JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. These appeals, preferred by convicts/appellants against their conviction and sentence imposed upon them vide judgment dated 21.1.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 4-ASJ/7 of 2015, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sher Singh and others, are being decided by this common judgment as common questions of fact and law are involved therein. 2. Vide impugned judgment, each of convicts/appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each for commission of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, under Section 323 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 148 IPC and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 147 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. 3. It is informed by learned Additional Advocate General, that proceedings arising out of the same FIR are also pending against juvenile offender Sonu S/o Hukam Singh before Juvenile Justice Board, Solan, which are at the stage of recording evidence of prosecution for 5.7.2019. Trial against the appellants and proceedings against juvenile Sonu are arising out of the same FIR, but forum and process for adjudicating the same is entirely different and the trial before the Court and proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board are to be concluded by rendering a decision on the basis of material placed before respective forums and not on the basis of evidence. Present appeals are being decided on the basis of material on record placed before the trial Court, which in itself will not have any bearing on the decision of Juvenile Justice Board, as the proceedings before that are to be concluded on the basis of material placed before it in those proceedings. The appellants have suffered conviction and are languishing in jail, therefore, we find it in the interest of justice to proceed with hearing of these appeals. 4. The appellants have suffered conviction and are languishing in jail, therefore, we find it in the interest of justice to proceed with hearing of these appeals. 4. We have heard learned counsel representing convicts/appellants in respective appeals and also learned Additional Advocate General, for the State and have also gone through the record. 5. Brief facts of the case emerging from the record are that on 29.5.2014 at 9:00 P.M., a telephonic information was received from Medial Officer ESI Hospital Parwanoo in Police Station Parwanoo, requesting to send police official as some persons had come to the hospital for treatment after quarrel. The said information was entered in daily station diary vide GD entry No. 52(A) (Ex. PW-13/B) and Head Constable Brij Lal (PW-14) along with HHG Karam Chand (PW-10) was sent to the hospital. PW-14 H.C. Brij Lal at about 10:05 P.M. had informed from the hospital to Police Station that injuries received by Santosh were reported by the Medial Officer as dangerous to his life and he was referred for treatment from Parwanoo to Government Medical Civil Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh and he further informed that on the basis of cursory inquiry and secret inputs, names of Sher Singh, Sonu, Anup, Parmod, Vinod and Vijay etc., belonging to U.P. Bihar, residing in Shanties (Jhugi Jhopari) in village Taksal surfaced as assailants, who had caused injury to Santosh Kumar. The said information was entered in daily station diary vide GD entry No. 53 (A) (Ex.PW-13/C) and after recording reasons that there is possibility of absconding of accused, SHO Inspector Pritam Singh Parmar (PW-16) had rushed to the spot at Taksal along with PSI Rupesh Kant, Constable Suresh Kumar, HHG Dheeraj Kumar (PW-7) and HHG Suresh Kumar in the official vehicle being driven by HHC Bahadur Singh. 6. 6. PW-14 H.C. Brij Lal, in the hospital at Parwanoo, had recorded statement of PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein it was stated that he (PW-1) Bitu Chaudhary was residing in Shanties in village Taksal along with PW-4 Prem Ghund, injured Santosh mason (now deceased) and on that date i.e. 29.5.2014, after working with deceased Santosh, he, along with other companions, had come to their respective shanties and he had started cooking meals, whereas Santosh had gone to fetch water from the water source (Bowli) and at about 8:00 P.M., on hearing some voices of quarrel from water source side, he rushed to the spot and saw that 4-5 persons of district Badaiun, were beating Santosh mason with sticks, kicks and fist blows, whose names were not known to him but he knew them by faces only and when he, along with other companions, had tried to rescue Santosh mason, those persons had started beating him also and when they lifted Santosh mason from the spot towards shanties, then also those persons had again beaten Santosh mason brutally, whereupon Santosh mason had become unconscious having no movement in his body. Thereafter, his companions had brought Santosh to ESI, wherefrom Medical Officer referred Santosh to Government Medical Hospital, Chandigarh. Lastly, request for his (PW-1) medical examination and also that of Harinder (PW-1) was made. After reducing the statement into writing and getting the signatures of PW-1 thereon, this statement Ex. PW-1/A was sent to the Police Station through HHG Karam Chand (PW-10), by making endorsement Ex. PW-14/A, for registration of FIR under Sections 307, 323, 147, 148, 149 IPC, which was received at Police Station at about 11:25 P.M. In the meanwhile, information was received in Police Station regarding arrival of Santosh Kumar in Government Medical Civil Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh at 11:30 P.M. as a refer case from Parwanoo, which was entered in daily station diary vide GD entry No. 54(a) (Ex. PW- 13/D) and concerned Investigating Officer was informed in this regard. 