JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. By the instant appeal, the appellant-State of Rajasthan has assailed the impugned judgment dated 8.7.1994 passed by Sessions Judge, Merta (for short, 'learned Trial Court') acquitting the accused-respondents for offence under Sections 147,148, 447, 307, 302/149 Indian Penal Code (for short, 'I.P.C.') in Sessions Case No. 85/1989. At the threshold, appellant laid criminal leave to appeal under Section 378 (iii) and (i) Cr.P.C. for craving grant of leave to appeal and the Court was pleased to grant leave to appeal vide its order dated 28.4.1995 thereby treating application for leave to appeal as memo of appeal. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that complainant, Dharuram (PW-2), submitted a written report (Ex.P-10) at 8:45 AM on 13.6.1989 before SHO, Police Station Pilwa, District Nagaur stating therein that on the previous night when Choturam and Idanram were sleeping in the periphery of their agriculture field, Bithwalia, some persons gave serious beatings to Choturam resulting in his death and also caused injuries to Idanram there upon Idanram was admitted to PHC Harsor by the villagers. In the report, it is also stated that who has given beatings to whom is an information, which can be divulged either by Idanram or the neighbours, inasmuch as he (PW-2) came to know about the incident from brother of the deceased, Gigaram and thereafter he has straightway rushed to the Police Station. In the report, it is also stated that who has given beatings to whom is an information, which can be divulged either by Idanram or the neighbours, inasmuch as he (PW-2) came to know about the incident from brother of the deceased, Gigaram and thereafter he has straightway rushed to the Police Station. After receiving information, a Head Constable, Ummed Singh, immediately, proceeded to site of occurrence and there, Shri Idanram gave his parcha bayan (Ex.P-1), which reads as under:- c;ku Jh vkbZnkujke iq= Jh tsBkjke dkSe dqekj] mez 19 o"kZ iS'kk [ksrh fuoklh chVokfy;k rk0 13-06-1989 le; 10-00 ,-,e- us nfj;kQr iqfyl ij c;ku fd;k fd xr jkr dks eSa o esjs dkdk dk csVk HkkbZ NksVwjke iq= Jh rhjkjke gekjs [ksr esa c.kh;k ¼dikl½ dks ikuh ihykdj gekjs [ksr esa >wis ds ckgj pkjikbZ lkfey 10&11 cts lks x;s FksA esjs tho.ksa xky ds ikl fdlh /kkjnkj gfFk;kj dh yxus ls eSa ,dne uhan ls mBk rks rhjkjkeiq= yknwjke tkV Hkkdj us esjs xky ij dqokfM+;k dh ekjh] ekjihV djus esa ukuwiq= yknw Hkkdj] exykiq= yknw o Hkojh;kiq= izHkq vkpjk tkV fuoklh;ku chVokyh;ksa dks eSaus igpku fy;k mu pkjksa ds vykok 2&3 O;fDr vkSj FksA mu lcds gkFkksa esa dqokfM+;k o ykBh;ka FkhA ;g ekjihV jkr dks djhc 12 cts ds vkl ikl dh gSA ekjihV eq>s o esjs HkkbZ NksVw ds mu lHkh us ,d lkFk dh esjs HkkbZ dh e`R;q ekSds ij gh gks xbZA esjs HkkbZ NksVw ds 'kjhj ds VqdM+s&VqdM+s dj ogha NksMdj Hkkx x;sA vkt ls Ms<+ lky&nks lky gekjs vkil esa ,d czkgkz.kksa ds dqRrs dh ckr dks ysdj ekjihV o eqdnek ckth gqbZ FkhA bl vnkorh ds dkj.k bu yksxksa us gesa jkr dks lksrs gq, dks ekjihV dj esjs HkkbZ dks [kRe dj fn;kA djhc rhu pkj ?k.Vs ckn eq>s gks'k vkus ij Hko: czkgkz.k fuoklh esrjklh ftldk dqok ikl esa gh ij tkdj eSaus Hko: dks lkjh ckr crkbZA o Hko: czkgkz.k esjk HkkbZ cUnh] jkenso czkgkz.k] o cputh xqtj eq>s thi esa rjlksj vLirky yk,sa NksVw dh yk'k ogha ekSds ij iM+h gSA rhjkjke] Hkojkjke] exyh;k ds ikl dokfM+;k o ckdh ds gkFkksa esa ykBh;k FkhA rhjkjke] u0u] eaxyk filjku yknwjke o Hkojh;kiq= izHkwjke tkV fuoklh chVokyh;k o 2&3 vkSj O;fDr gkFkksa esa dokfM+;k ykBh;k ls yS'k gksdj esjs [ksr esa jkr ds le; izos'k dj >wis ds ckgj eSa o esjs HkkbZ NksVw dks lks;s gq;s ds lkFk ekjihV dh ekjihV ls NksVwjke dh ekSds ij gh e`R;q gks xbZA jkr gksus ls o [ksr xkao