JUDGMENT 1. - In this cr. appeal filed under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. the accused appellant is challenging the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Pali passed in Sessions Case No. 52/2011 dated 13.3.2012 whereby the accused appellant was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentence for life imprisonment was imposed along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months SI. 2. As per facts of the case on 31.12.2009 at about 1.30 pm PW-16 Nawa Ram submitted a report at SHO Police Station Guda Endla, District Pali in which it was alleged that his Nata marriage was solemnized before 3-4 months with deceased Kuri D/o Chatara Ram Jawana Choudhary. Today at 9'O Clock he went to village Jawali for domestic work, and his wife Smt. Kuri was in his house. It is further stated in the FIR that at about 12'O clock when his wife Kuri was going for toilet along with his yonger brother PW-15 Saka Ram in the Gadoliyon Ki Gali, at that time, near the house of Joga Ji Gadoliya the accused Jaita Ram S/o Chatara Ram came there with axe in his hand and assaulted his wife but his wife Kuri run away and entered in the house of Joga Ram Gadoliya but accused Jaita Ram chased her and in the "Chowk" of Joga Ram's house inflicted one injury upon the head of his wife Kuri by axe in presence of Joga Ram's wife PW-4 Hanja and PW-5 Bachu raised voice and cry. His brother PW-5 Saka Ram was also on the spot, but Jaita Ram run away from the site of occurrence while taking axe in his hand towards Samni Nadi. The PW-5 Saka Ram take care of his wife but she died on spot. As per the complainant, this information was received by him on mobile call of unknown person. 3. The complainant immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his wife lying in the open place (Chowk) in the house of Joga Ram Gadoliya and above incident was narrated by his younger brother Saka Ram. 4. Upon aforesaid information the SHO Police Station Guda Endala registered the FIR No.197/2010 (Ex.P-26) and commenced investigation. 3. The complainant immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his wife lying in the open place (Chowk) in the house of Joga Ram Gadoliya and above incident was narrated by his younger brother Saka Ram. 4. Upon aforesaid information the SHO Police Station Guda Endala registered the FIR No.197/2010 (Ex.P-26) and commenced investigation. In the investigation accused appellant was arrested vide Ex.P/1 on 31.12.2009 at 9.00 pm in the police station itself and upon his information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the axe was recovered vide Ex.P/11 in front of 2 witnesses Ramesh Kumar and Malam Singh on 2.1.2010 at about 2.35 am. The body of the deceased Smt. Kuri was taken to the hospital for post mortem. The medical officer of Primary Health Center, Gundoj, District Pali conducted the post mortem and gave its report Ex.P/16 on 31.12.2009. Thereafter, in the investigation, statement of prosecution witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police and after recovery of articles, the recovered articles were sent to the FSL for chemical examination. 5. On completion of the investigation, the SHO Police Station Guda Endala filed charge-sheet in the court of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pali from where the case was committed to the court of District & Sessions Judge, Pali but later on transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) NO.2, Pali, but later on, the case was again transferred to the court of District & Sessions Judge, Pali vide order dated 2.4.2011 for trial. 6. The learned trial court framed charge against the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC on 1.6.2010 and granted an opportunity to lead evidence is given to the prosecution. To prove the prosecution case, in all 18 witnesses were produced by the prosecution in the trial court including eye witness PW-4 Hanja, PW-5 Bachu, PW-8 Chamna Ram and PW-15 Saka Ram and 32 documents were exhibited in the trial. 