JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) - Maid Singh, his son Sudhir Yadav, wife Urmila Devi were tried alongwith Kanwar Singh s/o Bhoorla and Kanta Devi w/o Kanwar Singh, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Tijara (Alwar). The said court by extending benefit of doubt, recorded acquittal of Kanwar Singh and his wife Kanta Devi for offence under Section 302 IPC. The trial Judge held Maid Singh, his son Sudhir Yadav and wife Urmila Devi guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC and acquitted them of offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 IPC. Having convicted the above said accused for offence under Section 302 IPC, the trial Judge vide a separate order of even date sentenced the appellants to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default thereof, to undergo two months additional imprisonment. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, accused-appellants Maid Singh, Sudhir Yadav and Urmila Devi have preferred the present appeal. 2. Prosecution case has been summed up in the charges formulated against the appellants. The first charge stated that on 18.8.2011 at 6.00 AM in Village Binoliya the accused-appellants alongwith acquitted accused armed with deadly weapons, constituted an unlawful assembly with common object and thus, committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 read with 149 IPC. The second charge stated that the accused armed with Kulhadi (Axe), Sariya (iron rod), rod and Lathi caused injuries to Shrichand, father of the complainant Suresh Kumar (PW.1) and thus, committed offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC. The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. Before we refer to the prosecution evidence, it will be appropriate to take note of the written report (Ex.P.1) submitted by Suresh Kumar (PW.l) before Babulal (PW.16) who on 18.8.2011 was posted as Incharge, Police Station Tijara, District Alwar. 4. Suresh Kumar (PW.1) in the written report (Ex.P.1) stated that on 18.8.2011 in the morning at about 6.00 AM his father was returning after fetching water from the tap. On the way, Maid Singh s/o Bhoorla, Sudhir s/o Maid Singh, Urmila w/o Maid Singh opened an attack and caused him injuries with incised weapons. It was further stated that the above said three accused have committed the offences in conspiracy with Kanwar Singh, brother of Maid Singh, and Kanta Devi w/o Kanwar Singh. On the way, Maid Singh s/o Bhoorla, Sudhir s/o Maid Singh, Urmila w/o Maid Singh opened an attack and caused him injuries with incised weapons. It was further stated that the above said three accused have committed the offences in conspiracy with Kanwar Singh, brother of Maid Singh, and Kanta Devi w/o Kanwar Singh. In the written report (Ex.P.1) it was stated that the occurrence was witnessed by Leela Ram and Satish Kumar sons of Hari Singh, residents of Binoliya and Leela Ram informed the complainant Suresh Kumar and his brother Satya Narayan (PW.6) and other family members in Rewari (Haryana) on telephone. On the relevant date and time the occurrence took place in Village Binoliya falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Tijara, District Alwar. Complainant Suresh Kumar (PW.1) alongwith his brother Satya Narayan (PW.6) was residing in Rewari City in the State of Haryana. 5. In the present case, medical evidence is important. 6. Dr. Veer Singh (PW.17) alongwith Dr. Arun Sharma (PW.20) constituted a medical board and conducted autopsy on the dead body of Shrichand. 7. Dr. Veer Singh (PW.17) proved on record post-mortem report (Ex.P.22). In the postmortem report (Ex.P.22), Doctor noted the following injuries on the person of deceased Shrichand:- "Wound - There is lacerated wound present on left upper elbow of 6x1x1cm size. Injury present on scalp 1. There is incised wound present on lower occipital of scalp of 6 x 2 upto bone deep. 2. There is also incised wound present on upper occipital of 5 x 2 x upto bone deep. 3. There is also incised wound present on mid parietal of scalp of 4 x I upto bone deep. 8. After dissection of brain, Doctor found fracture of occipital and both parietal bones. He also noticed that meninges were also torn and brain matter was also coming out from the fractured bones. 