JUDGMENT: 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 6.5.1988 passed by the Vth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Session Trial No.148 of 1984 (State of U.P. vs. Veer Singh and others) convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 147 IPC for one year rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Section 304 (Part I) read with Section 149 IPC for five years rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Sections 325 read with Section 149 IPC for two years rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. At the outset, it is relevant to mention here that during pendency of this appeal, the appellant no.1 – Veer Singh and appellant no. 6 Ram Swarup have died. Accordingly, vide order dated 16.2.2017 this Court has abated the appeal in respect of the appellant no.1 and appellant no.6, respectively. 3. Now, the Court is proceeding to consider the present appeal in respect of rest of the appellants. 4. The facts of the case, as unfolded by the informant Mahendra in the First Information Report (in short 'F.I.R.'), are that on 23.6.1984 his father Harish Chandra and uncle Siyaram had gone to sow peanut in their fields, situated at the outskirts of village Amarpura, P.S. Raksa, District Jhansi. At about 9.00 a.m. the informant reached there with breakfast and saw his uncle and father busy in sowing the peanut. When they started to take breakfast, all of a sudden, accused Veer Singh, armed with Farsa, Nathoo armed with an Axe, Ram Swarup, armed with Lohangi, Lalloo armed with Lathi, Maniram with Lohangi, all residents of village Amarpura, Tirlok, resident of Rampura, armed with Farsa, reached there and surrounded his uncle and father. Accused Veer Singh exhorted to kill both of them as these were the persons who had taken away buffaloes last year and teased up to great extent. All the accused then started belaboring his father and uncle with their respective weapons. Informant Mahendra could not dare to go at the place of incident. At this juncture, witness Natthoo and Chainoo tried to intervene to save them but the accused persons threatened them with dire consequence so they remained on their field watching the incident. All the accused then started belaboring his father and uncle with their respective weapons. Informant Mahendra could not dare to go at the place of incident. At this juncture, witness Natthoo and Chainoo tried to intervene to save them but the accused persons threatened them with dire consequence so they remained on their field watching the incident. The accused left the fields with assumption that the victims were dead and threatening the witnesses that in case any body would go for report, he would be killed on the way leading to police station. The informant, therefore, could not proceed promptly to police station for lodging the report. The injured persons were taken away from the place of occurrence to the home of informant situated at Amarpura village. After two hours of reaching home, Siyaram died. Due to fear, the complainant remained there and when in the evening two constables reached his home, he was able with their help to bring the injured Harish Chandra to P.S. Raksha at 22.30 hours. The injured Harish Chandra was thereafter sent for medical examination to District Hospital Jhansi. 5. On the basis of the written report (Ext. ka-1), chik First Information Report was registered at Police Station concerned on 23.6.1984 at 22.30 hrs. mentioning all the details as had been described in Ext. Ka-.1. G.D. entry was also made at the same time, which is Ext. Ka-2. 6. Investigation started in the matter. The Investigating Officer prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body of Siyaram Yadav for post-mortem through Constable Jagdish Singh. He also took the sample of plain earth and bloodstained earth from the place of occurrence and also prepared the memo in this regard. Spot sketch (Ext. ka-16) was also prepared by the Investigating Officer. Earth seized from the place of occurrence and Pancha recovered from the dead body of Siyaram were sent for chemical examination to Agra and the chemical examiner found the presence of human blood on these two articles and sent a report (Ext. ka-19). 7. Autopsy report (Ext. ka-4) was prepared after conducting the post mortem on 24.6.1984 at 4.00 p.m. 8. As per the post mortem report, the deceased was about 60 years old. On external examination he found that the deceased was average built and the rigor-mortis absent in upper extremity and weakly present in lower extremities, eyes were closed. 9. ka-19). 