JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 08.03.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.77/2013: Offences Under Section Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences 342 IPC 6 Months’ Imprisonment Rs.500/- 7 Days’ S.I. 302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 6 Months’ S.I All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 3. Facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow: One Shri Omi Lal (PW-8) lodged a written report (EX.P/20) at the Police Station Chhattargarh, District Bikaner on 08.10.2013 at 05.00 PM alleging inter alia that he and his brother Bhawani Shankar both resided in the same house in Ward No.4, Chhattargarh, District Bikaner. His brother was coming back after making purchases from the market. Neena @ Meena, her daughter and 3-4 persons were standing outside the house of Neena. While his brother was passing from the front of house of Neena, these persons attacked him, tied him with a rope and dragged him inside the house of Neena where he was assaulted by lathis and sticks and was gravely wounded. Neena had made an illegal encroachment in Ward No.4 and was indulged in prostitution activities. The residents of the locality were opposed to this activity and thus, Neena started bearing a grudge and owing to this animosity, his brother had been beaten. The neighbours Ramlal, Jaitaram and the informant heard the cries of Shri Bhawani Shankar on which, they ran towards the house of the accused and realised that he had been dragged inside. They immediately rushed to the Police Station and gave information regarding the incident. The police reached the spot. An ambulance was called and Bhawani Shankar was taken to the local hospital from where, he was referred to Bikaner. On reaching Bikaner, the doctors declared Bhawani Shankar to be dead. His brother was having a sum of rupees 10,200/-with him which was snatched away by Neena, her daughter Rekha @ Anmol and their companions. He asserted in the FIR that call details of Neena and Rekha should be procured and proper inquiry be made regarding their conduct. On reaching Bikaner, the doctors declared Bhawani Shankar to be dead. His brother was having a sum of rupees 10,200/-with him which was snatched away by Neena, her daughter Rekha @ Anmol and their companions. He asserted in the FIR that call details of Neena and Rekha should be procured and proper inquiry be made regarding their conduct. On the basis of the report aforestated, FIR No.227/2013 (Ex.P/22) came to be registered at the Police Station Chhatargarh for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 143 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act and investigation was commenced. Statements of material witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Site inspection was carried out. Dead body of Shri Bhawani Shankar was subjected to autopsy by a Medical Board constituted at the PBM Hospital, Bikaner which issued a postmortem report (Ex.P/15) taking note of 23 injuries on the body of the deceased most of which were bruises and abrasions. The only fracture was noted on the right wrist joint. There was a lacerated wound admeasuring 2.5X1.5X1 cms. on the liver underneath the injury on costal area which led to excessive bleeding. 1.5 liters blood was found in abdominal cavity. It was opined that injuries were caused by blunt weapon and were antemortem in nature. The Board gave an opinion that the cause of death of Shri Bhawani Shankar was cumulative effect of multiple injuries leading to loss of blood and hypovolumic shock. It may be stated here that the unknown assailants, referred to in the FIR, were not identified during investigation. The accused appellants were arrested on 08.10.2013 and the usual recoveries were effected at their instance. Investigation was concluded and charge sheet was filed against the appellants herein for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 & 342 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act. The case was committed to the Court of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act cases, Bikaner where charges were framed against the appellants for these offences. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents in support of its case. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C and upon being confronted with allegations appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, they denied the same and claim to have been falsely implicated. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents in support of its case. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C and upon being confronted with allegations appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, they denied the same and claim to have been falsely implicated. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and upon appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court acquitted the appellants from the charge under Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act but convicted and sentenced them as above. Hence this appeal. 