Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1572 (ALL)

Mata Prasad Verma v. State of U. P.

2022-09-27

SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, SUNITA AGARWAL

body2022
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Sunita Agarwal, J. Heard Sri Anurag Pathak learned counsel for appellants Nos. 2 to 5 and Sri Rupak Chaubey learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.2.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 01, Jalaun at Orai whereby the four appellants herein namely Mata Prasad Verma, Prem Narain Verma, Amit Kumar and Harish Chandra have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 readwith Section 34 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine. The appellant Mata Prasad Verma was fined for Rs. 8000/- and in case of default, he would undergo six months additional simple imprisonment. The appellants namely Prem Narain Verma, Amit Kumar and Harish Chandra were fined for Rs. 10,000/- each and the default punishment for them is one year additional imprisonment. Appellants Prem Narain Verma and Amit Kumar have also been convicted under Section 4/25 Arms Act and sentenced for one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each; the default punishment is three months additional simple imprisonment. Appellant Vimlesh Kumari has been convicted under Section 302 readwith Section 114 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-; the default punishment is three months additional simple imprisonment. The punishments are to run concurrently so far as appellants Prem Narain and Amit Kumar. 3. The prosecution story began with a First Information Report lodged by Ramkhilawan son of Kallu. In the written report, it was stated that the maternal uncle of the informant namely Om Prakash got married with Smt. Vimlesh Kumari daughter of Mata Prasad in the year 1997. After one year of marriage, dispute arose between them and Vimlesh Kumari lodged a complaint under Section 498-A IPC against Om Prakash, deceased Kallu Verma and his wife. A compromise had been arrived between the parties in the said dispute and all the accused were held not guilty, but Mata Prasad, his sons and Vimlesh Kumari were carrying grudges. On the fateful day, i.e. 27.3.2005 at around 7:30 p.m., the deceased father of the informant was at home, Harish Chandra son of Mata Prasad came to call him on the premise that some relatives who came to his home wanted to talk to the deceased. On the fateful day, i.e. 27.3.2005 at around 7:30 p.m., the deceased father of the informant was at home, Harish Chandra son of Mata Prasad came to call him on the premise that some relatives who came to his home wanted to talk to the deceased. Harish Chandra son of Mata Prasad went back and believing him, the deceased father of the informant as also Santosh, Kulvendra, Vikram and Ram Prakash (who were behind the deceased) went towards the house of Mata Prasad. On the way, accused Prem Narain, Amit Kumar and Mata Prasad, were present carrying weapons looking for the opportunities. As soon as the deceased reached at that place, they caught him, Mata Prasad and Amit started giving blows of knife. The deceased entered in the nearby house to save his life. He was dragged out of the house and Prem Narain killed him by opening fire from a country made fire-arm. The deceased died on the spot. The incident was witnessed by Santosh, Vikram and Ram Prakash. The assailants ran towards their house while firing and as such neither the witnesses nor neighbours on the spot could catch hold of them. It is then stated that the father of the informant was killed at the instance of Vimlesh Kumari in connivance with her father and brothers. The informant then stated that the incident had occurred at around 8:00 p.m.. 4. The Constable Moharrir PW-3 stated that on the written report, he registered the case and Check report as Check No. 107/05 was prepared in his handwriting and signature, which was proved as Exhibit Ka-2. The G.D. entry No. 35, time 21:15 hours dated 27.3.2005 was proved by bringing carbon copy on record, marked as Exhibit Ka-3. In cross, PW-3 stated that he was on duty when the First Information Report was brought and denied the suggestion that the report was lodged at the instructions of the Investigating Officer or in his presence. The suggestion of the report being ante-timed was categorically denied by PW-3. It may be noted that the distance of the police station from the place of the incident as indicated in the Check report was barely 1 km. 5. PW-4 is the Sub-Inspector who was posted at the police station on the date of the registration of the FIR. The suggestion of the report being ante-timed was categorically denied by PW-3. It may be noted that the distance of the police station from the place of the incident as indicated in the Check report was barely 1 km. 5. PW-4 is the Sub-Inspector who was posted at the police station on the date of the registration of the FIR. He stated that the investigation was commenced by the Incharge Inspector Sri Krishna and he went to the spot of the incident alongwith the Investigating Officer. The inquest of the dead body was conducted after making arrangements of light at about 22:45 hours and was completed by 1:00 a.m. on 28.3.2005. The body was sent for the post-mortem with all related papers of the inquest. The inquest and papers were proved as Exhibits Ka-3 and Ka-4 to Ka-7. A sealed bundle was opened in the Court from which the clothes of the deceased were taken only which were marked as Material Exhibit 1' to 5'. PW-4 was confronted about the description of the weapons of assault in the inquest report as also the opinion of Panchas written there. He was confronted as to why the number of assaults by knife had not been indicated in the inquest. The suggestion that he was not present on the spot at the time of the inquest or preparation of the inquest report was denied. 6. The Doctor PW-5 stated that he had received the dead body in sealed state brought by two constables, who had identified the same. The post-mortem was conducted at about 2:00 p.m.. On 28.3.2005 The deceased was average built, eyes and mouth were half open. Rigor mortis was present in both upper and lower limbs. The Ante-mortem injuries found on the person of the deceased are as under : ''(1) Incised wound 7cm x 1cm size muscle deep present at the right lateral aspect of the Chin 1 cm below the lip & extends below laterally towards the right side. (2) Incised wound 13cm x 2cm size muscle deep present 1cm below the injury No. 1 and Extends laterally upto the neck right side. (3) Incised wound 4cm x 1.5cm deep upto the stomach cavity from which intestinal organ were coming out, present 8 cm below & lateral to the left nipple. (2) Incised wound 13cm x 2cm size muscle deep present 1cm below the injury No. 1 and Extends laterally upto the neck right side. (3) Incised wound 4cm x 1.5cm deep upto the stomach cavity from which intestinal organ were coming out, present 8 cm below & lateral to the left nipple. (4) Incised wound 5cm x 2cm size deep upto the abdominal cavity, the intestinal part were coming out, present 13cm below & medial to the left nipple, 8cm apart from injury No. 3 only. (5) Incised wound 6cm x 2.5cm size deep present 1.5 cm above the umbilicus some part of intestine coming out through the wound. (6) Incised wound 7cm x 2cm size present at the left lateral aspect of the Abdomen, 9cm below the injury No. 3 muscle deep. (7) Incised wound 5.5cm x 2.5cm size present at the posterior lateral aspect of the back of the lower part of the chest 7 cm above the Right iliac crest border muscle deep. (8) Incised wound 3cm x 1.5cm muscle deep present at the posterior border of the left iliac crest bone.'' PW-5 stated that apart from the above injuries, no mark of fire-arm injury was found on the person of the deceased which was noted by the concerned Sub-Inspector. 7. On internal examination, the chambers of both lungs and heart were empty, blood clots were present in the abdominal cavity and cut marks were there in the intestine. Semi digested food full of stomach was present. Small intestine and large intestine were full of semi-digested food and faecal matter. The cause of death noted in the post-mortem report is shock and hemorrhage due to Ante-mortem injuries. It was proved by PW-5 that the post-mortem report was in his handwriting and signature, marked as Exhibit Ka-8. He had also identified his signatures on the papers brought with the dead body for the post-mortem. PW-5 opined that there was possibility of death having been caused on 27.3.2005 at around 8:00 p.m. by weapon like knife. The doctor was further confronted about the nature of the injuries and the possibilities of the weapon used. About the stomach condition of the deceased, the doctor stated that the deceased might have taken food two hours before the incident. 