JUDGMENT : Swapna Joshi, J. The appellants/original accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 have preferred Appeals bearing Criminal Appeal Nos. 340/2013, 305/2013 and 312/2013 respectively, against the judgment and order dated 2nd May 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 76/2011. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to suffer R.I. for three months, whereas the Appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 352/2013 has been preferred by the widow of the deceased-Vivek Shende against the same judgment and order by which the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara has acquitted the appellants/original accused Nos. 1 to 3 u/ss.143, 147, 148, 149 and 201 of the IPC; and further acquitted the original accused no.4-Nitin Tembhekar and original accused no. 5-Amit Sarware for offence punishable u/ss. 143, 147, 148, 149 r/ws. 302; 302 r/ws. 149 and 201 r/ws. 149 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that, the complainant-Abhijit Tejram Rehpade was working in Ordnance Factory, Bhandara. His father has four sisters. Out of them one sister, namely, Mirabai Selokar is residing at Khamtalao, Bhandara and younger sister, namely, Smt. Mangalabai Nanaji Shende is residing at Sahakarnagar. Bhandara. Smt. Mangalabai Shende is having two sons, namely, Vivek and Santosh. Vivek Shende (deceased) was residing at Bhandara. He was in the habit of consuming liquor and used to visit D.M.Bar. On 26.7.2011 at about 6.30 a.m, the daughter-in-law of Mangalabai, namely, Shweta Sudhir Selokar made a call on mobile phone of mother of Vivek and informed that Vivek is lying on Khat road near Khokarla village. Just fifteen minutes thereafter, Abhay Selokar, contacted on telephone and informed to the mother of Vivek that somebody had killed Vivek and thrown him on the road. Thereafter Ajay Selokar and his mother went to Khat road and saw Vivek lying in a pool of blood. There were injuries on his legs, hands, head and other parts of the body. On making enquiry with the wife of deceased-Vivek, the complainant came to know that Vivek had left his house on 25.7.2011 at about 5.30 p.m. on his Hero Honda Splendour motorcycle and he did not return home. 3. There were injuries on his legs, hands, head and other parts of the body. On making enquiry with the wife of deceased-Vivek, the complainant came to know that Vivek had left his house on 25.7.2011 at about 5.30 p.m. on his Hero Honda Splendour motorcycle and he did not return home. 3. The complainant then lodged oral report (Exh.110) which was reduced into writing at LCB Police Station, Bhandara. On the basis of complaint an offence was registered vide Crime No. 339/2011. The printed FIR is at Exh. 202. 4. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that on 25.7.2011 at about 7.30p.m. Vivek (deceased) went to D.M. Bar to consume liquor. The appellant/accused no.1-Dinesh Meshram who is the owner of the said Bar, demanded money from Vivek. On that count, there were altercations between them, which resulted into scuffle. Dinesh Meshram (appellant/accused no.1) called Umesh Nagdive (appellant/accused no.2) who was the Watchman. They both assaulted Vivek by means of fist-blows and kicks. Vivek was then taken inside the Bar from the counter of the Bar and then was assaulted by Dinesh(appellant/accused no.1) and Ghanshyam (appellant/accused no.3) by means of iron pipes (art.12 and art.21 respectively) and by Ghanshyam, by means of handle of spade (art. 24). 5. On registration of the offence, PSI Abdul Rauf Mohammad Umar Sheikh (PW 29), proceeded to the spot and prepared the spot panchnama in the presence of Panchas (Exh. 130). He also prepared the Inquest panchnama of the dead body of the deceased (Exh. 155). He seized blood mixed earth and simple earth from the spot under panchnama (Exh. 130). He then seized the clothes of the deceased viz. full pant, sando banian and belt under seizure panchnama (Exh. 183). He seized one full pant and Tshirt from the same constable, under seizure panchama (Exh.132). PSI Abdul Rauf Mohammad (PW 29) recorded the statement of Dadi Mishra (PW 17). PSI Abdul Rauf then arrested the appellant/accused no.1 Dinesh Meshram, appellant no.2-Umesh Nagdive and appellant/accused no.3-Ghanshyam Bhatmonge, on 27.7.2011. PSI Abdul Rauf recorded the voluntary statement of appellant/accused no.1-Dinesh Meshram vide memorandum panchnama-Exh. 159. Thereafter PSI Abdul Rauf proceeded to the spot along with panchas and prepared separate panchnama of curtains (Exh. 161). PSI Abdul Rauf then arrested the