JUDGMENT : Navin Sinha, J. 1. The Appellants stand convicted under Section 302/149 I.P.C. to life imprisonment and further to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C. with fine. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar dated 20.4.1988 in Sessions Case No. 14/1987. 2. A written report Exhibit P-18 was lodged on 2.1.1987 at 5.00 p.m. by PW-3 Ladhu Ram, brother of the deceased Sunda Ram that about 6.00 a.m. in the turning the appellants murderously assaulted his brother. He and his other brother PW-8 Sahab Ram were warned to stay away lest they would meet the same fate. The Appellants dragged the deceased beating him, to the house of appellant-Kashi Ram where he expired after sometime at about 9:30-10:00 p.m. Formal F.I.R. No. 3/1987 Exhibit P-21 was registered on basis of the same at 8.00 p.m. 3. The post mortem of the deceased was done on 3.1.1987 at 10.00 a.m. by PW-6 Dr. K.K. Sharma. 8 abrasions of varying sizes were found on different parts of the body, along with 13 bruises, 6 lacerations on the right leg, 2 lacerations on, the left upper arm and 1 laceration on left side of the forehead. There was fracture of right tibia and fibula, right radius and ulna, as also left radius and ulna. Death was opined due to shock caused by excessive hemorrhage from the wounds and fractures caused by hard blunt weapons. The time estimated since death was 24 to 36 hours. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that Kashi Ram along with his three sons Sohan Ram, Mani Ram and Ram Kumar have been falsely triplicated. There is no justification whatsoever for impleadment of the four other accused. Both PW-3 Ladhu Ram and PW-8 Sahab Ram are not eye-witnesses and neither are they speaking the truth. No motive for the assault has been mentioned in the written report or F.I.R. The deceased Sunda Ram was a bachelor and lived separately from his brothers. The previous evening he had lad entered the house of Appellant-Sohan Ram and sexually assaulted his wife DW-1 Rameshwari. The deceased Sunda Ram was caught by Sohan Ram and his brother Mani Ram and confined in the house. The Police Station Nohar was 45kms away. The previous evening he had lad entered the house of Appellant-Sohan Ram and sexually assaulted his wife DW-1 Rameshwari. The deceased Sunda Ram was caught by Sohan Ram and his brother Mani Ram and confined in the house. The Police Station Nohar was 45kms away. The next morning Appellant-Sohan Ram and his wife went to the Police Station and lodged F.I.R. No. 2/1987 under Section 376 I.P.C. against Sunda Ram. The police came to the village for investigation at about 4.30 p.m. It was only then that PW-3 Ladhu Ram lodged the written report alleging assault on the deceased in the morning. 5. The police statements of PW-3 Ladhu Ram and PW-8 Sahab Ram were recorded on 2.1.1987 itself. Both made identical statements spinning out a completely new story from that in the written report. The witnesses now stated that the previous evening the deceased was accosted by six of the Appellants Sohan Ram, Mani Ram, Bhagwana Ram, Indras and Purkharam. The named Appellants chased him and Sunda Ram hid himself in the house of his brothers. The two witnesses then met PW-1 Sheo Lal and PW-2 Ishwar Das who pacified matters. The deceased and the Appellants then went back to their respective houses. The deceased is then stated to have been assaulted the next morning. The F.I.R. did not state who were armed with lathis and "Jeli" which figured for the first time in the police statement. Very significant is the statement of the brothers under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the deceased Sunda Ram would visit the house of Sohan Ram because he had illicit relations with DW-1 Rameshwari but sought to deny in Court having made such statement to the police which is a major contradiction affecting the credibility of the claim to be eye-witnesses Surprisingly no cross-examination was done in this regard of the Investigate Officer PW-7 Om Prakash who deposed having recorded the statement exactly as made to him. 6. The Investigating Officer PW-7 Om Prakash has deposed that he had gone to the village Pandusar on 2.1.1987 for investigation in the F.I.R. lodged by DW-1 Rameshwari under Section 376 I.P.C. The written report Exhibit P-18 was lodged by PW-3 Ladhu Ram with him in the village at 5.00 p.m. and not at the Pole Station. The F.I.R. under Section 376 was registered at the Police Station against the deceased Sunda Ram. The F.I.R. under Section 376 was registered at the Police Station against the deceased Sunda Ram. There is no cross-examination of the Investigating officer to his statement that the F.I.R. No. 2/1987 under Section 376 I.P.C. was lodged by DW-1 Rameshwari first in time, that the police had come to the village to investigate only where after PW-3 lodged a written report at the village. 