JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. 1. In all above criminal appeals filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. by accused appellants, Satpal, Rohitash, Atma Ram, Yusuf, Mohd. Yunus and Champalal. the judgment dated 30th of July, 2011 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh, HQ- Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in Session Case No. 41/2009, is under challenge, whereby the accused appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 302/149, 147, 120B and 307/149 of IPC and following sentence was passed against them, which reads as under: - "Appellants: Satpal, Rohitash, Mohammed Yusuf and Yusuf. 147 of IPC Two Years' Simple Imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 3000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 302/149 of IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. 307/149 of IPC Ten Years' Simple Imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 3000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 120B of IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. Appellant: Atma Ram: 147 of IPC Two Years' Simple Imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 3000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 302 of IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. 307 of IPC Ten Years' Simple Imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 3000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 120B of IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. [Appellant, Somdutt, died in jail, therefore, appeal was abated qua him.]" 2. As per facts of the case, P.W. 1 Kaka Singh, gave statements (Ex. P/1) on 15.05.2009 at 10.40 AM to the A.S.I. of Police Station- Suratgarh, at Govt. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. [Appellant, Somdutt, died in jail, therefore, appeal was abated qua him.]" 2. As per facts of the case, P.W. 1 Kaka Singh, gave statements (Ex. P/1) on 15.05.2009 at 10.40 AM to the A.S.I. of Police Station- Suratgarh, at Govt. Hospital, Suratgarh, in which following allegations were levelled against the appellants, Atma Ram and 4-5 other unknown persons: ^^ipkZ c;ku Jh dkdk flag fnukad 15-5-09 oDr 10-40 , ,e Jh dkdk flag S/o eku flag tkfr ckthxj mez 30 lky fu-9 SSW P.S. guqekux<+ Vkmu ftyk gquekux<+ gky HkrhZ tSj bykt jk-fp- lwjrx<+ us ipkZ c;ku fd;k fd lqjthr flag fu- Hkxokulj esjk nksLr gSA blds ikl esa 2&3 fnu igys esa lqjthr flag ds ikl Hkxokulj vk;k gqvk Fkk vkt fnuakd 15-5-09- dks lqcg 8 cts ds yxHkx eS o esjk nksLRk lqjthr flag nksuks Hkxokulj ls lqjthr dh rkjh[k Hkqxrus eksVj lkbZdy ls lqjrx<+ vk jgs Fks eksVj lkbZdy lqjthr flag pyk jgk Fkk tc ge oDr 8-30 cts ds yxHkx tc ge lqjrx<+ 'kgj esa vkus okyh jksM+ ij eksM+ ls FkksM+k vkxs igqaps rks gekjs ihNs ls ,d dSUVj cM+k Vªd tks gekjs fiNys vk jgk Fkk fd dSVj esa 4&5 vkneh lokj FksA tks dSchu esa cSBs FksA dSVj vkRek jke fCk'uksbZ pyk jgk FkkA dSV pkyd us dSVj dk tkucw> dj gekjs mij p<+kus ds fy, VDdj ekjh ftlls lqjthr flag o eS eksVj lkbZdy ls jksM+ ij fxj x;s fxjrs gh lqjthr ds flj esa pksV yxh mldh e`R;q gks xbZ o esjs xEHkhj pksVs yxhA lqjthr ds ikl ,d fiLRkkSy Fkk o dkjrwl Fks oks ekSdk ij mlds ikl gh fxj x;sA eSa vui<+ gksus ds dkj.k dSaVj ds uEcj ugha i<+ ik;k dSaVj dks oks yksx gekjs VDdj ekjdj Hkxk dj ys x;s vkus tkus okys jkgfxjks us Qksu fd;k rks ,saEcqysal ekSdk ls esjs dks gksLihVy ys vkbZ o lqjthr ogha ekSdk ij iM+k gSA o eksVj lkbZdy lqjthr dk Fkk tks ekSdk ij iM+k gSA c;ku nsrk dk;Zokgh dh tkosA Sd/- (Thumb impression)” 3. On the basis of above statement recorded in the Govt. Hospital, Surathgarh, formal F.I.R. No. 172/2009 was registered on 15.05.2009 by the S.H.O., Police Station-Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar. 4. After registration of the FIR, investigation was commenced by the Investigating Officer (PW.29- Majid Khan). On the basis of above statement recorded in the Govt. Hospital, Surathgarh, formal F.I.R. No. 172/2009 was registered on 15.05.2009 by the S.H.O., Police Station-Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar. 4. After registration of the FIR, investigation was commenced by the Investigating Officer (PW.29- Majid Khan). During investigation the dead body of the deceased (Surjeet S/o Kishanlal) was taken to Hospital for postmortem, where postmortem was conducted by the Medical Board, in which Dr. Jagat Singh and Dr. Vinod Sharma, were the members. As per opinion of the Medical Board, and according to postmortem report, the cause of death was shock (Neurogenic + Hemorrhage) due to seven injuries on the person of deceased as are mentioned in the postmortem report (Ex. P/65) dated 15.05.2009. 