7. On receiving ruka/statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW-1/A), FIR Ex. PW-12/A was prepared by PW-13, H.C. Hem Raj, the then MHC and its prints were signed by PW-12 ASI Joginder Singh being officiating SHO and with one copy of FIR, the case file was handed over to H.C. Brij Lal, who in the meanwhile had arrived in Police Station from the hospital. PW-1/A), FIR Ex. PW-12/A was prepared by PW-13, H.C. Hem Raj, the then MHC and its prints were signed by PW-12 ASI Joginder Singh being officiating SHO and with one copy of FIR, the case file was handed over to H.C. Brij Lal, who in the meanwhile had arrived in Police Station from the hospital. Before that in the hospital, PW-14 H.C. Brij Lal had requested Medical Officer vide application Ex. PW-18/A for medical examination of PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary and PW-11 Harinder Yadav. H.C. Brij Lal (PW-14), on his arrival in the Police Station Parwanoo, had informed that MLCs of three injured would be issued by the Medical Officer in the morning and further that Medical Officer, on his application Ex. PW-8/A, had informed that Santosh was unfit for making statement and injuries sustained by him could be dangerous to his life. The said information was also entered in daily station diary vide GD entry No. 3(A) (Ex. PW-13/E) at 12:30 A.M. On 30.5.2014 at about 12:35 A.M., PW-3 Ram Dev had reached in the Police Station and stated that on 29.5.2014 Vinod Kumar, Sher Singh, Sonu, Anup, Parmod and Vijay etc., at the time of beating Santosh Kumar, had also beaten him, caused injuries to him and had requested for his medical examination and for taking legal action against those persons. The said fact was entered in daily station diary vide GD entry No. 4(A) at 12:35 A.M. (Ex. PW-13/F) and PW-3 Ram Dev was sent to hospital along with constable Abhinav Chandel (PW-18). At 12:45 A.M., PW-16 SHO Pritam Singh had directed to send PW-14 H.C. Brij Lal along with case file, whereupon after recording GD entry No. 5(A) (Ex. PW-13/G) in daily station diary, Head Constable Brij Lal had departed to village Taksal. 8. PW-16 Inspector Pritam Singh had returned to the Police Station at 12:10 P.M. on 30.5.2014 and had brought Sher Singh, Sonu, Anup and Parmod to Police Station for interrogation. The said fact was recorded in daily station diary at GD entry No. 26(A) (Ex. PW-13/H). 9. On 31.5.2014, on receiving information with respect to death of injured Santosh, PW-14 H.C. Brij Lal, being deputed by PW-16 Inspector Pritam Singh, visited Government Hospital Chandigarh and submitted an application Ex. PW-9/A for conducting post mortem of deceased Santosh, whereupon PW-9 Dr. Arti, after conducting post mortem, had issued report Ex. PW-13/H). 9. On 31.5.2014, on receiving information with respect to death of injured Santosh, PW-14 H.C. Brij Lal, being deputed by PW-16 Inspector Pritam Singh, visited Government Hospital Chandigarh and submitted an application Ex. PW-9/A for conducting post mortem of deceased Santosh, whereupon PW-9 Dr. Arti, after conducting post mortem, had issued report Ex. PW-9/B, stating therein that cause of death, in her opinion, was due to carnio cerebral damage due to blunt trauma/surface impact over the head and she had also handed over the viscera to PW-14 H.C. Brij Lal, which was deposited by him in the Malkhana by handing over to PW-13 H.C Hem Raj, who had entered it in Malkhana register at Sr. No. 383 of 2014 and had sent it to SFL Junga through PW-15 HHC Ramesh Chand vide RC Ex. PW-13/J, who after depositing the same in FSL, Junga had handed over the RC to PW-13 H.C. Hem Raj along with acknowledgment of delivery thereof. Report of State FSL was received back on 25.6.2014 through Constable Balwant Singh (not examined). Copy of extract of Malkhana register is Ex. PW- 13/K. 10. On the basis of information supplied by PW-3 Ram Dev on 10.6.2014, accused Sonu S/o Bhupal, who was involved in the incident and was absconding, was arrested by PW-16 Inspector Pritam Singh. It is further case of the prosecution that on 10.6.2014 accused Sonu had produced a bamboo stick to Police in presence of PW-3 Ram Dev and PW-7 Dheeraj, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-3/A and was sealed in a piece of cloth and parcel was sealed with seal impression “K” and sample impression of seal “K” was taken on a piece of cloth Ex. PW-7/A, which was also witnessed by PW-3 Ram Dev and PW-7 Dheeraj. 11. It is further case of prosecution that accused Vijay, Vinod and Suresh were also absconding and Vijay and Vinod had surrendered on 30.6.2014 and thereafter on 2.7.2014 accused Vijay had produced a bamboo stick, used as a weapon in the incident, in the presence of witnesses PW-7 Dheeraj Kumar and PW Kanya Lal (not examined) and the said bamboo stick was identified by PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary and the same was taken in possession vide memo Ex. PW-2/C after putting it in a parcel of cloth sealed with seal ‘P’. PW-2/C after putting it in a parcel of cloth sealed with seal ‘P’. On the same day, one five litre plastic canny, a lether belt and a bamboo stick, used as weapon in the incident, were also recovered at the instance of accused Vinod and was taken in possession in presence of PW-7 Dheeraj Kumar and PW Kanhya Lal vide memo Ex. PW-2/A by putting these articles in a parcel of cloth sealed with seal ‘P’. The articles were also identified by PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary. On that date, i.e. 2.7.2014 PW-2, Vinod Chaudhary had also produced three plastic cannies along with a bamboo stick used for bringing water in these cannies and these articles were also taken in possession vide memo Ex. PW-2/B in presence of witnesses PW-7 Dheraj Kumar and Kanhya Lal after putting the same in a parcel of cloth, sealed with seal ‘P’. The bamboo stick was identified by PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary as a stick being used by the deceased for bringing water, which was snatched by accused Sonu for beating the said witness PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary and deceased Santosh. Sample impression of seal ‘P’ was also taken on a piece of cloth Ex. PW-7/C, which was also witnessed by PW-7 Dheeraj and Kanya Lal. 12. According to prosecution, accused Suresh Kumar had surrendered on 14.8.2014 and during his remand, on 16.8.2014 a bamboo stick was recovered at his instance in presence of witnesses PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary and PW-7 Dheeraj Kumar, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-2/D, after putting it in the parcel of cloth, sealed with seal ‘L’. Sample impression of seal ‘L’ was also taken in piece of cloth Ex. PW-7/B, which was also witnessed by the same witnesses. It is further case of the prosecution that memo of identification of spot Ex. PW-2/E was prepared in pursuance to identification of the spot by said Suresh Kumar. 