7. Referring to the unnatural conduct of both PW-3 Ladhu Ram and PW-1 Sahab Ram, it was submitted that evidently they were not eye-witnesses to the occurrence. They claim to have seen their brother being assaulted at 6.00 a.m. it the morning, but both of them did not make any attempt to save their brother and quietly went back to their home. The place where the assault took place was surrounded by the house of several persons named by PW-3 Ladhu Ram in his Court statement. Even if the two witnesses did not come forward in view of 8 persons assaulting as contended by them, surely they could have made noise and commotion inviting attention of other villagers. On the contrary, they ill not even bother to come out and see for over 3½ hours what had happens to their brother consequent to the assault and claim to have been informed by an unknown person that their brother was groaning and died about 9.30- 10.11 a.m. No reason has been suggested why the two witnesses did not even consider coming back to see the condition of their brother and attempt saving his life by prompt medical attention. Such conduct of the witnesses was highly abnormal and unnatural not commensurate with normal human behaviour. Despite the presence of several houses of others near the place of occurrence named by PW 3, Ladhu Ram, there is no independent witness from the village and only the two brothers of the deceased claim to be eye-witnesses. 8. DW-1 Rameshwari, wife of the Appellant-Sohan Ram has deposed that her husband was sleeping in another room when the deceased entered her house the previous night and sexually assaulted her. He was caught by the Appellant Sohan Ram and brother-in-law Mani Ram and they beat him and confined him in a room. Sohan Ram and Rameshwari went to the Police Station the next day morning and lodged the F.I.R. corroborated by PW-7 Om Prakash, the Investigating Officer. He was caught by the Appellant Sohan Ram and brother-in-law Mani Ram and they beat him and confined him in a room. Sohan Ram and Rameshwari went to the Police Station the next day morning and lodged the F.I.R. corroborated by PW-7 Om Prakash, the Investigating Officer. When they came back, the deceased was found lying dead near their house under the tree. Merely because the body may have been four under the tree near their house it may raise a suspicion against Appellants Sohan Ram and Mani Ram only, but cannot be proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction. The defence witness has further stated that the deceased had entered her house in an intoxicated condition. The possibility that deceased have escaped from confinement and may have been killed by any other earn be ruled out. The benefit of doubt has to be given. The false implication of the entire family of Kashi Ram and other co-villagers close to the house of Kashi Ram stands fully explained. 9. The witness PW-3 Ladhu Ram was speaking complete falsehood when he claimed that he had lodged the written report at the Police Station at 5.00 p.m. since he was unable to find transportation to the Police Station even though he had prepared the written report at 10:00 a.m. If DW-1 could have gone to the Police Station in the morning there is no reason why the witness could not have done so the same morning. 10. Learned Counsel for the State opposing the appeal submitted that PW-3 ladhu Ram and PW-8 Sahab Ram are own brothers of the deceased. There is no reason why they would state falsehood and leave the real culprits. Motive existed because of the illicit relations between the deceased who was a bachelor and DW-1, Rameshwari. There has been recovery of blood stained lathi from the Appellants Kashi Ram, Sohan Ram and Mani Ram. If the deceased was locked up in the house of Sohan Ram and the dead body was found near their house the next morning, the onus shifted on the Appellants under Section 106 Evidence Act to explain how a dead body came to be found under the tree close to their house which they have failed to discharge. 11. If the deceased was locked up in the house of Sohan Ram and the dead body was found near their house the next morning, the onus shifted on the Appellants under Section 106 Evidence Act to explain how a dead body came to be found under the tree close to their house which they have failed to discharge. 11. The reason why no written report was lodged at the Police Station has been explained by PW-3 Ladhu Ram due to non availability of transport and that it was given to the police when it came to the village. The witnesses have adequately explained why they did not come to the aid of their brother since there were 8 accused persons armed and assaulting and the witnesses would therefore have become victims themselves even unable to get any kind of help including lodging of police report. They are reliable eye-witnesses and their conduct is not unnatural. 