7. To prove the prosecution case, in all 18 witnesses were produced by the prosecution in the trial court including eye witness PW-4 Hanja, PW-5 Bachu, PW-8 Chamna Ram and PW-15 Saka Ram and 32 documents were exhibited in the trial. 7. After recording statement of prosecution witnesses, the learned trial court recorded the statement of accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses and said that " eSaus dqjh dks ugha ekjkA dqjh ds iwoZ llqjky vkuk xkao okys mlls ukjkt FksA llqjky ls Hkkx xbZ Fkh ftldh xqe'kqnxh dh fjiksVZ nslwjh Fkkuk esa dh FkhA udy is'k gSA uokjke ds Hkh iwoZ llqjky uokjke ls ukjkt FksA dqjh ls nq'euh j[krs FksA dqjh esjh cgu FkhA mlls esjs dksbZ nq'euh ugha FkhA uokjke us >wBh fjiksVZ esjs fo:) dh ftlesa mldk HkkbZ ldkjke rFkk peukjke >wBs xokg cus gSaA eSa funksZ"k gwWaA " 8. In defence the statements of three witnesses were recorded which are DW-1 Navratan Chandra, DW-2 Paba Ram and DW-3 Khima Ram. Thereafter, the matter was finally heard and vide judgment dated 13.3.2012 the learned District & Sessions Judge, Pali convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and imposed punishment of life imprisonment alnogwith fine of Rs. 5,000/-. 9. While challenging the validity of the aforesaid judgment in this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that prosecution has completely failed to prove motive which is important ingredient for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC so also the finding given by the learned trial court to hold the appellant guilty is totally perversed because the appellant is real brother of the deceased Kuri and there is no evidence on record to prove that there was any intention or reason left with the accused appellant to commit such offence of murder of his own sister. While inviting attention towards the fact except two witnesses all other witnesses are eye witnesses PW-3 Ghisa Ram PW-4 Hanja, PW-5 Bachu, PW-6 Futarmal, PW-7 Kalu, PW-9 Malmal Singh and PW-13 Ramesh Kumar turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, but the learned trial court while relying upon the statement of PW-15 Saka Ram, brother of the complainant convicted the accused appellant for the alleged offence. In spite of the fact that the allegation of PW-15 Saka Ram to cause injury by axe upon the head of the deceased, which is sharp edged weapon is not corroborated by the medical evidence but in the post mortem report no incised wound was found upon the head of the deceased. More so, PW-10 Dr. Shesha Ram Patel stated in his statement in the Court that the injury which is found upon the head of the deceased Kuri was lacerated wound and that injury cannot be caused by sharp edged weapon. Further, it is stated that the injury which is found upon the head of the deceased can be caused if any person forcefully fell down. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that upon above statement the allegation of the eye witness Saka Ram is not corroborated by the medical evidence, therefore, the finding arrived at by the learned trial court for conviction under Section 302 IPC against the accused appellant deserves to be quashed. 10. While inviting attention towards the recovery of axe (Ex.P/11) it is submitted that the said recovery of axe was made by the police in front of two witnesses PW-9 Malmal Singh and PW-13 Ramesh Kumar but both these witnesses turned hostile and categorically said that recovery of weapon axe was not made in front of them. The signatures were obtained by the police in the police station by giving threat, therefore, when recovery of axe is not proved by the prosecution and injury found upon the body of the deceased was lacerated wound, cannot be caused by sharp edged weapon, then the whole prosecution case become concocted and false. The learned trial court ought to have considered the aforesaid aspect of the case, but unfortunately, the learned trial court wrongly relied upon the testimony of PW-8 Chamna Ram and PW-15 Saka Ram brother of the complainant to hold accused appellant guilty, is not sustainable in law. 11. The learned trial court ought to have considered the aforesaid aspect of the case, but unfortunately, the learned trial court wrongly relied upon the testimony of PW-8 Chamna Ram and PW-15 Saka Ram brother of the complainant to hold accused appellant guilty, is not sustainable in law. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that it is a case in which appellant has been falsely implicated because as per the evidence on record the deceased Kuri sister of accused appellant was first married with Ram Lal S/o Hukka Ji, resident of Patiya Ka Guda, Tehsil Desuri from where deceased Kuri absconded and, thereafter, the deceased Kuri solemnized Nata marriage with Nwa Ram complainant and in fact, the first husband Ram Lal resident of Patiya Ka Guda, Tehsil Desuri who filed a missing report at Desuri Thana was having motive to kill the deceased, but no investigation was made by the Investigating Officer from him and falsely implicated the accused appellant who is real brother of the deceased. It is submitted that accused appellant categorically stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that no offence is committed by him. 12. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently submits that it is a case in which an innocent lady was assaulted by the accused appellant by axe. The eye witnesses PW-8 Chamna Ram stated in his statement that after inflicting injury to the deceased when accused appellant was coming out from the house of Joga Ram with the axe he saw him and, thereafter, he entered in the house of Joga Ram where dead body of the deceased Kuri was lying in the Chowk. While inviting attention towards statement of PW-15 Saka Ram it is submitted that he is eye witness of the occurrence before whom the accused inflicted injury upon the head of the deceased. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that although two eye witnesses PW 4 Hanja And PW-5 Bachu turned hostile but remaining two eye witnesses PW-8 Chamna Ram and PW-15 Saka Ram who was minor at the time of incident took place categorically proved the fact that in front of them the injury was caused upon the head by the accused appellant to the deceased, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly accepted the testimony of these eye witnesses so as to convict the accused appellant for the offence of murder. When eye witnesses categorically stated correct fact of the incident before the court then there is no question to disbelieve the allegations made against the accused appellant by the prosecution. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor lastly submits that in the post mortem report one injury was found upon the head of the deceased and recovery of axe has been proved by the Investigating Officer PW-18 Chandra Shekhar while giving statement on oath before the Court, therefore, even if the Motbirs of recovery of weapon turned hostile, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Investigating Officer PW-18 Chandra Shekhar, who has conducted the investigation and categorically proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading trustworthy evidence, therefore, this appeal may be dismissed. 14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we have minutely scanned the entire record and considered the arguments advanced by both the parties. 15. Admittedly, to prove the prosecution case, the statements of 18 prosecution witnesses were recorded in the trial.PW-1 Nararam was working as Constable in the Police Station Guda Endla. He said that on 31.12.2009, the accused appellant was arrested in the Police Station at 9.00 pm by the SHO Guda Endla.The witness PW-2 Poora Ram stated before the court that the body of the deceased Kuri was recovered in front of him and Investigating Officer took blood stained mud from the place of occurrence and prepared memo upon which put his signatures. The Panchnama of the body of the deceased was prepared and body was handed over to Durga Ram, father of the complainant Nawa Ram but said that the cloths of the deceased Kuri were not taken by the police in front of him, but proved that upon all the memos put his signatures.The witness PW-3 Ghisha Ram is the witness before whom the body of