JUDGMENT 1. - In the instant case, appellant, Trilok Singh, as per prosecution case, on 11th of November, 2005 in between 10:00 A.M to 02:00 P.M. had committed murder of Smt. Keshanti Devi, near the pond, close to her fields at Village Bamanwas with an incised weapon. 2. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, relying upon the prosecution case, vide its impugned judgment dated 24.08.2006 convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. 3. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded upon the appellant by the trial Court. 4. Initially, a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/22), bearing registration No.287/2005 was registered at Police Station, Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur, on the basis of written-report (Exhibit-P/1) lodged by one Rameshwar Prasad Meena (PW-1), the son of the deceased Smt. Keshanti Devi. 5. In the present case, First Information Report, was regarding blind murder, as nobody was named as an assailant in the written-report (Exhibit-P/1). 6. It will be apposite to reproduce here true translation of written-report (Exhibit-P/1), submitted by Rameshwar Prasad Meena (PW-1). To, The Station House Officer Saheb, Police Station, Bamanwas Subject : Regarding murder of my mother - Smt. Keshanti Meena wife of Shri Dandua Meena, resident of Bamanwas Patti Khurd by unidentified persons. Sir, It is submitted that applicant - Rameshwar Meena son of Dandua Meena is resident of Bamanwas Patti Khurd. My mother - Smt. Keshanti Meena wife of Dandua Meena in the morning at around 10:00 A.M. had gone to bring fodder from the fields situated near to the culvert of canal at Kakrala Road. I got information at about 04:00/05:00 P.M. that my mother has been murdered near to the road. I and my sister - Sureshi had gone and seen the spot. It is, therefore, requested that accused be found and punished. Legal action be taken. The neck of my mother (Keshanti) was slashed from the left side. Applicant Rameshwar " 7. I got information at about 04:00/05:00 P.M. that my mother has been murdered near to the road. I and my sister - Sureshi had gone and seen the spot. It is, therefore, requested that accused be found and punished. Legal action be taken. The neck of my mother (Keshanti) was slashed from the left side. Applicant Rameshwar " 7. The above said written-report (Exhibit-P/1) was presented before Tejraj Singh(PW-14), Station House Officer, Police Station, Bamanwas, on 11.11.2005 at 04:30 P.M. The case was registered at Police Station, Bamanwas on 11.11.2005 at 05:00 P.M. 8. We have reproduced herein above written-report (Exhibit-P/1), on the basis of which a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/22) was registered to highlight the fact that on 11.11.2005 till 05:00 P.M. the name of assailant was not known, and the prosecution was groping in the dark to find out as to who has committed murder. 9. Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, has drawn our attention towards inquest report (Exhibit-P/2) prepared by Investigating Officer, wherein it was noted that on 11.11.2005 at 07:00 P.M. dead-body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased and till then name of the assailant was not known. 10. Tejraj Singh (PW-14), being Investigating Officer, while appearing in the Court deposed that on 11.11.2005 he was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Bamanwas. On that day, at about 02:30 P.M. he received a telephonic information that at Livali Road near the pond of Sherkhan, one lady was lying dead. Since information was reliable, he along with Police party reached at the spot. The said information was noted in the Daily Diary Register (rojnamcha) vide Report bearing No.389, copy of which has been proved on record as Exhibit-P/19-A). This witness reached at the spot and got the spot photographed. He proved photographs vide Exhibit-P/20 and their negatives, fifteen in number, vide Exhibit-P/21. Thereafter, this witness prepared inquest proceedings (Exhibit-P/2) and also prepared description of the dead-body vide Exhibit-P/3. Thereafter, dead-body was sent for the Post Mortem. 11. The Post Mortem was carried by a Medical Board on 11.11.2005 at 05:00 P.M. and Dr. Hansraj Meena (PW-11), being Medical Officer, as per Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/17) had found following twelve injuries on the person of deceased Smt. Keshanti Devi:- Details of all injuries on her body:- "1. Thereafter, dead-body was sent for the Post Mortem. 