JUDGMENT Ahluwalia, J. Badri Lal s/o Ram Pratap, Ramlal s/o Girdhari Lal and Rajulal s/o Keshri Lal were tried by the Court of Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Baran. The said court vide impugned judgment dated 18.12.2010 held that the appellants on 4.4.2009 at 3.00 PM with common intention in Town Sarthal committed murder of Kalyan Bheel with lethal weapons Kulhadi, Gandasi and Lathi respectively and thereby committed offence of murder. The trial court vide impugned judgment dated 18.12.2010 held the appellants guilty of offence under Section 302/34 IPC. However, the trial court acquitted the appellants of offence under Section 3(2)(v), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Having convicted the appellants for offence under Section 302/34 IPC, the trial court sentenced them as under:- “U/s. 302/34 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment each.” 2. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the present appeal to challenge their conviction and sentence. 3. A coordinate Bench on 7.5.2015 had directed the Registry to prepare the paper-book and list the appeal of the appellants out of turn. 4. On 21.11.2014 another Division Bench of this court of which one of us (Hon. K.S. Ahluwalia, J.) was a Member, on receipt of communication from accused Badri Lal had directed the Legal Services Authority to provide a counsel from the panel of lawyers maintained by the Legal Services Authority. Today, before us, Shri Amarjeet Singh Narang has caused appearance for Badri Lal and Shri Santosh Kumar Jain for Ramlal and Rajulal appellants. 5. Digvijay Singh (P.W.20) deposed in court that on 4.4.2009 he was posted as SHO, Police Station Harnavda Shahji. He had visited Community Health Canter, Chhipa Barod where Devilal (P.W.1) had presented a written report (Ex.P.1) before him on the basis of which a formal FIR (Ex.P.31) bearing FIR No.44/09 was registered at Police Station Harnavda Shahji for offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 IPC. It will be apposite here to reproduce the true translation of the written report (Ex.P.1) on the basis of which criminal proceedings were set into motion, as under:- “To, The SHO Saheb, Police Station Harnavda Shahji. Sub.: For lodging of the report. Sir, It is submitted that the occurrence pertains to 3.00 PM today. It will be apposite here to reproduce the true translation of the written report (Ex.P.1) on the basis of which criminal proceedings were set into motion, as under:- “To, The SHO Saheb, Police Station Harnavda Shahji. Sub.: For lodging of the report. Sir, It is submitted that the occurrence pertains to 3.00 PM today. My son Kalyan Bheel had gone from the house to Kachhi Mohallah to buy grocery items from the shop. After sometime, I heard loud cries. I heard noise of causing injuries. I went to Kachhi Mohallah. In front of shop of Jagannath, I saw my son Kalyan in the pool of blood. There Ramlal, Ram Chandra, Raju Mali and Badri Lal s/o Pratap Keer and 3-4 other persons resident of Sarthal were causing injuries to my son. On seeing me, they ran from the spot. They were armed with Lathi, Gandasi and Kulhadi (Axe). At the spot my wife Champa Bai, Ramniwas s/o Kajod Bheel r/o Sarthal and Amar Singh s/o Dhana Singh caste Bheel r/o Naya Gaon, P.S. Chhipa Barod were also present. They had seen the occurrence. Keeping an old grudge, these persons have given beating to my son with intention to cause murder. He has received serious injuries on his person. I had brought my son in an injured condition in the hospital for treatment at Chhipa Barod. My son died there. Report is presented for taking action. R.T.I. Applicant, Devilal s/o Kalu Lal caste Bheel, aged 60 years, r/o Sarthal.” 6. A perusal of the above FIR reveals that the complainant had named Ramlal, Ram Chandra, Raju Mali and Badri Lal as accused along with 3-4 other persons. Besides himself, he had cited his wife Champa Bai, Ram Niwas and Amar Singh as eye-witnesses. In the written report (Ex.P.1) he has further submitted that the occurrence had taken place in front of shop of Jagannath. Thus, case of the prosecution rests upon the testimony of Devilal (P.W.1) complainant, Amar Singh (P.W.2), Ram Niwas (P.W.3), Jagannath (P.W.4) and Champa Bai (P.W.10) who have been cited as eye-witnesses. Besides the testimony of above eye-witnesses, during trial, prosecution also examined Kishan Lal (P.W.5) as another eye-witness. Kishan Lal (P.W.5) was introduced as eye-witness by the complainant Devilal (P.W.1) in his testimony in the court. Prosecution to secure conviction of the appellants, has examined twenty-one witnesses. Besides the testimony of above eye-witnesses, during trial, prosecution also examined Kishan Lal (P.W.5) as another eye-witness. Kishan Lal (P.W.5) was introduced as eye-witness by the complainant Devilal (P.W.1) in his testimony in the court. Prosecution to secure conviction of the appellants, has examined twenty-one witnesses. Thereafter statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No witness has been examined in defence. Prosecution has also proved on record documents (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.36). Defence has relied upon the statement of Hukum Chand recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit-D.1. 