ls ckgj gksus ls utnhd gekjs dksbZ O;fDr ugha vk;kA o esjs 'kjhj ij nkfgus xky ds ikl ghjk us dokfM+;k dh ekjh o esjs Nkrh ij] nkfgus gkFk dh dykbZ ij nkfgus iSj dh uyh ij ck;sa iSj dh uyh ij ck;sa iSj dh uyh ij ck;sa gkFk ds iw.kps ij fdlus ekjh jkr gksus ls eq>s /;ku ugha jgkA** 3. On the basis of Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-1) case was registered against the accused-respondents and investigation was carried out. The accused-respondent Hiraram was apprehended and initially charge-sheet was submitted against him. Considering the fact that accused-respondent was charged for offence under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C., the case was committed before the learned Trial Court by the concerned Judicial Magistrate. 4. The learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302/149 I.P.C. against the accused-respondent, Hiraram on 5.2.1990 and under Sections 147, 148, 447, 307/149, 302/149 I.P.C. against the rest of the accused-persons on 25.3.1991, 13.5.1991 and 4.12.1991 respectively on submission of supplementary charge-sheets against these respondents. On denial of charges by the accused-respondent Hiraram, the learned Trial Court proceeded to record prosecution evidence and recorded statements of six witnesses. Later on, case of accused-respondent Manglaram was committed and charges were framed against him on 25.3.1991. Thereafter, charges were framed against the accused-respondent Bhanwariya on 13.5.1991 and against accused-respondent Nanuram on 4.12.1991. In view of supplementary charges-sheets submitted against the accused-respondents and framing of charges from time to time some of the witnesses, which were earlier examined by the learned Trial Court, were recalled and re-examined. In substance, statements of most of the prosecution witnesses were recorded twice during the trial, however, on completion of trial, by the impugned judgment all of them were acquitted. The prosecution examined thirty-three witnesses including (PW-27) Dr. V.D. Kaviya and (PW-13) Dr. K.L. Chandeliya. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded and the accused-respondents in their defence examined six witnesses. Finally, on conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused-respondents by giving benefit of doubt. 5. The learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of prosecution evidence, Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-1) expressed suspicion about recovery of weapon of offence on discovery of the accused-respondents. Further, the learned Trial Court noticed inordinate delay in sending the F.I.R. to the concerned Magistrate and recorded a definite finding that prosecution has failed to establish charges against the accused-respondents thereby extended benefit of doubt to the accused-respondents. 6. We have heard learned Public Prosecutor, learned Counsel for the accused-respondents and thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case. 7. 6. We have heard learned Public Prosecutor, learned Counsel for the accused-respondents and thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case. 7. The prosecution case is essentially founded on the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-1) of injured Idanram, his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D-2) and the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D-1) by the Additional Munsiff and Judicial magistrate, Ajmer (East), Ajmer. That apart, his supplementary statements recorded on 6.7.1989 (Ex.D-3) and on 9.9.1989 (Ex.D-4) are also formed part of charge-sheet as incriminating material against accused-respondents. During trial, Idanram appeared in the witness-box as PW-1. A