brother Sohan Singh that he should not keep any friendship with Daljinder Singh alias Kaka. PW23, Gurmeet Singh, was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bhundari, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. He deposed the manner in which the compromise was arrived at between the parties. PW27, Harbans Singh, is father of the deceased Daljinder Singh. According to him, he knew all the accused. They belonged to his village and were well known to him. He learnt from the villagers that the accused were dealing in the illicit trade of poppy husk etc. and his son was also associated by them in that trade. He advised his son to leave the company of the accused and dealing in illicit trade. He also deposed the manner in which he and his wife went before the Panchayat where the matter was compromised. 50. The version of PW17 Sohan Singh cannot be believed. According to him, the motorcycle on which they were going towards Chintpurni Temple developed snag. One of the accused Sarvjeet Singh alias Mangi told them to take his motorcycle to go to Chintpurni. It is strange that PW`17 Sohan Singh and deceased Daljinder Singh agreed to the proposal of the accused Sarvjeet Singh. 51. According to PW17 Sohan Singh, accused Sarvjeet Singh remained in their contact by making them telephonic calls repeatedly. PW22, Damandeep Singh, proved call details of Mobile No.097800-74897. He admitted that particulars and addresses of the persons, who called on mobile phone Number 097800-74897 were not available with him nor they have been shown to him in the Court. He also admitted that the names and particulars of the persons, who had received the calls from the said mobile number, have not been shown to him in the court. He also admitted that the names and particulars of the persons, who had received the calls from the said mobile number, have not been shown to him in the court. He also admitted that he had not issued any certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act about the supply of record, Ext.PW22/B. He also admitted that unless the names and particulars of the persons, who received phone calls from the above stated number, are not ascertained it cannot be said that who had the conversation with the holder of the said number. PW35, ASI Avtar Singh, did not place on record call details of 22.8.2009 and 23.8.2009 of cell phone of accused Sarvjeet alias Mangi. He did not even collect any record or investigate the call details of Sarvjeet alias Mangi to the co-accused Gurpreet, Lakhbir and Kulwinder. He also admitted that there was no record on the court file regarding the owners of cell phones, who had called on the telephone No.097870074897. He also admitted that there were no documents to show that what were the mobile numbers of Gurpreet, Lakhbir and Kulwinder. He did not collect any record in this behalf. He admitted that no certificate was obtained under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act in support of the document, Ext.PW22/B. Story of the prosecution that one of the accused Sarvjeet Singh alias Mangi was in constant touch with PW17 Sohan Singh and the deceased Daljinder Singh is not believable. In the case in hand, the conduct of PW17 Sohan Singh was unnatural. 52. 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.” 53. 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.” 54. Now, the court will advert to the disclosure statements Ext.PW10/D, Ext.PW10/F, Ext.PW10/G and Ext.PW10/H made by the accused. 55. The disclosure statements Ext.PW10/D, Ext.PW10/F, Ext.PW10/G and Ext.PW10/H are stated to have been made by the accused, which led to recovery of weapon of offences, i.e. baseball sticks, Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 and iron jack, Ext.P7. Balbir Singh signed the recoveries memos, Ext.PW10/J, Ext. PW10/K, Ext.PW10/L as a witness. He is the resident of village Jagroan, District Ludhiana village. It has come on record that there were shops, petrol pump, houses and establishments at Ranital. However, no independent witness from the locality of Ranital or Tehsil and District Kangra has been associated. PW35, ASI Avtar Singh categorically admitted that there were a number of shops, petrol pump and residences of the villagers at Ranital. He admitted that nobody had told him at the spot that the motorcycle No. PB-10CB-8805 was hit by some other vehicle. He admitted that in disclosure statements, Ext.PW10/D, Ext.PW10/F, Ext.PW10/G and Ext.PW10/H and seizure memos, Ext.PW10/J, Ext. PW10/K, Ext.PW10/L, no witness of Tehsil and District Kangra was associated by him. He admitted that nobody had told him at the spot that the motorcycle No. PB-10CB-8805 was hit by some other vehicle. He admitted that in disclosure statements, Ext.PW10/D, Ext.PW10/F, Ext.PW10/G and Ext.PW10/H and seizure memos, Ext.PW10/J, Ext. PW10/K, Ext.PW10/L, no witness of Tehsil and District Kangra was associated by him. He also admitted that Balbir Singh, who had