the deceased was taken in possession, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and has categorically stated that how wife of Nawa Ram Smt. Kuri died he does not know.The witness PW-4 Hanja W/o Joga Ram Gadoliya is the eye witness, turned hostile in the court and said that who has killed Kuri, the wife of Nawa Ram she has no knowledge because I was sleeping in the house.The witness PW-5 Bachu is also eye witness, did not support the prosecution case and said that she is not having any knowledge, who has killed the deceased. As per prosecution, the occurrence took place in the house of Joga Ram but PW-4 Hanja and PW-5 Bachu turned hostile.The witness PW-6 Futarmal turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Similarly the witness PW-7 Kalu turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.The witness PW-8 Chamna Ram is the witness who stated before the court that " eSaus dqjh dks ugha ekjkA dqjh ds iwoZ llqjky vkuk xkao okys mlls ukjkt FksA llqjky ls Hkkx xbZ Fkh ftldh xqe'kqnxh dh fjiksVZ nslwjh Fkkuk esa dh FkhA udy is'k gSA uokjke ds Hkh iwoZ llqjky uokjke ls ukjkt FksA dqjh ls nq'euh j[krs FksA dqjh esjh cgu FkhA mlls esjs dksbZ nq'euh ugha FkhA uokjke us >wBh fjiksVZ esjs fo:) dh ftlesa mldk HkkbZ ldkjke rFkk peukjke >wBs xokg cus gSaA eSa funksZ"k gwWaA " 16. In the cross-examination the said witness stated that I am real cousin brother of complainant Nawa Ram PW-16, husband of deceased Kuri. In the cross-examination the said witness stated that I am real cousin brother of complainant Nawa Ram PW-16, husband of deceased Kuri. The said witness accepted in the cross-examination that " uokjke dh cfgu ml le; llqjky xbZ gqbZ FkhA ?kVuk ds oDr uokjke ds ekrk firk Hkh ogka vk;s gq, FksA uokjke dh nks 'kknh gqbZ Fkh ,d igys dh Fkh vkSj nwljh 'kknh e`rd dqjh ds lkFk dh FkhA igyh 'kknh MqBkfj;k esa dh gqbZ Fkh ftuds >xM+k py jgk FkkA e`rdk dqjh igys vkuk xkao esa 'kknh dh gqbZ FkhA tgka ls uokjke izse ls ysdj vk;k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd dqjh ds iwoZ llqjky okys uokjke ls ukjktxh j[krs Fks vkSj vkaV nq'euh j[krs FksA dqjh e`rdk dh 'kknh vkuk 'kknh gqbZ mlls iwoZ ikfV;k dk xqM+k rglhy nslwjh esa jkeyky iq= gdkth t.kok pkS/kjh ds lkFk 'kknh gqbZ FkhA dqjh ogka ls Hkkxdj vk xbZ Fkh blfy, ikfV;k dk xqM+k rglhy nslwjh okys Hkh dqjh ls nq'euh j[krs FksA " 17. Further, it is also stated that " iqfyl us tks fy[kk i<+h dh oks eq>s i<+dj lqukbZ FkhA iqfyl ?kVuk ds 10-15 feuV ckn gh vk xbZ FkhA esjs tkus ds 10-15 feuV ckn gh iqfyl ?kVukLFky ij vk xbZ FkhA iqfyl okyksa us vkrs gh fy[kki<+h 'kq: dj nh FkhA iqfyl us eq>ls rhu ckj ,d dkxt ij vaxq"B fu'kku djok;k FkkA iqfyl us eq>ls iwNrkN dh Fkh o iqfyl us 15 feuV ckn esjs c;ku fy;s FksA " 18. Upon perusal of the statement of this witness, we are of the opinion that he is not eye witness of the incident but accepted that deceased Kuri was second wife of complainant Nawa Ram and there was quarrel going on in between Nawa Ram and his first wife and further the said witness accepted in his statement that father of the deceased Kuri earlier solemnized marriage of Kuri with one Ram Lal and in-laws of first marriage were having enmity with Nawa Ram and his wife Kuri. Therefore, it cannot be said that the testimony of this witness can be relied upon so as to held accused appellant guilty. In the statement this witness has accepted that police came on spot when he was present and all the proceedings were drawn in his presence and his statements were recorded. 19. We have perused the statement of PW-9 Malam Singh. In the statement this witness has accepted that police came on spot when he was present and all the proceedings were drawn in his presence and his statements were recorded. 19. We have perused the statement of PW-9 Malam Singh. The said witness turned hostile and did not support the recovery of weapon at the instance of accused appellant. The said witness categorically stated in his statement that no recovery of axe was made in front of him. The signatures were obtained in the police Chowki by the investigating agency. Meaning thereby, the said witness is not supporting prosecution case that weapon axe was recovered at the instance of the accused appellant. 