JUDGMENT : By The Court : Per Mehta, J. 1. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 01.03.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kherwada, District Udaipur in Sessions Case No.22/2016:- Offence under Section Sentences Fine Sentence in lieu of default of payment of fine 302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- 3 months' Additional RI 324 IPC 3 Years’ SI Rs.1,000/- 1 Month’s Additional SI 323 IPC 1 Year’s SI Rs.1,000/- 1 Month’s Additional SI 341 IPC 1 Month’s SI Rs.500/- 5 Days’ SI All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. They have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. for assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and the sentences awarded to them by the trial court. 3. Briefly stated the facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are noted hereinbelow:- Smt. Sharda (PW.1) lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO Police Station Rishabhdeo, District Udaipur on 10.02.2014 alleging inter alia that her husband Ramesh Meena used to work at marble mines. Further it was stated that on 08.02.2014 at about 8:30 PM, she along with her father-in-law Megha, mother-in-law Smt. Champa and brother-in-law Babulal Meena were present at their house. Suddenly they heard cries of her husband Ramesh Meena from towards the bridge located at a little distance from their house upon which all of them rushed towards that direction and saw that her husband was being assaulted by Dilip S/o Deeta, Prakash S/o Shri Nana, Hurma S/o Shri Lala, Rakesh S/o Shri Hurma, Smt. Kanta W/o Shri Hurma and Megha S/o Shri Dilip Meena, all residents of Bilakh Phala Siyar by lathis and axes. The informant got terrified and watched the incident from a little distance. Her father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law tried to intervene for saving Shri Ramesh on which, the assailants also assaulted with lathis and axes. On hearing the noise of commotion, people from neighborhood gathered around on which, the assailants ran away from the place of the incident. Her husband Ramesh received injury on the head because of the axe blow and various other injuries on other body parts due to which he was bleeding excessively and was badly injured. Her father-in-law Meghaji, mother-in-law Smt. Champa and brother-in-law Babu also received injuries in the assault. Her husband Ramesh received injury on the head because of the axe blow and various other injuries on other body parts due to which he was bleeding excessively and was badly injured. Her father-in-law Meghaji, mother-in-law Smt. Champa and brother-in-law Babu also received injuries in the assault. Her husband's condition was serious and thus, he along with her father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law were taken to Udaipur for providing treatment. This was the cause of delay in lodging the FIR. The said report was submitted by Smt. Sharda to the SHO Police Station Rishabhdeo on 10.02.2014 at 11:15 pm whereupon FIR No.59/2014 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 307 IPC and investigation was commenced. It may be mentioned here that before being taken to Udaipur, the injured persons had been taken to Primary Health Centre, Rishabhdeo where Dr. Mukesh Kumar Bhagwat (PW.18) provided primary treatment and also prepared the injury reports of Smt. Champa (Ex.P/7), Megha (Ex.P/16), Babulal (Ex.P/17), and Ramesh (Ex.P/29) between 2:40 AM to 3:30 AM. 4. Ramesh expired on 14.02.2014 as a result of the injuries and his dead body was subjected to postmortem by Dr. Akhilesh Sharma (PW.19) posted as medical jurist at Maharana Bhupal Government Hospital, Udaipur. He carried out autopsy taking note of four injuries on the body of the deceased which are described hereinbelow:- (1) Stitched wound 3 cm long on the left eyebrow with brownish scab. (2) Stitched wound 5 cm long on middle part of the head with brownish scab. (3) Bruise 5 cm x 1 cm on the abdomen. (4) Swelling on the left elbow. 5. When the head injury was opened, extradural hematoma admeasuring 5 cm x 5 cm was seen between the skull bone and the brain membrane. Subdural hematoma was also noticed inside the brain membrane. The age of injuries was opined to be between 46 days old. Before being brought to M.B.G.H. Hospital, the victim was admitted in a private facility named Kanak Hospital. The medical jurist opined that the head injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature because the victim went into coma after receiving the blow. Initial investigation was undertaken by Narayan Singh, ASI, Police Station Rishabhdeo. Before being brought to M.B.G.H. Hospital, the victim was admitted in a private facility named Kanak Hospital. The medical jurist opined that the head injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature because the victim went into coma after receiving the blow. Initial investigation was undertaken by Narayan Singh, ASI, Police Station Rishabhdeo. However, after the death of Shri Ramesh, offence under Section 302 IPC was added to the case and the investigation was then, assigned to SHO Govind Singh (PW.23). The three accused appellants were arrested. As is usual, the informations provided by the accused were recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and recoveries were effected in furtherance thereof. Investigation was concluded and charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellants herein for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 302/34 IPC. Since the offence under Section 302 IPC was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions Judge, the case was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Salumbar District Udaipur for trial where charges for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 302/34 IPC were framed against the appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited 42 documents to prove its case. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and upon being confronted with the allegations appearing in the prosecution case, they denied the same, claimed to be innocent but did not lead any oral evidence in defence. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and after appreciating the evidence available on record, learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the accused appellants as above by the impugned judgment dated 01.03.2017, which is assailed in this appeal. 6. Shri Deepak Menaria, Advocate representing the appellants vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The FIR was lodged after significant delay of more than 36 hours of the alleged incident. As many as six persons were arraigned as accused in this FIR with no particular role being assigned to any of them. The appellant Shankar Aahari was not even named in the FIR. The FIR was lodged after significant delay of more than 36 hours of the alleged incident. As many as six persons were arraigned as accused in this FIR with no particular role being assigned to any of them. The appellant Shankar Aahari was not even named in the FIR. Hurma S/o Shri Lal, Rakesh S/o Shri Hurma and Kanta W/o Shri Hurma who were pertinently named as assailants in the FIR were not found involved in the incident and were exonerated by the IO. The eyewitnesses also stated on oath that the true assailants had not been charge-sheeted by the police, who took bribe, and exonerated them. Hence, the case of the appellants herein cannot be distinguished and they too deserve to be exonerated of the charges on the same footing. 7. He urged that the informant Smt. Sharda, upon being examined as PW.1 alleged that Dilip, Prakash, Rakesh, Shankar, Kanta and Hurma were hiding behind the bridge. Her husband Ramesh was returning home after working in the marble mines. These accused accosted him and gave him axe blows on head, forehead and hands. Ramesh shouted on which, the witness, along with Champa, Megha and Babu ran towards the direction from where they heard the commotion. Champa tried to save Ramesh upon which, the accused turned their attention to her. Dilip gave an axe blow on the head of Champa. Prakash outraged her modesty. Babu ran towards the assailants on which, Prakash gave him an axe blow on the head and as a result, he fell down. Shankar inflicted a blow on the back of her father-in-law. Ramesh was taken to Udaipur and thereafter, the report came to be lodged at Police Station Rishabhdeo. Shri Menaria urged that when the witness was cross-examined, she admitted that she was present in her house at the time of the incident. The villagers came and told her that Ramesh had been beaten on which, she proceeded to the place of incident which is at a significant distance from her house. Shri Menaria thus, urged that Smt. Sharda was definitely not present at the spot and has been created to be an eyewitness of the incident at a highly belated stage. 8. He also referred to the statement of Champa (PW.4) and urged that she was declared hostile by Public Prosecutor. Shri Menaria thus, urged that Smt. Sharda was definitely not present at the spot and has been created to be an eyewitness of the incident at a highly belated stage. 8. He also referred to the statement of Champa (PW.4) and urged that she was declared hostile by Public Prosecutor. She did not utter a single word regarding the assault made on Ramesh and rather stated that she was hit by Prakash with an axe and Shankar and Babu who were armed with lathis. In her cross-examination, the witness admitted that the investigating agency took bribe and removed the names of main assailants Hurma, Kanta, and Rakesh from the case. Shri Menaria took the Court through the statement of Megha (PW.6), father of the deceased who stated that the incident took place on 08.02.2014 in the evening at 5 o’ clock. His son Ramesh used to work on the mines and was returning home with Rama. On the way, they were accosted by Hurma, Kanta and Rakesh and both ran towards their house. The witness alleged that Ramesh was beaten by Hurma S/o Shri Lala, Rakesh S/o Shri Hurma, Kanta W/o Shri Hurma and Mewa W/o Dilip. He pertinently stated that Hurma gave an axe blow on the head of his son Ramesh due to which, he died. Shri Menaria urged that the witness was not declared hostile and thus, his evidence completely contradicts the testimony of Sharda (PW.1). 