JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.: - This government appeal is preferred challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 25.8.1983 passed by the IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Etah in S.T. No. 357 of 1982 (State Versus Indrapal Singh and others) by which respondents-accused Indrapal Singh son of Nihal Singh, Brijendra Pal Singh & Mukesh Pal Singh sons of Gajadhar Singh and Balbir Singh son of Vijai Pal Singh, all residents of village Akrabad, P.S. Jalesar, District Etah were acquitted of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. 2. From perusal of the record the prosecution case appears to be that Jugel Pal Singh under police circle Jalesar was returning from village Nabipur on 11.2.1982 where he had gone to hire labourers. At about 7.30 A.M. when he was near the mustered field of Mewa Lal situated in village Akrabad, in which mustard crop was standing and on the side of village pathway, accused Indrapal Singh armed with lathi, accused Balbir Singh, Brijendra Pal Singh and Mukesh Pal Singh each armed with Pharsa are said to have emerged from the mustard crop standing in the field of Mewa Lal. They surrounded Jugel Pal Singh and gave Pharsa blows to him. Jugel Pal Singh sustained severe injuries by Pharsa blows and died on the spot. Bhisham Pal Singh (PW-1), brother-in-law of Jugel Pal Singh who was easing himself near the southern 'Mend' of the aforesaid field on seeing the incident, raised a hue and cry. Upon hearing the alarm, the witnesses of the prosecution, namely, Sri Pal Singh, Govind Pal Singh, Ramji Singh and Hari Pal Singh, who were also easing themselves in the nearby fields came and challenged the accused. The accused persons then escaped towards village Punhera but the lathi/stick was left behind by Accused Indrapal Singh in a hurry to escape from the place of occurrence. 3. Bhisham Pal Singh got a written report (Ex.Ka-1) scribed by Brijesh Pal Singh and lodged it at police station Jalesar on the same day at about 9.10 A.M. On its basis check report was prepared after making entry in the G.D. at sl. no. 20 and FIR (Ex.Ka-2) was registered by Constable Brij Gopal (PW-4). Special report was then dispatched to District Officer, Sadar. 4. The investigation was taken over by S.I. Roshan Pal Singh Yadav (PW-5) who was posted as In charge at P.S. Jalesar. no. 20 and FIR (Ex.Ka-2) was registered by Constable Brij Gopal (PW-4). Special report was then dispatched to District Officer, Sadar. 4. The investigation was taken over by S.I. Roshan Pal Singh Yadav (PW-5) who was posted as In charge at P.S. Jalesar. After recording the statement of constable Brij Gopal at police station he prepared the Panchayatnama (Ex.Ka-5) in the presence of Panches. He also prepared photo nash (Ex.Ka-6), challan nash (Ex.Ka-7), letters to R.I. and to C.M.O. (Ex.Ka-8 and Ex.Ka-9 respectively). 5. The Investigating Officer also prepared the site plan (Ex.Ka-10) of the place of occurrence, took blood stained earth and unstained earth (Ex.-III and Ex.-IV respectively ) from the spot and prepared its memo (Ex.Ka-12). He also took into custody the lathi (Ex-1) said to have been left behind accused Indra Pal Singh and prepared its memo (Ex.Ka-11) . The articles and clothes etc. found on the body of deceased Jugel Pal Singh were also taken into custody and recovery memo (Ex.Ka-13) in this regard was prepared by him. The accused persons were not found in the house on the search, only one blood stained Pharsa (Ex.-II) was recovered in presence of witness Ram Prakash (PW-3) from the house of accused Brijendra Pal Singh situated in village Charai and a recovery memo ( Ex.Ka-14) in this regard was also prepared. The I.O. also prepared site plan (Ex.Ka-15) of the place of recovery of Pharsa during investigation. 6. The body of deceased Jugel Pal Singh was sent at District Hospital, Etah for for post mortem examination with carrier constables Har Narain and Gautam Singh who delivered the body at District Hospital, Etah. The autopsy of the body of deceased Jugel Pal Singh was performed by Dr. A.K. Malpani at E.M.C. District Hospital, Etah, who after conducting the post mortem examination submitted his post mortem report (Ex.Ka-17). On external examination, the doctor found the deceased about 50 years of age and of good-built. Rigor mortis was present over both extremities. P.M. staining present over the back and iliac farsa. Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of deceased Jugel Pal Singh. 1. Incised wound 14 cm. x 3 cm. x brain deep over the back of the neck at lateral of C-2 vertebra on dissection the muscle vassals and C-2 vertebra in the line of wound the spinal cord also showing cut marks, through & through wound. Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of deceased Jugel Pal Singh. 