cumulative reading of the statements of PW-1 at all the stages make it amply clear that incident has occurred when he was sleeping with his elder brother, Choturam in his agriculture field. In his Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-1) Idanram has attributed role to all the accused-persons for commission of offence of murdering his brother Choturam and seriously injured him by use of sharp-edged weapon. In his Parcha Bayan, he has stated that when he was fast asleep, he experienced of grave impact of a sharp-edged weapon on his right cheek and when he was awaken, accused-respondent, Teeraram gave a serious blow of axe on cheek. According to Idanram, besides Teeraram, other accused-persons were also well-armed with axe and lathis and all of them gave beatings to him and further by use of these weapons murdered his elder brother, Choturam on the spot. During investigation, statements of this witness were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex.D-1 wherein he has reiterated that when the accident occurred, he was sleeping. He further stated that the accused-respondents well- armed with axe and lathis and attacked his elder brother and thereafter flew away from the place of incident. The factum of death of his elder brother, Choturam at the spot is also asserted by the witness in his statement. Police has also recorded his supplementary statements during investigation on 6.7.1989 and 9.9.1989 besides his earlier statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 13.6.1989. The entire prosecution case hinges on the evidence of Idanaram (PW- 1), who is an injured eye-witness. So far as other prosecution witnesses are concerned, most of them were informed about the incident by Idanram (PW-1), therefore, in that background, it is worthwhile to critically examine the evidence of Idanram (PW-1) and the approach of the learned Trial Court in scrutinising his testimony. 8. So far as other prosecution witnesses are concerned, most of them were informed about the incident by Idanram (PW-1), therefore, in that background, it is worthwhile to critically examine the evidence of Idanram (PW-1) and the approach of the learned Trial Court in scrutinising his testimony. 8. The learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment has noticed serious contradictions and embellishments in the statements of the injured eye-witness recorded from time to time. After analysing the serious contradictions and inconsistency in the statements of Idanram, the learned Trial Court has recorded its definite finding that reliability of this witness is seriously questionable to bring home guilt against the accused-respondents. It is also noteworthy that the learned Trial Court has also made sincere endeavour to examine the evidence of other witnesses in conjunction with evidence of Idanram while recording its finding that prosecution has miserable failed to bring home guilt of the accused-persons beyond all reasonable doubts. In recording its finding favouring accused-respondents, the learned Trial Court has also threadbare scrutinised the medical evidence by the prosecution. 9. Considering the significance of evidence of injured ocular witness, Idanram, we have delved deep into the matter to find out requisite sting in his testimony to bring home guilt against the accused-respondents for commission of offence attributed to them and so also findings of the learned Trial Court in this behalf in the impugned judgment. 