9. In the opinion of the medical board, the head injury caused blood loss and shock and the same was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injuries were found to be ante mortem in nature. 10. Dr. Veer Singh (PW.17) deposed in court that the deceased suffered injury of dimension of 6 x 1 x 1 cm on left arm, another injury of 6 x 1 x 1 cm on right elbow and three injuries on the head were incised in nature. 11. The injuries were found to be ante mortem in nature. 10. Dr. Veer Singh (PW.17) deposed in court that the deceased suffered injury of dimension of 6 x 1 x 1 cm on left arm, another injury of 6 x 1 x 1 cm on right elbow and three injuries on the head were incised in nature. 11. Suresh Kumar (PW.1) in court admitted that he was not present at the spot. On the day of occurrence, he was present in his house at Rewari which is in the State of Haryana. Upon receipt of information from Leela Ram @ Billu (PW.2), he arrived at the spot. Thus, in the FIR (Ex.P.23), complainant introduced Leela Ram @ Billu (PW.2) and Satish Kumar (PW.3) as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. 12. Leela Ram @ Billu (PW.2) in court deposed that on 18.8.2011 at about 6.00 AM he was present in his house. He heard that his uncle (Chacha) Shrichand was having a dispute. He and his brother Satish reached at the place of occurrence and saw that Maid Singh was armed with an Axe, Sudhir was armed with an iron rod, Kanwar Singh was armed with an iron pipe, Urmila and Kanta were armed with Lathis. They were causing injuries to Shrichand. Leela Ram @ Billu (PW.2) in his deposition also introduced Govind Singh (PW.4) and Lal Singh (PW.7) as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. In the court, Leela Ram @ Billu (PW.2) stated that Maid Singh caused an injury with an Axe on the head of Shrichand deceased. Sudhir caused injury with an iron rod on the shoulder of right hand, whereas Kanwar Singh caused injury with an iron pipe on the feet of Shrichand. Satish Kumar (PW.3) also reiterated the same allegations. Govind Singh (PW.4) also stated in court that all the five accused caused injuries. Maid Singh caused a blow with an Axe on the neck of deceased Shrichand. While Shrichand was lying fallen, Sudhir caused an injury with an iron rod. Kanwar Singh caused injury with an iron pipe. Ladies who were also armed with Lathis, also caused injuries to the deceased. 13. To similar effect is the testimony of Lal Singh (PW.7). 14. Satya Narayan (PW.6) is brother of the complainant Suresh Kumar (PW.1). On the day of occurrence he was also present in his house in the city of Rewari in State of Haryana. Ladies who were also armed with Lathis, also caused injuries to the deceased. 13. To similar effect is the testimony of Lal Singh (PW.7). 14. Satya Narayan (PW.6) is brother of the complainant Suresh Kumar (PW.1). On the day of occurrence he was also present in his house in the city of Rewari in State of Haryana. He accompanied his brother Suresh Kumar (PW.1) to the place of occurrence and the police was already present there. 15. Jagmal Singh (PW.5) attested the inquest report (Ex.P.15). Jaswant Singh (PW.12) also attested the inquest report (Ex.P.15). He stated that he is not aware as to who has caused murder of Shrichand. This witness was declared as hostile to the prosecution. 16. We need not notice the testimony of other witnesses who had participated in investigation or had carried the investigation. 17. Dr. Veer Singh (PW.17) in cross-examination admitted that all the injuries on the head can be caused by one weapon. 18. Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma (PW.20) who was also member of the medical board alongwith Dr. Veer Singh (PW.17), in court stated that all the injuries can be impact of one weapon. This witness in court stated that 19. We have heard Shri Hanuman Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants, and Ms. Alka Bhatnagar, learned Public Prosecutor. 20. In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 18.8.2011 at 6.00 AM. FIR (Ex.P.23) was lodged on 18.8.2011 at 9.10 AM. The special report reached the Ilaka Magistrate on 19.8.2011. In the present case, FIR was lodged by a person who was not witness to the occurrence. He has laid the pattern of occurrence on the basis of facts narrated to him by Leela Ram @ Billu (PW.2) and Satish Kumar (PW.3). 