4. Shri Bhagirath Bishnoi, learned counsel representing the appellants, advanced the following submissions for assailing the impugned Judgment: (i) that the written report (Ex.P/20) is highly belated; (ii) that time of incident was not mentioned in the FIR and the very presence of the first informant at the place of incident is doubtful. On the other hand, while deposing on oath, the first informant alleged that the incident took place on 07.10.2013 in the evening. Thus, the gross delay of nearly 20 hours in lodging the FIR brings the entire prosecution case under a grave doubt; (iii) that while deposing on oath, Omilal (PW-8) and the eyewitnesses Ramlal (PW-4) and Jaitaram (PW-7) did not attribute any motive for the incident to the appellants herein; (iv) The conduct of the first informant and the two eye-witnesses in not making any effort whatsoever to save the victim, clearly shows that they were not present on the spot. (v) that as the witnesses have not levelled any allegation regarding the appellants having a motive to assault Shri Bhawani Shankar, there was no reason as to why, they would randomly catch hold of the victim, drag him inside their own house and assault him; (v) His last submission was that even if the prosecution case is to be believed then also, apparently the only grievous injury found on the body of the deceased was on his wrist. None of the other vital organs except for liver was found damaged. No grievous injury was noticed on the head or any other vital body part. Hence, as per Shri Bhagirath Bishnoi, conviction of the appellants herein for the offence under Section 302 IPC is unwarranted and the same deserves to be toned down to Section 304 Part II IPC. None of the other vital organs except for liver was found damaged. No grievous injury was noticed on the head or any other vital body part. Hence, as per Shri Bhagirath Bishnoi, conviction of the appellants herein for the offence under Section 302 IPC is unwarranted and the same deserves to be toned down to Section 304 Part II IPC. On these submissions, he implored the Court to accept the appeal; acquit the accused appellants or in the alternative tone down the offence from Section 302 to one under Section 304 Part II and reduce the sentence awarded to the appellants to the period already undergone by them which is nearly eight and half years. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel. He contended that the first informant and the two eye-witnesses Ramlal (PW-4) and Jaitaram (PW-7) had no reason whatsoever to falsely implicate the appellants in this case. They gave categoric evidence to the effect that they were proceeding to see ‘Ramleela’ on 07.10.2013 in the evening at about 9-10 O’ Clock. They were passing by the house of Meena Devi when they heard fervent cries coming from the said direction. On proceeding there, they saw that the appellants herein were dragging Bhawani Shankar into their house. The witnesses were also threatened and hence, they rushed to the police station and gave information of the incident to the police. The police personnel came to the spot, picked up Bhawani Shankar who was lying injured in the house of Meena Devi and took him to the hospital. He was referred to Bikaner where he was declared dead. Learned Public Prosecutor urged that the appellants inflicted more than 23 stick blows all over the body of the victim. One of the blows landed on the costal area which resulted into laceration of the liver leading to excessive bleeding and thus, death of Shri Bhawani Shankar was inevitable. He thus urged that conviction of the appellants recorded by the trial court for the offences mentioned above is justified and that the impugned Judgment does not warrant any interference whatsoever. On these submissions, he implored the Court to dismiss the appeal. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned Judgment and, have minutely re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 7. On these submissions, he implored the Court to dismiss the appeal. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned Judgment and, have minutely re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 7. At the outset, we may note that the prosecution case suffers from material infirmities and is full of loopholes, the first and foremost being the gross delay in lodging of the FIR. It is relevant to note that the written report (Ex.P/20) lacks material particulars viz. date and time of the incident. Shri Omilal lodged the report at the Police Station Chhatargarh on 08.10.2013 at 05.00 PM., but it was not mentioned therein that the incident took place on the previous day i.e. on 07.10.2013. However, while deposing on oath, the first informant Omilal (PW-8) as well as the eyewitnesses Ramlal (PW-4) and Jaitaram (PW-7) stated that the incident took place on 07.10.2013 at about 09.00 PM. Thus, this important omission in the FIR regarding the date and time of the incident, brings the entire prosecution story under a grave cloud of doubt. The informant alleged in the report that the accused appellants were indulged in prostitution activities and when they tried to stop them, the appellants started bearing an ill-will against them and that the incident was fueled with this motive. However, while deposing on oath, none of these three eye witnesses made any utterance as to the motive behind the incident. Ramlal (PW-4) stated that the incident took place on 07.10.2013 at 09.00 PM. They were proceeding to watch ‘Ramleela’ and saw that Meena and Rekha had trussed Bhawani Shankar with a rope and were dragging him into their house. These two women assaulted Bhawani Shankar in their viewing. The witnesses tried to intervene but the assailants made an aggressive overture towards them on which, they rushed to the Police Station and made a complaint. This conduct of the three witnesses is totally unnatural. The assailants were two women whereas the witnesses Ramlal (aged 30 years), Jaitaram (aged 42 years) and Omilal (aged 30 years) were young able-bodied men. The witnesses tried to intervene but the assailants made an aggressive overture towards them on which, they rushed to the Police Station and made a complaint. This conduct of the three witnesses is totally unnatural. The assailants were two women whereas the witnesses Ramlal (aged 30 years), Jaitaram (aged 42 years) and Omilal (aged 30 years) were young able-bodied men. There was no reason as to why three grown up male witnesses one of them being the brother of the victim, did not put up any resistance and mutely allowed two women to tie up Bhawani Shankar, drag him into their house and assault him in the manner alleged. As per the site inspection report (Ex.P.3), the incident took place in the heavily populated area of Chhatargarh town. Thus, if at all the witnesses had seen the incident as they claimed, they could have raised a hue and cry and the neighbouring people would have collected to save the victim from the assailants. All the three witnesses claimed that when they tried to save Bhawani Shankar, the accused ran behind them with sticks on which, they went to the police station and made a complaint. Thereafter, the ambulance came and the victim was taken to the hospital. However, if there had been any iota of truth in this allegation of the witnesses then, the complaint so lodged at the police station would immediately have been registered in the Rojnamcha of the Police Station Chhatargarh. It may be stated here that the place of incident is at a distance of mere 1 Km. from the police station. The witnesses further claimed that after they had submitted the complaint at the police station, a team of the police officials came with ambulance and picked up Shri Bhawani Shankar from the house of the accused and took him to the hospital. However, no officer from the Police Station Chhatargarh was examined to prove this fact. from the police station. The witnesses further claimed that after they had submitted the complaint at the police station, a team of the police officials came with ambulance and picked up Shri Bhawani Shankar from the house of the accused and took him to the hospital. However, no officer from the Police Station Chhatargarh was examined to prove this fact. Thus, conduct of the three so-called eye-witnesses Ramlal, Jaitaram and Omilal in making no effort whatsoever to save the deceased from the assault allegedly being made by the appellants herein; in not filing an immediate report at the Police Station Chhatargarh and the absence of the material particulars regarding date and time of the incident in the written report (Ex.P/20), makes the testimony of the three alleged eye-witnesses (supra) doubtful and they fall clearly in the category of wholly unreliable witnesses and no credence can be given to their testimony. We now proceed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses other than the three alleged eye-witnesses: PW-1 Karan Singh was the Maalkhana Incharge of the Police Station Chhatargarh and he gave evidence regarding deposition of the Maalkhana articles by the investigating officer. PW-2 Prabhu Dayal was associated as a witness in the Fard Supurdagi of the dead body of Bhawani Shankar (Ex.P/2). PW-5 Dr. Sanjeev Buri conducted postmortem on the dead body of Bhawani Shankar and his evidence has already been discussed above. PW-6 Devilal was posted as a Constable at the Police Station Chhatargarh who carried the Maalkhana articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory. PW-9 Dileep Kumar is the brother of Bhawani Shankar who used to stay at Jhunjhunu and after receiving an information regarding the death of Bhawani Shankar, came down to Bikaner and was associated as a witness in the Fard Surathaal/ Panchayatnama Lash of Bhawani Shankar (Ex.P/21). PW-10 Bholaram was also associated as a witness in the Fard Surathaal/ Panchayatnama Lash of Bhawani Shankar (Ex.P/21). PW-11 Amit Alha was posted as a Circle Officer in the Police Station Khajuwala at the relevant point of time. He received the file of FIR No.227/2013 for investigation because offence under the SC/ST Act had also been applied in the case. Manifestly thus, no witness from Police Station Chhatargarh, who had allegedly proceeded to the place of incident and lifted Shri Bhawani Shankar in an injured condition from the crime scene, was examined in support of the prosecution case. He received the file of FIR No.227/2013 for investigation because offence under the SC/ST Act had also been applied in the case. Manifestly thus, no witness from Police Station Chhatargarh, who had allegedly proceeded to the place of incident and lifted Shri Bhawani Shankar in an injured condition from the crime scene, was examined in support of the prosecution case. 8. Now, we proceed to discuss the evidence of the investigating officer Shri Amit Alha (PW-11). He stated that he received the file for investigation on 08.10.2013 and prepared the following documents : (i) Site Inspection Memo (Ex.P/3), (ii) Seizure memo of blood stained soil (Ex.P/4), (iii) Seizure memo of control soil (Ex.P/5), (iv) Seizure memo of a pair of slippers, a cloth (Gamchha) and a mobile alleged to be of Bhawani Shankar (Ex.P/6), (v) Fard Surathaal Lash Panchayatnama (Ex.P/21), (vi) Memo of handing over of dead body (Ex.P/2) (vii) Seizure memo of blood stained clothes of the deceased (Ex.P/7), (viii) Arrest memo of accused Meena (Ex.P/8), (ix) Arrest memo of accused Rekha @ Anmol (Ex.P/9), (x) Information provided by Meena under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/23), (xi) Seizure memo of a wooden stick at the instance of the accused Meena (Ex.P/10), (xii) Information provided by accused Rekha @ Anmol under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/24), (xiii) Recovery memo of stick at the instance of Rekha (Ex.P/12), (xiv) Seizure memo of a rope at the instance of the accused Meena (Ex.P/11), and (xv) Site inspection plan of the house of the accused (Ex.P/13). In cross-examination, the witness admitted that the date and time of the incident were not mentioned in the written report (Ex.P/20). He did not make any investigation from the witnesses other than those named by the complainant in the written report. He