JUDGMENT 1. - Thia Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 30.4.1991 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case Nos. 51/87 and 27/88, whereby the Trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondent from the offence punishable under Section 302 and in the alternative from Section 302/34 I.P.C. 2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this Appeal, are that PW-1-Prem wife of Ladu Ram had submitted a written report on 17.5.1987 to the Station House officer, Police Station, Sojat, District-Pali, inter alia, alleging therein that on 16.5.1987, her son Munna went to Bera Navadia for watching upon crops, whereas her husband went to some other village in connection with marriage. In the evening of 16.5.1987 at about 4.00-5.00 P.M., accused-Pema son of Bhopal, resident of Dhandheri-ki-Dhani brought her son Munna, who was sitting on camel in between Pema and Ladu Singh and after reaching in front of her house, all of them alighted from the camel and Pema was saying that he would kill Munna and when she asked him about the reason, then he did not disclose anything and caught hold of Munna and dragged him towards the well, thereupon she ran to rescue Munna but in vain, and Pema threw him into the well. She raised the cries when Mangla and Panchi came there and with the aid of rope, Mangla went down into the well and brought Munna out of it, however, that time, Munna died. She further alleged that Pema and Ladu Singh fled pay from there on the camel. It is stated that as the husband of the complainant was out of station, the report could not be filed immediately. 3. On receiving this report, police had registered F.I.R. No. 98/87 at Police Station, Sojat, District-Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 32/34 I.P.C. and started investigation against the accused-respondent. After impletion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused-respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 302/34 I.P.C. iter committal the case, the Trial Court framed the charges against the accused-respondent for the aforesaid offences. 4. To prove the charges against the accused-respondent, the prosecution produced as many as 20 witnesses and also exhibited several documents. Statements of accused-respondent were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and accused Pema Ram was also allowed to appear as DW-1. 4. To prove the charges against the accused-respondent, the prosecution produced as many as 20 witnesses and also exhibited several documents. Statements of accused-respondent were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and accused Pema Ram was also allowed to appear as DW-1. After hearing the Public Prosecutor as well as the Counsel for the accused-respondent and after pondering over the evidence produced by the prosecution and the defence, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 302/34 I.P.C. vide impugned judgment. 5. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the Trial Court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused-respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 302/34 I.P.C. though the prosecution has fully proved the said charges against the accused-respondent. It is argued that PW-1-Prem wife of Ladu Ram, PW-3-Panchi wife of Deva Ram and PW-5-Mangla supported the prosecution story and clearly stated that Pema and Ladu Singh had thrown Munna into the well. It is argued that the testimonies of the aforesaid three eye-witnesses have illegally been discarded by the Trial Court. He has further submitted that the Trial Court while discarding the testimonies of the above witnesses has not given any justifiable reason and, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the accused-respondent has argued that the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused-respondent because the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt. He has further argued that the alleged eye-witnesses PW-1-Prem, PW-3-Panchi and PW-5-Mangla made a lot of improvements in their Court's statements and their testimonies are also not trustworthy and, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly discarded their testimonies. Learned Counsel for the accused-respondent has further argued that accused-respondent Pema Ram was also examined as defence witness and in his statement, he narrated the whole story as to how the incident had taken place. It is submitted that accused-Pema DW-1 was subjected to cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor and his testimony has not been shaken. He has further argued that as per the law laid down by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Naina Ram & Ors. It is submitted that accused-Pema DW-1 was subjected to cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor and his testimony has not been shaken. He has further argued that as per the law laid down by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Naina Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1989, 628 , testimony of a defence witness is to be appreciated, appraised and evaluated in the same manner of the testimony of prosecution witnesses. He has further argued that though the Trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondent while discarding the testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses PW-1-Prem, PW-3-Panchi and PW-5-Mangla, this Court at the appellate stage, can also look into the statement of DW-1 to ascertain the trustworthiness of the allegations levelled against the accused-respondent. It is also contended by learned Counsel for the accused-respondent that when two stories are put forth, one by prosecution and another by defence, the Court car rely on one of the stories, which is more probable. It is further argued that DW-1-Pema in his statement narrated the sequence of events took place in which deceased Munna fell down into the well and the said story is more probable and, therefore, also no case for interference is made out. 7. Heard learned Counsels for the rival parties, perused the impugned judgment and carefully scanned the record. 