appellant/accused no.1 Dinesh Meshram, appellant no.2-Umesh Nagdive and appellant/accused no.3-Ghanshyam Bhatmonge, on 27.7.2011. PSI Abdul Rauf recorded the voluntary statement of appellant/accused no.1-Dinesh Meshram vide memorandum panchnama-Exh. 159. Thereafter PSI Abdul Rauf proceeded to the spot along with panchas and prepared separate panchnama of curtains (Exh. 161). PSI, then, recorded the voluntary statement of appellant/accused No.1-Dinesh Meshram and prepared memorandum panchnama (Exh.162) and accordingly seized the iron pipe (article 12) produced by the appellant/accused No.1-Dinesh under seizure panchnama Exh.163. PSI Abdul Rauf recorded the voluntary statement of Umesh Nagdive (appellant/accused no.2) under memorandum Panchnama (Exh. 164) and seized the clothes produced by him under seizure Panchnama Exh. 165. 6. PSI Abdul Rauf recorded the confessional statement of accused no.4-Nitin Tembhekar vide Exh.168 and seized the clothes produced by him under seizure panchnama Exh.169. PSI Abdul Rauf recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.5-Amit Sarware vide memorandum panchnama (Exh. 170) and seized the clothes produced by him under seizure panchnama (Exh. 171). PSI Abdul Rauf recorded the voluntary statement of Ghanshyam (appellant/accused No.3) vide memorandum panchnama (Exh. 172) and seized one iron pipe (art. 21) and clothes produced by the accused under seizure panchnama (Exh.173). During the course of investigation, PSI Abdul Rauf recorded the statements of various witnesses. He also recorded the voluntary statement of appellant no.2-Umesh Nagdive vide memorandum panchnama (Exh.186) and seized wooden log (danda-art. 24) from nullah in front of D.M. Bar vide seizure panchama-Exh.187. 7. PSI Abdul Raif (PW 29) received PM report on 8.8.2011. He sent two iron pipes and wooden danda to the Hospital for its examination vide requisition letter Exh. 205. On 9.8.2011 PSI Abdul Rauf sent the seized clothes to Chemical Analyser for its examination. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhandara. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned JMFC Bhandara. 8. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused persons. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. Their defence was that of total denial and false implication. 9. After going through the evidence adduced and hearing both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants Nos. 1 to 3 as stated above in paragraph no.1. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. Their defence was that of total denial and false implication. 9. After going through the evidence adduced and hearing both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants Nos. 1 to 3 as stated above in paragraph no.1. Hence the above-referred three Appeals are preferred by the appellants against the conviction and sentence. Since the accused Nos. 4 and 5 were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Criminal Appeal No 325/2013 has been preferred by the widow of the deceased. Since the points involved in all the Appeals are common, they are heard and decided together. 10. Mr. Shashank Manohar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 340/2013 vehemently argued that the prosecution case rests on got up and planted witnesses and even the statements of the alleged eye witnesses are recorded at the belated stage, though the witnesses were available to the prosecution. Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the depositions of such witnesses. He further submitted that PW 3-Rajesh Padole, who is alleged to be an eye witness to the incident, his presence is not established beyond reasonable doubt; even no other witnesses have stated the name of this witness. According to him, PW 3- Rajesh Padole and PW 4-Ajay Neware were known to each other. However, neither PW 3 had shown the presence of PW 4 nor PW 4 had shown the presence of PW 3 in the Bar where the alleged incident had taken place and, therefore, it can be safely concluded that they are the got up witnesses and they were closely associated with the deceased and, as such, no reliance can be placed on such witnesses. He further contended that even the testimony of these two witnesses is full of material omissions and contradictions. On that count also, their testimony should be disbelieved. Mr. Manohar, learned counsel further submitted that the panch witness also appears to be a got up witness and a habitual Panch who has deposed in the Court in more than 38 cases. Furthermore, a plethora of cases are pending against him