JUDGMENT Vijay Kumar Vyas, J. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.5.1984, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kishangarh-Bas, District Alwar, in Sessions Case No. 40/1983, whereby each of the appellants has been convicted and sentenced for offences as follows :- U/s 148 IPC One year's Rigorous Imprisonment. U/s 302/149 IPC Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-; in default of payment thereof, to further undergo 3 months' Rigorous Imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts are that on 5.4.1983, Sher Singh (PW-3) orally informed SHO, Police Station Kishangarh-Bas (Alwar) that in the morning he along with his brother Tej Singh (deceased) and mother Susa (PW-4) came to Kishangarh-Bas for purchasing on marriage of his daughter. At about 2.00 P.M. Tej Singh and mother Susa returned by cycle. He, himself, went to village Macha. After Namaj (a prayer) of sunset, he heard in village Macha that Jalla and others, with whom they had enmity, have killed his brother Tej Singh. He is not sure who are the assailants and what is condition of his brother. This information (Ex.P-55) was recorded in daily diary of police station at about 7.30 PM. SHO, Rohtash Kumar (PW-12) proceeded to the spot where at about 9.30 PM, Sube Khan (PW-1) informed him that at about 4.15 PM when he was irrigating his agricultural field, which he had taken for cultivation on sharing basis from Radhamal Sindhi, he had heard the voice of Tej Singh, crying for help and saw Tej Singh coming from village Mothuka and running away on a cycle. Accused Jalla, armed with a Ballam and other accused Mohamada, Safeda, Munshi, Sube Khan, Giddu and Asenda, armed with Farsi were chasing him. They took hold of Tej Singh, beat him and pushed him down. Thereafter, while lying on earth, Tej Singh was given blows of Ballam and Farsi by the accused. Complainant (Sube Khan) tried to approach them crying. But the accused gave threat of beating him also. Being frightened, he went away towards his agricultural field. Meanwhile, mother Susa, who was coming from Kishangarh-Bas along with Tej Singh and stopped for a call of nature, also reached the spot. Two Sindhi persons, working at that time in the agricultural field of Mulamal Sindhi, also saw the incident. After beating Tej Singh, accused persons fled away towards village Musakheda. Meanwhile, mother Susa, who was coming from Kishangarh-Bas along with Tej Singh and stopped for a call of nature, also reached the spot. Two Sindhi persons, working at that time in the agricultural field of Mulamal Sindhi, also saw the incident. After beating Tej Singh, accused persons fled away towards village Musakheda. At the same time, Himmat and Hurmat Meo holding sticks, came from the way of village Mothuka and went away following the accused. Tej Singh died on the spot. Mother of Tej Singh was crying over the dead body. Complainant (Sube Khan) went to the village, informed the villagers and returned. By that time, younger brother Khubi (PW-2) of Tej Singh had also arrived there. The complainant (Sube Khan) also informed that at about 2½ years ago Malkhan - father of accused Safeda, Giddu and Munshi, was murdered. Tej Singh and his brothers were charge-sheeted and Tej Singh was bailed out. This information was recorded by SHO as Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-1)and FIR No. 54/1983 (Ex.P-18) was registered at Police Station Kishangarh-Bas, District Alwar. 3. Site inspection memo (Ex.P-19) and inquest report (Ex.P- 20) were prepared by police. Blood stained clothes and Jooti (shoes) of deceased Tej Singh were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-21). Blood stained and sample soil from the spot were collected through memos Ex.P-24 and Ex.P-25. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Om Prakash Gupta (PW-9). Postmortem report is Ex.P-5. Accused were arrested. Farsi, weapon of offence, was recovered and seized vide memo (Ex.P-34) at the instance of accused Sube Khan. One Farsi was recovered and seized at the instance of accused Asenda vide memo (Ex.P-38). One Farsi was recovered at the instance of accused Mohamada vide memo (Ex.P-41). Another Farshi was recovered at the instance of accused Sube Khan vide recovery memo (Ex. P-44). One Farsi, one Ballam and another Farsi were also recovered at the instance of accused Safeda, Jalla and Giddu @ Chao Khan, respectively, through recovery memos Ex.P-47, Ex.P-50 and Ex.P-53. Seized articles - blood stained clothes, weapons of the offence, blood stained and sample soil were forwarded to FSL. After examination, a report of FSL (Ex.P-56) was obtained. On completion of due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Kishangarh-Bas. 