1. Incised wound 14 cm. x 3 cm. x brain deep over the back of the neck at lateral of C-2 vertebra on dissection the muscle vassals and C-2 vertebra in the line of wound the spinal cord also showing cut marks, through & through wound. Placed transversely. 2. Incised wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep over the left side of neck 2 cm. below the injury no.1 cutting muscle. Placed transversely. 3. Incised wound 10 cm. x 5 cm. x brain deep and the back of the scalp extending from supreme occipital proceeding to downward & to left, placed obliquely downward, on dissection the occipital bone showing cut of fracture and the massages of the brain and brain also showing the cut marks and blood present in brain. Brain matter coming out from wound. 4. Incised wound 9 cm. x 2 cm. x brain deep over the back of scalp left side. Placed transversely. Wound is situated 2 cm. below and behind the upper & above of left ear, on dissection the left parietal mastoid and occipital, bone showing cut fracture. The massages of brain also showing cut marks. The brain matter coming from wound. Wound placed transversely and slightly downward. 5. Incised wound 5 cm. x 1 cm. x scalp deep over the left side of scalp. Placed transversely 2 cm. below injury no.4. 6. Incised wound 14 cm. x 3 cm. x brain deep over the top of scalp. Placed transversely. Wound is situated 9 cm. above from the left ear. The massages of brain matter exposed the left parietal and right parietal bone, showing cut mark and fractured a piece of left parietal bone size 6 cm. x 4 cm. attached with the scalp. Brain lacerated and blood present. 7. Apart from aforesaid wounds the Doctor also found small amount of faecal matter sticking to the walls of large intestine. In his opinion, the death had occurred about 1-1/4 days prior to the date of autopsy due to shock, haemorrhage and coma as a result of the aforesaid ante-mortem injuries. 8. The respondents-accused appear to have subsequently surrendered in the Court below and after completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet (Ex.Ka-16) against them in the Court of Ist Addl. 8. The respondents-accused appear to have subsequently surrendered in the Court below and after completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet (Ex.Ka-16) against them in the Court of Ist Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Etah, who vide his order dated 2.9.1982 committed the case for trial to the Court of Session. 9. Charge was framed against respondents-accused on 10.3.1983 by IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Etah that " you on 11.2.1982, at about 7.30 A.M. on the 'Pagdandi' near the field of Mewa Lal, within the limits of village Akrabad, police station Jalesar, District Etah, committed murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Jogendrapal Singh by causing Farsa injuries to him and that you, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and within the cognizance of this Court." 10. All the respondents-accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses, namely, Bhisham Pal Singh (P.W.1), Gonvind Pal Singh (P.W.2), Ram Prakash (P.W.3), Brij Gopal (P.W.4) and Roshan Lal (P.W.5). The report of Chemical Examiner dated 12.2.1982 and that of report of Chemical Examiner- Serologist dated 24.7.82 (Ex.Ka-18) were also proved by the prosecution before the trial Court whereas the accused persons in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the charges stating their false implication in the case. 12. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the case the learned trial Court considered the moot question as to whether the prosecution had proved guilt of the accused in the murder Jugel Pal Singh ? From the testimonies of Bhisham Pal Singh (PW-1) and Govind Pal Singh (PW-2), the eye-witnesses of the occurrence as well as the inquest report and other related medical documents the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove their case. 13. After hearing and on perusal of record as well as the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court we find that the accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court finding substantial and material contradictions in the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The motive for the crime was also found to be weak. 13. After hearing and on perusal of record as well as the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court we find that the accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court finding substantial and material contradictions in the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The motive for the crime was also found to be weak. Ram Prakash (PW-3) witness to the recovery of Pharsa from the house of accused Brijendra Pal Singh produced by the prosecution, had also turned hostile who even denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the other side and on these basis the trial Court concluded thus: - "In such circumstances, the substantive evidence produced by the