12. Merely because independent witnesses may have been available in the surrounding houses but have not been examined cannot be considered so crucial as to reject the two eye-witnesses account. It is a matter of common knowledge that in such occurrences it is only the family members who come forward to depose. 13. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and perused the evidence on record also. 14. The fact that the written report Exhibit P-18 was lodged by PW-3 Ladhu Ram at 5.00 p.m. on 2.1.1987 in the village subsequently registered as F.I.R. No. 3/1987 Exhibit P-21 is not in dispute. Likewise it is also not in dispute that F.I.R. No. 2/1987 was lodged earlier by DW-1, Rameshwari at Nohar Police Station. In the F.I.R., PW-3, Ladhu Ram stated that both he and his brother PW-8 Sahab Ram were eye-witnesses to the assault at 6.00 a.m. There is no reference to any occurrence the previous evening. If the deceased was chased the previous evening for having illicit relations with DW-1, Rameshwari and had to hide for saving his life it was but a pre-cursor to events the subsequent morning and thus a very important event to be mentioned in the F.I.R. itself. The police statement of both PW-3 Ladhu Ram and PW-8 Sahab Ram were recorded on 2.1.1987 the same day when they gave the written report. The police statement of both PW-3 Ladhu Ram and PW-8 Sahab Ram were recorded on 2.1.1987 the same day when they gave the written report. There is very wide variation in the events as disclosed in the F.I.R. and made by two witnesses identical in nature under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This casts serious doubt on the sequence of events as claimed by the prosecution. 15. The aforesaid facts coupled with the denial by PW-3, Ladhu Ram in Court statement that he never told the police that the deceased had illicit relations with DW-1, Rameshwari and was therefore on visiting terms coupled with the absence of any cross-examination of PW-7, Om Prakash the Investigating Officer constitutes a major contradiction affecting the credibility of the claim by the two to be eye-witnesses. 16. DW-1 Rameshwari deposed in Court that the next morning she had gone to the Nohar Police Station along with her husband Appellant Sohan Ram to lodge an F.I.R. leading to registration of F.I.R. No. 2/1987 against the deceased Sunda Ram with regard to the sexual assault made on her. This fact has been corroborated by PW-7 Om Prakash, the Investigating Officer and which has not been questioned in cross-examination by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer has further deposed that he came to the village to investigate in the F.I.R. No. 2/1987 lodged by DW-1, Rameshwari when PW-3 Ladhu Ram gave him a written report. The story made out by PW-3 Ladhu Ram that he had prepared a written report at 10.00 a.m. but could not go to the Police Station for nearly 7 hours due to lack of transport, does not appeal to us. If DW-1 Rameshwari could have gone to the Police Station the same morning at 8:00 a.m. we see no reason why PW-3 Ladhu Ram could not have done so. 17. PW-3 Ladhu Ram and PW-8 Sahab Ram have deposed that they saw their brother being assaulted by the Appellants at 6.00 a.m. in the morning. Even if we accept their statement that they did not go near him for their own safety because the Appellants were armed with lathis and "Jeli", yet their conduct in having quietly gone back home cannot be termed normal. PW-3 Ladhu Ram in his evidence has named the houses of several persons situated near spot of occurrence. Even if we accept their statement that they did not go near him for their own safety because the Appellants were armed with lathis and "Jeli", yet their conduct in having quietly gone back home cannot be termed normal. PW-3 Ladhu Ram in his evidence has named the houses of several persons situated near spot of occurrence. We see no reason why as brothers of the deceased after coming home they could not have raised a commotion immediately to collect co-villagers and rush to the aid of their brother. 18. On the contrary, the two witnesses have deposed that they remained at home from the time of assault at 6:00 a.m. till they were informed by an unnamed person at about 9.30-10.00 a.m. that the deceased was lying injured on the ground groaning and then expired. Their conduct in remaining silent from 6.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. without taking any step to come to aid of their brother who they knew had been assaulted hours back, to us, appears to be a highly abnormal and unnatural conduct contrary to normal human behaviour raising serious doubts about the credibility of their evidence as being eye-witnesses. 19. The fact that blood may have been found on the lathi recovered on the confession of some of the Appellants, cannot form the basis of conviction as the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is corroborative in nature and not substantive. Moreover, they were arrested on 7.1.1987 and the recovery was made two days later raising suspicion. 