JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. In this Cr. appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan under Section 378 Cr.P.C. the appellant State of Rajasthan is challenging the validity of the judgment dated 16.11.1992 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case NO.77/1992 by which the learned trial court acquitted all the respondents from the charge levelled against them under Section 302 a n 302 and 302/34 IPC. 2. As per brief facts of the case, PW - 5 Vijay Singh lodged a complaint (Ex.P/6) on 18.3.1992 at 11.45 pm at Police Station Dechu alleging therein that on 18.3.1992 at about 9.30 am his brother Sumer Singh after taking dinner went to the agricultural field of Ugam Singh to work as Farmer but after leaving from the home, the complainant heard hue and cry then he and his brother PW - 4 Megh Singh rushed to the place known as Bheelon Ki Dhani from where noise of quarrel comes. When they reached at place of occurrence near Dhani of Deva Ram, Sumer Singh was lying and blood was coming out from his head due to the injuries. At that time, respondents Ramu Ram and Kishna Ram were causing injuries by Lathi and at that time, Smt. Nijara wife of Ramu Ram came with Lathi and joined to beat Sumer Singh. As per allegations of complainant, the respondents gave beatings to witness Megh Singh also and due to the injuries caused to him Megh Singh received injury upon ear. 3. As per complainant after incident injured Sumer Singh was taken to the MG Hospital, Jodhpur where he was admitted for treatment. The police registered FIR (Ex.P/19) under Section 147, 148, 149 and 323 IPC and commenced investigation. During investigation, Sumer Singh died on 29.3.1992, therefore, police added offence under Section 302/34 IPC and commenced investigation. 4. In the investigation, site plan of place of occurrence (Ex.P/1) was prepared. After inspection, the cloths of the deceased were taken into custody on 28.3.1992 (Ex.P/5) which deceased was wearing at the time of occurrence. After the death of Sumer Singh, respondents were arrested and on the basis of information given by respondent Smt. Nijara one Lathi was recovered vide Ex.P/7 in front of two witnesses Amb Singh and Balwant Singh. After inspection, the cloths of the deceased were taken into custody on 28.3.1992 (Ex.P/5) which deceased was wearing at the time of occurrence. After the death of Sumer Singh, respondents were arrested and on the basis of information given by respondent Smt. Nijara one Lathi was recovered vide Ex.P/7 in front of two witnesses Amb Singh and Balwant Singh. Similarly, upon information given by respondent Kishna Ram one Lathi was recovered vide Ex.P/8 and another Lathi was recovered as per information given by respondent Ramu Ram vide Ex.P/0 after their arrest on 30.3.1992. 5. During investigation, when deceased Sumer Singh died then his post mortem was conducted on 29.3.1992 and report Ex.P/18 was given by the medical jurist of MG Hospital in which opinion was given that deceased died due to injury no. 1 caused upon left parital temporal region of the scalp. 6. In the investigation, statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, challan was filed in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur from where case was committed for trial to the court of District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. 7. The learned trial court after taking into consideration evidence of prosecution framed charge under Section 302 IPC against respondent Smt. Nijara against whom specific allegation was levelled by the prosecution witnesses for inflicting head injury and against respondent Ramu Ram and Kishna Ram charge under Section 302/34 IPC. After framing charge, the prosecution was granted an opportunity to lead evidence. In the trial statements of 12 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 24 documents were exhibited from prosecution side. 8. After recording evidence of prosecution, the statements of respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied all the charges levelled against them and in defence three witnesses namely DW-1 Anopa Ram, DW-2 Chotha Ram and DW-3 Kirta Ram were produced before the learned trial court. 9. The learned trial court after recording evidence of prosecution and defence finally heard the case and vide judgment dated 16.11.1992 acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them. 10. In this appeal, the State of Rajasthan is challenging the validity of above judgment passed by the learned trial court. 11. 9. The learned trial court after recording evidence of prosecution and defence finally heard the case and vide judgment dated 16.11.1992 acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them. 10. In this appeal, the State of Rajasthan is challenging the validity of above judgment passed by the learned trial court. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the judgment impugned is contrary to law and facts because the finding given by the learned trial court suffers from gross error of law, therefore the judgment impugned is not sustainable in law. While inviting attention towards statement of prosecution witnesses it is submitted that out of 12 prosecution witnesses, author of the FIR PW - 5 Vijay Singh, PW - 4 Megh Singh and PW - 3 Pep Singh were the eye witnesses of the incident, but the learned trial court disbelieved their testimony illegally in spite of the fact that they made specific allegation against the respondents for inflicting injuries to the deceased as well as the witness PW - 4 Megh Singh, therefore, the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court suffers from patent illegality. 