5. During investigation the accused appellants were arrested and the injury report of injured, author of FIR P.W. 1-Kaka Singh (Ex. P/61) was also obtained from the Hospital for the purpose of further investigation by the Investigating Officer. As per injury report one lacerated wound and eight abrasions were found upon the body of injured eye witness Kaka Singh (PW.1). The Investigating Officer after recording statements of eye witnesses and other connected witnesses filed charge sheet against 7 accused persons under Sections 120B, 147, 148, 302 and 307/149 of IPC in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, from where the case was committed for trial to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT), Anoopgarh, HQ-Suratgarh. 6. After providing opportunity of hearing, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT), Anoopgarh, HQ- Suratgarh, framed charges against the accused appellants under Sections 120B, 148, 302 and 302/149, so also under Sections 307 and 307/149 of IPC, but all the accused appellants denied the charges and prayed for trial. 7. In the trial, statements of 24 witnesses were recorded from the prosecution side and 143 documents were exhibited in support of prosecution case. The statements of the accused appellants were also recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses and said that they innocent. In defence, DW.1 Atma Ram was examined and 9 documents were exhibited in the defence. 8. The learned trial court after recording the evidence of both the sides finally heard the arguments raised on behalf of accused appellants, as well as Addl. In defence, DW.1 Atma Ram was examined and 9 documents were exhibited in the defence. 8. The learned trial court after recording the evidence of both the sides finally heard the arguments raised on behalf of accused appellants, as well as Addl. PP and counsel for the complainant and vide its judgment dated 30.07.2011 convicted the accused appellants for the offences mentioned above and passed sentenced mentioned above. In this appeal the appellants are challenging the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court on various grounds and judgment dated 30.07.2011. 9. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the prosecution has given colour to a case of accident by unknown person into a case of murder, so as to hold accused appellants guilty without there being any evidence against them. The FIR was registered on the basis of statements (Ex. P/1) of injured eye witness P.W. 1-Kaka Singh on 15.05.2009 at 11.15 AM by the ASI- Heeralal of Police Station Suratgarh. The witness P.W. 1 Kaka Singh, alleged FIR that today at about 08.00 AM he along with his friend Surjeet were going to Suratgarh on a motorcycle being driven by Surjeet Singh to attend the court proceedings against him, when they reached near Suratgarh city road, one vehicle Canter driven by accused, Atma Ram, came from backside with full speed and intentionally hit the motorcycle to kill them. Due to said hit, they fell down and Surjeet suffered head injury, and died on the spot. The complainant further stated that he has also received injuries, the deceased Surjeet was having a pistol with him the said pistol dropped there. The driver of vehicle Canter ran away, some people came on the spot and called ambulance to take the injured Kaka Singh as well as Surjeet to the hospital. 10. In the FIR no allegation was levelled by the injured eye witness P.W. 1 Kaka Singh, against the appellants for having any intention or motive to kill Surjeet. The driver of vehicle Canter ran away, some people came on the spot and called ambulance to take the injured Kaka Singh as well as Surjeet to the hospital. 10. In the FIR no allegation was levelled by the injured eye witness P.W. 1 Kaka Singh, against the appellants for having any intention or motive to kill Surjeet. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the trial the author of FIR P.W. 1 Kaka Singh, turned hostile and did not support the allegations made by him in the FIR, therefore, it is obvious that a false investigation was conducted by the investigating officer, which is evident from the fact that P.W. 1 Kaka Singh, eye witness who was author of FIR, turned hostile and not supported the prosecution story. Other witnesses, namely P.W. 7- Jalamuddin, P.W. 12-Lalchand, P.W. 13-Atma Ram (eye witnesses), P.W. 14- Hansraj (eye witness), P.W. 15 Ashok Kumar (owner of vehicle Canter), turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The finding of guilt is based upon statement of two witnesses, namely, P.W. 3- Lekhram and P.W. 16, Munshi Ram (both maternal uncle of deceased) planted by the prosecution as eye witness to prove the false case against the appellants. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants further submit that the names of so called eye witness, Lekhram and Munshiram were not even disclosed by the complainant injured eye witness, Kaka Singh (PW.1) in his statements recorded by the police soon after the occurrence, therefore, whatever allegations levelled by the witness P.W. 3, Lekhram and P.W. 16- Munshiram, claiming to be eye witness, could not have been relied upon so as to hold accused appellants guilty for committing offence of murder of the deceased, Surjeet. 12. As per learned counsel for the appellants, the statement of P.W. 3- Lekhram were recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. on 16.05.2009, whereas statements of P.W. 16- Munshiram, maternal uncle of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C., were recorded vide Ex. P/3 on 24.05.2009 to prove the allegations with regard to enmity in between appellants and the deceased. However, upon perusal of the statements of these two witnesses P.W. 3, Lekhram and P.W. 16- Munshiram it will reveal that these witnesses were not even present at the time of accident. P/3 on 24.05.2009 to prove the allegations with regard to enmity in between appellants and the deceased. However, upon perusal of the statements of these two witnesses P.W. 3, Lekhram and P.W. 16- Munshiram it will reveal that these witnesses were not even present at the time of accident. The story narrated by the maternal uncles of the deceased, P.W. 3, Lekhram and P.W. 16-Munshiram, clearly show that it is far from the truth because according to these so-called eye witnesses, after the incident, they did not take care of the injured, so also, did not went on the spot to take deceased, Surjeet and injured eye witness Kaka Singh to the Hospital. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that none of the eye witnesses or other witnesses including author of FIR (PW.1 Kaka Singh) has corroborated the so-called allegation of movie disclosed by P.W. 3, Lekhram and P.W. 16-Munshiram, maternal uncles of the deceased, therefore, their testimony cannot be relied upon to hold the accused appellants guilty for offence of murder. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that as per prosecution case, Atma Ram, Hansraj and Kaka Singh were the eye witness and in the first statement made by Kaka Singh (PW.1), presence of maternal uncles (PW.3, Lekhram and P.W. 16-Munshiram) has not been disclosed but subsequently these witnesses were planted as eye witnesses so as to create evidence of motive against the appellant because their testimony is not supported by any witness, more so, even owner of vehicle Canter P.W. 15 Ashok Kumar, turned hostile and categorically stated before the court that Atma Ram was not the driver of his vehicle, therefore, the finding of learned trial court so as to hold accused appellants guilty upon the testimony of two planted eye witnesses, suffers from material illegality because their presence is seriously doubtful. 14. It is also admitted fact that the pistol of deceased was recovered from the site and there is no allegation of prosecution for inflicting any injury by the appellants to the deceased. In fact, it is a case of accident, but prosecution has involved all the appellants by creating false evidence of two planted witnesses viz. P.W. 3, Lekhram and P.W. 16-Munshiram, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. It is admitted case that statements (Ex. P/1) of injured eye witness P.W. 1- Kaka Singh, were recorded by Sh. In fact, it is a case of accident, but prosecution has involved all the appellants by creating false evidence of two planted witnesses viz. P.W. 3, Lekhram and P.W. 16-Munshiram, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. It is admitted case that statements (Ex. P/1) of injured eye witness P.W. 1- Kaka Singh, were recorded by Sh. Heeralal, ASI of Police Station Suratgarh, upon which FIR was registered, but in the trial said witness Heeralal (ASI) has not been produced as witness to prove the fact of recording statement of injured eye witness, Kaka Singh. As per appellants, there is no doubt with regard to investigation on the spot by the investigating officer but it is a case in which the investigating officer gave colour to a case of accident, into a case of murder while creating evidence against the accused appellant, because except two planted witnesses, who are maternal uncle of deceased, no other evidence on record to prove the allegations of hitting motorcycle of the deceased by the vehicle Canter, which is alleged to be driven by accused appellant, Atma Ram. Therefore, the whole prosecution case stands upon false testimony of two so-called eye witnesses, whose names were not disclosed by the injured eye witness in his statements (Ex. P/1), therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed and set aside. 15. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that it is a case in which all the eye witnesses except two witnesses, viz. P.W. 3, Lekhram and P.W. 16- Munshiram, were win over by the accused appellants, therefore, they turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. It is also argued that as per evidence on record, the appellants are habitual offenders so many criminal cases were registered against each other, therefore, to take revenge, they intentionally hit the motorcycle of the deceased by the vehicle Canter with an intention to kill him. Therefore, the learned trial court after scrutinizing the statements of two eye witnesses viz. P.W. 3, Lekhram and P.W. 16- Munshiram, rightly held the accused appellants guilty for committing offence of murder. 16. Therefore, the learned trial court after scrutinizing the statements of two eye witnesses viz. P.W. 3, Lekhram and P.W. 16- Munshiram, rightly held the accused appellants guilty for committing offence of murder. 16. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor argued that there is no question to disbelieve the entire investigation conducted by the investigating officer P.W. 29- Majid Khan, so also, to disbelieve the testimony of eye witnesses P.W. 3, Lekhram and P.W. 16- Munshiram, because they were very much present at the time of occurrence took place and prove the fact that there was previous enmity in between the present appellants and the deceased. It is further argued that although there is no allegation of prosecution for inflicting any injuries by weapon but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that to take revenge due to criminal cases registered against the deceased, in which he was acquitted, the appellants caused death of deceased, Surjeet in an incident of accident. In fact, intentionally the driver of vehicle Canter, hit the motorcycle so as to cause death of the deceased, Surjeet. The finding of the learned trial court does not require any interference because the finding of conviction is based upon trustworthy evidence of eye witnesses viz. P.W. 3, Lekhram and P.W. 16-Munshiram, therefore the instant appeal may kindly be dismissed. 17. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have minutely scanned the entire evidence. 18. It emerges from the evidence that author of FIR P.W. 1 Kaka Singh, turned hostile and did not make any allegation against the appellants and proved the prosecution case. We have also perused the statement (Ex. P/1) of P.W. 1 Kaka Singh, upon which FIR was registered by the police. In the said statements of the Kaka Singh, there is no disclosure of the fact that so-called eye witnesses, namely, P.W. 3, Lekhram and P.W. 16- Munshiram, were present when accident took place. It is true that both these witnesses P.W. 3 Lekhram and P.W. 16 Munshiram made allegations while narrating some facts regarding criminal cases and criminal activities of both the parties but it is also one of the important fact that these witnesses, are real maternal uncle of the deceased, Surjeet and, they are claiming that incident took place in front of them. If it is so, then, question arose why after accident they did not take care of their relative, Surjeet (son of their sister) to take him to hospital, and why they did not give information to the police about the occurrence, which allegedly took place in front of them. 19. The entire evidence loudly speaks that both so-called witnesses viz. P.W. 3, Lekhram and P.W. 16- Munshiram are maternal uncle of deceased, according to them there was enmity in between the appellants and the deceased; therefore, they were continuously watching Surjeet, for rescue but neither their presence was disclosed by the injured eye witness P.W. 1- Kaka Singh, nor any other evidence is on record to prove the fact that they were present when occurrence took place. 20. In our opinion, the story narrated by so-called eye witnesses, maternal uncles of deceased, P.W. 3, Lekhram and P.W. 16- Munshiram gave colour to a case of accident to a case of murder, therefore, it is not safe to uphold the finding of trial court whereby the accused appellants have been held guilty for the offences of murder. 21. It is very relevant to observe that not only the author of FIR P.W. 1- Kaka Singh, injured eye witness turned hostile, but other eye witnesses for whom the prosecution is claiming that they were eye witness of the incident and witness of enmity, turned hostile. The witnesses P.W. 13, Atma Ram, P.W. 14- Hansraj, P.W. 17- Subhash Singh were produced before the court as an eye witnesses but they all turned hostile and did not support the allegations of prosecution. Similarly, the ASI- Heeralal, who recorded the statements of P.W. 1- Kaka Singh, did not appear before the court so as to prove the fact that he has recorded the statement of injured eye witness, Kaka Singh. The other witnesses viz. P.W. 7-Jalamuddin, P.W. 12-Lalchand, P.W. 13-Atma Ram (eye witnesses), P.W. 14- Hansraj (eye witness), and P.W. 15 Ashok Kumar (owner of vehicle Canter) all turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 22. The other witnesses viz. P.W. 7-Jalamuddin, P.W. 12-Lalchand, P.W. 13-Atma Ram (eye witnesses), P.W. 14- Hansraj (eye witness), and P.W. 15 Ashok Kumar (owner of vehicle Canter) all turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 22. In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the trial court has committed an error to reply the testimony of P.W. 3- Lekhram and P.W. 16- Munshiram, who were not even present at the time of occurrence took place, which is evident from the fact that none of the witnesses corroborated their statement, so also their conduct is totally unnatural because being maternal uncle, it was their duty to take Surjeet to hospital but according to their own statements, they did not take any action to brought injured and Surjeet to the Hospital. 23. With regard to allegation of prosecution that Atma Ram was driving the vehicle/vehicle Canter and hit the motorcycle of the deceased, we have perused the statements of P.W. 15-Ashok Kumar (registered owner of the vehicle). The said witness declared hostile but categorically stated that he is the owner of the vehicle Canter (RJ-13-GA-1414) and on the date of occurrence i.e. 15.05.2009, Satpal S/o Jagdish was the driver upon this vehicle Canter and accepted that police gave him notice u/s. 133 of M.V. Act and also went on the spot when accident took place. This witness categorically said that he is not knowing any of the accused persons, against whom allegations are levelled by the prosecution. 24. As per prosecution case, when Surjeet was going on his motorcycle along with Kaka Singh (PW.1), one vehicle Canter (RJ-13-GA-1414) hit the motorcycle and Atma Ram, Driver intentionally hit the motorcycle of the deceased, on which the complainant injured witness Kaka Singh was sitting as pillion rider, therefore, sustained injuries but Kaka Singh (PW.1) specifically denied all the allegations of the prosecution, so also, the owner of the vehicle Canter P.W. 15 Ashok Kumar though turned hostile but specifically said that Atma Ram was not working as driver on his vehicle Canter. One Satpal was working as driver upon his vehicle. The above facts based upon assessment of evidence, loudly speaks that presence of the witnesses P.W. 3 Lekhram and P.W. 16, Munshiram, maternal uncles of the deceased, Surjeet, is doubtful, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. One Satpal was working as driver upon his vehicle. The above facts based upon assessment of evidence, loudly speaks that presence of the witnesses P.W. 3 Lekhram and P.W. 16, Munshiram, maternal uncles of the deceased, Surjeet, is doubtful, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court has wrongly relied upon the statements of only two planted witnesses who were not even present at the time of occurrence because their testimony has not been corroborated by any of the witnesses. 25. It emerges from the assessment of entire evidence that there is no allegation against the appellants for inflicting any injury by any weapon on the person of deceased. The prosecution case is that the vehicle Canter was driven by accused appellant, Atma Ram, and 4-5 other persons were sitting in the cabin of the said vehicle. Except name of Atma Ram, no specific names of any accused were mentioned in the FIR, which is said to be given by the author of FIR, namely, P.W. 1 Kaka Singh. Admittedly there is no disclosure of the names of P.W. 3 Lakhram and P.W. 16 Munshi Ram in the FIR and that they were present at the place of occurrence, which was registered on the basis of statement of P.W. 1 Kaka Singh. 26. Admittedly, P.W. 3 Lekhram and P.W. 16 Munshiram are maternal uncles of the deceased, who died in the accident due to hit of his motor cycle by vehicle canter. Both these witnesses narrated a different story with regard to enmity in between appellants and the deceased, Surjeet and, so also, both these witnesses are claiming that they were present when the occurrence took place. Although these two witnesses stated before the court that on the date of incident they were also going on other motorcycle and Surjeet and Kaka Singh were going on other motorcycle, which was subsequently hit by vehicle Canter, which is said to be driven by accused Atma Ram. It is also admitted fact that after the incident, no information was given by these two witnesses to the police, so also, it is nowhere stated by them that they took care of injured Kaka Singh and their nephew, Surjeet (deceased) on the spot. It is also admitted fact that after the incident, no information was given by these two witnesses to the police, so also, it is nowhere stated by them that they took care of injured Kaka Singh and their nephew, Surjeet (deceased) on the spot. Furthermore, the witness P.W. 3 Lekhram, real maternal uncle of deceased said that, ^^tgka Vªd p<+k;k Fkk ogka ls 200&300 ehVj vkxs pydj vt [kqn dgk fd 150&200 ehVj vkxs pydj dSVj :dk ftlesa ls MªkbZoj lkbZM ls vkRekjke uhps mrjk o nwljh vksj ls lksenŸk] ;wful [kka] o ,d iryk lk vU; uhps mrjs Fks vkSj uhps mrj dj Hkkxus yxs rks vkRekjke cksyk fd lwjthr dks ekjuk Fkk lks ekj fn;k] vc iqfyl vk tk;sxh vius Hkkx pyksA mlds ckn eSa o eq'khjke bu yksxks vkRekjke oxSjk ls Mjrs gq,] vkRekjke] ;wful [kka] lksenŸk vkfn ls Mjrs gq, cktkj dh vksj okfil Hkkx x,A eS vkRekjke] lksenŸk] jksfgrk'k] ;qlqQ [kka] pEikyky] ;wful [kka dks igys ls tkurk gwa] tks vkt gkftj vnkyr gSA ;s lHkh gkftj vnkyr ogh yksx gS tks ml jkst dS.Vj ls mrjs FksA eSus o eqa'khjke us cktkj esa igqpdj eSus ijekuan o ykypan dks Qksu fd;k o dgk fd vkRekjke] ;qlqQ] ;qful o 7&8 O;fDr;ksa us lwjthr ij o dkdk flag ij dS.Vj p<+k fn;k gSA mlds ckn esa ckn nksigj vLirky x;k FkkA ;gka vLirky esa djhc ,d ?k.Vs rd :dk FkkA^^ 27. It is true that in the aforesaid statement, P.W. 3 disclosed the name of appellants and specifically levelled allegation against Atma Ram, but said that all these persons escaped from the place of occurrence but I did not go on the spot and for the first time I went to hospital in the afternoon when body was already taken to hospital by the police. In our opinion, such type of conduct of maternal uncle clearly shows that he is planted witness because as per facts deceased was nephew of P.W. 3 Lekhram i.e. son of his sister, then it was the duty of this witness to immediately took the injured to hospital. 28. In our opinion, such type of conduct of maternal uncle clearly shows that he is planted witness because as per facts deceased was nephew of P.W. 3 Lekhram i.e. son of his sister, then it was the duty of this witness to immediately took the injured to hospital. 28. Similarly, P.W. 16 Munshiram is the maternal uncle of the deceased and he has also stated same facts that, ^^fQj dSVj ds MªkbZoj lkbZM ls vkRekjke mrjk o lriky o jksgrk'k nwljh rjQ ls mrjsA ihNs ls ;qful] pair o lksenŸk mrjs o gkmflax cksMZ dh rjQ ;s yksx Hkkx x;sA ;s ns[kdj eS o ys[kjke cktkj dh rjQ vk x;sA fQj geus nwljs Qksu ls ekseu dks Qksu djok;k fd lqjthr dks ekj fn;k gS] fQj ?kaVs&Ms<+ ?kaVs ckn esa ekSdk ij vk;k] iqfyl Hkh ogk vk x;h FkhA^^ 29. The aforesaid statement given by P.W. 16 will reveal that this witness is claiming that he was present at the time of accident but ran away without taking care of the deceased and injured. It is admitted fact of the case that although these witnesses are accepting that deceased was going along with Kaka Singh upon motorcycle and Kaka Singh did not support the prosecution case. More so, in the first information given by Kaka Singh and in the statements before the court, it is nowhere stated by him that these maternal uncles of the deceased were present when the occurrence took place. The prosecution is relying upon the testimony of Kaka Singh because he also sustained injuries in the said accident. It is worthwhile to observe here that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that who was sitting in the vehicle canter and who was driving the vehicle. There is no independent witness on record to prove this fact except so-called evidence/allegation of two close relatives i.e. maternal uncles of deceased, P.W. 3 Lekhram and P.W. 16 Munshiram. 30. In view of above discussion, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of these two witnesses who are close relatives of the deceased so as to hold the accused appellants guilty for committing offence of murder. The finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial court against the accused appellants is totally erroneous. 31. Consequently, these appeals are allowed and the judgment impugned dated 30th of July, 2011 passed by learned Addl. The finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial court against the accused appellants is totally erroneous. 31. Consequently, these appeals are allowed and the judgment impugned dated 30th of July, 2011 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh, HQ-Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in Session Case No. 41/2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. 32. Accused appellant, Atma Ram is in custody and rest all the accused appellants are on bail, therefore, they are not required to surrender and their bail bonds are hereby discharged. However, the accused appellant, Atma Ram, who is behind the bars, shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 33. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. the accused appellants are directed to forthwith furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon'ble the Supreme Court.