7. Dr. Mahesh Bhutani (P.W.17) being a member of Medical Board on 4.4.2009 along with Dr. Purushottam Meena (P.W.18) and Dr. Sampatraj Nagar had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ramkalyan. In post-mortem report (Ex.P.21), the Medical Board had noted twelve injuries. Since it is an admitted fact that deceased Ramkalyan had died due to violence and the injuries caused, we need not notice the injuries noticed in the postmortem report (Ex.P.21). Suffice it to say, as per opinion of the Medical Board, cause of death was shock due to massive hemorrhage due to multiple injuries caused. 8. We also need not notice testimony of various witnesses who had witnessed the recovery of weapons, arrest of the accused or had participated in the investigation as in the present case, prosecution case rests upon the testimony of eye-witnesses as it is a case of direct evidence. 9. Devilal (P.W.1) in court stated that on the Dashmi of Chaitra month, at about 3.00 PM he was present at the well. People were running here and there. They informed him that his son Kalyan had been murdered. On this he reached at Kachhiyo Ka Mohallah," yksx Hkkx jgs FksA mUgksaus dgk rsjk dY;k.k dks dkV fn;k gS rks eSa dkNh;ksa ds ekgYys esa igqapkA " The witness further stated that the occurrence had taken place in front of shop of Jagannath Kachhi. The witness stated that Badri Lal was armed with Kulhadi, Ramlal was armed with Gandasi and others were armed with Lathis. The witness further stated that the occurrence was witnessed by Jagannath (P.W.4) and Kishan Lal (P.W.5). In cross-examination, the witness admitted that his house was at a distance of 1½-2 Km. from the spot. 10. It is apparent to us that the witness Devilal (P.W.1) had rushed at the spot when the occurrence had already taken place. The witness further stated that the occurrence was witnessed by Jagannath (P.W.4) and Kishan Lal (P.W.5). In cross-examination, the witness admitted that his house was at a distance of 1½-2 Km. from the spot. 10. It is apparent to us that the witness Devilal (P.W.1) had rushed at the spot when the occurrence had already taken place. In the written report (Ex.P.1) the witness had named his wife Champa Bai (P.W.10), nephew (Bhanja) Amar Singh (P.W.2) and grandson Ram Niwas (P.W.3) as eye-witnesses. 11. Champa Bai mother of the deceased and wife of the complainant Devilal (P.W.1) has appeared as P.W.10 and stated that 10-11 months ago she was present at the well. Nobody caused injuries to her son Kalyan in her presence. She had not seen anyone causing injuries. She stated that she was in the fields. The exact words of the witness are as under:- " djhc 10&11 eghus igys dh ckr gS eSa dq,a ij Fkh esjk yM+dk dY;k.k dh esjs lkeus dksbZ ekjihV ugha dhA fdlus ekjihV dh eSaus ugha ns[kkA eSa rks [ksr ij FkhA " 12. This witness was declared hostile to the prosecution as she re-siled from her previous statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the police. It is evident that in the present case the complainant had introduced his wife as an eye-witness and she has not supported him. 13. Amar Singh (P.W.2) is nephew of complainant Devilal (P.W.1). The witness in examination-in-chief admitted that Devilal (P.W.1) is his 'Mama' (maternal uncle). Amar Singh (P.W.2) stated that on the day of occurrence, for grinding of wheat, he had gone to Sarthal there Kalyan met him and they had gone at the tea shop to have tea. When they were taking tea at about 3.00 PM the accused came there. Badri Lal was armed with Kulhadi and others including Ramlal and Suresh were armed with Lathi. The witness stated that immediately on arrival accused started assaulting the deceased. Amar Singh (P.W.2) is resident of Nayapura. In cross-examination this witness admitted to be correct that when his maternal uncle Devilal (P.W.1) was taking Kalyan in a Car for going towards Chhipa Barod for treatment, he met him on the way near his village and Devilal (P.W.1) had taken him also in the Car to Chhipa Barod. Amar Singh (P.W.2) is resident of Nayapura. In cross-examination this witness admitted to be correct that when his maternal uncle Devilal (P.W.1) was taking Kalyan in a Car for going towards Chhipa Barod for treatment, he met him on the way near his village and Devilal (P.W.1) had taken him also in the Car to Chhipa Barod. It will be pertinent to reproduce following portion of cross-examination of the witness:- " ;g ckr lgh gS fd nsohyky esjk ekek dY;k.k dks dkj esa ysdj tc NhikcM+kSn tk jgs Fks rks jkLrs esa esjs xkao ds ikl eSa fey x;k rks eq>s Hkh NhikcM+kSnk ys x;s FksA " 14. The witness further admitted to be correct that the police had not asked anything to him about the occurrence. The statement made by him in court was not narrated by him to the police. The witness further admitted to be correct that he had not told the police that Badri Lal was armed with Kulhadi and others were armed with Lathis and they had caused injuries to Kalyan. The witness admitted to be correct that Devilal (P.W.1) told him later that he has introduced him as an eye-witness and on his asking he has appeared as witness to give