and, therefore, there is no point in believing such a Panch witness. Mr. Mr. Manohar, learned counsel further submitted that the panch witness also appears to be a got up witness and a habitual Panch who has deposed in the Court in more than 38 cases. Furthermore, a plethora of cases are pending against him and, therefore, there is no point in believing such a Panch witness. Mr. Manohar further pointed out that there is scoring in the post-mortem report and the main scoring is with regard to the name of the deceased whose autopsy was conducted. He submits that PW 9-Dr.Ratnakar Bandebuche, who allegedly conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased, is not a truthful witness and no reliance can be placed on his testimony. According to Mr. Manohar, the entire case of the prosecution is under the shadow of doubt. 11. S/Shri R.M. Daga/S.P. Gadling, learned counsel for appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 305/2013 and 312/2013 have adopted the same arguments of Mr. Manohar. 12. Per contra, Mr. S.M. Ghodeswar, the learned A.P.P. urged that the testimony of eye witness PW-4 has been believed by the learned Judge of the trial Court and there are no material discrepancies in his testimony. He further submitted that no weightage can be given to the minor discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. According to him, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants. 13. Mr. N.S. Khandewale, learned counsel for the appellant Sadhya in Criminal Appeal No.352/2013 contended that accused Nos. 4 and 5 are wrongly acquitted by the learned trial Judge and they are also involved in the alleged offence which cannot be overlooked. 14. We have heard both the sides and given anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and carefully scrutinised and scanned the entire evidence on record, with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the leaned Additional Public Prosecutor. 15. Admittedly, the prosecution case mainly hinges on the ocular testimony of PW 3-Rajesh Padole, PW 4- Ajay Neware, PW 6-Dr. Dinesh Kuthe and deposition of PW 9-Dr.Ratnakar Bandebuche. It is well-settled principle of law that the minor discrepancies do not cast any suspicion on the testimony of the witnesses so far as their presence on the spot is concerned. 15. Admittedly, the prosecution case mainly hinges on the ocular testimony of PW 3-Rajesh Padole, PW 4- Ajay Neware, PW 6-Dr. Dinesh Kuthe and deposition of PW 9-Dr.Ratnakar Bandebuche. It is well-settled principle of law that the minor discrepancies do not cast any suspicion on the testimony of the witnesses so far as their presence on the spot is concerned. It is also settled principle of law that the contradictions are not to be considered significant enough, to affect the credibility of the witnesses which is otherwise corroborated and minor inconsistencies discrepancies do not demolish the entire prosecution case, if it is otherwise found to be credit-worthy. Similarly, it is also settled principle that the panch witness is not to be disbelieved, only because he has deposed in many cases. However, the antecedents of the witnesses are to be certainly observed. At the same time, a close scrutiny of their evidence is to be done. 16. In the light of above-said principles, we have scrutinised the evidence of the witnesses PW 3, PW 4, PW6 and PW9. 17. As far as the testimony of PW 3 is concerned, according to PW 3- Rajesh Padole the incident took place on 25.07.2011. At about 7.00 p.m. he went to D.M. Bar for consuming liquor. He consumed the liquor at the counter at about 7.30 p.m. Vivek Shende (deceased) had come there. He also consumed liquor at the counter. He took liquor from the counter. He sat there for consuming liquor. Thereafter when Vivek was going out, the owner of the Bar (appellant No.1-Dinesh Meshram) demanded money from him and on that count there were altercation between the appellant-Dinesh and Vivek. Dinesh was abusing Vivek and, therefore, there was a dispute which is altered into a scuffle. Thereafter, Dinesh called Umesh Nagdive who was the Watchman. Then they both started beating Vivek. They took him inside the Bar. According to PW 3, till he consumed liquor in the Bar, Vivek did not come back. Thereafter he left the D.M.Bar. PW 3 stated that on the next day he came to know that one dead body is lying near Khokarla village by the side of the road. He went to the spot and saw the injuries on the legs and hands of the deceased. 