8. The doctor was further confronted about the nature of the injuries and the possibilities of the weapon used. About the stomach condition of the deceased, the doctor stated that the deceased might have taken food two hours before the incident. 8. PW-6, the Investigating Officer stated that the report was lodged in his presence, he received investigation and after making entries in the Case Diary, he recorded statements of the witnesses, informant and the Court Moharrir. The site inspection was, thereafter, made. The blood stained and plain earth was collected and sealed. The memo of recovery has been proved as Exhibit Ka-9. The site plan of the place of the incident was proved as Exhibit Ka-10 being in his handwriting and signature. After he arrested the accused, murder weapon was recovered. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in his handwriting and signature, exhibited as Ka-12. A sealed bundle was opened and the boxes of blood stained and plain earth were taken out and were marked as Material Exhibit 6' and 7'. One knife which was allegedly recovered from Prem Narain was also found and marked as Material Exhibit 8'. From the second bundle, one knife allegedly recovered from Amit Kumar was taken out which was sealed and marked as Material Exhibit 9'. This witness was confronted about the recovery memo and the signatures of the accused and witnesses over the same. He was also confronted about the arrest of the accused persons and the inspection of the site of the recovery. PW-6 was further confronted about the previous statement of the witnesses recorded by him under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 9. PW-7 is the Constable posted in the police station who stated that the recovered article namely knife was deposited on 30.3.3005 when he was present in the police station and he made the necessary entries and identified his writing and signatures on the papers prepared by him. A suggestion as given to this witness that the accused persons were arrested from their house and brought to the police station which was denied by him. 10. PW-8 is the officer who conducted the investigation of the case under Section 4/25 Arms Act. 11. Amongst the witnesses of facts, PW-1 Ram Khilawan is the son of the deceased and PW-2 Santosh Kumar is brother. 10. PW-8 is the officer who conducted the investigation of the case under Section 4/25 Arms Act. 11. Amongst the witnesses of facts, PW-1 Ram Khilawan is the son of the deceased and PW-2 Santosh Kumar is brother. PW-1, the first informant, has reiterated the statement in the FIR in his examination-in-chief with one addition that he had also accompanied his father and witnesses named in the FIR and they were alongwith Harish Chandra who came to call his father (the deceased). PW-1 further elaborated that when his father reached at the place where accused persons were waiting for him, at first Amit Kumar attacked the deceased by knife. His father had entered into Saraswati Shishu Mandir but the assailants dragged him out and all three namely Mata Prasad, Prem Narain, Amit Kumar then attacked the deceased with knife. Prem Narain was also carrying 'Katta' (country made pistol), he opened fire towards the deceased, which did not hit the deceased. He also fired towards them and they got scared. 12. PW-1 then stated that his father was killed at the instigation of Vimlesh Kumari and when his father got injuries, Vimlesh Kumari was present on the spot. His father succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The incident was witnessed by Santosh, Vikram and Ram Prakash apart from him. PW-1 had proved the written report being in his handwriting and signature as Exhibit Ka-1. He then narrated the motive of the incident and stated that his father was called for compromise. PW-1 reaffirmed his presence on the spot alongwith other witnesses and narrated the incident in detail. He further stated that Harish Chandra and Vimlesh Kumari, both were present on the spot and the deceased was killed at the instigation of Vimlesh Kumari. He then stated that the report was scribed by him in his own handwriting. In cross, PW-1 stated that the day of the incident was the festival of Dauj after Holi and people used to visit their relatives and friends. PW-1 was confronted about the contents of the written report scribed by him wherein he had mentioned that Harish Chandra went home. He was also confronted about his presence on the spot alongwith the witnesses Santosh, Vikram and Ram Prakash and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where he did not mention his presence on the spot. PW-1 was confronted about the contents of the written report scribed by him wherein he had mentioned that Harish Chandra went home. He was also confronted about his presence on the spot alongwith the witnesses Santosh, Vikram and Ram Prakash and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where he did not mention his presence on the spot. He was confronted about the presence of Vimlesh Kumari and the manner of the incident as narrated by him in the FIR as also his previous statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 from his previous statement were specifically put by the defence. Some previous incident of enmity between deceased Kallu and accused Mata Prasad and his son Harish Chandra was put to PW-1 and he stated that he was not aware of the said incident. The suggestion that he had lodged a false report was denied. The informant was also confronted about two roads to access the place of the incident and that his father was engaged in the sale of illegal liquor and that because of his occupation, some unknown persons had killed him. The suggestion about criminal antecedents of his uncle Santosh (PW-2) was denied by PW-1. 13. Lastly, in cross, PW-1 stated that witnesses Ram Prakash, Santosh and Vikram were sitting at his house and they did not consume liquor. He was confronted about his presence in the house and that his father (deceased) went somewhere else with the witnesses (including PW-2). He was further confronted about the matrimonial case of Vimlesh Kumari and was asked about the accused Harish Chandra being physically challenged. In cross, he stated that Harish Chandra came all alone on foot to his house to call his father. He stated that Harish Chandra came to call his father and stayed for only two minutes. On the asking of Harish Chandra, his father and the informant did not even change their clothes and proceeded in the same clothes. It is stated by PW-1 that when his father came out, then he talked with the witnesses and all of them including he himself came out then. They left immediately and they were walking behind the deceased and there was distance of 15-20 paces between them till they reached at the place of the incident. He stated that they went on their own and the deceased did not ask them to accompany. They left immediately and they were walking behind the deceased and there was distance of 15-20 paces between them till they reached at the place of the incident. He stated that they went on their own and the deceased did not ask them to accompany. They did not talk on the way. PW-1 then stated that electricity bulb was lit up at the time of the incident. As soon as they crossed Saraswati Shishu Mandir and moved ahead, they saw the accused persons. PW-1 was confronted about the description of the place of the incident and the properties surrounding the area. He stated that when he saw the accused, Prem Narain, Amit Kumar and Mata Prasad carrying knife. His father was only about 1-2 paces away from them but he did not run to save his father. 14. To the Court, PW-1 replied that he got scared looking to the weapons and hence could not save his father. On the asking of the defence Advocate, PW-1 stated that none of the witnesses including his uncle (PW-2) did make any effort to save his father as they all got scared. PW-1 was confronted in detail about the manner in which the incident had occurred, the source of light and about the lodging of the First Information Report. PW-1 explained that after the incident, they stayed at the place of the incident about ½ hours. Neither they nor neighbours informed the police. Police did not come on the spot. Ram Prakash was then sent to his house and his younger brother and mother reached at the spot. Then they went to the police station to lodge the report and the report was scribed at the Gandhi Chabutra in front of the police station. He was then confronted about his previous statement in the Court that he scribed the report at his house and that time Ram Prakash and his younger brother were present. On this he replied that the said statement was wrong. He, his brother Pradeep and uncle Santosh (PW-2) went to the police station and no one else was with them. Ram Prakash, his mother and other neighbours were besides the dead body. They went to the police station on foot. It took around 20 minutes to reach at the Gandhi Chabutra, 15 minutes time was taken in writing the report. He, his brother Pradeep and uncle Santosh (PW-2) went to the police station and no one else was with them. Ram Prakash, his mother and other neighbours were besides the dead body. They went to the police station on foot. It took around 20 minutes to reach at the Gandhi Chabutra, 15 minutes time was taken in writing the report. The suggestion that the report was the result of deliberations with the police after inspection of site of the incident was denied by PW-1. He then stated that his statement in the inquest as Panch witness that injuries was caused by tamancha (country made pistol) was wrongly written and he did not tell the same to the Investigating Officer. The suggestion that he had lodged a false report and the deceased was killed by unknown persons was denied. 