Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2402 (ALL)

JAMADAR SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-08-14

OM PRAKASH VII, SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Om Prakash-VII, J.—This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants against the judgement and order dated 19.4.1983 passed by the 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Badaun in Session Trial No. 527 of 1981 (State v. Jamadar Singh and others) convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC to undergo life imprisonment. 2. At the outset, it is relevant to mention here that during pendency of this appeal, appellant No. 1 - Jamadar Singh and appellant No. 2 Satya Pal Singh have died. Accordingly, vide order dated 24.4.2015, this Court has abated the appeal in respect of the appellant No. 1 - Jamadar Singh and appellant No. 2 Satya Pal Singh. 3. Now, we are proceeding to consider the present appeal in respect of sole surviving appellant i.e. Godha Singh. 4. The facts of the case, as unfolded by the informant Babu Singh son of Lal Singh in the First Information Report (in short ‘F.I.R.’), are that about one year and three months ago, Jamadar etc. had dug a drain (nali) to flow the water of his house in the land of the informant. When the father of the informant objected, Jamadar and Satya Pal attacked his father with spade but the villagers got escaped him. The father of the informant lodged a report about the incident in the police station concerned. Jamadar etc. are of bad character man and they have nexus with anti social elements of Etah. These people had animosity with the informant and his father. They attempted to kill his father several times. Due to their bad character, Police also searched them many times. They had suspicion that the father of the informant had informed the Police about their activities. On the eve of the incident, when the informant alongwith his father was sitting at the platform, Jamadar, Gowardhan armed with gun, Satya Pal and his brother-in-law Chandrapal were sitting at the door of Jamadar. Chandrapal taunted the father of the informant to eat and drink as his time was going to end. Saying this, they went towards west direction of the village. In the night, the informant, his uncle Room Singh and his brother Ram Chandra were sleeping on the platform beneath the pakar tree whereas his father Lal Singh and his mausa (maternal uncle) Soran Singh were sleeping at the platform near the house. Saying this, they went towards west direction of the village. In the night, the informant, his uncle Room Singh and his brother Ram Chandra were sleeping on the platform beneath the pakar tree whereas his father Lal Singh and his mausa (maternal uncle) Soran Singh were sleeping at the platform near the house. At about 11.00 p.m., Jamadar, Satya Pal, Godhe and Chandrapal came there and overpowered his father. When due to whisper, he, his uncle, brother and Soran awaken, Godhe aiming the gun towards him said that if anyone makes noise, he will kill. When he threw light through torch, he saw that Jamadar, Chandrapal, Satya Pal closing the mouth of the father of informant were carrying him towards pond. After sometime, sound of 2-3 gun shots were heard and at the same time, Godhe also went towards the pond. They all saw from the door of Drigpal house that fire was burning at the bank of pond and his father was being beaten by lathi and ganadasa by the accused persons. Putting cloth, his father was also set at fire. At about 2.00 a.m, Jamadar etc. went towards west. They (witnesses) have recognized Jamadar etc. in the light of fire and moon. Reaching near the deadbody, he saw that there were number of wounds on the neck and body of his father who was dead. 5. On the basis of the written report (Ext. ka-2), chik First Information Report (Ext. Ka-5) was registered at Police Station concerned on 26.5.1981 at 7.40 a.m. mentioning all the details as had been described in Ext. Ka-.2. G.D. entry (Ext. Ka-6) was also made at the same time. 6. Investigation of the matter was entrusted to sub-Inspector B.R. Dinkar. He alongwith other police personnel proceeded to the place of incident on the same day and prepared the inquest report (Ext. ka-1). The Investigating Officer also prepared photo lash (Ext. ka-7), challan lash (Ext. Ka-8), sample seal (Ext. ka-9), letter to Chief Medical Officer, Badaun (Ext. ka-10) for post-mortem. The dead body was kept in sealed cover and was dispatched through constable Harbans Singh and village chaukidar Banwari alongwith the police papers for post-mortem. Site plan (Ext. Ka-11) was also prepared. The Investigating Officer also took the sample of plain earth and bloodstained earth and the teeth from the place of occurrence and also prepared the memo in this regard. Site plan (Ext. Ka-11) was also prepared. The Investigating Officer also took the sample of plain earth and bloodstained earth and the teeth from the place of occurrence and also prepared the memo in this regard. He found empty cartridge and lathi on the spot and prepared memo (Ext. ka-6) and (Ext. ka-12) in this respect. Thereafter, Inspector Dhanvir Singh, who was the Incharge of Police Station, took the investigation in his hand from 30.5.1981 onwards. 