JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 22.09.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.21/1992: Offence Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Section 304 Part-I IPC 7 Years’ R.I. Rs.500/- Two months’ Additional R.I. 2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 3. Shri Ashok Upadhyay, learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently contends that conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court for the charge under Section 304 Part-I IPC is absolutely unjustified because the trial court discarded the identical allegations of the prosecution witnesses qua the co-accused Balvir, Bhuraram, Daleep, Indraj and Amar Singh and acquitted them from the charges on the same ends. As per Shri Upadhyay, all the accused were commonly charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. No separate charge was framed against the accused appellant for the charge under Section 302 IPC simplicitor and as such, his conviction as recorded by the trial court for the offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC is totally uncalled for. He further contends that the motive to commit the offence was rather attributable to the complainant party. His further submission was that the accused appellant also received two significant blunt weapon injuries on his head in the very same incident and the prosecution has not offered any explanation whatsoever for these injuries. He further urges that the prosecution case regarding all the six charge-sheeted accused having given indiscriminate blows to the deceased by barchhis, lathis, etc. is totally contradicted by the medical evidence and as such, the evidence of the eyewitnesses deserves to be discarded. On this grounds, he implores the court to accept the appeal; set aside the impugned Judgment and acquit the accused appellant of the charge. 4. Per contra, learned Public prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposes the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. He submits that the deceased Rampratap was denied a share in the ancestral land by the accused party. The eyewitnesses being the mutual relatives, gave him compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- which the accused could not tolerate and thus, they killed Rampratap in order to wreak vengeance. He further submits that it is well and truly established from the testimony of the eye-witnesses viz. The eyewitnesses being the mutual relatives, gave him compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- which the accused could not tolerate and thus, they killed Rampratap in order to wreak vengeance. He further submits that it is well and truly established from the testimony of the eye-witnesses viz. Pratap (PW-1), Sunder (PW- 4), Shrawani (PW-5) and Ratiram (PW-6) that the deceased had just proceeded out from his house when the accused persons, who were lying in wait, indiscriminately assaulted him by dangerous weapons like barchhis, lathis, etc.. Rampratap had covered himself in a blanket and thus, the initial attack made on him, did not prove harmful but no sooner, did he fall down by the impact of the blows, the accused Bhalaram gave a lathi blow on his head which proved fatal. Learned Public Prosecutor drew the Court’s attention to the statement of the Medical Jurist Dr. Subhash Rajput (PW-3) who conducted postmortem upon the body of the deceased and issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/16) in which, a swelling admeasuring 3X3 inch was noticed on the right parietal area underneath which, there was fracture associated with a rupture of the brain membrane. This injury was opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He further submitted that the injuries found on the body of the accused appellant were superficial in nature and thus, there was no requirement for the prosecution to have given any explanation thereof. He thus implores the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the impugned Judgment. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on record. 6. The FIR (Ex.P/17) was registered on the basis of Parcha Bayan of Smt. Sunder wherein, the appellant Bhalaram was alleged to be armed with a barchhi whereas the accused Bhuraram and Daleep were alleged to be having lathis in their hands. There is no allegation in this FIR that the appellant herein inflicted the fatal lathi blow on the head of the deceased Rampratap. Later on, the stance was changed by the prosecution witnesses and it was alleged that the accused appellant was armed with a lathi with which, he inflicted a blow on the head of the deceased. This contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses vis-avis the FIR is indeed significant. Later on, the stance was changed by the prosecution witnesses and it was alleged that the accused appellant was armed with a lathi with which, he inflicted a blow on the head of the deceased. This contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses vis-avis the FIR is indeed significant. From the tenor of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, referred to supra, it is clear that the partition of the family land had taken place and the accused had received their shares. The denial of the share, if any, was to Rampratap. Thus, the accused hardly had any motive or cause to assault Rampratap. As per the evidence of the Medical Jurist (PW-3) Dr. Subhash Rajput, on receiving a police requisition, he examined the accused Bhalaram on 02.02.1992 and noticed two stitched lacerated wounds on his head, one of which was 1/4 inch and the other was 1/2 inch in dimension. Manifestly, both the injuries were head injuries and thus, were found existing on the vital body part of the accused. All the prosecution witnesses alleged that the six charge-sheeted accused, launched indiscriminate blows of barchhis, lathis, etc. on Rampratap. It is claimed that the deceased was covered in a blanket because of which, these blows did not manifest into wounds. However, ex-facie, it is unacceptable that six assailants would launch an indiscriminate attack on a single unarmed man and he would receive a solitary injury despite such an all out multiple assault. Therefore, apparently, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in this regard, is highly exaggerated. The consistent improvement in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the role of the accused as compared to that set out in the FIR has already been noted above. It is also apparent that none of the prosecution witnesses, offered any explanation for the two lacerated injuries found to exist on the head of the accused appellant and thus, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is suspicious in this regard. The defence has taken a pertinent stance that the accused appellant was being assaulted by Rampratap with a lathi and at that time, Dhanpat (DW-1) snatched the lathi and gave a blow thereof to Rampratap for saving the accused Bhalaram. The defence has taken a pertinent stance that the accused appellant was being assaulted by Rampratap with a lathi and at that time, Dhanpat (DW-1) snatched the lathi and gave a blow thereof to Rampratap for saving the accused Bhalaram. As the prosecution witnesses have not offered any explanation for the significant injuries noticed on the head of the accused appellant, their evidence has to be treated as being tainted and cannot be relied upon. It may be reiterated that the prosecution theory regarding participation of six accused in the assault has already been discarded by the trial court because the other five accused have been acquitted by the very same Judgment which is assailed in this appeal. 7. In this background, I am of the firm opinion that the conviction of the appellant herein for the charge under Section 304 Part-I IPC cannot be sustained moreso, because the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be held to be reliable. 8. As an upshot of the discussion made herein above, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 22.09.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.21/1992 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant Bhala Ram is acquitted of the charge under Section 304 Part-I IPC. He is on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged. 9. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court.. 10. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.