JUDGMENT : MEHTA, J. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 08.06.2018 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.04/2016:- Offence under Section Sentences Fine Sentence in lieu of default of payment of fine 302/149 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 6 Months’ Additional S.I. 307/149 IPC 10 Years’ SI Rs.3,000/- 3 Months’ additional SI 460 IPC 10 Years’ SI Rs.3,000/- 3 Months’ Additional SI 148 IPC 3 Years’ SI Rs.1,000/- 1 Month’s Additional SI All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently 2. Briefly stated facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted herein below:- 3. Shri Bablu S/o Shri Sant Lal and his wife Smt. Roshni were assaulted in their house on 12.09.2015 between 08:45 to 09:15 PM. The house of Bablu and the house of his father Shri Sant Lal are having common back-wall. On hearing, a hue and cry being raised, Shri Sant Lal rushed to the house of Bablu where he claims to have seen that Subhash S/o Shri Jaikaran, Prem S/o Sohanlal, Mahendra S/o Devilal, Jagdish S/o Devilal, Sunil S/o Banwari and four-five others, had assaulted Bablu and his wife by sharp weapons. While Bablu’s wife Smt. Roshni expired as a result of the injuries suffered by her in the incident, Bablu received injuries and had to be taken to the hospital for treatment. As per the prosecution, the SHO, Police Station Nohar, Shri Dinesh Kumar reached the place of incident on 13.09.2015 at 7.00 AM where Shri Sant Lal submitted a written report (Ex.P/5) to him. The SHO recorded an endorsement of case being made out for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 450, 323 and 143 IPC and thereafter, the report was forwarded from the crime scene to the Police Station Nohar with Foot Constable Chandrabhan. Consequently, an FIR No.466/2015 was registered at the Police Station, Nohar for the above offences and investigation commenced. The SHO claims to have prepared the spot documents etc. 4. One Shri Kedar Lal, ASI had been sent to the hospital where Bablu had been admitted and he recorded a Parchabayan (Ex.P/1) of Bablu on 13.09.2015 at Bombay Neuro Hospital, Sirsa wherein, Bablu alleged that on 12.09.2015, he and his wife Roshni were sleeping in the angan of their house. 4. One Shri Kedar Lal, ASI had been sent to the hospital where Bablu had been admitted and he recorded a Parchabayan (Ex.P/1) of Bablu on 13.09.2015 at Bombay Neuro Hospital, Sirsa wherein, Bablu alleged that on 12.09.2015, he and his wife Roshni were sleeping in the angan of their house. At about 9 O’ Clock, Hanuman Tandi, Jagdish S/o Shri Devilal, Mahendra S/o Shri Devilal, Subhash S/o Shri Jaikaran, Prem S/o Shri Sohan Lal and Sunil Nayak, all scaled the boundary wall and committed trespass into his house. Hanuman Tandi and Jagdish were armed with axes whereas others were having lathis in their hands. Jagdish gave an axe blow on his head with the intention to kill him. His wife Roshni tried to save him, upon which, Hanuman inflicted an axe blow on her head as a result whereof, she fell down at the spot. He raised a hue and cry on which, his father Sant Lal, neighbours Mada Nayak, Jaisingh, Raja, Rohtash etc. came around and challenged the assailants who ran away. His wife died at the spot as a result of the injuries caused on the head whereas, he himself was brought to the Nohar Hospital for treatment by Shrawan Mehra. From there, he was referred to Hanumangarh Hospital and further on to Hisar. The ASI Kedar Lal treated this Parchabayan to be an FIR and made an endorsement of offences punishable under Sections 450, 323, 147, 148 and 149 IPC being made out and presented the report to the SHO on 13.09.2015 at 01.30 P.M. The SHO made an endorsement thereupon that as FIR No.466/2015 had already been registered and investigation was being undertaken, this report be treated as a statement and attached in the file. It is noteworthy to mention here that the formal FIR No.466/2015, which was allegedly received at the police station on 13.09.2015 at 9.00 A.M., reached the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Nohar on 14.09.2015 as late as at 10.35 AM. Be that as it may. 5. The dead body of Smt. Roshni was subjected to autopsy at the Government Hospital, Nohar by Dr. Jaipal (PW.12) who took note of a single blunt weapon injury associated with fracture admeasuring 8 cm X 2.5 c.m. on the frontal bone which led to intracranial haemorrhage and was cause of the lady’s death. Dr. Be that as it may. 5. The dead body of Smt. Roshni was subjected to autopsy at the Government Hospital, Nohar by Dr. Jaipal (PW.12) who took note of a single blunt weapon injury associated with fracture admeasuring 8 cm X 2.5 c.m. on the frontal bone which led to intracranial haemorrhage and was cause of the lady’s death. Dr. Manjeet Dhaka carried out medical examination of Shri Bablu at the Community Health Centre, Nohar on 13.09.2015 at 1.00 AM in the night and issued the medico legal report (Ex.P/31) taking note of a single blunt weapon injury admeasuring 12 cm X 1 cm., bone deep on the frontal to parietal region of skull. 