15. PW-2 Santosh Kumar stated that his brother Kallu had died in the incident and on the date of the incident he was at home. At around 7:30 p.m., when they all (including witnesses) were sitting, Harish Chandra came to call the deceased and told that all relatives were collected and Mata Prasad called Kallu to talk for a compromise about Vimlesh Kumari. The deceased Kallu immediately went with Harish Chandra and the informant (PW-1), he himself and other named witnesses followed him. When they reached near the house of Mata Prasad, deceased and Harish Chandra were ahead and they all were 20 paces away from them. Vimlesh Kumari, the daughter of Mata Prasad exhorted that Kallu had spoiled her life, kill him. Then, Mata Prasad and Harish Chandra caught the deceased, Amit Kumar and Prem Narain gave blows of knives. When the witnesses ran towards them, accused Prem Narain opened fire by 'Katta' at them. The deceased ran and entered inside the school in front of the place of the attack, all the accused persons dragged him out and then killed him by knives. The deceased died on the spot. PW-2 gave his pedigree and detail about other family members, in cross. He was further confronted and stated that the police reached the spot after about half an hour of the incident, he was not interrogated at about 10:00 p.m. in front of the house of Mata Prasad. The deceased died on the spot. PW-2 gave his pedigree and detail about other family members, in cross. He was further confronted and stated that the police reached the spot after about half an hour of the incident, he was not interrogated at about 10:00 p.m. in front of the house of Mata Prasad. He was confronted about his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the contradictions therein, on which he stated that he told the Investigating Officer but why was it not mentioned was not known to him. PW-2 then narrated that the time of the incident was about 7:30 p.m.. He further stated that accused Mata Prasad was standing in front of the school, which was at a short distance from his house and when he saw the accused for the first time, he was at a distance of 15-20 paces. He was further confronted that the presence of Vimlesh Kumari and Harish Chandra was not mentioned in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he refuted the same by stating that he told the same to the Investigating Officer. PW-2 was further confronted about the access roads to the place of the incident, the distance from which they had seen the incident. He further stated that both Mata Prasad and Harish Chandra caught hold of the deceased and they both were holding one-one hand of the deceased. The deceased was healthy and could have freed himself on his own. They, however, did not make any effort to save the deceased. PW-2 then stated that he was present on the spot after the incident till the police came. He did not go to the police station. He then stated that after the police came he went to lodge the FIR alongwith the informant namely Ram Khilawan. He stated that paper for writing the report was taken from the police station and the report was scribed at the Chabutra by PW-1 in front of the CO office within the premises of the police station. He was confronted about the investigation made by the police after the incident. A suggestion was given that he himself was lodged in the jail in the matter of liquor and 'charas' which he had denied though admitted that he went to jail in a murder case which was going on. The suggestion that he did not witness the incident was categorically denied by PW-2. 16. A suggestion was given that he himself was lodged in the jail in the matter of liquor and 'charas' which he had denied though admitted that he went to jail in a murder case which was going on. The suggestion that he did not witness the incident was categorically denied by PW-2. 16. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They had denied all incriminating circumstances and lastly it was stated by the accused persons that in-laws of their sister were demanding dowry and several cases were going on between them in different Courts due to the criminal complaint. They were falsely implicated due to enmity on account of Court cases. 17. Two witnesses in defence were produced. The defence witness DW-1 stated that the incident of death of deceased Kallu Verma had occurred near his house in front of Sadguru Saraswati Shishu Mandir at around 7-7:30 p.m. and at the time of the incident, he was home. Hearing the noise, he came out and saw that three people were killing the deceased and all three persons were outsiders, to whom he did not know by names and then stated that the accused persons present in the Court were not present on the spot. DW-1 also stated that at that time, none of the family members of deceased namely his son Ram Khilawan, brother Santosh were present. He then stated that he knew deceased Kallu as he used to come to his mohalla for the business of sale of liquor and 'Satta' in which he was involved and the deceased used to fight with people. Further DW-1, in cross, stated that he never went to the police nor he was ever interrogated. He then stated that he had fear for his life from the assailants and hence did not speak to anyone about the incident. 18. DW-2 stated that he was near the place of the incident and witnesses that the deceased Kallu Verma was killed by three unknown persons by knives for the enmity related to 'Satta'. While they were killing him, the assailants were saying that the deceased had been a 'sattebaaj' and wasted their money. DW-2 stated that he reached at the place of the incident hearing the noise but the accused persons or their family members were not present on the spot nor he had seen them assaulting or killing the deceased. While they were killing him, the assailants were saying that the deceased had been a 'sattebaaj' and wasted their money. DW-2 stated that he reached at the place of the incident hearing the noise but the accused persons or their family members were not present on the spot nor he had seen them assaulting or killing the deceased. He further stated that at the time of the incident, members of family of the deceased were also not present. DW-2 then stated that he knew the deceased, his brother Santosh and his two sons and none of them were present at the time of the incident. He had denied the suggestion of false statement. 19. Placing the evidence on record, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that no fire-arm injury was found in the post-mortem report as against the statement in the FIR and 161 statement of the informant that Prem Narain opened fire at the deceased with 'Katta'. Harish Chandra and Vimlesh Kumari were not charge-sheeted by the Court initially. Only three persons were charge-sheeted, they were Mata Prasad, Prem Narain and Amit Kumar. PW-1 had introduced himself as an eye-witness for the first time in the Court and stated that he was behind the deceased alongwith the other named witnesses. His statement in the Court is an improvement, inasmuch as, neither in the First Information Report nor in 161 statement, PW-1 mentioned himself as the eye-witness. He has projected himself as eye-witness for the first time in the Court and was confronted with his previous statement. From the statement of the Investigating Officer, it is evident that he had to arrange the source of light for conducting the inquest whereas the informant stated that the light of bulb was there. Had there been bulb light, there was no occasion for the Investigating Officer to make arrangement for light to conduct the inquest. The arrest of accused persons were made from their house and the recoveries of knives were planted. Both the witnesses are related to the deceased. No independent witness had come forward to support the prosecution story though the incident had occurred at a public place. No source of light had been indicated in the site plan. There are material contradictions in the statement of PW-1 and PW-2. They did not make any effort to save the deceased. Both the witnesses are related to the deceased. No independent witness had come forward to support the prosecution story