13. Investigating Officer has also obtained MLCs of deceased Santosh (Ex. PW-8/C), PW-11 Harinder Yadav (Ex. PW-8/L), PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary (Ex. PW-8/M) and PW-3 Ram Dass (Ex. PW-8/E) from the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Parwanoo. After seizure of cannies and bamboo sticks, the same were deposited in the Malkhana by PW-16 SHO Pritam Singh, which were entered by PW-13 HC Hem Raj in the Malkhana register at Sr. No. 388 of 2014 dated 2.7.2014 and 421 of 2014 dated 16.8.2014, extracts whereof are Ex. PW-8/E) from the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Parwanoo. After seizure of cannies and bamboo sticks, the same were deposited in the Malkhana by PW-16 SHO Pritam Singh, which were entered by PW-13 HC Hem Raj in the Malkhana register at Sr. No. 388 of 2014 dated 2.7.2014 and 421 of 2014 dated 16.8.2014, extracts whereof are Ex. PW-13/L, Ex. PW-13/M and PW-13/N. Articles recovered vide memo Ex. PW-3/A, Ex. PW-2/A, Ex. PW-2/B and Ex. PW-2/C were produced by PW-16 Inspector Pritam Singh before Medical Officer PW-8 Dr. Vinod Kumar Kapil seeking his opinion, vide application Ex. PW-8/D and Ex. PW-16/C dated 21.7.2014, whereupon PW-8 Dr. Vinod Kumar Kapil had given his opinion vide endorsement Ex. PW-8/E stating that the injuries sustained by victim can be caused by these bamboo sticks and belt and thereafter these articles, after resealing by the Medical Officer, were again deposited in the Malkhana. Daily station diary vide GD entry No. 38, regarding taking out these articles from Malkhana and GD entry No. 44(A) regarding redeposit of these articles dated 21.7.2017 entered at 3:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. respectively are on record as Ex. PW-13/Q and PW-13/R. The articles taken in possession vide memo Ex. PW-2/D were taken out by PW-16 Inspector Pritam Singh from Malkhana after entering GD entry No. 15(A) dated 17.8.2014 at 8:15 A.M. Ex. PW-13/S and were produced before Medical Officer PW-8 Dr. Vinod Kumar Kapil, seeking his opinion vide application Ex. PW-8/G, whereupon PW-8 Dr. Vinod Kumar Kapil had expressed his opinion vide endorsement Ex. PW-8/H, stating therein that articles shown to him could have caused the injuries mentioned in MLC of deceased Santosh, PW-3 Ram Dev and PW-11 Harinder Yadev. Thereafter vide GD entry No. 19(A) dated 17.8.2014 (Ex. Pw-13/D) entered at 10:15 A.M, the bamboo stick was re-deposited in the Malkhana. During investigation, site map Ex. PW-16/A has also been prepared and photographs Ex. PW-16/A-1 to Ex. PW-16/A-37 were also taken. Photographs of deceased Santosh taken after his death are Ex. PW-16/A-38 and Ex. PW-16/A-39. Photographs of accused have also been placed and proved on record as Ex.PW-16/A-40 to Ex. PW-16/A- 47. On the basis of identification of spot by accused Suresh Kumar site map Ex. PW-16/B was also prepared. Chemical analysis reports received from State FSL have also been relied upon by the prosecution as Ex. PW-16/A-38 and Ex. PW-16/A-39. Photographs of accused have also been placed and proved on record as Ex.PW-16/A-40 to Ex. PW-16/A- 47. On the basis of identification of spot by accused Suresh Kumar site map Ex. PW-16/B was also prepared. Chemical analysis reports received from State FSL have also been relied upon by the prosecution as Ex. P-X and P-Y, wherein it is opined that no poison was detected in the viscera and human blood was detected on the clothes of deceased. 14. PW-5 Kamal Kishore Patwari has prepared naksha tatima and jamabandi of the land whereupon the incident had taken place. PW- 17 Sh. Partap Bhan Singh is an Accounts Manager of the Corporation with which PW-4 Prem Ghund was working for construction work of building. PW-6 Sh.Raj Kumar was with PW-4 Prem Ghund (brother of deceased Santosh) in the market when a telephonic call was received by PW-4 Prem Ghund from deceased Santosh Kumar regarding quarrel in question taking place. 15. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court and after committal, on finding prima facie complicity of accused in commission of offences, on the basis of record produced before it, trial Court had framed the charges against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 323, 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, whereafter the accused were subjected to trial on claiming not guilty. 16. During trial, prosecution has examined 18 witnesses to prove its case. Whereas, after recording of their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused/appellants had not chosen to lead any evidence in their defense. The defense of the accused is that false case was instituted against them. 17. On conclusion of trial, accused have been convicted for the offences charged and have been sentenced as detailed supra. 18. PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary, complainant, PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary, PW-3 Ram Dev and PW-11 Harinder Yadav are witnesses, who have been examined as spot witnesses by the prosecution. PW-4 Prem Ghund and PW-6 Raj Kumar are the witnesses, who have been relied upon by the prosecution as witnesses who reached on the spot after receiving the information about the incident from deceased Santosh Kumar and their statements may be relevant under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act to read with spot witnesses. None of other witnesses are spot witnesses. 19. PW-8 Dr. None of other witnesses are spot witnesses. 