11. The Post Mortem was carried by a Medical Board on 11.11.2005 at 05:00 P.M. and Dr. Hansraj Meena (PW-11), being Medical Officer, as per Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/17) had found following twelve injuries on the person of deceased Smt. Keshanti Devi:- Details of all injuries on her body:- "1. Extensive incised wound 8cm x 4 cm x muscular depth, thyroid cartilage cut out, common carotid artery jugular vein separated completely, muscle of neck of left side is damaged just below the mandible. 2. Incised wound (punctured) 21/2 cm x 11/2 cm x 8 cm deep in right lung, 21/2 cm above and laterally to right nipple. 3. Incised wound 1 cm x ⅓ cm x ⅓ cm on back of left wrist joint. 4. Incised wound 1 cm x ⅓ cm x ⅓ cm on palmer surface of left thumb of hand. 5. Incised wound 11/2 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on palmo - dorsal aspect of ulnar side of phalanx of IV finger of left hand. 6. Lacerated wound 1 cm x ⅓ cm x cm on palmer aspect of distal phalanx of ulnar side of IV finger of left hand. 7. Incised wound 11/2 cm ⅓cm x 1 cm deep on left side of mouth 8. Incised wound ⅔ cm x ⅓ cm x ⅓ cm x ⅓ cm deep on left cheek. 9. Incised wound 21/2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on middle of left ear, complete separation from hylex. 10. Incised wound 1/2 cm x ⅓ cm x 1/2 cm on lateral angle of left side of mouth. 11. Lacerated wound 1 cm x ⅓ cm x ⅓ cm deep on base of left elbow joint. 12. Abrasion multiple (scratches) on back of lower part of lumber region including both buttocks. General points 1. Mouth open. Eyes are open. No bleeding from mouth, nose etc. No salivation from mouth." 12. As per opinion of the doctor, there was no evidence of sexual intercourse and presence of the semen in the vagina and on the clothes of the deceased. 13. As per opinion of the Board of Doctors, the cause of death of Smt. Keshanti Devi was hemorrhagic shock - due to damage of common carotid artery resulting in cardiac respiratory failure. 14. 13. As per opinion of the Board of Doctors, the cause of death of Smt. Keshanti Devi was hemorrhagic shock - due to damage of common carotid artery resulting in cardiac respiratory failure. 14. The Board of Doctors further opined that the injury Nos.1 and 2 are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 15. It is to be noted here that written-report (Exhibit-P1) was presented around the same time when the Post Mortem was being conducted. Thus, till the late night of 11.11.2005 for the Investigating Agency, it was a case of blind murder. 16. Suffice it to say, prosecution, in the present case, in all, had examined fifteen-witnesses and has relied upon twenty-seven documents (Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/27-A). 17. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence. 18. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He denied all the incriminating evidence put to him and pleaded innocence. 19. In defence, accused had not examined any witness. However, he has placed reliance upon an many as ten-documents (Exhibit-D/1 to Exhibit-D/10). 20. Exhibit-D/1 to Exhibit-D/5 are the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Exhibit-D/7 is Photostat copy of First Information Report bearing No.79/2006, registered at Police Station, Bamanwas. Exhibit-D/8 is an application submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Sawaimadhopur. Exhibit-D/9 is a crime details form and site-plan with its description (for the case registered under F.I.R. No.79/2006) and Exhibit-D/10 is crime details form and site-plan with its description (for the F.I.R. No.79/2006). 21. The Investigating Agency, on the next day of occurrence, i.e. 12th of November, 2005 introduced three witnesses, namely Rajesh (PW-8), Shyam (PW-9) and Mintu (PW-10), who broadly stated that they were accompanying accused - Trilok had gone for the fishing. Trilok had gone to urinate in the fields and the same was objected to by the deceased - Smt. Keshanti Devi. She had pelted stones at Trilok and at that time Trilok had caused injuries to Smt. Keshanti with knife on her neck. These three witnesses are companions of the accused. 22. Trilok had gone to urinate in the fields and the same was objected to by the deceased - Smt. Keshanti Devi. She had pelted stones at Trilok and at that time Trilok had caused injuries to Smt. Keshanti with knife on her neck. These three witnesses are companions of the accused. 