JUDGMENT : Chandra Dhari Singh, J. 1. Both these Criminal Appeals arise out of the same judgment and order dated 24.05.1988 passed in S.T. No. 194 of 1987 [State Vs. Rameshwar and others], they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order. 2. Heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of appellants and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent. 3. The instant criminal appeal, filed on behalf of the appellants, is directed against the judgment and orders dated 24.05.1988 passed by Court of Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 194 of 1987 [State Vs. Rameshwar and others], whereby the appellants, namely, Rameshwar, Ram Nath and Parikchhat, have been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. Brief Facts of the Case : - 4. The prosecution case is that on 03.07.1986, complainant Bhauniya P.W.1, his son Tula Ram P.W.3 had gone to Korara Bazar and Mata Din alias Matti and Dangi met them in the Bazar. All these four persons i.e. Bhauniya, Tula Ram, Mata Din and Dangi were returning together to village Gulabganj. When they reached near the field of Lalli Kewat in the Tikona Har, the accused persons sprang up from behind the Babul's bushes. The accused Rameshwar was armed with Bhala, accused Ram Nath was armed with Pharsa and accused Parikchhat was armed with Tabbal. 5. The accused Rameshwar exhorted his companions not to leave the complainant and his companions alive. The accused persons started chasing the complainant and his companions. The accused persons succeeded in surrounding Mata Din alias Matti in the field of Lalli Kewat and started assaulting him. After Mata Din fell down, accused persons chased the complainant. The complainant Bhauniya and his son Tula Ram succeeded in escaping. The accused persons however, surrounded Dangi in the field of Prabhu Dayal Pandit and opened assault on him as a result of which Prabhu Dayal also fell down. The accused persons then ran away towards village Gulabganj. 6. As per prosecution story, when the occurrence took place, witnesses namely, Kripal P.W.2, Ram Sanehi and Kalka Prasad alias Kalkaiyan, who were coming from the side of Jakhela had seen the occurrence and had raised alarm too. 7. The accused persons then ran away towards village Gulabganj. 6. As per prosecution story, when the occurrence took place, witnesses namely, Kripal P.W.2, Ram Sanehi and Kalka Prasad alias Kalkaiyan, who were coming from the side of Jakhela had seen the occurrence and had raised alarm too. 7. After the accused persons ran away, the complainant Bhauniya and his son Tula Ram came back to the scene of the occurrence and found that both Matadin alias Matti and Dangi had died. Their injuries were bleeding. 8. The complainant left the dead bodies of Mata Din and Dangi under the supervision and care of Tula Ram, Kripal, Ram Sanehi and Kalka, went to Korara for making a report of occurrence at the police station. At Korara Bus Stand, Tulsi Ram Vakil met the complainant. The complainant narrated the entire occurrence to Sri Tulsi Ram, Vakil and then on the complainant's dictation Tulsi Ram Vakil prepared written report (Ext. Ka-1) about the occurrence. 9. The Sub Inspector Sri Onkar Nath Shukla (P.W.9) was present at the police station, when the case was registered, he took over the investigation of the case and recorded the statements of the complainant Bhauniya and Head Moharrir Chhavinath Singh at police station and then proceeded for the scene of occurrence. When he reached the scene of occurrence, there was no arrangement of light and therefore, he could not perform the inquest of the dead bodies. 10. On 04.07.1986 at 6 a.m., after appointing panches, he first performed the inquest of the dead body of Mata Din at 6 AM. The dead body was found at the Tikona Har within the area of village Para Kandor. After conducting inquest, the Investigating Officer prepared inquest report Ex. Ka-7, sketch of the dead body (Ex. Ka-9), challan (Ex. Ka-10) and letter (Ex. Ka-8) for postmortem examination of the dead body. The dead body was sealed and was handed over to constable Hukum Singh for being taken to Hamirpur for postmortem examination. After inquest of the dead body of Mata Din, the inquest report of dead body of Dangi was prepared. The Investigating Officer prepared inquest report (Ex. Ka-11), sketch of the dead body (Ex. Ka-13), Challan (Ex. Ka-14) and letter (Ex. Ka-12) for postmortem examination of the dead body. The dead body was sealed and handed over to constable Gulab Singh for being taken to Hamirpur for postmortem examination. 11. The Investigating Officer prepared inquest report (Ex. Ka-11), sketch of the dead body (Ex. Ka-13), Challan (Ex. Ka-14) and letter (Ex. Ka-12) for postmortem examination of the dead body. The dead body was sealed and handed over to constable Gulab Singh for being taken to Hamirpur for postmortem examination. 11. The Investigating Officer collected blood stained and plain earth from the place where the dead body of Dangi and Mata Din were found, kept the same in two separate Dibbas, sealed them and prepared Fard (Ex. Ka-15) and (Ex.Ka-17). From the dead body of Mata Din, an Angochha stained with blood was sealed. A pair of plastic shoes, a bag was found near the dead body, were also sealed and prepared Fard (Ex. Ka-18). The Investigating Officer inspected the entire scene of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ex. Ka-19). 