though the incident had occurred at a public place. No source of light had been indicated in the site plan. There are material contradictions in the statement of PW-1 and PW-2. They did not make any effort to save the deceased. As per own statement of witnesses, the assailants were carrying knives and the witnesses being three in number could have saved the deceased. The story of fire-arm was introduced to give colour to the incident and to project that the witnesses were terrorized by the accused persons. No reason has been given by the witnesses as to why they all had followed the deceased when he was going to meet Mata Prasad on the invitation of Harish Chandra to talk about the compromise and the dispute relating to criminal case against the deceased was already settled. And if they were aware of the enmity, why would they not carry weapons when the criminal antecedents of both the deceased and witness PW-2 was known to them. There were three ways to approach the place of the incident and the statement of PW-1 that three accused persons were sitting on the way carrying weapons waiting for the deceased, therefore, is unbelievable. The motive is very weak and remote. The reason given in the First Information Report to commit the murder is remotely connected to the deceased. There are material improvements in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. The manner of the incident narrated by them is highly doubtful. The prosecution witnesses had changed story in their statement in the Court. The injuries were not described in the FIR and for the first time stated in the Court that the deceased had stab wound. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Yudhishtir v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 1971 (3) SCC 436 and of this Court in Jaikaran and another v. State of U.P., 2018 (104) ACC 750, to substantiate the above submissions. 20. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that it was a prompt FIR. The police station was at a distance of 1 km. The promptness of the FIR is proved from the documents prepared in the investigation. Even the defence witnesses DW-1 and DW-2 had fixed the time, place and the number of the assailants. 20. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that it was a prompt FIR. The police station was at a distance of 1 km. The promptness of the FIR is proved from the documents prepared in the investigation. Even the defence witnesses DW-1 and DW-2 had fixed the time, place and the number of the assailants. They only denied the presence of the accused and the witnesses. It is stated that for any inconsistency in the statement of witnesses from the FIR or statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., their version would not become unbelievable rather their version became doubtful and would require strict scrutiny. It was argued that during the course of cross-examination of PW-1, suggestion was given about PW-2 accompanying the deceased, which proved the presence of PW-2 on the spot. About accused Vimlesh Kumari, she was summoned by the Court and was found to be guilty of abatement of conspiracy of the crime. Common intention of three assailants was found and in furtherance of their intention, they had killed the deceased together and hence they were rightly convicted under Section 302/34 IPC. 21. Lastly, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the presence of Vimlesh Kumari was not mentioned by PW-2 in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. For conviction under Section 114, the presence of Vimlesh Kumari at the time of the incident had to be fixed. As the eye-witnesses did not prove the presence of Vimlesh Kumari, her conviction is liable to be aside. 22. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records. This case proceeds on the testimony of two eye-witnesses who had entered in the witness-box as PW-1 and PW-2. Amongst various arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellants about their credibility, the main argument which has been pressed with vehemence was that the informant PW-1 in the First Information Report and Section 161 statement did not mention that he had accompanied the deceased when the deceased had left his house on the asking of Harish Chandra. The statement in the FIR was that Santosh, Kulvendra, Vikram and Ram Prakash had followed his father and Santosh, Vikram and Ram Prakash had witnessed the incident on the spot. In his previous statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant had repeated the same assertions. The statement in the FIR was that Santosh, Kulvendra, Vikram and Ram Prakash had followed his father and Santosh, Vikram and Ram Prakash had witnessed the incident on the spot. In his previous statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant had repeated the same assertions. Thus, in the FIR and Section 161 statement, the informant did not project himself as an eye-witness rather according to him, three other persons namely Santosh (PW-2), Vikram, Ram Prakash had followed his father and witnessed the incident at the place of occurrence. When this inconsistency was pointed out in the cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he had included his name in the report being the person who had accompanied his father but as to how it was not written there, he could not give any answer. Similarly in Section 161 statement, if his presence was not noted, it could not be explained as to why it was not written. PW-1, however, stated that he told the Investigating Officer that the incident was witnessed by him, but why was it not mentioned was not known to him. 23. Placing the above material, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Apex Court in Yudhishtir (supra) has dealt with this issue and held that when a particular fact deposed to by witness does not find mention both in the FIR and in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is an improvement and it cannot be considered. Paragraphs 51', 52' and 53' of the decision of this Court in Jaikaran (supra) has been placed before us to state that relying upon Yudhishtir (supra), it was noted by this Court that the informant did not project himself as the witness in the First Information Report and the omissions in the FIR and police statement being of substantial nature which affect the truth of the evidence given before the Court the evidence of the witnesses cannot be accepted in toto as a proof of the crime. The improvements in the statements of the eye-witnesses make the prosecution story highly doubtful. It is, thus, argued that for the fact that PW-1 was not an eye-witness and had projected himself as an eye-witness for the first time in the Court, his testimony is liable to be discarded. 24. The improvements in the statements of the eye-witnesses make the prosecution story highly doubtful. It is, thus, argued that for the fact that PW-1 was not an eye-witness and had projected himself as an eye-witness for the first time in the Court, his testimony is liable to be discarded. 24. Considering this submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, we may record that though PW-1 had given a vivid description of the incident in the written report which was scribed by him, but his statement about writing the report scribed by him was also at variance. He initially stated that he scribed the report at his house and at the time of writing the report, he and his younger brother and witness Ram Prakash were present in the house. 25. It is evident from the averments in the FIR and the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that this witness did not mention that he had also accompanied his father to the place of the incident and had witnessed the incident. He only stated that three named persons (in the FIR and 161 statement) who had accompanied his father had witnessed the incident at the place of occurrence. In cross, this witness though stated that he told the Investigating Officer that he was also present on the spot of the incident as he had accompanied his father but as to why this fact was not mentioned by him in the written report scribed by him, no explanation could be given by this witness. It may further be noted that the incident had occurred at a distance from his house and the FIR was lodged after 1 hour of the incident. As per the statement of PW-1 at a later stage in the Court, he scribed the report at the police station. PW-1 in his examination-in-chief in the Court though introduced himself as a witness apart from three other persons namely Santosh, Vikram and Ram Prakash named in his first version but because of above noted discrepancies in the version in the Court, the testimony of PW-1 about his presence on the spot at the time of the incident becomes highly doubtful. The credibility of this witness becomes suspicious on account of the discrepancies on the most material aspect of the case. His statement is, thus, liable to be examined