JUDGMENT : MEHTA, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated 02.04.1992 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Sessions Case No.2/1990, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents from the charges under Section 302 and in the alternative 302/34 IPC and instead convicted them for the offence under Section 323 and 325 IPC and sentenced them as below : Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded Section 323 IPC Six months’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment Section 325 IPC Two years’ rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo two months’ simple imprisonment 2. The State of Rajasthan has preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No.294/1992 for assailing the acquittal of the accused from the charges under Section 302 and 302/34 IPC, whereas the accused have filed the appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC for assailing their conviction and sentences as recorded by the trial court in the above terms. 3. As both the appeals arise from the judgment dated 02.04.1992, the same have been heard and are being decided together by this common judgment. 4. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted here-in-below :- 5. Shri Ganga Singh (P.W.1) lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO, Police Station Nagaur on 06.01.1990 alleging inter alia that on the previous day, i.e. 05.01.1990, he and his father Shri Richhpal Singh had gone to Nagaur in their camel cart carrying with them dry wood for sale. They could complete the sale by evening and thereafter, they started back for their village Bagarasar. Rewant Ram S/o Akharam and Madan Lal S/o Ram Lal Khati, who had also come to Nagaur for selling wood, joined them. His father and one Ladu Ram were sitting on his cart, whereas he was sitting on the cart of Madan Lal. His cart was following the cart of Madan Lal. They came out of Nagaur and were proceeding on the road towards Bhadana. They reached near the well of Malis, Ganga Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh and Bhagwan Singh S/o Ganpat Singh Rajputs, residents of Bagrasar, were waiting amongst the bushes. Both of them were armed with lathis. His cart was following the cart of Madan Lal. They came out of Nagaur and were proceeding on the road towards Bhadana. They reached near the well of Malis, Ganga Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh and Bhagwan Singh S/o Ganpat Singh Rajputs, residents of Bagrasar, were waiting amongst the bushes. Both of them were armed with lathis. They launched an attack causing extensive injuries to his father, due to which, he received injuries all over his body and his hands and legs were fractured. The incident was witnessed by the first informant, Ladu Ram and Madan Lal, but they did not go near or intervene fearing for their own lives. Presuming that his father had died, the accused went away hurling an insinuation that if anyone went towards Nagaur, then he too would be killed. His father was boarded on to the camel cart and taken to Deh Hospital, where the doctor checked his father and administered some medicines and advised that the condition of his father was serious and thus, he should be taken to Nagaur. He sent someone with a jeep to fetch Shri Sundar Singh, maternal uncle of his father, from the village. He also sent information to his own village, from where his father’s uncle Shri Sukh Singh came. They boarded Shri Richhpal Singh on the jeep for taking him to Nagaur and had proceeded about two kms. from Deh, at that point of time, his father expired. His father’s body was lying in the jeep. It was alleged that Ganga Singh and Bhagwan Singh had killed his father owing to a previous enmity. This report was submitted to the SHO, Police Station Nagaur on 06.01.1990 at 1.00 p.m. On further enquiry, the informant told the police officer that the incident took place on the public way near the Village Badli at about 05.30 to 05.45 p.m. By that time, sun had not set. A formal FIR No.7/1990 (Ex.P/18-A) came to be registered on the basis of this written report. It is relevant to mention here that the SHO Birbal Singh did not make endorsement of time of receiving the report in the document. This report was received at the Police Station, Nagaur at 01.00 p.m. as per the endorsement made after the Karyawahi Police. The police Station Nagaur is located at a distance of less than 1 km. It is relevant to mention here that the SHO Birbal Singh did not make endorsement of time of receiving the report in the document. This report was received at the Police Station, Nagaur at 01.00 p.m. as per the endorsement made after the Karyawahi Police. The police Station Nagaur is located at a distance of less than 1 km. from the court premises, in spite thereof, the formal FIR (Ex.P/18) was received in the court of the Magistrate concerned on 07.01.1990 at 10.30 a.m. Be that as it may. The usual investigation was