JUDGMENT : P. K. LOHRA, J. Appalled by the impugned judgment dated 10th of July, 1996 rendered by Special Court (NDPS Cases), Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court), whereby learned trial Court acquitted accused-respondents, the appellant-State has filed criminal leave to appeal. By order dated 28th February, 1997, leave was granted and the leave to appeal was treated as regular criminal appeal by summoning the accused-respondents through bailable warrants. 2. Bare necessary facts for this appeal are that on 3rd of October, 1995, complainant Ram Gopal (P.W. 17), lodged a written report (Ex.P/24) before Station House Officer, Khedapa with the allegation that during midnight, when he was sleeping on the outskirt of Nadiya Jajada at his agricultural land, his brother Narayanram was also sleeping at a distance of approximately 40 ft. in an agricultural land bearing Khasra No.421. It is further averred in the report that during midnight, he heard alarm of somebody from nearby agricultural land of Khasra No.43/2 that he is being given beatings. As per version of the complainant, when he reached the spot, he saw that Narayanram was given beatings by the accused-respondents with lathis (wooden sticks) and, on seeing the complainant, accused-Ramkishan shouted that he may also be given beatings. Apprehending overt act by the accused-respondents and threat to his life, according to the complainant, he fled away from the site and both the accused-persons followed him. Ultimately, the complainant reached his house and informed entire incident to his son, Ramniwas (P.W.16), and thereafter First Information Report was lodged. Facts narrated in the FIR clearly and unequivocally reveal that due to injuries suffered by Narayanram he was profusely bleedings and lying in the agricultural field. The motive for commission of offence by the accused-respondents was personal animosity between victim Narayanram and the accused-respondents inasmuch as live stocks of the accused-persons damaged crops of the victim and, that being so, Narayanram raised his protest before the accused persons. The victim, Narayanram, was thereafter taken to Government Hospital Dhanari Kalla and the doctor on duty examined his injuries, but, considering seriousness of injuries, referred him to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. On 3rd of October, 1995, while undergoing treatment at MGH Jodhpur, Narayanram succumbed to the injuries. The accused-respondents were arrested and lathis were recovered. 3. The victim, Narayanram, was thereafter taken to Government Hospital Dhanari Kalla and the doctor on duty examined his injuries, but, considering seriousness of injuries, referred him to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. On 3rd of October, 1995, while undergoing treatment at MGH Jodhpur, Narayanram succumbed to the injuries. The accused-respondents were arrested and lathis were recovered. 3. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, Osiya, and thereafter matter was committed to Sessions Court, Jodhpur and the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur subsequently transferred the same for trial before the learned trial Court. Against the accused persons, the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 302, 302/34 and Section 447, Indian Penal Code, which were denied by the accused-respondents. 4. For substantiating its case and proving the accusation, prosecution examined twenty-five witnesses including two doctors and the complainant. Requisite documents, i.e., site plan, inquest of dead body as well as other documents including inquest report for recovery of lathis were produced. In all, thirty-four documents were produced, which were exhibited. On completion of the prosecution evidence, accused-respondents produced seven documents, which were also exhibited. 5. Learned trial Court formulated a point for determination as to whether the accused-respondents have committed offence under Sections 302 or 302/34 and 447, IPC? With a view to critically analyse the prosecution case, on various aspects of the matter, the learned trial Court made endeavour to examine motive for commission of offence at the threshold. After discussing the evidence of the prosecution, the learned trial Court declined to accept version of the complainant for cause of acrimony between deceased and accused-respondents. Eventually, in want of there being any corroboration from other prosecution witnesses supporting the version of complainant, the learned trial Court recorded a definite finding that prosecution has miserably failed to prove motive for commission of offence. While recording its finding, the learned trial Court has also taken note of serious pitfalls in testimony of some of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, Rooparam (P.W.5) and Bhikaram (P.W.7), as both of them turned hostile. 6. After recording its finding on motive for commission of offence, the learned trial Court also made endeavour to examine the alleged extra-judicial confession of the accused persons. In order to examine reliability and authenticity of the extra-judicial confession, the learned trial Court analysed testimony of Ramniwas (P.W.16) and Smt. Sharda (P.W.18), on the touchstone of the facts stated in the FIR. In order to examine reliability and authenticity of the extra-judicial confession, the learned trial Court analysed testimony of Ramniwas (P.W.16) and Smt. Sharda (P.W.18), on the touchstone of the facts stated in the FIR. Taking note of the fact that there was no mention about extra-judicial confession by the accused persons before these witnesses, the learned trial Court discarded the alleged extra-judicial confession of the accused respondents for commission of offence. Recovery of lathis from accused-respondents is also subjected to judicial scrutiny by the learned trial Court and noticed that on the lathis (Ex.P/10 & P/11) no blood stains were found. As there was no blood stains on the lathis recovered from the accused-respondents, the learned trial Court recorded its finding that it is difficult to connect the accused-respondents with the commission of offence using lathis. Lastly, the learned trial Court made sincere endeavour to analyse the testimony of ocular witness, i.e., complainant Ramgopal (P.W.17). The learned trial Court, on thorough examination of the statement of complainant, noticed that testimony of the complainant is not sterling worth. A very vital fact is also noticed by the learned trial Court for disbelieving the testimony namely his having personal animosity with the accused-respondents and the fact that some civil/revenue litigations were going on between complainant and the accused-respondents pertaining to land and the complainant also lodged FIR against accused-respondents before Police Station Khedapa under Sections 392 and 451, IPC. Moreover the accused-respondents, in their deposition under Section 313, Cr.P.C., have categorically stated that complainant has falsely implicated them because of personal rivalry and vengeance. Requisite documents were also produced by the accused-respondents to substantiate the same and, therefore, taking into account all these aspects and threadbare analysis of the evidence of the complainant, the learned trial Court recorded its finding that reliability of the complainant as ocular witness is under serious cloud and the same is not worth credence for proving accusation. After recording aforesaid findings, the learned trial Court finally acquitted the accused-respondents. 