Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 253 (RAJ)

Guddi (Smt. ) @ Jaspal Kaur v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-18

SANGEET LODHA, VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : SANGEET LODHA, J. These two appeals preferred by the appellants; one through counsel and another the Jail Appeal through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner, are directed against judgment dated 12.6.89 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 32/87, whereby the appellants Smt. Guddi @ Jaspal Kaur, Ranjeet Singh and Srichand were convicted and sentenced as under : Smt. Guddi @ Jaspal Kaur : Under Section 302/34 IPC To suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default in payment of fine to further suffer 6 months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 326 IPC To suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years with fine Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. U/s. 323/34 IPC To suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. Ranjeet Singh : Under Section 302/34 IPC To suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default in payment of fine to further suffer 6 months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 326/34 IPC To suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years with fine Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. U/s. 323 IPC To suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. Srichand : Under Section 302 IPC To suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 6 months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 326/34 IPC To suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years with fine Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. U/s. 323 IPC To suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Since two appeals have been filed by the appellants as aforesaid, the appeal being No. 227/89 filed by the appellants through counsel is taken up for consideration. 3. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Since two appeals have been filed by the appellants as aforesaid, the appeal being No. 227/89 filed by the appellants through counsel is taken up for consideration. 3. In nutshell the prosecution case is that on 23.3.87 at 1 p.m. complainant Jagdish Singh s/o Gurbachhan Singh lodged an oral report at Police Station, Keshrisinghpur to the effect that on 22.3.87 at about 4.30-5 p.m. when he and his father Gurbachhan Singh were cutting the gram crop at their agriculture field comprising murabba no. 83, kila no. 17 and 18, his elder brother Ranjeet Singh armed with ‘barchha (saila)’ javelin, brother Srichand and his wife Guddi armed with ‘kasiya’ came from the side of Gujarawali Kat and warned not to cut the gram crop and threatened to kill them. Despite complainant and his father begging for mercy, all the three while abusing, assaulted them with barchha and kasiya. Srichand inflicted barchha blow in the chest of Gurbachhan Singh who immediately fell down. Ranjeet Singh and Guddi w/o Srichand inflicted blows on the head, finger of left hand and other parts of the person of Jagdish Singh. Srichand inflicted blows by handle of barchha. At this juncture, Guddi w/o Ranjeet Singh intervened but all the three continued to beat Jagdish Singh and when he fell unconscious, they left the place. It was further stated that after quite sometime when Jagdish Singh regained consciousness he saw that his father Gurbachhan Singh was lying dead. He kept on crying and after few hours he proceeded to village Dhirangawali and narrated the entire incident to sons of Dara Singh and thereafter to Chand Singh, Member and Sarpanch Jugraj Singh. Then he proceeded to his village Kharla and out of fear, did not go to police station for lodging the report in the night. 4. On the basis of the information received as aforesaid, the police registered the FIR for commission of offences under Sections 302, 307, 324/34 IPC and the investigation commenced. 5. During the investigation, after inquest proceedings, the dead body was subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn and the statements of witnesses were recorded under Sec. 161 Cr. P.C. The accused persons were arrested. 5. During the investigation, after inquest proceedings, the dead body was subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn and the statements of witnesses were recorded under Sec. 161 Cr. P.C. The accused persons were arrested. At the instance of the accused Srichand, blood stained saila and at the instance of Ranjeet Singh and Guddi, blood stained kasiya were recovered. The blood stained soil, blood stained cloths of deceased Gurbachhan Singh and Jagdish Singh and blood stained weapons saila & kasiya were sent for examination in sealed packets to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 6. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the appellants for offences u/ss. 302, 307, 326/34 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Srikaranpur. The matter was committed to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar for trial. The trial court framed the charges against the appellant Srichand for offences under Sections 302, 302/34, 307/34 IPC and against Ranjeet Singh & Guddi for offences under Sections 307/34 and 302/34 IPC. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. 7. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses (PW/1 to PW/10) and produced the documentary evidence Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/23. The appellants in their defence got examined DW 1-Karm Singh and got exhibited the documentary evidence Ex.D/1 & D/2. The appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. 8. Learned trial court after considering the evidence available on record and the submission of the Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the defence, convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated hereinabove. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence on record in correct perspective which has resulted in erroneous findings being arrived at. Learned counsel submitted that the entire case of the prosecution depends on the testimony of sole eye witness Jagdish Singh (PW 4) which is not reliable and deserves to be discarded in toto. Learned counsel submitted that Jagdish Singh is brother of Ranjeet Singh and Srichand and since there was a dispute between them over the land, there exists a strong motive on the part of Jagdish Singh to implicate the appellants so as to grab the land after the death of their father Gurbachhan Singh. Learned counsel submitted that Jagdish Singh is brother of Ranjeet Singh and Srichand and since there was a dispute between them over the land, there exists a strong motive on the part of Jagdish Singh to implicate the appellants so as to grab the land after the death of their father Gurbachhan Singh. Drawing the attention of this court to the FIR (Ex. D/1), learned counsel submitted that the incident had taken place on 22.3.87 at about 4.30 p.m. and the FIR was lodged on 23.3.87 at about 1 p.m. which clearly shows that Jagdish Singh has made out an imaginary case against his real brothers as also against wife of his one of the brothers. Learned counsel submitted that strangely enough though Jagdish Singh who himself was injured, did not inform any of his near relative about the incident immediately and was moving here and there instead of reporting the matter to the police on the same day. Learned counsel submitted that inordinate delay in lodging the FIR throws a serious doubt about the truth of the prosecution case, which has been altogether overlooked by the trial court. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala”, 1980 SCC (Cri) 985. Learned counsel submitted that as per prosecution case, all the three accused were armed with sharp weapons and they had caused injuries to the deceased Gurbachhan Singh but as far as his own injuries 14 in numbers, are concerned, 13 are by blunt weapon whereas none of the accused was armed with blunt weapon. Learned counsel suggested that as a matter of fact, incident had taken place between Gurbachhan Singh and Jagdish Singh as a result of which, Jagdish Singh received 14 injuries and 3 injuries were received by the deceased. Learned counsel suggested that as a matter of fact, incident had taken place between Gurbachhan Singh and Jagdish Singh as a result of which, Jagdish Singh received 14 injuries and 3 injuries were received by the deceased. As per deposition of Jagdish Singh (PW 4) before lodging the report at Police Station, Keshrisinghpur, he had gone to village Dhirangawali and narrated the incident occurred to Sarpanch Jugraj Singh, Member Chand Singh and sons of Dara Singh and thereafter, he had gone to his own village Kharla and narrated the incident to his own wife and uncle Harbhajan Singh and on the next day, he called Sewa Singh and Darshan Singh and thereafter, lodged the report at the police station but none of the persons named whom Jagdish Singh (PW 4) met after the incident and before lodging the report at the police station and narrated the incident occurred, has been examined by the prosecution as witness, which clearly indicates that the entire story of the prosecution including the explanation furnished for delay in lodging FIR is concocted and false. Learned counsel submitted that the conduct of the complainant eye witness just after the incident is very relevant and since his conduct is found absolutely unnatural, his deposition is unworthy of credence. Learned counsel submitted that it is highly improbable that a son while leaving the dead body of his father unguarded at the place of occurrence, instead of lodging report at the police station immediately, would move from one village to another for no reason. Learned counsel would submit that the deposition of alleged eye witness is not trustworthy and there is no corroborative evidence on record indicating towards the guilt of the appellants and therefore, they deserve to be acquitted. Without prejudice to the submissions made as aforesaid, learned counsel further submitted that the part assigned to the appellant Smt. Guddi is not proved by the medical evidence inasmuch as, no injury said to have been inflicted by her is found on the body of the deceased which clearly shows that she has been falsely implicated due to family quarrel. 11. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that merely because the complainant did not lodge the FIR immediately and prior to lodging the FIR met various persons, in no manner could be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. 11. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that merely because the complainant did not lodge the FIR immediately and prior to lodging the FIR met various persons, in no manner could be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. In this regard, reliance is placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “State of Rajasthan v. Chandagi Ram”, 2014 Cr.L.J. 4571 (SC). Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that taking into consideration the situation where the father of the complainant was murdered by his own brothers if out of fear and under mental stress, the FIR was not lodged immediately, the same cannot be considered to be fatal to the prosecution case. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the testimony of the injured eye witness which throughout cross examination remained unshaken can be made basis for convicting a person. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of “Edward v. Inspector General of Police, Anandimadam Police Station”, 2015 Cri.L.J. 2895 and “Sudip Kr. Sen alias Biltu v. State of West Bengal”, 2016 Cri.L.J. 1121 (SC). It is submitted that non examination of the persons whom the complainant met after the incident and before lodging the FIR has no consequences inasmuch as, their hearsay evidence would not have strengthen the prosecution case. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Jagdish Singh (PW 4) has deposed that the injuries on his person were inflicted by the handle of barchhi and kasiya as well and therefore, nothing turns on the question that the accused were armed with the sharp weapons but injuries on the person of the complainant were found to be inflicted by blunt weapon. Moreover, no cross examination whatsoever was made by the defence suggesting that the injuries on the person of the complainant were self inflicted injuries. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the finding of guilt arrived by the trial court after appreciation of the evidence on record cannot be said to be perverse and untenable so as to warrant interference by this court. 12. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully scanned the evidence adduced at the trial. 13. After inquest proceedings, autopsy over the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Jaswant Singh (PW 6), Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Keshrisinghpur. As per the post mortem report (Ex. 12. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully scanned the evidence adduced at the trial. 13. After inquest proceedings, autopsy over the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Jaswant Singh (PW 6), Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Keshrisinghpur. As per the post mortem report (Ex. P/6), following ante mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased:- “(1) Incised wound of 1¾” x ½” x ½” on the back of right scapula. (2) Incised wound of 1½” x ½” x ½” on the back in the middle. (3) Incised wound of 2” x 1” x going deep into the peritoneum cavity and cutting the costal margin.” On opening of the peritoneal cavity, it was found full of blood. There was lacerated wound of 1¼” x ½” x 3” in the left lob of liver. The Medical Officer opined that the cause of death is shock due to massive haemorrhage which was due to injury to liver. All these injuries were ante mortem and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In his deposition, the Medical Officer has admitted the post mortem report (Ex. P/6) to be written and signed by him. He opined that all the injuries are caused by pointed and sharp edged weapon. Thus, looking to the nature of injury and cause of death, the death of Gurbachhan Singh is concededly homicidal in nature. 14. Indisputably, the prosecution case is based mainly on testimony of eye witness Jagdish (PW 4) who is son of the deceased Gurbachhan Singh and brother of accused-appellants Srichand and Ranjeet Singh. 15. Before testing the evidence of eye witness adduced at the trial, we deem it appropriate to refer to position of law settled on the issue whether it is safe to convict an accused on testimony of single eye witness. 16. In ‘Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras’, AIR 1957 SC 614 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the situation where crime has been committed in presence of only one eye witness, observed : “…xxx…. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact, Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely: Wholly reliable. Wholly unreliable. Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 12. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty to its conclusion either way it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fat. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony open to suspicion and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a particular in crime. But, where there no much exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution.” (Emphasis supplied) 17. In Masalti v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed : “… There is no doubt that when a criminal Court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such evidence. Whether or not there are discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not evidence strikes the Court as genuine; whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all matters which must be taken into account. But, it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. Often enough, where factions prevail in villages and murders are committed as a mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is a partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. Often enough, where factions prevail in villages and murders are committed as a mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is a partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautions in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct.” (emphasis supplied) 18. In “Anil Phukan v. State of Assam”, 1993 Cri.L.J. 1796, the Supreme Court observed that a conviction can be based on the testimony of single eye-witness and there is no rule of law of evidence which says to the contrary provided that sole witness passes the test of reliability. However, where the single eyewitness is not found to be wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have any interest in the prosecution then the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eye witness is wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto. In the said case, where the alleged single eye-witness being a close relative of the deceased and though alleged to be present at the place of occurrence but did not attempt to save deceased and also his statement about the time of occurrence was contrary to the medical evidence, the court observed that said eye witness could not be relied upon for the conviction of the accused. 19. In Edward's case (supra), relied upon by the Public Prosecutor, the Supreme Court while relying upon the decision in the case of Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 12 SCC 91 : AIR 2010 SC 3638 , observed that there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of single witness provided he is wholly reliable. 20. The same view is reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sudip's case (supra). 21. 20. The same view is reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sudip's case (supra). 21. Thus, it can be safely concluded that where the testimony of a single eye witness is found to be wholly reliable though uncorroborated may be acted upon for convicting a person but where the testimony of the sole eye witness is found neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the court has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony. 22. In the backdrop of the settled position of law referred to hereinabove, now we proceed to scrutinize the evidence of solitary eye witness Jagdish Singh (PW 4), on whose testimony rests the structure of prosecution case. 23. Jagdish Singh (PW 4) has deposed that on the day of incident at about 4.30-4.45 p.m. when he and his father Gurbachhan Singh were cutting the gram crop in the their agriculture field comprising murabba no. 83 in chak 2 SM, accused Srichand armed with barchha which is also called saila, accused Guddi and Ranjeet Singh armed with kasiya came there and asked Gurbahhan Singh not to cut the gram crop, else he will be killed. Despite he and his father begging for mercy, all the three continue to abuse them. Srichand inflicted injury by barchha on bhakhi (peritoneal/abdominal cavity) of his father. Thereafter, Srichand's wife inflicted injuries by kasiya on bhakhi and moda (back shoulder) of his father, then, Ranjeet Singh inflicted injuries by kasiya on the head of his father. Srichand again gave a barchha blow when his father fell down. He further deposed that when he tried to save his father, Srichand, Ranjeet and Guddi inflicted blows on him. In the first instance, Guddi inflicted kasiya blow on his head and then on the hand, Ranjeet and Srichand gave blows by handle of barchha on the legs and thereafter, when he fell down, Ranjeet proceeded to break his teeth by the lathi part of the kasiya then they asked him as to what statement he will give to which he responded not to say anything and begged for mercy. Thereafter, he made noise, then the accused persons while rolling his body continued to give blows and when he become unconscious, believing him to be dead, all the three left the place. Thereafter, he made noise, then the accused persons while rolling his body continued to give blows and when he become unconscious, believing him to be dead, all the three left the place. According to him, he regained the consciousness after half an hour and saw that his father was lying dead and then while crying, he went to village Dhirangawali where he narrated the incident to Sarpanch Jugraj Singh and Member Chand Singh and sons of Dara Singh, who advised them to report the incident at the police station. From there he went to village Kharla and narrated the story to his wife and uncle Harbhajan Singh. It is stated that out of fear, they did not go out in the night and on the next day, called Seva Singh and Darshan Singh; narrated the entire story and accompanied by them, gave information at the police station. In the cross examination, he has stated that at the Karanpur Police Station, he was asked to go to Keshrisinghpur Police Station. On the way to Keshrisinghpur Police Station, he stayed at the hospital at Karanpur for medicine where he met SHO, Police Station, Keshrisinghpur, who instructed them to go to the police station. He reached Keshrisinghpur Police Station at 1.30 p.m. and lodged the report. He stayed there for two hours and thereafter he went to the hospital where his injuries were examined. 24. It has come on record that Gurbachhan Singh was residing with his son Jagdish Singh (PW 4) and his two other sons accused Ranjeet Singh and Srichand were living separately. It is also a matter of record that the land held by Gurbachhan Singh was being cultivated by him alongwith Jagdish Singh (PW 4) and therefore, the dispute having been arisen, the same was resolved by a panchayat decision dated 16.9.79 (Ex. D/2) whereunder 12½ bighas command land was kept by Gurbachhan Singh for cultivation and remaining 12½ bighas barani land was given to Ranjeet Singh and Srichand for cultivation. This fact is admitted by Jagdish Singh (PW 4) in his deposition. While admitting the division of the land as aforesaid, Jagdish Singh (PW 4) has stated that entire land was being cultivated by his father. This fact is admitted by Jagdish Singh (PW 4) in his deposition. While admitting the division of the land as aforesaid, Jagdish Singh (PW 4) has stated that entire land was being cultivated by his father. In this view of the matter, the cutting of the entire crop of gram by Gurbachhan Singh and/or Jagdish Singh (PW 4) and Ranjeet Singh & Srichand objecting and claiming their share, being probable cause of the quarrel, cannot be ruled out. 25. Jagdish Singh (PW 4) in the FIR (Ex. D/2) while narrating the incident occurred has mentioned that Srichand gave barchha blow on the chest of his father Gurbachhan Singh and he immediately fell down. No other injury assigned to the appellants by Jagdish Singh (PW 4) in his deposition before the court, was disclosed in the FIR lodged. In his deposition before the court, it is alleged by Jagdish Singh (PW 4) that in all five injuries were inflicted by the appellants on the person of deceased Gurbahhan Singh; in the first instance by Srichand by barchha blow on bhakhi (peritoneal/abdominal cavity), thereafter, two blows by wife of Srichand by kasiya, one on bhakhi and another on moda (back of the shoulder), one injury was caused by Ranjeet Singh by kasiya on the head and lastly, one more barchha blow by Srichand and thereafter, his father fell down. However, as per post mortem report (Ex. P/6), three incised wounds were found on the body of the deceased i.e. one on the back of right scapula, one on the back in the middle and one deep into peritoneum cavity cutting the costal margin, which stand confirmed by the deposition of Medical Officer Jaswant Singh (PW 6). It is to be noticed that only one injury is found near the abdominal area, as against two assigned by Jagdish Singh (PW 4); one to Srichand and another to Guddi wife of Srichand, as against only one injury alleged to have been caused by Srichand on the chest of the deceased as disclosed in FIR. No injury on the head assigned to Ranjeet Singh was found on the body of the deceased. Thus, there exists apparent contradictions in the ocular testimony and medical evidence. 26. No injury on the head assigned to Ranjeet Singh was found on the body of the deceased. Thus, there exists apparent contradictions in the ocular testimony and medical evidence. 26. As per deposition of Jagdish Singh (PW 4), the accused persons armed with the weapons as aforesaid came to the agriculture field and said to their father deceased Gurbachhan Singh not to cut the gram crop, else he will be killed. The conversation between the deceased Gurbachhan Singh, Jagdish Singh (PW 4) and the accused persons after the warning being given as aforesaid and before the actual attack is not disclosed by him. Further, as per his deposition, till infliction of four injuries by the accused persons on the person of his father, Jagdish Singh (PW 4) did not intervene and it is only when Srichand was inflicting the fifth injury by barchha he intervened and thereafter all the three accused started beating him. It is not the case of the prosecution that while the accused persons were inflicting injuries on the person of Gurbachhan Singh, Jagdish Singh (PW 4) raised any hue and cry or raised alarm for help. Thus, the conduct of Jagdish Singh (PW 4) in not making any attempt to save his father and not even raising alarm for the help, appears to be unnatural. 