20. The witness PW-13 Ramesh Kumar has not supported the prosecution case with regard to recovery of axe in front of him. The said witness categorically state that no weapon was recovered at the instance of the accused appellant in front of him and upon asking the signatures were obtained by the police in the police station. Meaning thereby, both the witnesses of recovery turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 21. We have perused the statement of PW-10 Dr. Shesha Ram Patel. The said witness stated before the court that injury found upon the head of the deceased was lacerated wound and the said injury cannot be caused by sharp edged weapon. The following statement is given by PW-10 Dr. 21. We have perused the statement of PW-10 Dr. Shesha Ram Patel. The said witness stated before the court that injury found upon the head of the deceased was lacerated wound and the said injury cannot be caused by sharp edged weapon. The following statement is given by PW-10 Dr. Shesha Ram Patel, which reads as under:- " eSa fnukad 31-12-2009 dks ih0,p0lh0 xqUnkst vLirky esa ,e0vks0 ds in ij rSukr Fkk mlh jkst eSaus iqfyl izfrosnu ij dqjh iRuh uokjke tkfr tuok pkS/kjh fuoklh [kksM mez 25 o"kZ ds 'ko dk eqvk;uk fd;k] ftuesa fuEu pksVsa ikbZ xbZ% " " flj ds fiNyh rjQ 2 x 4 ls0eh0 dk [kwu ds cgko ds lkFk ,y vkdkj dk ?kko tks dqpyk gqvk FkkA dqpys gq, ?kko dks vUnj ls [kksyus ij vfLFk Hkax ik;k x;k tks flj dh fiNyh gM~Mh ls gksrs gq, ,y vkdkj esa flj esa flj dh lkbZM okyh gM~Mh VSEiksjy cksu] iSjkbZVy cksu o vkslhfiVy cksu vfLFk Hkax ik;k x;k] ftldh VksVy yEckbZ 18 ls0eh0 Fkh ftlesa 8 ls0eh0 VSEiksjy cksu esa o 10 ls0eh0 isjkbZVks vkSflfiVy cksu esa vfLFk Hkax FkkA flj dks [kksyus ij mlds vUnj ij mlds vUnj ls jDr L=ko gks jgk FkkA rFkk czsu dk vUnj dk ikVZ Hkh pksVhy Fkk vkxs vkSj uhps cszu ekal dks gVkus ij Ldy ds ehMy Qkslk esa vkMk QzsDpj Fkk tks 13 ls0eh0 dk FkkA ckdh 'kjhj esa dgha pksV ugha FkhA iksLV ekVZe ds ckn e`R;q dk dkj.k esjh vksihfu;u ds vuqlkj flj ds vUnj pksV yxuk o vR;f/kd ek=k esa flj ls [kwu cguk ik;k x;kA esjh jk; esa e`R;q dk le; 4 ls 6 ?kaVs ds Hkhrj dk FkkA iqfyl rgjhj izn'kZ ih0 15 gS ftl ij , ls ch Hkkx esa esjh vksihfu;u gS vkSj gLrk{kj lh ls Mh gSA iksLV ekVZe fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih0 16 gS ftlds , ls ch Hkkx esa esjh vksihfu;u gS vkSj lh ls Mh esjs gLrk{kj gSA iksLV ekVZe esa lHkh pksVsa ,UvhekVZe dhA " ftjg }kjk odhy eqyfte% e`rd ds ek= ,d gh pksV FkhA pksV ,y vkdkj dh FkhA pksV yEckbZ x pkSM+kbZ 2 x 4 lsa0eh0 Fkh vkSj ckgj dqpyk gqvk ?kko FkkA ;g pksV HkksVs gfFk;kj ls FkhA/kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls ugha FkhA vxj rst xfr ls nkSM+s o /kjkry ij fxjs rks ;s pksV vkuk laHko gSA pksV e`R;q ls fdrus le; iwoZ dh Fkh eSa ugha crk ldrkA izn'kZ ih0 16 dh pksVsa e`R;q ds fdrus le; iwoZ dh Fkh eSa ugha crk ldrkA iqu% ijh{k.k 'kwU;A " 22. Upon perusal of the above statement of the doctor it is transparently clear that the injury which is found upon the head of the deceased Kuri was lacerated wound and it has been said by the doctor that said injury cannot be caused by sharp edged weapon whereas as per the prosecution case, the axe was recovered upon information given by the accused appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 23. In view of the above, the medical evidence is not corroborating the allegation of prosecution case, therefore, a serious doubt is created with regard to allegation of prosecution that accused appellant has committed an offence under Section 302 IPC. 24. The witness PW-11 Gen Singh constable was working at Police Station Guda Elanda stated that the articles were deposited by him in the SP Office, Pali to one Sh. Girdhari Lal, Constable and receipt was obtained by him. 25. The witness PW-12 Girdhari Lal was working in the SP Office, Pali in the FSL Branch on the post of Constable. He received the sealed articles from Constable Gen Singh and after preparing forwarding letter sent the articles to the FSL for chemical examination. 