prosecution is not worth credence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Sri Roshan Lal Yadav (PW-5) who is I.O. and the witness of alleged recovery has stated that he recovered Pharsa (Ext.II) from the cattle-house of Bijendra Pal Singh on 12.2.1982 at the time when he was searching for the accused and he prepared site plan (Ex.Ka-15) of the place of recovery. He clearly stated that accused Bijendra Pal was not present at the time of this recovery and therefore, it cannot be believed that Pharsa (Ex.II) was recovered from the possession of accused Brijendra Pal Singh. The only witness of this recovery of Pharsa is Ram Prakash (PW-3) who clearly stated that no recovery was made by the I.O. in his presence and at about 8 or 10 A.M. when he was irrigating his field, I.O. approached him and obtained his signature on the memo of recovery of Pharsa (Ex.Ka-14) but recovery of Pharsa was not made in his presence. This witness Ram Prakash (PW-3) was declared hostile by the prosecution and nothing has come out in his cross-examination to support the prosecution case about the recovery of Pharsa. The report of Chemical Examiner (Ex.Ka-18) shows that Pharsa, earth and clothes of the deceased were found sustained with human blood by the Chemical Examiner- Serologist. But recovery of Pharsa from the possession of accused Brijendra Pal is not proved and therefore, this report is of no help to the prosecution to establish the guilt of Bijendra Pal accused. The report of the occurrence in the present case is undoubtedly not delayed but the prosecution evidence to establish the guilt of the accused is not sufficient. But recovery of Pharsa from the possession of accused Brijendra Pal is not proved and therefore, this report is of no help to the prosecution to establish the guilt of Bijendra Pal accused. The report of the occurrence in the present case is undoubtedly not delayed but the prosecution evidence to establish the guilt of the accused is not sufficient. The accused have denied their guilt in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have also filed copy of order sheet of the Court of I Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Etah (Ex.Kha-1) to show that accused Brijendra Pal and others were summoned for the first time for 10.4.1982 in the theft case. Thus, the motive for committing murder is weak and as prosecution evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, therefore, they are entitled to their acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC." 14. Acquitting the accused persons the learned trial Court opined in the impugned judgment dated 25th August, 1983, thus: - "In my opinion, it is difficult in the present case to rely upon the testimony of Govind Pal Singh given by him in the examination-in-chief. The entire testimony of Govind Pal Singh is to be discarded in the present case. Govind Pal Singh (PW-2) has admitted that he named the accused Munesh Pal and Brijendra Pal as thieves who committed theft at his house and Jugendra Pal wrote the report of this theft case at his dictation. Sri Govind Pal Singh (PW-2), therefore, is not an independent and reliable witness. The other witness of alleged fact Shripal has died and remaining witnesses of alleged fact have been produced by the prosecution as they have been won over. " 15. We have tested the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court from the oral and documentary evidence on record and the reasoning in the impugned judgment for acquittal of the accused persons. 16. After careful consideration we are of the opinion that from the inquest report as well as from the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 it can reasonably be inferred that Jugel Pal Singh died in the morning of 11.2.1982. 16. After careful consideration we are of the opinion that from the inquest report as well as from the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 it can reasonably be inferred that Jugel Pal Singh died in the morning of 11.2.1982. The motive for doing away with him has been narrated by Bhisham Pal Singh (PW-1) in his statement before the learned trial Court, who deposed that at 4 or 5 months prior to the incident a theft had been committed at the house of Govind Pal Singh (PW-2), uncle of Jugel Pal Singh. The report of this theft was scribed by Jugel Pal Singh in which he had named Vijai Pal Singh and Munesh Pal as the persons who had committed the theft. Jugel Pal Singh is said to have been pressurized for a compromise on the issue about 10 or 12 days prior to the incident of his murder. He was also threatened with dire consequences but Jugel Pal Singh ( since deceased) did not succumb to the threats. This motive as found by the trial Court appears to be very weak and is only based on personal opinion of Bhisham Pal Singh (PW-1), who is brother-in-law of deceased Jugel Pal Singh. His testimony in the light of his own perceived enmity between Jugel Pal Singh and the accused persons is to be read with caution. However, a further perusal of the testimony of P.W.1, shows that he had admitted therein that the alleged threat to Jugel Pal Singh was not given by the two accused persons in his presence and that deceased had told him about the said threat having been given to him. In the circumstances, there can be no evidentiary value of this hearsay unproved and unreliable statement. 