7. Autopsy report (Ext. ka-3) was prepared after conducting the post-mortem on 27.5.1981 at 10.00 a.m. 8. As per the post-mortem report, the deceased was about 46 years old. On external examination he found that the deceased was average built and the rigor mortis passed off. 9. On examination of the dead body of the deceased, following ante-mortem injuries were found: “(1) Gun shot wound of entry right side and 1.5 cm in dimension 10 cm below right nipple oval shape margins lacerated and inverted. Blackening around the wound in an area of 3 cm in dimension present. Under the injury fracture of one rib present, lower border and internal border or right lung lacerated. (2) Gun shot wound of entry right side chest. Just right to the mid of injury 1.5 cm in diameter underneath to this injury. There is fracture of 3rd costal cartilage. Contents of Media-stanum lacerated. No blackening was present. Margin lacerated and inverted. Two piece of plastic and a large shot recovered from the lacerated mediustynal tiger. (3) One gun shot wound of Exit 2 cm in diameter lacerated and averted margins. On left side of chest in the middle of post axillary is under the injury Nos. 5,6 and 7 rib fractured and lower bone of left lung ruptured. (4) 3rd degree burning present in the right thumb, right index and middle finger. (5) Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on right buttock. (6) Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on the right arm upper 1/3 outer side. (7) Contusion 10 cm x 2 cm on right scapular chest. (8) A large wound covering whole of right side of head and neck Ant. (5) Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on right buttock. (6) Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on the right arm upper 1/3 outer side. (7) Contusion 10 cm x 2 cm on right scapular chest. (8) A large wound covering whole of right side of head and neck Ant. Border on the forehead and face and lower jaw and clean cut whole one post border on the top of head and post side of scull and root of neck burnt on the upper part of wound fracture of parietal (right) bone of right ear and muscles of temporal region and miming. On the ant. Part both the nostril bone are clean cut and both nostril also of nose and cartilage missing. All the teeth of upper jaw are missing and aleboli lacerated. Only two right molar teeth present. The wound lower part and muscle of neck are burn and coagulated blood present on right common corited artery. Underlying injury haematoma of 30 ml of blood present on right side of brain. Under the fracture membranes are lacerated.” 10. In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 11. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. ka-4) against all the accused appellants was filed. Concerned Magistrate took the cognizance. The case being exclusively triable by session Court, was committed to the Court of sessions. 12. Accused/appellants appeared and charge under Sections 458, 302/34 IPC was framed in the trial Court against them. All the accused have denied the charges framed against them and claimed their trial. 13. Trial proceeded, and on behalf of prosecution, eight witnesses were examined., wherein PW-1 Samal Singh, the witness of inquest, PW-2 Babu Singh (informant), an eye account witness, PW-3 Room Singh, PW-4 Soran Singh, eye-witnesses. PW-5 Dr. V.K. Sharma, who has conducted the post-mortem on the body of deceased and prepared post-mortem report. PW-6 Constable Harbansh Singh, who brought the dead-body of the deceased to the mortuary. PW-7 Inspector Dhanvir Singh, who completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet (Ext. ka-4). PW-8 S.I. B.R. Dinkar. This witness has proved the inquest report (Ext. ka-1), photo lash (Ext. ka-7), sample seal (Ext. ka-9) letter to Medical Officer,(Ext. ka-10). He prepared memo in respect of plain earth and bloodstained earth, teeth and empty cartridges. 14. PW-7 Inspector Dhanvir Singh, who completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet (Ext. ka-4). PW-8 S.I. B.R. Dinkar. This witness has proved the inquest report (Ext. ka-1), photo lash (Ext. ka-7), sample seal (Ext. ka-9) letter to Medical Officer,(Ext. ka-10). He prepared memo in respect of plain earth and bloodstained earth, teeth and empty cartridges. 14. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. 15. Accused persons in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations and stated that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. Satya Pal Singh has stated that his father had given land and a house to the deceased Lal Singh and the said land and house were taken back by him (Satya Pal Singh). Due to this reason, Lal Singh was having enmity. Deceased was of bad character person. The same fact has been reiterated by Jamadar Singh. 16. No documentary evidence was filed in their defence by the accused appellants. 17. The defence examined Balwant Singh as DW-1, who has denied about happening of any such incident at his platform. 18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the trial Court has found that the prosecution has fully succeeded in bringing home the charges against the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the accused appellants, hence this appeal. 19. We have heard Shri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant No. 3 and Shri Rajeev Gupta, learned AGA for the State at length, and perused the entire record carefully. 