JUDGMENT : Mr. P.K. Lohra, J. Appellant-State of Rajasthan by the instant appeal questions legality and propriety of impugned judgment dated 02.05.1998 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Sirohi (for short 'learned Trial Court') whereby learned Trial Court has acquitted accused respondents for offences under Sections 302/34, 302/114 of Indian penal Code by extending benefit of doubt. At the threshold, the appellant laid Criminal Leave to Appeal by invoking Sub-section (3) and Sub-section (1) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. The leave craved for was granted by the Court vide its order dated 07.10.1998 and accordingly, leave to appeal was ordered to be registered as regular appeal. 2. The facts apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that on 02.07.1995 at about 11.45 a.m. Punaram (PW-4) submitted a written report (Ex.P/14) before SHO, Police Station, Sheoganj wherein an incident of previous night i.e. 01.07.1995 is narrated. As per written report dated 01.07.1995 at about 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. when complainant (PW-4) was at his residence, he heard a noise just opposite Babulals house and, therefore, he immediately rushed to the spot and saw all the accused respondents and one Bagdaram running to their house. The report further unfolds that Prabhu Ram and Bagdaram were carrying lathies in their hand and when he reached at the open space within the periphery of Babulal's house, he saw Babulal lying on the floor and his head was profusely bleeding. The written report further narrates that complainant helped Babulal to reach his house and thereupon Babulal informed him that earlier his son Prakash and son of Prabhuram, Bagdaram fought and therefore he (Babulal) made efforts to pacify them by intervening and also tried to sort out the dispute. As per the version of written report, Babulal conveyed to PW-4 that on seeing this incident, the accused respondents Prabhulal and Bhuraram well armed with lathies reached at the site in presence of Narainlal and Narainlal instigated both of them to liquidate him (Babulal). The written report attributed a blow of stone on the head of Babulal by accused Bhuraram and Bagdaram whereas Prabhuram was assigned role of giving blow of lathi on his head. Due to injuries cause to Babulal, he fell down on the floor and became unconscious. The written report attributed a blow of stone on the head of Babulal by accused Bhuraram and Bagdaram whereas Prabhuram was assigned role of giving blow of lathi on his head. Due to injuries cause to Babulal, he fell down on the floor and became unconscious. The complainant has also stated in the written report that wife of Babulal and his two sons Bhanwarlal and Prakash also reached at the spot and, therefore, all the accused respondents fled away from the spot. The complainant has also narrated a fact that despite efforts being made, no vehicle was available for taking injured Babulal to hospital and, thereafter, at midnight, Babulal succumbed to the injuries. In substance in the written report, the complainant has categorised Babulal's death as homicidal act committed by the accused respondents. 3. Taking note of written report, PW-11 Moolaram, ASI registered FIR (Ex.P/18) for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 302/114 IPC against the accused respondents and proceeded for investigation. After completing the investigation, the accused respondents were arrested and charge-sheet was submitted against them before the Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj and subsequently the case was committed to the learned Trial Court. 4. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses for proving charges against the accused respondents. That apart. 26 documents were exhibited by the prosecution. After conclusion of evidence of prosecution, statements of accused respondents under Section 313 Cr.PC. were recorded. Learned Trial Court upon close scrutiny of the prosecution evidence noticed serious pitfalls in the prosecution case and had also taken note of factum of delay in lodging the FIR for acquitting the accused respondents. The learned Trial Court while analysing entire prosecution evidence in conjunction with medical evidence found that prosecution has failed to establish guilt against the accused-respondents. Therefore, taking note of various mitigating factors and absence of any material/clinching evidence to attribute fatal blow to any of the accused respondents which caused death of Babulal, learned Trial Court in its discretion extended benefit of doubt to all the accused respondents. 