9. He urged that the name of Rama was not mentioned in the FIR as a companion of Shri Ramesh and he has been posteriorly created to be an eyewitness of the incident. Rama (PW.7) stated in his evidence that he and Ramesh were returning home after working in the marble mines and were waylaid by Prakash, Dilip and Shankar. Prakash was armed with an axe. Dilip and Shankar were armed with lathis. Fearing for their lives, both ran towards the old house of Ramesh and told his parents that these three were trying to assault them. The witness stated that he came to know on the next day that Ramesh had been beaten by the three accused Prakash, Dilip and Shankar and expired. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that the incident took place in the night time and he did not see anything. The witness stated that he came to know on the next day that Ramesh had been beaten by the three accused Prakash, Dilip and Shankar and expired. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that the incident took place in the night time and he did not see anything. Shri Menaria pointed out the admission made by Shri Ramesh that he was informed about the death of Ramesh by his neighbor Heerabhai on the next day at about 11 o’ clock. Thus, his submission was that Rama did not see Ramesh being assaulted. 10. Shri Menaria also referred to the statement of the witness Babulal (PW.8), brother of the deceased who stated that the incident took place on 08.02.2014 between 8-9 in the night. He was returning home after doing his work. He heard cries of a brawl on which, he proceeded towards the said direction. Three assailants Dilip S/o Shri Deeta, Shankar S/o Shri Wesa and Prakash S/o Shri Nana who were hiding near fence of the field of Shankar S/o Shri Dhula Meena, assaulted his brother Ramesh and his mother Smt. Champa. Prakash was armed with an axe. Dilip and Shankar were armed with lathis. His brother received an axe blow on the head and his mother also received injuries on the forehead and chest. The witness intervened on which, he too was beaten and received injuries on his left elbow, left thigh, head and eye. On hearing the commotion, the villagers gathered around on which the accused ran away. Ramesh and his mother who were seriously injured were lifted by the villagers and were taken to their home. On checking Ramesh, it came to light that he was having a deep wound of an axe on his head and eye and his mother was also having large number of injuries. The witness, along with his family members and neighbors took both the injured to Rishabhdeo Hospital from where they were referred to Udaipur where his brother expired while undergoing treatment. 11. The witness alleged that his brother-in-law had eloped with the daughter of Kalu Meena. Shri Menaria pointed out that in cross-examination, the witness admitted that Sharda came to the spot after the accused had gone away. He too was present at the hospital in Udaipur where his brother was admitted. 11. The witness alleged that his brother-in-law had eloped with the daughter of Kalu Meena. Shri Menaria pointed out that in cross-examination, the witness admitted that Sharda came to the spot after the accused had gone away. He too was present at the hospital in Udaipur where his brother was admitted. He gave a report of the incident at the Police Station Kesariyaji but could not explain as to why the police did not register the case on his report. The witness admitted that in the report which was lodged by him and his parents they had incorporated the names of Hurma S/o Shri Lala, Rakesh S/o Rakesh S/o Shri Hurma, Smt. Kanta W/o Shri Hurma, Megha S/o Shri Dilip and Jeewa S/o Shri Deeta. The police initially apprehended these persons but then exonerated them. His sister-in-law lodged the report much after the death of his brother. The witness admitted that those accused who were named in the report lodged by him and his parents were not in jail. Shri Menaria referred to the Part A to B of the police statement (Ex.D/2) of the witness with which he was confronted and which reads as below: ^^esjs HkkbZ jes'k o eka dks ?kk;y voLFkk esa xkao ds yksx ckx ekSds ls mBkdj ?kj ij ysdj vk;s rks ns[kk fd esjs HkkbZ ds flj o vka[k ij dqYgkM+h dh xgjh pksVs gksdj [kwu fudy jgs Fks o esjh eka ds yykV ij dqYgkM+h fd xgjh pksV gksdj [kwu fudy jgs Fks o ekjihV ls esjh eka ds Lru ij eksjksa esa o vU; txg 'kjhj ij dkQh pksVs FkhA^^ and urged that on a bare perusal of the said portion of the previous statement of the witness, it becomes clear that he was not present at the spot and was created to be an eyewitness subsequently. For criticizing the evidence of the witness, Shri Menaria also referred to the admission made by him that his brother remained admitted in the private hospital for ten days and thereafter he died in the same hospital. He also pointed out that the witness categorically admitted that he reached the place of the incident five minutes after his brother and others had been beaten. He also pointed out that the witness categorically admitted that he reached the place of the incident five minutes after his brother and others had been beaten. Shri Menaria thus urged that Babulal also did not see the incident and he too has been created to be an eyewitness of the incident just in order to somehow or the other substantiate the fabricated prosecution story. 