12. The postmortem examination of the dead body of Dangi was performed by Dr. M.R. Gautam (P.W.6) at Hamirpur on 5.7.1986 at 9.30 AM. The doctor found that the deceased was aged about 65 years and had died two days before the date of postmortem examination. The doctor found as many as 11 injuries on the body of the Dangi. 13. On internal examination the doctor found cut fracture present on the right parietal and right temporal bones. The membranes were also cut at several places. The brain had become pulpy. Right middle cranial fossa was found fractured. Right side mandible was found cut and fractured. The right lung was congested and decomposition had started. The doctor found 2 0z of food material in the stomach of the deceased. The small intestine contained gases and undigested food material. Large intestine contained gases and faecal matter. In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries. He prepared postmortem report (Ex. Ka-5). 14. The postmortem examination of the dead body of Mata Din alias Matti was performed by Dr. V.K. Nigam (P.W.7) at Hamirpur on 5.7.1986 at 1.55 PM. The doctor found that the deceased was aged about 50 years and had died about two days before the date of postmortem examination. He found as many as 11 injuries on the person of deceased. 15. On internal examination, the doctor found middle cranial fossa fractured, membranes cut and brain pulpy. Cut fracture was found at the 7th cervical vertebra. The doctor found that the deceased was aged about 50 years and had died about two days before the date of postmortem examination. He found as many as 11 injuries on the person of deceased. 15. On internal examination, the doctor found middle cranial fossa fractured, membranes cut and brain pulpy. Cut fracture was found at the 7th cervical vertebra. All the facial bones were found cut. Trachea found cut at two places. The decomposition of the lungs and spleen had started. He found gases in the small intestine and gases and faecal matter in the large intestine. The stomach was empty. In the opinion of the doctor death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting due to antemortem injuries. The postmortem report was marked as (Ex. Ka-6). 16. On 17.07.1986, Sub Inspector Jagat Singh (P.W.8) of police station Korara arrested the accused persons from near Sarsai Bus stand in presence of witnesses named Ram Vishal P.W.4 and Babu Lal. On interrogation the accused persons gave information that they can get recovered the weapons by which murder was committed. The accused persons took police party and the witnesses to their village. The contingent reached village Gulab Ganj by jeep. The accused persons got the jeep stopped at their Bayara i.e. the place where they tie their cattle and keep other things and from under the Kharu (dried stems of Arahr plant) stacked in the Bayara, the accused Rameshwar picked out a Bhala, accused Prikchhat picked out a Kulhari like Tabbal and the accused Ram Nath picked out a Pharsa and handed over these weapons to the Sub Inspector Jagat Singh in presence of the witnesses. These weapons however, were not stained with blood. The P.W.8 sealed the weapons separately and prepared Fard (Ex. Ka-2). He also prepared a site plan of the place of recovery which was extracted as (Ex. Ka-20). The P.W.8, brought the arrested accused persons and the weapons recovered at their pointing out to the police station, where the accused persons were lodged in the lockup and the recovered articles were kept in the Malkhana. 17. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused has produced 9 witnesses. Out of the aforesaid 9 witnesses, the complainant Bhauniya P.W.1, Ram Kripal P.W.2 and Tula Ram P.W.3 are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. 17. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused has produced 9 witnesses. Out of the aforesaid 9 witnesses, the complainant Bhauniya P.W.1, Ram Kripal P.W.2 and Tula Ram P.W.3 are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. Ram Vishal P.W. 4 is witness of the recovery of the weapons at the pointing out of the accused persons, Head constable Chhavi Nath Singh P.W.5 is the scribe of the FIR and G.D. entries, Dr. M.R. Gautam P.W.6 and Dr. V.K. Nigam P.W.7, who had performed the postmortem examinations of the dead bodies of the deceased Dangi and Mata Din, respectively. Sub Inspector Jagat Singh P.W.8, who arrested the accused persons and recovered the weapons of murder and Sub Inspector Onkar Nath Shukla, P.W.9, who investigated the matter are formal witnesses. 18. Before we proceed to deal with the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to have a glance at the statements of certain prosecution witnesses for better appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 19. P.W.1 (Bhauniya) and P.W.3 (Tula Ram), are father and son, who have stated in their testimonies that on the date of occurrence, they had gone to Korara Bazar for the purposes of some purchasing and each of them have purchased a pair of shoes for themselves. P.W.1 and P.W.3 have stated that Thursdays and Sundays are the market days of Korara. Further in the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.3, it was stated that when they were about to return back for their village from Korara Bazar, Mata Din and Dangi met them in the market. P.W.1 stated that Mata Din and Dangi had gone to Amiliya from where they were returning and met them in the Korara market. He also stated that Mata Din had his Sasural in village Amiliya. When they reached in the Tikona Har near the field of Lalli Kewat, accused Ram Nath armed with Pharsa, accused Rameshwar armed with Bhala and accused Parikchhat armed with Tabbal came out from behind