20. Castigating the impugned judgement and order, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the incident took place at two places in the intervening night of 25/26.5.1981 between 11.00 p.m. to 2.00 a.m. It is improbable and unbelievable that accused appellants had taken the deceased from the first place of occurrence, i.e., the platform of house of the deceased in the presence of many persons including PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 and Ram Chandra and they did not try to save him. It was- further submitted that second place of occurrence is the bank of a pond and there are many houses situated near that place. Had the shots were made at second place of occurrence, certainly the same would have been heard by the persons present in their houses. It was- further submitted that second place of occurrence is the bank of a pond and there are many houses situated near that place. Had the shots were made at second place of occurrence, certainly the same would have been heard by the persons present in their houses. It was next submitted that accused appellants committed the present offence for about 2½ hours continuously and at the southern - western side of the pond threshering work was going on and there was sufficient light but the people doing threshering work could not witness the incident which is improbable and unnatural. No specific role was assigned to the accused appellant Godha Singh for causing injuries to the deceased. All other accused except Godha Singh are said to have left the first place of occurrence taking the deceased but the appellant Godha Singh armed with his gun remained present there causing threat to the persons present at the first place of occurrence. It is also unnatural and improbable that 4 to 5 persons were present at the first place of occurrence but they did not try to overpower the accused appellant Godha Singh, who remained present at that place for about 15-20 minutes. Motive attributed to the accused appellants was not established. Medical evidence does not support the oral testimony. Informant and other persons are said to have standing at the door of Drigpal for about 2½ hours. This fact also makes the incident improbable. In fact after seeing the dead body of the deceased in the morning, on consultation, they lodged the FIR against the accused appellants due to village enmity. None had witnessed the incident. As the deceased was of a bad character person, he was done to death by some unknown persons. The First Information Report was lodged after post-mortem. FIR is ante-timed document. There are major contradictions in the statements of eye account witnesses on the points of source of light, weapon assigned to the accused appellant, distance between the place of occurrence and the place where the witnesses were present. There are also contradictions on the points as to whether FIR was got prepared in the village or at police station concerned and also on the point of making alarm and as to whether the accused appellant Godha Singh had fired or not. Place of occurrence was also not fixed by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. There are also contradictions on the points as to whether FIR was got prepared in the village or at police station concerned and also on the point of making alarm and as to whether the accused appellant Godha Singh had fired or not. Place of occurrence was also not fixed by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Deposition of DW-1 Balwant Singh was not specifically challenged by the prosecution in the cross-examination. It is next submitted that the accused appellant Godha Singh was not a hardened criminal therefore, motive regarding Mukhbiri alleged by the prosecution is also not believable. Prosecution case was not supported with the independent witnesses. All the witnesses examined as eye account witnesses are interested, relative and inimical witnesses. Hence their testimony cannot be relied upon. 21. In reply, the learned AGA appearing for the State has submitted that the accused appellants had committed the present offence to create terror as they felt that deceased was an informer of Police. Since accused appellant Godha Singh aiming gun towards them was threatening to the witnesses present at the first place of incident, therefore, they could not resist. When Godha Singh left the first place of incident, all the witnesses present there proceeded for the place of occurrence but due to fear they could not dare to go there and had seen the incident from the door of Drigpal. The incident could easily be seen from that place, as there was sufficient light. Accused appellants were known to the witnesses and they were recognized by the witnesses at the first place of occurrence itself. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have clearly and consistently supported the prosecution case. They were sleeping at the first place of incident. Reason for delay in lodging the FIR was terror of the accused appellants and the same was properly explained in the FIR itself. Medical evidence fully supports the prosecution case. There is no conflict between oral and medical evidence. It might be possible that persons doing threshering work could not witness the incident as the distance between the place of main occurrence and the place where threshering work was going on, was about more than 100 mtrs. Prosecution case cannot be disbelieved only on this basis that people present at the threshering work were not examined. The oral testimony of the eye account witnesses is fully supported with the medical evidence. Prosecution case cannot be disbelieved only on this basis that people present at the threshering work were not examined. The oral testimony of the eye account witnesses is fully supported with the medical evidence. There was no occasion to falsely implicate the accused appellants as PW-2 is the son of the deceased and he will not implicate an innocent person leaving the real culprits. It is further submitted that conduct of the deceased was not material in the matter and no cogent evidence was lead by the accused appellants, therefore, suggestions put to the witnesses by the accused appellants cannot be taken as evidence. 22. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the entire record and evidence. 