18. Thereafter he left the D.M.Bar. PW 3 stated that on the next day he came to know that one dead body is lying near Khokarla village by the side of the road. He went to the spot and saw the injuries on the legs and hands of the deceased. 18. During the cross-examination, PW 3-Rajesh admitted that when he had gone to the spot where the dead body was lying, 4 to 5 persons as well as police personnel were present at the spot. He states that his statement was recorded three days after the incident i.e. on 29.7.2011. PW 3 further admitted that till 29.7.2011 he did not disclose the incident to the police. One step ahead, he further admitted that as he was not knowing regarding the incident, he did not state anything to the police till 29.7.2011. The above-said version of PW 3 clearly indicates that PW 3 was not aware about the incident till 29.7.2011 and, therefore, he did not narrate it before the police. So also, it is surprising that although PW 3 allegedly saw appellant-Dinesh and appellant-Umesh assaulting Vivek, he did not try to save him. Neither he report about the incident to the police nor he disclose the incident to any one else in the locality till 29.7.2011, which is nothing but an unnatural conduct on the part of PW 3. 19. Interestingly, a case for offence punishable under section 324 r/ws. 34 is pending against the said witness, as reflected in Exh. 271. Thus, the testimony of PW 3 cannot be relied upon. 20. The prosecution further placed reliance upon the testimony of PW 4-Ajay Neware. According to Ajay, the incident took place on 25.7.2011. He was in the D.M. Bar. At about 7.30 p.m. he had gone there for consuming liquor. At that time, he saw the appellant-Umesh Nagdive dragging Vivek. The appellant Dinesh was beating Vivek on his legs by kick and fist blows. Thereafter Vivek was taken inside the D.M. Bar. After consuming liquor within 10 to 15 minutes, Vivek did not return. Therefore, PW 4 went on terrace. He saw the appellant-Dinesh and appellant - Ghanshyam Bhotmange assaulting Vivek by means of iron pipe. The appellant-Ghanshyam was assaulting Vivek by means of handle of spade. The two servants were also beating Vivek. Blood was oozing from the hands as well as body of Vivek. Therefore, PW 4 went on terrace. He saw the appellant-Dinesh and appellant - Ghanshyam Bhotmange assaulting Vivek by means of iron pipe. The appellant-Ghanshyam was assaulting Vivek by means of handle of spade. The two servants were also beating Vivek. Blood was oozing from the hands as well as body of Vivek. According to PW 4, he got frightened and, therefore, he left that place. PW 4 identified handle of spade (art.24) and iron pipes (art. 12 and art. 21 respectively) in the Court. Significantly, no identity of the servants is proved by the prosecution through PW 3. 21. In the cross-examination, PW 4-Ajay stated that his statement was recorded by the police on 29.7.2011. Certain discrepancies were pointed out in his testimony. PW 4 stated that he had stated before the police that he sat at the Bar for 10 to 15 minutes for consuming liquor but Vivek did not return and as Vivek did not return within 10 to 15 minutes, he went on terrace. The said version of PW 4 is an improvement and it goes to the root of the case and creates a serious doubt about PW 4 going to the terrace and watching the incident of assault on Vivek. PW 4 further stated before the police that appellant-Ghanshyam was assaulting by means of handle of spade. However, the said version does not find place in his statement before the police. Thus, recording the statement of PW 4, that too three days after the incident, creates a serious doubt about the credibility of testimony of this witness. It is not clear as to why PW 4 kept mum for three days and did not report the police about the incident. It is also not clear as to why PW 4 has not tried to save Vivek when he was allegedly assaulted by appellants and did not disclose the incident to anybody in the vicinity. The presence of PW 3 and PW 4 at the place of the incident itself becomes doubtful. Significantly, PW 4 denied that criminal cases are pending against him under section 324 of the IPC. However, the crime record produced by the prosecution at Exh. 271 reveals that as many as three cases were pending against the said witness for offence punishable u/s 324 r/ws. 34 IPC. Significantly, PW 4 denied that criminal cases are pending against him under section 324 of the IPC. However, the crime record produced by the prosecution at Exh. 271 reveals that as many as three cases were pending against the said witness for offence punishable u/s 324 r/ws. 34 IPC. Thus, the close scrutiny of the testimony of PW 3 and PW 4 who are having criminal antecedents, does not inspire confidence and they do not appear to be reliable and trustworthy witnesses. 