4. On commitment of the case, learned trial court framed charges of offences u/s 148 and 302/149 IPC. Accused denied the charges and claimed trial. After examination, a report of FSL (Ex.P-56) was obtained. On completion of due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Kishangarh-Bas. 4. On commitment of the case, learned trial court framed charges of offences u/s 148 and 302/149 IPC. Accused denied the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 56 documents. Accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused refuted prosecution evidence and stated that they have been falsely implicated. Witnesses of the prosecution had killed Malkhan and in that case, on the basis of evidence given by the accused, the complainant Sher Singh and his brothers were convicted. Therefore, in retaliation, they have been falsely implicated in this case. No oral evidence was adduced from the accused side. However, three documents have been exhibited. After hearing final arguments of both parties, learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 18.5.1984 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants, as stated hereinabove. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial court has erred in convicting the accused appellants on the basis of statements of Sube Khan (PW-1), Sher Singh (PW-3) and certain recoveries made at the instance of the accused appellants. He submits that statement of Sube Khan (PW-1) is completely unreliable and his evidence is not sufficient for conviction. He is close member of family of the deceased Tej Singh. His presence at the time of incident is doubtful. He states as PW-1 that at the time of occurrence, he was in the agricultural field of Radhamal Sindhi which he had taken for cultivation on sharing basis. Prosecution has not examined Radhamal Sindhi. Rohtash Kumar (PW-12), Investigating Officer has admitted that he did not enquire about this fact from Radhamal Sindhi. As per Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-1) and evidence rendered by this witness, two Sindhi persons saw the incident, while working in nearby agricultural field of Mulamal Sindhi. Prosecution has examined those two Sindhi persons as Lal Chand (PW-5) and Kanhaiya Lal (PW-6) but they have turned hostile and said nothing about the incident. As per prosecution story, Mohar Khan (PW-7) was also eye witness but he too, has turned hostile and states nothing about the incident. In Parcha Bayan (Ex. P-1), Sube Khan has stated that Himmat and Hurmat also came holding sticks at the place of occurrence, who went away following the accused appellants. As per prosecution story, Mohar Khan (PW-7) was also eye witness but he too, has turned hostile and states nothing about the incident. In Parcha Bayan (Ex. P-1), Sube Khan has stated that Himmat and Hurmat also came holding sticks at the place of occurrence, who went away following the accused appellants. But in his cross examination, he (PW-1) denied that he had given such information to police in Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-1). As per Susa (PW-4), Himmat - father of appellant Jalla and Hurmat, father of appellant Asenda holding sticks, did not come there. Sube Khan (PW-1) has stated that Khubi and Susa, brother and mother, respectively, of the deceased also reached at the place of occurrence and saw the incident. Khubi (PW-2) and Susa (PW-4) have stated that they saw the accused appellants beating the deceased but learned trial court has disbelieved them. As per statement of Sube Khan (PW-1), the incident occurred at about 4 to 4¾ O'clock in the evening, whereas, as per postmortem report (Ex.P-5) proved by Dr. O.P. Gupta (PW-9), time of death of the deceased was 3.30 PM on 5.4.1983. When independent witnesses Lal Chand (PW-5), Kanhaiya Lal (PW-6) and Mohar Khan (PW-7) were available as eye witnesses and they have not corroborated the prosecution, improvements, omissions and contradictions in the statements of Sube Khan (PW-1), an interested and relative witness, lead to doubt whether in reality, he was present at the spot and saw the incident. 