7. We have heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused-respondents, perused the impugned judgment and also scanned the entire record of case. 8. The prosecution has made an attempt to set up case against the accused-respondents founded on the testimony of alleged eye-witness, complainant. After recording aforesaid findings, the learned trial Court finally acquitted the accused-respondents. 7. We have heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused-respondents, perused the impugned judgment and also scanned the entire record of case. 8. The prosecution has made an attempt to set up case against the accused-respondents founded on the testimony of alleged eye-witness, complainant. That apart, the prosecution has also made efforts to prove motive for commission of offence and the alleged extra-judicial confession by the accused persons. Yet another attempt is made by the prosecution to connect the accused-respondents with commission of offence on the anvil of recovery of lathis. The learned trial Court, in our considered opinion, has appreciated the evidence in right perspective to unearth the truth about motive for commission of offence. Motive is that which stimulates or incites an action; the mainspring of human action; some cause or reason that moves the will and induces action; the moving power which impels to action for a definite result. If the testimony, more particularly testimony of complainant (P.W.17) is tested on the touchstone of requirements of motive stated supra, then it would, ipso facto, reveal that the alleged acrimony between the deceased and the accused-respondents is lacking sting to establish motive for commission of offence. Moreover, version of the complainant (P.W. 17) has not been corroborated by other prosecution witnesses and, contrary to it, prosecution witnesses namely Rooparam (P.W.5) and Bhikaram (P.W.7) have completely repudiated theory of prosecution for establishing motive by turning hostile. In that background, unhesitatingly, we are of the view that finding recorded by the learned trial Court for repudiating motive of the accused-respondents for commission of offence is just and proper warranting no interference. 9. Now adverting to extra-judicial confession, the non-discloser of alleged extra-judicial confession in the FIR has created serious doubts about the testimony of Ramniwas (P.W.16) and Smt. Sharda (P.W.18). Not mentioning this vital fact in the F.I.R. by the complainant has obviously rendered the testimonies of Ramniwas (P.W.16) and Smt. Sharda (P.W.18) vulnerable. It cannot be overlooked here that Ramniwas (P.W.16) is son of the complainant and Smt. Sharda (P.W.18) is his daughter-in-law with whom he had interaction before lodging FIR. Not mentioning this vital fact in the F.I.R. by the complainant has obviously rendered the testimonies of Ramniwas (P.W.16) and Smt. Sharda (P.W.18) vulnerable. It cannot be overlooked here that Ramniwas (P.W.16) is son of the complainant and Smt. Sharda (P.W.18) is his daughter-in-law with whom he had interaction before lodging FIR. Therefore, in that background, a close scrutiny of testimonies of Ramniwas (P.W.16) and Smt. Sharda (P.W.18) makes it abundantly clear that their testimonies are unreliable and the learned trial Court in these circumstances has rightly discarded theory of extra-judicial confession and the said decision of the learned trial Court cannot be categorized as infirm or based on improper appreciation of evidence. 10. Recovery of lathis, which the prosecution has canvassed with full vigor as incriminating material to bring home guilt against the accused persons, is also unworthy of any credit in absence of blood stains on the lathis. It is unthinkable that if the deceased was given beatings by lathis and he suffered some simple and one grievous injury on his person and was profusely bleedings due to the injuries, yet weapon, by which the injuries were caused, are without blood stains. In totality, in absence of blood stains on lathis, which were the alleged weapon of offence, finding recorded by the learned trial Court on this issue is just and proper based on sound appreciation of evidence requiring no interference. 11. Lastly, the learned trial Court has threadbare discussed testimony of eye-witness, i.e. complainant, Ramgopal (P.W.17). In order to disbelieve version of the complainant, the learned trial Court has recorded cogent and convincing reasons more particularly his personal animosity with the accused-respondents and taken into account the version of the accused-respondents made in their deposition under Section 313, Cr.P.C., about falsely implicating them. Reliability of the complainant as an ocular witness is also tested by the learned trial Court, on the anvil of testimonies of some other prosecution witnesses, who have turned hostile, and thereupon it has recorded its findings that complainants reliability is seriously questionable. The learned trial Court has also considered a very important fact that the incident occurred during midnight and the complainant who was 77 years old with blurred vision, wearing spects, could not have identified the accused persons in want of adequate light. The learned trial Court has also considered a very important fact that the incident occurred during midnight and the complainant who was 77 years old with blurred vision, wearing spects, could not have identified the accused persons in want of adequate light. The learned trial Court has observed that it is rather difficult to fathom that complainant has recognised the accused persons in dim light of latern, more particularly, when he was wearing spects having defective vision. There is yet another aspect of the matter that in the FIR the complainant has made an attempt to implicate the accused-respondents stating that they tried to apprehend him for giving beatings. He has also stated that accused respondents have followed him but he ran away from the site. This version of the complainant is totally discarded by the learned trial Court precisely for the reason that it is unthinkable that accused persons, who were relatively in their prime youth, had not been able to apprehend the complainant aged 77 years. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that the embellished version of the complainant in the FIR and his testimony for creating incriminating evidence against the accused-respondents is per se unreliable and has seriously put his testimony to jeopardy putting question mark to its credibility. In that background, the learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the testimony of complainant for discarding him as reliable and 9 competent ocular witnesses to bring home guilt against the accused-respondents. 12. Therefore, in totality, we are completely in agreement with the findings of the learned trial Court and are not persuaded to interfere with the impugned judgment in this appeal. 13. Resultantly, appeal fails and same is, hereby, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.