been shown to be a witness in all the memos, was resident of village Jagroan, District Ludhiana. He also admitted that Balbir Singh did not know how to write or read Hindi. He admitted that the disclosure statements and seizure memos were in Hindi. He also admitted that neither the abstract of the malkhana register was on the court file nor it was shown to him in the court to ascertain when the case property and weapon of offences were deposited in the malkhana of Police Station or whether they were sealed or not. PW25 HC Kuldeep Singh, in his cross-examination admitted that abstract of the malkhana register was not on the court file and neither it was shown to him in the court. PW34, Balbir Singh, in his cross-examination categorically admitted that he did not know what was written in the memos Ext.PW10/F, Ext.PW10/G, Ext.PW10/H, Ext.PW10/J, Ext.PW10/K and Ext.PW10/L. He admitted that no person resident of Kangra or Ranital was associated by the police at the time of recovery of baseball sticks, Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 in his presence. There is no explanation why independent witnesses, though available, were not associated by the police during the course of disclosure statements and recoveries. Even baseball sticks, Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 were not sealed. It casts doubt the manner in which the disclosure statements were made, which led to the recoveries of the weapon of offences. The evidence led by the prosecution in this regard is not trustworthy. 56. The prosecution has placed strong reliance on statement of PW31, HC Rajesh Kumar. According to PW31 HC Rajesh Kumar, one C.D. containing threats of accused Kheera to PW17 Sohan Singh in a sealed parcel was sent for preparing its copy to FSL Junga by the MHC Rajesh Kumar. In cross-examination, he categorically deposed that the C.D. had not been played in his presence. No transcripts of the conversation in the CD were prepared in his presence. In cross-examination, he categorically deposed that the C.D. had not been played in his presence. No transcripts of the conversation in the CD were prepared in his presence. He even did not know whether the envelopes received by him was contained any certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act of the person or the official who had prepared the copies of the C.D. PW32, HHC Arjun Singh testified that the FSL after preparing the copy of the CD handed over to him two sealed envelopes, Ext.PW31/A and Ext.PW31/B allegedly containing opinion and CD which he deposited in the safe condition with MHC, Police Station Kangra on 11.9.2010. In cross-examination, he deposed that no voice samples of any of the accused were taken by any police official in his presence. He did not know whether the envelopes received by him were contained any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act of the person or the official who had prepared the copies of the CD. PW33, ASI Raffo Dass also admitted that he had not written to RFSL Dharamshala and FSL, Junga to supply them the transcripts of the conversation contained in the C.D.. He also admitted that no voice sample of any of the accused was collected by him before sending the CD to the laboratory. The CD, alleged to be containing threats of accused Kheera to PW17 Sohan Singh has not been proved in accordance with law. 57. While stepping into the witness box, PW13 Jagdev Singh deposed that nothing had happened in his presence. He was declared hostile. In cross-examination, he denied that at about 11/11.30 A.M., Lakhbir Singh and Sarvjeet Singh on a motorcycle No.PB-10V-8805 and Sohan Singh and Daljinder Singh on motorcycle No.PB-41B-3783, residents of Bhundari came in front of his shop. He also denied that there was exchange of some hot words between Daljinder, Sohan Singh, Lakhbir and Kulwinder. 58. The prosecution has tried to establish involvement of Innova Car bearing No. PB-10CP-8985 in the accident by relying upon statement of PW20, Sanjay Kumar. According to PW20 Sanjay Kumar, on 23.8.2009, he visited Chintpurni, Jawalaji and Brijeshwari Devi Temples at Kangra on his motorcycle bearing No.PB-25-7503. At about 6.45 P.M., when he reached at Ranital, he noticed one Innova vehicle parked by the side of the road. According to PW20 Sanjay Kumar, on 23.8.2009, he visited Chintpurni, Jawalaji and Brijeshwari Devi Temples at Kangra on his motorcycle bearing No.PB-25-7503. At about 6.45 P.M., when he reached at Ranital, he noticed one Innova vehicle parked by the side of the road. He also noticed accused Kheera, Gopi and Goldi standing by the side of the said vehicle. One person, who was known to him, was sitting on the driving seat of Innova Car. Though he slowed down speed of his motorcycle, but he did not talk with the accused and proceeded on his way to home. The registration number of the vehicle was PB-10-BV-9415. In cross-examination, he deposed that his statement was recorded by the police on 