JUDGMENT : Gopal Kirshan Vyas, J. Instant Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the Judgment dated 21.5.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 15/1993 by which the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent Raju S/o Ramchandra from the charges levelled against him under Section 302 I.P.C. 2. As per brief facts of the case, PW-3-Mangi Lal, father of the deceased Manohar Lal lodged report Ex. P-3 on 12.11.1992 at Police Station Amba Mata in which following allegations were levelled :- ^^fuosnu gS fd vkt 'kke dks fnukad 12-11-1992 dks djhc 7 cts ds nje;ku esa eSa o esjs ifjokj okys edku ds vUnj [kkuk [kk jgs Fks rFkk esjk yM+dk euksgjyky edku ds ckgj pcwrjs ij [kkuk [kk jgk FkkA fd Jh jktw firk jkepan gjhtu R/o xka/khuxj gjhtu cLrh vEckekrk vk;k vkSj dgk fd esjs ls rw jaft'k j[krk gSA blfy;s vkt rsjk dke lkQ dj nsrk gwa rkfd ges'kk dk V.Vk feV tk;sxk ;g dgdj esjs yM+ds euksgj yky ds dg dj isV ds ckbZa vksj pkdw ls okj fd;k ftl ij esjs yM+ds euksgj us gYyk fd;k rks eSa edku ls nkSM+ dj ckgj vk;k rks mlh ds ikl pkdw ls nwljk okj fd;k gYyk lqu iM+ksl ds yksx jks'kuyky firk ekaxhyky] izdk'k firk y{e.k yky] fxj/kkjh yky firk lcwth vkfn dkQh yksx vk x;s vkSj chp cpko dj NqM+k;k Hkh jktw Hkkx x;k geus idM+us dh dksf'k'k dh ysfdu Hkkx x;kA euksgj dh gkyr vf/kd [kjkc gksus ls o [kwu fudyus ls mldks rqjUr gksLihVy mDr yksx ysdj x;sA eSa Fkkus esa bRryk djus vk;k gwa dk;Zokgh dh tkos vxj ge yksx ugha igqaprs rks jktw] euksgj yky dks tku ls ekj Mkyrk pkdw ekjus esa jkepUn firk eq0 feBwth Hkh FkkA^^ 3. Upon aforesaid written complaint, S.H.O. Police Station, Amba Mata registered F.I.R. No. 275/1992 for offence under Sections 307 and 325 I.P.C. After registration of F.I.R., the Investigating Officer went on spot and prepared site plan of the place of occurrence. The injured Manohar Lal was taken to the hospital were he was declared dead. The postmortem of the body of Manohar Lal was conducted by the Assistant Professor cum Medical Jurist Professor G.L. Dad vide Ex. P-3 on 13.11.1992, thereafter, the body of deceased was handed over to Ramesh Chandra son of elder father of deceased Manohar Lal vide Ex. P-8. 4. The postmortem of the body of Manohar Lal was conducted by the Assistant Professor cum Medical Jurist Professor G.L. Dad vide Ex. P-3 on 13.11.1992, thereafter, the body of deceased was handed over to Ramesh Chandra son of elder father of deceased Manohar Lal vide Ex. P-8. 4. The respondent Raju was arrested at 5.00 P.M. on 13.11.1992 vide Ex. P-2 in presence of two witnesses Madan Lal and Shyam Lal and as per his information given by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the recovery of knife was made vide Ex. P-10 on 15.11.1992 and thereafter, the statement of prosecution witnesses were recorded and all the articles were sent to F.S.L. for chemical examination. 5. After completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court of Additional Munsiff Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Udaipur for trial. In the trial after framing charge under Section 302 I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur, an opportunity to lead evidence was given to the prosecution. In support of prosecution case, statement of 14 witnesses were recorded, thereafter statement of respondent Raju were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 12.4.1996 in which respondent refuted the allegations levelled against him and submitted that he has been falsely implicated by the prosecution in this case. 6. In support of defence, no witness was produced by the respondent, therefore, the case was finally heard by the Trial Court and vide Judgment dated 21.5.1996, learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur acquitted the respondent from the charges levelled against him. 7. Instant Appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan to challenge the Judgment dated 21.5.1996 passed by the Sessions Judge in Case No. 15/1993. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that judgment impugned is totally erroneous because learned Trial Court has disbelieved the testimony of various eye-witnesses of the incident, therefore, the judgment deserves to be quashed and respondent is liable to be punished for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that blood stained knife was recovered as per information given by the respondents under Section 27 of Evidence Act vide Ex. P-10 which is proved by the prosecution by leading reliable evidence. The blood was also found upon the clothes which is evident from the chemical examination report of F.S.L. Ex. P-10 which is proved by the prosecution by leading reliable evidence. The blood was also found upon the clothes which is evident from the chemical examination report of F.S.L. Ex. P-20 in which it is reported that human blood was found upon the knife, therefore, it is a case in which Trial Court ought to have considered the above evidence to accept the prosecution case cut in spite of the fact that medical evidence has supported the prosecution case, the Trial Court erroneously disbelieved the testimony of the witnesses, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that it is well settled principle of law that the prosecution should prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in this case by leading cogent and reliable oral and documentary evidence, it has been proved by the prosecution that respondent Raju is guilty of committing offence under Section 302 I.P.C. but learned Trial Court erroneously disbelieved the testimony of eye-witnesses on the basis of contradiction, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. Lastly, it is argued that in the instant case, injuries were inflicted on the stomach of deceased Manohar Lal and as per medical evidence due to those injuries, Manohar Lal died therefore, it is a case in which respondent is liable to be punished for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and therefore, the instant Appeal may be allowed and the respondent Raju may be held guilty for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and punish with life imprisonment. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is no error in the judgment given by the Trial Court because the author of F.I.R. is PW-3-Mangi Lal, father of deceased Manohar Lal turned hostile before the Court and did not support the prosecution case, therefore, the learned Trial Court disbelieved the testimony of other witnesses on the ground that there is major contradiction in the statement of eye-witnesses. It is also submitted that the recovery of knife have not been proved by the prosecution because knife has been recovered from an open place. It is also submitted that author of F.I.R., Mangi Lal, father of deceased, PW-8-Prakash, PW-9-Roshan Lal, PW-10-Girdhari turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the recovery of knife have not been proved by the prosecution because knife has been recovered from an open place. It is also submitted that author of F.I.R., Mangi Lal, father of deceased, PW-8-Prakash, PW-9-Roshan Lal, PW-10-Girdhari turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Further it is argued that although there are two other witnesses PW-11-Smt. Pyari, mother of deceased and PW-12-Indira, sister of deceased but upon perusal of their statement, it will reveal that both these witnesses gave statement contrary to each other, therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly disvelieved the testimony of these witnesses because they are interested witnesses. In view of above, it is prayed that instant Appeal may kindly be dismissed. 11. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the entire evidence so also finding given by the Trial Court. Admittedly, F.I.R. was filed by none else, the father of deceased PW-3-Mangi Lal in the F.I.R., specific allegation was made by him that incident took place in front of him and injuries were caused by the accused but the said witness turned hostile in the Court and did not support the prosecution case and gave statement contrary to the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., therefore, the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. Ex. P-3, by author of F.I.R. himself are disbelieved by the Trial Court. 12. We have perused the statement of PW-11-Pyari, mother of deceased and PW-12-Indira, sister of deceased. Upon perusal of statement of both these witnesses, it is revealed that there is major contradiction or contrary statement in her statement. P-3, by author of F.I.R. himself are disbelieved by the Trial Court. 12. We have perused the statement of PW-11-Pyari, mother of deceased and PW-12-Indira, sister of deceased. Upon perusal of statement of both these witnesses, it is revealed that there is major contradiction or contrary statement in her statement. PW-11-Pyari stated before the Court that djhc pkj lky igys dh ckr gS] esjk yM+dk euksgj jkr dks djhc 9 cts ?kj ds ckgj pcwrjs ij [kkuk [kk jgk Fkk] vUnj ge [kkuk [kk jgs Fks] vkokt vkbZ fd rsjs dks [kRe dj nwaxkA uke fu'kku feVk nwaxk bl ij eSa nkSM+dj ckgj fudyh esjs lkFk esjk ifr fudyk ckgj fudy dj eSaus ekStwnk eqyfte dh vkokt lquh Fkh] eSaus ns[kk fd eqyfte jktw us esjs yM+ds euksgj ds isV esa pkdw ekj fn;k vkSj euksgj us Hkh cksyk fd jktw us esjs pkdw ekj fn;k gS blds ckn jktw ekSds ls Hkkx x;k Hkkxrs gq, dks Hkh eSaus ns[kk FkkA pkdw yxus ls esjs yM+ds ds dkQh [kwu fudyk Fkk blds ckn eksgYys okys vkSj eSa esjs yM+ds dks gksfLiVy ysdj x;s Fks] esjs lkFk fxj/kkjh] jks'ku FksA esjk ifr Fkkus ij bRryk nsus x;k Fkk] og ckn esa gksfLiVy vk;k Fkk gksfLiVy esa esjk yM+dk ej x;k FkkA^^ In her cross-examination, it is stated by PW-11-Smt. Pyari that vkokt lqudj eSa ckgj vk xbZ FkhA vkokt lqudj esjk ifr ckgj vk;k mlds ckn eSa vkbZ o ckn esa bfUnjk vkbZ FkhA^^ 13. Similarly, PW-12-Indira, sister of deceased stated before the Court that djhc pkj lky igys dh ckr gS] djhc jkr ds 9 cts dh ckr gS] eSa] esjk firk esjh eka ?kj esa [kkuk [kk jgs Fks] esjk HkkbZ euksgj ckgj pcwrjs ij [kkuk [kk jgk FkkA ml mDr ekStwnk vnkyr eqyfte jktw vk;k mlus ckgj vkdj dgk fd vkt rsjk VaVk [kRe dj nwaxk ;g ckr geus edku ds vUnj [kkuk [kkrs oDr lquh FkhA mDr vkokt lqudj ge rhuksa ckgj fudys eSaus ns[kk fd jktw us euksgj ds isV esa ckbZa rjQ pkdw ekj fn;k Fkk pkdw yxkdj og Hkkxk euksgj ds ihNs jktw Hkkxk FkksM+k vkxs pydj mlus ,d okj vkSj yxk fn;kA pkdw eSaus ns[kk FkkA eksgYys okys bdV~Bs gks x;s Fks] mlesa jks'kuyky] fxj/kkjh vkfn esjs HkkbZ dks gksfLiVy ys x;s FksA^^ 14. Thus, all the three witnesses gave contrary statement to each other. Thus, all the three witnesses gave contrary statement to each other. Further the witnesses PW-8-Prakash, PW-9-Roshan Lal, PW-10-Girdhari who were said to be eye-witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, therefore, the Trial Court gave finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our opinion, the finding given by the Trial Court does not suffer from any illegality because the author of F.I.R., father of deceased Manohar Lal himself turned hostile. 15. With regard to recovery of knife, the witness PW-4-Banshi Lal stated before the Court that recovery of knife was made from open place lying under the stone. The following statement is given by witness Banshi Lal in the Trial Court, which reads as under :- ^^eqyfte jktw us djhc 2 lky igys ,d pkdw cjken djk;k Fkk iqfyl eqyfte jktw dks gFkdM+h yxk;s gq, xka/khuxj eksgYys esa lkeqnkf;d dsUnz ds ikl ysdj vkbZ Fkh] ogka lkeqnkf;d dsUnz ds ckM+s ds ikl ls ,d iRFkj ds uhps ls pkdw cjken djk;k Fkk] iqfyl us iRFkj ds uhps ls pkdw fudkyk Fkk fQj dgk jktw us iRFkj ds uhps fudky dj fn;k FkkA^^ 16. After perusing the aforesaid statement and upon consideration of fact that alleged weapon, knife was recovered from open place and blood group was not ascertained by the F.S.L. and prosecution has failed to prove which blood group was found upon the knife, we are of the opinion that respondent cannot be convicted upon the evidence of recovery of knife from an open place. 17. It is also relevant to mention here that independent eye-witnesses PW-8-Prakash, PW-9-Roshan Lal, PW-10-Girdhari whose names are mentioned in the F.I.R. have also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 18. In view of totality of circumstances, we are of the opinion that the author of F.I.R., PW-3-Mangi Lal (father of deceased) and the three other eye-witnesses PW-8-Prakash, PW-9-Roshan Lal, PW-10-Girdhari turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case so also in the F.S.L., no report is given about the blood group. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the Judgment dated 21.5.1996 which is impugned in this Appeal does not require any interference because the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the instant Appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.