did not measure the distance between the place of incident and the house of the accused. The incident took place at a spot located at some distance from the main road. The SHO, Police Station Chhattargarh reached the place of incident on receiving information of the assault and authorised Phoolchand, ASI to take the injured to the hospital. The witness could not say as to how Phoolchand carried the injured to the hospital. The FIR came to be registered after postmortem examination had been carried out on the body of the deceased. The witness could not say as to how Phoolchand carried the injured to the hospital. The FIR came to be registered after postmortem examination had been carried out on the body of the deceased. The SHO told him orally that the condition of the victim was precarious and thus, he had been sent to the Bikaner hospital. However, neither the SHO nor Phoolchand, ASI was examined during investigation or trial. The allegation made in the FIR that 4-5 other persons were indulged in the assault, was found to be false. The allegation made in the FIR that these 4-5 persons tied the victim up by a rope and dragged him inside the house of Meena and there, he was assaulted by lathis and stick was also not substantiated. The I.O. agreed that the incident did not take place inside the house of Neena. He did not make any investigation regarding the angle of enmity between the deceased, the complainant and the accused persons. 9. On a thorough consideration of the statement of the Investigating Officer, we are of the firm view that the investigation of the case was conducted in an absolutely slipshod manner. The grave infirmities in the story set out in the written report were ignored and were not enquired into. The Investigating Officer did not make any effort to collect evidence on the important aspect as to who picked up Bhawani Shankar from the crime scene and took him to the hospital after the alleged assault and as to the location from where he was picked up. This was a most important facet of the case which required proper investigation but the I.O. hopelessly failed to discharge this duty as per law. As per the statement of the first informant, Bhawani Shankar was initially taken to the local hospital at Chhatargarh from where he was referred to Bikaner hospital. Neither any doctor nor other medical staff from the Chhatargarh Hospital was examined nor was any document collected from the said hospital in support of this apparently fictional story. Had there been an iota of truth in the case of the complainant that he and the two alleged eye-witnesses felt threatened by the two women assailants and rushed to the police station and made a complaint then, if not an FIR, at least an entry would have been made in the Daily Diary. Had there been an iota of truth in the case of the complainant that he and the two alleged eye-witnesses felt threatened by the two women assailants and rushed to the police station and made a complaint then, if not an FIR, at least an entry would have been made in the Daily Diary. It was absolutely essential for the investigating officer to have collected the relevant Rojnamcha entries from the Police Station Chhatargarh so as to substantiate this theory. As no such evidence was collected by the I.O., the only presumption, which can be drawn, is that the prosecution has completely concealed the evidence regarding the time and place of the alleged assault made on Shri Bhawani Shankar. A clear inference can thus be drawn that the alleged eyewitnesses never saw the incident. Non-production of the relevant medical record from the Chhatargarh Hospital and non-examination of the witness/witnesses, who allegedly picked up Bhawani Shankar from the place of incident and carried him to the hospital, leads to an irrefutable conclusion of the entire prosecution case being fabricated. Absence of date and time of the assault made on Shri Bhawani Shankar and the theory put-forth in the written report (Ex.P/20) that the appellants herein were the assailants, is unworthy of belief. 10. Once the evidence of the three so-called eye-witnesses is discarded and there being total lack of evidence to show that the deceased was found lying injured in the premises owned by or in possession of the accused appellants, manifestly, no conclusion can be drawn regarding they having assaulted Shri Bhawani Shankar. The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in an apropos manner and committed gross error in placing reliance on the testimony of Omilal (PW-8), Ramlal (PW-4) and Jaitaram (PW-7) who are totally unreliable witnesses. Their evidence is full of infirmities and falsehood and as such, their presence at the scene of occurrence is unbelievable. 11. As an upshot of the above discussion, conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial court vide impugned Judgment dated 08.03.2017 is grossly illegal and is based on no evidence whatsoever and hence, the same cannot be sustained. 12. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned Judgment dated 08.03.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.77/2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned Judgment dated 08.03.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.77/2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants (1) Rekha @ Anmol and (2) Meena @ Neena are acquitted of the charges. The appellants are in custody and shall be released from prison forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 13. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., each appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- 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 appellants shall appear before the Supreme Court. 14. Record be returned to the trial court.