10. Parcha Bayan of Idanram were recorded at 10:00 AM on 13.6.1989 and on the same day at 5:20 PM his police statements (Ex.D-2) were recorded. In Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-11), the witness has identified all the four accused persons without showing any handicap in identifying him due to dim light, whereas, in his statement (Ex.D-2) which were recorded on the same day at 5:20 PM, although he has named all the four accused persons responsible for commission of offence but, at the same time, he has also informed 2-3 other incumbents to whom he could not identify because of dim-inadequate light. When the light was inadequate, it is difficult to comprehend how Idanram has identified the accused-respondents. On the face of it, there are contradictions in Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-1) and statements (D-2). 11. When the light was inadequate, it is difficult to comprehend how Idanram has identified the accused-respondents. On the face of it, there are contradictions in Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-1) and statements (D-2). 11. Yet another contradiction in (Ex.P-1) and Ex.D-2 is also clearly apparent inasmuch as in Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-1) Idanram has asserted that his brother Choturam was given beatings with use of axe and lathis by the accused-respondents and his body was chopped into parts, whereas in statement (Ex.D- 2), the witness has stated that accused-respondents attacked all of a sudden and therefore, Choturam succumbed to the injuries to the spot. In substance, the version of the witness in Parcha Bayan and his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D-2) are not reconcilable. 12. In yet another statement of witness (Ex.D-1) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., version of the witness is not in consonance and conformity with his earlier stand. In his supplementary statements (Ex.D-3 and D-4). Idanram has changed his stand from his earlier statements. Relevant excerpt of his statement (Ex.D-1) heards as under:- ^^ml le; ogka ij Hkk[kj] eaxyk] ghjkjke] ukUnwM+k] Hkaojjke vkljk vk,A eaxykjke ds ikl dokfM+;k] ghjkjke cjNh] vkSjks ds ikl ykBh;ka Fkh ftlls esjs NksVs HkkbZ o eq>s nksuksa dks ekjihV dhA ekjihV djds Hkkx x;sA esjk HkkbZ ogkWa ij [kRe gks x;k eSa esjs HkkbZ uUnw ds ikl x;kA fQj eq>s ;gka yk;sA igys NksVw ds og mijksDr vknfe;ksa ds dqUrk dh nq'euh FkhA esjs HkkbZ NksVw ds iSj o gkFk ij T;knk pksV yxhA cl ;gh ckr gSA** 13. During his statements before the Court inconsistency and contradictions in his version are clearly apparent. The witness has attributed definite role to the accused-respondents and has also imputed allegations against accused Hiraram for giving blow of Farsi on his right cheek resulting in his unconsciousness. During his statements before the Court inconsistency and contradictions in his version are clearly apparent. The witness has attributed definite role to the accused-respondents and has also imputed allegations against accused Hiraram for giving blow of Farsi on his right cheek resulting in his unconsciousness. Relevant part of the statement of witness reads as under :- ^^jkr dks ge nksuksa [ksr esa lks jgs FksA rks ukuw] ghjk o Hkaofj;ksa eaxyk vk;sA ghjk ds gkFk esa esa Qjlh] eaxyk ds gkFk esa dokfM+;k] ukuw ds ikl ykBh o Hkaofj;ksa ds ikl Hkh ykBh FkhA nks rhu vkneh vkSj Fks ftudks esa igpku ugha ldkA bUgksaus vkdj esjs o NksVw ds lkFk ekjihV dj nhA----- ** ^^---- eSa cSBk gqvk rks ghjkjke us esjs gkFk ij Qkjlh dh ekjhA NksVw dk Vkax dkV dj ,d rjQ Qsad fn;kA eSjs gkFk ds yxus ls esa fxj x;k o okfil [kM+k gqvk rks ghjkjke us esjs nkfgus xky ij Qjlh dh ekjh ftl ij eSa csgks'k gks x;kA------- ** 14. In his examination-in-chief itself, the witness flatly denies that he has not seen accused persons giving beatings to his brother Choturam. Further, he asserts that because of acrimony between deceased Choturam and accused persons