22. On 13.11.2006 i.e. after two days of the alleged occurrence, Investigating Agency also introduced another three eye-witnesses, namely Hari Singh Meena (PW-2), Malkhan (PW-5) and Ramesh (PW-7) by recording their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and thus, these witnesses stated that they were working in the adjoining fields and they had seen the accused causing knife injuries to the deceased. 23. Besides the testimony of above said six witnesses, prosecution has also relied upon the recovery of knife effected from appellant vide Exhibit-P/13, in pursuance of the disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/23). Appellant was arrested on 13.11.2005 and at time of arrest vide memo Exhibit-P/10, T-shirt worn by accused stained with blood was also recovered vide memo Exhibit-P/11. However, as per the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur (Exhibit-P/25), T-shirt worn by the accused at the time of arrest has tested positive for the human blood and the blood group has been detected as 'B'. The human blood group 'B' was also found on lehnga, blouse and lungari of the deceased, which were taken into possession by the Police at the time of Post Mortem. 24. We find recovery of the T-shirt from the accused as an unusual circumstance. It is not believable that accused from morning of 11.11.2005 till his arrest i.e. on 13.11.2005 at 02:00 P.M. will be wearing the same T-shirt. It is unbelievable that accused will not wash his T-shirt or will not try to conceal it or destroy the same. Therefore, the recovery of T-shirt with blood stains, to us, seems to be a padding. 25. So far as recovery of the iron knife from the accused is concerned, it is to be noted here that the disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/23) has not been witnessed by any person. It is only signed by the Investigating Officer. The disclosure statement was made by the accused on 14.11.2005 and recovery was effected on 15.11.2005 vide memo (Exhibit-P/13) in the presence of Ramesh (PW-7) and Constable Kailash Chand. 26. Mr. It is only signed by the Investigating Officer. The disclosure statement was made by the accused on 14.11.2005 and recovery was effected on 15.11.2005 vide memo (Exhibit-P/13) in the presence of Ramesh (PW-7) and Constable Kailash Chand. 26. Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, has placed reliance upon the case of Rameshwar and Dinesh @ Pillu v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.158/2010, decided on 10.11.2014 , rendered by a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia J.) was a Member, wherein it was held that non-attestation of disclosure statement by any independent person raises a doubt regarding recovery. 27. The relevant Para of above cited judgment reads as follows:- "Having appreciated the evidence of the witness, it is to be noted that disclosure statement Ex-P/22 as made by Munesh is not attested by any witness what to say of any independent witness. Ex.P/22 is recorded on 31st July, 2006 at 11 P.M. It is only signed by SHO Police Station, Bhusawar Distt. Bharatpur. It was held in Harjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3040 that disclosure statement should be signed by independent person and Investigating officer should not associate any eye witness with the recovery memos. In the present case, no witness was associated at the time when disclosure statement was made. It is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the disclosure statement was made voluntary without any duress or coercion. To justify voluntary character of disclosure statement, it ought to be recorded in the presence of witnesses, it is to be noted that Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is an exception to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act which says that nothing stated to police is admissible in evidence. Since Section 27 carve out an exception, it is necessary that prosecution must show some material to the Court to be satisfied that same was not fabricated, therefore, it is necessary that it should have been made in presence of some witnesses." 28. Thus, it is apparent that in the present case, the disclosure statement(Exhibit-P/23) made by the accused was not attested by any independent person. 29. Thus, we shall also exclude the recovery of weapon recovered from accused. 