JUDGMENT : PANKAJ BHANDARI, J. 1. Accused-appellants have preferred these appeals aggrieved by Judgment and Sentence dated 06.02.2017 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge, No.4, Ajmer, whereby appellant-Ravindra has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 & 324 IPC; for offence under Section 302 IPC, he has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/- and on non-payment of fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment and for offence under Section 324 IPC, he has been sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and on non-payment of fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. Appellant- Surendra has been convicted for offence under Sections 302/34 & 324/34 IPC and similar sentence has been awarded to him. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 23.09.2013, Jagdish submitted a written report (Ex. Appellant- Surendra has been convicted for offence under Sections 302/34 & 324/34 IPC and similar sentence has been awarded to him. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 23.09.2013, Jagdish submitted a written report (Ex. P-8) at Police Station Civil Lines, Ajmer, which is reproduced here as under:- **Fkkukf/kdkjh egksn;] iqfyl Fkkuk flfoy ykbZu vtesj ¼jkt0½ fo"k;%& gR;k dh izFke lwpuk ntZ djokus ckcrA egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kuqlkj ys[k gS fd vkt jkf= yxHkx 9-30 cts vfiZr lSuh] fgEer flag] _f"k 'kekZ esjs thtkth lquhy pkS/kjh mQZ lksuw iq= dkyqjke dks iqfyl ykbZu Vkad Ldwy ds ckgj jksM ij mrkjk tgka ij eSa eSu jksM ij [kM+k Fkk vkSj muds mrjus ds ckn ge yksx vkil esa ckrphr dj jgs Fks] brus esa nks yM+ds eksVjlkbZfdy ij vk;s] muesa ls ,d yM+dk ftldk uke jfoUnz dM+okljk gS rFkk nwljk yM+dk ftldks uke ls ugh tkurk ij lkeus vkus ij igpku tkÅaxkA jfoUnz dM+okljk us gkFk esa pkdw fudkydj tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls gekjh vkSj yidk mlus vfiZr ij pkdw ls okj fd;k] ftlls vfiZr ds nkfgus gkFk ij pksV vk;h] fQj jfoUnz o mlds lkFkh us esjs thtkth lksuw pkS/kjh mQZ lquhy dks idM+ fy;k o johUnz us pkdw ls esjs thtkth ij geyk fd;k] ftlls esjs thtkth ihNs gV x;s] fQj johUnz us nwckjk pkdw ls esjs thtkth lksuw mQZ lquhy ds lhus ij okj fd;k o pkdw esjs thtkth ds fny esa ?kqlsM+ fn;k esjs thtkth tehu ij fxj x;s] rc nwljk yM+dk esjs thtkth ds yxkrkj ykr ?kqls ekjrk jgk vkSj fpYykrk jgk bl dqRrs dks vkt gh [kRe dj nks] eSa vfiZr lSuh] fgEer flag] _f”k 'kekZ enn ds fy, fpYykrs jgs o Hkkxs rc og nksuksa eksVj lkbfdy ij cSBdj Hkkx x;s] rc ge esjs thtkth lquhy mQZ lksuw o vfiZr dks ysdj tokgj yky usg: fpfdRlky; igqaps tgka esjs thtkth lquhy mQZ lksuw dh e`R;q gks x;hA fjiksVZ djrk gwa dk;Zokgh djsA Hkonh; txnh'k** 3. On the basis of said report, police lodged FIR No.409/2013 (Ex.P-9) and after due investigation filed charge-sheet against appellants for offence under Sections 302, 323, 34 IPC. Accused-Ravindra was charged for offence under Sections 302 & 324 IPC and accused-Surendra was charged for offence under Sections 302, 324 & 34 IPC. On the basis of said report, police lodged FIR No.409/2013 (Ex.P-9) and after due investigation filed charge-sheet against appellants for offence under Sections 302, 323, 34 IPC. Accused-Ravindra was charged for offence under Sections 302 & 324 IPC and accused-Surendra was charged for offence under Sections 302, 324 & 34 IPC. Both the accused-appellants denied the charges and sought trial, upon which, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 28 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. In defence, two documents were exhibited. Accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the arguments, accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as herein above stated, against which, these appeals have been filed. 4. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that the complainant- Jagdish (PW-3) who is brother-in-law of the deceased has turned hostile. The story now rests on the statements of PW-4 (Arpit Saini), PW-6 (Rishi Sharma) & PW-9 (Himmat Singh). It is contended that all these witnesses are residing at a distance of five kms. from the alleged place of occurrence. They are chance witnesses. It is also contended that no enmity has been pointed out. There is no motive whatsoever for committing the said offence. It is also contended that as per the FIR, at 09:30 pm, Arpit Saini (PW-4), Himmat Singh (PW-9) and Rishi Sharma (PW-6) dropped Sunil Choudhary @ Sonu at police line in front of Tank School. As per these witnesses, the incident took place at the same place, however, in the site plan (Ex.P-13), the place of occurrence is not shown in front of Tank School. It is also contended that as per the prosecution case, the deceased was carried in a car owned by Himmat Singh (PW-9), but neither the vehicle has been seized nor any blood has been recovered from the seats of the car belonging to Himmat Singh. It is also contended that as per the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the incident took place in front of house of the deceased. No justification has been given as to why family members of the deceased were not informed. It is also contended that as per the FIR, second unknown person gave beating with fists & legs to the deceased, however, deceased has not sustained any contusions, bruises or abrasions on his person. No justification has been given as to why family members of the deceased were not informed. It is also contended that as per the FIR, second unknown person gave beating with fists & legs to the deceased, however, deceased has not sustained any contusions, bruises or abrasions on his person. It is argued that since lodger of the FIR who is related to the deceased has turned hostile, the prosecution case does not stand and the learned Trial Court has erred in convicting the accused appellants. 