12. As per learned Public Prosecutor prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for alleged offence of murder but while giving erroneous finding the trial court acquitted the respondent, therefore, the judgment impugned may be quashed. 13. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that on the date of incident deceased asked the respondents not to sing vulgar songs of Holi but respondents did not care and make quarrel with deceased, therefore, it is obvious that due to said enmity they caused injuries to the deceased Sumer Singh and due to those injuries he died but learned trial court erroneously disbelieved the testimony of eye witnesses, therefore, finding of the trial court in the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 14. The learned Public Prosecutor further argued that learned trial court has failed to appreciate the medical evidence in right perspective and come to the wrong conclusion on the basis of some contradiction in between the medical examination and statement of doctor, but in fact, from the statement of doctor and eye witnesses all the three respondents are guilty of causing injuries to deceased Sumer Singh and due to the injuries caused by the respondents he died. According to the learned Public Prosecutor it is a case in which prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned trial court erroneously acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them for committing murder of deceased Sumer Singh. 15. Lastly, it is argued that finding of acquittal is based upon wrong conclusion and minor contradiction which is possible in the statement, therefore, only for that reason the witnesses cannot be disbelieved, therefore the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed and respondents may be convicted for alleged offence of murder. 16. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that all the witnesses are planted witnesses because they belongs to same community, so also, they are close relatives. The learned trial court assessed the credibility of these witnesses and after assessing their evidentiary value of the statement of these witnesses gave clear cut finding that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, it cannot be said that any error has been committed by the learned trial court. 17. While inviting attention towards the statement of eye witnesses it is submitted that all the witnesses stated before the court that respondents inflicted number of injuries by Lathi, but such statement is totally wrong because if 3 persons inflict number of injuries by Lathi then obviously those injuries must be found upon the body of the deceased, but here in this case as per injury report, 4 injuries were found upon the body of the deceased, out of which 2 were contusions and as per the challan papers the main allegation was against respondent Smt. Nijara, therefore, charge under Section 302 IPC was farmed against her. In the trial all the eye witnesses stated before the court that head injury was not caused by Smt. Nijara and made specific allegation against two other respondents for inflicting head injury. Meaning thereby, the learned trial court rightly arrived at with the finding that prosecution story is based upon the testimony of planted witnesses. As per the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents no error has been committed by the learned trial court in acquitting the respondents on the basis of major contradiction. 18. Meaning thereby, the learned trial court rightly arrived at with the finding that prosecution story is based upon the testimony of planted witnesses. As per the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents no error has been committed by the learned trial court in acquitting the respondents on the basis of major contradiction. 18. While inviting attention towards the injury report (Ex.P/24) prepared soon after the occurrence when Sumer Singh was taken to the hospital in injured condition, it is submitted that only four injuries are mentioned in the injury report (Ex.p/24) out of which 2 were abrasions. Meaning thereby, a fabricated story was concocted by the prosecution and learned trial court while assessing the credibility and reliabilit liability of the witnesses gave finding that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the finding of acquittal given by the learned trial court does not suffer from any illegality. Therefore, this appeal may be dismissed. 19. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we have perused the entire evidence. 20. The witness PW - 1 Ugam Singh is the witness before whom the place of occurrence was inspected by the police. PW- 2 Bhanwar Singh is also the witness before whom the police inspected the site and prepared site plan. PW - 3 Pep Singh is the witness who have stated before the court that on the date of incident at about 9-9.30 pm the persons of Bheel community were singing songs, at that time, after having noise went on spot and saw that respondents Ramu Ram and Kishna Ram were inflicted injury upon chick and wife of Ramu Ram inflicted injury upon chin and other part of body due to those injuries Sumer Singh fell down. The said witness PW - 3 Pep Singh stated that when he reached on spot Megh Singh and Vijay Singh and Balwant Singh already reached on spot. In the cross-examination stated by him that his "Dhani" is 1 km far away from the place of occurrence and at the time of occurrence he was in his Dhani at that time, heard noise of quarrel. In the cross-examination this witness said that due to disease of asthma he is not in a position to run and if I wish to reach to Bheelon Ki Dhani from his Dhani then at least half an hour can be consumed. In the cross-examination this witness said that due to disease of asthma he is not in a position to run and if I wish to reach to Bheelon Ki Dhani from his Dhani then at least half an hour can be consumed. The learned trial court after considering statement of Pep Singh as a whole gave finding that the statement of this witness is not trustworthy. 