30. Thus, it is apparent that in the present case, the disclosure statement(Exhibit-P/23) made by the accused was not attested by any independent person. 29. Thus, we shall also exclude the recovery of weapon recovered from accused. 30. Another feature which is required to be noticed by us is that the clothes of the deceased, T-shirt of accused and the weapon recovered all were sent together by the Investigating Officer. The clothes of the deceased were taken into possession on 11.11.2005, T-shirt of accused were taken into possession on 13.11.2005 and the alleged weapon was taken into possession on 15.11.2005. Thus, all articles were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur on 23.11.2005 through Dashrath Singh (PW-15). 31. Having held that the recoveries are not reliable one, now we shall, before taking note of testimony of the eye-witnesses, reproduce here the brief gist of the evidence of witnesses, namely Rameshwar Prasad Meena (PW-1) and Haribhajan (PW-3), who had attested the inquest proceedings. 32. Complainant - Rameshwar Prasad Meena (PW-1), the son of Dhandhwa Ram Meena stated that on the day of occurrence, in the morning at 10:00 A.M. his mother (Keshanti Devi) had gone to the fields situated near to Sherkhan-walan's pond. In the evening at 03:00/04:00 P.M., they received an information that one dead-body is lying at the spot. This witness/ complainant, along with his sister, Sureshi reached at the spot and nothing was found by them at the spot. Thereafter, they went to the hospital and saw that injuries have been caused to their mother on the neck, chest, forehead, hands and fingers. This witness had presented written-report (Exhibit-P/1), which was also signed by his sister, Sureshi. 33. In cross-examination, this witness stated that regarding this incident, he was informed by his sister at 0300/ 04:00 P.M. At that time, his father was not in the house. This witness further stated that the alleged field was at a distance of two kilometres from his house. They had gone to the field on foot. Lastly, this witness stated that Malkhan (PW-5), Haribhajan (PW-3), Ramesh (PW-7), Harisingh (PW-2) and Sukhraj (PW-13) had not met him at the spot, but they met him at the hospital.This witness to be precise stated as follows : " ey[kku] gjHktu] jes'k] gfjflag vkSj lq[kjke ;s yksx eq>s ekSds ij ugha feysa ;s yksx eq>s vLirky esa feys FksA " 34. In cross-examination, this witness further stated that when he submitted written-report (Exhibit-P/1), at that time, Malkhan (PW-5), Haribhajan (PW-3), Ramesh (PW-7) Hari Singh (PW-2) and Sukhraj (PW-13) were present with him. 35. We shall reproduce here exact words of this witness:- " tc eSaus fjiksVZ fy[kkbZ Fkh ml oDr ey[kku] gjHktu] jes'k] gfjflag vkSj lq[kjke ;s lHkh yksx ogka ij ekStwn FksA " 36. This witness further stated to be correct that cremation of his mother was attended by number of person, Villagers and also by Police personnels. The witness admitted to be correct that due to the murder of his mother, Police Station, Bamanwas was encompassed (gherao) and the people of Village had also held a traffic jam.In the Court, this witness stated as under:- " ;g ckr lgh gS fd esjh ekWa ds nkg laLdkj ds le; xkWao ds dkQh yksx o iqfyl ds dqN vkneh ekStwn FksA mDr ?kVuk ds fojks/k esa ckeuokl Fkkus dk ?ksjko gqvk Fkk o xkao dk jkLrk Hkh tke gqvk FkkA " 37. Harisingh Meena (PW-2) stated that on 11.11.2005 he had gone to the field to bring dhakra (trees uprooted from the field, which after they are dried are used for raising fence or as firewood). This witness further stated that he had gone to bring dhakara on his bulk-cart. Accused - Trilok met him there. The witness identified, Trilok, accused, as one who was present there. Trilok was catching fish from the pond situated nearby field. Malkhan (PW-5), Haribhajan (PW-3) and Ramesh (PW-4) were also grazing cattle. The witness returned at 02:00 P.M. and saw that one lady named Smt. Keshanti Devi was lying near the road. At 03:00 P.M. in the Village, he heard that Keshanti has been murdered by Trilok. He along with Sukhram (PW-13) reached at the spot. Police arrived at the spot. They inquired at the spot and learnt the name of lady as Keshanti. This witness had attested inquest proceedings vide Exhibit-P/2, description of dead-body present at the spot vide Exhibit-P/3 and Supardiginama of the dead-body vide Exhibit-P/4. 38. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that Keshanti was wife of his real nephew. This witness further stated that he received an information at 03:30 P.M. regarding murder of Keshanti. This witness stated that he reached at the spot within fifteen/twenty minutes of the occurrence. 38. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that Keshanti was wife of his real nephew. This witness further stated that he received an information at 03:30 P.M. regarding murder of Keshanti. This witness stated that he reached at the spot within fifteen/twenty minutes of the occurrence. When he reached at the spot, Rameshwar (PW-1), Malkhan (PW-5) Harbhajan (PW-3) and Ramesh (PW-7) were also present. Many people had gathered there. This witness stated that Police had already arrived at the spot. Police had read proceeding carried to him and he attested the same. Lastly, this witness admitted that in the inquest proceedings (Exhibit-P/2), it has been recorded that an unidentified person with an incised weapon has caused alleged murder. 39. A perusal of Inquest report (Exhibit-P/2), reveals that the inquest proceedings were attested by Mukesh, Ramesh (PW-4) Radhamohan Babu and Ramcharan. 40. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he had not seen Trilok causing injuries, but he saw him running from the spot. 41. Sukhram (PW-13) stated that he had identified the dead-body of Keshanti and after Post Mortem, lehanga, lungri and blouse of Keshanti were taken into possession by the Police. 42. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he had seen Malkhan and Ramesh at the place of occurrence. At the spot 100/200 people were present. 43. From the evidence of these three witnesses, it is apparent that Hari Singh (PW-2), who attested inquest proceedings and had identified dead-body of Smt. Keshanti Devi, in his examination-in-a-chief, has stated that when he went to bring dhakara, he had seen accused and Keshanti Devi in the field and when he returned at 02:00 P.M. Keshanti was lying at the spot. Keshanti Devi has been identified by this witness in the inquest proceedings (Exhibit-P/2). 44. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that Keshanti Devi was wife of his real nephew. If that is so, witness while returning had seen the dead-body as to why he had not raised any hue and cry and not informed anybody, no satisfactory answer is coming forward. Hari Singh (PW-2) silently came to the Village and after learning factum of the death had again gone to the spot and attested inquest proceedings. The witness has not relayed any information regarding presence of Trilok at the spot. Hari Singh (PW-2) silently came to the Village and after learning factum of the death had again gone to the spot and attested inquest proceedings. The witness has not relayed any information regarding presence of Trilok at the spot. The eye-witnesses, namely Ramesh (PW-7), Haribhajan (PW-3) and Malkhan (PW-5), as per Rameshwar Prasad Meena (PW-1) were present with him at the hospital when he submitted written-report (Exhibit-P/1). 45. Thus, the eye-witnesses have not disclosed the fact to complainant - Rameshwar Prasad Meena (PW-1) that they had seen accused - Trilok causing injuries to Keshanti Devi. 46. Therefore, it is to be noted here that all three eye-witnesses, namely Haribhajan (PW-3), Malkhan (PW-5) and Ramesh (P-7) had attended cremation, and the Police was also present there. These witnesses were present at the time when inquest was carried and the written-report (Exhibit-P/1) was submitted by the complainant. These witnesses were examined by the prosecution as eye-witnesses and yet they had not disclosed to the complainant in the hospital that they had witnessed causing of injuries to Keshanti Devi by Trilok. Had these witnesses seen the occurrence, they would have immediately informed the complainant or the Investigating Officer that the murder of Keshanti has been committed by Trilok and this fact ought to have been mentioned in written-report (Exhibit-P/1). 