was a dog petted by him which was taken by Hire and the litigation between Choturam and accused in this behalf. Relevant part of the statement reads as under:- ^^-------NksVw ds lkFk eSaus ekjihV gksrs ugha ns[khA ekjihV ,d dqRrs ds ckjs esa gqbZ] dqRrk NksVw dk ikyk gqvk Fkk tks ghjk mBkdj ys x;k] mldk eqdnek pyrk gSA------** 15. Throughout his earlier statements, the witness has categorically stated that he was given first blow by the accused persons on his right cheek but, in his cross-examination, he asserts that he was inflicted first injury by the accused persons on his hand and leg. Relevant part of the statement reads as under:- ^^;g dguk xyr gS fd esjs xky ij lcls igys pksV yxus ls eSa txk gwWaA eSaus iqfyl c;ku izn'kZ ih 1 esa ghjkjke }kjk vius iSj o gkFk ij pksV ekjus dh ckr fy[kkbZ Fkh] irk ugha blesa D;ksa ugha fy[khA eSaus izn'kZ ih0 1 c;ku esa esjs tho.ks xky ij pksV yxus ls mBus dh ckr fgLlk , ls ch esa ugha fy[kkbZA** 16. Playing smart during his cross-examination, the witness has also found fault with his statements recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. According to PW-1/11 Idanram, he made statements before the Magistrate about sustaining injuries on his cheek, leg and hand but cannot explain why the same is not mentioned in Ex.D-1. The relevant excerpt of his statement during cross-examination showing contradictions with his statement Ex.D-1 reads as under:- ^^vtesj esa eftLV~sV us esjk c;ku fy[kk FkkA eSaus vius eftLV~sV ds c;ku izn'kZ Mh0 1 esa vius xky] iSj o gkFk ij vkbZ pksV ds ckjs esa crk;k FkkA irk ugha ,slk bl c;ku esa D;ksa ugha fy[kkA eSaus bl c;ku esa bu pksVksa dks ghjkjke }kjk ekjus dk Hkh fy[kk;k Fkk irk ugha ,slk D;ksa ugha fy[kkA eSaus izn'kZ Mh0 1 esa pkj vknfe;ksa ds vykok nks rhu vknfe;ksa ds vkus dh ckr Hkh fy[kkbZ FkhA eSaus bl c;ku esa ekjihV ds ckn Hkaojk ds csjs ij tkus dh ckr Hkh fy[kkbZ Fkh] irk ugha D;ksa ugha fy[khA** 17. There is yet another improvement in the statement of the witness from his earlier statements Ex.D-2, D-3 and D-4 inasmuch as in all these statements the witness has not castigated Hira for causing injury of Farsi on his hand and leg, which is sought to be attributed to accused Hira in his Court statements. The relevant part of the statements reads as under:- ^^eSaus vius iqfyl c;ku izn'kZ Mh0 2] Mh0 3] Mh0 4 esa eSaus ghjk }kjk vius gkFk o iSj ij Qjlh ls pksV ekjus dh ckr fy[kkbZ Fkh irk ugha D;ksa ugha fy[kkA eSaus izn'kZ Mh0 2 o Mh0 4 esa ghjk }kjk Qjlh ls xky ij pksV igqWapkus dh ckr fy[kkbZ Fkh irk ugha buesa D;ksa ugha gSA** 18. When the statements of witness were recoded second time. The witness was thoroughly cross-examined and he was substantially impeached by the defence Counsel. When the statements of witness were recoded second time. The witness was thoroughly cross-examined and he was substantially impeached by the defence Counsel. While answering question No. 20, the witness has stated as under:- 20- bZ0,Dlih0 1 c;ku iqfyl dk fgLlk vkbZ ls ts& esjs Nkrh ij] nkfgus gkFk dykbZ ij nkfgus iSj dh uyh ij] cka;s iSj dh uyh ij] cka;s gkFk ds iw.ps ij fdlus Hkkjh] jkr gksus ls eq>s /;ku ughaA lquk] eSaus blesa vaMj ykbZu iksjlu ugha fy[kk;k] cfYd bl ckj U;k;ky; esa tks c;ku fn;s gS] oSls gh mlesa fy[kk;k Fkk] irk ugha mlesa D;ksa fy[kk gSA eSaus vius iqfyl c;ku bZ0,sDlMh0 2] bZ0,sDlMh0 3] bZ0,sDlMh0 4 esa esjs gkFkksa] iSjksa o Nkrh ij fdl&fdl eqyfte us dgka dgka ekjh tSlkfd eSaus esjs eq[; c;ku esa ntZ djk;k gS] mlh izdkj ls crk fn;k Fkk buesa ,slk D;ksa ugha fy[kk gS] bldk eq>s irk ughaA ?kVuk vk/kh jkr dks gqbZ Fkh] ?kM+h esjs ikl Fkh ugha vr% ?kVuk jkr dks ckjg cts gqbZ gks ;g eSa ugha dg ldrkA** Question No. 24 and its answer reads as under:- ^^24- izn'kZ Mh0 8 dk fgLlk , ls ch%& NksVw ds lkFk eSaus ekjihV gksrs ugha ns[kh lquk] eSaus ;g ugha fy[kk;kA eSaus NksVw ds lkFk ekjihV gksrs ns[kh FkhA ekjihV gksrs ugha ns[kus okyh ckr dqRrs ds izlax esa izn'kZ Mh0 8 esa ml ?kVuk ds ckjs esa fy[kkbZ FkhA ml dqRrs dh ?kVuk okyh ekjihV esa NksVw ds pksVs rks vkbZ FkhA iz'u%& bl eqdnesa esa ftlls fd vkids vHkh c;ku gks jgs gSa] blds vykok ghjkjke us ghjkjke dks [kqnk dks ekjihV djus dk eqdnek ijcrlj vnkyr esa py jgk gSA blds vykok NksVw ds o ghjk ds chp esa vkids }kjk fd;k x;k dksbZ eqdnek ;k ghjkjke ds }kjk fd;k gqvk dksbZ eqdnek py jgk gS\ mRrj%& ;g ckr lgh gS fd dqRrs ds ckcr dksbZ eqdnek ugha py jgk gSA ijcrlj esa eqdnek tks ghjk us fd;k tks NksVw ds mij fd;k gSA py jgk gS oks eqdnek dqRrs dk fd;k FkkA oloky ftjg c;ku fd;k gS NksVw dk dqRrk ghjh;k viuh <+k.kh ys x;k NksVw dqRrk ysus x;k gksxk rks jkM gks xbZ gksxhA vc og dqRrk dgk x;k eq>s irk ughaA D;ksafd tc NksVw gh pyk x;k rks dqRrs dh dkSu dgsaA dqRrsokyh ?kVuk ekStwnk ?kVuk ls Ms< lky igys dh gSA dqRrsokyh ?kVuk ds ckn ls ekStwnk ?kVuk rd dqRrk NksVw ds ikl gh jgk FkkA** 19. The other witnesses (PW-2) Dharuram, (PW-3) Bhanwarlal and (PW-5) Nandram are also not witnesses of substance as cumulative reading of these witnesses is not corroborating the prosecution story. (PW-5) Nandram informed (PW-2) Dharuram about the homicidal death of the deceased Choturam but without disclosing name of the accused-respondents. Recovery of weapon of offence in presence of motbirs, who are close relatives of the victim family, has casted shadow on the recovery and, therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly brushed aside the recovery of alleged weapon of offence as incriminating evidence in absence of independent witness. The learned Trial Court has cogent and convincing reasons for suspecting the recovery memo and the FSL report which has not found lathis blood stained. Now adverting to the medical evidence, suffice it to state that (PW-13) Dr. K.L Chandeliya has proved the autopsy report of the deceased Chhoturam and the cause of death. In his statements doctor has noticed four incised wounds on the body of the deceased and cause of death, according to his opinion, is external bleeding by multiple injuries resulting in collapse. The witness has also attributed injury No. 1 as cause of death of the deceased in normal circumstances, while emphasising that cause of death may be cumulative effect of all the injuries. During his cross-examination, the witness has admitted that no injury was found on vertical part of the deceased and his life could have been saved had he received immediate medical aid. The witness has also admitted that all the injuries caused by one weapon only. On some of suggestions of the defence Counsel, the witness has not answered to support the prosecution case and therefore, the Public Prosecutor re-examined the witness. Well, it is true that the medical evidence do indicate that death of Choturam was homicidal but then to whom the act of homicide is to be attributed rested on the prosecution which it failed to prove. Therefore, on solitary medical evidence, indictment of the accused- respondents for the offence cannot be countenanced on the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence. 20. The other medical evidence is the statements of (PW-27) Dr. V.D. Kaviya, who has examined injured Idanram. Therefore, on solitary medical evidence, indictment of the accused- respondents for the offence cannot be countenanced on the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence. 20. The other medical evidence is the statements of (PW-27) Dr. V.D. Kaviya, who has examined injured Idanram. In his statement, although the witness has