6. Learned counsel further submits that Sher Singh (PW-3) is not eye witness. He has made substantial improvements in his statement. In Rojnamcha (Ex.P-55), he stated before police that he has heard that his brother has been killed by Jalla and others but he is not sure as to who gave beating and what is condition of his brother, whereas he has deposed as PW-3, before the trial court, that he was informed by Ajmat and Gurgan that villagers of Musakheda have killed his brother near Tibara whereupon he went to Kishangarh and thereafter arrived at the spot along with police. Sher Singh (PW-3) does not state before the court that Ajmat and Gurgan told him that Jalla and others have killed his brother. Sher Singh (PW-3) does not state before the court that Ajmat and Gurgan told him that Jalla and others have killed his brother. He has not admitted that prior to going to police, he had gone to village but Khubi (PW-2) states that Ajmat and Nasru were sent Macha village to call his brother Sher Singh, whereupon, Sher Singh came to village and thereafter went to inform police. Prosecution has not examined any person namely Ajmat or Gurgan. Nasru has been examined as PW-8 but he does not corroborate Khubi (PW-2). 7. Learned counsel has further assailed the recoveries alleged to have been made at the instance of the accused appellants. As per prosecution, a Ballam was recovered at the instance of appellant Jalla, whereas one Farsi each, was recovered at the instance of appellants Mohmada, Sube Khan, Giddu and Asenda. All these recoveries of the weapons have been made after about one week of the incident. Out of recovered weapons, only a Farsi alleged to be recovered at the instance of appellant Sube Khan, was found having blood stains. Otherwise, no weapon of offence recovered was having any blood stain. On the contrary, as per FSL report (Ex.P-56), all the weapons recovered at the instance of the appellants were found having stains of blood of "B" group. Learned counsel placed reliance on State of Kerala v. Thomas @ Boby, 1986 SCC (Cri) 176. 8. Learned trial court has given a finding that on the basis of evidence rendered by Sher Singh (PW-3), the motive behind murder is established. Learned counsel submits that enmity is a double edged weapon. In the circumstances of the instant case, enmity between the appellants and deceased and his brothers should be construed as a reason for false implication of the appellants, rather then as a motive of committing murder by the appellants. 9. Learned counsel submits that Ex.P-55 is the FIR, whereupon police was set in motion to investigate the matter. Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-1) is a statement recorded by police during investigation, which cannot be used, as per section 162, Cr.P.C. for any purpose except to contradict the witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that minor omissions, contradictions and improvements cannot be made basis to discard testimony of a witness. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that minor omissions, contradictions and improvements cannot be made basis to discard testimony of a witness. Independent eye witnesses have turned hostile but they have not deposed anything against the prosecution. Sube Khan (PW-1) is a close relative and interested witness but his testimony have not been shattered by the defence. As per section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, quality of the evidence is material and quantity of witnesses is immaterial. On the basis of credible evidence rendered by even a single witness, case of the prosecution may be held proved. He has placed reliance on Kunju @ Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu and Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar, 1996 CriLJ SC 889. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that from the evidence rendered by Sube Khan (PW-1) and Sher Singh (PW-3), enmity between the parties is proved. Thus, the motive of committing the instant murder is established. Learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. 12. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and gone through the material available on record. 13. Dr. Om Prakash Gupta (PW-9) has conducted postmortem of dead body of Tej Singh and authored the postmortem report (Ex.P- 5). He has stated before the trial court that on autopsy on 6.4.1983, he found following injuries on the dead body : 1. Incised wound (fractured bone seen) 2" x 1" x 2" just above the Rt. eye brow - Grievous sharp. 2. Incised wound (fractured bone seen) 4" x 1 " x 2" left side of the frontal bone 1" above the left eye brow - Grievous sharp. 3. Incised wound (fractured bone seen) 2"x ½" x 2" just above left eye brow below the 2nd injury – Grievous sharp. 4. Incised wound (fractured bones seen) 10" x ½" x 3" from left ear to Rt. maxillary bone (Nose was cut down in the middle and upper teeth was not in position i.e. fall down with the upper jaw intact into the mouth) – Grievous sharp . 5. Incised wound 8" x 2" x 3" on the front of the neck below the larynx, trachea was cut into 2 pieces below larynx - Grievous sharp. 6. Incised wound (Fractured clavicle bone seen) above & middle of the Rt. Clavicle bone seen) 1" x ½" x 1" above & middle of the Rt. 5. Incised wound 8" x 2" x 3" on the front of the neck below the larynx, trachea was cut into 2 pieces below larynx - Grievous sharp. 