Babul (trees or bushes), challenged them and when he and his companions ran for safety, the accused persons chased them and they first surrounded Mata Din and assaulted him and then surrounded Dangi and assaulted him as a result of which Mata Din and Dangi died on the spot. P.W.1 further stated that he and his son Tula Ram could not be surrounded by the accused persons and therefore, they luckily escaped from being assaulted. P.W.1 and P.W.3 stated that assault was started on Mata Din in the field of Lalli Kewat, where his murder was committed and assault was started on Dangi in the field of Prabhu Dayal Pandit, where murder of Dangi was committed. P.W.1 has also deposed in his testimony that at the time of occurrence, Ram Kripal P.W.2 as well as Ram Sanehi and Kalka Prasad alias Kalkaiyan were coming from the side of village Jakhela, they saw the occurrence and raised hue and cries and on this, the accused persons ran away. 20. P.W.2 (Ram Kripal) in his deposition stated that on the day of occurrence at about 5 or 5.30 pm, he had reached near the scene of occurrence, because he was in the way in search of his buffalo which was missing when he reached near the Tikona Har, he saw the occurrence. He has supported the statements of P.W. 1 and P.W.3 regarding marpeet, in which Mata Din and Dangi died. 21. P.W.4 (Ram Vishal) and Babu Lal stated that the police party took the accused persons alongwith the witnesses to their village by Jeep. The accused persons got the Jeep stopped at their Bayara, the place where they tie their cattle and keep other things. From under Kharu (dried stems of Arahar plant) stacked in the Bayara, the accused Rameshwar picked out a Bhala, accused Parikchhat picked out a Kulhari like Tabbal and the accused Ram Nath picked out a Pharsa and handed over these weapons to Sub Inspector Jagat Singh in presence of witnesses. They specifically stated that these weapons were not stained with blood. 22. P.W.5 (Chhavi Nath Singh) in his deposition has stated that he was posted as Head Moharrir at Police Station Korara on 03.07.1986. The complainant (Bhauniya) of this case has delivered to him a written report Ex. Ka-1 at the police station and on the basis of written report, he had prepared chick FIR as Ext. Ka-3 and registered the case against the accused persons under section 302 IPC in the G.D. 23. Dr. M.R. Gautam P.W.6 and Dr. V.K. Nigam P.W.7 had proved that they performed the postmortem examinations of deceased Dangi and Mata Din, respectively and prepared postmortem reports Ext. Ka-3 and registered the case against the accused persons under section 302 IPC in the G.D. 23. Dr. M.R. Gautam P.W.6 and Dr. V.K. Nigam P.W.7 had proved that they performed the postmortem examinations of deceased Dangi and Mata Din, respectively and prepared postmortem reports Ext. Ka-6 and K-6. 24. Dr. Mr. R. Gautam, conducted the postmortem of the dead body of Dangi on 5.7.1986 at District Hospital, Hamirpur. The doctor found that the deceased was aged about 65 years and had died between one and half or two days before the postmortem examination. The doctor found following antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased: 1. Incised wound of 3 cm x 2 cm x scalp deep outer right side of the forehead. 2. Incised wound of 9 cm x 4 cm x 2-1/2 cm on the back of right shoulder margins clear, horizontally present. 3. Incised wound of 11 cm x 4 cm x bone deep outer right side of face extending to the angle of mouth jaw bone is cut right eye cut. 4. Incised wound of 7 cm x 4 cm x bone deep outer right side of face horizontally present below the injury no.3 and connected with mouth. 5. Incised wound of 9 cm x 4 cm x muscle deep below right side of jaw horizontal placed. 6. Incised wound of 4 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep at the right side of root of neck. 7. Multiple contusion on the upper arm extending to the below. 8. Contusion in the area of 14 cm x 8 cm on the left thigh obliquely placed. 9. Contusion of 13 x 13 cm x 3 cm on the right leg. 10. Contusion of 13 cm x 8 cm on the left axila. 11. Contusion of 4 cm x 3 cm on the dorsum of left hand. 25. On internal examination the doctor found cut fracture on the right parietal and right temporal bones. The membranes were also cut at places. The brain had become pulpy. Right middle cranial fossa was found fractured. Right side mandible was found cut and fractured. The right lung was congested and decomposition had started. The doctor found 2 0z of food material in the stomach of the deceased. The small intestine contained gases and food material. Large intestine contained gases and faecal matter. The brain had become pulpy. Right middle cranial fossa was found fractured. Right side mandible was found cut and fractured. The right lung was congested and decomposition had started. The doctor found 2 0z of food material in the stomach of the deceased. The small intestine contained gases and food material. Large intestine contained gases and faecal matter. In the opinion of the doctor death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries. He prepared postmortem report Ex. Ka-5. 