12. He argued that even if the flimsy and highly contradictory testimony of the eyewitnesses was to be believed, conviction of the accused appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. He urged that the incident took place on 08.02.2014 at 08:30 PM. Initial medical aid was provided to Shri Ramesh at the Primary Health Centre, Rishabhdeo in the early hours of 09.02.2014. He submitted that the police had already been given information of the incident because in the four injury reports Ex.P/7 of Smt. Champa, Ex.P/16 of Megha, Ex.P/17 of Babu and Ex.P/29 of Ramesh, the Medical Jurist PW.18 Dr. Mukesh Kumar Bhagwat noted that the injured were being examined on police request. He referred to the injury report (Ex.P/29) of Ramesh wherein, the injuries on the head and above the left eye were noted as lacerated wounds. Shri Menaria urged that lacerated wounds obviously would be caused by a blunt weapon and cannot be the result of blows given by an axe. He submitted that Dr. Mukesh Kumar Bhagwat did not depose that he referred Shri Ramesh to a higher centre for treatment and thus, there is a serious gap in the prosecution story as to where the injured remained after being medically examined at the Rishabhdeo hospital. In this regard, he drew the Court’s attention to the statement of Dr. Amit Kumar (PW.24) who was posted at the Kanak Hospital and deposed that Ramesh got admitted in the said hospital in a serious condition on the night of 10.02.2014 at about 2:00 AM and expired on 13.02.2014 at 4:30 PM. Shri Menaria urged that the gap of almost 24 hours regarding the status of Shri Ramesh and the condition in which he was kept in the intervening period after examination at the Primary Health Centre, Rishabhdeo and before admission into the Kanak Hospital has not been explained by the prosecution. Shri Menaria urged that the gap of almost 24 hours regarding the status of Shri Ramesh and the condition in which he was kept in the intervening period after examination at the Primary Health Centre, Rishabhdeo and before admission into the Kanak Hospital has not been explained by the prosecution. It cannot be ruled out that the injury suffered by Ramesh may have worsened during this period due to lack of medical assistance or other extraneous reasons. Shri Menaria further urged that the recoveries effected at the instance of the accused cannot be relied upon because the Investigating Officer Shri Govind Singh (PW.23) did not prove the informations allegedly provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as per law and made a cursory effort by just marking exhibits on the information memos without stating the contents thereof during his sworn testimony and hence, the informations and the recoveries allegedly effected in furtherance thereof can not be read in evidence. Shri Menaria urged that though the evidence of the eyewitnesses is highly flimsy and self-contradictory but even if for the sake of arguments, their testimony is to be believed then also, the charge under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained because the medical jurist Dr. Akhilesh Sharma (PW.19), while proving the postmortem report (Ex.P/31) did not utter a single word that the head injury caused to Shri Ramesh was grievous in nature. He urged that extradural and subdural hamatomas were noted by the doctor at the site of the head injury but there was no fracture of the skull bone and hence, the injury has to be treated as being simple in nature. Hence, as per Shri Menaria the offence, if any, attributable to the accused appellants cannot exceed Section 323 IPC or at best Section 304 Part II IPC. On these submissions, Shri Menaria implored the Court to accept the instant appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused appellants or in the alternative, suitably tone down the rigour of the charges with consequential reduction in sentence. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel. He contended that the eyewitnesses are hail from tribal background and thus trivial contradictions are bound to occur in their evidence. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel. He contended that the eyewitnesses are hail from tribal background and thus trivial contradictions are bound to occur in their evidence. However, the testimony of the witness Babulal (PW.8) who was himself injured in the incident, is clinching and convincing. The witness affirmed on oath that the three accused appellants waylaid the deceased and brutally assaulted him by axes and lathis. His evidence does not suffer from any material infirmities and is fully corroborated by the medical testimony. On these submissions, the learned Public Prosecutor, implored the Court to affirm the impugned judgment and reject the appeal. 14. 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. 