6. Incised wound (Fractured clavicle bone seen) above & middle of the Rt. Clavicle bone seen) 1" x ½" x 1" above & middle of the Rt. clavicle bone – Grievous sharp. 7. Abrasion 4" x linear on the Rt. Side & parallel to the umbilicus - Simple sharp. 8. Incised wound (penis was cut down from its penis from the Rt. Side) 7"x 2" x 2" Rt. & above the penis, Rt. inguinal ligament was cut down – Grievous Sharp. 9. Incised wound 1½" x ½" x 1" front & back portion of the penis - Grievous Sharp. 10. Incised wound 4" x ?" x 1" Rt. to the 8th injury on upper portion & inner side of the Rt. thigh. Simple sharp. 11. Incised wound 3½ " x 1" x 2" front & middle of the Rt. Thigh – Simple Sharp. 12. Abrasion 4" x ?" front & middle of the Lt. thigh – Simple sharp. 13. Abrasion 2" x 1½" inner & lower ?rd of the Lt. thigh – Simple blunt. 14. Incised wound (cut bone seen) 3" x ½" x ½" inner side of the left leg on the middle ?rd portion - Grievous Sharp. 15. Incised wound (cut bone seen) 4" x 2" x 1" one inch below the 14th injury – Grievous sharp. 14. Dr. Om Prakash Gupta (PW-9) further states that after opening the body, he found following internal injuries : 1. Fractured bony pieces multiple in number were seen of the frontal bone all over. 2. Linear fracture of the skull at occipital region, horizontally. 15. Dr. Om Prakash Gupta (PW-9) has stated that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Injury No. 13 was inflicted by a blunt object. Rest of the injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon. Injuries No. 1, 3, 6 and 9 can be caused by Ballam (spear) - like weapon. Rest of the injuries may be caused by Farsi - like weapon. Injuries No. 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are simple. Rest are grievous. All these injuries are cumulatively sufficient to cause death. In his opinion, the death was caused by shock due to excessive haemorrhage and resulting to death. Duration was 12 to 24 hours. 16. Dr. Rest of the injuries may be caused by Farsi - like weapon. Injuries No. 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are simple. Rest are grievous. All these injuries are cumulatively sufficient to cause death. In his opinion, the death was caused by shock due to excessive haemorrhage and resulting to death. Duration was 12 to 24 hours. 16. Dr. Om Prakash Gupta (PW-9) has been subjected to an exhaustive cross examination but his testimony has remained unshattered. On the basis of this evidence, it is proved that death of Tej Singh was homicidal. Now, it is to be looked into as to whether the appellants have committed homicide of Tej Singh amounting to murder. 17. It reveals from perusal of the impugned judgment that learned trial court has mainly based its findings on the evidence rendered by Sube Khan (PW-1) and Sher Singh (PW-3) and the recoveries of weapons of offence made at the instance of the appellants. 18. Rohtash Kumar (PW-12), Investigating Officer has stated before the trial court that after arrest, accused appellants gave him information that they want to get recovered the weapons with which they committed the offence. Thus, at the instance of accused appellant Jalla, he recovered a Ballam (spear). At the instance of rest of accused appellants, he recovered one Farsi each from the places in their possession. It reveals from recovery memos (Ex.P-35, 38, 41, 44, 47, 50 and 53) that out of the weapons recovered, only a Farsi recovered at the instance of appellant Sube Khan, was found having blood stains. As per these memos, no other weapon recovered, was found containing blood stains. As per these memos, these recoveries were made in the presence of two witnesses – Dan Singh and Evaj. But none of them has been examined by the prosecution. As per prosecution story, all these recovered weapons were sent to the FSL for examination. As per report of FSL (Ex.P-56), all the weapons were found containing human blood stains and that too, of "B" group. As per prosecution, sample soil, blood smeared soil and seized clothes found on the dead body were also sent for examination to the FSL. As per report (Ex.P-56) except sample soil, all such articles were found stained with human blood of "B" group. 19. As per prosecution, sample soil, blood smeared soil and seized clothes found on the dead body were also sent for examination to the FSL. As per report (Ex.P-56) except sample soil, all such articles were found stained with human blood of "B" group. 19. It is strange that when weapons of offence were recovered, except one Farsi recovered at the instance of Sube Khan, none was containing blood stains, nevertheless FSL, after examination thereof, has found them stained with blood of "B" group. It is not possible without some tampering or intervention with the weapons recovered. Since attesting witnesses, Dan Singh and Evaj, have not been examined to prove recoveries of weapons of the offence, the same are not found to be proved as per law. It appears that learned trial court did not consider this aspect relating to the alleged recoveries, rather it appears that the said discrepancies and lacunae could not get sight of learned trial court. 20. The Apex Court has observed in Thomas @ Boby's case (supra) as under : "We may mention that the alleged statement of the respondent-accused which is said to have been made by him leading to such discovery as well as the alleged actual recovery are said to have been witnessed by two independent Panch witnesses. But, unfortunately neither of the Panch witnesses was examined by the prosecution at the trial. In the absence of such independent evidence which could have been made available and which could have been placed before the Court in support of the alleged discovery of the ornaments it will be difficult to accept such discovery merely relying upon the evidence of the police officer. PW15 has been found to be otherwise unreliable. If this evidence of discovery of ornaments is eliminated or becomes doubtful and cannot be accepted for want of independent evidence of Panches the complicity of the respondent-accused in the crime becomes extremely difficult to accept." In view of evidence available and observations of Apex Court, the alleged recoveries of weapons of offence cannot be found proved and taken into service for corroboration of prosecution story. 21. Ex.P-55 reveals that Sher Singh (PW-3) had informed police on 5.4.1983 at about 7.30 PM that in the village Macha at about sun set, he heard that Jalla and other, with whom they had enmity, have killed his brother. 21. Ex.P-55 reveals that Sher Singh (PW-3) had informed police on 5.4.1983 at about 7.30 PM that in the village Macha at about sun set, he heard that Jalla and other, with whom they had enmity, have killed his brother. He further informed that he is not sure whether this fact is true or not. He does not know, who have beaten his brother and what is his condition. Police recorded this information in daily diary being maintained at police station and SHO proceeded with force to the village Kutiyapur mentioning in the daily diary that after reaching on the spot, as per circumstance, action will be taken. A bare reading of this exhibit shows that Sher Singh has simply informed police whatever he has heard in the village. He, himself, was not sure at that time as to whether any offence was committed or not, if committed, then how, when and by whom, was also not known to him. 22. Apex Court has considered the nature of First Information Report in Patai @ Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P., AIR 2010 SC 2254 as follows : "15.................................................................. …........................... In order for a message or communication to be qualified to be a First Information Report, there must be something in the nature of a complaint or accusation or at least some information of the crime given with the object of setting the police or criminal law into motion. It is true that a First Information Report need not contain the minutest details as to how the offence had taken place nor it is required to contain the names of the offenders or the witnesses. But it must at least contain some information about the crime committed as also some information about the manner in which the cognizable offence has been committed. A cryptic message recording an occurrence cannot be termed as a First Information Report. " 23. The information given by Sube Khan (PW-1) to Investigation Officer on the spot on 5.4.1983 at about 9.30 PM was recorded in Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-1) by the Investigating Officer. It reveals that this Parcha Bayan contains the whole story of the incident how the incident occurred, where occurred, who were the assailants, who was deceased, etc. Certainly this document is a First Information Report of this incident. It reveals that this Parcha Bayan contains the whole story of the incident how the incident occurred, where occurred, who were the assailants, who was deceased, etc. Certainly this document is a First Information Report of this incident. Moreover, the First Information Report u/s 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not substantive piece of evidence. It is only used to contradict or corroborate the maker thereof. 