23. Before proceeding to discuss the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we may mention the findings of the trial Court on material points in the impugned judgement and order, which are as under: (i) Neither the FIR is a delayed document nor is the result of consultation. (ii) Motive attributed to the accused appellants was fully established by the prosecution. (iii) Eye account witnesses are the natural and probable witnesses. They had seen the incident from the door of Drigpal. Accused appellants had taken away the deceased from his door in the night at about 11.00 p.m. (iv) PW-4 Soran Singh is also natural witness as he was also sleeping at the platform of deceased. (v) Accused-appellant Godha Singh remained present at the first place of incident causing threat to the witnesses sleeping there and due to this reason, they could not make any alarm at the first place of incident till his presence. (vi) Medical evidence fully supports the ocular testimony of the eye account witnesses. (vii) Prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. (viii) There was sufficient light at the main place of incident to enable the witnesses to recognize the accused persons. (ix) Testimony of DW-1 Balwant Singh is not believable. 24. After outlining the findings recorded by the trial Court in the impugned judgement and order, we are proceeding to deal with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 25. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of its version. 24. After outlining the findings recorded by the trial Court in the impugned judgement and order, we are proceeding to deal with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 25. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of its version. In case, there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must give explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR does not make the complainant’s case improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint is always fatal. [vide: Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 3247 ]. 26. In cases where there is a delay in lodging a FIR, the Court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the Court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case. (vide : Chandrapal Singh and others v. Maharaj Singh and another, AIR 1982 SC 1238 ; State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 ; G. Sagar Suri and another v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2000 SC 754 ; and Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. and others, (2008) 12 SCC 531 ). 27. In the present matter, offence is said to have been committed in the intervening night of 25/26.5.1981 between 11.00 p.m. to 2.00 a.m..The FIR was lodged in the next morning, i.e. 26.5.1981 at 7.40 a.m.. Distance between the place of occurrence and the concerned police station is 6 kilometres. Informant is the son of the deceased. Thus, the FIR was lodged after about 5½ hours of the incident. Now the question arises as to whether there is some force in the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was delay in lodging the FIR and the said delay was not properly explained or the time taken in lodging the FIR was natural, probable and justified. 28. Now the question arises as to whether there is some force in the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was delay in lodging the FIR and the said delay was not properly explained or the time taken in lodging the FIR was natural, probable and justified. 28. If the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant are minutely considered in consonance with the statement of prosecution witnesses and the evidence available on record, it emerges that the offence is said to have been committed in the month of May between 11.00 p.m. to 2.00 a.m.. Informant is the son of the deceased. There is delay of only 5 ½ hours. In the present matter when the place of occurrence is 6 km. away from the police station, existence of FIR at the time mentioned in the chik cannot be doubted especially when the offence is of the night hours. Looking to the nature of the offence, lodging of FIR at 7.40 a.m. in the morning is probable one and the FIR only on this ground cannot be doubted and the prosecution case also cannot be discarded. Although there appears no delay in lodging the FIR but in the facts and circumstances of the case, other evidence adduced by the parties has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously keeping in mind the peculiar facts of the case. 29. We take-up the submission regarding motive. Although we are oblivious of the fact that motive relegates into the back ground in a case of direct ocular testimony and is not of much significance, but where the motive is false and cooked up, then it assumes importance to test the veracity or other wise of the prosecution witnesses. From the evidence, we find that only this much was mentioned in the FIR that about one year and three months ago accused appellants had constructed a drain (nali) over the land of the informant. When the deceased objected, accused appellants Jamadar and Satya Pal attacked him with spade and the villagers saved him by intervening in the matter. FIR about the said incident was lodged at concerned police station. When the deceased objected, accused appellants Jamadar and Satya Pal attacked him with spade and the villagers saved him by intervening in the matter. FIR about the said incident was lodged at concerned police station. It is also mentioned in the written report that as the accused appellants were habitual offender and local police was searching them, they were feeling that the deceased Lal Singh was informer of the police, therefore, they had committed the present offence. 