with great circumspection. The credibility of this witness becomes suspicious on account of the discrepancies on the most material aspect of the case. His statement is, thus, liable to be examined with great circumspection. Another witness PW-2 categorically stated that he was present in the house and all of them including the deceased, witness Ram Prakash and Vikram were also present. They all were sitting at about 7:30 p.m. in the house when Harish Chandra came to call the deceased, who had accompanied Harish Chandra. PW-2 alongwith the informant (PW-1), other witnesses Vikram and Ram Prakash had also followed the deceased. PW-2 though stated in his examination-in-chief that the incident was witnessed by the informant (PW-1), he himself and two other witnesses, but the previous statement of PW-2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was at variance. He categorically stated therein that on 27.3.2005, on the third day of Holi, he, his brother Kallu (deceased), a neighbour Vikram, a villager Ram Prakash and his nephew Ram Khilawan (PW-1), all were roaming in the Mohalla Gopalganj and his brother Kallu was ahead of them and all of them were behind. When they reached near the house of Mata Prasad, then Mata Prasad and his sons Prem Narain and Amit Kumar met. As soon as the deceased Kallu reached there, Mata Prasad, Amit Kumar and Prem Narain who were carrying knives caught hold of the deceased and started giving blows of knives. The deceased ran and entered in a house nearby to save him. Three accused persons then dragged the deceased outside, brought him in the lane and killed him by knives. Prem Narain who was carrying 'Tamancha' opened fire at that time and killed his brother Kallu Verma who had died on the spot. The report of this incident was lodged by his nephew Ram Khilawan (PW-1). 26. As against his version in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., PW-2 in the examination-in-chief stated that the deceased was called by Harish Chandra who came to bring the deceased to go to his house as Mata Prasad had invited him. While saying so, PW-2 has also added two persons namely Harish Chandra and Vimlesh Kumari in his testimony in an effort to make his version consistent with that of PW-1, his nephew. PW-2 also added the version of exhortation made by accused Vimlesh Kumari, in his examination-in-chief to project her as an instigator of the crime. While saying so, PW-2 has also added two persons namely Harish Chandra and Vimlesh Kumari in his testimony in an effort to make his version consistent with that of PW-1, his nephew. PW-2 also added the version of exhortation made by accused Vimlesh Kumari, in his examination-in-chief to project her as an instigator of the crime. In cross, PW-2 was confronted and he refuted his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that they all were roaming around on the date of the incident. The statement of this witness was recorded at Parcha No. IV on 30.3.2005. A perusal of the Case Diary reveals that other two witnesses namely Vikram Singh and Ram Prakash who were allegedly accompanying the deceased (as per the version of PW-1 and PW-2) also stated in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that they were roaming around with the deceased on the date of the incident at around 8:00 p.m. and the incident had occurred when they reached near the house of accused Mata Prasad. PW-2 was also confronted about his version under Section 161 where he did not mention that Harish Chandra came to his house to call the deceased. He only replied that the said fact was told to the Investigating Officer but as to why it was not written is not known to him. From the inconsistency in the version of PW-2 in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C and deposition in the Court, genesis of the incident becomes doubtful. There are material contradictions also in the previous version of PW-2 as to manner in which the incident had occurred. The motive assigned to commit the murder is too remote. The dispute between Vimlesh Kumari and Om Prakash was matrimonial and as per own version of the informant PW-1, the cases under the Dowry Prohibition Act were filed against the deceased and his wife, wherein a compromise has been arrived between them and all the accused including the deceased were found innocent. Om Prakash was maternal uncle of the informant, i.e. brother-in-law of the deceased. Not a single instance has been narrated by the witnesses namely PW-1 and PW-2 where any altercation took place between the rival parties at any point of time prior to the incident. The motive though stated but not proved. Om Prakash was maternal uncle of the informant, i.e. brother-in-law of the deceased. Not a single instance has been narrated by the witnesses namely PW-1 and PW-2 where any altercation took place between the rival parties at any point of time prior to the incident. The motive though stated but not proved. The statement in the FIR that Harish Chandra, one of the son of Mata Prasad came to the house of the informant and called his father, whereas in his deposition before the Court PW-1 stated that Harish Chandra told that Mata Prasad called the deceased to settle the dispute relating to the marriage of Vimlesh Kumari. PW-1 and PW-2 did not state anything about involvement of Harish Chandra as well in the assault in their previous version but PW-2 in his deposition in the Court implicated Harish Chandra by stating that he caught hold of the deceased by one hand while others were assaulting by knives. 27. The implication of Vimlesh Kumari as the instigator of the crime at the instance of witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, there are major contradictions in the previous version of both the witnesses and their deposition in the Court about the genesis of the incident and the presence of Vimlesh Kumari which was duly put to both of them, in cross, but they could not offer any explanation. PW-1 in the FIR did not mention the presence of Vimlesh Kumari at the spot of the incident rather only stated that she had connived with her father and brothers to kill the deceased. In his first version under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also, PW-1 did not mention the presence of Vimlesh Kumari on the spot of the incident and his statement in the FIR and 161 Cr.P.C. are only about the allegation of conspiracy of Vimlesh Kumari to kill the deceased. The name of Vimlesh Kumari was added by this witness (PW-1) in his deposition before the Court so as to project her as an instigator. Vimlesh Kumari was completely missing from the scene in the first version of PW-2. 28. From a careful collective appreciation of version of two witnesses of fact (PW-1 and PW-2), who are projected as eye-witnesses, their previous version under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the averments in the First Information Report, it is evident that the First Information Report was lodged after deliberations. 28. From a careful collective appreciation of version of two witnesses of fact (PW-1 and PW-2), who are projected as eye-witnesses, their previous version under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the averments in the First Information Report, it is evident that the First Information Report was lodged after deliberations. From the previous version of other three witnesses named in the FIR also, the informant PW-1 was not accompanying the deceased and the deceased alongwith Santosh (PW-2), Vikram and Ram Prakash was roaming around and when they reached near the place of the occurrence, the deceased was allegedly killed by the accused persons. 29. The distance of the police station from the place of the incident as indicated in the Check report is about 1 km. The written report of the incident indicates that the time of the incident was about 8:00 p.m. whereas PW-2 categorically stated that the incident had occurred at around 7:30 p.m.. The First Information Report was lodged at about 9:15 p.m. (21:15 hours). PW-1 in his examination-in-chief stated that the report of the incident was given by him in the police station and it was a written report. He also stated that the report was scribed by him. In cross, initially PW-1 stated that the report was scribed by him at his house and at that time his younger brother and witness Ram Prakash were present. However, on the next day itself, in his deposition in the Court, PW-1 stated that the incident occurred for about 15 minutes. During the said period, no one tried to intimate the police through telephone. They stayed at the place of the incident for about half an hour after the incident. During the said period also no one called the police and the police did not reach on the spot. He then stated that witness Ram Prakash was sent to his house to bring his younger brother and mother. However, the informant went to the police station to lodge the report. The paper was arranged on the way and the report was scribed at Gandhi Chabutra in front of the police station. PW-1 further stated that the statement made by him, a day before in the Court, about the report having been scribed at his house was incorrect and his statement that the report was scribed at Gandhi Chabutra was correct. The paper was arranged on the way and the report was scribed at Gandhi Chabutra in front of the police station. PW-1 further stated that the statement made by him, a day before in the Court, about the report having been scribed at his house was incorrect and his statement that the report was scribed at Gandhi Chabutra was correct. He then stated that his brother Pradeep and uncle Santosh (PW-2) had accompanied him to the police station and no one else went with him. His mother, Ram Prakash and 2-3 neighbours were besides the dead body. He took around 15 minutes to scribe the report and did not remember who was the officer present in the police station. The police reached the place of the incident after about 45 minutes of him reaching at the police station. 