7. Autopsy report (Ext. ka-4) was prepared after conducting the post mortem on 24.6.1984 at 4.00 p.m. 8. As per the post mortem report, the deceased was about 60 years old. On external examination he found that the deceased was average built and the rigor-mortis absent in upper extremity and weakly present in lower extremities, eyes were closed. 9. On examination of the dead body of the deceased, following ante-mortem injuries were found: “1. Contusion 12 c.m. X 8 cm on left side head just above the left year. 2. Contusion 6 c.m. X 4 c.m. on the back of head mid line. 3. Abrased contusion 10 c.m. X 5 c.m. on left chest upper and outer part. 4. Abrased contusion 5 c.m. X 1 c.m. on head near hair line. 5. Contusion (abrased) 3 c.m. X 2 c.m. on left side forehead 12 c.m. From left eye brow. 6. Abrased contusion 5 c.m. X 3 c.m. on let uper eye lid. 7. Contusion 5 c.m. X 2 c.m. on left fact just below left eye. 8. Contusion 4 c.m. X 6 c.m. on left fact just in front of left ear. 9. Abrased contusion 10 c.m. X 5 c.m. on left shoulder upper part. 10. Two abrasions 1 c.m. X ½ c.m. each back of left fact on upper part. 11. Abrasion ½ c.m. X ¼ c.m. on the back of left wrist. 12. Abrased contusion 5 c.m. X 2 c.m. on outer aspect of left shoulder. 13. Abrased contusion 5 c.m. X 2 c.m. on outer aspect of left shoulder. 14. Contusion 5 c.m. X 2 c.m. on outer aspect of right upper arm. 15. Multiple abrasions in area of 5 c.m. X 3 c.m. on back of right elbow. 16. Abrasion 3 c.m. X 2 ¼ c.m. on back of right forearm upper part. 17. Multiple abrasions on area of 4 c.m. X 2 ½ c.m. on back of right hand. 18. Abrasion 2 c.m. X 1 c.m. on the front of right chest 3 c.m. From the midline. 19. Abrased contusion 8 c.m. X 2 ½ c.m. on outer aspect of right thigh. 20. Multiple abrasion on area of 5 ½ c.m. X 2 ½ c.m. in front of right knee. 21. Contusion 4 c.m. X 2 ½ c.m. on front of right leg. 22. 19. Abrased contusion 8 c.m. X 2 ½ c.m. on outer aspect of right thigh. 20. Multiple abrasion on area of 5 ½ c.m. X 2 ½ c.m. in front of right knee. 21. Contusion 4 c.m. X 2 ½ c.m. on front of right leg. 22. Abrasion 2 ¼ c.m. on outer aspect of right leg upper part. 23. Abrasion 2 c.m. X 1 ½ c.m. on front of right sortum. 24. Abrasion 1 ½ c.m. X ½ c.m. on lower part of scrotum. 25. Abrasion ½ c.m. X ¼ c.m. on inner side left leg. 26. Contusion 7 c.m. X 3 c.m. on back of right shoulder. 27. Contusion 14 c.m. X 8 c.m. on right back upper and middle part. 28. Contusion 6 c.m. X 3 c.m. on left buttock. 29. Contusion 5 c.m. X 3 c.m. on right upper buttock.” 10. According to the doctor, all internal organs like liver, spleen and kidny were found pale. There was haematoma in area of 16 c.m. X 10 c.m. on frontal and parietal area. On left side, 5th and 6th rib fractured. Left pleura cavity contains blood. Right pleura N.A.D. Left lung contested in upper part with laceration on area of 4 c.m. X 1 c.m. X ½ c.m. in relation to the fracture of ribs 5th & 6th. Intestines contained gas and faecal matter. Bladder was empty. 11. In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 12. Injured Harish Chandra was medically examined on 23.6.1984 at 11.40 p.m. at District Hospital, Jhansi and following injuries were found on his person: “1. Lacerated would 1.5 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. X 1 c.m. over back of left upper arm, 7 c.m. about left elbow joint, bleeding. 2. Traumatic swelling 7 c.m. X 7 c.m. over back of left upper arm, encircling injury no.1, tenderness present, crepitus present, kept under observation, advised x-ray. 3. Contusion 4 c.m. X 1 c.m. over right supra-scapular region, red in colour. 4. Abrasion 3 c.m. X 1 c.m. over back of right upper arm 17 cm about right elbow. 5. Swelling 6 c.m. X 6 c.m. over back of right elbow region, kept under observation. 6. Lacerated wound 7 c.m. X 1.5 c.m. bone deep over front of right leg, 5 c.m. below right knee, kept under observation. 7. 4. Abrasion 3 c.m. X 1 c.m. over back of right upper arm 17 cm about right elbow. 5. Swelling 6 c.m. X 6 c.m. over back of right elbow region, kept under observation. 6. Lacerated wound 7 c.m. X 1.5 c.m. bone deep over front of right leg, 5 c.m. below right knee, kept under observation. 7. Lacerated wound 2.5 c.m. X 1 c.m. over front of right leg, 2 c.m. lateral to unjury no.6. 8. Lacerated wound 7 c.m. X 2.5 c.m. X bone deep over right leg (front) vertical 6 c.m. below injury no.7, kept under observation, bleeding present. 9. Abrasion 1 c.m. X 1 c.m. over right leg 2 c.m. below injury no.8. 10. Lacerated wound 2 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. over front of leg 10 c.m. below left knee joint, bleeding present. 11. Lacerated wound 2 c.m. X 1 c.m. X skin deep over left leg, 1.5 c.m. lateral to injury no.10, bleeding present. 