JUDGMENT G.R. Moolchandani, J. - Five accused persons, namely Fazru, Sher Singh, Samsu, Samru and Rustam all sons of Meer Khan, were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Deeg, District Bharatpur, in Sessions Case no.28/1984 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 302 of 149, 307, 307 of 149, 326 of 149, 324, 324 of 149, 323, 323 of 149 of IPC and they were convicted and sentenced by the learned court below vide order dated 14.12.1988 as under :- Samsu u/s 148 of IPC, one year''s rigorous imprisonment u/s 302 of IPC, life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- u/s 326 of 149 of IPC, five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- u/s 323 of IPC, one month''s rigorous imprisonment Fazru u/s 148 of IPC, one year''s rigorous imprisonment u/s 302 of IPC, life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- u/s 326 of IPC, five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- u/s 323 of 149 of IPC, one month''s rigorous imprisonment Sher Singh u/s 148 of IPC, one year''s rigorous imprisonment u/s 302 of 149 of IPC, life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- u/s 326 of 149 of IPC, five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- u/s 323 of IPC, one month''s rigorous imprisonment Rustam u/s 148 of IPC, one year''s rigorous imprisonment u/s 302 of 149 of IPC, life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- u/s 326 of 149 of IPC, five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- u/s 323 of IPC, one month''s rigorous imprisonment Samru u/s 148 of IPC, one year''s rigorous imprisonment u/s 323 of 149 of IPC, one month''s rigorous imprisonment In default of payment of fine of Rs. 100/-, each appellant-accused has to undergo further one month''s simple imprisonment All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Accused Jumma son of Meer Khan was found juvenile, so, his case was sent to concerned Juvenile Justice Board. 2. Contents of Written Report Exhibit-P1, which was submitted by Khillu s/o Jormal Mev on 11.5.1984 at 11:30 PM before SHO, Nagar, Bharatpur, reads as under:- On the basis of above Written Report Exhibit-P13, formal FIR was lodged as FIR No. 43 of 84 at Police Station Nagar, Bharatpur, for the offences punishable under section 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 323 of IPC. Subsequently, after the demise of injured Jormal, section 302 of IPC was added. Subsequently, after the demise of injured Jormal, section 302 of IPC was added. 3. Autopsy report Exhibit-P8 of deceased Jormal s/o Alisher dt 12.5.1984 reveals that the autopsy was conducted on 12.5.1984 at 8:40 AM and cause of death, as opined by the Doctor reads "the person died of shock and hoemorrhage due to head injury". 4. Scrutiny of the evidence reflects that PW4 Dr. Satish Chandra Arya, had examined injured-deceased Jormal. He stated that on 11.5.1984 he was posted as a M.O. of Nagar and had examined Jormal son of Alisher in the evening at 8:30 PM vide Exhibit-P3 and following injuries were found on his body :- (1) Lacerated wound with profuse bleeding on the Rt fronto parietal region 1 1 /2" x 2" x 1/2" x 1/4", blunt (2) Contusion with swelling 1" x 1/2" with reddish colouration on the back below Rt scapula, simple blunt (3) Abrasion 1/2" x 1 1/2" on the Rt knee with oozing of blood, simple blunt 5. Dr. Satish Chandra Arya (PW4) has further stated that on the same day at 9:10 PM, he had examined Chhutna son of Luta vide Exhibit-P4 and following injuries were found on his body :- (1) Insiced wound with profuse swelling on the dorsum of the Lt Palm (wound is on the medial side of the palm 1 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the hypothenal emi well, swelling is 3" x 2", sharp (2) Contusion with swelling 1 1/2" x 1" on the dorso medial aspect and middle of the Lt forearm with reddish coularation, simple blunt (3) Lacerated wound 1" x 1 1/4" x 1/4" on the frontal bone on the vertex slightly Rt to the midline 4" above the eye-brow with bleeding, blunt (4) Lacerated wound 1 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the vertex at the region of choti with profuse bleeding, blunt (5) Contusion with reddish colouration on the last phalanx of the Rt thumb 1" x round the thumb and bluish colouration of nail, simple blunt (6) Abrasion seen with swelling 1" x 1/2" on the mid sunal region on the chest, simple blunt 6. Similarly on the same day at 9:30 PM Khillu son of Jormal was also examined vide Exhibit-P5 by Dr. Similarly on the same day at 9:30 PM Khillu son of Jormal was also examined vide Exhibit-P5 by Dr. Arya (PW4) and following injuries were found on his body :- (1) Lacerated wound with bleeding on the vertex Lt to the Choti region with swelling 1" x 1/2" x 1/4" (2) Lacerated wound with bleeding 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the Lt side of the cheek middle of the mandible (3) Contusion with swelling 4" x 3" on the back of the Rt elbow and Rt forearm (4) Contusion with swelling 2" x 1/2 on the back below Lt scapula 7. In his cross examination Dr. Arya (PW4) deposed that at the time of admission Jormal, Chhutna and Khillu were conscious but condition of Jormal was serious. 