30. PW-2, to the contrary, stated that he remained at the place of the incident till the police reached there and did not go to his house or the police station. After the police came on the spot, he alongwith PW-1 Ram Khilawan went to the police station to lodge the report and the younger brother of the informant namely Pradeep also accompanied them. The police remained at the spot for about 2-1/2 hours and he was present at the time of the inquest. He then stated that they reached at the police station to lodge the report at about 11:30 p.m.. The report was scribed by PW-1 at the Chabutra in front of the CO's office in the premises of the police station. The paper to scribe the report was taken from the police station but he had denied the suggestion that the report was scribed on deliberation with the police. The statement of PW-1 and PW-2, the alleged eye-witnesses of the incident, thus, about the First Information Report is also at variance. The informant himself is not consistent with his testimony about the place where he had scribed the report. He had taken a U-turn on the very next date of his statement that the report was scribed at his house in the present of witnesses Ram Prakash and his younger brother Pradeep. The informant himself is not consistent with his testimony about the place where he had scribed the report. He had taken a U-turn on the very next date of his statement that the report was scribed at his house in the present of witnesses Ram Prakash and his younger brother Pradeep. PW-2 had completely denied having gone to the police station alongwith the informant soon after the incident and categorically stated that after the police came on the spot and had completed the preliminary investigation, they went to lodge the report at about 11:30 p.m.. This contradiction on the material aspect of the time of the lodging of the report makes the First Information Report ante-time and the statement therein result of deliberations. 31. From the above analysis of testimony of eye-witnesses, the very genesis of the incident and the motive of crime as narrated by them becomes doubtful. It becomes doubtful that Harish Chandra son of Mata Prasad, one of the accused came to the house of the deceased to call him. It becomes doubtful that Vimlesh Kumari, daughter of Mata Prasad was present on the spot and instigated three accused persons namely Mata Prasad, Prem Narain and Amit Kumar to kill the deceased. 32. PW-1 has been projected as eye-witness only in the Court and his version of being an eye-witness, thus, becomes doubtful. The above discrepancies in the statements of the eye-witnesses, improvements, exaggerations on material aspects show that the story projected by the prosecution was a result of deliberation. A categorical suggestion was given to PW-1 that improvement in his testimony was a result of consultation with his lawyer. PW-1 was also confronted that his father was roaming around and was out of the house when the incident had occurred. When the prosecution is lying about the genesis of the incident and the presence of the witness (PW-1) projected by the prosecution as eye-witness was found doubtful on the spot, these inconsistencies in the version of two witnesses about the manner of occurrence of the incident become relevant. It is a case where the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the incident. The very statement of two witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) that one of the accused (Harish Chandra) came to call the deceased from his house is found unreliable. It is a case where the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the incident. The very statement of two witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) that one of the accused (Harish Chandra) came to call the deceased from his house is found unreliable. Further the discrepancy is found in the version of the witnesses about use of fire-arm by appellant Prem Narain. In the First Information Report, it was stated that when the victim entered in a house to save his life, he was dragged out and one of the appellants Prem Narain had killed him by opening fire from 'Katta' and the deceased died on the spot. The use of fire-arm for causing the murder of the deceased, however, was not proved from the medical evidence. PW-1 in his examination-in-chief itself had changed his previous version and stated that Prem Narain was carrying 'Katta' (country made pistol) and opened the fire towards his father but it did not hit his father. He further added that Prem Narain also fired at them and people got scared because of fires. But PW-2, however, stated that he did not tell the Investigating Officer that the deceased was hit by Tamancha and he told at the time of inquest that the deceased was killed by knives. He only stated that Prem Narain fired at the witnesses but the said fact was not mentioned in his 161 statement. As against this oral evidence of the witnesses about the use of fire-arm by one of the accused appellants, no sign of fire-arm injury had been found on the person of the deceased. In cross, PW-5 the doctor had categorically stated that there was no injury or sign of fire-arm injury on the body of the deceased and the said fact as ascertained by the Sub-Inspector. The statement of PW-1 in the inquest about the use of fire-arm to inflict injuries on the deceased was, thus, specifically refuted by the doctor. The oral version of the eye-witnesses about use of fire-arm is, thus, completely obliterated from the medical evidence. No recovery of any empty cartridge was made from the spot nor any fire-arm was recovered from the possession of accused Prem Narain nor at his pointing out. The version of the eye-witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) about the terror created by appellant Prem Narain after killing the deceased by knives is, thus, unbelievable. 33. No recovery of any empty cartridge was made from the spot nor any fire-arm was recovered from the possession of accused Prem Narain nor at his pointing out. The version of the eye-witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) about the terror created by appellant Prem Narain after killing the deceased by knives is, thus, unbelievable. 33. Both the accused persons namely Prem Narain and Amit Kumar were arrested together and recovery of blood stained knives had been shown from their persons concealed in their body, after three days of the incident. The memos of recovery did not contain the signature of any independent witness. Two bundles were produced in the Court from which two knives recovered were produced in the Court. On both the sealed bundles though it was proved by PW-6, the Investigating Officer, that the writing was his own and the date therein was mentioned as 30.3.3005' but the time and the place where the recoveries were made had not been indicated therein. Both the cloth bundles in which the knives were sealed did not contain the signatures of witnesses and the accused persons. It was also pointed out, in cross of the Investigating Officer that the writing therein was made by a sketch pen. The suggestion was given to the investigating officer that the recovery proceedings were completed by him while sitting in his office. It was also admitted by the Investigating Officer that the place wherefrom the abovenamed the accused persons were arrested and recoveries of the murder weapon were made could not be proved as no site plan of the place of recovery was prepared by him. About the independent witnesses of recovery, it was stated by the Investigating Officer that the arrest was made near the Railway gate but no public witness came forward to testify the recovery and the arrest. It may also be noted that though in the recovery memos, it was mentioned that in two knives recovered from the persons of both the accused were blood stained and that they show that effort was made