5. We have heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondents at length and perused the entire record of the case. 6. The prosecution case edificed on the written report (Ex.P/4) of PW-4 Punaram suffered a serious set back at the threshold as PW-4 Punaram has turned hostile. In his statement. PW-4 has denied submission of written report (Ex.P/4). We have heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondents at length and perused the entire record of the case. 6. The prosecution case edificed on the written report (Ex.P/4) of PW-4 Punaram suffered a serious set back at the threshold as PW-4 Punaram has turned hostile. In his statement. PW-4 has denied submission of written report (Ex.P/4). The witness has also disputed his thumb impression on the written report. This sort of situation has brought the entire prosecution case under cloud. Be that as it may, the prosecution has made endeavour to examine one eyewitness PW-9 Babulal son of Manaji and PW-1 Babali, PW-2 Bhanwarlal, PW-3 Prakash and PW-16 Vidhya. who are wife, sons and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of deceased Babulal respectively. 7. PW-9 Babulal has made an attempt to establish involvement of accused respondents in commission of offence. In his examination in chief, the witness has stated that accused Prabhu & Narain were armed with Saliya (Lathi) and Bhuraram was also armed with Saliya (Lathi) or stone and has further asserted that they were giving beatings to the deceased Babulal. Although the witness has shown his bona fide and attempted to prove his presence at the occurrence of the offence by stating that he called upon the accused respondents not to give beatings to deceased Babulal but strangely he has not made any endeavour to rescue the deceased from the clutches of the accused respondents or to make an alarm to save his life. This sort of conduct of the witness appears to be unusual, not satisfying the normal human disposition at such a juncture. Even after witnessing such a brutal incident, the witness left the site and proceeded to his home is yet another relevant factor casting shadow on his testimony. Now, if we proceed to examine the testimony of PW-9 critically, then it would ipso facto reveal that he has witnessed the incident from a distance of approximately 300-400 ft. in darkness of the night. During his cross-examination, he has very candidly admit that which accused has given exactly what number of blows to the deceased, he is unable to say. Not reporting the incident to police and not divulging this information to any one in the village for five days by the witness has caste serious doubt about his being a potent ocular witness. During his cross-examination, he has very candidly admit that which accused has given exactly what number of blows to the deceased, he is unable to say. Not reporting the incident to police and not divulging this information to any one in the village for five days by the witness has caste serious doubt about his being a potent ocular witness. The relevant excerpts from the cross-examination of the witness read as under :- ^^flj esa fdruh pksVsa ekjh eq>s irk ughaA rhuksa eqyfteku pksVsa ekj jgs Fks fdlus dgkWa o fdruh pksVsa ekjh ;g ugha crk ldrkA eSaus U;k;ky; ls gksVy ftruh nwj gS mruh nwjh ls ?kVuk ns[kh FkhA ;g nwjh vanktu rhu&pkj lkS QhV nwj gksxhA xokg us dgk fd eSaus rhl ikoaMk nwjh ls ?kVuk ns[kh FkhA jkr va/ksjh FkhA va/ksjk gksus ls ;g irk ugha pyk fd dkSu fdldks ekj jgk FkkA eSa ?kj tkdj fQj lks x;kA eSaus tks jkr dks mDr ?kVuk ns[kh blds ckjs esa eSaus iqfyl esa esjs c;ku gq, mlds igys fdlh dks ugha crk;kA Lor% dgk fd mDr ckr iwjs xkWao dks ekywe FkhA esjs c;ku ikapos fnu gq, FksA** 8. Apart from the aforementioned statements of PW-9, if the credibility of the witness is tested on the touchstone of his statements (Ex.D/4), then it would ipso facto reveal that there is a marked improvement in his statements inasmuch as in his police statements, he has not attributed any role to the accused respondents. In his statements (Ex.D/4), the witness has stated that after hearing the noise, when he reached outside deceased's house, he saw deceased Babulal lying on the floor and the accused respondents were standing nearby. 