JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, J. Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. Instant appeal has arisen against the judgment and order dated 06.12.1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli in S.T. No.121/92, arising out of case crime no.79/91, Police Station-Mohanganj, District Raebareli, wherein the accused-appellants were convicted under section 323 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment, under section 506(2) IPC for six months rigorous imprisonment, under section 304 read with section 34 IPC for ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 4000/- each with default stipulation of two years imprisonment. 3. According to the prosecution version, accused Ram Sudhare, Chhote Lal and Kishore, son of Chhote Lal were trying to forcibly take possession of the grove land of father of complainant Gurucharan. On 21.8.1991, in the morning at 06:00 AM when they were trying to encroach upon the grove land, complainant along with his father Ram Dayal resisted them, then the accused beaten him and his father by 'lathi', 'danda' and also strangulated his father. On raising an alarm by the complainant Shobh Nath, Siya Ram and other villagers came. Accused ran away from the scene. Father of the complainant received serious injuries on his head, left arm and got unconscious. 4. First information report of the incident was lodged on the same day at Police Station at 08:20 AM under section 323, 506, 308 IPC. Ram Dayal was medically examined at District Hospital Raebareli on 21.8.1991 at 11:00 AM. Following injuries were found on his body :- 1. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on lateral aspect of left arm 8 cm above left elbow joint. There is traumatic swelling 17 cm x 12 cm around the wound. 2. Traumatic swelling 4 cm x 3 cm wherein abrasions were in the area of 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm, 8 cm above root of nose. X-ray of skull was advised. 3. Abrasion 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x dorsal aspect of right forearm 6.5 cm above right elbow. 5. According to the Doctor, all the injuries were simple except injury No. 1 and 2 which were kept under observation. X-ray was advised. Injuries were fresh in nature and were caused by blunt object. 6. X-ray of skull was advised. 3. Abrasion 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x dorsal aspect of right forearm 6.5 cm above right elbow. 5. According to the Doctor, all the injuries were simple except injury No. 1 and 2 which were kept under observation. X-ray was advised. Injuries were fresh in nature and were caused by blunt object. 6. On 24.01.1991 at 12:10 Noon complainant Gurucharan was examined at PHC Tiloi by Dr. S. Nand. Following injuries were found on his body. 1. Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.1 cm x 0.1 cm on the dorsal of middle phalanx of ring finger of right hand. 2. Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on the dorsal of distal part of left hand on the inner side. Half of left hand is swelling. Movement restricted. 3. Contusion 10 cm x 2 cm on the lateral aspect of middle of left thigh. 7. Injury No. 1 and 3 were simple, caused by hard and blunt object. Fresh. Injury No.2 was kept under observation and X-ray was advised. Subsequently, Ram Dayal succumbed to his injuries. 8. Inquest proceedings were conducted and the postmortem was conducted on 23.8.1991 by Dr. A. Prasad. Following injuries were found on the body of the deceased. 1. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep. Lateral part of left arm 9 cm above left elbow joint. Traumatic swelling 19 cm x 13 cm around the wound. On exposure there is fracture of left humorous bone. 2. Abrasion 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x posterior aspect of right forearm 0.5 cm below right elbow joint. 3. Abraded contusions 3 cm x 1.5 cm with an area of traumatic swelling 5 cm x 3.5 cm. 8 cm above root of nose. On exposure there is fracture of scalp bone and both parietal bones. There is subdual haematoma 10 cm x 8 cm underneath congested. 9. According to the opinion of the Doctor, death was result of coma as a result of head injury. During investigation site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Plain and blood stained earth was recovered. Charge sheet was submitted against the accused under section 304, 323, 506 IPC. 10. Accused were charged under section 323 read with section 34 IPC, 326 read with section 34 IPC, 304 read with section 34 IPC and 506 IPC. Accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 11. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Plain and blood stained earth was recovered. Charge sheet was submitted against the accused under section 304, 323, 506 IPC. 10. Accused were charged under section 323 read with section 34 IPC, 326 read with section 34 IPC, 304 read with section 34 IPC and 506 IPC. Accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 11. Prosecution has produced PW-1 Gurucharan, complainant and injured, PW-2 Siya Ram, declared hostile, PW-3 Dr. D.N. Prasad, who has conducted the postmortem, PW-4 Dr. S. Nand, PW-5 Constable Santosh Kumar, PW-6 SI Shashank Chaudhari, who has conducted the inquest proceedings, PW-7 SI Sardar Singh Investigating Officer. 