5. It is also contended that the recovered articles were sent to FSL after one month from the date when they were deposited in the Malkhana and when the recovered articles were handed over by the Malkhana Incharge to the carrier, it remained with the carrier for a day and then he gave the same for FSL. The chances of tampering with the articles thus cannot be ruled out. It is also contended that one of the recovery witness has not been examined. It is also contended that as per Investigating Officer-Hazari Lal (PW-14), the recovered knife was having a groove on one side and the width of the blade was just one centimeter. He has also admitted that no opinion was taken from the doctor to assert that the knife which was recovered was used for commission of the offence. It is also contended that Jagdish (PW-3) in his cross-examination has clearly stated that accused did not cause any injury to his brother-in-law. It is also contended that Arpit Saini (PW-4) was already having a stitched wound at the time when he was examined by the doctor. As to where he initially showed himself is not coming from the evidence. As per this witness, his clothes were also stained with blood, but the same have also not been recovered by the police and the possibility that he stabbed the deceased thus cannot be ruled out. It is also contended that Arpit Saini (PW-4) as well as the deceased both were into Real Estate business and the possibility of him being involved in the alleged offence was not investigated by the police. It is also contended that Rishi Sharma (PW-6) in his cross-examination has admitted that he was with the police personnel in the hospital for entire night, still he did not tell them about the incident. It is also contended that Rishi Sharma (PW-6) in his cross-examination has admitted that he was with the police personnel in the hospital for entire night, still he did not tell them about the incident. Thus, this witness is not a reliable witness. With regard to Himmat Singh (PW-9), it is contended that Himmat Singh in his cross-examination has admitted that Surendra did not cause any injury to the deceased and that he was not having any enmity with the deceased. 6. Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on Jeeva vs. State of Rajasthan D.B. Criminal Appeal No.296/2019 decided by the Rajasthan High Court on 13.10.2020, Harjit Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (2002) AIR (SC) 3040, Ishwar Singh Vs. State of U.P. Criminal Appeal Nos.6 & 21/1975, Ummed Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2017) 2 RLW 1513, State of Gujarat Vs. Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave (2021) 2 SCC 735 , Kashinath Baban Palkar Vs. State of Maharashtra Criminal Appeal No.591/1993 decided on 09.06.1995, Buta Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1991) 2 SCC 612 . 7. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed these appeals. It is contended that FIR was lodged immediately after the incident. Name of Accused- Ravindra is appearing in the FIR. Blood stained clothes and a knife have been recovered at the instance of accused-Ravindra and merely because Jagdish (PW-3) has turned hostile, it cannot be said that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused-appellants. It is also contended that minor discrepancies in the statement cannot be made a ground for acquitting the accused. It is also contended that learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence and has rightly come to the conclusion with regard to guilt of the accused. 8. We have considered the contentions and have carefully scanned through the evidence. 9. In the initial report that was lodged by Jagdish (PW-3), the allegation was levelled against Ravindra and one unknown person. No enmity whatsoever has been shown between the deceased and the accused-appellants. As per the charge which have been framed, the incident is said to have been taken place in front of Tank School, Police Line, Ajmer, however, as per the evidence adduced by Arpit Saini (PW-4), Rishi Sharma (PW-6) and Himmat Singh (PW-9), the incident is stated to have taken place in front of the house of the deceased. As per the charge which have been framed, the incident is said to have been taken place in front of Tank School, Police Line, Ajmer, however, as per the evidence adduced by Arpit Saini (PW-4), Rishi Sharma (PW-6) and Himmat Singh (PW-9), the incident is stated to have taken place in front of the house of the deceased. Sumer Singh (PW-7) has admitted that from the three-way junction, where the said incident took place, from there, house of the deceased is not visible. From the evidence adduced it is revealed that Arpit Saini (PW-4), Rishi Sharma (PW-6) and Himmat Singh (PW-9) went to the house of Sunil Choudhary (deceased) and left him at the house and at that time, Jagdish was standing outside the house and they were talking to each other when the assailants came. 10. On perusal of the site plan (Ex.P-13), house of the deceased as well as Tank School is not shown. Thus, the place of occurrence as mentioned in the site plan (Ex.P-13), is not matching with the place mentioned by Arpit Saini (PW-4), Rishi Sharma (PW-6) and Himmat Singh (PW-9). As per Ex.P-8 (written report), the other unknown person gave beating to the deceased with his fists & legs, however, Jagdish (PW-3), Arpit Saini (PW-4), Rishi Sharma (PW-6) and Himmat Singh (PW-9) have stated before the Court