9. Interestingly, the witness has not shown any animosity between the deceased and the accused respondents and even he has not shown presence of any individual at the place of occurrence including the family members of deceased. The relevant part of statement of witness during cross-examination in this behalf reads as under :- ^^eqyfteku o e`rd ds chp >xM+k gks jgk Fkk] ogkWa xkWao ds dksbZ yksx ugha [kM+s FksA okd LFky ds ikl esa edkukr gSa] isM+ oxSjk ugha gSaA ogkWa ,d fctyh dk [kEck vo'; yxk gqvk gSA** 10. The relevant part of statement of witness during cross-examination in this behalf reads as under :- ^^eqyfteku o e`rd ds chp >xM+k gks jgk Fkk] ogkWa xkWao ds dksbZ yksx ugha [kM+s FksA okd LFky ds ikl esa edkukr gSa] isM+ oxSjk ugha gSaA ogkWa ,d fctyh dk [kEck vo'; yxk gqvk gSA** 10. There is yet another serious contradiction and embellishment in the version of the witness which requires judicial scrutiny in order to analyse veracity of his evidence on the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence. The witness in his earlier police statement (Ex.D/4) has stated as under :- ^^Jh ckcwyky us nfj;kQ~r ij c;ku fd;k fd ikap fnu igys eSa jkf= esa esjs ?kj ij FkkA ml le; jkf= esa djhc 8&9 cts eSaus ckcwyky ds ?kj dh rjQ gkdk lqukA gkdk lqudj eSa ckcwyky ds ?kj dh rjQ x;k rks ckcwyky ds ?kj ds ckgj ckcwyky dks iM+s gq, ns[kk rFkk ogkWa izHkq] Hkwjk o ukjk;.k dhj Hkh [kM+s Fks tks ckcwyky dks cksypky dj jgs FksA ckcwyky dg jgk Fkk er ekjks er ekjksA ml le; ogkWa ckcwyky o izHkq ds cPps Hkh [kM+s FksA ckn esa eSa rks okfil ?kj pyk x;kA lqcg lquk fd ckcwyky dh jkf= esa Hkwjk o ukjk;.k }kjk dh xbZ ekjihV dh otg ls e`R;q gks x;h gSA** 11. Contrary to above version, during his cross-examination, the witness has completely disowned his police statements so as to prove the circumstances under which he reached at the place of occurrence. Contrary to above version, during his cross-examination, the witness has completely disowned his police statements so as to prove the circumstances under which he reached at the place of occurrence. The relevant excerpt of his statements during cross-examination reads as under :- ^^;g ckr xyr gS fd eSa ?kVuk ds jkst ?kj gwWa rFkk eSaus ?kj cSBs fpYykus dh vkokt lquh gksA eSaus ,slh ckr esjs c;ku Mh&4 ds fgLls , ls ch esa ugha fy[kk;hA eSa esjs ?kj ls ckcwyky ds ?kj ugha x;k Fkk] vfirq jkLrs ls gh ckcqyky ds ?kj dh rjQ ls xqtj jgk FkkA ckcqyky fxjus ds ckn eSa Mj dj vius ?kj vk x;kA eSaus Mh&4 dk lh ls Mh fgLlk gkdk lqudj eSa ckcqyky ds ?kj dh rjQ x;k rks ckcqyky ds ?kj ds ckgj ckcqyky dks iM+s gq, ns[kk ,slk c;ku eSaus iqfyl esa ugha fn;kA eqyfteku rhuksa ckcqyky dks tkr: o iRFkj ls ekjihV dj jgs Fks ;g ckr izn'kZ Mh&4 esa fy[kh gqbZ ugha gSA Lor% dgk fd eSaus mDr ckr iqfyl dks crk;h Fkh mUgksaus D;ksa ugha fy[kh eq>s irk ughaA eqyfteku dk ;g dgk fd e`rd gekjk HkkbZ gS blfy, ekjihV djsaxs ,slk iqfyl dks eSaus crk;k Fkk] exj Mh&4 esa iqfyl us D;ksa ugha fy[kh eq>s irk ughaA** 12. It is also pertinent to note that even in his statements (Ex.D/4) also, the witness has not shown presence of any villager or family members of the deceased at the place of occurrence. 13. Therefore, taking note of serious pitfalls and embellishments in the statements of PW-9 Babulal, we are unable to find any infirmity in the impugned judgment whereby learned Trial Court has found his testimony dis-confirmable as competent eyewitness. 14. Now switching on the statements of PW-1 Babali, PW-2 Bhanwarlal and PW-3 Prakash, suffice it to observe that their statements are not in consonance and in conformity with the statements of PW-9 Babulal. PW-1 Babali is wife of deceased who has contradicted the statements of PW-9 that it was a dark night inasmuch as according to her version, adequate light was available on that night This fact is clearly discernible from her statements during cross examination which reads as under :- ^^?kVuk dh jkr va/ksjk ugha Fkk cfYd mtkyh jkr FkhA ml jkst 'kfuokj Fkk] D;k frfFk Fkh eq>s ;kn ughaA** 15. Yet again, she has stated during her cross-examination that when she reached at the spot her husband was lying on the floor. The relevant part of her statement reads as under :- ^^;g ckr lgh gS fd eSa esjs ifr ds ikl igqWaph rc esjk ifr tehu ij fxjs gq, FksA** 16. PW-1 has also not shown any acrimony between the deceased and the accused respondents. In her examination-in-chief, PW-1 has shown her own presence besides presence of her two sons PW-2 and PW-3 respectively as well as her sister-in-law Vidhya without indicating presence of PW-1 Babulal. She has also stated that her husband was given beating by the accused respondents in presence of all of them and the entire incident was narrated by her husband to PW-4 Punaram. The relevant part of person of the witness in this behalf reads as under :- ^^ekjihV gks jgh Fkh rc eSa] esjk yM+dk Hkaoj] nsjkuh fo|k rFkk izdk'k ogkWa [kM+s ?kVuk ns[k jgs FksA esjs ifr us iwuk dks ?kVuk dh ckr crk;h FkhA** 17. The testimony of witness PW-1 Babali if read in conjunction with the statement of PW-4 Punaram, then there remains no room of doubt that credibility of her testimony is per se doubtful. As a matter of fact, PW-4 has turned hostile and has also disowned submission of written report (Ex.P/4). Moreover, if the statements of PW-1 are on the touchstone of testimony of PW-9 Babulal, then too, it is difficult to reconcile statements of both the witnesses. Although PW-1 has made a categorical statement that her husband was given beatings by the accused respondents but she has not made any endeavour to take him to hospital for treatment, further creates serious doubt about her presence at the place of occurrence. Recording of her statement by the police after five days from the date of occurrence of the incident is also a mitigating factor to discredit her testimony as an ocular witness. 