JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. Appellant-State has laid this appeal to question the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment dated 19.10.1992 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar (for short 'the learned Trial Court') in Sessions Case No.64/1990 whereby accused respondent and two others namely Mahi Ram and Binjha Ram were acquitted for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. At the threshold, appellant-State preferred Leave to Appeal against the three accused-persons but when the matter came up before the Court on 30.11.1993, the Court was pleased to grant leave against accused-respondent only and consequently Application for grant of Leave to Appeal was directed to be treated as memo of appeal against him. For rest of the two accused persons, leave was declined and thereupon the appellant-State submitted amended cause-title confining appeal only to the extent of accused-respondent. 3. Briefly stated prosecution story is that early in the morning at 7:00 a.m. on 05.06.1990 PW-6 Sanwara Ram walked-in to Police Chowki (Sub-station), Nai Mandi, Gharsana, Raisinghnagar Sub Division which was under the supervision of Police Station, Anupgarh and divulged information to the Incharge-officer that Mahi Ram, Binjha Ram and respondent Nanuda are beating his mother-in-law Dharmi at Rohi Chak 16 MD with axe. Responding to the said information of PW-6, the Incharge-officer with a police sleuth Swaroop Singh immediately rushed to the scene of occurrence and after returning back entered this information in Rajnamcha at 8:50 a.m. It is noticed by the Incharge-officer and other incumbent accompanying him when they reached agricultural field of Tulchha Ram that Dharmi was lying on the ground with many injuries. 4. The FIR for the incident was registered with the Police Station, Anupgarh at 10:15 a.m. by the husband of deceased Dharmi, PW-3 Tulchha Ram and thereafter requisite informations were received from Incharge-officer of Police Chowki, Gharsana for making necessary entries. The prosecution story unfurled from FIR (Ex.P/3) is that the complainant was allotted command land at Chak 16 MD measuring 16 bighas and 10 biswas. As per the FIR, the complainant started availing his irrigation facility on Tuesday at 3:45 a.m. in accordance with his Bari (turn) after finish of the turn of Nayab Singh. The prosecution story unfurled from FIR (Ex.P/3) is that the complainant was allotted command land at Chak 16 MD measuring 16 bighas and 10 biswas. As per the FIR, the complainant started availing his irrigation facility on Tuesday at 3:45 a.m. in accordance with his Bari (turn) after finish of the turn of Nayab Singh. It is also asserted by the complainant that when his wife Dharmi and son-in-law Sanwara Ram reached at the agricultural field for legitimately reaping irrigation facilities and utilising Bari at about 5:00 a.m., all the three accused-persons including the respondent reached at the site on a camel cart and parked it near main water course and thereafter all of them alighted from the cart to reach at the field. Subsequent to that, all the accused-persons in order to make way to their agricultural field started pouring sand to block khala which was situated at Kila No.4. The attempt made by the accused-persons caused obstruction in the flow of water and that prompted complainant's wife Dharmi to call upon them for removing camel cart and further abstaining from blocking the khala. Highlighting the overt act of the accused-persons, the complainant has stated in the FIR that when his wife raised alarm, the accused-persons became annoyed and accused Binjha Ram and Mahi Ram took out their pistols and threatened her. When Sanwara Ram came to the rescue of his wife, he too was threatened by these accused-persons with dire consequences. During altercation, the accused-respondent Nanuda started beating Dharmi and inflicted injury on her head by the axe. In all, three injuries were inflicted on the head of deceased Dharmi and, therefore, she immediately fell down. The complainant has further stated in the FIR that he made hue and cry and instructed Sanwara Ram to lodge report with the Police Station. Upon his making hue and cry, all the accused-persons fled away from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, the complainant took his wife in jeep and proceeded towards Nai Mandi but when he reached near Satrana, she succumbed to the injuries. When he reached Government Hospital, Nai Mandi, the duty doctor declared that she is no more. The scene of occurrence is about 21 kms. from Police Station, Anupgarh and, therefore, complainant instructed PW-6 Sanwara Ram to report the incident to near Police Sub-station, Gharsana. 5. When he reached Government Hospital, Nai Mandi, the duty doctor declared that she is no more. The scene of occurrence is about 21 kms. from Police Station, Anupgarh and, therefore, complainant instructed PW-6 Sanwara Ram to report the incident to near Police Sub-station, Gharsana. 5. The investigation was conducted by the police and inquest report of dead body was prepared at the hospital. Site inspection was also carried out by the Investigating Team. At the site, some blood stains and hairs of the deceased were found. During investigation, it was revealed that the complainant has entered into an agreement to sale with Mahi Ram in respect of his agricultural land of Kila Nos. 6, 15, 16, 17, 24 & 25 for consideration amount of Rs.50,400/- and litigation in this behalf is pending between both the parties. It is also noticed by the Investigating Team that land where the incident occurred is in possession of the accused-persons and at the time of incident, the accused-persons wanted to pass through the said land but obstructions were created by Dharmi. After the incident, on third day i.e. 07.06.1990 accused Mahi Ram and Nanuda were arrested and Binjha Ram was arrested on 10.06.1990. All the three accused-persons are related to each other as Nanuda is son of Binjha ram and son-in-law of Mahi Ram. The police did not recover anything from Mahi Ram but recovered pistol from Binjha Ram and also recovered axe on the information furnished by the accused-respondent Nanuda on 10.06.1990 which was blood stained. The axe was sent to FSL and FSL report confirmed that the blood group on the cloths of deceased Dharmi and axe was the same. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against all the three accused persons for offences under Sections 302/34 and 447 IPC and against Binjha Ram offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act was also imputed. 6. The charge-sheet was filed before the Muns if and Judicial Magistrate, Anupgarh. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the learned Trial Court for trial. 7. The learned Trial Court framed charges against all the three accused-persons and charges were denied by all of them. During trial, prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses including the Investigating Officer. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused persons under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. 7. The learned Trial Court framed charges against all the three accused-persons and charges were denied by all of them. During trial, prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses including the Investigating Officer. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused persons under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused-respondent in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. refuted all the allegations and stated that he has been falsely implicated by the complainant with oblique motive to thwart the agreement to sale for the agricultural land. 8. The learned Trial Court heard the final arguments and by the impugned judgment found many pitfalls in the prosecution case and taking note of serious inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence acquitted the accused respondent as well as other accused persons. The learned Trial Court also noticed serious infirmities in the investigation and castigated the Investigating Officer for not collecting evidence of independent witnesses for substantiating the prosecution case. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. R.K. Bohra has vehemently argued that learned Trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence on record and, therefore, impugned judgment is perverse and not sustainable. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that prosecution has tendered tangible evidence to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondent but the learned Trial Court has completely ignored the evidence without recording cogent and convincing reasons by acquitting him. Learned Public Prosecutor lastly submits that entire prosecution evidence in conjunction with the medical evidence if harmoniously construed, then the findings and conclusions of the learned Trial Court cannot satisfy the test of prudency, consequently rendering the impugned judgment vulnerable. 10. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia assisted by Mr. Bhawani Singh would contend that learned Trial Court has made sincere endeavour to appreciate evidence and thereafter rightly recorded its finding in favour of accused-respondent which requires no interference. Learned senior counsel further submits that the case in hand is a glaring example of inapt handling of investigation and serious inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence resulting in failure of the prosecution to prove accusation beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, no interference with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is warranted. 11. We have heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned senior counsel for the accused-respondent, perused the impugned judgment and scanned the entire materials available on record. 12. 11. We have heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned senior counsel for the accused-respondent, perused the impugned judgment and scanned the entire materials available on record. 12. With a view to scrutinise the impugned judgment threadbare, we feel persuaded to analyse the entire evidence afresh. 13. PW-3 Tulchha Ram (complainant) while projecting himself as eyewitness has attributed role of accused respondent in commission of offence and stated that deceased Dharmi was inflicted injuries on the head by Nanuda by using axe. The witness has also asserted in his deposition that incident occurred at about 5:00 or 5:30 a.m. and two Hawaldars reached on the spot at 8:30 or 9:00 a.m. He has further stated that at that point of time, Dharmi was alive and, therefore, she was taken to hospital but eventually on the way she took her last breath. As per the version of PW-3 investigation was later on conducted by the police in his presence and on relevant documents, he put his thumb impression. During his cross-examination, PW-3 has admitted execution of agreement to sale as part of the agricultural land in favour of Mahi Ram. In cross- examination of witness, variance with his police statements and improvements are clearly visible. 14. PW-4 Sohan Singh turned hostile and completely repudiated the prosecution case. 15. PW-6 Sanwala Ram (Sanwara Ram) the other eyewitness has also corroborated the prosecution story attributing a role to the assailant-accused but with some minor contradictions from the statement of PW-3 complainant. During cross-examination, it is also revealed that there is substantial improvements in his statements vis-a-vis his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/2). The fact that the other accused persons Mahi Ram and Binjha Ram took out pistols is also an embellished version of the witness as the said fact did not find mention in his police statements. The transaction for alleged sale of 6 bighs agricultural land by Tulchha Ram to Mahi Ram as per the witness is not known to him and, therefore, he has pleaded ignorance in this behalf. The witness has also testified that when deceased Dharmi was taken to hospital, she was alive. 