6. The appellants herein were arrested and recoveries of weapons were effected from them in furtherance of their disclosure statements. Investigation qua Hanuman Tandi was kept pending. The appellants and the accused Subhash were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 460, 307, 325, 323, 147, 148 & 149 IPC in the Court of Magistrate concerned. The case was committed to the Court of Additional Session Judge No.1, Nohar from where it was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar for trial. The trial Court declared the accused Subhash to be a ‘child in conflict with law’ and his case was separated and sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh for trial. Charges were framed against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 460, 302, 302/149, 307/149, 325, 325/149, 323, 323/149 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 45 documents to prove its case. Upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the same, claimed to be innocent but did not choose to lead any oral evidence in defence. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court, proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned senior counsel Shri Kharlia, assisted by Ms. Kinjal Purohit representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The FIR (Ex.P/26) is a post investigation document. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned senior counsel Shri Kharlia, assisted by Ms. Kinjal Purohit representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The FIR (Ex.P/26) is a post investigation document. The injured witness Bablu (PW.1) and the alleged eyewitnesses Jai Singh (PW.2), Rohitash (PW.3), Rajendra Kumar (PW.7) and Ramswaroop (PW.8) did not support the prosecution case and were declared to be hostile. The case of the prosecution is based solely upon the testimony of Sant Lal (PW.5) father-in-law of the deceased Smt. Roshni. Shri Kharlia criticized the statement of Sant Lal submitting that the witness made wholesome improvements in his testimony and that his evidence is totally contradicted from the statements of other witnesses and the surrounding facts available on record. Shri Kharlia urged that the police team had arrived at the place of incident at 11 O’ Clock in the night of 12.09.2015. Sant Lal claims to be present in the house of Shri Bablu at that point of time and he allegedly divulged complete details of the incident to the SHO Shri Dinesh Kumar. Shri Kharlia urged that if at all, Sant Lal had seen the incident and knew the details thereof, then the SHO would definitely have registered the FIR immediately upon disclosure to this effect being made by Shri Sant Lal. Shri Kharlia’s further contention was that as Sant Lal was not knowing anything about the incident, ASI Kedar Lal was sent to the hospital for recording the statement of Bablu. When ASI Kedar Lal returned with the Parchabayan (Ex.P/1), it came to light that it contained name of Hanuman Tandi as being the principal offender. However, involvement of this accused seemed to be inconvenient/unacceptable and that is why Shri Dinesh Kumar proceeded to record the statement of Sant Lal as Ex.P/5 and registered the FIR on the basis thereof even though he himself had sent ASI Kedarlal to record the Parchabayan of the victim. Shri Kharlia further submitted that the prosecution theory that the FIR was submitted by Sant Lal at the crime scene on 13.09.2015 at 7.00 AM is totally concocted. He urged that the informant Sant Lal himself admitted in cross-examination that he went to the Police Station Nohar on 13.09.2015 and there he submitted the FIR (Ex.P/26) to the SHO. Shri Kharlia further submitted that the prosecution theory that the FIR was submitted by Sant Lal at the crime scene on 13.09.2015 at 7.00 AM is totally concocted. He urged that the informant Sant Lal himself admitted in cross-examination that he went to the Police Station Nohar on 13.09.2015 and there he submitted the FIR (Ex.P/26) to the SHO. By that time, his daughter-in-law Roshni’s dead body had been sent to the mortuary of Nohar Hospital. Shri Kharlia thus submitted that all these facts coupled with the circumstance that the formal FIR reached the office of the Magistrate concerned after a delay of more than 24 hours even though the Court is located just near by the police station would clearly indicate that the FIR (Ex.P/26) is a fabricated post investigation document. Shri Kharlia further submitted that the injured Bablu himself did not support the prosecution case. The house of Sant Lal is located behind the house of Bablu and the witness would have to cover significant distance to reach to the crime scene. Thus, Sant Lal could not have reached the spot while the accused were in process of causing injuries to the two victims. Only one injury each was caused to the victims which would not have taken more than a few seconds. Shri Kharlia submitted that in order to surmount this difficulty, Shri Sant Lal, while deposing in Court, modulated his stand and claimed that he scaled the wall and went into the house of Bablu where he saw the accused persons assaulting the victims. Shri Kharlia urged that this intentional improvement made by the witness from his previous police statement is in itself sufficient to discard his evidence and to acquit the accused persons by giving them the benefit of doubt. His alternative submission was that even if the prosecution case is to be believed, apparently, the assailants who were nine in number and were armed with dangerous weapons like axes and sticks, inflicted only one blow each to the two victims. Thus, as per Shri Kharlia, the offence attributed to the accused would not travel beyond to Section 304 Part II IPC. 8. On these submissions, Shri Kharlia, implored the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused appellants of the charges. 9. Thus, as per Shri Kharlia, the offence attributed to the accused would not travel beyond to Section 304 Part II IPC. 8. On these submissions, Shri Kharlia, implored the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused appellants of the charges. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Kharlia. They submitted that the witness Sant Lal had no animosity whatsoever with the accused persons. He submitted the written report (Ex.P/5) to the SHO incorporating therein, all the facts which he had himself seen after reaching the place of incident. It is an admitted fact that the houses of Sant Lal and Bablu are located adjacent to each other and their back-wall is common. Thus, on hearing the distress cries from his son’s house, the immediate reaction of Sant Lal would have been to rush to his son’s rescue and in this process, he scaled the wall and reached the house of Shri Bablu within seconds and saw the assault taking place before his own eyes. Thus, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the appreciation of evidence as undertaken by trial court and the findings of guilt recorded in the impugned judgment are unimpeachable and that the appeal is fit to be dismissed. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 11. First and foremost, we proceed to consider the argument of Shri Kharlia that the FIR (Ex.P/26) is a post-investigation document. In this regard, we would like to refer to certain portions from the evidence of Sant Lal (PW.5) and the SHO Dinesh Kumar (PW.14). 11. First and foremost, we proceed to consider the argument of Shri Kharlia that the FIR (Ex.P/26) is a post-investigation document. In this regard, we would like to refer to certain portions from the evidence of Sant Lal (PW.5) and the SHO Dinesh Kumar (PW.14). Relevant extracts from the statement of Sant Lal are noted here-in-below for the sake of ready-reference:- ^^eSaus mDr ?kVuk ckcr iqfyl esa nj[kkLr dhA nj[kkLr izn'kZ ih&5 ij ftl ij , ls ch esjs nks txg lkbu gSA ftjg odhy vfHk;qDrx.k %& ------------------------------ izn'kZ ih&5 eSus fnukad 13@9@15 dks iqfyl Fkkuk uksgj esa vkds Fkkus esa esa nj[kkLr nh FkhA --------------------------eSa esjh iq=o/kw jks'kuh dh yk'k dks ekspZjh uksgj vLirky esa j[kkdj mlds ckn Fkkuk esa x;k vkSj ogka izn'kZ ih&5 is'k dhA fdl le; is'k dh eSa le; ugha crk ldrkA --------------------------------------------- uD'kk ekSdk ?kVukLFky fnukad 13@9@15 dks cuk;k FkkA uD'kk ekSdk e`rdk jks'kuh dk nkg laLdkj djus ds ckn tc ge ?kj vk, rd uksgj ls iqfyl xbZA uD'kk ekSdk gkykr ekSdk cukus iqfyl djhc pkj&lkढ+s pkj cts xbZA --------------------------------------------- ;g lgh gS fd tc eSa ccyw ds ?kj x;k ml le; e`rdk jks'kuh dh e`R;q gks pqdh FkhA ;g lgh gS fd esjs igqWapus ls igys ccyw ds flj esa pksV yx pqdh Fkh tc eSa igqapk rks og csgks'k FkkA eSa ?kVuk ds oDr gh jksyk lqudj ogka pyk x;kA ?kVuk LFky ij jkf= dks iqfyl ogka Fkh] fMIVh lkgc Hkh ogka iwjh jkr jgsA ;g lgh gS fd esjs edku dk njoktk iwoZ dh rjQ gS o ccyw ds edku dk njoktk if'pe esa gS] gekjs edkuksa dh vkil esa ihB yxrh gSA izn'kZ ih&6]7]8 ij esjs gLrk{kj gSa] tks jktdh; fpfdRlky; uksgj es djk, FksA izn'kZ ih&6]7]8 