19. PW-8 Dr. Vinod Kumar Kapil has conducted the medical examination of deceased Santosh Kumar, PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary, PW-3 Ram Dev and PW-11 Harinder Yadev, whereas PW-9 Dr. Arti has conducted the post mortem of deceased Santosh Kumar. 20. PW-14 H.C. Brij Lal has conducted the part of investigation, whereas major investigation has been conducted by PW-16, Inspector Pritam Singh Parmar. 21. PW-7 Dheeraj Kumar is a common witness to all recovery/seizure memos, whereby articles, including bamboo sticks and belt used as weapon of offence, were taken in possession by the police. Other witnesses are link witnesses, who were associated during investigation for performing their formal role like taking Ruka from the hospital to Police Station, registration of FIR on the basis of Ruka, taking PW-3 Ram Dev to hospital for medical examination, identification of land whereupon the incident had taken place, performing duty of MHC for receiving/depositing the case property in Malkhana and sending the same to State FSL, Junga as well as to Medical Officer and also for sending the viscera to State FSL. Statements of these witnesses will be relevant in case deposition of spot witnesses PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary, PW- 2 Vinod Chaudhary, PW-3 Ram Dev and PW-11 Harinder Yadev along with statements of PW-4 Prem Ghund and PW-6 Raj Kumar are found to be convincing and reliable. 22. Scrutiny of statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW- 1/A, made by PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary and deposition of spot witnesses, including this witness, in the Court compel us to draw inference that true version of the incident has not been brought on record before the Court, which constrains us to interfere in the conviction of accused persons, for the reasons stated herein after. 23. No doubt, it is settled position of law that FIR is not to be an encyclopedia, but only first information of commission of offence to set the Investigating Agency/Police in motion is sufficient to be recorded therein and the entire case can be proved by leading elaborate evidence on the basis of the said FIR, despite the fact that minute details are not there in the FIR. However, at the same time, it is also settled that evidence led in the Court must run in consonance with the contents of FIR and any evidence, contrary to the genesis of the case narrated in the FIR, is fatal to the prosecution case. 24. PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary, complainant, in his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C (Ex. PW-1/A) has stated that after hearing the noise from the side of water source, where Santosh had gone to fetch water, he had rushed to the spot where he had seen that 4- 5 persons, residents of District Badaiun, were beating Santosh with sticks, fist and kick blows and when he tried to save Santosh Kumar along with his companions, he was also beaten by those persons and when they lifted Santosh Kumar from the spot towards shanties, those persons had again beaten Santosh Kumar brutally with sticks causing him unconscious. As per this statement, Santosh Kumar had gone to fetch water alone. While appearing in the Court, in his deposition on oath, PW-1 has narrated a different story, wherein he has stated that deceased Santosh Kumar and PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary had gone to fetch water and PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary had come back to shanty and had informed him that Santosh was being beaten by the person belonging of Badaiun area whereupon he along with Virjan, Rama Nand and Vinod had rushed to the spot but by that time other persons had disengaged the Badaiun people from assaulting the deceased Santosh and they were 4-5 in number and after about 10-15 minutes of their reaching in their shanty along with Santosh, accused persons had again attacked Santosh and when they tried to rescue him, accused also assaulted them causing injuries to him, Rama Nand, Virjan and Vinod. This sequence of events given by him in the Court is in contrast with the version stated by him in Ex. PW-1/A. In cross-examination, he has stated that statement made by him in the Court is correct and the statement made contrary in statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW-1/A, was not made by him. Even if, his explanation is believed by suspecting that PW- 14 H.C. Brij Lal had not recorded correct version of his statement in Ex. PW-1/A, his testimony is not reliable being not corroborated, rather contradicted by other evidence on record. 25. PW-1/A, was not made by him. Even if, his explanation is believed by suspecting that PW- 14 H.C. Brij Lal had not recorded correct version of his statement in Ex. PW-1/A, his testimony is not reliable being not corroborated, rather contradicted by other evidence on record. 25. As per prosecution story, PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary was along with deceased Santosh throughout the episode. Contrary to version of PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary, deposed in the Court that Santosh was lifted from Bowali (water source) to Shanty after the first part of the episode, he has stated that when he rushed to the spot along with PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary, Virjan and Rama Nand, other person had already disengaged the quarrel and thereafter deceased Santosh made a call to his brother PW-4 Prem Ghund and informed that he was not allowed to fetch water from the spring, whereupon PW-4 Prem Ghund advised him to take water from other water source whereupon he (PW-2) and Santosh went to another water source, which was adjacent to the first one and after fetching water in the remaining cans, they picked up those cans with bamboo stick and started coming back to their shanty and when they reached near shanty, accused Vijay snatched bamboo stick being from them and assaulted both of them, i.e. PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary and deceased Santosh and thereafter PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary, Rama Nand and Virjan arrived there, but remaining accused persons, who were called telephonically by accused Vijay and Vinod, also reached there and assaulted them with kick, fist and stick blows and due to injuries sustained by Santosh, he fell down. Thereafter PW-4 Prem Ghund was called and Santosh was taken to Hospital Parwanoo, wherefrom he was referred to Chandigarh where he died. 26. PW-3 Ram Dev has a different story to tell. According to him, on the date of incident at about 8:00 P.M., when he was changing his clothes in his shanty, he heard a noise and found that accused Vinod and Sonu were quarreling with deceased and they had also given 2-3 slaps to him and on advising them by him not to quarrel, accused Vinod and his five companions dragged him out of his Shanty and also assaulted him, as a result whereof he fell down and became unconscious. As per his deposition, accused Vinod had hit him with stick and also had given a blow with bamboo stick on the head of deceased Santosh. He has further stated that after about three hours of beating he went to Police Station whereafter, in the Hospital, he was medically examined. This witness was declared hostile on the claim of Public Prosecutor that he had concealed some material facts and thereafter he was subjected to cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor and was confronted with his earlier statement Ex. PW-16/D recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein it is recorded that Sher Singh, Anup, Parmod and Sonu were beating deceased Santosh and Bitoo. He has stated that he was not having any knowledge of making any such statement to the police, as at that time, he was not in full senses. In cross-examination by defence, he has stated that he had not seen any incident taken place near the Shanty of Santosh and he had identified accused Vinod and Sonu by their voice at the time when they were quarreling with deceased, however, he has not seen any one assaulting deceased Santosh. 27. PW-11 Harinder Yadav is telling another story. According to him, on the date of incident at about 8:00 P.M., when he was in his Shanty, he heard some commotion from outside, whereupon he came out and saw that accused persons were assaulting deceased Santosh with kick, fist and sticks blows. PW-1 Bittu was also assaulted by them. When he (PW-11) intervened, accused persons had also assaulted him causing injuries on his head and due to beating, Santosh fell down on the earth and became unconscious. It is claimed by this witness that he could identify accused only by their face. According to him accused persons had fled away from the spot after leaving behind the sticks. In cross-examination, he has further stated that deceased Santosh, PW-1 Bitu Chaudary and one another person used to reside with him in the same Shanty, wherein no electricity light was available. He has further stated that on account of darkness outside the Shanty, it was not possible to recognize a person and whosoever had come in front of him, he had recognized him. 28. There are contradictions in the versions of the spot witnesses with regard to incident. He has further stated that on account of darkness outside the Shanty, it was not possible to recognize a person and whosoever had come in front of him, he had recognized him. 28. There are contradictions in the versions of the spot witnesses with regard to incident. According to PW-1, the incident had taken place at water source and thereafter near the Shanties, when they had brought Santosh to the Shanty. Whereas, according to PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary, after the first part of incident at water source, PW-3 Prem Ghund was contacted by deceased Santosh and on his advise they went to another water source and after filling up their cannies, they came back to the Shanty and on the way both of them i.e. PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary and Santosh were assaulted, which falsifies the claim of PW-1 that immediately after the first part of incident Santosh was lifted to Shanty in unconscious state. According to PW-2, Santosh had become unconscious after the second assault, when they were coming back to the Shanty with the cannies filled up with water from another source. Whereas PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary is completely silent about fetching of water from second source and assault by accused on PW-2 Vinod and Santosh on the way. 29. The sequence of incident is also contradictory. According to PW-1, immediately after first quarrel at water source, Santosh in an unconscious state was lifted to the Shanty. Whereas according to PW-2 after the first part of incident, he and Santosh had gone to another water source. In his statement Ex. PW-1/A, PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary, has stated that he had seen 4-5 persons, namely, Vijay, Sonu, Anup and Vinod, who were of Badaiun, giving fist and kick blows to Santosh. In the Court he has stated that prior to his arrival on the spot, the quarrelling parties were disengaged by the persons present there and the first episode was over before his arrival on the spot along with Virjan, Rama Nand and Vinod Chaudhary. Whereas, according to PW-2, only two persons, namely, Vinod and Vijay were there, who assaulted Santosh on the Bowri. Whereas according to PW-3 Ram Dev, Vinod and Sonu were quarrelling with the deceased. 30. In his statement, PW-3 Ram Dev has nowhere uttered even a single word that other accused had also assaulted Vinod Chaudhary or deceased Santosh. Whereas, according to PW-2, only two persons, namely, Vinod and Vijay were there, who assaulted Santosh on the Bowri. Whereas according to PW-3 Ram Dev, Vinod and Sonu were quarrelling with the deceased. 