47. It is to be noted here that Harbhajan (PW-3), Malkhan (PW-5) and Ramesh (PW-7) have stated, in the Court, that on the day of occurrence at 12:00/01:00 P.M. Harijan's boys were catching fish from the pond. Trilok urinated in front of Keshanti, due to which a dispute had arisen. In the Court Haribhajan (PW-3) stated that a dispute had arisen, then a fight had ensued and Trilok had caused injuries to Keshanti with a knife. Malkhan (PW-5) stated that he was working in his field. Keshanti was harvesting dhakara. Accused had urinated in front of her and on the abuses given by Keshanti, Trilok had caused one/two slaps to her. Keshanti threw stones at Trilok and then Trilok had murdered her with a knife. Ramesh (PW-7) has also deposed on the similar line. We have also noted that at the time of inquest, at the time of submission of written-report and at the time of cremation when the Police was present, these witnesses were also with the Police, but had not disclosed the above fact that they had witnessed the occurrence. 48. Ramesh (PW-7) has also deposed on the similar line. We have also noted that at the time of inquest, at the time of submission of written-report and at the time of cremation when the Police was present, these witnesses were also with the Police, but had not disclosed the above fact that they had witnessed the occurrence. 48. In his cross-examination, Haribhajan (PW-3) stated that after seeing the occurrence at 12:00/01:00 P.M. he had not returned to the Village. He came to the Village after sun set. This witness stated that he had attended cremation of Keshanti. Ramesh s/o Kajod (PW-4), Ramesh s/o Vishanpal (PW-7) and Malkhan (PW-5) met him at the cremation ground. They were talking at the cremation ground regarding murder of Keshanti w/o Dandua. The witness stated that they all the four i.e. he, Malkhan, Ramesh s/o Kajod and Ramesh s/o Vishanpal decided not to disclose the factum of murder to anybody. The witness further stated that he was called by the Police for interrogation after two/three days. When he had gone to Police Station, Malkhan, Ramesh s/o Kajod, Ramesh s/o Vishanpal and Hari Singh were present at the Police Station. Other Villagers were also sitting there. The witness admitted that Police had also suspicion against him as assailant and on the basis of this suspicion, Police had called Ramesh, Malkhan and another Ramesh to the Police Station. The witness stated that the Police had sternly interrogated them.In cross-examination, this witness stated as under:- " laLdkj esa esjh] ey[kku] jes'k i= dtksM;k] jes'k iq= fo'kuiky ls Hkh ckr gqbZ FkhA ge pkjksa us ;s r; dj fy;k Fkk fd ?kVuk dh ckr fdlh dks ugha crkuh gSA iqfyl us iwNrkN ds fy;s cqyk;k FkkA ?kVuk ds 2&3 fnu ckn Fkkus ij cqyk;k FkkA eSa tc Fkkus ij x;k rc eSaus ey[kku] jes'k iq= dtksM;k] jes'k iq= fo'kuiky ,oa gfjflag dks Fkkus ij ns[kk Fkk] xkao ds vU; yksxksa dks Hkh cSBk j[kk FkkA iqfyl dks eq> ij Hkh 'kd Fkk ;s ckr lgh gSA ;s lgh gS fd 'kd ds vk/kkj ij eq>s] jes'k] ey[kku ,oa nwljs jes'k dks Hkh Fkkus ij cqyk;k FkkA ;s ckr lgh gS fd iqfyl us ge ls cgqr dMh rjhds ls iwNrkN dh FkhA ;s ckr Fkkus ij py jgh Fkh rc iqfyl us f=yksd dks ,oa xkao ds cnek'kksa dks Hkh cSBk j[kk FkkA " 49. It is to be noted here that statement of Haribhajan (PW-3) was recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 13.11.2005. In his cross-examination, this witness (PW-3) stated that he was called to the Police Station after two/ three days and when he had gone to Police Station, Trilok and other ruffians (badmash) of the area were detained by the Police. Thus, it is apparent that the arrest of accused was reflected much later and we cannot place implicit reliance upon the disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/23). The witness further stated to be correct that he was first to disclose to the Police that Keshanti was murdered by Trilok, but he had not disclosed this fact to the Police earlier due to fear. Thus, it is apparent that eye-witnesses, namely Haribhajan (PW-3), Ramesh (PW-4) Malkhan (PW-5) another and Ramesh (PW-7) all were suspected to be accused. They were interrogated by the Police. Haribhajan (PW-3) in order to save himself under fear had named Trilok as accused. 50. Taking the conduct of the witnesses to be improbable and unnatural for not disclosing the fact that they had seen occurrence at first instance when written-report (Exhibit-P/1) was presented and at the time of inquest proceedings and also at the time of cremation when Police officials were present, we are of the view that implicit reliance cannot be placed upon testimony of six eye-witnesses. Haribhajan (PW-3), Malkhan (PW-5) and Ramesh (PW-7), especially Malkhan Singh (PW-5) stated that he had not disclosed the occurrence to anybody and he was also called by Police at the Police Station. The witness further stated that Police had taken him to the Police Station and had not read his statement to him. In the