20. The fact that the deceased may have been put in confinement at the house of Appellant-Sohan Ram the previous evening and his dead body may have been found near the house of the latter in the morning may raise suspicion against the concerned Appellants but cannot be considered proof beyond reasonable doubt to hold that they alone were the assailants. The submission of the State that the burden would shift on Appellant-Sohan Ram and his family under Section 106 of the Evidence Act has no application in the facts of the case, Before the burden of proof can shift to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution has to first establish a prima facie case against the accused. The claim of PW-3 Ladhu Ram and PW-8 Sahab Ram comes under severe suspicion in view of the discussion affecting the credibility of their claims vitally. The question of any presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act shifting burden of proof to the concerned Appellants simply does not arise. 21. Undoubtedly, at times independent witness may not be available and it may be only the family members who may come forward to lodge the report and give evidence. The evidence of family members cannot be per se rejected on the ground of being related and interested witnesses. Therefore, even if we accept the contention that co-villagers may not be forthcoming to lodge the report and depose that does not lead to any automatic presumption about the two witnesses being actual and reliable eye-witnesses with credibility. 22. In Abdul Razak & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 6 SCC 282 PW-1 and PW-4 were the brother and mother of the deceased. PW-3 Lingappa was the father of the deceased. Considering their conduct as highly unnatural to grant acquittal from conviction under Section 304 Part II 34 I.P.C. it was observed as follows: "10. The Trial Court was, in our opinion perfectly justified in taking that view. The conduct of the prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence not only because they did not intervene when Basavaraj was being assaulted but also because post the event, the witnesses did practically nothing to help the unfortunate soul, who was left to die with his hands tied for over 4 hours without any succor coming from any quarter. The High Court has made light of these aspects and thereby fallen in an error." 23. In State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal & Ors. (2009) 12 SCC 308 with regard to unnatural conduct of a witness declining to interfere with the order of acquittal, it was observed as follow:- "6. It is to be noted that the conduct of the so called eye-witnesses was absolutely unnatural. They did not make any effort to either save the deceased when he was being assaulted or when the accused persons purportedly took away the dead body of the accused. Though in all cases the conduct of persons would not be determinative, it would depend on several factors. They did not make any effort to either save the deceased when he was being assaulted or when the accused persons purportedly took away the dead body of the accused. Though in all cases the conduct of persons would not be determinative, it would depend on several factors. In the present case undoubtedly four persons who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence did not make any effort to save the deceased from the assaults made by the accused persons. PW-9 was the son of the deceased. The High Court noticed that the presence of the so-called eye-witnesses was practically not acceptable because of the various variations in the statement made during the investigation and made in the Court. The High Court found that the conduct was not only unnatural but also proved that their presence at the place of the occurrence was doubtful." 24. Our conclusion that the conduct of PW-3 Ladhu Ram and PW-8 Sahab Ram was highly abnormal and unnatural in the facts of the case and which vitally affects the credibility of their evidence finds support also from Lahu Kamlakar Patil and another v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 417 that even if there could be different reactions by witnesses to a crime which can vary from individual to individual defying uniformity, if the conduct of the witness was so abnormally unnatural and was not in accord with acceptable human behaviour allowing variations, the testimony becomes questionable and has to be discarded. 25. The conviction of the Appellants is therefore held unsustainable and they are acquitted. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The Appellants are directed to execute bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of like amount within a period of two months as required under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.