21.9.2009. He did not witness any accident on his return to his village. He also did not see the collusion of any motor cycle with any other vehicle on his return to village. In case PW20, Sanjay Kumar, was known to the accused, he would have definitely talked to them. His statement does not inspire any confidence. PW16, Satpal Singh testified that he was owner of Toyota vehicle bearing No. PB-10CP-8985. According to him, his vehicle was never taken to Himachal Pradesh as he has not having any permission/permit to ply the same in Himachal Pradesh. He was declared hostile. He denied the suggestion that the accused Gurpreet alias Goldi was engaged by him as driver. According to PW2, HC Manoj Kumar, there were three toll tax barriers to enter district Kangra from Punjab -Mehatpur, Kandhwal and Gagret. He also admitted that it could be verified if a vehicle of particular registration number entered District Kangra from Punjab on a particular date. He admitted that no record of any toll tax barrier regarding entry of any vehicle in order to verify the entry in district Kangra from Punjab was placed on record. He even himself did not inspect the record of any toll tax barrier to know about the entry of any particular vehicle from Punjab to District Kangra. PW35 Avtar Singh had not produced any record of toll-tax barriers of Mehatpur and Gagret to show that Innova Car No.PB-10CP-8985 had entered the boundary of Himachal Pradesh on 22.8.2009, 23.8.2009 and 24.8.2009. He even himself did not inspect the record of any toll tax barrier to know about the entry of any particular vehicle from Punjab to District Kangra. PW35 Avtar Singh had not produced any record of toll-tax barriers of Mehatpur and Gagret to show that Innova Car No.PB-10CP-8985 had entered the boundary of Himachal Pradesh on 22.8.2009, 23.8.2009 and 24.8.2009. The police did not try to check the record of the toll tax barriers to establish that the Innova car, which is alleged to have been involved in the incident, ever entered District Kangra or not. The prosecution has failed to prove involvement of Innova car in the incident dated 23.8.2009. 59. The prosecution has failed to prove why Sohan Singh and accused Daljinder Singh agreed to use the motorcycle of accused Sarvjeet Singh. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused Sarvjeet Singh was in constant touch with PW17 Sohan Singh and deceased. The prosecution has failed to lead any tangible evidence to prove so called Innova car ever entered District Kangra. The disclosure statements, which led to the alleged recoveries, were not proved in accordance with law. Statement of Dr. K.K. Arora is also of no consequence to establish that PW17 Sohan Singh was not fit to make statement before 3.9.2009. The police has not associated any witness from the locality of Ranital or District Kangra. There is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the incident dated 23.8.2009 was a simple accident and the motorcycle was never hit by any Innova Car. The involvement of the accused persons is not established. It has come on record that the deceased was also involved in the illicit trade of poppy husk with the accused persons, due to which relations had soured between them. It appears that family of the deceased including PW17 Sohan Singh tried to take advantage of the accident to rope the accused in the alleged offences. Even the alleged CD has not been proved as per Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. It is also clear from Ext.PW2/B that it was a case of simple accident due to rash and negligent driving and the motorcycle had struck against the hillock. The prosecution has not even mechanically examined the Innova vehicle to ascertain whether it met with an accident or not. It is also clear from Ext.PW2/B that it was a case of simple accident due to rash and negligent driving and the motorcycle had struck against the hillock. The prosecution has not even mechanically examined the Innova vehicle to ascertain whether it met with an accident or not. Had the Innova car met with an accident on 23.8.2009, there would have been dents and scratches over it. 60. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. The trial court has convicted the accused on a mere superfluous approach without in-depth analysis of the relevant facts. 61. Accordingly, the Cr. A. Nos. 46/2011 and 47/2011 are allowed, while Cr. A. Nos. 57/2011 and 77/2011 are dismissed and the judgment dated 30.12.2010 in Sessions Case No. 1-K/VII-2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala is set aside. The accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The fine amount, if any deposited by them is ordered to be refunded to them. Since the accused are in jail, they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 62. The Registry is directed to prepare the release warrant of the accused and send it to the Superintendent of the Jail concerned in conformity with this judgment forthwith.