16. PW-9 Dr. Angad Dev Jhorad in his deposition has stated that on the right side of the head of deceased, there was incised wound of 14x4x4 cm and fracture of occipital bone. The witness has also testified that when deceased Dharmi was taken to hospital, she was alive. 16. PW-9 Dr. Angad Dev Jhorad in his deposition has stated that on the right side of the head of deceased, there was incised wound of 14x4x4 cm and fracture of occipital bone. That apart, one more incised wound of 10x3x2½ on the left side of the head with two linear abrasions of different dimensions. It is also opined by the doctor that injuries were inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon. 17. The cumulative reading of the statements of PW-3, PW-6 and PW-9 makes it amply clear that it was a case of unnatural death but looking to the findings of the learned Trial Court on appreciation of evidence, it is very much desirable for this Court to analyse the evidence of PW-3 and PW-6 on the anvil of other prosecution evidence. Both the prosecution witnesses PW-3 & PW-6 are unequivocal in their deposition that deceased Dharmi was alive when she was taken to hospital but PW-8 Sawanta Ram in his statements has said that he has seen dead body of deceased Dharmi in the agricultural field of Tulchha Ram and dead body was taken to hospital by the police. Interestingly, the prosecution has not made any endeavour to declare PW-8 hostile and, therefore, being an independent witness, his testimony has acquired great significance. 18. There remains no quarrel that PW-3 Tulchha Ram and PW-6 Sanwara Ram are the interested witnesses being closely related to the deceased inasmuch as PW-3 is husband of the deceased and PW-6 is her son-in-law. A vital fact that deceased Dharmi died on the spot is clearly borne out from a bare reading of statements of PW-8 whereas the version of PW-3 & PW-6 in this behalf is quite different as both these witnesses have stated that she was alive when she was taken to hospital. This sort of a situation has casted a shadow of doubt on the prosecution story so as to ascertain the actual time of death of deceased because in his statements, PW-9 Dr. Angad Dev Jhorad has disclosed that death has occurred six hours anterior to the post mortem. The post mortem was conducted at 9:45 a.m. on 05.06.1990 and, therefore, the tentative time of death of deceased Dharmi appears to be before 4:00 a.m. on that day. Angad Dev Jhorad has disclosed that death has occurred six hours anterior to the post mortem. The post mortem was conducted at 9:45 a.m. on 05.06.1990 and, therefore, the tentative time of death of deceased Dharmi appears to be before 4:00 a.m. on that day. If medical evidence is read in conjunction with the evidence of alleged eyewitnesses PW-3 & PW-6, then it would ipso facto reveal that even the presence of accused-respondent at the time of death of deceased Dharmi is seriously doubtful. Both these witnesses have very candidly stated that accused respondent Nanuda with two other persons Mahi Ram and Binjha Ram reached at the site at about 5:00 or 5:30 a.m. This serious inconsistency in the statements of alleged ocular witnesses and medical evidence was taken note of by the learned Trial Court to discredit the testimony of both the eyewitnesses. The parrot-like statements of both eyewitnesses and their close relationships with the deceased have, therefore, rightly persuaded the learned Trial Court to discard their evidence. These statements are not inspiring confidence in the overall fact scenario. There cannot be two opinions that both of them are interested witnesses and therefore keeping in view serious acrimony between the complainant and the accused-respondent, possibility of false implication of the accused respondent cannot be ruled out. Injury No.2 caused to the deceased on her head was not fatal in the opinion of the doctor and only injury No.1 was fatal. The doctor has also opined that injury No.1 was caused by a semi-lunar weapon but the prosecution has miserably failed to prove shape of alleged weapon of offence. As a matter of fact, recovery of axe itself is doubtful inasmuch as the recovery memo has not been proved by the prosecution by tendering cogent evidence. The Motbir in whose presence axe was recovered has not been examined by the prosecution. 19. In substance, the learned Trial Court has also noticed serious pitfalls in the prosecution conducted and in fact categorised the same as a shoddy investigation. The Motbir in whose presence axe was recovered has not been examined by the prosecution. 19. In substance, the learned Trial Court has also noticed serious pitfalls in the prosecution conducted and in fact categorised the same as a shoddy investigation. There is one more redeeming fact which cannot loose sight of this Court that two other accused persons against whom also leave to appeal was filed, the Court has declined leave and, therefore, taking into account the entire prosecution evidence, we are unable to find any infirmity or perversity in the findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment. 20. The golden rule of criminal jurisprudence that accusation is required to be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts can very well be pressed into service in the instant case and the same has rightly been applied by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused respondent. 21. Upon examining the findings of the learned Trial Court in conjunction with the evidence and other materials available on record, un-hesitantly, in our view, it is a case of real doubt, that is the doubt founded upon reasons so as to connect the accused-respondent with commission of offence. This being the position, we fully concur with the findings of the learned Trial Court and, therefore, not persuaded to interfere with the impugned judgment. 22. Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.