30. In his statement, PW-3 Ram Dev has nowhere uttered even a single word that other accused had also assaulted Vinod Chaudhary or deceased Santosh. All other witnesses, except PW-4 Prem Ghund, are completely silent about the name of Sher Singh, whereas PW-4 Prem Ghund has stated that on the way to the hospital, deceased Santosh had informed him that Sher Singh and other persons had assaulted him. Though PW-6 Raj Kumar has endorsed this statement, however, it is matter of fact that none of the spot witnesses i.e. PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary, PW-2, Vinod Chaudhary and PW-3 Ram Dev had ever taken the name of accused Sher Singh as assailant, who attacked the deceased Santosh. On the contrary, PW-3 Ram Dev has categorically stated that accused Vinod had given bamboo stick blow to deceased on his head. He has not named Sher Singh as assailant who had beaten the deceased Santosh. PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary and PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary have also not disclosed his name in their statements as an assailant. It is also again an inconsistency about the names of assailants in the statements of these witnesses. 31. Claim of prosecution is that no other person was present on the spot. However, it is falsified by depositions of PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary and PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary, made on oath in the Court, wherein they have specifically stated that when PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary rushed back to the spot of incident along with PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary, Virjan and Rama Nand, they found that other persons present there had already disengaged the persons quarreling with deceased Santosh, which indicates that other persons were also present on the spot. 32. In his statement Ex. PW-1/A, PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary, had prayed for his medical examination along with PW-11 Harinder Yadav only being injured persons in the incident. He is silent about PW-3 Ram Dev as well as also about Virjan and Rama Nand. Whereas, in his deposition in the Court, he has claimed that Rama Nand and Virjan were also assaulted along with him and PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary and all of them had sustained injuries. He is silent about PW-3 Ram Dev as well as also about Virjan and Rama Nand. Whereas, in his deposition in the Court, he has claimed that Rama Nand and Virjan were also assaulted along with him and PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary and all of them had sustained injuries. PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary, though, has claimed that he was assaulted, but he is silent about receiving injuries, if any, by him. He is also silent about the beatings given by accused to PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary and Rama Nand. Though he has claimed that he was also beaten along with Santosh, but he never presented himself for medical examination at the time of recording Ex. PW-1/A or even thereafter at any point of time. Presence of PW-2 Vinod Chauhdary has also not been claimed on the spot in Ex. PW-1/A, whereas it is claim of prosecution that PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary had witnessed the entire incident, as he was accompanying deceased Santosh since beginning till last when he fell unconscious. 33. Though, it is true that statement Ex. PW-1/A would give only gist of the incident, however, at the same time it should give complete minimum details of incident. In Ex. PW-1/A, it has been categorically stated that deceased Santosh alone had gone to fetch water and it is completely silent about the presence of PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary, either in Shanty or as a companion with deceased Santosh for fetching water. Had he been accompanying the deceased, he must have received some injury. It is claimed by PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary and PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary that PW-2 was also beaten by accused persons, but prosecution has placed on record MLCs Ex. PW-8/C, Ex. PW-8/M, Ex. PW-8/L and Ex. PW-8/P only belonging to deceased Santosh, Bitu Chaudhary, Harinder Yadev and Ram Dev, respectively. As per contents of daily station diary report and statement Ex. PW-1/A and also in the deposition of PW-14 H.C. Brij Lal and PW-16 Pritam Singh, there is no reference of receiving injuries by PW-2 Vinod Chadhary and other two persons, namely, Virjan and Rama Nand, which casts doubt, not only about the presence of PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary on the spot, but credence of the prosecution claim. PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary had not disclosed that PW-3 Ram Dev was also beaten in the incident and in his deposition in the Court also he has not mentioned his name anywhere in his statement. PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary had not disclosed that PW-3 Ram Dev was also beaten in the incident and in his deposition in the Court also he has not mentioned his name anywhere in his statement. He has named Virjan, Rama Nand and Vinod Chaudhary. Interestingly, neither these two persons, Virjan and Rama Nand, nor Ram Dev were claimed to be present on the spot and injured in Ex. PW-1/A. 34. Prosecution has, not only, failed to produce the details of injury or MLC, if any of Virjan and Rama Nand on the record, but also the MLCs of the accused persons after conducting their medical examination on the very next day after their arrest. It is stated in his deposition in the Court by PW-16 Inspector Pritam Singh Parmar that accused persons were medically examined, but he has failed to give any satisfactory explanation for not producing their MLCs in the Court during trial in evidence. Withholding the material piece of evidence is also fatal to the prosecution case, as on the basis of injuries received by the accused, if any, it would have thrown light on the reality of the incident. 