15. At the first instance, we would like to discuss the medical evidence available on record. It is an admitted position that Ramesh and the other injured persons were assaulted in late evening hours of 08.02.2014. The Charge No.1 framed by the trial court reads that the assault was made on 08.02.2014 at about 7:30 PM. 16. Ramesh, Megha, Babu and Champa were taken to the Primary Health Centre, Rishabhdeo in an injured condition where they were examined by Dr. Mukesh Kumar Bhagwat (PW.18) who issued the injury reports Ex.P/7 (Champa), Ex.P/16 (Megha), Ex.P/17 (Babu) and Ex.P/29 (Ramesh). A significant feature of these medical reports is that it is clearly noted therein that the medical examination was being undertaken on police request (Police Station Rishabhdeo). Thus unquestionably, before the injured were brought to the hospital, the police had been informed of the incident. The medical jurist, Dr. Mukesh Kumar Bhagwat simply stated about the examination of the injured and proved their injury reports. He did not give any opinion regarding the nature of injuries suffered by the injured persons. In the injury report (Ex.P/29) of Ramesh, the medical jurist noted presence of two lacerated wounds, a bruise and a diffused swelling. Shri Ramesh was taken to and got admitted at the Kanak Hospital, Udaipur. Dr. Amit Dhing (PW.24) from Kanak hospital, appeared in the witness box and stated that the injured Ramesh was brought to the hospital on 10.02.2014 at 2:00 AM. Dr. Shri Ramesh was taken to and got admitted at the Kanak Hospital, Udaipur. Dr. Amit Dhing (PW.24) from Kanak hospital, appeared in the witness box and stated that the injured Ramesh was brought to the hospital on 10.02.2014 at 2:00 AM. Dr. Dhing proved the patient admission form (Ex.P/36) wherein the date and time of the admission of Ramesh is mentioned as 10.02.2014 at 2:00 AM. The medical jurist did not state that he got x-ray/any other investigation conducted of the head injury suffered by Ramesh during the entire treatment procedure which was spread over a period of almost three days. Dr.Amit stated that the condition of the patient was serious but he did not give any opinion regarding the nature of the injuries suffered by Shri Ramesh. In cross-examination, the doctor admitted that the head injury was not caused by a sharp weapon. On a comparative analysis of the evidence of Dr. Mukesh Kumar (PW.18) posted at the Primary Health Centre, Rishabhdeo and Dr. Amit Dhing (PW.24), it comes out that there is a clear gap of almost 24 hours regarding the position of the injured Ramesh because none of the prosecution witnesses stated as to where Ramesh was kept during the period after which, he was examined at the Primary Health Centre, Rishabhdeo and till he was admitted in the Kanak Hospital. 17. Dr. Akhilesh Sharma (PW.19) who conducted postmortem upon the dead body of Shri Ramesh took note of four injuries on the body of the deceased on which, scabs had developed. The doctor stated that he noticed subdural as well as extradural hematomas underneath the head injury. However, the doctor, neither gave opinion regarding the nature of weapon nor did he state that he noticed any fracture on the site of the head injury. Thus, we are of the view that the prosecution has not led convincing evidence to show that the injuries suffered by Ramesh on 08.02.2014 were having direct nexus with his death. 18. Now we proceed to briefly discuss the evidence of the four eyewitnesses on whose testimony the entire prosecution case hinges. Sharda (PW.1), wife of the deceased submitted the written report (Ex.P/1) which we have noted to be highly belated as the same was filed after more than 36 hours of the incident. 18. Now we proceed to briefly discuss the evidence of the four eyewitnesses on whose testimony the entire prosecution case hinges. Sharda (PW.1), wife of the deceased submitted the written report (Ex.P/1) which we have noted to be highly belated as the same was filed after more than 36 hours of the incident. As has been noted above, four injured persons Ramesh, Champa, Megha and Babu were taken to the Rishabhdeo hospital. Their medical examination was conducted on police request as is reflected from the injury reports. Manifestly thus, the police had been informed of the incident well before the written report (Ex.P/1) came to be filed. 19. The star prosecution witness Babulal (PW.8) categorically stated that he and his parents had submitted an FIR to the police much before the report lodged by Smt. Sharda. However, the said report did not see the light of the day. It may be reiterated that the FIR (Ex.P/1) submitted by Smt. Sharda came to be registered 36 hours after the occurrence of incident even though the police was immediately informed about the incident as is apparent from the noting of police request made in the injury reports Ex.P/7 (Champa), Ex.P/16 (Megha), Ex.P/17 (Babu) and Ex.P/29 (Ramesh). Hence, there is strong indication from the record of the case to satisfy the Court that the prosecution has concealed the original FIR and hence, adverse inference deserves to be drawn in this regard. 20. Smt. Sharda (PW.1) admitted in her cross-examination that she was at her house at the time of the incident and the villagers told her that Ramesh had been beaten. Hence, she cannot be accepted to be an eyewitness of the incident and her testimony is more in the nature of hearsay. 21. Champa (PW.4) stated that Dilip, Shankar, Prakash, Rakesh and Hurma pursued Ramesh who came home and told her about the incident. Later Dilip, Shankar, Hurma, Rakesh, Kanta and Dilip’s wife came to her house. She was inflicted a blow with an axe by Prakash. Shankar gave her a lathi blow. Apparently thus, the witness did not see the assault being made on Ramesh. In cross-examination, Smt. Champa admitted that when Ramesh was taken to Rishabhdeo hospital, the police had come there. They gave out the details of the incident to the police. She was inflicted a blow with an axe by Prakash. Shankar gave her a lathi blow. Apparently thus, the witness did not see the assault being made on Ramesh. In cross-examination, Smt. Champa admitted that when Ramesh was taken to Rishabhdeo hospital, the police had come there. They gave out the details of the incident to the police. However, the police took money and exonerated Hurma, Kanta and Rakesh who were the actual assailants of her son. The evidence of this witness also convinces us that the FIR actually lodged on the very day of the incident has been concealed by the investigation agency for oblique motives. 