Judgment : BHUWAN GOYAL, J. 1. The appellant – State of Rajasthan has preferred instant appeal under Section 378(i)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the Judgment and Order dated 11.06.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No.08/1996 (74/1993) (State of Rajasthan vs. Vidyadhar @ Badru), whereby accused-respondent was acquitted for the offences under Sections 302 & 307 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . 2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of present appeal are that on 01.10.1992, complainant – Omprakash (P.W. 1) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) to Shri Bhagwan Singh, S.H.O. Police Station Nawalgarh at the place of incident to the effect that tonight at about 12 o'clock, he was sleeping in his house, suddenly he heard noise of women and children in Hari Singh's mansion (Haweli), then he woke up and called Hariprasad and Sheokaran. All three of them came to Hari Singh's mansion, the door was closed, sound of hitting was coming from inside, therefore, Sheokaran and Prakash climbed up the mansion from behind. After taking down the door, they came inside, then Vidyadhar who had a Rapari (Gandasi) in his hand, was beating Subhita badly. When he climbed the roof to escape after seeing them, then Sheokaran and others caught him; they brought him down to the courtyard from the roof, then they saw with the battery, Subhita was lying in the courtyard of the mansion in a pool of blood, she had several injuries on her head, neck, hands, mouth and face; there were three children on the cot, who were screaming. They saw them, they found that children were having severe injuries on their heads, necks and hands and blood was flowing; then many people from the village gathered, they caught Vidhadhar and made him sit outside. Subhita had passed away, He asked to make a phone to report to the police station, now you came to the site etc. 3. On the basis of said written report, an F.I.R. No.184/1992 (Ex.P/13) came to be registered at the Police Station Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. During course of investigation, minor Ankur died during treatment. 3. On the basis of said written report, an F.I.R. No.184/1992 (Ex.P/13) came to be registered at the Police Station Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. During course of investigation, minor Ankur died during treatment. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused-respondent for the offences under Sections 302 , 326, 307 & 324 of I.P.C. before the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, who took cognizance of aforesaid offences against accused-respondent and committed the case to the court of Sessions, from where it was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu (for short ‘learned trial court’ hereinafter). 4. After hearing arguments on the point of charges, trial court framed charges against accused-respondent for the offences under Sections 302 & 307 of I.P.C. The accused-respondent did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and got documents exhibited from Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/28 to prove its case. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, which he denied and stated that prosecution evidence was false; there was dispute over agricultural field, he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. The accused-respondent did not produce any oral evidence but got exhibited documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/6 in his defence. 5. Learned trial court, thereafter, proceeded to hear arguments of the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, appreciated the evidence available on record and delivered impugned judgment dated 11.06.1998, acquitting accused-respondent for the alleged offences, as stated above. Aggrieved with the same, present appeal has been filed by the appellant – State before this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant – State of Rajasthan has submitted that prosecution has produced cogent evidence on record and established commission of murder of deceased Subhita and Ankur and causing grievous injuries to Satpal, by the accused-respondent, but the trial Court has erred in not believing testimony deposed by the prosecution witnesses including eye-witnesses and wrongly acquitted accused- respondent for alleged offences without any cogent reason. He has, therefore, prayed that this appeal filed by the appellant-State may be allowed and the judgment passed by the trial Court be set aside. 8. He has, therefore, prayed that this appeal filed by the appellant-State may be allowed and the judgment passed by the trial Court be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent has opposed appeal and submitted that prosecution utterly failed to establish motive of the accused-respondent to commit murder of Subhita and Ankur and causing grievous injuries to Satpal. There is no eye-witness of incident of murder in this case. No recovery of weapon of offence was affected from accused-respondent. He has also submitted that the trial court after appreciating entire material as well as evidence available on record has rightly passed the judgment impugned herein, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through impugned judgment and have minutely sifted through the evidence available on record. 10. In the case in hand, as per prosecution story, accused- respondent caused grievous injuries to deceased Subhita and Ankur with Gandasi and murdered them and also caused injuries to Satpal and as per F.I.R. (Ex.P/13), this incident was witnessed by eye-witnesses viz. Omprakash son of Gajanand, Hariprasad, Sheokaran and Prakash. A perusal of the statement of P.W. 1 – Omprakash son of Gajanand reveals that in his cross-examination, he has stated that it was a dark night; it was dark inside the mansion as well. He has also stated that he did not see accused assaulting with his own eyes. P.W. 2 – Sheokaran has stated in his cross-examination that he did not see accused assaulting; it was a dark night. P.W. 7 – Hariprasad has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 30.09.1992, he was sleeping in his house. Around midnight, Omprakash Tailor called him and said that there was some noise coming from the house of Hari Singh, then he and Omprakash Tailor went towards house of Hari Singh and his brother Sheokaran, Omprakash son of Chimnaram and Surendra also came behind them. They opened the door and went inside, Subhita, Ankur, Satpal were found injured in the house. Thus, from the statement of this witness, it is clear that he did not see with his eyes the accused-respondent assaulting anyone. They opened the door and went inside, Subhita, Ankur, Satpal were found injured in the house. Thus, from the statement of this witness, it is clear that he did not see with his eyes the accused-respondent assaulting anyone. In this context, it is also worth mentioning that a perusal of police statement of Hariprasad (Ex.D/5) reveals that same was recorded on 20.10.1992 i.e. after 20 days of the incident. 