12. In the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 accused have stated that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. 13. In defence DW-1 Raj Nath Tiwari is produced. After appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial court has recorded finding of conviction holding that the prosecution has successfully proved the charges against the accused. It is further held that the FIR was lodged promptly. Learned trial court has held the evidence of PW-1 complainant-injured wholly reliable. It was further held that place of incident is proved. Accordingly, accused were convicted. 14. Learned counsel for the accused appellant submits that PW-1 Gurucharan is highly interested witness, who is son of the deceased. His evidence could not be relied upon as there was enmity between the complainant and the accused. Accused have been falsely implicated due to enmity. It is further submitted that the complainant himself is an injured witness. First information report was lodged on the same day at 08:20 AM while medico-legal examination of Gurucharan was conducted at 12:10 noon on the PHC Tiloi while the medico-legal examination of Ram Dayal, father of the complainant was done at District Hospital Raebareli at 11:00 AM. Initially, he was taken to the PHC Tiloi but the doctor referred him to District Hospital due to his precarious condition on 09:25 AM. It is submitted that when injured himself was present at PHC Tiloi then why his medico legal examination was not done there at that time. It is further submitted that the place of occurrence is also changed. Evidence of PW-1 Gurucharan is not reliable. Accused are falsely implicated. 15. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against accused and the learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused. It is further submitted that the place of occurrence is also changed. Evidence of PW-1 Gurucharan is not reliable. Accused are falsely implicated. 15. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against accused and the learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused. 16. According to the FIR version, accused were trying to encroach upon the disputed land which is in the Khasra No. 1562. Incident took place at 6.00 AM on 21.8.1991. As per the first information report, at the time of incident accused were trying to encroach upon the disputed land. When complainant along with his father-deceased went to resist them from encroaching upon the land accused attacked them with the 'lathis' and also strangulated his father. First information report was lodged at 8.20 AM. 17. It is held in Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in (2012) 6 SCC 204 that the first information report is not an encyclopedia, rather, it is an information about commission of an offence. It is an information given to the police to come into motion but at the same time, it is to be seen as to whether the story as narrated in the written report is in consonance with the statement given by the injured witness in Court or not? Whether the genesis of the incident is same as narrated in the written report ? These aspects do not relate to minute details of the incident, rather, they are the most important aspect which should be looked into by the Court to ascertain the mode and manner of the incident. 18. According to the written report, at the time of incident, accused were trying to encroach upon the disputed land. Complainant along with his father reached at the spot and resisted them from encroaching upon the land then accused attacked them by lathi and also strangulated father of the complainant. 19. This is a case where there is the sole testimony of complainant P.W.1 Gurucharan who is son of the deceased. P.W.1 Gurucharan is also an injured witness as per the prosecution version. 20. In Nagappan v. State (by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu) (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 660. Hon'ble the Apex Court in paragraph no. 10 has observed as under :- "10. P.W.1 Gurucharan is also an injured witness as per the prosecution version. 20. In Nagappan v. State (by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu) (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 660. Hon'ble the Apex Court in paragraph no. 10 has observed as under :- "10. As regards the first contention about the admissibility of the evidence of PW 1 and PW 3 being closely related to each other and the deceased, first of all, there is no bar in considering the evidence of relatives. It is true that in the case on hand, other witnesses turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of PW 1, PW 3 and PW 10. The trial court and the High Court, in view of their relationship, closely analysed their statements and ultimately found that their evidence is clear, cogent and without considerable contradiction as claimed by their counsel. This Court, in a series of decisions, has held that where the evidence of "interested witnesses" is consistent and duly corroborated by medical evidence, it is not possible to discard the same merely on the ground that they were interested witnesses. In other words, relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness." (emphasis added) 21. In Vikram Singh and others v. State of Punjab reported in (2010) 3 SCC 56 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has cited paragraph 3 of its earlier pronouncement in the case of Rana Pratap and Others v. State of Haryana reported in 1983 (3) SCC 327 which reads as under:- "There were three eye witnesses. One was the brother of the deceased and the other two were a milk vendor of a neighbouring village, who was carrying milk to the dairy and a vegetable and fruit hawker, who was pushing his laden cart along the road. The learned Sessions Judge and the learned Counsel described both the independent witnesses as chance witnesses implying thereby that their evidence was suspicious and their presence at the scene doubtful. We do not understand the expression 'chance witnesses'. Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a brothel, prostitutes and paramours are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passersby will be witnesses. Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a brothel, prostitutes and paramours are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passersby will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that that they are mere chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance witnesses' is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and every one must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is a most unsuitable expression in a country whose people are less formal and more casual. To discard the evidence of street hawkers and street vendors on the ground that they are 'chance witnesses' even where murder is committed in a street is to abandon good sense and take too shallow a view of the evidence." (Emphasis added) 22. Truthfulness of an incident can very well be judged on the basis of single testimony of an eye witness. It gains more importance when the single eye witness is an injured person but at the same time when the injured, an eye witness, is close relative of the deceased then law requires a close scrutiny of the evidence, so as to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the evidence of the sole witness is wholly reliable or not ? 23. Now, we have to appreciate the evidentiary value of the testimony of P.W.1 Gurucharan. At the very outset, it is mentioned in the first information report that when accused attacked the complainant and his father by lathi, deceased fell down on the earth then he was also strangulated. At this stage, if we examine the medico legal report of deceased Ram Dayal, there is no injury on his neck which can show that he was also strangulated by the accused. Even the prosecution has not asked any question to P.W.3 Dr. D.N. Prasad, who has medico legally examined Ram Dayal on 21.8.1991 at 11.00 AM at District Hospital, Rae bareli. He did not find any injury on the neck. No suggestion was given to the witness that Ram Dayal was also strangulated. Dr. D.N. Prasad had also conducted the postmortem of the body of Ram Dayal on 23.8.1991. D.N. Prasad, who has medico legally examined Ram Dayal on 21.8.1991 at 11.00 AM at District Hospital, Rae bareli. He did not find any injury on the neck. No suggestion was given to the witness that Ram Dayal was also strangulated. Dr. D.N. Prasad had also conducted the postmortem of the body of Ram Dayal on 23.8.1991. Even in the postmortem no injury was found on the neck. Doctor was not even declared hostile as to prove the injuries on the neck which can support the prosecution version of strangulation. This aspect makes the whole prosecution version doubtful. In the first information report which was lodged just after the incident, specific allegation is made that when Ram Dayal fell down on the earth he was strangulated. In that case some injuries should have been found on the neck of the deceased but neither any injury was found on the neck nor the doctor was asked about any injury on the neck, hence, the prosecution version becomes doubtful. 24. P.W.1 Gurucharan has stated that at the time of incident his father Ram Dayal was ploughing the field. Accused tried to encroach upon the land. His father resisted then he was beaten by lathi. In the examination-in-chief, initially, complainant P.W.1 Gurucharan has not stated his presence along with his father. It is simply stated that at the time of incident he was also beaten. This version is in contrast to the prosecution version as narrated in the first information report wherein it is stated that the accused were trying to legally take possession of the land in question then the complainant and his father went and asked them not to illegally occupy the land then they were beaten by the accused. There is no mention in the first information report that at the time of incident deceased Ram Dayal was ploughing in the field. It's a serious contradiction in the first information report as well as the evidence of P.W.1 Gurucharan. This fact was also not told by P.W.1 Gurucharan to the investigating officer. P.W.1 Gurucharan has stated that he has told this fact to the investigating officer but it is not mentioned in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 25. P.W.1 Gurucharan has stated that his father Ram Dayal reached at the police station, thereafter, P.W.1 Gurucharan reached at the police station along with police personnel at 8.00 AM. P.W.1 Gurucharan has stated that he has told this fact to the investigating officer but it is not mentioned