24. Prosecution has examined Lal Chand (PW-5), Kanhaiya Lal (PW-6) and Mohar Khan (PW-7), as eye witnesses. All these three persons seem to be independent, but none of them has supported the prosecution case. They have turned hostile and expressed complete ignorance of the incident. 25. The trial court has rightly disbelieved Khubi (PW-2) and Susa (PW-4) to be eye witnesses of the incident. Thus, the only evidence available against the appellants is the ocular testimonies of Sube Khan (PW-1) and Sher Singh (PW-3). 26. Sher Singh (PW-3) has stated that in village Macha at about sun set, Ajmat and Gurgan came to him and told that his brother has been killed by villagers of Musakheda near Tibara. Thereupon, he moved from village Macha straight to Kishangarh and reached near the dead body only after taking the police along with him. Obviously, this witness could not be an eye witness to the occurrence. Now, only Sube Khan is available to the prosecution. 27. While considering the evidenciary value of a solitary eye witness, the Apex Court has observed in Kartik Malhar's case (supra) as under : " On a conspectus of these decisions, it clearly comes, out that there has been no departure from the principles laid down in Vadivelu Thevar's Case, AIR 1957 SC 614 (supra) and, therefore, conviction can be recorded on the basis of the statement of single eye witness provided his credibility is not shaken by any adverse circumstance appearing on the record against him and the Court, at the same time, is convinced that he is a truthful witness. The Court will not then insist on corroboration by any other eye-witness particularly as the incident might have occurred at a time or place when there was no possibility of any other eye-witness being present. Indeed, the Courts insist on the quality, and, not on the quantity of evidence. " 28. The Court will not then insist on corroboration by any other eye-witness particularly as the incident might have occurred at a time or place when there was no possibility of any other eye-witness being present. Indeed, the Courts insist on the quality, and, not on the quantity of evidence. " 28. The Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P., AIR 1994 SC 1251 has also held : - "......... as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act"). But, if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. It is for the court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this Principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise. " 29. Sube Khan (PW-1) has stated that at the time of incident, he was irrigating the agricultural field of Radhamal Sindhi which was taken by him for cultivation on sharing basis. As per site inspection memo (Ex.P-19), there is no house or land of Sube Khan (PW-1) nearby place of incident. As per site inspection memo, about 90 foot-steps away from the dead body, there is an agricultural field of Radhamal Sindhi. The site inspection was made on 6.4.1983, i.e., the day next to the incident. There is no mention in this site inspection memo that agricultural field of Radhamal Sindhi was found recently irrigated. Rohtash Kumar (PW-12), Investigating Officer has admitted in cross examination that he did not enquire from Radhamal Sindhi about lending his agricultural field for cultivation to Sube Khan (PW-1). He further admits that he did not mention in site inspection memo (Ex.P- 19) as to whether agricultural field of Radhamal Sindhi was found irrigated by water. On the information of Sube Khan (PW-1), FIR of the instant matter was registered, wherein he has given complete details of the incident. He further admits that he did not mention in site inspection memo (Ex.P- 19) as to whether agricultural field of Radhamal Sindhi was found irrigated by water. On the information of Sube Khan (PW-1), FIR of the instant matter was registered, wherein he has given complete details of the incident. During trial also, he has narrated the incident in his examination in chief but this witness is admittedly cousin of the deceased Tej Singh. His statement is necessary to be closely examined, verified and scrutinised before relying upon. Since there is no house or land of this witness nearby place of incident, presence of this witness at the time of occurrence is not natural one. In absence of proof about lending of agricultural field by Radhamal Sindhi to this witness for cultivation on sharing basis, the presence of this witness on the site at the time of fateful incident, becomes shrouded with clouds of doubt. 