esa vkSj fdlds lkbu djk,] eq>s irk ughaA** (Emphasis Supplied) 12. Relevant extracts from the statement of Dinesh Kumar, SHO (PW.14) are recorded hereinbelow for the sake of ready-reference:- ^^eSa fnukad 13-09-15 dks ih,l uksgj esa eSa ,l,pvks uksgj ds in ij dk;Zjr FkkA ml jkst ifjoknh laryky us ,d fyf[kr izkFkZuk i= esjs le{k is'k fd;k tks izn'kZ ih 5 gSa ftl ij , ls ch ifjoknh laryky ds gLrk{kj gSaA th ls ,p esjs gLrk{kj gSA vkbZ ls ts esjs }kjk fd;k x;k dk;Zokgh iqfyl i`’Bkadu gSA mDr izkFkZuk i= es pkd 'kqnk ,QvkbZvkj izn'kZ ih 26 ntZ dh xbZ mDr izn'kZ ih 5 ?kVuk LFky ij eqLrxhl }kjk nh xbZ Fkh dkfu0 panzHkku ds ekQZr ih,l uksgj esa fHktok;k x;kA ds ls ,y panzHkku ds gLrk{kj gSa tks esjs vf/kuLFk gksus ds dkj.k eSa tkurk gwaA izn'kZ ih 26 ij Hkh lh ls Mh panzHkku ds gLrk{kj gSaA Emphasis Supplied ftjg }kjk odhy vfHk;qDrx.k %& --------------------------------------------------- ;g lgh gS fd ge ?kVuk LFky ij ?kVuk dh jkr X;kjg ckjg cts igqap x;s Fks vkSj iwjh jkr ge ?kVuk LFky ij gh jgsA geus jkr dks X;kjg ckjg cts gh laryky ls iwN fy;k fd ?kVuk fdlus dkfjr dh rks mlus ?kVuk vkSj eqyfteku ds ckjs esa gesa crk fn;k FkkA jkr dks laryky us ges dksbZ fyf[kr esa nj[kkLr ugha nh dsoy ekSf[kd esa crk;k FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd laryky us eq>s 13-09-15 ds lqcg lkr cts ls igys ?kVuk o eqyfteku ds ckjs esa dqN ugha crk;k gks vkSj ;g dgk fd eq>s irk ugha fd fdlus esjh iq=o/kq dks tku ls ekjk] fdlus esjs iq= dks pksVs dkfjr dhA tc ge ?kVukLFky ij x;s rks ogka ccyw gesa ?kVukLFky ij ugha feykA ccyw dk ipkZ c;ku izn'kZ ih 1 ysus ds fy, dsnkjyky , ,lvkbZ fljlk vLirky esa ysus ds fy;s x;k Fkk tks 1%30 ih,e ij Fkkus igqapk FkkA dsnkjyky dks ccyw ds ipkZ c;ku ysus jkr dks gh fljlk fHktok fn;k FkkA ftldh jokuxh o okilh dh fjiksVZ jkstukepk vke esa Mkyh x;h FkhA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------laryky ifjoknh ds edku ds if'pe esa ccyw et:c dk edku gSa ftldk jkLrk vke xyh es vkus dk xsV if'pe esa gSA laryky ds edku dk xsV nf{k.k vkSj iwoZ esa gSA laryky ;fn ccyw ds edku esa vk;s ;k rks iwoZ ;k nf{k.k ds xsV ls ekdZ rhu xyh ls gksdj ekdZ vkB xyh ls gksrs gq, gh vk;sxkA vkSj ;gh eq>s laryky us vius c;ku esa crk;k Fkk fd og ekdZ rhu xyh ls gksdj ekdZ vkB xyh ls gksrs gq, x;k FkkA** Emphasis Supplied 13. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the endorsement made by Shri Dinesh Kumar on the written report (Ex.P/5) before the same was forwarded to the police station for registering the formal FIR. In this endorsement, it is mentioned that the report had been submitted by Shri Sant Lal to the SHO at the place of incident at 7:00 AM. However, this endorsement is falsified when we consider the highlighted portion from the statement of Sant Lal (supra) where he stated that he submitted the FIR (Ex.P/26) to the SHO at the police station after the dead body of Roshni had been placed in the mortuary of the Nohar Hospital. Significantly enough, the documents Ex.P/6 Fard Surathaal Lash Roshni, Ex.P/7 Fard Panchayatnama Roshni, Ex.P/8 Seizure Memo of blood stained control soil from the spot, Ex.P/9 Seizure Memo of blood stained jumper of Roshani, Ex.P/10 receipt of handing over the dead body of Roshani, Ex.P/11 Site inspection Plan and Ex.P/11A the Site Inspection description, all of which, were allegedly prepared by the IO before sending the written report to the police station with Constable Chandrabhan do not bear any time. 14. Constable Chandrabhan upon being examined as PW.10 did not utter a single word that the SHO handed him the written report at the place of incident or that he presented it at the police station for registration of formal FIR. It may further be noted that though, the police station and the Court are located nearby, the formal FIR (Ex.P/26) reached the Court of ACJM, Nohar, Hanumangarh on 14.09.2015 as late as 10:35 AM. This gross delay in receipt of the formal FIR in the court concerned in conjunction with the facts noted above, creates a genuine doubt in the mind of the Court that the FIR (Ex.P/26) does not contain the true version of the incident and is clearly a post investigation document. It may be reiterated that as per the statement of PW.5 Shri Sant Lal, the Dy. Superintendent of Police as well as the SHO were present at the crime scene for the entire night. Thus, there was no rhyme or reason as to why, the FIR was not recorded on the basis of oral disclosure made by Shri Sant Lal soon after the incident. We are therefore compelled to discard the FIR (Ex.P/26) as being a fabricated post investigation document. 15. Thus, there was no rhyme or reason as to why, the FIR was not recorded on the basis of oral disclosure made by Shri Sant Lal soon after the incident. We are therefore compelled to discard the FIR (Ex.P/26) as being a fabricated post investigation document. 