21. PW-4 Megh Singh stated before the court that on the date of incident at about 9.30 pm when Sumer Singh was going towards the well at that time, some persons of Bheel community were signing songs of festival Holi at that time, a quarrel took place in between his brother Sumer Singh and respondents and due to the noise heard by him of quarrel went to on spot, thereafter, Vijay Singh, Balwant and Pep Singh reached on spot. It is stated by him that when he reached upon place of occurrence, all the three respondents having Lathi in their hands and were causing injuries of the deceased Sumer Singh. It is specifically said by this witness that Ramu Ram inflicted injury to Sumer Singh and due to said injury he fell down, thereafter, his wife inflicted injury upon chin, at that time he intervened but respondent Kishna Ram inflicted injury upon his hand. The quarrel took place for the reason that persons of accused party were singing vulgar songs and objection was raised by deceased Sumer Singh. In the cross-examination it is stated by this witness that at the time of occurrence he was not called by Sumer Singh so also it was possible to se e to see the occurrence from his Dhani. I went on spot only after hearing noise of quarrel. The said witness accepted in his statement that all the respondents caused number of injuries to the deceased. He has specifically stated that ^^ekjihV djhc 5&10 feuV pyh FkhA vfHk;qDrx.k us fdruh fdruh pksaVsa lqesjflag dks ekjh] ;g eSaus fxuh ughaA ;s yksx vU/kk/kqU/k ekj jgs FksA** 22. We have perused the post mortem report and injury report in which four injuries were found soon after the occurrence out of which 2 injuries were abrasions. The witness PW - 12 Dr. Vijay Kumar Mahlotra stated before the court that injury no. 1 can be caused if any person fell down upon pointed stone. We have perused the post mortem report and injury report in which four injuries were found soon after the occurrence out of which 2 injuries were abrasions. The witness PW - 12 Dr. Vijay Kumar Mahlotra stated before the court that injury no. 1 can be caused if any person fell down upon pointed stone. In the post mortem report cause of death was head injury for which at that time of filing challan a specific allegation was levelled against respondent Smt. Nijara that the said injury was caused by her and these injuries were caused by two other accused persons. Meaning thereby, it is a case in which the witness improved their statements, therefore, the learned trial court after assessing the evidence gave finding that these witnesses are planted witnesses. 23. We have perused the statement of medical jurist PW-10 Dr. NS Kothari. The said witness stated that post mortem was conducted by him, at that time of post mortem, 5 injuries were found upon the body of the deceased out of which injuries nos. 3 and 4 were abrasions and for head injury it is stated that the said injury can be caused if any person fell down. Meaning thereby, the PW - 10 Dr. NS Kothari and PW - 12 Dr. Dr. V.K. Mahlotra stated before the court that only 2 specific injuries were found upon the body of the deceased and all the witnesses belongs to one community and they are close relatives, therefore, gave false statement in the court that number of injuries were caused by the respondents, but the learned trial court after assessing evidentiary value held that eye witness are planted by the prosecution. 24. We have considered the important fact that against respondent Ramu Ram and Kishna Ram charge under Section 302/34 IPC was framed whereas against Smt. Nijara charge under Section 302 IPC was framed by the learned trial court but upon perusal of statement of all the witnesses it is obvious that none of the witness alleged that head injury was caused by Smt. Nijara whereas in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. all prosecution witnesses stated before the court that head injury was caused by respondent Smt. Nijara. 25. 25. In view of the above, it is a case in which the learned trial court has minutely considered the entire evidence and held that prosecution witnesses are not trustworthy witnesses because they are all close relatives, so also, no independent witness is produced by the prosecution to prove its case. Therefore, it is a case in which prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt therefore. 26. The finding given by the learned trial court does not suffer from any illegality. More so, it is a case in which prosecution led evidence of interested and planted witnesses which is evident from the fact that there are major contradiction in their statements. 27. In view of the above discussion, the instant Cr. appeal filed by the State against the judgment dated 16.11.1992 passed by the Sessions Judge Jodhpur is hereby dismissed.