30. A perusal of the entire record including the evidence lead by the prosecution, it is evident that no documentary evidence was adduced by the prosecution to establish the aforesaid fact that FIR was lodged earlier by the deceased against the accused appellants regarding the earlier incident. It further shows that prosecution witnesses themselves have admitted that dispute regarding construction of drainage was settled and there was no dispute in existence between the parties on the date of the present incident. Though the facts mentioned in the FIR on the point of motive was supported by the prosecution witnesses and same be taken into consideration, then also the motive attributed to the accused appellants is of a trivial nature. No one can think to commit a murder on the ground of such type of motive especially when the prosecution witnesses themselves have admitted that dispute was not in existence on the date of incident. There is no documentary evidence on record to substantiate the motive. As stated above, it may be mentioned here that though motive is an essential ingredient to constitute the crime but where there are eye account witnesses, motive loses its significance. It may also be mentioned here that motive may be a reason for false implication. The effect of motive attributed in the present matter has to be seen in the light of other evidence. 31. Prosecution case is also that in the same evening of the the incident, which took place in the night, accused appellants had threatened the deceased to eliminate him and taunted to eat and drink as his time was going to end. Since witnesses of this fact are relative and family members of the deceased, therefore, it is necessary to scrutinize the prosecution evidence carefully and cautiously. 32. Since witnesses of this fact are relative and family members of the deceased, therefore, it is necessary to scrutinize the prosecution evidence carefully and cautiously. 32. Before proceeding to deal with other submissions, we would like to scrutinize the evidence regarding presence of eye account witnesses on all three places, i.e. the place where the witnesses alongwith deceased were sleeping, the place where the deceased was done to death and the place from where the witnesses had witnessed the main incident. Further, it is also to be seen as to whether any such incident in the manner stated by the prosecution witnesses occurred or not and as to whether they had witnessed the same. 33. As in the instant case the most pivotal role is that of the ocular account of the three witnesses, therefore, in our view, we would like to discuss it by making careful reappraisal of the same as all the three accused belong to one and the same family, so, an innocent one may not fall on account of misreading or non-reading of material evidence. The prosecution case mainly rings upon the alleged ocular account witnesses, namely informant PW-2, P.W.3 and PW-4. We would like to reappraise their testimony first of all to draw conclusion as to whether their presence on all three places at the time of occurrence was established by the prosecution and whether their testimony is worthy of credence, believable and whether their conduct is natural and in accordance with the ordinary human conduct or otherwise. 34. First place of occurrence is the platforms of the deceased as well as of Balwant Singh (DW-1). Deceased and PW-4 Soran Singh were sleeping at the platform of deceased Lal Singh and the informant (PW-2), Room Singh (PW-3) and one Ram Chandra were sleeping at the platform of Balwant Singh (DW-1). Both the platforms were separated by a lane. It is the prosecution case that initially all the accused appellants came at the first place of occurrence, taking the deceased Lal Singh from that place, they went to the place of occurrence where the deceased was done to death. Both the platforms were separated by a lane. It is the prosecution case that initially all the accused appellants came at the first place of occurrence, taking the deceased Lal Singh from that place, they went to the place of occurrence where the deceased was done to death. In the FIR, nothing was mentioned as to whether any resistance was made by the deceased while being taken by the accused appellants, as to whether the deceased made any alarm or not but during the course of examination, PW-2 Babu Singh stated that the deceased did not make any alarm at that time but PW-3 Room Singh stated that the deceased made alarm and thereafter the witnesses present there woke-up. It is also the prosecution case that DW-1 Balwant Singh was sleeping in his house in the night of the incident, whereas, DW-1 Balwant Singh has stated that no any incident, as has been stated by the prosecution witnesses, took place at his platform. He has also stated that he remained at his platform day and night. In the FIR it is mentioned that accused appellant Godha Singh remained present at the first place of incident aiming his gun towards witnesses to deter them. There is also contradiction on the point as to whether the accused appellant Godha Singh had made fire or not. PW-3 Room Singh has specifically stated that Godha Singh has also made three fires when he was going at the place where the deceased was done to death. If the prosecution evidence as a whole is taken into consideration, it emerges that only role to the accused appellant Godha Singh is assigned that he remained present at the first place of occurrence for about 15-20 minutes to deter the witnesses threatening them. It appears improbable that father of the informant (PW-2) was taken away by the accused appellants from the first place of occurrence. Threat had been caused to eliminate him and the accused appellant Godha Singh remained present all alone there but the witnesses, who were four in number, did not resist or try to over power the accused appellant Godha Singh. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused appellant Godha Singh made repeated efforts aiming his gun towards all the witnesses one by one threatening them to keep mum. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused appellant Godha Singh made repeated efforts aiming his gun towards all the witnesses one by one threatening them to keep mum. It is also clear from the prosecution evidence itself that witnesses present at the first place of occurrence were sleeping on separate cots. Thus, the conduct of the witnesses appears improbable, unnatural and unbelievable and does not appeal to the conscience of the Court that accused appellants had taken the deceased from the first place of occurrence, i.e., the platform of house of the deceased, they were sleeping there but did not try to save him and also they did not try to overpower the accused appellant Godha Singh, while he was all alone. Our above opinion also finds support from the statement of DW-1 Balwant Singh, who has clearly stated that no incident, as stated by the witnesses, took place in the night at his platform. The parties have admitted that DW-1 Balwant Singh was present in his house, but, in our opinion, if any incident was taken place or alarm was made at his platform, he would have the first man to witness the incident. Although prosecution has stated that Balwant Singh (DW-1) had also come at the door of the Drigpal but at the time of examination before the Court as DW-1, he has clearly denied this fact. Thus, the prosecution case that the deceased was taken away by the accused appellants (Jamadar Singh and Satya Pal Singh) from the first place of occurrence in the presence of prosecution witnesses appears suspicious and doubtful. The prosecution case also appears suspicious and doubtful that witnesses watched the main incident from the door of Drigpal for about 2½ hours still no effort was made to save him. Two sons, a real brother and a close relative of the deceased were said to be watching the main incident i.e. commission of murder of the deceased Lal Singh but none tried to save him. Prosecution case appears doubtful on this ground also that witnesses claiming themselves as eye-witnesses had raised alarm from the door of Drigpal still nobody from the locality reached at the place of occurrence. Prosecution case appears doubtful on this ground also that witnesses claiming themselves as eye-witnesses had raised alarm from the door of Drigpal still nobody from the locality reached at the place of occurrence. If the statement of the eye account witnesses that nobody of the locality as well as the people present at the place, where threshing operation was going on responded, is taken into consideration, then also the whole prosecution story appears improbable and unnatural to our mind that the prosecution witnesses present there did not make any effort to save the deceased. Had the shots were made and alarm was raised, certainly people of the locality as well as the people present at the place where threshing was going on, would have heard the same and reached the spot. Since threshing was going on, they could easily hear the shots and alarm. It the deceased was caused burnt injuries at the place of main occurrence, people present at the place where the threshing work was going-on would have seen and responded, especially when they were not at much distance. The natural conduct is that if any such incident causing panic or terror had taken place, people in the vicinity would have rushed in the night itself. It is also improbable and unnatural that accused appellants kept committing the present offence for about 2½ hours continuously without there being any outside intervention. Thus, in our opinion, the whole prosecution story appears to be concocted. Nothing untoward happened either at the chabutra of the deceased or at the chabutra of Balwant Singh (DW-1), therefore, no question arises to witness the same. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 are not eye-witnesses. The prosecution story appears to be false and concocted and, therefore, due to this reason contradictions on various points occurred in the statements of witnesses. 35. So far as the submission that the eye-witnesses are interested, relative and inimical is concerned, the admitted position of law is that enmity is a double edged weapon which can be a motive for the crime as also the ground for false implication of the accused persons. In case of inimical witnesses, the Courts are required to scrutinise their testimony with anxious care to find out whether their testimony inspires confidence, notwithstanding the existence of enmity. In case of inimical witnesses, the Courts are required to scrutinise their testimony with anxious care to find out whether their testimony inspires confidence, notwithstanding the existence of enmity. Where enmity is proved to be the motive for the commission of the crime, the accused cannot urge that despite proof of the motive of the crime, the witnesses who are inimical should not be relied upon. Testimony of eye-witnesses, which is otherwise convincing and consistent, cannot be discarded simply on the ground that the deceased was related to the eye-witnesses or previously there had been some disputes between the accused and the deceased or the witnesses. The existence of animosity between the accused and the witnesses may, in some cases, give rise to the possibility of the witnesses exaggerating the role of some of the accused or trying to rope in more persons as accused persons for the commission of the crime. Such a possibility is required to be ascertained on the facts of each case. 36. In the present case, PW-2 Babu Singh is the son of the deceased, PW-3 Room Singh is the brother of the deceased and PW-4 Soran Singh is the close relative of the deceased. On close scrutiny of their testimony with anxious care, we are of the view, that testimony of these witnesses is improbable, unnatural and unreliable and also does not inspire confidence to be accepted. On the basis of foregoing discussions, it can safely be said that these witnesses are inimical and had tried to falsely rope the accused appellant in commission of the present crime on account of animosity. 37. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, it appears that in the morning of 26.5.1981 when the deadbody of the deceased Lal Singh was seen at the place of occurrence, FIR was lodged after consultation with the police personnel and due to this reason contradictions in the statement of witnesses on the point of preparation of the written report and on other material points had occurred. Due to this reason, the Investigating Officer did not find any sort of evidence at the place of occurrence to connect the burn injury found on the body of deceased. Presence of accused appellant Godha Singh at both the place of occurrence also appears doubtful. Due to this reason, the Investigating Officer did not find any sort of evidence at the place of occurrence to connect the burn injury found on the body of deceased. Presence of accused appellant Godha Singh at both the place of occurrence also appears doubtful. If for the sake of argument, role assigned to the accused appellant Godha Singh is taken into consideration, then also his presence at the first place of occurrence is not established from the prosecution evidence beyond reasonable doubt. He had not participated in the crime committed at the place of the incident where the deceased was done to death. As per prosecution case itself, fires were made at the place where deceased Lal Singh was done to death and at that time Godha Singh left the first place of incident i.e. the platform where the witnesses were present. This fact also shows that accused appellant did not play any role at the place of main incident. Since none had seen the incident and PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 are not the eye account witnesses, therefore, suggestions put forward by the accused appellants appears probable and believable. Contradictions on point of raising alarm at the first place of occurrences, the place where the written report was prepared, act of firing said to have been made by accused appellant Godha Singh, source of light, presence of DW-1 Balwant Singh have occurred in the prosecution case due to the reason that prosecution witnesses are not the eye-witnesses and the offence did not take place as has been alleged by the prosecution witnesses. 38. So far as the submission regarding medical evidence is concerned, presence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 at all the three places are found doubtful, therefore, we do not find it necessary to discuss in detail the medical evidence in the present matter. Death of the deceased is not disputed. None had seen the occurrence, therefore, as to how deceased received injuries and who caused the injuries is also not found established from the prosecution evidence beyond reasonable doubt. 39. Thus, we are of the view that the accused appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Death of the deceased is not disputed. None had seen the occurrence, therefore, as to how deceased received injuries and who caused the injuries is also not found established from the prosecution evidence beyond reasonable doubt. 39. Thus, we are of the view that the accused appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The finding of the trial Court on the points that PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 are eye-witnesses, they are natural and probable witnesses, evidence regarding motive attributed to the accused appellant, testimony of DW-1 Balwant Singh is not believable are not correct and the same are illegal and perverse. The trial Court has not rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and reached to a wrong conclusion holding the accused appellant to be guilty for committing the murder of the deceased Lal Singh. The pleas taken by the accused appellant appears more probable in the matter. 40. Hence, taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case and re-appreciating the evidence available on record, we are of the view that the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the accused appellant Godha Singh. Hence, the Court is inclined to grant benefit of doubt to the accused appellant Godha Singh, keeping in mind the rule of caution. 41. In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused appellants under Section 302/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and to the satisfaction of the judicial conscience of the Court. So, the impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.4.1983, which has been sought to be assailed, call for and deserves, interference. The criminal appeal is liable to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. 42. The judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.4.1983 passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. The accused appellant, namely, Godha Singh is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. He is acquitted of all the charges framed against him. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 43. Let a copy of this judgement alongwith lower Court record be sent to the Sessions Judge, Badaun for compliance.