undertaken. Panchayatnama Lash, Surat Haal Lash etc. were prepared. Blood stained soil was collected from the place of incident. The clothes of the deceased were seized. The site inspection plan (Ex.P/2) was prepared, as per which, on one side of the crime scene, there is a barbed wire fencing of the Forest Department and on the other side, field of Poonaram Mali is located. However, what is significant to note here is that there is no reference in the site plan to existence of any bushes wherein the accused could have hidden. The dead body of Shri Richhpal Singh was subjected to postmortem at the hands of a medical jurist of the Government Hospital, Nagaur, who issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/9) taking note of the following injuries : 1. Lacerated 1” x 1/2”x bone deep on right tibial Skin in middle 1/3rd region, bone piece is coming. 2. Abrasion 3” x 1/2” on contusion 4” x 2” on right leg in upper half anteriorly. 3. Contusion 3” x 1-1/4” on Postero-lateral aspect of right leg upper region. 4. Irregular abrasion 3” x 2” on contusion 4” x 3” on lower region of right knee and upper region of leg arteriorly. 5. Abrasion 1-1/2” x 3/4” on right patellar region knee. 6. Contusion 3” x 1-1/4” on autero-lateral aspect of right thigh placed obliquely in lower region. 7. Two contusions 8” x 1” and 6” x 1-1/4” on postero-lateral aspect of right thigh placed transversely in middle. 8. Lacerated 3” x 3/4” x bone deep on left tebial Shin in lower half region. 9. Contusion 2” x 1” and 1-1/2” x 1” on auterolateral aspect of left leg lower region leg is band here due to # both bones. 10. Abrasion 3/4” x 1/2” on left tibial skin middle region. 11. 8. Lacerated 3” x 3/4” x bone deep on left tebial Shin in lower half region. 9. Contusion 2” x 1” and 1-1/2” x 1” on auterolateral aspect of left leg lower region leg is band here due to # both bones. 10. Abrasion 3/4” x 1/2” on left tibial skin middle region. 11. Lacerated 1/2” x 1/4”x skin deep on left tibial skin upper region 12. Abrasion 1”x3/4” on lower region of left knee anteriorly. 13. contusion 4” x 1/4” on autero-lateral aspect of left thigh in middle placed transversely. 14. contusion 2” x 1” on left thigh, lower region anteriorly 15. Abrasion 3/4” x 1/2” on upper region of left knee 16. Abrasion 1-1/2” X 1/4” on contusion 3” x 1” at postero-lateral aspect left forearm in middle 17. Abrasion 3/4” x 1/6” on contusion 1-1/4” x 1” on postero-lateral aspect of left forearm in lower region, 18. lacerated 1-1/2” x 1/2”x muscle deep web between thumb and index finger of left hand 19. Contusion 2” x 1” on postero-lateral of right forearm in lower region 20. Lacerated 1” x 1/4”x skin deep web between thumb and index finger of Right hand. 6. Both the accused were arrested. Acting on the basis of their disclosure statements, lathis were recovered. The accused Bhagwan Singh was found having large number of injuries at the time of his arrest and thus, he was medically examined and the medico-legal report (Ex.D/7) was prepared. After concluding investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against both the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and in the alternative 302/34 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur and charges were framed against the accused appellants for the above offences. Both the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents so as to prove its case. The accused were questioned under Section 313 CrPC and were confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case. The accused Ganga Singh took a pertinent plea that he was not even present at the spot and had been falsely implicated in this case. The accused Bhagwan Singh made a pertinent statement that he was watering his buffaloes when Richhpal Singh came across with his camel cart and spooked the buffaloes. The accused Ganga Singh took a pertinent plea that he was not even present at the spot and had been falsely implicated in this case. The accused Bhagwan Singh made a pertinent statement that he was watering his buffaloes when Richhpal Singh came across with his camel cart and spooked the buffaloes. He resisted, upon which, Richhpal Singh gave lathi blows to him and the buffaloes and in this process, he raised his lathi. He stated that only Poonaram was present when the incident took place. 