8. PW5 Dr. Bhopal Singh has stated that on 12.5.1984 he had conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Jormal vide Exhibit- P8, since injuries found on the body of injured/deceased Jormal have already been enumerated, so, same are not being dealt here, Dr. Bhopal Singh has further stated that the cause of death of Jormal was shock as result of head injury, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further opined that injuries found on the body of deceased were ante mortem and injury no.1 would have been caused by blunt and hard object, that kind of injury was not possible by stroke of a brick or stone because its throw would be lacking such force, if the stone is thrown from proximity even then, the kind of injury found, could not be possible. 9. Now we have to deal with the eye-witness account. 9. Now we have to deal with the eye-witness account. PW1 Khillu, complainant and injured witness, has stated that five months back at the time of 5:00 in the evening, he was getting his buffaloes drink water, buffaloes of Sher Singh started quarreling with the buffaloes of this witness in the cemetery, while he was returning, Sher Singh gave beatings to his buffaloes by Latths, he asked to restrain, Sher Singh started hurling abuses and gave a Lathi stroke on his back, he his further stated that he hastily came to his premises and informed it to his father Jormal, who was lying there, meanwhile Fazru, Sher Singh, Rustam, Jumma, Samru, and Samsu came there, Fazru was armed with Farsa, Sher Singh with Jaily and rest were armed with Lathies, after their arrival, they warned to kill both son and father and with intention to kill, they gave a Lathi blow on the head of his father, Fazru gave stroke of Farsa by reverse side, sustaining injuries Jormal collapsed there, blood started oozing out of his head, Samru gave a Lathi blow on the back of Jormal, Jumma also hit Latth on his leg, he tried to save his father, then Rustam gave a Latth blow on his head and a Jaily blow was given by Sher Singh, on his cheek, another Latth blow was given at the elbow by Jumma. On alarm Chhutna came to rescue, he too was beaten by accused persons, he has further stated that apart from Chhutna, Bhajji, Sumer Singh, Kamrudeen had also come for rescuing them, villagers and Bhajji, Ratti, Omer and others took them to hospital, where they reached at 8:00 PM, their injuries were examined there, he has further stated that after report was got written, it was submitted and same is Exhibit-P1. In cross examination, Khillu (PW1) stated that for half an hour, he remained unconscious, he has further stated that first Latth was given to him on his back and he became unconscious. 10. Nothing of this kind has appeared from the testimony of this witness that the accused side had also suffered injuries in the incident and even an iota of this aspect has not been divulged. 11. 10. Nothing of this kind has appeared from the testimony of this witness that the accused side had also suffered injuries in the incident and even an iota of this aspect has not been divulged. 11. PW2 Chhutna, another injured eye-witness, has also narrated ocular version pertaining to the occurrence, he has also said that Rustam had given a Latth blow on his chest and Khillu on his head and primarily he was injured by Rustam, this witness has also deposed that he had not indulged in the scuffle with the accused persons nor he is cousin of Jormal. In his cross examination, Chhutna (PW2) deposed that he became unconscious upon causing of third below, which was given by Rustam and he could regain consciousness at Nagar. 12. PW3 Sumer Khan has stated that the incident pertains to 4.00 PM, it occurred about five months back, he had come to offer prayers in Masjid, which is fifty steps ahead from the premises of Jormal, he heard a roaring, Fazru exhorted others to eliminate and he will settle and face the consequences, hearing the ruckus, he came near the premises of Jormal. Jormal, Khillu and Chhutna were there in the premises, he saw Jormal lying unconscious there, Samsu had given a Latth blow on his head and Fazru hit him by reverse side of Farsa, both the injuries were caused at a similar seat, he has further stated that Samsu, Fazru, Jumma, Sher Singh, Rustam, Samru were there amongst the assailants, Samru had given a Latth blow on the back of Jormal, while he was falling down, Bhajji, Ratti, Omerdeen and villagers came there, Jormal was taken to Nagar by a bullock-cart, Khillu and Chhutna were also accompanying, on the way Fazru came in front of the cart brandishing a gun, villagers made him understand, then they drove for Nagar and the injuries were shown to Doctor. Doctor advised to take Jormal to Bharatpur, then they came to Bharatpur, where Jormal died at 4:00 AM in the night. In the cross examination, Sumer Khan (PW3) has stated that Jormal was unconscious and he was bleeding by his head, Chhutna was also injured. He suffered injuries on his head and hands. Witness (PW3) further stated that by the time he reached, beating was not over but it had taken place before him. In the cross examination, Sumer Khan (PW3) has stated that Jormal was unconscious and he was bleeding by his head, Chhutna was also injured. He suffered injuries on his head and hands. Witness (PW3) further stated that by the time he reached, beating was not over but it had taken place before him. Jormal had fallen down, he has also stated that he did not seen Rustam and Sher Singh causing Latth injuries to Jormal and has specifically said that it is wrong that the incident had occurred at the residence of accused persons and has denied that Jormal and others had not caused any quarrel, on an interrogatory he has specifically denied that accused persons have lodged a cross case pertaining to same incident against him and has also stated that Chhutna, Khillu, Ratti and Jormal did not cause any beatings to accused persons. 