JUDGMENT JUDGMENT G.R. Moolchandani, J. - Ten accused persons, namely Ramchandra son of Moti, Ambalal son of Panna, Sualal son of Pannalal, Prahlad son of Ramkanwar, Devlal son of Ramnarain, Heeralal son of Sukhdev, Ganesh son of Ramsukh, Badrilal son of Pannalal, Ramkunwar son of Kesra and Mohanlal son of Sultan were tried by the Court of Sessions Judge, Bundi in Sessions Case No.51/1988 for the offences under section 148, 323, 302, 324 read with section 149 of IPC and vide judgment dt 25.5.1992 trial Court, while acquitting rest of the eight accused, convicted and sentenced appellants Ambalal and Sualal for the offence under section 302 of IPC and awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereto sentenced them for six months simple imprisonment. 2. Aggrieved against the judgment impugned, instant D.B. Criminal Appeal No.237/1992 has been preferred by both the accused Ambalal and Sualal assailing the findings. 3. FIR Exhibit-P7 was lodged by Bardhilal on 14.2.1988 bearing FIR No.24/1988, for the offences under section 147, 148, 149, 307 of IPC against all named ten accused persons, content of which reads as under :- 4. Autopsy Report Exhibit-P16 of deceased Chothmal s/o Bhura reflects that the cause of death of deceased was head injury and following four injuries were noted in the Autopsy Report Exhibit-P16 :- (i) Abrasion 11/2" x 1 /2" on Rt. cheek, in between Rt. ear and Rt. lateral angle of mouth with swelling 4" x 4". (ii) Stitched wound with three stitches 21/2" long, parallel and lateral to sagittal plane on Rt. parietal aspect of scalp, 31/2" above Rt. ear and 3" above Rt. eye brow. (iii) Haematoma 3" x 2" on left parietal aspect of scalp on posterior part. (iv) Swelling 3" x 21/2" on posterior aspect of left hand in middle near base of index and middle fingers. Beneath the column on opening of the scalp, the Autopsy Report mentions "haematoma found over Rt. frontoparietal-temporal region and left fronto-parietal region, there is separation of coronal suture on left side & fracture of frontal & parietal bone on Lt. side and fracture of frontal parietal & temporal bone on Rt. side as shown in figure. On opening the skull - Extradural haematoma found on both sides of frontoparietal region. Laceration of meninges 11/2" x V/" in mid parietal region and laceration of meninges l 1 /2" x V on Rt. side and fracture of frontal parietal & temporal bone on Rt. side as shown in figure. On opening the skull - Extradural haematoma found on both sides of frontoparietal region. Laceration of meninges 11/2" x V/" in mid parietal region and laceration of meninges l 1 /2" x V on Rt. parietal region just lateral to midline, there is laceration of frontal lobe on Lt. side 1" x /" x 1 /4". Extensive haematoma found below meninges over frontal & parietal region on both sides, there is fracture of base of skull - at Lt. middle cranial fossa transversely and at Rt. anterior cranial fossa vertically." 5. PW13 Dr. Shanker Lal Pratihar has stated that on 14.2.1988 he was posted as a Medical Officer at Dei and on the request of S.H.O. Dei, he had examined Chothmal s/o Bhura vide Ex.P/13 and following injuries were found on his body :- (i) Lacerated wound 7 x 3 x 3cm upper and right parietal region of scalp - parallel to sagital suture, blunt. (ii) Abrasion with swelling 4 x 1 x 11/2cm on right cheek in between right ear & right lateral angle of mouth, simple, blunt. (iii) Swelling irregular shape & size on left aspect of scalp on post aspect, simple, blunt. (iv) Swelling 6 x 4cm on posterior aspect of left hand near base of index and middle fingers, simple, blunt. 6. Dr. Shanker Lal Pratihar (PW13) further said that Exhibit-P13 was drawn by him, which contains his signature, injury nos.2, 3 and 4 were simple and for injury no.1 x-ray was advised and duration of the injuries was within twenty-four hours. 7. PW18 Dr. K.K. Kanjolia, who being another member of Medical Board had conducted Autopsy on the body of the deceased Chothmal, has corroborated and reiterated the injuries as mentioned in Autopsy Report Exhibit-P16 and has opined that the cause of death was head injury and has asserted that Exhibit P16 Post Mortem Report was drawn by him, which contains his signature and has stated that deceased had died because of cumulative impact of injury nos.1, 2, 3 and the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. 8. 8. PW5 Bardhilal, Complainant and injured eye-witness, has stated that the incident belongs to eight months back of day time, they have got a land near river Tarjuni and were having possession over it for last twenty years, about eight months back Chothmal, Sanvla, Kanha and Harpal were doing irrigating job on the well there, Mohan came with a tractor, Badri, Ambalal, Sua, Ramkanwar, Prahlad, Devlal also came accompanying him armed with Kulhari, Gandasi, Sword, and Sticks and started ploughing the field, tractor was being driven by accused Mohan, while they were ploughing the field he, Chothmal, Sanvla and Kanha have gone ahead of them to request, on this tractor hit was given to Chothmal, soon after it Ambalal, Sua and Badri caused incised injuries to Chothmal by Gandasi and caused him cutting injuries, Badri gave Gandasi hit to him and Ramkanwar hit him on the neck behind head, his brother Chothmal died of the injuries, in cross examination he has stated that while he was lodging FIR it was learnt that his brother Chothmal was taken to Bundi and has also stated that he too was taken to doctor and remained hospitalised for nine days at Bundi, this witness has thoroughly been cross examined, he has expressed his ignorance on the point of injuries to accused persons since he has said that he is not aware that accused persons had also sustained injuries and Sanvla, Ganesh, Ramchandra, Ramnarain, Bajranga would have also caused injuries, though this witness has accepted that a case against them was also pending regarding the same incident, he has also stated that he does not remember Khasra number of the disputed field, this witness has admittedly said that the disputed field does not belong to their Khata number but it relates to down side to their land and whenever river water depletes, land emerges out, and has stated that Motipura Dam is built on this river and when the Dam is to its brim, then this land submerges into water. 9. PW6 Harpal, another eye-witness, has also not disclosed anything regarding the injuries found on the body of several accused persons, he has also said that he is unaware that a case was lodged against them regarding the same incident and has even negated a suggestion that the complainant side would have given beating to the accused persons. 10. 9. PW6 Harpal, another eye-witness, has also not disclosed anything regarding the injuries found on the body of several accused persons, he has also said that he is unaware that a case was lodged against them regarding the same incident and has even negated a suggestion that the complainant side would have given beating to the accused persons. 10. PW7 Sanvla, another eye-witness, has turned hostile and has even discarded several utterances made in his police statements Exhibit-P11, in cross examination he has also added that he had seen injuries on the body of Bardha and has further stated that he is unaware regarding injuries to the accused persons. 11. PW8 Kanha son of Gangaram, another injured eyewitness, has stated that the incident belongs to fifteen to sixteen months back, he was grazing his goats near river, Ramchandra, Shamkumar, Sua, Ambalal, Badri, Devlal, Heera, Mohan came there to plough the land of Chothmal by tractor, they were having Gandasi, Kulhari, and Sticks in their hands and Mohan was driving the tractor, Chothmal came and stood ahead of the tractor with folded hands and asked them not to plough the land, Sualal and Ambalal gave Gandasi blows on the head, jaw and shoulder of Chothmal, resultantly he fell down. In cross examination he has negated several parts of Exhibit-D3 his police statement and has stated that it is wrong that Sanvla, Kanha, Ramkanwar, Devlal, Gyarsiya, Palya, Chothmal, Bardhilal and Ramlal would have come armed with Sticks and Kulhari to beat accused persons but this witness has stated that accused had also sustained injuries. 12. PW9 Kanha son of Sheonarain, another eye-witness, has also stated eye-witness account, in cross examination he has admitted that Chothmal and Bardhilal were his nephew and has said that the disputed land is low lying sinking land, this witness has also negated that the disputed land was being ploughed by the accused persons and the complainant would have gone to beat them. 13. PW10 Chaturbhuj, another eye-witness, has stated that all the accused persons were involved in giving beatings to Chothmal and they were having dispute because of land. 13. PW10 Chaturbhuj, another eye-witness, has stated that all the accused persons were involved in giving beatings to Chothmal and they were having dispute because of land. Chothmal had sustained head injury, whether he died or not, witness (PW10) said he is unaware, In cross examination this witness has discarded several parts of his police statement and has stated that at the time of the incident he did not visit the spot but had witnessed the incident from distance and has also said that when he reached there, then Sanvla, Kanha, Kajod and Devlal were carrying Chothmal to Police Station and he cannot say whether Chothmal was bleeding from his head or not, so, testimony of this witness is trivial and is not of importance. 14. PW11 Gopal has stated that Chothmal had sustained injuries on his head, Kanha and Sanvla had come to separate them, in cross examination he has also said that he had only seen both the parties at the spot and had seen Chothmal lying there and accused leaving by tractor, he too has said that he did not see any injury to the accused persons and he is not in a position to say because he did not witness the same. 15. PW12 Chothmal has also stated that he was grazing his goats near Karchuni River, Mohan was driving tractor, accused came there, Amba Lal gave a gandasi blow on the head of Chothmal, he fell down, in cross examination, he has denied his police statement Exhibit-D6 and has stated that qua the incident, nothing was ever enquired by police and has discarded several narrations of his police statements, he has also stated that he is unaware that 100 to 150 people would have gathered there. This witness (PW12) has also said that he had not seen any injury on the body of accused persons and has further stated that he is not in a position to say that accused Ganesh, Ramchandra, Ramnarain would have also sustained injuries nor he witnessed any injury on the body of Badri. 16. PW17 Mahavir has also declined several statements of his police statements Exhibit-D13, this witness has also stated that he did not witness any injury on the body of accused persons. 17. 16. PW17 Mahavir has also declined several statements of his police statements Exhibit-D13, this witness has also stated that he did not witness any injury on the body of accused persons. 17. PW19 Anar Singh ASI has admitted that Exhibit-P7 was written by him, which was dictated by Bardhilal and has stated that Chothmal was referred for Bundi, where he died in the hospital, so, case was altered to under section 302 of IPC, he has narrated different facets and chronology adopted to investigate, in cross examination he has admitted that FIR was also lodged by accused persons in respect of the same incident and after investigation challan was presented against the complainant side of this case, both the cases were cross case. 18. Testimony of other witnesses is not being observed here in order not to burden the judgment. 19. Accused Badri Lal, while examined under section 313 of CrPC, 1973 has explained this aspect that the accused persons were beaten by complainant side and they have filed their injury reports Exhibit- D14 to Exhibit-D18. 20. Accused Ramchandra has also explained that he was given injuries in the incident. 21. DW1 Kalu Ram, defence witness, has stated that the disputed land was under the possession of Ambalal, Sualal, Badri and it was in their occupation for several years and they used to cultivate it. 22. Appreciation of evidence of all the eye-witnesses reveals that Prosecution has suppressed origin and genesis of the occurrence and all the eye-witnesses have stated that they did not witness any injury on the body of accused persons, one of the injured eye-witness PW7 Sanvla has turned hostile, he too has said that he did not witness any injury on the body of accused persons. 23. Perusal of evidence of PW13 Dr. Shanker Lal Pratihar reveals that on 14.2.1988, he had also examined injuries on the body of accused Ramchandra and following four injuries were found on his body :- (i) Incised wound 10 x 3 x 2cm on middle of head anterior to posterior, sharp. (ii) Incised wound 3 x 2 x 1cm on middle of left extending ear, two separate portions occurred, simple sharp. (iii) Bruise with echymosis 6 x 3cm on left lateral to vertebral column at 6th thoracic vertebrae, simple, blunt. (iv) Bruise with echymosis 6 x 3cm on back side of neck, simple, blunt. (ii) Incised wound 3 x 2 x 1cm on middle of left extending ear, two separate portions occurred, simple sharp. (iii) Bruise with echymosis 6 x 3cm on left lateral to vertebral column at 6th thoracic vertebrae, simple, blunt. (iv) Bruise with echymosis 6 x 3cm on back side of neck, simple, blunt. Injury no.1 was found on the head, which is vital part of the body for which x-ray was advised and injury report is Exhibit-D7. Accused Badrilal is also stated to have been examined by this doctor vide Exhibit-D8 and following four injuries were found on his body:- (i) Swelling, irregular shape & size on dorsal surface of lateral side of left hand, blunt. (ii) Swelling, irregular shape & size on posterior surface of left elbow joint, blunt. (iii) Swelling, irregular shape & size on posterior surface & middle of forearm, simple, blunt. (iv) Bruise with echymosis 6 x 4cm on anterior surface of left shoulder joint, simple, blunt. Injuries no.1 and 2 of Badri Lal were also found grievous after perusal of x-ray plates, this witness has further stated that on the same day he had examined accused Ganesh vide Exhibit-D10 and accused Ramnarain vide Exhibit-D11. He has further said that all the accused persons were examined on the request of S.H.O. Dei and Exhibit-D7 to D-11 contains his signatures and original of these injury reports were available in File No.188/1989 State vs. Kanha & Ors of the Court of CJM, Bundi. 24. Dr. Shanker Lal Pratihar (PW13) has further stated to have examined accused Sualal vide Exhibit-D12 and has stated that following three injuries were found on his body:- (i) Lacerated wound 3 x 2 x 1cm on posterior surface & upper /rd of right forearm, simple, blunt. (ii) Lacerated wound with bony injury 3 x 3 x 2cm on posterior surface of upper /rd left forearm, blunt. (iii) Incised wound 6 x 3 x 2cm on occipital region of head, sharp. Dr. Pratihar admitted that Exhibit-D12 is his handwriting, which contains his signatures. 25. It is imperative to bring forth true version of the incident before the court, concealment of factual aspect tarnishes the truth and in such position, it becomes difficult to ascertain as to who was the aggressor and what was the actual incident. 26. Dr. Pratihar admitted that Exhibit-D12 is his handwriting, which contains his signatures. 25. It is imperative to bring forth true version of the incident before the court, concealment of factual aspect tarnishes the truth and in such position, it becomes difficult to ascertain as to who was the aggressor and what was the actual incident. 26. Several accused persons have sustained injuries and injuries found on the body of Ramchandra (Exhibit-D7), Badrilal (Exhibit-D8), Ganesh (Exhibit-D10), Ramnarain (Exhibit-D11), Sualal (Exhibit-D12) are on vital parts of their body, and serious injuries have also been found on the body of accused persons, thus, genesis of the crime has been suppressed by the prosecution. This Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Shivpal & Others [D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 529/1991], 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. 27. In Bhagwan Sahai 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 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. 28. In aforesaid scenario it is candid that prosecution has not come with clean hands and genesis of the crime has deliberately been suppressed, so, the accused persons are entitled to be held ''not guilty'', therefore, the findings of the learned trial Court are liable to be set aside and both the accused appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 29. Thus, the appeal succeeds and finding of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court against both the accused appellants, is set aside and quashed and accused appellants are acquitted of the charges. Both the accused appellants are on bail, so, they are not required to surrender, however, they are directed to appear before the court below and comply with the provisions of section 437A of CrPC, 1973. Learned trial Court is also directed to ensure compliance of the same. 30. Both the accused appellants are on bail, so, they are not required to surrender, however, they are directed to appear before the court below and comply with the provisions of section 437A of CrPC, 1973. Learned trial Court is also directed to ensure compliance of the same. 30. Record of the trial Court be transmitted back immediately with a copy of the judgment.