22. In the case of Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another v. State of Maharashtra, ( AIR 1979 SC 135 ), Their Lordships have observed thus :- "Delay of a few hours, simpliciter, in recording the statements of eye witnesses may not, by itself, amount to a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. But it may assume such a character if there are concomitant circumstances to suggest that the investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eye witnesses to be introduced. Thus, under the facts and circumstances of the case delay in recording the statements of the material witnesses, casts a cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the entire warp of the prosecution story." The aforesaid case-law is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. There is no explanation as to why it took four days after the incident to record the statement of these alleged eye witnesses. 23. That takes us to the testimony of PW6-Dr. Dinesh Kuthe. PW 6 stated that he is serving as a Medical Officer at General Hospital, Bhandara. He is also running his own Clinic at Bhandara. According to him, on 25.7.2011 at about 11.30 p.m, he received a phone call from his compounder that a patient had come in the hospital. Therefore within two minutes, he reached the Hospital from his house. Two compounders were on duty on that day, by name, S/Shri Sandip Chaudhari and Sandip Kamade. They informed that the patient is in critical condition and therefore he immediately rushed to the hospital. On examination, he saw that the patient was in serious condition and he was breathing his last, inasmuch as his pulse was feeble. The patient was brought by 4 to 5 persons in the hospital. They informed that the patient is in critical condition and therefore he immediately rushed to the hospital. On examination, he saw that the patient was in serious condition and he was breathing his last, inasmuch as his pulse was feeble. The patient was brought by 4 to 5 persons in the hospital. Significantly, PW 6 stated that he does not know the names of those persons. PW 6, however, identified the appellant Dinesh Meshram who was the present in the Court. He failed to identify the other accused persons. PW 6 stated that they informed him that the injured met with an accident. There were injuries on the legs of the patient. According to PW 6, considering the condition of the injured patient, he advised them to take the injured to the General hospital as he did not have adequate facilities in his Clinic. Therefore, they all left the clinic along with the patient. 24. During the cross-examination, PW 6-Dr.Kuthe denied that he had stated before the police that one Dinesh Chaudhari had come with the patient to his hospital. There appears to be a glaring discrepancy in the name of the person who accompanied the deceased and who was, according to PW 6, the appellant Dinesh Meshram. PW6 admitted that he used to examine 200 to 250 patients daily at the General Hospital as well as in his private Clinic. In these circumstances, it is surprising that PW 6 identified the appellant-Dinesh directly in the Court. Significantly, no identification parade in respect of appellant-Dinesh was conducted by the police. It is also not the case of PW-6 that he identified the appellant-Dinesh, as he was acquainted with him. Thus, the identity of appellant-Dinesh in the testimony of PW-6 is not established beyond reasonable doubt. Significantly, the prosecution failed to examine the compounders of Dr. Kuthe (PW 6) namely, Sandip Kamade and Sandip Chaudhari although they were cited as witness nos. 15 and 16 by the prosecution. Even the prosecution has failed to examine the wife of the deceased namely, Sandhya, who was also cited as witness No.18. Hence, adverse inference can be drawn against the case of prosecution. 25. As regards the medical evidence, the prosecution further heavily relied upon the testimony of PW 9-Medical Officer Dr. Ratnakar Bandebuche, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Vivek. Hence, adverse inference can be drawn against the case of prosecution. 25. As regards the medical evidence, the prosecution further heavily relied upon the testimony of PW 9-Medical Officer Dr. Ratnakar Bandebuche, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Vivek. PW 9 deposed that on 26th July, 2011 at about 11.30 a.m. he received the dead body of Vivek. He started the post-mortem examination at 12.00 noon and ended it at about 1.00 p.m. He found the following injuries on the dead body of Vivek :- "(1) Lacerated wound over central skull of size 7.5 cm x 2 cm., (2) Two abrasions over left supra orbital each of 2 x 1 cm, (3) Contusion over right lower chest of size 6x 4 cm with blurred margin, (4) Contusion over right chest below Nipple of size 7 x 1 cm with blurred margin, (5) Contusion medial to fourth one, 3 x 5 cm., (6) Contusion over left forearm with blurred margin approximately ¾ of left forearm involved, (7) Contusion over left arm, 3 x 5 cm. (8) 2 punched out regions circular in nature on left arm deep bone seen each of 1.0 cm diameter, (A) 6 cm above elbow and (B) 10cm above elbow. (9) Abrasion over right elbow, 1.1 cm, (10) Abrasion with swelling 2 in number over middle forearm each of 2 x 1 cm, (11) 2 punched out region circular in nature deep bone seen (a) in right elbow 1 cm diameter and (b) above 6 cm above right elbow of size 1.5 cm diameter. (12) Contusion below right shoulder 6 x 2.5 cm., (13) 3 abrasions over left back and lumber region each of approximately 3 x 2 cm. (14) Contusion with superficial scratch over right waist region 5 x 1.5 cm. (15) Abrasion over right knee region of size 3 x 3 cm. (16) 4 punched out regions in which 2 were circular and two were oval on right lower leg, each of 1 to 1.5 cm diameter from upper one region muscle tissues seen outside, floor was reddish coloured with contusion around the side, (17) Four punched out regions over left lower leg circular in nature and deep, 2 in lower one third and 2 in upper one third diameter approximately one cm each, floor was reddish coloured contusion around the lesion side. On opening the skin below the wounds Petechiae Haemorrhages seen, (18) Fracture right elbow involving upper one third of right radius Ulna, (19) Fracture left lower leg one third, (20) Fracture left upper one third of leg; (21) Fracture right lower leg. On palpation closed compound fracture and free mobility was present. On opening haematoma was present over end of fractured bones. Blood infiltrating in sub-cutaneous tissue and muscle deep." PW 9-Dr. Ratnakar Bandebuche prepared the PM report Exh. 177. He found the corresponding following internal injuries:- ("1) Brain matter and meninges was edimetus and pale, (2) On opening the thorax skin, Petechiae Haemorrhages under the injuries was seen. Fourth and fifth ribs were fractured over right side, 3 cm lateral to sternum rib injunction. 500 Ml. of blood accumulated in right plural cavity. (3) Right lung haematoma approximately covering 6 x4 cm area in lower pole region and lateral side prominently. Blood infiltrating around the site. (4) Heart was intact. On cut section right ventricle contains minimal blood. All organs like liver, pancreas, spleen and Kidneys were intact, light pink in colour and on cut section I found pale Parenchyma." 26. According to PW 9, the cause of death was due to Haemorrhagic shock as a result of poly-trauma caused by hard and blunt object. 27. During cross-examination, PW 9 admitted that he did not give any opinion regarding the age of the injury. He failed to mention whether the injuries were fresh injuries or not. PW 9 did not find any peculiar smell including poison and alcohol. Significantly, the prosecution case rests on the footing that deceased Vivek had gone to the Bar, he consumed liquor and thereafter the alleged incident took place. In these circumstances, it was expected that the stomach content would smell alcohol. Since there was no alcohol smell and there was also scoring as regards the name of the deceased on whom the post-mortem was conducted, it is doubtful whether autopsy was conducted on Vivek. It is significant to note that there was scoring at many places in the PM report as regards the name of the deceased on whom the post-mortem is conducted as well as the injuries on the dead body. According to PW 9, PM report was sent to the concerned Police Station on 26th July 2011. It is significant to note that there was scoring at many places in the PM report as regards the name of the deceased on whom the post-mortem is conducted as well as the injuries on the dead body. According to PW 9, PM report was sent to the concerned Police Station on 26th July 2011. Interestingly, however, the endorsement appearing on PM report indicates that the Police Station had received the PM report on 4.8.2011. Similarly the outward number of the Office of PW-9 shows the date as 5/8/11 which indicates that PM report was dispatched from the office of PW 9 again