30. Sube Khan (PW-1) has stated during trial that when accused were fleeing away after beating Tej Singh, Khubi - brother of Tej Singh, came there. Just after him, mother of the deceased also reached there. On the contrary, in Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-1), he told police that when he came back from village after informing villagers about incident, by that time, younger brother Khubi of Tej Singh had reached near dead body. In cross examination, he states that when he was going towards the village after incident to inform the villagers, he found Khubi come running from the village side. When he was confronted with particular portion of the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-1), he denied this fact, narrated therein. In cross examination, Sube Khan (PW-1) has stated that he did not see Himmat and Hurmat there at the place of incident, whereas in Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-1), in portion "G to H", he told police that after incident, he saw Himmat and Hurmat also coming at the place of incident holding lathies (sticks) and they went away following Jalla and other accused. On being confronted, he denied to have stated so to the police. It is pertinent to mention here that Himmat is father of the appellant Asenda and Hurmat is father of the appellant Jalla. 31. On being confronted, he denied to have stated so to the police. It is pertinent to mention here that Himmat is father of the appellant Asenda and Hurmat is father of the appellant Jalla. 31. Sher Singh (PW-3) has stated in examination in chief that in village Macha, Ajmat and Gurgan came at about sun set and told him that his brother has been killed near Tibara by villagers of Musakheda. In cross examination, he further clarified that he did not tell the police that Jalla and others have killed Tej Singh. On the other hand, as per Rojnamcha Aam (daily diary) Ex.P-55, at about 7.30 PM Sher Singh informed police that he heard that his brother Tej Singh has been killed by Jalla and others. The same is also found mention in statement (Ex.D-2) given by this witness to police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. On being confronted, he denied to have stated before police such thing in Ex.D-2 statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Sher Singh (PW-3) has denied the suggestion given in cross examination that he came to village from Macha and thereafter went to Kishangarh to inform police. However, Khubi (PW-2) has stated in cross examination that Ajmat and Nasru were sent to Macha village for calling back Sher Singh. Whereupon, Sher Singh came to the village and thereafter went to inform police. 32. The omissions, contradictions and improvements in the statements of Sube Khan (PW-1) and Sher Singh (PW-3), cannot be ignored as petty in nature in peculiar circumstances of this case where independent eye witnesses are not supporting prosecution, where presence of Sube Khan (PW-1) at the time of occurrence is not natural one and prosecution has failed to adduce the evidence which may inspire us to believe true presence of this witness at the place of incident, where enmity between the parties prior to the incident is undisputed and the same is being alleged to be the motive of the offence - the discrepancies pointed out above in the statements of Sube Khan (PW-1) and Sher Singh (PW-3) becomes enormous and substantial. 33. The alleged eye witness is undoubtedly deeply interested in the prosecution but that by itself cannot be a ground to discard his testimony. 33. The alleged eye witness is undoubtedly deeply interested in the prosecution but that by itself cannot be a ground to discard his testimony. After close and careful scrutiny of the evidence rendered by Sube Khan (PW-1) in the back drop of all the facts and circumstances, it appears that he had not actually seen the occurrence. He may have been introduced as eye witness after thoughtful deliberations and consultations. It appears that it may be a blind murder and none of the eye witnesses was actually present at the scene. It is very much possible that the appellants have been roped in on account of suspicion because of the previous enmity. Our independent analysis of the evidence on the record coupled with the infirmities which we have noticed above has created an impression in our minds, that prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt to the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. 34. As a result of our above discussions, we hold that the case against the appellants has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and that they are entitled to benefit of doubt. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants by the trial court are set aside. 35. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months. Appeal allowed-Accused to execute bond and surety for Rs. 20,000/- As required U/s. 437-A of Cr.P.C.