statement in the court. We will reproduce the following part of cross-examination of Amar Singh (P.W.2) as under:- " ;g ckr lgh gS fd bl ?kVuk ds ckjs esa iqfyl us eq>ls dksbZ iwNrkN ugha djhA ;g ckr Hkh lgh gS fd vkt bl U;k;ky; esa tks c;ku fn;s gSa ,sls c;ku iqfyl esa ugha fn;sA ;g ckr Hkh lgh gS fd cnzhyky ds ikl dqYgkM+h o ckdh ds ikl ykBh o dY;k.k ds lkFk ekjihV dh ckr iqfyl dks ugha crk;h ;g ckr Hkh lgh gS fd ckn esa nsohyky crk;k Fkk fd eSaus rsjk uke Hkh xokgh esa fy[kk fn;k gSA ;g ckr Hkh lgh gS fd muds dgus ij gh eSa xokg nsus vk;k gwWaA " From a perusal of the statement of Amar Singh (P.W.2) it is apparent that Devilal (P.W.1) took away Amar Singh from his village while he was taking his injured son Kalyan for treatment to the hospital at Chhipa Barod. Amar Singh (P.W.2) had also admitted that his maternal uncle had told him that he has introduced him as an eye-witness and on his asking he had appeared in the Witness Box. Amar Singh (P.W.2) had also admitted that his maternal uncle had told him that he has introduced him as an eye-witness and on his asking he had appeared in the Witness Box. Thus Devilal (P.W.1) not only introduced his wife Champa Bai (P.W.10) as eye-witness but has also introduced his nephew Amar Singh (P.W.2) as eye-witness to the occurrence. 15. Ram Niwas aged 13 years was examined as P.W.3 by the prosecution. He is grandson of Devilal (P.W.1). Ram Niwas (P.W.3) stated in court that the deceased was his uncle. This witness is a child witness. This witness in cross-examination admitted that whatever has been stated by him in the court in examination-in-chief he had remembered the same. Devilal (P.W.1) is his grandfather and whatever he has deposed in court has been tutored to him by his grandfather. The witness in the court in cross-examination has stated as under:- " ;g ckr lgh gS fd tks vkt eSaus ckrsa crk;h eSaus ;kn dj j[kh FkhA nsohyky th esjs nknkth gSaA ;g ckr lgh gS fd vkt dh ckr nsohyky th us Hkh crk;h FkhA " 16. The witness stated that the facts about the occurrence were narrated to him by his grandfather after 2-3 days of the occurrence. The witness has stated that he was not present at the spot. The witness stated, " ekjihV djus okyh HkhM+ esa ns[kus eSa ugha FkkA " Thus, Ram Niwas (P.W.3) is also not an eye-witness to the occurrence. 17. Devilal (P.W.1), as stated earlier, introduced his wife Champa Bai (P.W.10), nephew Amar Singh (P.W.2) and grandson Ram Niwas (P.W.3) as eye-witnesses and they had not supported the prosecution case. In these circumstances, we cannot place implicit reliance upon the testimony of Devilal (P.W.1). Devilal (P.W.1) in written report (Ex.P.1) has specifically stated that injuries were caused to his son because of an old grudge nursed by the accused. Thus, he has admitted inimical relations. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that Devilal (P.W.1) is a witness from the tainted source and the court has to be circumspect to rely upon the testimony of a witness who has inimical relations with the accused, has falsely introduced three witnesses, especially when it cannot be ruled out that the witness reached at the spot after the occurrence. Therefore, the testimony of Devilal (P.W.1) is not free from blemish. The matter does came to end here. Therefore, the testimony of Devilal (P.W.1) is not free from blemish. The matter does came to end here. 18. Jagannath (P.W.4) stepped into the Witness Box as an eye-witness. He has deposed in the court that no occurrence had taken place in his presence. This witness also re-siled from his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police. 19. Kishan Lal (P.W.5) also stated that on the day of occurrence he was present at the well in the fields and he is not aware as to who caused injuries to Kalyan deceased. Thus, Kishan Lal (P.W.5) has also not supported the prosecution case. 20. In the present case, four eye-witnesses including two independent eye-witnesses Jagannath (P.W.4) and Kishan Lal (P.W.5) have not supported the prosecution case. They had feigned their ignorance regarding the commission of offence. 21. Champa Bai (P.W.10) mother of the deceased and wife of the complainant has turned hostile to the prosecution. As stated earlier, Amar Singh (P.W.2) and Ram Niwas (P.W.3) have admitted that they were introduced by Devilal (P.W.1) as an eye-witness in the court. Ram Niwas (P.W.3) admitted to be a tutored witness. 22. Taking totality of circumstances, we disbelieve the testimony of Devilal (P.W.1) as he is an interested witness. 23. As a result of above discussion, we allow the present appeal and acquit the accused-appellants Badri Lal, Ramlal and Rajulal of the charge framed against them and set aside their conviction recorded by the trial court and sentence awarded upon them. 24. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C, the accused-appellants, namely Badri Lal, Ramlal and Rajulal, are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond each in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond each in the like amount, before the trial court. The bonds so furnished shall be effective for a period of six months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Apex Court.