JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bharatpur, in Sessions Case No.42/1988 on 18.3.1989, whereby respondent accused persons have been acquitted. 2. PW14 Dr. B.M. Gupta, who has conducted autopsy on the body of deceased, has stated that post-mortem was conducted on 13.2.1985 at 1:50 pm vide Exhibit-P17, and following injuries were found on the body of deceased :- "Injuries present- 1. Abrasion with black hard scab on front of upper ?rd of right leg measuring 1.5cm x cm. 2. One stitched wound with six stitches with gaping 8.5cm in length, oblique in direction, placed on lower part of chest left side extending downwards and medially reaching upto lateral border of mid vertibral region over thoracic 12 (T12) vertibral region. Margines of wound are swollen and inflammed. On further exploration underneath muscles and soft structures cut in the direction of external cutaneous wound with clotted blood. On further exploration spinous process, transverse process lamina of T12 (Thoracic) vertebra cut obliquely in the direction of the wound, Spinal cord is also completely transected. The 12th rib of (Lt) is fer end obliquely at the junction with vertebrae completely. The all injuries were ante-mortem in nature." and the internal findings on the basis of injuries, following opinion is expressed :- "Thorax-There was no abnormality detected in the walls cartilages, pleura, larynx and trachea, both lungs, parecardium, heart, large vessels. Abdomen-No abnormality detected in the abdominal walls, partoniems, stomach which was empty and small and large intestines contained gases and pieces. Lever, Spleen and both Kidneys were congested. Urinary bladder was empty with no abnormality. There was no abnormality detected in the genital organs." This witness has also said that cause of death was Spinal Shock and Septicemia as a result of injury to Spinal Cord and injury to Spinal Cord was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It is also stated that the patient was admitted on 12.2.1985 vide bed-head ticket no.3890 and expired at 7:00 am on 13.2.1985. In his cross he has also stated that two strikes on the same spot will not cause injury alike injury no.2 appeared in Exhibit-P17. It is also stated that the patient was admitted on 12.2.1985 vide bed-head ticket no.3890 and expired at 7:00 am on 13.2.1985. In his cross he has also stated that two strikes on the same spot will not cause injury alike injury no.2 appeared in Exhibit-P17. He has also opined that at the time when postmortem was conducted he was not in a position to give shape of the wound because it was already stitched and don't think that injury no.2 of Exhibit-P17 could be caused by Farsa. It has also said that Kulhari and Farsa are to different kind of weapons and naturally the injuries inflicted by these weapons will differ. Exhibit-P17 Autopsy Report, also reveals the opinion similarly, that the cause of death was Spinal Shock and Septicemia as a result of injury to Spinal Cord, and injuries were ante mortem in nature and injury no.2 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 3. Exhibit-P1 Written Report, was lodged by Brij Kishore Parashar on 7.2.1985 at 10.5 pm and it was lodged against six accused persons, namely Munna, Chandar, Kishan, Bishan Mohan, Mahaveer and Jagdish, on the basis of which formal FIR, Exhibit-P18, was registered at Crime No.53/1985 at Police Station Kotwali District Bharatpur and Special Report was sent to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur on 8.2.1985. FIR was lodged for offences under section 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 of IPC and after the demise of injured Pavan, offence under section 307 was converted to 302 of IPC. 4. Exhibit-P19 Dying Declaration of injured deceased, was also recorded by Investigating Officer, but the Investigating Officer has obviously not sought opinion of attending Physicial/Surgeon to ascertain the physical and mental fitness and competence of injured, as to whether injured was fit to state and to utter the incident accurately. Exhibit-19 itself discloses that this statement was recorded in hospital, on gaining consciousness, but this vital document is lacking opinion of Medical Expert, as to whether injured was fit to narrate the incident precisely, which was imperative. Perusal of this document reveals that injured was under precarious condition and he had lost his senses. It has also been mentioned in the text that the patient was unaware as to who brought him in the Hospital. Perusal of this document reveals that injured was under precarious condition and he had lost his senses. It has also been mentioned in the text that the patient was unaware as to who brought him in the Hospital. PW4 Vinod, brother of deceased Pavan, has stated that police did not record any statement in the Hospital, and he has stated that he remained in the Hospital on 7th and did not leave the place. 5. PW1 Brij Kishore Parashar, complainant, and Mama (maternal uncle) of deceased Pavan, has narrated eye witness account and has stated that Written Report, Exhibit-P1, reported by this witness, which contains his signatures, but a question raises on the contents and validity of the report because this witness has uttered very unbelievable narrations by saying that Exhibit-P.1 Report was not got written by him but it was written by his sister Shanti, and he had signed it without reading it and at what place it was signed, he does not know. He has further stated that the report was rendered to police but signatures over it were made without going through it. He has also said that police did not enquire anything from him. He has further stated that he does not know as to what was the reason of animosity between Munna and Hari. Further he has discarded several utterances of Exhibit-P1, report, and has denied having stated 'A' to 'B' of Exhibit-D2 and 'C' to 'D' of Exhibit-D1, and 'C' to 'D' of Exhibit-D2, 'E' to 'F' of Exhibit-D2 and has further stated that dispute did not take place between Munna and their family with respect to Munna's shop for last ten years. He has further resiled having stated anything alike ekdum (suddenly), as stated in Exhibit-P1 from 'E' to 'F'. He has further resiled having stated anything alike ekdum (suddenly), as stated in Exhibit-P1 from 'E' to 'F'. He has further stated that when he came down, Hari was encircled by all the accused persons and he couldn't see as to what kind of weapon was possessed by the accused persons, and has also said that he didn't see any accused causing injury by hitting stones and has denied such a statement of Exhibit-D2 and has further stated that Pavan was given a solitary injury and has further denied having stated in Exhibit-D2 that - fxjs gq, iou dh ihB esa eqUuk us dqYgkM+h ekjh vkSj pUnj us iou dh ihB ij QlkZ ekjk tks iou dh ihB esa mlh dqYgkM+h okyh pksV esa yxk lquk ;g c;ku eSaus ugha fy[kk;kA iou dk vLirky ysdj gjh x;k FkkA tks fjD'ks esa ys x;k FkkA fd'ku eqyfte }kjk ;g dguk fd ekjks eSa ns[kk ywaxk fjiksVZ ,Dth0ih0 1 esa ntZ ugha gS o ,Dth0Mh0 1 esa ntZ ugha gSA This witness (PW1) has also denied earlier dispute dated 7.2.1985 at 8-9:00 PM in front of Agarwal Music Centre and has also stated that he did not witness Munna and Mohan getting their injuries examined. 6. So, testimony of this witness is not reliable because he has discarded vitals of his police statements, Exhibits-D1 and D2, and has also refused to go through the report and denied several parts of it, which makes the story of prosecution untrustworthy. 7. Similarly, prosecution has produced PW2 Hari Babu, PW3 Shanti Devi, and PW4 Vinod apart from PW7 Mahesh, as eye witnesses of the incident, but all these witnesses have contradicted their police statements since Hari Babu has contradicted his police statements Exhibits-D3 and D4, and PW4 Vinod has also resiled from several utterances as mentioned in Exhibits-D7 and D8. He has also denied any earlier incident of beating having taken place with the accused persons. Likewise, PW7 Mahesh has also discarded several statements of Exhibit-D10. 8. He has also denied any earlier incident of beating having taken place with the accused persons. Likewise, PW7 Mahesh has also discarded several statements of Exhibit-D10. 8. So far as the Exhibit-P19 Dying Declaration is concerned, PW4 Vinod, brother of deceased Pavan, has also stated that police did not record any statement in the Hospital, since he has stated that he remained in the Hospital on 7th and did not leave the place but nobody's statements were taken in the Hospital before him, which raises a finger of doubt on the Dying Declaration, Exhibit-P19, because these statements have also shown to have been recorded on 7.2.1985. Several contradictions have appeared in the testimony of all these eye witnesses, which have shattered the truthfulness of the testimonies. 9. PW7 Mahesh, an independent witness of the vicinity, has introduced theory of brick-batting since he has said that at the time, when he reached at the place of occurrence, intense brick-batting was taking place. He has also said that Munna gave two Kulhari injuries as mentioned in Exhibit-D10, is not correct. Major contradictions have appeared in cross of all the eye witnesses and they have discarded several important utterances as mentioned in their police statements. 10. PW8 Dwarika Prasad, a witness of Kulhari has also said that no blood was there on the Kulhari. 11. PW11 Shanker Lal, a Police Constable and independent witness has fragmented the place of occurrence in dual places, which is not a case of the prosecution since he has said that the fighting parties were engaged at two places. This witness has also said that accused Munna also sustained injury and blood was oozing from his head, and he did not witness any injury on the body of Mohan. He too has discarded several utterances of Exhibit-D11. 12. PW12 Kallu @ Lalit Kumar, a child, has also accepted that Munna was also injured. 13. PW9 Ashok Kumar, FSL sample depositing Constable, has said that he had obtained the seized samples for depositing in FSL on 12.4.1985 and reached on 12.4.1985 at Jaipur. He too has discarded several utterances of Exhibit-D11. 12. PW12 Kallu @ Lalit Kumar, a child, has also accepted that Munna was also injured. 13. PW9 Ashok Kumar, FSL sample depositing Constable, has said that he had obtained the seized samples for depositing in FSL on 12.4.1985 and reached on 12.4.1985 at Jaipur. On 13th and 14th of April 1985, it was holiday, so he had deposited sealed packets with GRP and deposited the samples on 15.4.1985 but nothing has been stated by this witness that the samples remained intact during the custody of this witness and testimony in respect of samples having been deposited with GRP, Jaipur is also lacking, which is a manifest severance in the link evidence. 14. PW10 Dr. P.P. Singhal, a Radiologist, has stated that he had got x-ray exposed and x-ray report Exhibit-P13 was his hand written. He has also said that fracture of Spinal Cord could not be detected by x-ray because Spinal Cord is not visible through x-ray, and has also stated that it is difficult to ascertain by observing a fracture that as to by which weapon it was caused. This Radiologist has also accepted that he on 8.2.1985 on the same day, he had exposed x-ray of Munna Lal, and no bony injury was there on his head but his fourth metacarpal of the right hand was found fractured and his x-ray report is Exhibit-D13. 15. Exhibit-D17 is also on the record, which is injury report of accused Mohan Singh. Likewise Exhibit-D18 & Exhibit( D13, are also on record, which reveals injuries on the body of accused Munna Lal. As observed that important contradictions have appeared in the evidence of all the eye witnesses and several recitals of their police statements have been resiled and described by almost all the eye witnesses of the prosecution but PW15 Ram Gopal, Investigating Officer, and PW16 Om Prakash, who also conducted part of the investigation, have categorically stated that they had recorded the statements of all the witnesses as per their say, whereas the said important portions of their statements have been denied by the eye witnesses of the prosecution, which goes to show that there are contradictions and unreliable versions in the testimony of eye witness account of the prosecution. 16. 16. So far as, Dying declaration Exhibit-19 is concerned, admittedly no opinion of any treating physician or surgeon was obtained to ascertain mental and physical fitness and capability of injured patient to narrate, on this aspect PW15, Ram Gopal SHO-cum-IO has also said that before recording statements of injured Pavan Kumar, he did not seek certificate of treating doctor nor obtained his opinion. As discussed earlier, Exhibit-19 Dying Declaration is recorded without doctor's opinion on fitness and competence of injured, looses significance because the case of the prosecution is that after injury, Pavan became unconscious, he was shifted to hospital and a serious injury was there on his vitals. 17. Brother of deceased Pavan, Vinod PW4, who was accompanying injured throughout on 7.2.1985, has also said that police did not record anybody's statement in the hospital before him. So far as tendering of Written Report is concerned, a contradiction has also arose in the testimony because PW15 Ram Gopal, IO, says that the information was tendered in Kotwali, whereas Brij Kishore, PW1, says that the same was given in the hospital, since police had asked to get the patient treated first and then FIR will be taken, which too is doubtful as to at which place the report was tendered, contradictions have also appeared on the recitals of the FIR. 18. PW15 Ram Gopal, SHO-cum-IO has also accepted that a cross FIR of accused party was also registered as FIR No.58/1985 for the offence under section 324, 323/34 of IPC against the complainants on the report of accused Kishan Lal son of Manohar Lal. 19. All family members of deceased have specifically denied to have caused any injury to accused persons, but independent witnesses PW11 Shanker Lal and PW12 Kallu @ Lalit Kumar, a child witness, have accepted that they found accused Munna injured. 20. PW10 Dr. P.P. Singhal, Radiologist, has also accepted that he had taken x-ray of accused Munna and had found a fracture at his Metacarpal bone of his right hand. 21. 20. PW10 Dr. P.P. Singhal, Radiologist, has also accepted that he had taken x-ray of accused Munna and had found a fracture at his Metacarpal bone of his right hand. 21. Exhibits-D17, D18 and D13 are also corroborates that accused side had also sustained injuries, but all the family members of deceased have withheld and concealed this aspect in their testimony, even in cross when they have been put to such interrogatory, but same has been denied and this aspect has been explained by the accused persons in their examination conducted under the provision of section 313 of Cr.PC. 22. Defence has also come with a story that some of the accused persons were beaten prior to this incident in front of Agarwal Music Centre. 23. The aforesaid matrix of the evidence goes to reveal that prosecution has withheld genesis and origin of the crime and has maneuvered to withhold truth before the court. Injuries on the part of accused persons have not been explained. There are significant contradictions in the testimony of all the eye witnesses. Even some of the contents of FIR have been denied and vitals of police statements have been resiled by almost all the eye witnesses of prosecution. 24. We are aware, that we are in acquittal and State has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment of acquittal. A presumption of innocence is reinforced in favour of the accused persons after their acquittal and it is also imperative on the part of prosecution to prove its case beyond all the realms and confines of reasonable doubt, but we find that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond the contours of reasonable doubt. 25. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court since no wrong appears to have occasioned there, and the learned trial Court has rightly recorded acquittal of the accused persons. 26. Thus, Appeal lacks merit, hence deserves to be dismissed, so is dismissed. 27. Let record of the learned trial Court be transmitted back immediately along with a copy of the judgment. Learned trial Court is also directed to summon the accused-respondents to comply with the provisions of section 437A of CrPC, 1973 forthwith.