26. The witness PW-14 Dilip Singh is a photographer who has proved the photographs taken by him from the place of occurrence. 27. Upon assessment of entire evidence and finding of the trial court it emerges that whole prosecution case is based upon the testimony of PW-15 Saka Ram-eye witness, brother of the complainant. The said witness stated in his statement that accused appellant inflicted injury upon the head of the deceased in the Chowk of Joga Ram Godaliya's house and at the time of occurrence, he was present along with Hanja and Basu wife of Joga Ram and wife of Joga Ram's son but the testimony of this witness is not supported by the independent witness Hanja PW- 4 and Bachu PW-5 in whose house occurrence took place and the dead body of deceased was recovered because both these witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. It is also very important to observe that the said witness categorically stated that while incident took place in front of him, but his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 2.1.2010 by the investigating officer and there is no explanation on record for the delay in recording the statement of this eye witness, which created serious doubt. 28. The PW-15 Saka Ram stated in the cross-examination that police came on spot at 12.30 pm on the date of incident, upon call by the villagers. Further, said that police prepared certain documents on spot and obtained his signatures also and the witness narrated all the story to my brother who came on spot before preparation of documents by the police. The day on which the incident took place the incident was narrated by him to the police, thereafter, he did not meet the police and his statement were recorded after 5-6 days in the police chowki. Further, it is stated by him that twice his statements were recorded. In view of the fact that the witness Saka Ram PW-15 was present at the time of occurrence because the said so called witness Saka Ram stated before the Court in cross-examination that " iqfyl okyksa us yk'k ns[kh o dkxt oxSjg cuk;s Fks tks lk<+s ckjg cts cuk;s FksA eSa ml le; ogha ij FkkA fy[kki<+h ij ekSds ij esjs gLrk{kj djk;s FksA mu QnksZa ij lk<+s ckjg cts esjs] ?khlkjke] jes'k ckf.k;k o onjxkjke ds gLrk{kj djk;sA ?kM+h esjs ikl ugha Fkh blfy;s fdruk le; fy[kki<+h esa yxk eSa ugha crk ldrkA eSaus lk<+s ckjg cts ?kM+h ugha ns[kh Fkh vankt ls crk;k gSA uokjke esjk HkkbZ tokyh Hkk[kj x;k gqvk FkkA fy[kki<+h gksus ls igys gh esjk HkkbZ uokjke vk x;k FkkA eSaus ekSds ij gh esjs HkkbZ dks ckr crkbZ FkhA ekSds ij 200 yksx FksA uokjke dks ckr crkbZ Fkh uokjke us fjiksVZ fdlh vU; O;fDr ls fy[kkbZ FkhA ?kVuk dh ckr eSaus iqfyl dks ?kVuk ds fnu crkbZ Fkh mlds ckn eSa iqfyl ls ugha feyk o mlds ckn ?kVuk ds 5&6 fnu esjs C;ku pkSdh esa fy;s Fks tks nwljh ckj fy;s Fks tks [kkSM+ esa fy;s FksA fdlus c;ku fy;k eSa mldks ugha tkurkA tks iqfyl onhZ esa FkkA c;ku nwljh ckj pkSdh esa pkSdh okyksa us fy;s Fks xqMk ,anyk Fkkus okyksa us c;ku ugha fy;s FksA " 29. Upon perusal of the statement it is come out that the presence of this witness is doubtful because in none of the documents, his signatures are appearing whereas he said that police obtained his signatures. Similarly, said by him that twice his statements were recorded by the police, that too, after 5-6 days of the incident, whereas Investigating Officer stated before the Court that statement of eye witness Saka Ram were recorded in the investigation on 2.1.2010. 30. The Investigating Officer PW-18 Chandra Shekhar in his statement stated before the court in cross-examination that " eSaus mDr QnsZ cukrs le; fdlh p'enhn xokg nsus ds ckjs esa ugha iwNk FkkA ;s lgh gS fd ml le; rd eq>s ;s ekywe ugha gqvk Fkk fd p'enhn xokg dkSu gSA bZ,Dl ih0 7] bZ,Dl ih0 8 o bZ,Dl ih0 10] bZ,Dl ih0 9 Hkh eSaus mlh le; cukbZ FkhA fQj dgk fd ih0 7 o ih0 8 vLirky dh QnZ gSA rc rd p'enhn xokg dk irk ugha pyk Fkk vt[kqn dgk fd iwNrkN ugha dh FkhA ih0 9 o ih0 10 Hkh vLirky esa cukbZ Fkh rc rd p'enhn xokg dk irk ugha pyk Fkk ;s lgh gSA ;s lgh gS fd vLirky igqapus ij iksLVekVZe djus rd fdlh Hkh jsdMZ esjs lkeus ugha vk;k Fkk fd p'enhn xokg dkSu gSA ;s lgh