26. P.W.7 Dr. V.K. Nigam, conducted the postmortem of the dead body of Mata Din on 5.7.1986 at 1.55 pm at District Hospital, Hamirpur. The doctor found that the deceased was aged about 50 years and had died two days before the postmortem examination. The doctor found following antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased: 1. Incised wound of 20 cm x 4 cm x brain deep on the right of face including upper part of ear, cheek, maxillary process, a part of nose right side, brain matter is coming out under lying bone is cut. 2. Incised wound of 15 cm x 4 cm x bone deep on the right side of mandible, underlying mandible is cut, lower lip cut. 3. Incised wound of 9 cm x 3 cm x 7th cervical vertebra, nerve vessels, muscle are cut. 4. Incised wound of 4 cm x 2 cm x trachea deep on the chest in mid line just above the upper border of sternum, trachea is cut. 5. Incised wound of 10 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on the right side of eye socket and root of nose, obliquely placed, eye ball cut and eye socket cut. 6. Incised wound of 8 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on the left side of eye socket and upper part of nose, obliquely placed, eye and eye socket, nose are cut. 7. Incised wound of 10 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the root of nose, nose and upper part of lip, under lying upper jaw is cut, lip cut, nose cut, vertically placed. 8. Incised wound of 7 cm x 3 cm x brain deep on the face, right side including maxillary process, cheek and part of mandible, obliquely placed just below the injury no.1 brain matter is coming out. 9. 8. Incised wound of 7 cm x 3 cm x brain deep on the face, right side including maxillary process, cheek and part of mandible, obliquely placed just below the injury no.1 brain matter is coming out. 9. Incised wound of 4 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the upper jaw cut fracture present on the upper jaw. 10. Penetrating wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep (0.5 cm) on the abdomen in mid line 8 cm above the umbilicus. 11. Contusion 10 cm x 8 cm on the chest right side just above the nipple and 3 cm lateral to mid line. 27. On internal examination the doctor found middle cranial fossa fractured, membranes cut and brain pulpy. Cut fracture was found present at the 7th cervical vertebra. All the facial bones were found cut. Trachea found cut at two places. The decomposition of the lungs and spleen had started. He found gases in the small intestine and gases and faecal matter in the large intestine. The stomach was empty. In the opinion of the doctor death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting due to antemortem injuries. The postmortem report was marked as Ex. Ka-6. 28. P.W.8 (Sub Inspector Jagat Singh) proved the memo of arrest of the accused persons in presence of witnesses Ram Vishal and Babu Lal and also proved the recovery of weapons of murder at the instance of the accused persons and prepared the recovery memo Ex. Ka-2. 29. P.W.9 (Sub Inspector Onkar Nath Shukla), who investigated the case has also proved the acts performed by him during investigation and documents prepared by him referred to above. 30. Sub Inspector Onkar Nath Shukla, investigated the case and after investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. He proved all the documents/entries made by him during investigation. 31. Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the murder of deceased Mata Din and Dangi was committed by some unknown miscreants in the night of 03.07.1986, which was not seen by any one and on account of enmity the complainant P.W.1 concocted this case to implicate the accused persons with the help of his kith and kin, who have been made witnesses of the case. 32. 32. Learned Amicus Curiae has referred to the statement of P.W.1 Bhauniya has deposed in his statement that he has no knowledge that on the date of incident the deceased Mata Din has carried his bank passbook with him and any amount was withdrawn by him or not. He also referred to the statements of P.W.6 Dr. M.R. Gautam and P.W.7 Dr. V.K. Nigam, who have stated that the murder of Mata Din and Dangi could not place at about 9.30 pm. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that the whole prosecution case has been cooked up by Sri Tulsi Ram, Advocate, Dhamar and the Investigating Officer of the case. 33. It is submitted that the said written report was transcribed by one namely Tulsiram Advocate, Damar, District Court, Hamirpur, who had allegedly met the said P.W.1 (complainant) at bus stand of Korara and after transcribing, the said FIR was registered at the P.S. Korara. According to the informant (Bhauniya P.W.1) his thumb impression was put in the said written report at police station. Since the scribe of the said FIR who suddenly met with the informant Bhauniya (P.W.1) was not produced by the prosecution as a witness and the said peculiar instances demonstrate that the FIR was lodged under the direction and dictation of the said lawyer and police concerned which creates a doubt on the truthfulness of the contents of FIR. It is evident from the evidence of the informant, that he was not aware about the place of occurrence where the alleged incident had been taken place. 34. Learned Amicus Curiae has pointed out that the complainant Bhauniya has been examined as P.W.1 and he has stated in his examination-in-chief as follows: ÞeSaus nksuksa e`rdksa dh yk'k dh ns[kHkky ds fy;s rqykjke] jke lusgh] d`iky] dkydk ls dgk vkSj muds ftEes yk'ks NksM+dj fjiksVZ djus Fkkuk dksjkjk x;sA dksjkjk cl LVki ij eq>s Jh rqylhjke odhy lkgc fey x;s muls eSaus ?kVuk dk gky crk;k vkSj esjs crkus ij mUgksusa ?kVuk dh rgjhjh fjiksVZ rS;kj fd;k tks eSaus cksyk o crk;k ogh mUgksus fjiksVZ esa fy[kk vkSj eq>s i<+dj lquk fn;k rFkk esjk fu'kku vaxwBk cuok;kA ¼fjiksVZ jhM vksoj½ ;gh og fjiksVZ gS ftls eSaus fy[kk;h Fkh vkSj viuk fu'kku vaxwBk cuk;k FkkAÞ 35. Whereas P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated as follows: Þrgjhjh fjiksVZ izn'kZ d&1 ij esjk fu'kku vaxwBk Fkkus okyh L;kgh dk gS ;g fu'kku vaxwBk eSaus Fkkus ij gh yxk;k FkkA and has further stated that ftu [ksrksa esa ?kVuk gq;h Fkh mu [ksrksa ds uke njksxk th us crk;s FksAÞ meaning thereby the police of P.S. Korara was already aware about the incident much prior to registration of the first information report and after due consultation, the FIR of the alleged incident has been lodged ante-timed and as such the P.W.1 is not an eye witness of the incident. 