18. As regards PW-2 Bhanwarlal and PW-3 Prakash child witnesses, their statements are projecting parrot-like version and therefore, not inspiring confidence. A cumulative reading of the statements of both the witnesses has persuaded us to believe that they are tutored witnesses and their presence at the place of occurrence is not free from doubt. 19. 18. As regards PW-2 Bhanwarlal and PW-3 Prakash child witnesses, their statements are projecting parrot-like version and therefore, not inspiring confidence. A cumulative reading of the statements of both the witnesses has persuaded us to believe that they are tutored witnesses and their presence at the place of occurrence is not free from doubt. 19. Another witness PW-16 Smt. Vidhya has also not shown presence of PW-9 Babulal at the scene of occurrence and previous enmity between deceased and accused respondents. Although in her examination-in-chief she has shown involvement of the accused respondents in commission of offence but during cross-examination has completely faltered. Her deposition during cross-examination if properly construed then there remains no room of doubt that she was not present when the alleged offence was committed by the accused respondents. The relevant excerpts of statements of PW-16 during cross-examination reads as under :- ^^?kVuk ds le; eSa ?kj esa jksVh ugha cuk jgh Fkh] cfYd cSBh FkhA eSa o esjh tsBkuh lkFk lkFk ckgj vk;s FksA eSa ckgj igqWaph rc ogkWa dksbZ ugha FkkA ;g lgh gS fd esjk tsB ckcqMk uhps fxjk gqvk FkkA** 20. Presence of PW-1 Babali, PW-2 Bhanwarlal, PW-3 Prakash and PW-16 when crime was committed by the accused respondents can also be doubted for their abject silence at the relevant point of time and recording of police statements of all of them after five days. Being wife, sons and close relative of the deceased, their inaction to thwart attacks/beatings of the accused persons in order to save his (deceased's) life is unthinkable. All of them remained silent spectators despite their presence, per se does not satisfy the test of normal human behaviour in such situations. Thus, unhesitatingly we are of the opinion that their evidence is not worth reliance to bring home guilt against the accused respondents and findings of the learned Trial Court in this behalf is based on sound appreciation of evidence. 21. Well it is true that testimony of an interested witness/closely related cannot be discarded out rightly if the witness is natural ocular witness but then if there is material contradiction in his statements and some serious doubts about presence of the witness at the scene of occurrence, it is unsafe to rely on such testimony to bring home guilt against the accused persons. The endeavour of the Court is to carefully scrutinize and appreciate the evidence of the closely related witness before making any conclusion, rests upon it for recording conviction of an accused in a given case. When credibility and trustworthiness of the witness is under cloud, it is obviously not desirable to place reliance upon it. A threadbare examination of the impugned judgment in scrutinizing the evidence of PW-1 Babali, PW-2 Bhanwarlal, PW-3 Prakash and PW-16 Vidhya makes it amply clear that the learned Trial Court while discarding their evidence has applied the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence in appreciation of evidence of a closely related/interested witness. Thus, the finding of the learned Trial Court, in this behalf, cannot be faulted. 22. That witnesses PW-5 Gongaram, PW-6 Talsaram and PW-10 Mangilal have also turned hostile is yet another set back to the prosecution case. Even motbir of recovery PW-8 Mega has also turned hostile and completely denied that any site plan was prepared in his presence or recovery of weapon of offence was made in his presence The testimony of PW-8 motbir has rendered recovery of weapon of offence upon information of accused persons vulnerable. Frequent misuse of Section 27 of the Evidence Act by police is a cause of grave concern. Courts while dealing with such situations cannot give assent for circumvention of this provision by police to turn an ordinary recovery into discovery in order to utilise provisions of Section 27. 