12. Traumatic swelling 12 c.m. X 10 c.m. over middle of left frontal aspect, kept under observation. 13. Lacerated wound 1.5 c.m. X 0.5 c.m.x skin deep over lateral aspect of left knee joint. Bleeding present.” 13. Injury nos. 8 and 12 were referred for x-ray. In the opinion of Dr. Lala, all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and were fresh in duration and simple in nature. 14. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. ka17) against all the accused appellants was filed. Concerned Magistrate took the cognizance. The case being exclusively triable by sessions court, was committed to the Court of sessions. 15. Accused/appellants appeared and charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC was framed against all the accused. Charge against accused Lalloo, Mani Ram and Ram Swaroop (since dead) was also framed under Section 147 IPC and against accused Veer Singh (since dead), Nathoo Ram and Trilok under Section 148 IPC was framed in the trial court. All the accused have denied the charges framed against them and claimed their trial. 16. Trial proceeded and on behalf of prosecution, nine witnesses were examined, wherein PW-1 Mahendra, informant, PW-2 Dr. V. Lala, who examined the injured Harish Chandra, PW-3 Harish Chandra, injured, PW-4 Chainu, PW-5 Dr. All the accused have denied the charges framed against them and claimed their trial. 16. Trial proceeded and on behalf of prosecution, nine witnesses were examined, wherein PW-1 Mahendra, informant, PW-2 Dr. V. Lala, who examined the injured Harish Chandra, PW-3 Harish Chandra, injured, PW-4 Chainu, PW-5 Dr. P.C. Dubey, who conducted post-mortem of dead body of the deceased Siyaram, PW-6 Constable Basudev Singh, PW-7 Head-Constable Jagannath Prasad, PW-8 Laxman and PW-9 Jagdish Singh. 17. After closure of evidence, statement of accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. 18. No oral or documentary evidence was filed in their defence. 19. Accused persons in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations and stated that they have been falsely implicated due to animosity. 20. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the trial court has found that the prosecution has fully succeeded in bringing home the charges against the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the accused appellants, hence this appeal. 21. I have heard S/Shri Rahul Mishra and Raghuvansh Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Rajesh Vishwakarma, learned AGA for the State at length, and perused the entire record carefully. 22. Castigating the impugned judgment and order, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Incident is said to have taken place at about 9.00 a.m.. It appears improbable and unbelievable that the deceased had not taken breakfast before leaving home at 8.00 a.m.. Referring to the medical evidence i.e. injury said to have been sustained by one of the witnesses and the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report, it was further submitted that the statement of the eye account witnesses are not supported from medical evidence. Digested food and faecal material were found present in the intestines of the deceased Siyaram. Thus, it clearly shows that the incident took place in the night at about 3-4 a.m.. F.I.R. was lodged belatedly after consultation and the delay was not properly explained. It was further submitted that no tool/instrument was recovered by the Investigating Officer from the spot to show that the deceased and witnesses were engaged in sowing peanut at the time of the incident. Witnesses examined in the matter were relatives and interested witnesses. There was previous enmity between the parties. It was further submitted that no tool/instrument was recovered by the Investigating Officer from the spot to show that the deceased and witnesses were engaged in sowing peanut at the time of the incident. Witnesses examined in the matter were relatives and interested witnesses. There was previous enmity between the parties. Some unknown person in the previous night had committed the present offence. The accused appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to animosity. It was further submitted that the doctors examined in the matter have opined that the incident might have taken place in the night between 3 to 4 a.m.. There are major contradictions in the statement of eye account witnesses. Contradiction is also on the point that as to whether the accused persons were resisting to lodge the F.I.R by surrounding the path. The informant is said to be present on the spot at the time of the incident, but he did not make any effort to save the deceased or his father. This fact also shows that the informant was not present on the spot at the time of the incident. Dead-body of the deceased Siyaram was found in the house of the informant, which is far away from the place of occurrence. Prosecution witnesses themselves have admitted that they did not say anything to anyone. Harish Chandra is said to be injured as per the F.I.R., or stated by the eye account witnesses, but he also received injuries at some other place and by some other means. To substantiate this submission, learned counsel for the appellants referred to the statement of the doctors. Main emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the appellants that some of the accused have been assigned weapon 'Farsa' and 'Axe' but the injuries found on the body of the deceased/injured have not been caused by the said weapons. Though the eye account witnesses have stated that 'Farsa' and 'Axe' both were used by the accused while causing injuries to the deceased and the injured, yet prosecution case is not supported on this point by medical evidence. On this score, it was submitted that neither the eye account witnesses nor the injured examined in the present matter were present on the spot at the time of the incident. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish the time and manner of the incident. On this score, it was submitted that neither the eye account witnesses nor the injured examined in the present matter were present on the spot at the time of the incident. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish the time and manner of the incident. Referring to the statement of the witnesses, it was also submitted that there is also contradiction on this point that as to whether oral information was also given to the Police or by a written report. F.I.R. is ante-timed document. It was not in existence on the date and time of the incident but it was prepared later on after thought. Hence, in these circumstances, the impugned judgment and order suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. The findings of the trial court are not based on correct appreciation of facts, evidence and law. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the following decisions: (I) State of Punjab vs. Sucha Singh and others, 2003 (46) ACC 584. (II) Amar Singh & others vs. State of Punjab, 1987 CAR 109 (SC). (III) Marudanal Augusti vs. State of Kerala, 1980 SCC (Cri) 985. 23. In reply, the learned AGA appearing for the State has submitted that the prosecution case is supported by the eye account witnesses. Since one of the injured, namely, Harish Chandra received injury in the incident in question and he has supported the prosecution case, the findings of the trial Court cannot be termed to illegal, perverse or based on incorrect appreciation of facts, evidence and law. Contradictions, omissions, laches, improvements are of minor nature and do not go the root of the prosecution case and the same may be ignored. The trial court has correctly held that sharp edged weapons were used from its back-side. Time of death of the deceased is also supported from the medical evidence. Since deceased and injured both had taken breakfast at 9.00 a.m., time of death is about 1.00 p.m. on the same day. Hence it is possible that food taken by the deceased would have digested. There is no contradiction on the point of causing of injuries to the deceased and injured by the accused appellants with the weapons assigned to them. Medical evidence also supports this fact. Delay in lodging the FIR has been properly explained in the FIR itself. Hence it is possible that food taken by the deceased would have digested. There is no contradiction on the point of causing of injuries to the deceased and injured by the accused appellants with the weapons assigned to them. Medical evidence also supports this fact. Delay in lodging the FIR has been properly explained in the FIR itself. Hence, no interference is warranted in the matter by this Court. 24. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the entire record and evidence. 25. In this matter, offence is said to have been committed on 23.6.1984 at 9.00 a.m. at the well of the informant. Deceased and injured both were said to be present on the spot for sowing the peanut and informant is said to have gone on the spot with the breakfast for them. Accused Veer Singh (since dead) and Trilok Singh were assigned weapon 'Farsa', accused Nathoo was assigned with the weapon 'Axe', accused Lalloo was assigned with the weapon 'Lathi'. Accused Mani Ram and Ram Swarup (since dead) were assigned with the weapon 'Luhangi'. The F.I.R. was lodged on 23.6.1984 at about 10.30 p.m.. Distance between the Police Station and place of occurrence is 7 miles. Thus, there is delay of about 13 hours in lodging the F.I.R.. Reason for delay has been given that the accused caused threat to the informant and they had surrounded the way. Deceased and injured both were taken on bullock-cart to the house and after two hours thereafter, deceased died. No information was given to anyone till that time or till the evening, until some police personnel reached in the village. F.I.R. was also lodged on the basis of oral information. Although one of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution has admitted that written report was submitted to the police concerned for lodging the F.I.R.. 26. Since F.I.R. was lodged at about 10.30 p.m. in the night, no information was given till the evening about the incident or till the police personnel reached in the village, first of all, it is to be seen as to whether the F.I.R. is a delayed document and it was lodged after due consultation and police papers were prepared in the matter prior to the registration of the F.I.R.. It is also to be seen as to whether the statement of the eye account witnesses are supported by medical evidence. 27. Though it is true that prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of its version yet only on the ground of delay in lodging the F.I.R., the prosecution version will not be discarded in case other facts and circumstances of the case and evidence inspire confidence to the Court in regard to the prosecution case. However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint is always fatal. Thus, before dealing this point i.e. delay in lodging the F.I.R., the Court proceeds to ascertain the presence of the eye account witnesses on the spot at the time of the incident and the time of injuries said to have been received by the deceased and injured in the present incident. 28. P.W.-2 Dr. V. Lala, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Jhansi has examined the injured Harish Chandra on 23.6.1984 at about 11.40 p.m.. He found 13 injuries on his body. As per his statement, injuries found on the body of the injured cannot be caused at 9.00 a.m. on 23.6.1984 and were not caused by sharp edged weapon like 'Farsa' and 'Axe' but the same may be caused with the weapon Lathi and Luhangi. This witness has also stated that the injuries found on the body of the injured can be caused within six hours of examination. Thus, from the statement of the PW-2, it is clear that the injuries found on the person of the injured Harish Chandra were not caused by any sharp edged weapon. Although witnesses examined as eye account witnesses have consistently stated that sharp edged weapons i.e. Farsa and Axe both were used in commission of the present offence. The trial court was of the view that it might be possible that sharp edged weapons i.e. Farsa and Axe would have been used from its back-side. It is made clear that neither in the F.I.R. nor in the deposition made by the eye account witnesses/injured witness, this fact has come that Farsa and Axe were used by the accused using its back side. Meaning thereby, it is not the case of prosecution that weapons 'Farsa' and 'Axe' were used from its back-side. It is made clear that neither in the F.I.R. nor in the deposition made by the eye account witnesses/injured witness, this fact has come that Farsa and Axe were used by the accused using its back side. Meaning thereby, it is not the case of prosecution that weapons 'Farsa' and 'Axe' were used from its back-side. Post mortem on the body of the deceased Siyaram was conducted on 24.6.1984 at 4.00 p.m. and 29 ante-mortem injuries were found on his body. Some internal injuries were also found on dissection of his body. As per the statement of PW-5 Dr. P.C. Dubey, death of the deceased Siyaram took place at about 3 to 4 a.m. in the night of 23.6.1984. This witness has specifically stated in examination-in-chief that death of the deceased may take place upto 7.00 a.m. in the morning. In the cross-examination, this witness has specifically stated that none of the injuries found on the body of the deceased were incised wound. He has also stated that the deceased would have taken meal before 6 to 8 hours of his death. 