22. Megha (PW.6) also claimed to be an eyewitness of the incident. In cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of the incident, he was at his house. Upon hearing the cries of Ramesh, he rushed to the spot on which, he and his wife were also beaten by the assailants. Ramesh was taken to the Rishabhdeo hospital where officers from the Police Station Rishabhdeo came. When the police was in the hospital, a report was given to them. The witness admitted that the police did not register the case on the initial report given by them regarding the assault made on Ramesh even though this report was given to the police well before the report submitted by Sharda. The witness admitted that Hurma S/o Lala, Kanta W/o Shri Hurma and Mewa S/o Shri Dilip were named in the first report but the Sarpanch, villagers and those accused persons conspired and got the second report filed in order to save themselves. 23. Babulal (PW.8) named the three appellants as being the assailants in his examination-in-chief. In cross-examination, he too admitted that he had given a report at the Kesariyaji police station. However, the police did not register the same. This report was given on the very same day of the incident. Sharda (PW.1) gave the report (Ex.P/1) after the death of Ramesh. Babulal also admitted that in the report, which he had lodged along with his parents on the very day of the incident, Hurma, Rakesh, Kanta, Megha and Jeeva were named as the assailants. However, the police removed their names from the case. The witness was confronted with his police statement (Ex.D/2) the Part A to B whereof has been extracted above. However, the police removed their names from the case. The witness was confronted with his police statement (Ex.D/2) the Part A to B whereof has been extracted above. On a pertinent question put to Babulal in cross-examination, he admitted that he reached the place of incident after his brother and others had been beaten. When he reached the spot, he too was assaulted. He reached the place of incident five minutes after the initial incident. Apparently thus, there is a grave contradiction in the evidence of this witness on the aspect as to whether he had actually seen Ramesh being assaulted by the accused. A threadbare analysis of the material available the incident of assault on Ramesh happening. The entire material available on record, clearly reflects of gravely tainted and arbitrary action by the investigation agency. The first report of the incident has definitely been concealed. A critical analysis and evaluation of the statements of the four eyewitnesses supra convinces us that their testimony is highly contradictory and hence, they cannot be held to be reliable witnesses. 24. Considering the fact that the initial report has been withheld; the significant delay of 36 hours in lodging of the report Ex.P/1; the grave discrepancies in the names of the assailants as disclosed by the four eyewitnesses, the significant time gap regarding the condition of Shri Ramesh from 9th February to 10th February, 2014 creates a great doubt in the mind of the Court as to the reliability of the entire prosecution case. Consequently, we are of the opinion that it would not be safe to place reliance on such flimsy evidence of unreliable eyewitnesses and the tainted investigation conducted by the police so as to affirm conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial court. The discussion of the evidence which was undertaken by the trial court at para No.34 of the impugned judgment reveals an absolutely cursory and lackadaisical exercise without considering the import of the important loopholes, contradictions and shortcomings in the prosecution story which we have discussed above. Hence, the impugned judgment dated 01.03.2017 does not stand to scrutiny and cannot be sustained. The same is thus, reversed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. The appellants Dilip Aahari and Shankar Aahari Meena are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. Hence, the impugned judgment dated 01.03.2017 does not stand to scrutiny and cannot be sustained. The same is thus, reversed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. The appellants Dilip Aahari and Shankar Aahari Meena are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. The appellant Shankar Aahari was granted bail by this Court by order dated 13.11.2017 but was unable to furnish bail bonds on account of his indigent condition. He shall be released from prison forthwith, if not, wanted in any other case. 25. The appeal is allowed in these terms. 26. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. the accused appellants are directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each 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. 27. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.