to remove the blood stains but the knives were not sent for forensic examination. It is unbelievable and does not stand to reason that why would the accused persons roam around carrying blood stained knives (murder weapon) on their persons after the murder for about three days when the FIR was lodged naming them. 34. It is unbelievable and does not stand to reason that why would the accused persons roam around carrying blood stained knives (murder weapon) on their persons after the murder for about three days when the FIR was lodged naming them. 34. On the previous statement of both the witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) on confrontation, the Investigating Officer, PW-6 stated that PW-1 did not make any statement to him that his father was called for compromise in the matter of Vimlesh Kumari. He also did not mention that the other witnesses namely Santosh, Vikram and Ram Prakash went behind his father. It was categorically stated by PW-6 that the witness PW-1 Ram Khilawan did not disclose him that Santosh (PW-2) and other witnesses had followed the deceased Kallu. It was also stated by PW-6 that the witness Ram Khilawan did not tell him that the incident was seen by Santosh and other witnesses. Ram Khilawan (PW-1) did not mention anything about Vimlesh Kumari in his statement that she was present on the spot and instigated the accused persons. Ram Khilawan (PW-1) rather told him that Prem Narain attacked deceased with the country made pistol and also told that Prem Narain fired at them. PW-6 also stated that witness Santosh (PW-2) did not state that Harish Chandra came to the house of the deceased to call the deceased for any compromise in relation to Vimlesh Kumari. It is, thus, evident that there are serious contradictions in the version of two eye-witnesses about the presence of the witnesses on the spot or the persons who were accompanying the deceased at the time of the incident. 35. From the statement of the defence witness and the investigation papers though the place of the incident near the house of accused Mata Prasad was proved. The date and time of the incident is also proved from all the above circumstances but the prosecution could not bring any definite proof of the commission of crime by the accused persons namely Mata Prasad and his two sons to take revenge because of the matrimonial dispute between brother-in-law (wife's brother) of the deceased and daughter of accused Mata Prasad. The record indicates that the accused side lodged the First Information Report against the informant side. The record indicates that the accused side lodged the First Information Report against the informant side. The criminal case was lodged against Om Prakash, deceased Kallu Verma and his wife (uncle and parents of the first informant) and in criminal matters a compromise was arrived and all on the informant side (including deceased) were absolved. For acquittal in the criminal case of the accused persons, the informant side may have grudges against the accused side but no other incident or instance apart from the said matrimonial dispute could be brought in evidence by the informant (PW-1) which would suggest any reason of a strong enmity of the accused persons with the deceased so as to commit the crime. The motive though assigned by the prosecution but could not be proved. 36. In view of the shaky evidence of the prosecution witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) who were projected as eye-witness, it became necessary for the prosecution to bring evidence to prove the motive stated by the informant/witnesses. The introduction of Vimlesh Kumari as one of the accused of conspiracy and instigator of the crime during their deposition in the Court also makes the version of the prosecution witnesses shaky. 37. From the above analysis, we find that : (1) There are material improvements in the statement of PW-1 about accompanying the deceased and his presence on the spot at the time of the incident. From the contradiction in the testimony of PW-1 in the Court and his statement in the FIR and previous statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the presence of PW-1 with the deceased at the place of the incident, becomes highly doubtful. (2) There are material improvements in the statement of PW-2 about the genesis of the incident. His version that they were present in the house and the accused Harish Chandra came to call the deceased, came for the first time in the Court. His statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in this regard is at variance. (3) The presence of appellant Vimlesh Kumari at the place of the incident and the act of instigation on her part had been introduced by both the witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) for the first time in their deposition in the Court. His statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in this regard is at variance. (3) The presence of appellant Vimlesh Kumari at the place of the incident and the act of instigation on her part had been introduced by both the witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) for the first time in their deposition in the Court. (4) The role of accused Harish Chandra in the entire incident was changed by PW-2 in his deposition in the Court when he stated that the deceased was caught hold by hands of two accused persons namely Harish Chandra and appellant Mata Prasad and other three accused assaulted him by knives. (5) The use of fire-arm in the incident was completely ruled out from the medical evidence. (6) The manner of killing as per the previous version of PW-1 by fire-arm was changed in the Court. (7) The use of fire-arm, as sought be explained by PW-1, in creating terror on the spot also could not be proved. There was no trace of use of fire-arm on the spot. The Investigating Officer (PW-2) completely ruled out the same. (8) The statements of the witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) that they and other three witnesses (5 in number) on the spot (informant side), got terrorised and hence could not save the deceased, thus, is unbelievable, when according to them, the accused side were carrying only knives and even the deceased could free himself for once and entered inside a neighbouring house to save himself. (9) The time taken in the FIR (of 1 hour 15 minutes) when the distance of the police station was barely 1 km. and the incident had occurred at a public place highly probabalise the possibility of the FIR being the result of deliberation. (10) The inconsistency in the version of PW-1 about the place where he had scribed the report, in his deposition in the Court, is also indicative of foul play at the hands of the prosecution. The inconsistency in the version of PW-1 and PW-2 about the manner and time of lodging of the FIR also cast serious doubt on the prosecution story. When the prosecution witnesses are at variance on almost all material aspects and there have been improvements in their testimony, the contradictions in their version become significant and relevant. 38. The inconsistency in the version of PW-1 and PW-2 about the manner and time of lodging of the FIR also cast serious doubt on the prosecution story. When the prosecution witnesses are at variance on almost all material aspects and there have been improvements in their testimony, the contradictions in their version become significant and relevant. 38. It is settled that every improvement is not fatal to the prosecution case, but in cases where an improvement creates a serious doubt about the truthfulness or credibility of the witness, the defence may take advantage of the same. The Explanation to Section 162 Cr.P.C. provides that an omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement recorded by a police officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C., may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact. [Reference Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal and others, AIR 2016 SC 4958 ] In the instant case, the omission on the part of PW-1 of him being an eye-witness of the incident, both in the FIR and his statement recorded by the police officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is a material omission amounting to contradictions covered by Explanation to Section 162 Cr.P.C. The omission on the part of PW-2 about the genesis of the incident in his previous version is also material. It is further settled proposition that if a party wishes to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to cross-examine a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination-in-chief, and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter alia, in order to test his veracity. Thus, the law relating to impeaching the credibility of witness if a party intends to impeach a witness is that he must provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses. [Reference Laxmibai (Dead) Through LRs. and another v. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) Through Lrs. and others, (2013) 4 SCC 97 (para 40')]] 39. In the instant case, the contradictions in the version of both the witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) were pointed out by the defence during their cross-examination and no explanation could be offered by the witnesses except making statements that the Investigating Officer did not record their version correctly. No explanation could be offered by PW-1 as to why the fact of him being an eye-witness was not mentioned in the written report scribed by him when he took sufficient time in writing the report. The bald denial on the part of PW-1 about this material omission in the written report scribed by him and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. shakes the credibility of this witness and makes him untrustworthy. 40. It may further be noted that both the witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) are interested witnesses being related and inimical to the accused persons because of the matrimonial dispute with appellant Vimlesh Kumari. In appreciation of the evidence of related witnesses, though minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters ought to be ignored but the contradictions, inconsistencies which effect the core of the prosecution case creates a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness. Where the omission(s) by one witness (PW-1) amount to a contradiction and another witness (PW-2) also makes material improvements before the Court in order to make his evidence acceptable, it is not safe to rely upon such evidence. The discrepancies in the evidence of eye-witnesses, if found to be not minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstance, witnesses do not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence and with their statements previously recorded, in such a case, it cannot be held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstance, witnesses do not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence and with their statements previously recorded, in such a case, it cannot be held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in State represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. Sait alias Krishnakumar, (2008) 15 SCC 440 , wherein it was held that the complainant in the FIR or the witness in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has not disclosed certain facts but narrated the prosecution case first time before the Court, such version lacks credence and is liable to be discarded. In Syed Ibrahim v. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 601 and Arumugam v. State represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, (2008) 15 SCC 590 , it was held that the Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy belongs. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. In Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657 , it was held that while deciding such a case, the Court has to apply the aforesaid tests. Mere marginal variations in the statements cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars, i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness unreliable. In Jayabalan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, (2010) 1 SCC 199 , it was observed that in cases where the Court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the Court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The Court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the Court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the Court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim. 41. The primary endeavour of the Court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim. 41. In light of the above legal principles when we examined the statements of two alleged eye-witnessed cumulatively, we found that they are not speaking truth on material aspects of the case. There was no reason for an eye-witness not to mention himself as an eye-witness (PW-1) in the written report scribed by him and in his first version before the police. There was no reason for an eye-witness (PW-2) to change his previous version about the genesis of the incident, i.e. the reason for the presence of the deceased and the witnesses at the place of the occurrence. 42. Besides the above, there are other circumstances which also create serious doubt on the prosecution story. They are : (A) The recoveries by the Investigating Officer, specifically the time and place of the recoveries was not proved. (B) The motive stated is too remote and it is though stated but not proved even from the circumstances of the case. (C) On the contrary, there are suggestions of the informant side carrying grudges against the accused persons because of lodging of the FIR against the deceased and his wife in the matrimonial case of appellant Vimlesh Kumari. A suggestion was given to PW-1 that the deceased had lodged a First Information Report against appellant Mata Prasad and accused Harish Chandra under Section 307 IPC on false grounds, which he had denied. (D) It is pertinent to note that enmity is a double edged weapon. It could be made use by either party to wield that weapon of motive against each other. There was sufficient motive on the part of the informant side to falsely implicate the accused party. Moreover, from the inconsistencies noted above, the possibility of the accused persons having been falsely implicated cannot be ruled out. (E) The deceased had criminal antecedents. He was engaged in the business of sale of illicit liquor and 'Satta' (gambling). The time of the incident was around 'Holi' festival. The defence witnesses had categorically stated that the deceased used to play 'Satta' with the people in the locality. (E) The deceased had criminal antecedents. He was engaged in the business of sale of illicit liquor and 'Satta' (gambling). The time of the incident was around 'Holi' festival. The defence witnesses had categorically stated that the deceased used to play 'Satta' with the people in the locality. There are chances that someone else had killed the deceased because of the enmity relating to the activities of the deceased. And on the information received by the informant, who was at home, after deliberations, the First Information Report was lodged. The defence theory that the accused party had been falsely implicated because of enmity cannot be completely ruled out because of the deep dent in the prosecution story on all material aspects of the case, in the above noted facts and circumstances of the case. 43. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. However, the burden on the prosecution is only to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt not all doubts. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused person arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. [Reference State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and another, (1988) 4 SCC 302 ] Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. [Reference Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808 and Gulbar Husain v. State of Assam, (2015) 11 SCC 242 ] 44. From the analysis of the evidence on record cumulatively, for the reasons noted above, a serious doubt arises in the mind of the Court about the truthfulness of the prosecution story. [Reference Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808 and Gulbar Husain v. State of Assam, (2015) 11 SCC 242 ] 44. From the analysis of the evidence on record cumulatively, for the reasons noted above, a serious doubt arises in the mind of the Court about the truthfulness of the prosecution story. The benefit of doubt obviously has to go to the accused persons. The conviction of the accused persons on the shaky version of two prosecution witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) is liable to set aside by giving them benefit of doubt. The judgment and order dated 27.2.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 01, Jalaun at Orai is liable to be set aside. While setting aside the same, the appeal is allowed. Further, we may note that according to the report of the C.J.M., Jalaun at Orai dated 17.10.2019, appellant No. 1 Mata Prasad Verma had died on 7.8.2018 and the appeal has been abated on his behalf by the order dated 5.11.2019. The appellant No. 2 Prem Narain Verma, appellant No. 4 Harish Chandra and appellant No. 5 Vimlesh Kumari are on bail vide order dated 28.3.2007. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties shall stand discharged. The appellant No. 3 Amit Kumar is in jail since 27.2.2007. He shall be released from the jail forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The office is directed to send back the lower Court record alongwith a certified copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance. The compliance report be furnished to this Court through the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad.