JUDGMENT : A.S. Chandurkar, J. 1. The appellants, who are eight in number, have challenged their conviction in Sessions Trial No. 47 of 2012 vide Judgment dated 26th March, 2015 of offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147 to 149 of the Indian Penal Code [for short “the Code”]. They have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000-00 each for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Further sentence is to suffer rigorous imprisonment for periods ranging from six months to two years for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 148 of the Code. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10th November, 2011, the complainant – Vijaysingh Chavan along with his brother – Ajay alias Ketu was proceeding by a motorcycle near the grocery shop of one Raju Jaiswal. At that time, Raju Gupta - Accused No.1 had asked Ketu to stop the vehicle and after abusing him, had struck him with a sharp edged weapon near his neck and cheek. Other accused nos. 2 to 8 assaulted him with various weapons on his entire person, as a result of which, Ketu sustained bleeding injuries. The complainant rushed to his house and returned with his brother – Shailesh and a relative – Santosh. They took Ketu to the hospital, but he was declared dead. A report thereafter came to be lodged leading to registration of the crime. After completion of the investigations, the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The appellants did not plead guilty and hence were tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the appellants came to be convicted in the manner stated herein above. Being aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed. 3. Shri Anil Mardikar, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2015, and Shri R.M. Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 2015, challenged the conviction of the appellants on various counts. It was submitted that the version of PW 1 – Vijay Chavan was full of various inconsistencies which rendered his version improbable. His deposition indicated conduct which was not possible, especially when his brother was the victim. It was submitted that the version of PW 1 – Vijay Chavan was full of various inconsistencies which rendered his version improbable. His deposition indicated conduct which was not possible, especially when his brother was the victim. The alleged assault was stated to have taken place at about 7.00 p.m. in the month of November when it was already dark. There was nothing on record to indicate that there was sufficient light available for PW 1 to identify the accused. There was considerable delay in lodging the report, inasmuch as Ketu was immediately shifted to the hospital which they had reached within twenty-twenty-five minutes of the assault. Despite that the report came to be lodged at 10.30 p.m., which, in the present facts, was quite delayed. Moreover, the police station was very near to the Government Hospital. It was then urged that though the clothes of said witness as well as the motorcycle had blood stains, the said material was not seized by the police. It was then submitted that the seizure effected by the Investigating Officer of the clothes of the accused was almost after two days from their arrest. The incriminating weapons were not sealed when they were forwarded to the forensic laboratory. Referring to the deposition of other witnesses, it was submitted that their version did not corroborate the version of PW 1 nor did it support the case of the prosecution. It was, therefore, submitted that the learned Judge of the Sessions Court was not justified in basing the conviction of the appellants on such material which did not prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. In support of their submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of Honourable Supreme Court in [1] State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja Singh & others [ (2001) 3 SCC 147 ], and [2] State of Punjab Vs. Harbans Singh [ (2003) 11 SCC 203 ], and judgments of this Court in [a] Kailash Raghunath Ambekar & another Vs. State of Maharashtra [2004 AllMR(Cri) 3257], [b] Kiran Ashok Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra [2014 AllMR(Cri) 3850], [c] Suryabhan Dattu Kharat & others Vs. State of Maharashtra [2016 AllMR (Cri) 3785] and judgment dated 28th August, 2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 172/2013 with connected appeals. 4. Ms. N.P. Mehta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, supported the judgment of the Sessions Court. State of Maharashtra [2014 AllMR(Cri) 3850], [c] Suryabhan Dattu Kharat & others Vs. State of Maharashtra [2016 AllMR (Cri) 3785] and judgment dated 28th August, 2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 172/2013 with connected appeals. 4. Ms. N.P. Mehta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, supported the judgment of the Sessions Court. It was submitted that PW 1 being an eye-witness to the assault inflicted by the appellants on Ketu, his version was rightly accepted by the Sessions Court. Nothing substantial had been extracted during his crossexamination so as to render his deposition doubtful. The motive for the attack on Ketu was also brought on record and on the basis of seizure of the incriminating weapons at the instance of the appellants, the charge had been brought home. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased that were evident from the Post-mortem Report, it was clear that these injuries were inflicted by the weapons seized at the instance of the appellants. It was, therefore, submitted that no case was made out to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in [1] Manjit Singh & another Vs. State of Punjab & another [ (2013) 12 SCC 746 ], [2] Harpal Singh Vs Devinder Singh & another [ AIR 1997 SC 2914 ], and [3] Bhajan Singh alias Harbhajan Singh & Others Vs. State of Haryana [ AIR 2011 SC 2552 ] in support of her submissions. 5. We have heard the respective Counsel for the parties at length and with their assistance, we have gone through the records of the case. The homicidal death of Ketu is not in dispute and as per the Post-mortem Report [Exh.90], the cause of death was on account of shock and haemorrhage due to various incise wounds with head injury and stab injury. 6. The case of the prosecution rests principally on the deposition of PW – Vijay Chavan – Exh.44 who has stated to have witnessed the assault on Ketu at the instance of the appellants. This witness has stated that on the previous day of the incident, namely on 9th November, 2011 at about 8.30 p.m., there was a quarrel between Ketu and accused no.1 – Raju Gupta. This witness has stated that on the previous day of the incident, namely on 9th November, 2011 at about 8.30 p.m., there was a quarrel between Ketu and accused no.1 – Raju Gupta. At that point of time, this witness had asked Ketu not to quarrel and had told him to return back home. It is then stated that on 10th November, 2011 at about 7.00 p.m. when Vijay and Ketu were at home, Ketu received a phone call from Raju Gupta. This fact was narrated by Ketu to their aunt – Vidya, after which, both the brothers went near the shop of Raju Jaiswal. At that point of time, Accused No.1 – Raju Gupta stopped Ketu and after abusing him, assaulted him with a “Farsha” - a sharp edged weapon. The other accused also assaulted him with weapons, such as iron pipe, knife, axe and “Farsha”. The said witness immediately ran home and narrated the incident to his relatives and came back along with Shailesh Chavan and Santosh Chavan. The three of them then took Ketu to the Govt. Hospital and the doctor declared him dead. In his cross-examination on the aforesaid aspects, this witness has stated that immediately after the assault, within twenty–twenty-five minutes, they reached the Govt. Hospital along with Ketu. He admitted that after the doctor examined Ketu, he declared him dead within five minutes and that this witness was at the hospital for about half an hour. He has then stated that the police were present when he went to the Govt. Hospital and though one policeman had come there at the hospital, he did not tell him as to how the incident occurred. He admitted that Yavatmal Rural Police Station was behind the Govt. Hospital, which can be reached within half an hour or fifteen minutes by a vehicle. The oral report at Exh.45 is given at 10.30 p.m., after which the First Information Report at Exh.46 is lodged also at 10.30 p.m. When said report was lodged, the relatives of the said witness, namely Rajesh, Shailesh and Santosh were present. However, the statement of Santosh Chavan – PW 9 has been recorded on 12th December, 2011, which is almost more than one month after the lodging of report. It can, thus, be seen that though the brother of PW 1, Ketu, was immediately taken to the Govt. However, the statement of Santosh Chavan – PW 9 has been recorded on 12th December, 2011, which is almost more than one month after the lodging of report. It can, thus, be seen that though the brother of PW 1, Ketu, was immediately taken to the Govt. Hospital within half an hour from 7.15 p.m. when the assault took place and he was declared dead immediately, the oral report and First Information Report at Exhs. 45 and 46 have been lodged at 10.30 p.m. The post-mortem report at Exh.90 indicates the time of death as 8.50 p.m. Though the police personnel were present at the Hospital, they were not informed about the assault. The delay in lodging the oral report in these facts would be a relevant factor that cannot be ignored. 7. Further, according to PW 1 – Vijay, while removing Ketu to the hospital, his clothes as well as the motorcycle were stained with blood. He, however, admitted in his cross-examination that neither were his clothes seized by the police nor was the motorcycle also seized. The Investigating Officer – PW 12 admitted in his cross- examination that though it was revealed during investigation that the clothes of PW 1 and other relatives had blood stains, these clothes were not seized. This witness further admitted in the cross-examination that if a quarrel took place near the shop of Raju Jaiswal, the noise thereof could be heard in adjoining houses. Though in his Examination-in-Chief, this witness has mentioned names of persons residing in the vicinity, statements of such persons have not been shown to support the case of the prosecution. PW 1 further admitted that initially on 10th November, 2011 and 11th November, 2011, his statement was recorded and that whatever was left to be stated on these two days, was stated by him in his third statement dated 17th November, 2011. If the factor of delay of almost two hours in lodging the first report along with absence of the blood-stained clothes of PW 1 being collected is taken into consideration, there arises a doubt about the presence of this witness on the spot. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Teja Singh & others as well as Harbans Singh [supra] on the aspect of delayed report and absence of blood-stained clothes being collected support the case of the appellants in this regard. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Teja Singh & others as well as Harbans Singh [supra] on the aspect of delayed report and absence of blood-stained clothes being collected support the case of the appellants in this regard. In view of these facts, the ratio of the decisions in Manjit Singh, Harpal Singh and Bhajan Singh [supra] cannot be made applicable. Moreover, as PW 1 happens to be the brother of the deceased, it would be necessary to consider whether the other material on record corroborates his version. 8. The appellants were arrested on 11th November, 2011 and 12th November, 2011. The Investigating Officer in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that the names of the accused had been mentioned in the oral report itself and hence on the same night, he had visited the houses of the accused. At that time, he had searched the house premises of each accused; but he had not found any article connected with the crime inside their houses. It is material to note that the incriminating weapons have been seized on memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, from the houses of the accused thereafter. One weapon each is shown to have been seized from the house of accused nos. 1 and 2 from below the cot at their house, while another weapon was seized from the kitchen in the house of accused no.8. These seizures were effected on 13th November, 2011. On the same day, one weapon was seized from the corner of the kitchen of the house of accused no.8. On the next day, weapons were seized from the houses of accused nos. 6 and 7 and thereafter on 15th November, 2011, further weapons were seized from the houses of accused nos. 3 to 5. It can, thus, be seen that on three consecutive days, the weapons came to be seized. The material on record indicates that the accused were taken together while effecting seizures which fact is admitted by the Panch witness – PW 4 in his cross-examination. He has also admitted that the doors of the houses visited by them were open and they were not locked. PW 12, the Investigating Officer, has stated that he did not verify any documents pertaining to the title of the houses. He has also admitted that the doors of the houses visited by them were open and they were not locked. PW 12, the Investigating Officer, has stated that he did not verify any documents pertaining to the title of the houses. It, therefore, cannot be said that the aforesaid seizures were effected from places that were within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. 9. In so far as clothes of the accused are concerned, the Investigating Officer – PW 12 has admitted that the clothes were seized from the accused after they were in custody for almost twenty-four hours to forty-eight hours. The relatives of the accused were asked to get alternate clothes and after the clothes were seized from their person, they were given alternate clothes. According to the prosecution, the clothes of the accused had blood stains and were, therefore, sent for chemical analysis. If the clothes were bloodstained, nothing prevented the Investing Officer from seizing the same immediately after the arrest of the accused. Moreover, PW 3 – Panch witness at Exh.55 in his cross-examination stated that in the Police Station, five to six pants and five-six shirts were kept collected on one table, after which this witness was told that all the clothes were of the accused persons and a report was prepared thereafter. This admission also renders the seizure of the clothes unreliable. 10. It is also material to note that when the seized weapons were sent for forensic examination along with a letter at Exh.91, PW 10 admitted that there was no mention about these weapons being sealed when they were being sent for such examination. Even the document at Exh.91 does not mention sealing of such weapons. The observations of the Division Bench in Kailash Raghunath Ambekar and Kiran Ashok Jadhav [supra] that in such eventuality, the possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out apply to the facts of the present case. 11. The statement of PW 8 – Umesh Chavan was recorded on 9th December, 2011, while that of PW 9 – Santosh Chavan, who was present when Ketu was taken to the hospital, was recorded only on 12th December, 2011. 11. The statement of PW 8 – Umesh Chavan was recorded on 9th December, 2011, while that of PW 9 – Santosh Chavan, who was present when Ketu was taken to the hospital, was recorded only on 12th December, 2011. This witness admitted in his cross-examination that prior to said date, he had not given any statement to the police, though he had accompanied PW 1 – Vijay for lodging the report and thereafter for almost three-four days, there was police force at the village. The statement of Vidya Chavan, PW 7, in whose presence Ketu had received the phone call from Accused No.1 – Raju Gupta, has been recorded on the next day of the incident. She also admitted that the facts not told to the police in the earlier statement were then narrated in the subsequent statement recorded on 17th November, 2011. The seizure of the incriminating weapons as well as the clothes of the accused is not shown to have been effected in a fair manner. If the version of PW 1 who is the star witness for the prosecution is rendered doubtful, then there is no other material on record for sustaining the conviction. The Investigating Officer – PW 12 in his cross-examination admitted that he had inquired about the incident with the people from the locality, but as their statements were negative, they were not placed on record. Thus, the material on record is not such that inspires confidence for sustaining the order of conviction. Hence, it is found that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants are, therefore, entitled for being acquitted. 12. In the result, the following order is passed:- ORDER [a] Criminal Appeal Nos.180/2015 and 189/2015 are allowed. [b] The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148 and 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.