23. Now, it would be appropriate to make scrutiny of medical evidence. PW-12 Dr. Devraj Parmar, member of the medical board which conducted autopsy of dead body of deceased has shown two head injuries on the body of deceased, viz. (1) Haematoma 2-1/2 cm x 2 cm corresponding to external injury of right side skull. (2) A big haematoma size 10 cm x 10 cm on left parietal region with subdural and extradural haemorrhage. The opinion of the medical board is that deceased Babulal son of Gheesaji has died from coma as a result of ante mortem head injuries. During his cross-examination, the witness has candidly admit that first injury can occur if someone falls by head on a hard surface. As regards second injury which in the opinion of the medical board was a fatal internal injury, the witness PW-12 has admit that it cannot be caused without an external injury. During his cross-examination, the witness has candidly admit that first injury can occur if someone falls by head on a hard surface. As regards second injury which in the opinion of the medical board was a fatal internal injury, the witness PW-12 has admit that it cannot be caused without an external injury. The doctor while reiterating in his deposition that such internal injury cannot be cause without there being any external injury further testifies that there was no visible sign of external injury on the person of the deceased. In his opinion, there was only one external injury on the head of deceased. The relevant excerpt of the cross-examination of PW-12 reads as under :- ^^;g lgh gS fd pksV la[;k 1 o 2 tks ih&19 esa of.kZr gS] mlesa vfLFk Hkax ugha gSA mDr 'kksd pksV la[;k 1 dh otg ls mRiUu gqvk FkkA pksV la[;k 1 ls dksbZ vfLFk Hkax ugha gqvk Fkk] ;g pksV ckgj ls lk/kkj.k FkhA pksV la[;k nks lk/kkj.k ,czstu gSA ;fn dksbZ O;fDr lj ds cy dBksj LFkku ij fxj rks pksV la[;k 1 vk ldrh gSA pksV la[;k 1 ih&19 esa tks crk;h x;h gS ftlds vUn:uh pksV la[;k 1 gsekVksek crk;k x;k gS bl gsekVksek esa dksbZ Hkh lcMwjy ;k ,DlVjk Mwjy gsejst ugha FkkA ih0&19 esa vkarfjd pksV la[;k 2 crk;k gS tks cM+k vkdkj dk gsekVksek 10 ls0eh0 vkdkj dk crk;k x;k gS bl pksV ds ckgj dksbZ Hkh pksV ugha ikbZ xbZ FkhA vkarfjd pksV la[;k 2 ds fy, ckgjh pksV dk vkuk Hkh vko';d gS] fQj dgk d izkbZfeyh ckgjh pksV gksuh pkfg;sA exj izFke pksV ds bEisDV ls nwljh pksV vkrh gS ml ifjfLFkfr esa ckgjh pksV vkuk t:jh ugha gSA bl izdj.k esa e`rd ds flj ij ckgjh ,d gh pksV FkhA** 24. Therefore, medical evidence if harmoniously construed with other alleged available incriminating evidence, then too, we are afraid, it is not possible to record a finding of guilt against the accused respondents. 25. Therefore, medical evidence if harmoniously construed with other alleged available incriminating evidence, then too, we are afraid, it is not possible to record a finding of guilt against the accused respondents. 25. The lack of motive for commission of offence by the accused respondents also deserves due credence in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case wherein while concurring with the findings and conclusions of the learned Trial Court, we have discarded the evidence of alleged eyewitness PW-9 Babulal as well as prosecution witnesses PW-1 Babali, PW-2 Bhanwarlal and PW-3 Prakash besides PW 16 Vidhya Absence of motive for commission of offence by the accused respondents and not prosecuting Bagdaram are some of the relevant factors which in the opinion of this Court have rightly persuaded the learned Trial Court to record its finding favouring the accused respondents. 26. In totality, the entire prosecution evidence is insufficient to bring home guilt against the accused respondents for commission of offences. The learned Trial Court, in the considered opinion of this Court has made sincere endeavour to appreciate the evidence available on record in right perspective to record its finding that prosecution has failed to prove accusation beyond all reasonable doubts. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not a magic phrase which cannot be defined in criminal jurisprudence. A reasonable doubt means something real, apparent, substantial or a doubt founded upon reasons which may not satisfy the test of proof on the touchstone of normal prudence. 27. Thus, unhesitatingly, we are in agreement with the learned Trial Court and find no infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment whereby learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused respondents by extending benefit of doubt. The upshot of the above discussion is that instant appeal lacks in merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed.