JUDGMENT : Birendra Kumar, J. 1. The sole appellant Satish @ Katariya has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.4.2015 passed in Sessions Case No. 38/2013 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri whereby the appellant was found guilty for offences under Section 302 and 504 IPC. For offence under Section 302 IPC, imprisonment for life was awarded along with fine of Rs. 20,000/-. On default of payment of fine, further one years’ Simple Imprisonment was ordered. For offence under Section 504 IPC, two years Simple Imprisonment was awarded. It is worth to mention here that co-accused Ravindra @ Bindu was also convicted by the impugned judgment, however his separate appeal abated due to death of Ravindra @ Bindu. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR of Singhana Police Station Case No.185/2013 registered on written complaint of Rakesh Kumar, PW.3, is that in the night of 9.6.2013 at 09:30 PM, nephew of the informant Sunil Kumar (victim of murder) was at his Dharmkanta (vehicle weighing Machine). One Heera Lal (not examined), Satish son of Prabhati Lal, (PW.4), Prem Prakash (PW.1) and Satya Prakash (PW.2) were also sitting at the Dharamkanta. The appellant along with Ravindra Kumar @ Bindu came on a pick up carrier and left the place after two rounds of recce. For the third time, they came to Dharmkanta and started hurling abuses on Sunil Kumar. Then Sunil Kumar came out and the appellant crushed him under the wheels of the vehicle. The appellant backed the vehicle and again crushed Sunil and fled away along with the vehicle. Sunil was taken to the hospital where the Doctor declared him dead. The appellant is co-villager of the deceased and it is alleged that on 13.5.2013, the appellant had threatened to kill Sunil and murder was committed under a pre-planned conspiracy. 3. Mr. Sudhir Jain, learned counsel for the appellant contends that three of the prosecution witnesses claim to be eye-witnesses of the incident. They are PW.1 Prem Prakash, PW.2 Satya Prakash and PW.4 Satish. Their testimony is inconsistent with the medical evidence of PW.10 Doctor Subhash and PW.13 Doctor Rajkumar Bamboria, who were members of the medical board which performed the postmortem examination. The inconsistency improbabilises the presence of these witnesses at the time of the incident. They are PW.1 Prem Prakash, PW.2 Satya Prakash and PW.4 Satish. Their testimony is inconsistent with the medical evidence of PW.10 Doctor Subhash and PW.13 Doctor Rajkumar Bamboria, who were members of the medical board which performed the postmortem examination. The inconsistency improbabilises the presence of these witnesses at the time of the incident. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kapildeo Mandal & Ors vs. State of Bihar reported in 2010 (4) SCC(Cri) 203. Learned counsel next contends that the so called eye-witnesses are planted witnesses and their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded after unexplained delay though they were cited as witnesses in the FIR itself. Learned counsel has relied on Balakrushna Swain Vs. State of Orissa reported in 1971 AIR (SC) 804. Learned counsel contends that the enmity cuts both ways and the prosecution has not disclosed the nature of enmity between the parties which propelled the appellant to commit an act of such a nature. Moreover, the eye-witnesses are interested witnesses. There are other serious lapses in the prosecution evidence which have been ignored by the learned trial Judge. No blood was found by the police at the place of incident. Learned counsel further contends that the prosecution has not come up with clean hands and chances of death of Sunil in some otherwise motor vehicle accident cannot be completely ruled out nor chances of false implication due to enmity can be ignored. 4. Learned counsel for the private respondent as well as State contends that the eye-witnesses are consistent as regards the place, time and manner of incident, therefore, as per the settled proposition of law, their evidence should be given primacy over the opinion evidence of the Doctor. Moreover, the medical evidence is not totally inconsistent with the ocular evidence. Learned counsel contends that lapses on the part of the Investigation Officer, even illegality committed during investigation, should not be treated as a ground to reject the prosecution case. Reliance has been placed on Leela Ram (D) through Duli Chand Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in AIR 1999 SC 3717 . Learned counsel contends that when eye-witnesses are wholly reliable, the motive looses its importance and only for lack of evidence of real motive for commission of the crime, the eye-witnesses cannot be disbelieved. Reliance has been placed on Leela Ram (D) through Duli Chand Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in AIR 1999 SC 3717 . Learned counsel contends that when eye-witnesses are wholly reliable, the motive looses its importance and only for lack of evidence of real motive for commission of the crime, the eye-witnesses cannot be disbelieved. Learned counsel contends that neither plurality of the evidence is requirement of law nor the testimony of eye-witnesses can be rejected only for the reason that they are interested witnesses. The eye-witnesses are natural witnesses available at the time of incident and they have no animosity with the appellant. Learned counsel contends that some trivial lapses in the prosecution evidence i.e. non collection of blood stained soil from the place of occurrence by the Investigation Agency would not make the evidence of eye-witnesses untrustworthy. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Razakali Khureshi Sandhi vs. State of Gujrat reported in AIR 1997 SC 2538 . 5. The law is well settled that “ocular evidence is considered the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it. It is only in a case where there is gross contraction between the medical evidence and oral evidence, and the medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable and rules out all possibility of ocular evidence been true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved”. (Pruthiviraj Jayantibhai Vanol vs. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 3532 ). 