that Surendra has not caused any injury to the deceased. Thus, the initial story of the prosecution that an unknown person gave beating to the deceased is not tallying with the evidence adduced before the Court. The conduct of the witnesses in not informing the wife of the deceased about the incident when the incident is said to have taken place in front of the house of the deceased, also casts doubt on the veracity of these witnesses, more particularly, Jagdish (PW-3) who happens to be brother of the deceased’s wife. Arpit Saini (PW-4) has admitted that in front of the place of occurrence, there was a hospital but they did not take him to that hospital. Not taking the deceased to the nearby hospital and taking him to a distant hospital also creates shadow of doubt on the conduct of the witnesses. Arpit Saini (PW-4) has admitted that in front of the place of occurrence, there was a hospital but they did not take him to that hospital. Not taking the deceased to the nearby hospital and taking him to a distant hospital also creates shadow of doubt on the conduct of the witnesses. Non-recovery of the blood stained clothes of Arpit Saini (PW-4), non-seizure of the vehicle in which the deceased was carried and non-recovery of blood stained seat cover of the vehicle, also casts doubt on the prosecution story. Rishi Sharma (PW-6) has admitted that he was at hospital with the police personnel for the entire night but he did not inform the police personnel about the occurrence. He has also admitted that even when the dispute took place in front of the house of Sunil Choudhary (deceased), he did not inform his wife and children. He has also admitted that no one came from the house at the time of occurrence. The incident is said to have occurred at around 09:30-09:45 pm and it is indeed strange that no one came to the place, which further strengthens the case of the defence that the incident did not take place in front of the house of Sunil. Rishi Sharma (PW-6) has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not seen Surendra at the place of occurrence. Jagdish (PW-3) has turned hostile. Arpit Saini (PW-4) and Himmat Singh (PW-9) have also not assigned any injuries to Surendra. Thus, prosecution has utterly failed to establish the presence of Surendra at the place of occurrence. 11. As to where the occurrence took place is under a cloud of doubt for the very reason that as per the site plan (Ex.P-13), it took place at three way junction, whereas Himmat Singh (PW-9) has stated that the house of the deceased was at a distance of 200-250 yards from Tank School. As per the charge which have been framed, the incident took place in front of Tank School. Thus, there is no clarity with regard to place of occurrence. The contention of learned Addl. As per the charge which have been framed, the incident took place in front of Tank School. Thus, there is no clarity with regard to place of occurrence. The contention of learned Addl. Government Advocate that the recovery of blood stained clothes and weapon of offence point towards the guilt of the accused cannot be accepted for the very reason that the recovered articles were sent to the FSL after a lapse of more than one month after deposition in the Malkhana and they remained with one Constable for one entire night before he handed over the same to the FSL. The possibility of tampering with the articles thus cannot be ruled out. Further, the knife was not put to the doctor to establish that the said knife was used by the accused for commission of the alleged offence. 12. It is also evident that the smeared soil was taken from a place which was far from the place of occurrence and no reason has been assigned for the same by the prosecution. No evidence has been adduced to establish that the accused was with Arpit Saini (PW-4), Rishi Sharma (PW-6) and Himmat Singh (PW-9) on the alleged date of incident and that they came to drop him at his residence. Admittedly, prosecution has not come up with any enmity or motive for the commission of alleged offence by the accused appellants. All the witnesses have specifically stated that Surendra was not present at the place of occurrence. The entire story thus, comes under a cloud of doubt and conviction in the above incident cannot be sustained. We, therefore, deem it proper to allow these appeals filed by the accused appellants while setting aside the judgment of conviction and Sentence dated 06.02.2017 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge, No.4, Ajmer. 13. Criminal Appeals are accordingly, allowed. Accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 14. Accused-Surendra S/o Ruparam is on bail. The bail bonds earlier submitted by Surendra S/o Ruparam are hereby cancelled. Appellant-Ravindra S/o Shri Ratnaram be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 15. District & Sessions Judge, No.4, Ajmer. 13. Criminal Appeals are accordingly, allowed. Accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 14. Accused-Surendra S/o Ruparam is on bail. The bail bonds earlier submitted by Surendra S/o Ruparam are hereby cancelled. Appellant-Ravindra S/o Shri Ratnaram be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 15. Accused-appellants are directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each and a surety bond in the like amount in accordance with Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. before the 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 appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The bail bond will be effective for a period of six months. 16. Record of the Trial Court be returned back forthwith.