36. It is further submitted by learned Amicus Curiae that whereas as per evidence of P.W.1 Bhauniya that after lodging of the FIR at 19.15 hours in the night, he came back to the place of occurrence, whereas almost at the same time, the P.W.2 had left the place of occurrence, therefore, the question so far availability of the P.W.2 at the place of occurrence is not possible, because the distance either from the place of occurrence to police station or to place of occurrence from village Jakhela is 8 Kms. 37. The P.W.2 (Ram Kripal @ Kripal) in his testimony has deposed that Þdjhc 7 cts 'kke eSa yk'k ds ikl ?kj ykSV x;k FkkA ?kVukLFky ls lh/ks xzke Mkej ljlbZ gksrs gq, bVkSjk igqapk Fkk iSny x;s FksA ?kVukLFky ls bVkSjk 6&7 ehy iM+k FkkA ?kVukLFky ls ;fn dksjkjk tkrs rks cl Hkh fey ldrh FkhA cl ls tkus esa Hkh mruk gh le; yxrk djhc 10 cts jkr xkao bVkSjk igqap x;s FksAÞ meaning thereby since 7.00 hours night on 3.7.1986 till next morning at 10.00 am on 4.7.1986 when the inquest of Dangi was conducted and forwarded, the P.W.2 was not present at the place of occurrence. 38. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the scriber Sri Tulsiram, Advocate, was not produced by the prosecution. There are material contradictions so far as manner of assault and weapon used in the commission of crime. 39. There is difference about the place of occurrence and the place where the inquest report of the dead bodies of the deceased were conducted. 38. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the scriber Sri Tulsiram, Advocate, was not produced by the prosecution. There are material contradictions so far as manner of assault and weapon used in the commission of crime. 39. There is difference about the place of occurrence and the place where the inquest report of the dead bodies of the deceased were conducted. It is further submitted that while in the FIR place of occurrence has been mentioned as village Jakhela whereas in the inquest report the place of occurrence has been mentioned at Tikona Har of village Parakandour, therefore, there are major contradictions in between the contents of FIR as well as of inquest report about the place of occurrence and the place where inquest was conducted. 40. Next argument of learned Amicus Curiae is that in the postmortem examination of deceased Dangi, it was found that the stomach contains 2 Oz of food material. The small intestine contains gases and food material. Large intestine contains gases and faecal matter, which shows that the deceased might had taken meal about four hours prior to the occurrence. In this connection, he referred the statement of P.W.6 Dr. M.R. Gautam. He further contended that the stomach of other deceased Mata Din was not empty. Small intestine was filled with gases and in the large intestine gases and faecal matter was found. It is also contended that the deceased might have taken meal prior six hours of the occurrence. In this connection he has also referred to the statement P.W.7 Dr. V.K. Nigam. 41. Learned Amicus Curiae drew our attention towards the statement of complainant P.W.1 (Bhauniya), where he has stated that both the deceased Mata Din and Dangi met him at Korara market, from where the complainant, his son and both the deceased have proceeded to their respective villages. He further stated that both the deceased had taken meal at Korara market and thereafter they proceeded to their village Gulabganj. It is contended that the version of the complainant P.W.1 that after 1/2 an hour both Mata Din and Dangi were murdered is not correct and is not supported by the medical evidence. It is also contended that on that basis the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 at the place of occurrence is totally doubtful. 42. It is contended that the version of the complainant P.W.1 that after 1/2 an hour both Mata Din and Dangi were murdered is not correct and is not supported by the medical evidence. It is also contended that on that basis the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 at the place of occurrence is totally doubtful. 42. It is further submitted that both the deceased had received injuries caused by hard and blunt object like lathi but there is no allegation in the FIR that weapon lathi was used in the commission of crime and according to the FIR version only use of Tabbal, Pharsa and Bhala had been used in the commission of offence. Thereafter there are material contradictions in the FIR, medical report and testimonies of the eye witnesses. 43. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State-respondent supported the view taken by the court below and submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances, the trial court assessed them in proper perspective and delivered a reasoned judgment. The conviction and sentence passed against the accused has been awarded by categorical findings which does not require any interference by this Court. 44. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and after carefully analyzing the material available on record, the following points falls for our consideration is (i) whether the trial court is justified in convicting the accused persons and (ii) whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Looking at the evidence on record, we find that there are certain pivotal issues where the prosecution has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. 45. The first point to be considered is motive. The murder of one Badri had taken place about 7 years prior to the occurrence of this case and Badri was brother of accused Ram Nath and Rameshwar. It is also admitted that in the murder of Badri the present complainant Bhuniya and his brother Mata Din and some others were accused and they were acquitted by the trial court. The other deceased Dangi was the elder brother of Buddhu and Buddhu is the brother-in-law of Bhuniya and Mata Din. According to the prosecution, the accused persons committed murder of Mata Din and Dangi in retaliation of the murder of Badri. The other deceased Dangi was the elder brother of Buddhu and Buddhu is the brother-in-law of Bhuniya and Mata Din. According to the prosecution, the accused persons committed murder of Mata Din and Dangi in retaliation of the murder of Badri. It is submitted by learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants that if the accused persons had motive to commit murder, the complainant too had motive to falsely implicate the accused persons. 46. We are of the opinion that if the accused persons knew and thought that Bhuniya, Mata Din and others had committed murder of Badri they had reason to retaliate. There was enough motive for the accused persons to commit murder of Mata Din and Dangi. Needless to say that in this case, the motive is a double edged sword, as it can be a reason for crime and at the same time a reason for false prosecution specially when the motive alleged is of ill-will and bad blood. Therefore, in the present case, we have to examine other evidences on record and circumstances to reach on the conclusion that whether the prosecution had succeeded to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, reliance on the motive would not be safe and as such serves no purpose. 47. It is also argued on behalf of the accused persons that the murder of deceased Mata Din and Dangi was committed by some unknown miscreants in the night of 3.7.1986, which was not seen by any one and on account of enmity the complainant, P.W.1 concocted this case to implicate the accused persons with the help of his kith and kin, who have been made witnesses of the case. In this connection, he referred to the statement of P.W.1 Bhauniya that on the date of incident the deceased Mata Din has carried his bank passbook with him to withdraw some money for the purpose of cattle business but no money was found from the dead body of the deceased Mata Din. He also referred to the statements of P.W.6 Dr. M.R. Gautam and P.W.7 Dr. V.K. Nigam, who have stated that the murder of Mata Din and Dangi could not place at about 9.30 pm. 48. He also referred to the statements of P.W.6 Dr. M.R. Gautam and P.W.7 Dr. V.K. Nigam, who have stated that the murder of Mata Din and Dangi could not place at about 9.30 pm. 48. As per P.W.1, Bhauniya both the deceased, namely, Mata Din and Dangi had suddenly met him and his son Tula Ram (P.W.2) at Kurara Bazar and thereafter both the deceased had taken meal and after that they proceeded to their village Gulabganj and just after 1/2 an hour when they were on way, out of four, two namely Mata Din @ Matti and Dangi were murdered but as per evidence tendered by P.W.6 Dr. M.R. Gautam and P.W.7 Dr. V.K. Nigam by whom the autopsy of the deceased Dangi and Mata Din @ Matti were conducted respectively. They have stated that the deceased might have taken meal four hours before his death and inasmuch as also opined the time of death 9.30 hours night and if the dead body remain in contact with earth up to 5-6 hours the staining will be developed, whereas in the postmortem report no staining was found in the dead body of Dangi and Mata Din. As per the inquest report the dead body of the deceased Dangi was lying on land up to 16 hours and dead body of Mata Deen was lying on land up to 14 years. 49. P.W.7 (Dr. Y.K. Nigam) in his cross examination has deposed that no meal was found in the stomach and small intestine and the deceased Mata Din @ Matti had taken meal 6-7 hours prior to his death and since the time of death has also been opined at 9.30 hours night on 03.07.1986. 50. The evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.7 belies the whole testimony of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. P.W.1 is the father of P.W.3 and deceased Mata Din @ Matti is the brother of P.W.1 and uncle of P.W.3 and all are inhabitants of village Gulabganj,which is approximately 10 kilometers away from the police station Kurara and 2 kilometers away from the place of occurrence as shown in the FIR. Another deceased Dangi is inhabitant of village Etaura, P.S. Kadaura, District Jalaun, which is about 15 kilometers away from the place of occurrence. P.W.2 Ram Kripal @ Kripal is nephew of the deceased Dangi and both are inhabitants of same village. Another deceased Dangi is inhabitant of village Etaura, P.S. Kadaura, District Jalaun, which is about 15 kilometers away from the place of occurrence. P.W.2 Ram Kripal @ Kripal is nephew of the deceased Dangi and both are inhabitants of same village. Meaning thereby all the witnesses so far of fact as P.W.1, 2 and 3 are chance, interested and highly inimical witnesses. The scriber