indicated eight incised wounds on the body of victim besides two punctured wounds and one scratch abrasion, but, in his opinion, no injury singularly or all the injuries cumulatively were dangerous to life. During his cross-examination, the witness has dilated on the gravity of the injuries by stating as under:- ----bZ0,sDlih0 11 esa vafdr vkbZnkujke dh pksVs la;qDr :i ls vFkok i`Fkd :i ls mldh e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy;s izd`fr ds lk/kkj.k vuqdze esa i;kZIr ugha FkhA------ 21. The witness has also admitted in his cross-examination that injury No. 11 can occur due to falling on a floor with thrones and nature of injury depends on use of a particular part of weapon of offence with a specific angle. The relevant part of his statement reads as under:- -----bZ0,sDlih0 11 esa of.kZr pksV ua0 11 tehu ij fxjus ls tgka dkaVs oxSjk fc[kjs gq, gks muls vkuk laHko gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd ?kko dk vkdkj bl ckr ij fuHkZj djrk gS fd gfFk;kj dk fdruk fgLlk lEidZ esa vk;k vkSj gfFk;kj dk iz;ksx fdl ,saxy ls fd;k x;kA---------- 22. The evidence of (PW-27) Dr. Kaviya when examined in conjunction with statements of the star prosecution witness, (PW-1/11) Idanram, then considering the gravity and magnitude of the injuries suffered by him his version that he became unconscious on sustaining these injuries casts shadow on his testimony. Therefore, in totality, the credibility of the evidence of (PW- 1/11) is also impeachable and unworthy of any credit to bring home guilt against the accused-respondents for the offences. 23. That apart, the axe on which some blood stains were found, there was no positive report of the FSL that it was a human blood. It is in that background the learned Trial Court has rightly not placed reliance on the FSL report (Ex.P-30). The delay in lodging report (F.I.R.) as well as its receipt by the concerned Magistrate after 19 hours delay has been aptly dealt with by the learned Trial Court so as not construe the same as mitigating factor favouring the cause of the accused respondents. The delay in lodging report (F.I.R.) as well as its receipt by the concerned Magistrate after 19 hours delay has been aptly dealt with by the learned Trial Court so as not construe the same as mitigating factor favouring the cause of the accused respondents. As a matter of fact, while overlooking niceties and technicalities, the learned Trial Court has scrutinised the evidence of the ocular witness lacking credibility. It is in that background, learned Trial Court declined to reply on his testimony. 24. After examining the evidence of PW-1/11 Idanram. We are also in agreement with the learned Trial Court that his statements are lacking requisite sting to treat him as a potent ocular witness. In totality, while concurring with the findings and conclusions of the learned Trial Court, which are based on sound appreciation of evidence we also hold that the same is neither perverse nor infirm from any stretch of imagination. Therefore, unhesitatingly we also conclude that testimony of (PW-1/11) Idanram is dis-confirming the requirements of a competent ocular witness. We are also in agreement with the learned Trial Court that it is unsafe to rely on evidence of Idanram for indicting accused-respondents. 25. Thus, upon objective analysis of the materials available on record, we wholesomely record our satisfaction about the findings and conclusions of the learned Trial Court that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove accusation against the respondents beyond all reasonable doubts and as such we feel dissuaded to interfere with the impugned judgment. Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.