gS fd bZ,Dl ih0 10 iksLVekVZe ds ckn cukdj yk'k lqiqnZ dh Fkh tks 06-16 ih0,e0 ij dh FkhA eqLrxhl uokjke ?kVuk ds le; ogka ekStwn ugha Fkk blfy;s oks p'enhn xokg ugha Fkk ;s lgh gSA oks nwljs xkao tokyh x;k gqvk FkkA bldks fdlus bryk nh eq>s irk ugha eSaus rQ~rh'k ugha dhA fjiksVZ bZ,Dl ih0 24 fdldh dyeh gS eSaus tkWap ugha dh FkhA ;s dguk xyr gS fd fnukad 31-12-2009 dks iksLVekVZe djus rd eq>s p'enhn xokg dk irk ugha Fkk blfy;s eSaus muds c;ku gh fy;s FksA ;s dguk lgh gS fd fnukad 01-01-2010 dks eq>s p'enhn xokg ds uke dk irk ugha pyus ij mlds c;ku ugha fy;sA eSausa 31-12-2009 o 01-01-2010 dks ldkjke dgka gSA bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha yh FkhA ;s lgh gS fd mDr nksuksa fnol dks ldkjke uke dk yM+dk eq>ls ugha feyk FkkA ". The Investigating Officer himself accepted before the Court that he was not knowing who were the eye witnesses till 1.1.2010 but PW-15 Saka Ram stated on oath that police came on spot and all the incident was narrated by him on spot on the date of incident. Further, this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that charge-sheet was filed on the basis of three eye witnesses namely PW-4 Hanja, PW-5 Bachu and PW-15 Saka Ram but PW-4 Hanja and PW-5 Bachu turned hostile. The above facts clearly speak that eye witnesses were planted to prove prosecution case, therefore, their testimony cannot be relied upon, therefore, it is a case in which the prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The presence of all the eye witnesses became doubtful in view of statement of PW-18 Chandra Shekhar Investigating Officer of the case. 31. The PW-16 Nawa Ram complainant is hear say witness because as per him the incident was narrated on mobile phone of unknown person and his brother Saka Ram, but presence of Saka Ram became doubtful because the Investigating Officer PW-18 Chandra Shekhar himself stated in his statement that till 1.1.2010 he was are knowing who are the eye witnesses of the case. 32. After assessing the entire prosecution evidence and finding of the trial court, we are of the opinion that prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because out of three eye witnesses, two witnesses turned hostile and testimony of other two eye witnesses i.e., PW-8 Chamna Ram and PW-15 Saka Ram is not trustworthy because the Investigating Officer stated before the court in the cross-examination that till 1.1.2010 he was not having any knowledge with regard to eye witnesses. Meaning thereby, all the eye witnesses were planted by the prosecution so as to held appellant guilty. 33. It is also worthwhile to observe that injury found upon the head of the deceased was lacerated wound whereas as per allegation of prosecution weapon axe which is sharp edged weapon was alleged to be recovered from the accused appellant. 34. On the basis of above finding, we have no hesitation to disbelieve the testimony of eye witnesses PW-8 Chamna Ram and PW-15 Saka Ram because they are planted witnesses so as to prove the prosecution case. 35. 34. On the basis of above finding, we have no hesitation to disbelieve the testimony of eye witnesses PW-8 Chamna Ram and PW-15 Saka Ram because they are planted witnesses so as to prove the prosecution case. 35. Upon above discussion and appreciation of evidence on record coupled with finding of the trial court, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because the allegation of inflicting injury by the accused is not proved by the medical evidence, so also, upon the fact that two eye witnesses PW-4 Hanja and PW-5 Bachu turned hostile and PW-15 Saka Ram is planted as eye-witnesses to prove the prosecution case, therefore, trial court completely failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective. Hence, it is a fit case in which accused appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 36. In view of the above, the instant cr. Appeal is hereby allowed and the judgment dated 13.3.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No. 52/2011 convicting and sentencing the accused appellant is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******