Court, this witness stated as under:- " iqfyl us bl ckjs esa eq> ls iwNrkN Fkkus ij dh FkhA iwNrkN 13 rkjh[k dks Fkkus ij dh FkhA iqfyl okys eq>s cqykdj ys x;s FksA iqfyl us tks c;ku fy;s og eq>s i<+dj ugha lquk;sA " 51. Ramesh (PW-7) also admitted that when Police arrived at the spot on the day of occurrence, he was present there. This witness further stated that he had not disclosed to the Police regarding alleged incident. This witness returned to his field at 08:00 P.M. He attended cremation. Thereafter, he disclosed alleged occurrence to the Police. This witness admitted that Police had interrogated him after two-days of the alleged occurrence. This witness further stated that he had not disclosed to the Police regarding alleged incident. This witness returned to his field at 08:00 P.M. He attended cremation. Thereafter, he disclosed alleged occurrence to the Police. This witness admitted that Police had interrogated him after two-days of the alleged occurrence. Thus, for reasons stated by us, we shall discard the testimony of alleged eye-witnesses, Harbhajan (PW-3), Malkhan (PW-5) and Ramesh (PW-7) as they are made up witnesses and were introduced on 13.11.2005. 52. Now, we shall examine the testimony of another set of eye-witnesses, namely Rajesh (PW-8), Shyam (PW-9) and Mintu (PW-10). 53. Rajesh (PW-8) stated that on the day of occurrence, Trilok brought him from his house to catch fish from the pond. The witness accompanied by Mintu and Shyam came along with Trilok. After catching a fish, they requested Trilok to permit them to attend a marriage. The witness was cleaning his hands and feet, when, Trilok went to urinate. Kishanti was cutting 'dhakara' when Trilok was urinating. Kishanti abused Trilok and had pelted stones. Trilok caused her one/two slaps and then had caused injury with knife. The witness came running to his Village and narrated the occurrence to his mother. Thereafter, they went to attend a marriage at Sawai Madhopur. 54. In cross-examination, this witness admitted to be correct that after alleged occurrence, they had left the Village. He further admitted that after occurrence, he, Shyam, Mintu and their family members have migrated from the Village. They had started residing at Gangapur city. However, this witness denied that Villagers had a suspicion that they had committed murder. The witness admitted that on the same night, Police had brought them from Sawai Madhopur. They came to Police Station, Bamanwas on the next morning at 04:00/05:00 A.M. The Police had caught hold of him, Shyam and Mintu from Sawai Madhopur. Police of Sawai Madhopur had apprehended them on the phone call made by Bamanwas Police. 55. The witness admitted that on the same night, Police had brought them from Sawai Madhopur. They came to Police Station, Bamanwas on the next morning at 04:00/05:00 A.M. The Police had caught hold of him, Shyam and Mintu from Sawai Madhopur. Police of Sawai Madhopur had apprehended them on the phone call made by Bamanwas Police. 55. To be precise, this witness stated as under:- " ?kVuk dh jkr dks iqfyl gesa lokbZ ek/kksiqj ls ys vk;h FkhA ckeuokl Fkkus ij ?kVuk ds nwljs fnu lqcg 4&5 cts vk x;s FksA eSa] ';ke o feUVw rhuksa dks iqfyl lokbZek/kksiqj ls idM+ dj ys vk;h FkhA lokbZ ek/kksiqj dh iqfyl us gedks idM+k Fkk] lokbZ ek/kksiqj ckeuokl dh iqfyl us VsyhQksu fd;k FkkA fQj ckeuokl dh iqfyl lokbZek/kksiqj igqaph vkSj lokbZ ek/kksiqj okyh iqfyl ls ge rhuksa dks ysdj ckeuokl vk x;h FkhA " 56. Shyam (PW-9) has reiterated the same as to what was stated by Rajesh (PW-8). However, this witness admitted that after occurrence, their family had left Bamanwas Village and now are residing at Gangapur city. The witness further admitted that after occurrence, Villager had turned them out of Bamanwas and they are now not residing at Bamanwas. Nobody of their family is residing at Bamanwas. The witness stated that Villagers have pressurised them to give statement against accused. They came to the Court accompanied by ten/fifteen Villagers and they have pressurised him to give statement against accused and, therefore, witness is giving statement under pressure of the Villagers. Exact words stated by this witness are as under:- " xkao okyksa us xkao ls ckgj fudky fn;k vkSj dgk fd xokgh ns ugha rks xkao ls fudky nsaxsA vkt Hkh xkao okys gekjs lkFk vk;s gSaA xkao ds 10&15 vkneh vkt vk;s gSaA 10&15 vkneh jkr dks gh gekjs ?kj igqap x;s FksA vkSj mUgksaus ncko fn;k fd ,sls c;ku nsus gSA blhfy, vkt xkao okyksa ds ncko esa ;s c;ku fn;s gSaA " 57. In the Court, this witness further stated that Police had apprehended him, Mintu and Rajesh from their house. The Police had brought them to the Police Station and then they had seen accused at the Police Station. Lastly, this witness stated that Police had given them beating, therefore, they did as to what was stated by the Police. 