on 5.8.2011 which was received by the Police Station on 8.8.2011. PW 9, however, denied that on 4.8.2011 he scored out some portion in the PM report and made some interpolations. He admitted that the PM report shows something is scored out and something is inserted later on. Significantly, PW 9 admitted that the name of the deceased written earlier was scored out and the scoring out is in different ink and signature of PW 9 is in different ink. The above-said facts create grave suspicion as regard the dead body on whom the autopsy was conducted, in the context that there were a total of 22 external injuries and four internal injuries on the dead body on whom the post-mortem was conducted, there is no clear evidence as regards the fact that how many injuries were inflicted on Vivek. Thus, the entire case of the prosecution appears to be doubtful and the testimony of the Medical Officer is not found to be trustworthy. 28. On the point of recovery of articles, the prosecution heavily relied upon the testimony of PW 8-Shekhar Gabhane who is the panch witness on various panchnamas. The panchnamas are of spot panchnama as the place shown by appellant-Dinesh (Exh.160); seizure panchnama of clothes of the appellant Dinesh which were found at the place of the incident (Exh.161). PW 8 testified that, appellant-Dinesh made a voluntary statement about the place where he had kept the iron rod which was allegedly used in the offence (Exh.162). The appellant-Dinesh produced the iron rod from the staircase. It was taken charge and panchnama was prepared (Exh. 163) in the presence of panchas. PW 8 testified that, appellant-Dinesh made a voluntary statement about the place where he had kept the iron rod which was allegedly used in the offence (Exh.162). The appellant-Dinesh produced the iron rod from the staircase. It was taken charge and panchnama was prepared (Exh. 163) in the presence of panchas. The appellant-Dinesh again reported the place of the incident where they made enquiry with appellant-Umesh Nagdive who produced his clothes, volunteered that he would point out the place where he had kept his clothes in one room. The panchanama was drawn prepared accordingly (Exh.164). Appellant-Umesh Nagdeve took out one pant and one dress, seizure Panchama was prepared vide Exh.165 (Articles 13, 14 and 19 respectively). Again the police made enquiries about his clothes. Appellant Dinesh Meshram made voluntary statement that he would produce his clothes. Accordingly memorandum panchnama was prepared (Exh.166). The police party then went to the house of appellant-Dinesh which is situated at the back side of D.M. Bar. Appellant-Dinesh produced one pant and one T-shirt from his house. Seizure panchnama was prepared vide Exh.167 (art. 15 and 16 respectively). Again they came back to the police station. Again, one of the accused made a voluntary statement and showed his willingness to point out where he had kept the clothes. The memorandum Panchnama is at Exh. 168. The said accused produced one sando banian and one pant from the room situated from the upper portion of D.M. Bar. The panchnama was prepared at Exh.169. Again one of the accused made voluntary statement about his clothes (Exh.170). Again the police party went to D.M. Bar took charge of the clothes (Exh.171). The appellant-Ganshyam made voluntary statement with regard to the place at which he had kept the iron pipe as well as his clothes (Exh.172). He produced the clothes as well as iron pipe vide seizure panchanama (Exh. 173). In the cross-examination PW 8 stated that he went to the Police Station at about 4 to 4.30 p.m. panchanama had commenced at about 5.30 p.m. He however stated that he does not understand the timings mentioned in the panchnama as there is a mention of 24 hours prior to 4.00 p.m. 29. On careful scrutiny of the testimony of PW 8 it is noticed that there is hardly difference of 5 to 10 minutes within each and every panchnama. On careful scrutiny of the testimony of PW 8 it is noticed that there is hardly difference of 5 to 10 minutes within each and every panchnama. It is very difficult to digest that the accused, Panchas and police party ran from one place to another place i.e. from D.M.Bar and Police Station and Police Station to D.M. Bar within five minutes, again, accused makes a voluntary statement and produces the clothes and the weapons. PW 8 appears to be a brought up and habitual witness. Although PW 8 denied that he acted as Panch in 40 to 50 cases, significantly, it has come on record that PW 8 had acted as a panch witness in as many as 46 cases in 2011 and in 31 cases in 2012 (Exh.270). It appears that PW 8 has no respect for truth and cannot be said to be reliable witness. The way in which panchnamas were prepared and considering the time-gap, it appears that all the panchnamas were prepared at the Police Station. Thus, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW 8. 