17. The trial Court has noticed that Jugel Pal Singh when alive had neither lodged any FIR about the threat nor the said theft was committed at the house of Govind Pal at whose instance Jugel Pal Singh is said to have named accused Vijai Pal and Munesh Pal Singh. Hence, the conclusion of the learned trial Court that '' the accused could bear grudge against Govind Pal. The motive as deposed to by Bhisham Pal Singh (PW-1) is weak and does not inspire confidence are reasonably well founded". 18. Hence, the conclusion of the learned trial Court that '' the accused could bear grudge against Govind Pal. The motive as deposed to by Bhisham Pal Singh (PW-1) is weak and does not inspire confidence are reasonably well founded". 18. In so far as substantial and material contradictions in the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are concerned, the learned trial Court has found the statement of P.W.1 to be shaky and improbable as he could not have seen the occurrence from where he was easing himself. The other witness (PW-2) is also said to have gone to ease himself in the nearby field. In fact, in his statement to the trial Court P.W. 2 stated that-" he along with Harpal at the time of occurrence was proceeding from his house to village Jalesar." Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly found the substantial and material contradictions in the statements of Bhisham Pal Singh (PW-1) and Govind Pal Singh (PW-2) which could not be relied upon without corroboration and support from any independent witness. 19. Moreover, P.W. 2 was declared hostile at the request of prosecution counsel. In fact, he deposed that lathi (Ex-I) is not the same which accused Indrapal was said to be carrying and the Pharsa (Ex-II) said to have been recovered from the house of accused Brijendra Pal Singh was the same one with any of the accused persons or not at the time of occurrence. The relevant extract of his statement reads thus: - ^^ykBh tks vkt esjs lkeus gS ;g og ykBh ugh gS ftls ekSds ij eqyfte bUnziky NksM x;k Fkk A bUnziky ij tks ykBh ?kVuk ds le; Fkh og yky jax dh Fkh A ekStwnk ykBh dkys jax dh gS A Qjlk tks eq>s fn[kk;k x;k gS ;gh fdlh eqyfte ij Fkk ;k ugh eSa ugh dg ldrkA** In his cross-examination he unequivocally stated that he could not see the face of any of the assailants at the time occurrence and that he had told the names of the accused persons on the basis of suspicion for he was about 400 paces away from the place of occurrence. In his words he says: - ^^eSa o gjiky xokg vius xkWo ls tyslj tk jgs Fks A lqog 9-30 cts dk oDr Fkk A ;g dguk xyr gksxk fd ml le; eS VVVh dj jgk Fkk [ksrksa esaA tc eSus 'kksj lquk rc eS o gjiky djhc 400 dne dh nwjh ij FksA** In his cross-examination this witness again has denied the suggestion to the effect that he was won over by the accused persons reaffirming that he could not recognize the faces of any of the assailants at the time of occurrence. 20. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused to the hilt and the evidence produced by it is neither credible nor sufficient to complete the chain of circumstance for holding the accused persons guilty of the charge. It may also be noted here that apart from the statement of P.W.1 that he could not have recognized the accused persons at the time occurrence, P.W.2 has clearly stated that he had not recognized the faces of any of the assailants and even the weapons used by them. The only witness of recovery of Pharsa (Ex.-II) is Ram Prakash (PW-3), who clearly deposed in his statement that no recovery was made by the I.O. in his presence; that at about 8 or 10 A.M. when he was irrigating his field, the I.O. approached him and obtained his signatures on the memo of recovery of Pharsa (Ex. Ka-14) but recovery of Pharsa was not made in his presence, therefore, this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, nothing has come out in his cross-examination to support the prosecution case about the recovery of Pharsa. The statements of these witnesses extracted above are insufficient and lacking to complete the chain of circumstance for proving the guilt of the accused persons. Only the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court that the evidence of the prosecution is not reliable to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts suffers from no legal or factual infirmity. The impugned judgment dated 25.8.1983 is upheld. 21. For the reasons stated above, the Government Appeal is dismissed.