58. In the Court, this witness further stated that Police had apprehended him, Mintu and Rajesh from their house. The Police had brought them to the Police Station and then they had seen accused at the Police Station. Lastly, this witness stated that Police had given them beating, therefore, they did as to what was stated by the Police. 58. It will be apposite to reproduce here the statement made by this witness in vernacular:- " iqfyl ge rhuksa dk Fkkus ij ys x;h rc gkftj vnkyr eqyfte dks geus Fkkus ij gh ns[kk FkkA ml le; e`rdk dk ifr o xkao ds vU; yksx Hkh Fkkus ij ekStwn FksA iqfyl us ge rhuksa dks ekjk ihVk FkkA tSls iqfyl dgrh x;h oSlk crkrs x;sA " At this stage, this witness (PW-9) was declared hostile. 59. Mintu (PW-10) has also repeated in his examination-in-a-chief as to what was stated by Rajesh (PW-8) and Shyam (PW-9). This witness admitted that Shyam (PW-9) is his brother. He further stated that they all three have decided that they will not narrate alleged incident to anybody. They further said that due to fear, they had not narrated alleged incident to anybody. Thereafter, they had gone to attend a marriage at Sawai Madhopur. The Police reached there in a jeep and brought them to Bamanwas Police Station. On asking of the Police, they had narrated entire occurrence. 60. Rajesh (PW-8), Shyam (PW-9) and Mintu (PW-10) were allegedly present along with the accused. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that in order to exculpate and save themselves, they will put blame on appellant - Trilok. 61. In the testimony of these three witnesses, it has come in the evidence that they were apprehended by the Police, brought to the Police Station and were given beating by the Police and, therefore, they agreed to toe the line of the Police. This fact has been specifically stated in cross-examination by Shyam (PW-9). 62. Rajesh (PW-8) has stated that their families were turned out of the Village and the Villagers have pressurised them to depose against accused. Furthermore, on the day, evidence was to be recorded, Villagers had reached their house and had pressurised them to testify against accused. Rajesh (PW-8) has admitted that on the alleged night of occurrence, they were apprehended and were brought to the Police Station. 63. Furthermore, on the day, evidence was to be recorded, Villagers had reached their house and had pressurised them to testify against accused. Rajesh (PW-8) has admitted that on the alleged night of occurrence, they were apprehended and were brought to the Police Station. 63. Thus, it is apparent that the witnesses were pressurised by the Police and the Villagers to depose against the accused. Having seen alleged occurrence, they had not disclosed this fact to anybody and had left the Village quietly. The conduct of the witnesses is highly improbable and unnatural. It cannot be ruled out that witnesses, Rajesh (PW-8), Shyam (PW-9) and Mintu (PW-10) have been introduced as witnesses and due to compulsion of the Police and pressure exerted by the Villagers, they have named the accused and they themselves have not come forward to name the appellant as an accused. Hence, no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of these witnesses. 64. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where witnesses have been imported and for detailed reasons given regarding introduction of the witnesses, we hold that it is not safe to rely upon testimony of the witnesses. Thus, we shall extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant. Consequently, we accept the present appeal by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and acquit the appellant of the charges. 65. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant, Trilok Singh is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- [Rupees Twenty Thousand Only] and a surety bond in the like amount, before the trial Court. The bonds, so furnished shall be effective for a period of six-months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Apex Court.Appeal allowed. *******