2 witnesses were examined and 7 documents were exhibited in defence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel and appreciating the material evidence available on record, the learned trial court found that the conduct of the witnesses, Ganga Singh (P.W.1), Ladu Ram (P.W.2), Madan Lal (P.W.3) and Rewant Ram (P.W.4) in not taking Richhpal Singh to Nagaur for treatment even though distance between the place of incident to Nagaur was only 4 kms. and instead taking him to Deh in night at about 11 o’clock would indicate that no serious efforts were made whatsoever to save Richpal Singh and timely treatment was not provided to the victim. Furthermore, the doctor at Deh examined Shri Richhpal Singh at 11 o’clock in the night and after providing him conservative medication, he advised that the injured should be taken to higher center, i.e. Nagaur for treatment and made a referral as such, but in spite thereof, the family members kept waiting till late in the morning and that worsened the condition of the injured leading to his death even though he had no grievous injuries on any vital body organs. Consequently, the accused were acquitted from the charge under Section 302 IPC and the offence was toned down and conviction of the accused was recorded in the above terms by the impugned judgment dated 02.04.1992, which is assailed in these two appeals. 7. Learned counsel Shri Sunil Mehta, representing the accused appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that the prosecution case is false and fabricated. As a matter of fact, Richhpal Singh was all alone at the time of the incident and none of the witnesses were accompanying him and there was no significant motive for the accused to commit the crime. 7. Learned counsel Shri Sunil Mehta, representing the accused appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that the prosecution case is false and fabricated. As a matter of fact, Richhpal Singh was all alone at the time of the incident and none of the witnesses were accompanying him and there was no significant motive for the accused to commit the crime. He urged that the explanation offered by accused Bhagwan Singh in his statement under Section 313 CrPC that he was watering his buffaloes when Richhpal Singh spooked them leading to the fight is the true description of the incident. In this conflict, Bhagwan Singh himself received number of injuries. The prosecution witnesses did not offer any explanation for the injuries suffered by Bhagwan Singh in the same incident. He submitted that even if for a moment, it is believed that the incident took place in the manner alleged by the material prosecution witnesses including Shri Ganga Singh (P.W.1), first informant and son of the deceased, the conduct of these 3 so-called eye-witnesses in not making any effort whatsoever to prevent the quarrel and not intervening to save the victim from assault is a strong pointer to the fact that none of the witnesses was accompanying Richhpal Singh at the time of the assault. He contended that Deh is at a distance of more than 10 km from the place of incident, whereas Nagaur is located at a distance of just 4 km. If at all the so-called eyewitnesses had seen the incident happening with their own eyes and presuming that they could not muster courage to save the victim, in natural course of human conduct, they would be expected to approach the police station, Nagaur, which was located close-by at about 4 km and would also have made efforts to get the injured to the hospital at the earliest. He urged that the fictitious plea of the eye-witnesses that they felt threatened by the insinuations of the accused that they should not proceed towards Nagaur is nothing but a created theory. The two accused were not armed with any dangerous weapons and were only having sticks in their hands as per the testimony of three prosecution eye-witnesses. He urged that the fictitious plea of the eye-witnesses that they felt threatened by the insinuations of the accused that they should not proceed towards Nagaur is nothing but a created theory. The two accused were not armed with any dangerous weapons and were only having sticks in their hands as per the testimony of three prosecution eye-witnesses. The prosecution witnesses too had access to sticks, which usually are fixed on the camel carts and as such, nothing prevented the complainant and the witnesses from raising these sticks to ward off the attack made by the accused and thereafter, when the accused had gone away from the place of incident, the complainant and the witnesses had the opportunity to compose themselves and to take the injured to the Nagaur hospital for providing him immediate treatment. However, the witnesses allegedly took the injured to Deh hospital on the camel cart, thereby wasting almost 5 to 6 hours (time of the incident was 05.30 to 06.00 and the time of the injured being examined at the Deh hospital by the doctor was 11.00 pm.). He, thus, urged that the conduct of the prosecution witnesses makes it clear that they were not present at the place of incident. Shri Mehta further pointed out that even after the Doctor at Deh referred the injured to Nagaur Hospital, the complainant and his companions, namely, Ladu Ram (P.W.2), Madan Lal (P.W.3) and Rewant Ram (P.W.4), continued to waste time and randomly called out for other relatives. The jeep of Vijay Singh (P.W.6) who resided just behind the hospital, had been arranged very soon after the incident, but despite that, the vehicle was sent to fetch the other relatives from distant villages instead of