35. Another fact which in isolation may not be so glaring, but in view of the aforesaid contradictions and inconsistencies in the deposition of the eye witnesses, would also have impact on the fairness and veracity of prosecution story. In station diary report recorded at 12.30 A.M. (Ex. PW-13/E), dated 30.5.2014, PW-14 H.C. Brij Lal has recorded that Medical Officer had told MLCs of injured examined by him would be issued in the morning, whereas from the MLC of deceased Santosh Ex. PW-8/C, MLC of Harinder Yadev Ex. PW-8/L and that of PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary Ex. PW-8/M, these persons were brought to the hospital at 9:10 P.M. and examined at the same time and thereafter date and hour report send to the police has been mentioned as 29.5.2014 at 9:30 P.M. Meaning thereby, that MLCs were issued immediately after examination during night on 29.5.2014. It creates doubt about presence of PW-14 H.C. Brij Lal in the Hospital. It is also noticeable that PW-3 Ram Dev was medically examined at 1:15 A.M. and his MLC was also handed over to the police on 30.5.2014 at 2:55 A.M. Meaning thereby that all the MLCs had been issued during night itself at the time of examination of injured. It is also noticeable that PW-3 Ram Dev was medically examined at 1:15 A.M. and his MLC was also handed over to the police on 30.5.2014 at 2:55 A.M. Meaning thereby that all the MLCs had been issued during night itself at the time of examination of injured. It also falsifies the contents of daily station diary report Ex. PW- 13/E. 36. As per prosecution case as recorded in daily station diary Ex. PW-13/C at 10:05 P.M., on the basis of preliminary inquiry and secret information, names of the assailants were in the knowledge of PW-14 H.C. Brij Lal and also PW-16 Inspector Pritam Singh however, in the statement PW-1/A recorded at 11:25 P.M., name of assailants have not been disclosed and on the basis of said statement FIR was registered at 11:35 P.M. against unnamed persons. It is also evident from daily station diary Ex. PW-13/H that at the first instance Sonu Diwakar, S/o Sh. Hukam Singh was apprehended by the Police, however, later on another Sony S/o Bhopal was also apprehended. 37. As per prosecution case Santosh was shifted to hospital by PW-4 Prem Ghund on the Motor Cycle of PW-6 Raj Kumar, whereas PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary in his statement is silent about the arrival of PW-4 Prem Ghund and PW-6 Raj Kumar on the spot, but has stated that they brought Santosh to the hospital at Parwanoo. PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary has stated that they called Prem Ghund and thereafter they took Santosh to hospital. PW-3 Ram Dev has not stated anything in this regard. According to PW-6 Raj Kumar when he reached on the spot, PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary was lying on the side of Shanty, whereas PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary has not stated so. It creates doubt about the arrival of PW-4 Prem Ghund along with PW-6 Raj Kumar on the spot and therefore, it would not be safe to believe the version of PW-4 that deceased Santosh, on the way to the hospital, has told him that Sher Singh and other persons had assaulted him. 38. In the aforesaid circumstances, there are three stories on record, first one stated in Ex. PW-1/A and second is narrated in the deposition of PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary in the Court and third story has been propounded by PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary. 38. In the aforesaid circumstances, there are three stories on record, first one stated in Ex. PW-1/A and second is narrated in the deposition of PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary in the Court and third story has been propounded by PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary. PW-3 Ram Dev and PW-11 Harinder Yadav, though has claimed victim in the incident and have asserted their presence on the spot, but in their deposition in the Court they have not narrated the incident, as has been narrated by PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary either in Ex. PW-1/A or in his deposition in the Court or PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary in his deposition in the Court. In cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, except accused Parmod, this witness has stated that many persons had gathered on the spot at the time of incident. All these witnesses have been examined as spot witnesses, therefore, it is difficult to believe the manner and the sequence of events of the alleged incident, as propounded by the prosecution, more particularly when there are irreconcilable inconsistencies with regard to manner in which incident had happened, also presence of assailants at two places of alleged incident and also that of other independent persons. There is variance in the examination-in-chief and cross- examination of PW-1, as in his examination-in-chief he has categorically stated that before his arrival at the water source at the time of first part of incident, other persons, present there, had disengaged the quarreling persons, whereas in his cross-examination he has stated that there was no other person at the water spring at the time of first part of incident. Version of PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary is also similar. 39. From the trend of cross-examination, it appears that injuries suffered by deceased Santosh and other witnesses have not been disputed and accordingly there is no dispute with respect to MLCs of deceased Santosh, PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary, PW-3 Ram Dev and PW-11 Harinder Yadav and also the post mortem report of the deceased Santosh. However, the manner in which the complainant party received the injuries has been disputed. As discussed supra, spot witnesses, instead of clarifying the facts, have created confusion. 40. In his statement Ex. PW-1/A, PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary has clearly stated that he did not know the names of assailants, but could identify them by face. However, the manner in which the complainant party received the injuries has been disputed. As discussed supra, spot witnesses, instead of clarifying the facts, have created confusion. 