13. Testimony of this witness goes to reveal that he too has denied any injury having been caused to the accused persons, which is contrary to the factual veracity, since defence has also produced injury reports, which have been corroborated and verified by medical evidence. 14. PW6 Ratti has stated that the incident belongs to six and a half months back. It occurred at 4:00 PM, he was at his shop, after hearing ruckus from the premises of Jormal, he hurriedly visited there. Samsu, Fazru, Jumma, Rustam, Samsu, Sher Singh were there, Sher Singh was having Jaily, Fazru was armed with Farsa and rest were having Lathies in their hands, they were loudly saying that kill Jormal, accused Samsu gave a Lathi hit on the head of Jormal, Fazru gave a Farsi blow on his head, which hit him from reverse side, Samru also gave him Latth blow on his back, while, he fell down, Jumma gave a Latth blow on the right leg of Jormal and beatings were also given to Chhutna and Khillu by them, Jormal and Chhutna became unconscious and fell down there. As such he has unfolded ocular version of the incident, he too has said that it is wrong to suggest that they had caused beatings to the accused persons and has also said that bone of contention was a buffalo, thus, this witness has also suppressed the injuries, which have been proved on record having been caused to the accused persons. 15. PW7 Dr. 15. PW7 Dr. P.P. Singhal, Radiologist, has deposed regarding the radiological examination of the injured persons. PW8 Umerdeen has also divulged eye-witness account of the incident, he too has not stated anything regarding any injury found on the body of the accused persons. 16. PW9 Roopnarain Sharma has given chronology and proved various facets of the investigation. PW10 Shivganesh is a Constable, who deposited seizure of samples in FSL. PW11 Uttam Lal is ASI, who has deposed regarding preparation of panchatnama Exhibit-P36. 17. Five witness have been produced by the defence. DW4 Dr. P.P. Singhal has stated that on 29.5.1984 he was working as a Radiologist in General Hospital, Bharatpur, on that day at the request of Medical Officer, Nagar, he got x-ray examination of right palm of Rustam son of Meer Khan vide x-ray plate Exhibit-D11, its x-ray report is Exhibit-D12 and he has further stated as under :- There was evidence of fracture of proximal phalanx of right little finger. There was no callus. The injured is before me and I have compared his mark of identification noted in Exhibit-D12. On 3rd October 1984, x-ray examination of Samsu son of Meer Khan was taken on the requisition of M.O. Nagar, x-ray of right elbow joint was taken under my supervision, x-ray plate is Exhibit-D13. I prepared x-ray report Exhibit-D14, which is in my hands and bears my signatures A to B. There was old fracture of olecranon and dislocation of elbow joint. Injured is before me, I have compared his mark of identification marked in Exhibit-D14. The fracture is more than 8 weeks old. I cannot say whether the injured having the fracture can use any weapon by the right hand. In fracture of Samsu may be two years old.... 18. DW5 Dr. Satish Chandra Arya has also stated regarding injuries of accused Samsu and has said that he was advised for xray. DW1 Dr. The fracture is more than 8 weeks old. I cannot say whether the injured having the fracture can use any weapon by the right hand. In fracture of Samsu may be two years old.... 18. DW5 Dr. Satish Chandra Arya has also stated regarding injuries of accused Samsu and has said that he was advised for xray. DW1 Dr. Satish Chandra Arya has stated that on 12.5.1984 he was Medical Officer of Nagar Hospital and had examined injuries of Samru Khan son of Meer Khan, he was having five injuries on his body and for injury no.1 he was advised x-ray, rest of the injuries were simple and has further stated that on that day at 12:25 AM he had examined Sher Singh son of Meer Khan, he was having four injuries on his body and was advised x-ray for injuries no.1 and 4 vide MLR Register, which is Exhibit-D6 and its copy is Exhibit-D6A, on the same day at 1:00 AM Jumma Khan son of Meer Khan was also examined, he was having two injuries on his body, which are entered in Exhibit-D7 and Exhibit-D7A is its copy and at 1:20 AM injuries of Rustam son of Meer Khan were also examined, he was suffering with three injuries and x-ray was advised for injury no. 1, the said report is Exhibit-D8 and its copy is Exhibit-D8A, which contains his signatures, and has further stated that at 1:35 AM Fazru son of Meer Khan was also examined, who was having seven injuries on his body, three were caused by sharp edged weapon and rest were caused by blunt object, injuries were simple, which were registered in MLR Register, which is Exhibit-D9 and its copy is Exhibit-D9A. The duration of injuries of all the injured was within twenty-four hours. 