taking the deceased to the hospital. This circumstance, as per Shri Mehta, is sufficient to conclude that none of the witnesses were present at the spot. The injured must have been brought to the hospital by some passers by and then the family members must have been informed about the incident. They must have been told that Shri Richhpal Singh too had caused injuries to Bhagwan Singh and thus, the FIR was got lodged so as to forestall any action from the side of the accused persons. They must have been told that Shri Richhpal Singh too had caused injuries to Bhagwan Singh and thus, the FIR was got lodged so as to forestall any action from the side of the accused persons. Shri Mehta further submitted that significant injuries caused to accused Shri Bhagwan Singh in the very same incident were not explained by the prosecution witnesses and therefore, also, their testimony is fit to be discarded. On these grounds, Shri Mehta implored the court to accept the appeal filed by the accused, acquit them of the charges and dismiss the appeal preferred by the State. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel. He urged that the prosecution eye-witnesses are absolutely truthful and their evidence is trustworthy. The accused were bearing previous grudge against the members of the complainant party. They knew that the complainant and his companions would be passing by the field of Poonaram after having sold wood in Nagaur and were lying in wait. Both the accused were armed with lathis. Taking advantage of the fact that members of the complainant party were unarmed, the accused launched a pre-meditated attack on them and in this process, numerous injuries were caused to Shri Richhpal Singh. These injuries were so grave that the victim had no chance of survival. The family members tried to provide timely medical aid to the injured, but to no avail. Learned Public Prosecutor fervently urged that the defence plea that Shri Richhpal Singh attacked the accused Bhagwan Singh is totally cooked up and unacceptable on the face of the record. Regarding the injuries suffered by the accused Bhagwan Singh, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor was that the presence of the injuries establishes participation of the accused in the incident and does not help the defence theory in any manner. He further submitted that as many as 20 injuries were caused by the accused to Shri Richhpal Singh with numerous fractures on the arms and legs and thus, there was no chance of Shri Richhpal Singh surviving the trauma of these injuries. Thus, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the medical jurist Dr. He further submitted that as many as 20 injuries were caused by the accused to Shri Richhpal Singh with numerous fractures on the arms and legs and thus, there was no chance of Shri Richhpal Singh surviving the trauma of these injuries. Thus, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the medical jurist Dr. D.R. Choudhary (P.W.7) of Government Hospital, Nagaur clearly stated in his evidence that the cumulative effect of the injuries caused to Shri Richhpal Singh proved fatal and hence, as per him, acquittal of the accused from the charge under Section 302 is unjustified and illegal. On these submissions, learned Public Prosecutor implored the court to accept the State appeal, reverse acquittal of the accused from the charge under Section 302 IPC and to award them suitable punishment and at the same time, he sought dismissal of the appeal against conviction. 9. 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. 10. At the outset, a few important facts of the case need to be noted. On going through the FIR (Ex.P/18-A), and the evidence of the first informant Shri Ganga Singh (P.W.1), we find nothing which can even remotely suggest that the accused had any ostensible reason/motive so as to have launched the assault upon the deceased Shri Richhpal Singh. Deceased Shri Richpal Singh received the injuries at the place Maliyon Ki Badi while proceeding back to his village. This location is about 4 kilometers from the city of Nagaur as per the geographical map of Nagaur district. Deh is at a distance of about 18 kms. from the place where the assault took place. As per the evidence of the star prosecution eye-witnesses, Ganga Singh (P.W1), Ladu Ram (P.W.2), Madan Lal (P.W.3) and Rewant Ram (P.W.4), after the assault, they boarded Richhpal Singh on to a camel cart and took him to Deh. They did not proceed to Nagaur because they were apprehensive regarding further acts of aggression by the accused. The medical officer Dr. Premchand (P.W.12) categorically stated that Richhpal Singh was brought to Deh Hospital at 11.00 p.m. in the night. Thus, there was a gap of almost five and half hours between the time of incident and the arrival of the injured at the hospital. The medical officer Dr. Premchand (P.W.12) categorically stated that Richhpal Singh was brought to Deh Hospital at 11.00 p.m. in the night. Thus, there was a gap of almost five and half hours between the time of incident and the arrival of the injured at the hospital. The doctor examined Shri Richhpal Singh and immediately referred him to the Nagaur Hospital. The material prosecution witnesses referred to supra, after reaching the Deh Hospital, claimed to have made efforts to call for other relatives. For this purpose, the jeep of the witness Vijay Singh (P.W.6) was engaged. The jeep owner Vijay Singh (P.W.6) stated that Rewantram and Ganga Singh approached him at about 11.30 in the night and requested him to proceed to Chhapada in his Jonga Jeep for bringing the Sarpanch and Samandar Singh. Rewant Ram accompanied him to Chhapada. They picked up Samandar Singh and came back to the Deh Hospital at 02.30 a.m. in the night. A careful analysis of the evidence of the so-called eye-witness is sufficient to convince the court that as a matter of fact, none of the so-called eye-witnesses had actually seen the incident. It seems that Richhpal Singh received the injuries at the hands of some unknown assailant, whereafter the relatives were informed. The complainant party resides at Village Bagarasar and they thought it fit to take the victim to the Deh Hospital. There the doctor provided initial treatment and then referred the injured to the Nagaur Hospital. More relatives were called to Deh Hospital and a decision was taken to take Richhpal Singh to Nagaur and finally he was boarded on to the Jonga Jeep in the morning at about 04.30 a.m. and was being taken to the Nagaur Hospital, but expired before reaching there. As the witnesses accompanying the deceased Shri Richhpal Singh were four in number, i.e. Ganga Singh (P.W.1), Ladu Ram (P.W.2), Madan Lal (P.W.3) and Rewant Ram (P.W.4), and as the accused were only two in number, there was no rhyme or reason as to why four persons would feel so threatened by the accused duo that they would not make any effort whatsoever to take the injured to the closest and better medical facility, i.e. at Nagaur situated at a distance of merely 4 km. Furthermore, the police station Nagaur is also located just near the hospital and thus, in the natural course of human conduct, the witnesses, if at all they had seen the incident happening with their own eyes, would definitely have taken the injured to the Nagaur Hospital and would also have approached the police to report the matter. All the 4 witnesses referred to supra, i.e. Ganga Singh (P.W.1), Ladu Ram (P.W.2), Madan Lal (P.W.3) and Rewant Ram (P.W.4), gave a stereotyped story in their examination-in-chief that the time was about 5 o’clock in the evening. They were proceeding to the Village Bagarasar on their camel carts. They had reached about 2 km. further ahead of Badli, where there was a wire fencing of the Forest Department. The accused appellants were lying in wait hiding amongst the bushes. They were armed with bamboo sticks. Both inflicted lathi blows to Shri Richhpal Singh and Shri Ganga Singh. Richhpal Singh fell down from the cart, after which, both the accused rained innumerable lathi blows on the person of Shri Richhpal Singh. The witnesses cried out and pleaded for mercy. However, the witnesses did not intervene because the accused had threatened that they too would be beaten. They were empty-handed. After the assault, the accused proceeded towards Nagaur making an insinuation that if the witnesses came to Nagaur, they too would be killed. That is why the witnesses boarded Shri Richhpal Singh on the camel cart and took him to Deh. Prima facie, this story is unbelievable. Pertinent cross-examination was made from Ganga Singh regarding the motive for the incident, to which, he replied that the field of the accused is located nearby to their field and the cattle of the accused trespass into their fields and that is why, previous animosity was prevailing for the last two to three years. The witness admitted that there was no immediate cause for the assault. The witness also admitted that the accused had been residing in Badliwas for the last four to five years and did not come to their fields. 11. The witness admitted that there was no immediate cause for the assault. The witness also admitted that the accused had been residing in Badliwas for the last four to five years and did not come to their fields. 11. The defence gave a pertinent suggestion to the material eye-witnesses that Bhagwan Singh alone was watering his buffaloes from the open tank built in front of field of Poonaram and at that point of time, there was an altercation between Richhpal Singh and Bhagwan Singh and that Bhagwan Singh inflicted lathi blows to Richhpal Singh and that the incident was witnessed by Poona Mali. The witnesses denied this suggestion. 12. We are compelled to reiterate that the explanation given by the witnesses for not making any effort whatsoever to save Shri Richhpal Singh from the assault is absolutely flimsy and unacceptable looking at the fact that the accused were only two and the witnesses were four in number. The injured passed away in the morning at about 04.30 a.m. Shri Ganga Singh and his companions claimed to have reached Nagaur Hospital with the dead body of Richhpal Singh in the early hours of morning, yet the FIR came to be lodged at 01.00 p.m., even though the police station is located adjacent to the hospital. We are further of the view that the very factum of registration of the FIR at 01.00 p.m. on 06.01.1990 is doubtful because the copy of the FIR reached the Court of the Magistrate concerned on 07.01.1990 at 10.30 a.m. as per the endorsement made thereupon. As the court premises are located nearby the Police Station Nagaur, there was no rhyme or reason for this gross delay in forwarding the FIR to the court. 13. The most significant statement from amongst the prosecution witnesses is that of Poonaram Mali (P.W.11). The witness stated that the incident took place in the evening at about 05.30 p.m. Richhpal Singh was watering his camel from the open water tank outside his field. Bhagwan Singh also brought his buffaloes to the water tank. Richhpal Singh told Bhagwan Singh to stop his cattle, but the buffaloes could not be restrained, on which, Richhpal Singh have a lathi blow to Bhagwan Singh, who was all alone. Bhagwan Singh also brought his buffaloes to the water tank. Richhpal Singh told Bhagwan Singh to stop his cattle, but the buffaloes could not be restrained, on which, Richhpal Singh have a lathi blow to Bhagwan Singh, who was all alone. Learned Public Prosecutor declared the witness hostile and confronted him with his previous police statement (Ex.P/12), wherein the witness had denied being present at the place of incident. Nonetheless, we are of the view that the statement of Poonaram (P.W.11) is reliable and is corroborated from attending circumstances available on record, most important being the fact that Bhagwan Singh was found having injuries when he was arrested. 14. Bhagwan Singh claimed to have received injuries in the very same incident and his medical examination was conducted by Dr. D.R. Choudhary on police requisition and medico-legal report (Ex.D/7) was issued taking note of 3 injuries on the body of Shri Bhagwan Singh. 15. The conclusion that the FIR is a post investigation document is further affirmed from the circumstance that the FIR number is not mentioned in the postmortem report (Ex.P/9), which was prepared at 03.30 p.m. on 06.01.1990. Thus, there is a grave doubt on the claim of the prosecution witnesses and the SHO Shri Birbal that the FIR was registered at the time mentioned in the report (Ex.P/1), i.e. 01.00 p.m. The accused Bhagwan Singh in the statement under Section 313 CrPC made an honest disclosure and stated that he came to the same tank for watering his buffaloes while Richhpal Singh was watering his camel, at which point of time, a fight flared up and during the course thereof, he inflicted few lathi blows to Richhpal Singh and at the same time, Richhpal Singh also gave him lathi blows. This fact is corroborated from the medico-legal report (Ex.D/7) of Shri Bhagwan Singh and so also the statement of Poonaram (P.W.11). The statements of the material prosecution witnesses Ganga Singh (P.W.1), Ladu Ram (P.W.2), Madan Lal (P.W.3) and Rewant Ram (P.W.4), wherein they claimed to have witnessed the incident is belied by the attending circumstances, which we have discussed in detail. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence available on record convicted both the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 323 and 325 IPC. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence available on record convicted both the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 323 and 325 IPC. However, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove involvement of the accused Ganga Singh in the incident by plausible reliable evidence. Qua the accused Bhagwan Singh, since he himself admitted participation in the incident, the findings recorded by the trial court could be of some relevance, but as the appeal of Bhagwan Singh has abated, we need not make any evaluation of these findings. 16. As a consequence, we are of the opinion that the accused appellant Ganga Singh deserves to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment dated 02.04.1992 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Sessions Case No.2/1990 is set aside. The appeal filed by Ganga Singh is, thus, allowed. He is acquitted from the charges. He is on bail. He need not surrender and his bail bonds are discharged. The appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is dismissed as being devoid of merit. 17. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC, appellant Ganga Singh shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/-and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment, on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court.