Tulsiram, Advocate, who has not been produced by the prosecution is son of Kalka Prasad and Kalka Prasad is real sister's husband of P.W.1 Bhauniya and deceased Mata Din @ Matti. There is material contradiction in the manner of assault and weapon used in the commission of crime in the testimony of P.W.1. P.W.1 Bhauniya deposed as follows: Þnaxh dks jkes'oj us cYye ls ekjk FkkA vkt [kqn dgk fd ykBh dh rjg ekjh FkhA eSaus ugh ns[kk fd jkes'oj us naxh ij fdrus okj fd;s FksA eSaus ;g ns[kk Fkk fd jkes'oj us naxh dks ykBh dh rjQ ls ekjk FkkA ;g ugha ns[k ik;k Fkk fd ykBh ds fdrus okj fd;k FkkA ,d okj ns[kk FkkA eSaus fjiksVZ esa ;g fy[kk fn;k Fkk fd jkes'oj us ykBh dh rjQ ls okj fd;k FkkA fjiksVZ i<+dj lquk;h x;hA eSaus fy[kk;k Fkk irk ugha bl fjiksVZ esa D;ksa ugha fy[khA njksxk th us esjk c;ku fy;k FkkA eSaus njksxk th ls c;ku esa crk;k Fkk fd jkes'oj us ykBh dh rjQ ls okj fd;k FkkA c;ku 161 lh-vkj-ih-lh- esa D;ksa ugha ntZ gS eSa dksbZ dkj.k ugh crk ldrk ;g xyr gS fd ykBh dh rjQ ls ekjus okyh ckr vkt fl[kkus ls dg jgk gWwAÞ 51. P.W.1 Bhauniya further deposed that Þnaxh dks eqfYteku us tc ekjus ds fy;s idM+k Fkk rc naxh gekjs lkFk Fkk fQj dgk fd og dqN ihNs FkkA naxh dks tc ekjus ds fy;s eqfYteku us idM+k Fkk rc naxh izHkq n;ky ds [ksr ds iwohZ es<+ ij dksus esa FkkAÞ but the assailants neither made any attempt to kill nor caused any injury either to P.W.1 or to his son P.W. 3, whereas in comparison of another deceased Dangi they were the best person to cause injuries to them and take revenge as motive designed, for commission of the alleged offence, instead thereof, the assailants given up to the main enemy and chosen to murder Dangi with whom there was no animosity at all. Moreover, as per the site plan, these two persons were nearer to assailants and in the absence of any standing crops were otherwise, visible who could have been done to death if enmity was the motive. 52. The prosecution in order to prove the charge has examined P.W.2 Ram Kripal @ Kripal as an eye witness. He deposed in his cross-examination and admitted that the deceased Dangi is his real uncle. He is chance witness and in order to design his presence has deposed as follows: Þnjksxk th dks eSaus c;ku nsus ds le; 4 fnu igys HkSal [kksus okyh ckr crk;h FkhA dry okys fnu HkSal 4 fnu gks x;s FksA njksxk th dks c;ku nsrs le; gM+cM+kgV ds dkj.k eSaus mUgsa 4 fnu gh crk;k Fkk tcfd c;ku nsrs le; HkSals [kks;s gq;s ikap fnu gks x;s FksA HkSals [kksus dh dksbZ lwpuk eSaus Fkkus ij ugha nh Fkh vkSj u dksbZ bldh gqfy;k djkbZ FkhAß P.W.2 further deposed as follows ÞeSa ?kVuk okyh jkr esa yk'ks NksM+dj xkao tkus okyh ckr njksxk th dks crkbZ FkhA xokg dks c;ku 161 lh-vkj-ih-lh- lquk;k x;k eSa ugha crk ldrk fd njksxk th us esjs c;ku ;g ckr D;wa ugha fy[khAß 53. P.W. 3 Tula Ram in his cross-examination deposed as follows: Þjke d`iky esjk QwQsjk HkkbZ gSA tc jke d`iky vk;k Fkk rc naxh dh yk'k dks ns[kdj cgqr jks jgk FkkAß 54. From perusal of the depositions of P.W.1 Bhauniya, P.W.2 Ram Kripal @ Kripal and P.W.3 Tula Ram, it is crystal clear that P.W.2 Ram Kripal @ Kripal was not present at the place of alleged occurrence at the time of commission of the incident. 55. P.W.4 (Ram Vishal) is the witness of recovery of alleged weapon on the pointing out of the appellants. P.W.4 stated in his deposition that Þcjkenxh dk le; 10&11 cts dk Fkk ;kfu flMjh nqigjh Fkh njksxk th thi esa Fks vkSj Fkkus ds LFkku rd thi ij gh jgsAÞ whereas as per recovery memo the alleged crime weapon is said to have been recovered on the pointing out of the appellants at 7.30 am on 17.07.1986. Considering the evidence and contents of deposition of P.W.4, it appears that he is not a reliable witness as he was never present at the place of alleged recovery of crime weapons. Now, we have to analyze the statement of P.W.7 Dr. Considering the evidence and contents of deposition of P.W.4, it appears that he is not a reliable witness as he was never present at the place of alleged recovery of crime weapons. Now, we have to analyze the statement of P.W.7 Dr. V.K. Nigam, who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of deceased Mata Din @ Matti at 1.55 pm on 05.07.1986. P.W.7 deposed in his deposition that Þe`rd ekrknhu dh e`R;q fn0 3@7@86 dks jkr 9-30 cts gksuk lEHko gS 6 ?kaVs dk varj nksuks rjQ gksuk lEHko gSA blh vk/kkj ij mDr ckr dgh gSA pksV ua0 11 dh pkSM+kbZ 8 lseh- gSA e`rd ds isV vkSj NksVh vkar esa Hkkstu ugha Fkk vFkkZr ;g lEHko gS fd ;fn e`rd us [kkuk [kk;k gksrk rks 6&7 ?kaVs igys [kk;k gksrkAÞ But as per the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2, both the deceased person had taken meal and after that they have moved for their village. 56. In view of the evidence discussed above, there is material contradiction as also inconsistency which impeaches the credibility of the witnesses of the facts, such that they are wholly unreliable witnesses. The evidence tendered by the formal witnesses do not corroborate the testimony of the witnesses of the fact. There is thus fundamental principle that the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. But there is material contradiction, so far, it pertains to the place of occurrence, weapons used in commission of crime and manner of assault. The medical evidence also does not support and corroborate the evidence of witnesses of fact, which itself creates a reasonable doubt about the prosecution story and also creates doubt about presence of the witnesses P.W.1, 2 and 3. Therefore, the evidence tendered by the prosecution is neither truthful nor trustworthy and it does not inspire confidence. The view