40. In his statement Ex. PW-1/A, PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary has clearly stated that he did not know the names of assailants, but could identify them by face. In his deposition in the Court, in cross-examination, he has admitted that on account of darkness, it was not possible to identify the persons who were assaulting Santosh, with further clarification that the names of the accused had been told to him by PW-4 Prem Ghund and not by the police. Whereas PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary who also claimed to be residing with PW-1 and Santosh in the same Shanty, has stated in the court that he knew the names of Vijay and Vinod prior to the incident, as they were residing in adjacent Shanty. It is difficult to believe that PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary and deceased Santosh were residing in the same Shanty adjacent to the Shanty of Vijay and Vinod, were not knowing their names. PW-2 Vinod Chaudhary in his cross-examination has stated that he had not seen the incident which had taken place near the Shanty of Santosh and further that he had identified accused Vinod and Sonu throguh their voices heard at the time when they were quarreling with deceased, but he has not seen any one assaulting Santosh. If PW-4 is believed that deceased Santosh had disclosed that Sher Singh and other persons had assaulted him, then at least name of Sher Singh must have been known to the complainant party, however, at the time of recording statement Ex. PW-1/A at 11:25 PM in the hospital, PW-1 had not disclosed the name of any person, rather he had stated that he did not know the names. In daily station diary, recorded at 10.05 P.M. on the basis of information supplied by PW- 14 H.C. Brij Lal, it has been recorded by PW-16 Inspector Pritam Singh that on the basis of cursory inquiry and secret information Sher Singh, Sonu, Anup, Parmod, Vinod, Vijay and others were involved in beating Santosh Kumar. In daily station diary, recorded at 10.05 P.M. on the basis of information supplied by PW- 14 H.C. Brij Lal, it has been recorded by PW-16 Inspector Pritam Singh that on the basis of cursory inquiry and secret information Sher Singh, Sonu, Anup, Parmod, Vinod, Vijay and others were involved in beating Santosh Kumar. When police, on the basis of inquiry, was knowing the names of assailants at 10.05 P.M. it is difficult to believe that PW-1 Bitu Chaudhary who happened to be residing in the adjacent Shanty of the named accused, was not knowing their names, but knowing the assailants by face only. Therefore, it creates doubt about the involvement of the accused in the incident. 41. Prosecution has also relied upon seizure memos Ex. PW-2/A, Ex. PW-2/B, Ex. PW-2/C, Ex. PW-2/D and Ex. PW-3/A and identification memo Ex. PW-2/E prepared on the basis of alleged recovery of weapon of offence and identification of the spot at the instance of accused, when they were in custody. These recoveries have been claimed to have been effected on the basis of statements recorded made by accused during their police custody, but no such statements in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of Evidence Act, if any, has seen the light of day. So far as the recovery memos are concerned, it is pertinent to notice that there are three dates of recovery of weapon of offence i.e. 10.6.2014, 2.7.2014 and 16.8.2014, but in all three dates witness PW-7 Dheeraj Kumar is a common witness and he has categorically admitted that all the three times, he was called by the Police and in his cross-examination, he has stated that all these weapon of offences i.e. bamboo sticks were produced by accused from their shanties and prior to that Police had already visited the site of incident for many times and all the shanties were adjacent to the Shanty of PW-4 Prem Ghund and Police had also carried out search of these shanties. He has further stated that all the recovery memos and parcels of articles were signed by him in Police Station. Another witness to recovery memo Ex. PW-2/A, Ex. PW-2/B and Ex. PW-2/C was Kanya Lal, who has not been examined. Therefore, these recovery/seizure memos can also not be relied upon for establishing the case of the prosecution. 42. He has further stated that all the recovery memos and parcels of articles were signed by him in Police Station. Another witness to recovery memo Ex. PW-2/A, Ex. PW-2/B and Ex. PW-2/C was Kanya Lal, who has not been examined. Therefore, these recovery/seizure memos can also not be relied upon for establishing the case of the prosecution. 42. From the evidence on record, it can be said that deceased Santosh has expired on account of injuries received in the incident of quarrel. However, what was real cause of injuries, has not been proved on record. It is not established on record beyond reasonable doubt that it is accused who were assailants and none else, as the evidence of eye witnesses is neither convincing nor reliable or cogent. For such sketchy evidence on record, accused persons cannot be held guilty only on the basis of suspicion. Contradictions, inconsistencies and discrepancies in the deposition of spot witnesses are establishing three parallel stories with respect to manner and sequence of events of the alleged incident and as such they are major in nature, which are demolishing the geneses of prosecution story, rendering the prosecution case unbelievable. The evidence on record is depicting possibility of more than one story, creating doubt on prosecution version and leading to the benefit of doubt in favour of appellants. 43. In view of above discussion, we feel that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent, convincing and tangible evidence. The trial court has not considered the aforesaid aspect of the evidence on record and therefore, has wrongly convicted the accused persons. Therefore, impugned judgment and order dated 21.1.2017, convicting and sentencing the accused, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Solan is set aside and the accused are acquitted from the charges framed against them. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appellants shall also be entitled to refund of fine amount, if deposited. Release warrants be prepared accordingly. Record be sent back to the trial Court.