21. A perusal of the FIR (Ex.P.23) reveals that it is stated therein that information regarding the injuries caused was relayed by Leela Ram @ Billu (PW.2) and Satish Kumar (PW.3). It was not specifically stated in the FIR (Ex.P.23) that Leela Ram @ Billu (PW.2) and Satish Kumar (PW.3) were the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Leela Ram @ Billu (PW.2) and Satish Kumar (PW.3) are nephews of the deceased. 22. Leela Ram @ Billu (PW.2) and Satish Kumar (PW.3), we find, have introduced Kanwar Singh and his wife Kanta Devi as accused. They have not been relied by the trial court qua the acquitted accused. Leela Ram @ Billu (PW.2) and Satish Kumar (PW.3) are nephews of the deceased. 22. Leela Ram @ Billu (PW.2) and Satish Kumar (PW.3), we find, have introduced Kanwar Singh and his wife Kanta Devi as accused. They have not been relied by the trial court qua the acquitted accused. To us, the occurrence in the present case had taken place much before 6.00 AM. In the present case, witnesses introduced above time to make the FIR prompt. We find that the 0. AA-kii complainant Suresh Kumar (PW.1) alongwith his brother Satya Narayan (PW.6) were residing at Rewari city in State of Haryana. They reached in State of Rajasthan and thereafter lodged the report (Ex.P.1). Two blunt injuries, one on right arm and another on left elbow have been assigned to accused Sudhir Yadav and Urmila Devi. All the three injuries on head, as per Doctor, can be caused by one weapon. No witness has attributed specific injury to Sudhir Yadav and Urmila Devi on the head of the deceased. Though the witnesses have stated that Sudhir Yadav caused injury on arm, but no specific injury is attributed to Urmila Devi. We find in the present case as a result of consultations and deliberations, subsequently the number of accused has been inflated. 23. We find merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no need for Urmila Devi to accompany her husband to cause injuries to the deceased who was returning after fetching water from the tap. To us, injury on arm and elbow can also be caused by one weapon. Axe can also be used as blunt weapon. In the present case, if we take delay in reaching the special report to Ilaka Magistrate into consideration, we have to sift the grain from the chaff. In the present case, witnesses are not truthful, therefore, we cannot place implicit reliance upon their testimony. 24. Thus, we are of the view that it cannot be ruled out that accused-appellants Sudhir Yadav and Urmila Devi were introduced as accused as a result of consultations and deliberations. Therefore, as a matter of abundant caution, we shall extend benefit of doubt to them. 25. So far accused-appellant Maid Singh is concerned, the witnesses have specifically stated that all the three injuries on the head of deceased Shrichand were caused by him. Therefore, as a matter of abundant caution, we shall extend benefit of doubt to them. 25. So far accused-appellant Maid Singh is concerned, the witnesses have specifically stated that all the three injuries on the head of deceased Shrichand were caused by him. Injuries on the head have proved fatal. 26. Taking evidence of the witnesses and their conduct into consideration, we can safely hold that all the injuries on the person of deceased Shrichand were caused by accused-appellant Maid Singh only. So far appellants Sudhir Yadav and Urmila Devi are concerned, they can be victim of false implication. 27. Consequently, we accept the appeal on behalf of accused-appellants Sudhir Yadav and Urmila Devi by extending benefit of doubt to them. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence qua accused-appellants Sudhir Yadav and Urmila Devi is set aside. They are acquitted of the charge. However, we find no merit in the appeal preferred by accused-appellant Maid Singh. The appeal qua accused-appellant Maid Singh is accordingly, dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence qua accused-appellant Maid Singh is upheld. 28. Record reveals that the accused-appellants Sudhir Yadav and Urmila Devi, vide order dated 28.07.2015, were ordered to be released on bail after suspension of their sentence by this court. Hence, bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by them are discharged. The trial court is directed to comply with the provisions of section 437A Cr.P.C., 1973