8. It is not in dispute that PW-1-Prem had filed the complaint on 17.5.198? at about 2.00 A.M. when the police reached the spot after receiving the information that some person fell down into the well at village Bhadarva. As per the complainant PW-1, the incident took place at about 4.00-5.00 P.M. on 16.5.1987. Though PW-1-Prem gave an explanation with regard to delay in filing the complaint that her husband was not in the village, therefore, F.I.R. could no filed in time but said explanation is not satisfactory because as per the Prosecution, soon after the incident, several persons reached the spot and her brothers-in-law had reported the matter to the police. We are of the opinion that when the brother-in-law of PW-1 had reported the matter to the police, ten they could have also filed the first information report immediately after the Incident. Hence, the finding of the Trial Court to the effect that the F.I.R. of the Incident is delayed has some substance. 9. We are of the opinion that when the brother-in-law of PW-1 had reported the matter to the police, ten they could have also filed the first information report immediately after the Incident. Hence, the finding of the Trial Court to the effect that the F.I.R. of the Incident is delayed has some substance. 9. To prove the charges against the accused-respondent, the prosecution had produced three witnesses namely PW-1-Prem wife of Ladu Ram, PW-3-Panchi wife of Deva Ram and PW-5-Mangla son of Moti. Strangly, though PW-1 had supported the prosecution story but at the request of the Public Prosecutor, she was declared hostile probably for the reason that she made a major improvements in her statement while implicating co-accused Ladu Singh too along with accused-respondent Pema Ram. It is noticed that in her complaint and in her police statement, PW-1-Prem had only stated that only Pema Ram had thrown her son Munna into the well, whereas during the Court's statement, she had stated that both accused-Pema Ram and Ladu Singh had thrown her son into the well. The Trial Court has discarded the testimony of PW-1-Prem while taking into consideration that she made major improvements in her statement vis-a-vis the complaint Ex. P-1, the police statement Ex. P-2. The Trial Court has observed that in Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2, she only stated that accused-Pema Ram had thrown her son into the well, whereas in her statement before the Court, she also posed Ladu Singh along with Pema Ram to thrown her son in the well. The Trial Court has also observed that in her complaint as well as in police statement, PW-1 did not state that accused-Pema Ram had assaulted her son Munna before reaching her house. The Doctor has also not stated that there was any injury on the body of the deceased Munna due to any assault. The Trial Court has also disbelieved the testimonies of PW-3-Panchi and PW-5-Mangla while observing that in their initial statements recorded by the police, they had specifically stated that they did not know who had thrown Munna into the well or how Munna fell into the well, however, their supplementary statements were recorded after some days by the police in which they alleged that Pema Ram and Ladu Singh caught hold of the arms of deceased Munna and threw him into the well. The Trial Court has observed that major improvements were made by above named witnesses and they are near relatives of the complainant and, therefore, their testimonies are not reliable. 10. After carefully gone through the statements of PW-3-Panchi and PW-5-Mangla, we found that they made major improvements in their Court's statements and it can only be concluded that at the time of incident, they were not present, however, later on, after hearing the cries of PW-1-Prem, they reached the spot and as such it cannot be believed that they saw the accused-respondent throwing deceased Munna into the well. 11. It is also noticed that accused-Pema Ram had produced himself as DW-1 and in his statement, he narrated the sequence of events. He stated that on 16.5.1987 in the evening, he and Ladu Singh along with deceased Munna on their camel reached the house of the deceased to complain about the deceased, who had damaged his saddle. He explained that when he complained about the behaviour of deceased Munna to his mother PW-1-Prem, she scolded him and also started beating him, then Munna ran away and fell into the well. He also stated that he went into the well to take him out and while doing so, he received injuries on his body and the injury report of the same was produced as Ex. D-6. He was subjected to cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor and his testimony was not shaken and he stood by his statement in chief. Looking to the sequence of events and particularly the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive of the accused-respondent to commit the crime, it seems that DW-1 has narrated the true facts while deposing before the Court. We are of the opinion that the story put forth by the defence is more probable. 12. Looking to the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent because the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against him beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, there is no merit in this Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******