30. It may be mentioned here that witnesses PW 7-Umesh Thakre, PW 16-Ishwar Sonkusare, PW 17-Anand @ Dadi Navin Mishra, PW 23-Yogesh Damahe, PW 24-Yuvraj Bhoyar and PW 25-Dilip Walde, have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The investigation appears to be shoddy. No doubt, the C.A. Report reveals blood of the deceased on the iron pipe allegedly recovered at the instance of appellant/accused, however, as discussed above, the recovery of articles itself is doubtful. Hence the C.A. report is of no assistance to the prosecution. 31. Thus, on careful scrutiny of the entire case, it appears that the case put forth by the prosecution is doubtful. The F.I.R. does not disclose the names of the appellants/accused. Although PW 3 and PW 4 claim to be eye witnesses, they failed to disclose the incident to anyone in the vicinity or to the police, although they were knowing the deceased as well as the appellants/accused. The aforesaid fact creates a serious doubt whether they had ever witnessed the incident. The alleged eyewitnesses are not found to be trustworthy and reliable witnesses. Moreover, their statements were recorded three days after the incident. The PM report shows erasers at various places including the name of the deceased. PW 9-Dr. The aforesaid fact creates a serious doubt whether they had ever witnessed the incident. The alleged eyewitnesses are not found to be trustworthy and reliable witnesses. Moreover, their statements were recorded three days after the incident. The PM report shows erasers at various places including the name of the deceased. PW 9-Dr. Bandebuche did not find peculiar smell of alcohol in the viscera of the deceased, although it is a specific case of prosecution that Vivek consumed liquor in D.M. Bar, prior to the incident. PW-9 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Vivek on 26.07.2011. Police received the PM report on 4.8.2011. Again, outward number of office of PW-9 is dated 5.8.2011 which indicates the PM report was sent by PW 9 to Police twice. There is a scoring of name of the deceased in a different ink and the signature of PW 9 is in different ink. It appears that the PM report was sent by police to PW 9 for correction in the name of deceased on 4.8.2011 itself. It is thus doubtful whether the PM report was that of deceased Vivek or some other person. As regards the testimony of PW 6-Dr.Dinesh Kuthe is concerned, the identity of appellant/accused-Dinesh is not proved by the prosecution. Though it is not the case of PW 6 that he was knowing the appellant/accused. Furthermore, an identification parade is not conducted by the police to establish his identity. The presence of appellants/accused in the Clinic of PW-6 is not confirmed by the Investigating agency, particularly when about 200 to 250 patients used to visit the hospital of PW-6 daily. 32. As regards the panch witnesses on the point of seizure of weapons and clothes and timings of all the panchnamas if compared, it could be seen that it is not humanly possible to record all the panchnamas within a short span of time. Thus, the seizure of clothes of accused and weapons allegedly used in the offence is not proved by the prosecution. 33. Thus, the entire case of the prosecution is under the shadow of doubt and, therefore, the appellants/ori.accused nos. 1 to 3 deserve acquittal. As regards the original accused nos. 4 and 5-Nitin Tembhekar and Amit Sarware are concerned, there is absolutely no iota of evidence against them to involve them in the present crime. They are not named by any of the alleged eye witnesses. 1 to 3 deserve acquittal. As regards the original accused nos. 4 and 5-Nitin Tembhekar and Amit Sarware are concerned, there is absolutely no iota of evidence against them to involve them in the present crime. They are not named by any of the alleged eye witnesses. Their Appeal therefore fails. Hence the following order :- ORDER Criminal Appeal Nos. 340/2013, 305/2012 and 312/2013 are allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara dated 2.5.2013 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The amount of fine, if any paid, be returned to the appellants. Criminal Appeal No. 352/2013 filed by the complainant is dismissed. Appeal allowed.