19. Testimony of these medical witnesses, who have been produced in defence, discloses that five accused persons were injured in the occurrence, they were having respective multiple injuries and one of the injury of accused Rustam was fracture and was grievous one, which is reflected vide Exhibits-D11 and D12. Likewise, injuries of Samsu son of Meer Khan vide Exhibits-D13 and D14 are also stated to be fracture and dislocation of elbow joint and duration of the injuries is stated to be of more than eight weeks. 20. Likewise, injuries of Samsu son of Meer Khan vide Exhibits-D13 and D14 are also stated to be fracture and dislocation of elbow joint and duration of the injuries is stated to be of more than eight weeks. 20. DW2 Roopnarain Sharma, SHO, Nagar, has stated that he was posted as S.H.O. Deeg on 19.5.1984, on that day he had received a complaint under section 156(3) of CrPC, 1973 which was forwarded by the Court of AM/JM, Deeg and Case No. 46 of 84 was registered for the offences punishable under section 147, 148, 149, 324, 452, 323 of IPC and has stated that spot-map was drawn on 20.5.1984 in the presence of Sher Singh on the information of Jumma and Seodan, which is Exhibit-D10, which contains his signatures, he has also stated that none of the accused came to Police Station for lodging report. 21. DW3 Rashid Khan has stated that he was posted in the Department of Water Works at Nagar on 11.5.1984 and Exhibit-P1 was written by him on the dictation of Khillu at well no. 2. 22. Entire facts indicates that the incident had occurred at 4:00 PM on 11.5.1984 and FIR was lodged in the evening at 10:30 PM, after a gap of six and half an hours, Special Report of the FIR was submitted to Area Magistrate on 14.5.1984 at 11:30 AM and no explanation is there as to why the FIR was sent belatedly to the Court of concerned Area Magistrate, though Investigating Officer has said that their despatch is of 12th May but the receipt of the said Exhibit-P13 is of 14th of May, which has obviously been sent beyond prescribed time and injuries are there on the body of five accused persons, which have not been explained by the prosecution. 23. There is no explanation regarding injuries found on the body of accused persons, though one of the prosecution witness has accepted that a criminal case lodged by accused persons, was pending against him but every other witness of the prosecution has withheld and suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence by not explaining as to how injuries were caused to five accused persons, one of the accused person has even sustained grievous injury i.e. fracture. 24. 24. It is imperative to bring truth before the court of justice, non explanation of injuries found on the body of five accused persons, constrains to discern as to who was aggressor and what was the origin and genesis of the crime, as such prosecution has suppressed origin and genesis of the crime and they have not tendered explanation as to how five accused persons sustained multiple injuries. 25. This Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Shivpal and others [D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 1991], decided on 30.8.2017, State of Rajasthan vs. Manaram [D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 91/1990], decided on 13.9.2017, has observed that it is imperative that prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by adducing truthful evidence, suppression of origin makes the story of prosecution non-trustworthy and doubtful. 26. In Bhagwan Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan (2016) 13 SCC 171 , it has been held by Apex Court that genesis and origin of occurrence, if suppressed by the prosecution, then adverse inference against prosecution for not offering any explanation is to be drawn, so, it is evident that prosecution has not offered any explanation, in respect of injuries of accused persons. A number of accused persons have been found injured, as such genesis and origin of the crime has been suppressed. 27. In aforesaid scenario, it is candid that prosecution has not come with clean hands and genesis of the crime has deliberately been suppressed. Resultantly, present appeal filed by the accused persons is accepted and impugned judgment of learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the accused persons is set aside, appellant-accused are acquitted of the charges formulated against them by extending benefit of doubt to which they are entitled. Appellant-accused are already on bail, so they need, not to, surrender, their personal bonds and surety bonds are discharged, however, they are directed to appear before the trial Court for compliance of the provisions of section 437A of CrPC, 1973. Learned trial Court is also directed to ensure compliance accordingly. 28. Let record of the trial Court be transmitted back immediately with a copy of the judgment. 29. Appeal Allowed - Accused To Comply With section 437A of Cr.P.C., 1973 Before Trial Court.