27. It is deposed by Jagdish Singh (PW 4) that he was beaten up by the accused persons till he became unconscious on account of the injuries suffered and thereafter, the accused persons left the place believing him to be dead. After half an hour he regained consciousness and saw that his father had died. Strangely enough, leaving the father's body unguarded, in the injured state, instead of informing the police about the incident occurred, Jagdish Singh (PW 4) proceeded to village Dhirangewali, then his native village Kharla and narrated the incident occurred to various persons as noticed above, stayed in night at Kharla and it is only on the next day i.e. 23.3.87, in the afternoon, FIR was lodged at Police Station, Keshrisinghpur. It is highly improbable that a son without making the appropriate arrangements for guarding the dead body of his father lying in the open field, will wander from one village to another, narrating the incident to various persons for no reason and will stay at home in the night instead of reporting the matter to the police promptly. 28. As per the deposition of Jagdish Singh, he had suffered as many as 14 injuries, which includes grievous injuries but the same were not got treated till afternoon on the next day and it is only after lodging the report at Police Station, he was examined by the Medical Officer at the hospital and administered the treatment. To put in other words, as per the prosecution story, throughout till his medical examination by the doctor on the next day, Jagdish Singh (PW 4) in the injured state, wearing blood stained cloths wandered from one place to another and even stayed at home in the night suffering the pains of the injuries caused. 29. Jagdish Singh (PW 4) in examination-in-chief has deposed that he became unconsciousness at the place of occurrence but regained consciousness after half an hour. In cross examination, on being asked as to where his uncle Harbhajan Singh stayed in the night, he responded in terms that he is not aware about the same as he had fallen unconscious in the night. That apart, in the cross examination, he has categorically stated that he regained consciousness on the doctor giving an injection whereas, as per his deposition, he was never treated by the doctor prior to his going to the police station for lodging the report. 30. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The persons to whom Jagdish Singh (PW 4) met in intervening night were specifically named but none of the persons was produced for examination before the court. Even Harbhajan Singh, uncle of Jagdish Singh and Balvinder Kaur wife of Jagdish Singh, who were cited as witnesses by the prosecution while filing the charge sheet, were dropped. 31. In the considered opinion of this court, the story projected by the prosecution so as to explain the delay in lodging the FIR is not plausible and acceptable. That apart, the conduct of the accused during the incident and thereafter noticed hereinabove appears to be unnatural which creates doubt about his trustworthiness. 31. In the considered opinion of this court, the story projected by the prosecution so as to explain the delay in lodging the FIR is not plausible and acceptable. That apart, the conduct of the accused during the incident and thereafter noticed hereinabove appears to be unnatural which creates doubt about his trustworthiness. That apart, in our opinion, the genesis of the incident appears to have been concealed by the prosecution. Suffice it to say that the testimony of the sole eye witness Jagdish Singh (PW 4) is not found wholly reliable. 32. Coming to the corroborative evidence on record, the only evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the recovery of the blood stained weapons of offence i.e. barchha (saila) at the instance of Srichand and kasiya at the instance of Ranjeet Singh as also Guddi. It is pertinent to note that the recovery of barchha (saila) at the instance of Srichand was made on 5.4.87 i.e. after 14 days of the incident from an open place along the canal near village Dhirangawali concealed under the cow dung. Similarly, kasiya at the instance of Ranjeet Singh lying concealed in the wheat crop in the field of one Shri Nathuram was also recovered on 5.4.87. The recovery of kasiya at the instance of accused Guddi was made from the open place along the canal, concealed under the cow dung on 13.4.87 i.e. after three weeks from the date of incident. The recoveries were made in the presence of the police personnel as witnesses. There is no explanation as to why the independent persons were not called at the time of effecting the recovery. In this view of the matter, the corroborative evidence of recovery of weapons of offence is also not found reliable. 33. In view of absence of any cogent corroborative evidence, we are not inclined to sustain the conviction of the accused persons on the basis of the testimony of interested eye witness who is not found wholly reliable and therefore, the appellants deserve to be acquitted giving the benefit of doubt. 34. In the result, the appeal succeeds, the same is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 32/87 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges indicated above giving benefit of doubt. 34. In the result, the appeal succeeds, the same is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 32/87 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges indicated above giving benefit of doubt. The appellants are already on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged. The Jail Appeal being No. 257/89 shall also stand disposed of.