6. In the case of Kapildeo Mandal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated the law as follows: “11. It is now well settled by series of decisions of this Court that while appreciating variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence, oral evidence of eye-witness has to get primacy as medical evidence is basically opinionative. [See Mange v. State of Haryana (1979) 4 SCC 349 , State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and Anr., (1988) 4 SCC 302 (in para 24); and Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha and Ors., (2003) 12 SCC 606 (in para 17)]. But when the court finds inconsistency in the evidence given by the eyewitnesses which is totally inconsistent to that given by the medical experts, then evidence is appreciated in different perspective by the courts. In Mani Ram and Ors. But when the court finds inconsistency in the evidence given by the eyewitnesses which is totally inconsistent to that given by the medical experts, then evidence is appreciated in different perspective by the courts. In Mani Ram and Ors. v. State of U.P., 1994 Supp(2) SCC 289 (in para 9), this Court held: " It is well settled by long series of decisions of this Court that where the direct evidence is not supported by the expert evidence then the evidence is wanting in the most material part of the prosecution case and, therefore, it would be difficult to convict the accused on the basis of such evidence. If the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence this is a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless this inconsistency is reasonably explained it is sufficient not only to discredit the evidence but the entire case." 7. The eye witnesses PW.1 Prem Prakash, PW.2 Satya Prakash and PW.4 Prabhati Lal as well as the informant (PW.3-Rakesh Kumar) and the deceased are descendants of common ancestor as detailed by PW.1. As such the eye witnesses are partisan witnesses and interested in the positive result of their case. The law is well settled that only for being interested and partisan witnesses, their testimony cannot be discarded. However, courts are required to take precaution to seek for some corroboration to their testimony. Moreover, the remaining prosecution evidences must not be of the nature which casts serious doubts on the trustworthiness of the eye witnesses. 8. PW.1 Prem Prakash deposed that the vehicle of the appellant had crushed hand, leg and abdomen of the deceased. The witness is specific that the Wheel had not gone on the head nor there was any visible injury on the head. PW.2 Satya Prakash deposed that the appellant dashed with his vehicle to the deceased and after taking the vehicle back again crushed the deceased under the wheels of the vehicle. The wheel crushed legs and abdomen of the deceased, however it had not passed over the head. The injury on head of the deceased was caused by the stones kept there in huge quantity. PW.4 Satish deposed that vehicle had crushed hand, leg and abdomen of the deceased. One rear wheel and one front wheel had crushed the deceased. The wheel crushed legs and abdomen of the deceased, however it had not passed over the head. The injury on head of the deceased was caused by the stones kept there in huge quantity. PW.4 Satish deposed that vehicle had crushed hand, leg and abdomen of the deceased. One rear wheel and one front wheel had crushed the deceased. The vehicle had not gone on the head though there was injury on the head but no blood had come out from the head injury. PW.10 Doctor Subhash and PW.13 Doctor Rajkumar Bamboria deposed that on external examination they noticed. (i) abrasion at the left hand 5x6 cm. (ii) bruise which was blue and red in colour at the thigh 12x8 cm. (iii) abrasion on left forearm near ankle. (iv) There was fracture of the temporary right bone 3 cm linear brain deep. (v) The brain tissues were completely damaged. (vi) Multiple blood stained were noticed in brain tissues. These witnesses are specific that if a vehicle like Tata 407 which was allegedly involved in the incident crushes the chest ribs, the abdomen, the legs, heart etc. would get damaged. The doctor did not find any of the organs of the abdomen crushed. The doctors were of the view that the injuries found on the deceased were possible by fall from a two-wheeler or even by assault with a lathi. However, if a huge vehicle goes over the body it would damage the inner organs of the body. The head injuries and other injuries might be possible due to fall from a motor cycle. 9. On careful consideration of the medical evidence and ocular testimony of the eye-witnesses, it is evident that there is serious over implication which creates serious doubt on the presence of eye-witnesses at the time of incident. The medical evidence referred above belies the claim of the eye-witnesses that it was a case of culpable homicide, what to say, of “amounting to murder”. 10. The alleged incident of 09:30 P.M. was reported to the police immediately and the police Station concerned made entry in Roznamcha at Ex. P/24A. It is recorded that the police got information that a pick-up van has dashed Sunil Kumar as a result whereof Sunil Kumar died. PW.7 Niranjan Lal is owner of the pick up van. 10. The alleged incident of 09:30 P.M. was reported to the police immediately and the police Station concerned made entry in Roznamcha at Ex. P/24A. It is recorded that the police got information that a pick-up van has dashed Sunil Kumar as a result whereof Sunil Kumar died. PW.7 Niranjan Lal is owner of the pick up van. He has deposed that the police had informed him that his vehicle has caused accident as such the same has been seized by the police. The aforesaid two evidences coupled with the medical evidence goes to show that in fact, victim Sunil Kumar died in some motor accident. PW.7 Niranjan Lal is not a hostile witness and the prosecution has relied on Roznamcha. In the case of Raja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 272, the Hon’ble Supreme Court said that if a witness is not declared hostile by the prosecution, the defence can rely upon the evidence of such witness and it would be binding on the prosecution. The evidence of PW.7 Niranjan Lal adds to the doubt in the prosecution case, which is there due to gross inconsistency between the testimony of eye-witnesses and that of the medical evidence. Rather the entry in Roznamcha and deposition of PW.7 Niranjan Lal makes out another case that the deceased Sunil died in a motor accident. This fact finds corroboration from the medical evidence as well. 11. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the prosecution failed to prove and establish the charges against the appellant beyond doubt and the learned trial judge ignored the aforesaid infirmity in the prosecution case. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents (supra) were decided in different facts and circumstances of the case and are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case nor this court has taken any contrary view to the principle decided in those cases. 12. In the result, the impugned judgment and order of sentence is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 13. Appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 12. In the result, the impugned judgment and order of sentence is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 13. Appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount in accordance with Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) within two weeks from the date of release to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall (9 of 9) [CRLA-469/2015] appear before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The bail bond will be effective for a period of six months.