29. PW-1 informant Mahendra Singh has stated that he reached at the place of occurrence with breakfast at about 9.00 a.m.. Deceased and injured Harish Chandra both were present at the well for the purpose of sowing the peanut. Other witnesses, namely, Nathoo and Chainu, who were also sowing peanut in their fields near the place of occurrence, saw the incident. Informant took the injured and deceased on the bullock-cart to his house with the help of Chainu and Nathoo. Neither PW-1 informant proceeded to lodge the F.I.R. nor took the deceased/injured to Hospital for treatment immediately. As per the prosecution version, deceased died at about 11.00 a.m.. Same facts have been stated by PW-3 injured Harish Chandra and PW-4 Chainu. Thus, as per the oral statement of the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4, the incident took place at 9.00 a.m. on 23.6.1984 whereas as per medical evidence, death of the deceased took place at about 3 to 4 a.m. in the night on 23.6.1984. Similarly, injuries sustained by the injured Harish Chandra would have been caused at about 6 to 7 hours before the examination. Similarly, injuries sustained by the injured Harish Chandra would have been caused at about 6 to 7 hours before the examination. Thus, time of the injuries found on the body of the injured Harish Chandra, as stated by the doctor, does not co-relate with the time stated by the eye account witnesses. Same is the position regarding time of the death of the deceased Siyaram. As per the medical evidence, neither the injured and deceased received injuries at the time stated by the eye account witnesses nor the deceased died at the time stated by the prosecution witnesses. The above facts also find support with the fact that digested and faecal materials were found in the intestines of the deceased. If the opinion expressed by the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, is taken into consideration, it emerges that the deceased had taken meal before 6 to 8 hours of his death and he died at about 3 to 4 a.m. in the night of 23.6.1984. Hence, on close scrutiny of the oral evidence of the said eye account witnesses and comparing the same with the medical evidence, time of the death of the deceased Siyaram stated by the eye account witnesses does not tally with the time reported in the medical evidence. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements of PW-2 Dr. V. Lala and PW-5 Dr. P.C. Dubey. The trial court disbelieved the statement of PW-5 on the ground that the opinion formed by the doctor is not gospel truth. The view taken by the trial court on this point, in my view, is not correct and the same is against the evidence available on record. It is clear from the evidence available on record that in this case medical evidence is contrary to the oral statement of eye account witnesses. In this situation, the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that neither the PW-1 Mahendra Singh, PW-3 Harish Chandra, PW-4 Chainu were present on the spot at the time of the incident nor PW-3 Harish Chandra received injuries in the said incident. It is also clear from the record that at the time mentioned in the F.I.R. and stated by the eye account witnesses neither the deceased nor the injured have received injuries. It is also clear from the record that at the time mentioned in the F.I.R. and stated by the eye account witnesses neither the deceased nor the injured have received injuries. Time of death of deceased Siyaram is in the morning hour i.e. 3 to 4 a.m. on 23.6.1984 and he received injuries in other manner. The conclusion drawn by the Court also finds support from the fact that neither the tools/instruments said to be used in sowing the peanut nor the peanut itself were found on the spot by the Investigating Officer. Had the incident taken place at the time mentioned in the F.I.R. and stated by the eye account witnesses present on the spot, they would have tried to save their lives. This fact also shows that they were not present on the spot. 30. As far as motive assigned in the matter is concerned, it may be mentioned here that although motive is an essential ingredient to constitute the crime but where there are eye account witnesses, motive loses its significance. It may also be mentioned here that motive may be a reason for false implication. In the F.I.R. it has been mentioned that the appellants committed the present offence on the ground that the deceased and injured had untied the buffaloes and forced them to run away. Another plea for false implication against the appellants has been taken that one F.I.R. was lodged against the witnesses Mahendra and Chainu regarding beating of Lalloo before the present incident. This fact has been clearly admitted by the PW-1 Mahendra in the cross-examination and due to that reason, accused appellants have been falsely implicated in this matter. It is settled that enmity is double edged weapon. The pleas taken by the appellants on the basis of the contradictions in the medical evidence and the oral evidence regarding time of death of the deceased Siyaram and the time of injuries sustained by the injured Harish Chandra cannot be rejected out-rightly. The false implication of the accused appellants on the basis of plea taken by them in the present matter cannot be ruled-out. 31. The false implication of the accused appellants on the basis of plea taken by them in the present matter cannot be ruled-out. 31. So far as the submission that the eye account witnesses are interested and inimical is concerned, the admitted position of law is that enmity is a double edged weapon which can be a motive for the crime as also the ground for false implication of the accused persons. In case of inimical witnesses, the courts are required to scrutinize their testimony with anxious care to find out whether their testimony inspires confidence notwithstanding the existence of enmity. Where enmity is proved to be the motive for the commission of the crime, the accused cannot urge that despite proof of the motive of the crime, the witnesses who are inimical should not be relied upon. Testimony of eye-witnesses, which is otherwise convincing and consistent, cannot be discarded simply on the ground that the deceased was related to the eye-witnesses or previously there had been some disputes between the accused and the deceased or the witnesses. The existence of animosity between the accused and the witnesses may, in some cases, give rise to the possibility of the witnesses exaggerating the role of some of the accused or trying to rope in more persons as accused persons for the commission of the crime. Such a possibility is required to be ascertained on the facts of each case. 32. In the present case, enmity between the parties is admitted. PW-1 Mahendra Singh is the nephew of the deceased and PW-3 Harish Chandra is the brother of the deceased. Presence of PW-1 and PW-3 on the spot is doubtful. On close scrutiny of their testimony with anxious care, I am of the view, that testimony of these witnesses is neither consistent nor convincing and also does not inspire confidence to be acceptable. Hence, it can safely be said that these witnesses are inimical and had tried to falsely rope the accused appellants in commission of the present crime on account of animosity. Due to this reason, the FIR was lodged after consultation belatedly. 33. If the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record are considered and appreciated cumulatively, it is clear that the FIR was lodged belatedly and no plausible explanation was given by the prosecution, which creates doubt about the truthfulness of prosecution story. Due to this reason, the FIR was lodged after consultation belatedly. 33. If the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record are considered and appreciated cumulatively, it is clear that the FIR was lodged belatedly and no plausible explanation was given by the prosecution, which creates doubt about the truthfulness of prosecution story. Similarly, the presence of witnesses on the spot at the time of incident is also doubtful. There is conflict between medical evidence and oral evidence which vitally affects the prosecution case. 34. Hence, in my view, the findings of the trial court on the point in lodging the FIR, medical evidence, presence of eye account witnesses on the spot and contradictions are not correct and the same are illegal and perverse. The trial court has not correctly appreciated the evidence available on record and reached to a wrong conclusion holding the accused appellants to be guilty for committing the murder of the deceased. The pleas taken by the accused appellants appear more probable in the matter. 35. Thus, taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence available on record, I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt and to the satisfaction of judicial conscience of the Court. Hence, the Court is inclined to grant benefit of doubt to the accused appellants on the ground of rule of caution. 36. In view of the above discussions, in the opinion of the Court, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 6.5.1988, which has been sought to be assailed, call for and deserves, interference. The criminal appeal is liable to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. 37. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 6.5.1988 passed by the trial court is hereby set aside. The accused appellants are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 304(part-I) read with Section 149 IPC, 325/149 IPC. They are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 38. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent to the Sessions Judge, Jhansi for compliance.