15. The statement of PW.5 Shri Sant Lal wherein he claims to be an eyewitness of the incident is not free from doubt. In this regard, it may be noted that Shri Sant Lal admitted that his house and the house of his son Bablu are joined with a common back-wall. Neither in the report (Ex.P/5) nor in the 161 Statement (Ex.D/1) did Shri Sant Lal mention that he scaled the back-wall and went into the house of Bablu on hearing the hue and cry. The stark improvement made by the witness while deposing on oath that he rushed into the house of Bablu by scaling the wall makes his testimony doubtful. Furthermore, while in the examination-in-chief, the witness stated that he saw the assailants causing injuries to Bablu and Roshni, but in cross-examination, he admitted that both Bablu and Roshni had already received injuries before he reached at the crime scene. Thus, a grave doubt is created on the truthfulness of Shri Sant Lal and he is definitely not a reliable witness. Bablu, the injured witness was examined as PW.1. He did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. The other so-called eyewitnesses Jaisingh (PW.2), Rohtash (PW.3), Rajendra (PW.7) and Ramswaroop (PW.8) also did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. 16. At this stage, we would like to mention that injured Bablu was examined at the Government Hospital, Nohar by Dr. Manjeet Dhaka (PW.11) who issued the medico legal report (Ex.P/31). In this report, it is mentioned that the injured was medically examined on the basis of police requisition. Dr. Manjeet Dhaka clearly stated that the injured was not unconscious when the medico legal report was prepared. In this background, there was nothing to prevent the police officers from forthwith recording the statement of the injured so as to proceed with the registration of the FIR. 17. Dr. Manjeet Dhaka clearly stated that the injured was not unconscious when the medico legal report was prepared. In this background, there was nothing to prevent the police officers from forthwith recording the statement of the injured so as to proceed with the registration of the FIR. 17. The ASI Shri Kedar Lal who recorded the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/1) of the injured Babloo could have been an important witness to unfurl the truth but for reasons best known to the prosecution, the said witness was withheld and not examined at the trial and thus adverse inference deserves to be drawn on account of this internal omission. 18. Though the prosecution claims to have recovered certain lathis at the instance of some of the accused, the same were not forwarded to the FSL for comparison. The axe allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused Jagdish did not give any conclusive result for blood group when the same was analysed at the FSL as is evident from the report (Ex.P/46). 19. As a consequence of the above discussion, we are of the firm view that the evidence of the sole prosecution eyewitness Sant Lal is not reliable. No other tangible/reliable evidence was produced by the prosecution to bring home the charges because the injured Bablu and the other so-called eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. 20. Resultantly, there is no option but to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to lead reliable evidence so as to bring home the guilt of the accused in this case. We are of the firm opinion that the appreciation of evidence as undertaken by the trial court while recording the guilt of the accused by the impugned judgment is erroneous and the same does not stand to scrutiny. Consequently, the conviction of the accused appellants as recorded by the trial court cannot be sustained. They are entitled to be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment dated 08.06.2018 is set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted of the charges. They are in custody since 25.09.2015. They shall be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 21. They are entitled to be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment dated 08.06.2018 is set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted of the charges. They are in custody since 25.09.2015. They shall be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 21. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the accused appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/-each and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellants shall appear before the Supreme Court. 23. The appeal is allowed in these terms. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.