in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 25. P.W.1 Gurucharan has stated that his father Ram Dayal reached at the police station, thereafter, P.W.1 Gurucharan reached at the police station along with police personnel at 8.00 AM. When the police came at the spot and after inspection he accompanied the police personnel. He dictated the report in presence of the police personnel and give the same at the police station. It means that at another place it is stated by him that he took his father to the police station on his bicycle, thereafter, his father was taken to the Tiloi Hospital by Police jeep. In the examination-in chief, P.W. 1 Gurucharan states that his father was taken to P.H.C. Tiloi, thereafter, he was referred to the District Hospital, Rae bareli. His father was in precarious condition at the police station. At another place, P.W.1 Gurucharan states that his father got unconscious in the 'maar-peet', thereafter; his father did not regain the consciousness and died in the District Hospital. When his father was unconscious then how P.W.1 Gurucharan took him to the police station on his bicycle. He has made two contradictory statements. At one place he says that his father reached police station prior to him, at another place he says that he took his father to police station on his bicycle. It is a major contradiction which creates doubt about the incident. 26. P.W.1 Gurucharan was medically examined at PHC Tiloi at 12.10 noon on 21.8.1991. His father was examined at PHC Tiloi at 9.25 AM and was referred to the District Hospital, Rae bareli. According to D.W.1 Raj Nath Tiwari Head constable injured Gurucharan and Ram Dayal were sent to PHC, Tiloi at 8.20 AM by official vehicle. Returned G.D. No. 21 was at 3.25 PM. Distance of Rae bareli from PHC Mohanlaganj is 28 kilometers. PHC, Tiloi is not on way from Mohanlalganj to Rae bareli. PHC, Tiloi is two kilometers towards northern side of PHC, Mohanlalganj. In this topographical situation if we examine the medico legal report, I find that injured P.W.1 Gurucharan was medically examined at PHC, Tiloi at 12.10 PM. Distance of Rae bareli from PHC Mohanlaganj is 28 kilometers. PHC, Tiloi is not on way from Mohanlalganj to Rae bareli. PHC, Tiloi is two kilometers towards northern side of PHC, Mohanlalganj. In this topographical situation if we examine the medico legal report, I find that injured P.W.1 Gurucharan was medically examined at PHC, Tiloi at 12.10 PM. P.W.1 Gurucharan states that he reached at Tiloi Hospital at about 10.00 AM., thereafter, he reached District Hospital, Rae Bareli at 2.00 AM. His father died on the same night at about 2.30 AM. He accompanied his father right from PHC, Tiloi till his death. Then how he was medically examined at PHC, Tiloi on 21.8.1991 at 12.10 PM. P.W.4 Dr. S. Nand has examined the P.W.1 Gurucharan and found only three injuries on the body of the injured. He has stated that Ram Dayal referred to District Hospital, Rae bareli at 9.25 AM and medically examined the injured Gurucharan at 12.10 AM same day. This statement is in contradiction and contrast to the evidence of P.W.1 Gurucharan. Presence of P.W.1 Gurucharan at the time of medico legal examination is also doubtful. Further, presence of P.W.1 Gurucharan at the time of incident is also doubtful. In the facts and circumstances of the case, if he was present at 9.25 AM when his father Ram Dayal was referred to the District Hospital while he was not examined at that time. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution. Place of occurrence is shown as the field of Ram Dayal which is shown by letter 'A' in the site plan. In the site plan it is shown that there is water field in the field. P.W.1 has stated that his father fell down in the field. 27. Admittedly, there is enmity between the parties. Enmity is double edged weapon which can be used for false implication as well as to commit the crime. It is to be judged according to the evidence of the witnesses. P.W.2 Siya Ram has been declared hostile. No other witness is produced to support the prosecution version. Evidence of P.W.1 Gurucharan does not support the prosecution version. Rather, presence of P.W.1 Gurucharan at the place of occurrence is also doubtful. 28. On the basis of discussion made above, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused. No other witness is produced to support the prosecution version. Evidence of P.W.1 Gurucharan does not support the prosecution version. Rather, presence of P.W.1 Gurucharan at the place of occurrence is also doubtful. 28. On the basis of discussion made above, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused. Learned trial court has misled itself in appreciating the prosecution evidence. Accordingly, appeal is liable to be allowed. 29. The appeal is allowed. Judgment and order dated 6.12.1996 passed by learned trial court is set aside. Accused are acquitted for the charges levelled against them. Accused-Ram Sudhare and Chhote Lal are in jail. They shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in another case. Accused-Kishor is on bail. His bail is cancelled and sureties are discharged. 30. Office is hereby directed to certify the judgment to the learned trial court for compliance. Record of the trial court also be sent forthwith. Compliance report be submitted within four weeks.