expressed by the trial court to hold guilty the appellants is not a possible view, therefore, the appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 57. The prosecution has even otherwise not taken minimum care to examine the independent witnesses in support of their case, particularly when it is nobody's case that independent witnesses were not available. We feel that non-examination of credible independent witnesses in this case is fatal to the prosecution's case. 57. The prosecution has even otherwise not taken minimum care to examine the independent witnesses in support of their case, particularly when it is nobody's case that independent witnesses were not available. We feel that non-examination of credible independent witnesses in this case is fatal to the prosecution's case. It is also settled law that it is not necessary that in each and every case on the ground of non-examination of independent witnesses, the case of the prosecution has to be brushed aside,if the evidence of prosecution witnesses is consistent, cogent and co0rroborated by other evidence, it can be safely relied upon, but it is not so in the facts of the case at hand. 58. The Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Gani Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [ AIR 1954 SC 31 ] has held and deprecated the tendency of the court to take a easy course after : "holding the evidence, discrepant and discarding the whole case as untrue. The Court should make an effort to disengage the truth from the falsehood and to sift the grain from the chaff." 59. While appreciating the evidence, the Court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/ omissions had been of such nature that they may materially affect the trial. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same without any justifiable reasons. Where the omissions amount to contradictions creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witnesses and other witnesses also makes material contradictions before the court in order to make evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence. The discrepancy in evidence of eye witness if is found to be not minor in nature may discard their evidence. In such circumstances witnesses may not inspire confidence and if there is evidence in conflict and contradictions with other witnesses or with the statement already recorded in such a case, it cannot be held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 60. In the State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki [ 1981 (2) SCC 752 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "In the depositions of witnesses there are always some normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. 60. In the State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki [ 1981 (2) SCC 752 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "In the depositions of witnesses there are always some normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person." 61. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihari Lal Goswami Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh, [ 2004 (9) SCC 186 ] has held that : "Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility." While testing the evidence of the eye witness account, the court must scrutinize the contradictions and the omissions in material particulars that go to the root of the case, which materially affects the trial or core of the prosecution case and render the testimony of the witnesses liable to be discarded. 62. In the present case, after going through the entire evidence, omissions, contradictions in the statement of the eye witnesses as well as other witnesses, we find that the statements of the eye witness account are creating serious doubt about the truthfulness of the incident, therefore, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence to convict a person. 63. Therefore, we find that the prosecution case is filled with infirmities and lacunas, therefore, the only possible and probable course left open is to grant benefit of reasonable doubt to the appellants herein. Resultantly, the both the appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the court below vide judgment and order dated 24.05.1988 passed by Court of Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 194 of 1987 [State Vs. Rameshwar and others], under section 302/34 IPC is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. The appellants are on bail. The bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They be set at liberty, in case, they are not wanted in some other case. 64. Rameshwar and others], under section 302/34 IPC is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. The appellants are on bail. The bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They be set at liberty, in case, they are not wanted in some other case. 64. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court below and also send back the lower court record forthwith. 65. Sri Sagheer Ahmad, Advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellants Rameshwar and others to assist the Court in hearing the Criminal Appeal No. 1310 of 1988 & Criminal Appeal No. 1311 of 1988. Sri Sagheer Ahmad, Advocate, rendered his valuable assistance to the Court. The Court quantifies Rs.10, 000/- each criminal appeal to be paid to Sri Sagheer Ahmad, Advocate towards fee in lieu of the assistance provided by him in hearing the Criminal Appeals referred to above. The above amount be paid to Sri Sagheer Ahmad, Advocate by the Registry of the Court within two months.