11. It is pertinent to note here that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Bhavan Patel & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1979 AIR 135 , has observed as under :- "In the instant case, some of the main reasons given by the trial court could not be effectively and rationally dispelled. One of such reasons, which cast a cloud on the credibility of the prosecution evidence, was that there was inordinate delay of several hours on the part of the police in recording the statement which was treated as F.I.R. and further undue delay in recording the statements of the alleged eye- witnesses by the investigating officer, and no credible explanation of these delays was forthcoming. Although these witnesses were or could be available for examination when the investigating officer visited the scene of occurrence or soon thereafter, their statements were recorded on the following day. Such delay may not, by themselves, amount to a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. But they may assume such a character if there are circumstances to suggest that the investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eye-witnesses to be introduced. A catena of circumstances which lend such sinister significance to these delays, exists in the instant case, which inevitably lead to the conclusion that the prosecution story was conceived and constructed after a good deal of deliberation, in a shady setting highly redolent of doubt and suspicion." 12. A catena of circumstances which lend such sinister significance to these delays, exists in the instant case, which inevitably lead to the conclusion that the prosecution story was conceived and constructed after a good deal of deliberation, in a shady setting highly redolent of doubt and suspicion." 12. Applying the ratio of law laid down in the case of Ganesh Bhavan Patel (supra), in the case in hand, it is an admitted position that police statements of P.W. 7 – Hariprasad was recorded after 20 days of the incident and there is no evidence on record to show that after the incident, said witness had immediately left the village and was not available for recording his statement, therefore, in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, statement of P.W. 7 does not appear to be worth credence. So far as Prakash is concerned, neither his name was mentioned in the calendar of witnesses nor he has been produced by the prosecution in the witness box. Thus, from the evidence available on record, it has not been established that aforesaid three witnesses were eye- witnesses of the incident in present case and nor they had witnessed accused assaulting the deceased. 13. Now if we examine evidence of other prosecution witnesses viz. PW-3 Surendra, PW-4 Omprakash son of Chimna Ram, PW-5 Bhinwa Ram, PW-6 Premchand, PW -8 Chunnilal then, first of all, names of all these witnesses were not mentioned in the written report (Ex.P/1) among those who witnessed the incident. Besides, P.W. 3 - Surendra has stated in his cross-examination that Omprakash son Gajanand and Sheokaran had reached there before him. The witnesses Omprakash son Gajanand and Sheokaran who have been examined as PW-1 and PW-2, have stated in their cross-examination that they did not see accused assaulting. Similarly, PW-4 Omprakash in his statement has stated that he went there when Omprakash and Sheokaran created a ruckus, at that time, Vidyadhar told that he will beat and beat. But in his police statement (Ex.D/3), he has stated that he went there when his mother woke him up and told him. Similarly, in his police statement (Ex.D/3), it was not mentioned that he had told that he will beat and beat. But in his police statement (Ex.D/3), he has stated that he went there when his mother woke him up and told him. Similarly, in his police statement (Ex.D/3), it was not mentioned that he had told that he will beat and beat. PW-5 Bhinwaram in his statement has stated that he only saw dead bodies of Subhita and Ankur lying in the mansion and did not see Vidyadhar accused there. This witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution. From the statement of this witness, it reveals that neither he saw any incident from his own eyes nor Vidyadhar was present there. PW-6 Premchand in his examination-in-chief has stated that Hari Prasad told him that Vidyadhar had beaten Subhita and children, which shows that he was not an eye-witness and deposed hearsay version of the incident. Similarly, PW-8 Chunnilal has also stated in his examination-in-chief that when he opened the door and went inside, he saw injuries on the person of Subhita who was lying dead, which shows that he too was not an eye-witness of the incident in this case. Thus, from the evidence on record, it shows that prosecution story about all the above witnesses seeing the incident with their own eyes has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also worth mentioning in the case that the police statements of PW-6 Premchand, PW-7 Hariprasad and PW-8 Chunnilal (Ex.D/4, Ex.D/5 & Ex.D/6) were recorded after delay of 20 days of the incident on 20.10.1992 and no reason for recording their statement late has been furnished by the prosecution. 14. So far as weapon of offence i.e. Gandasi is concerned, neither recovery memo of said weapon of offence has been exhibited by the prosecution nor weapon of offence i.e. Gandasi was produced in the court. Even, no motive of the accused- respondent committing the offence has been established by the prosecution. It is also noteworthy in the case at hand that Satpal, who was injured in the incident and the Investigation Officer, were not produced in the court. Thus, from the above evidence available on record, the prosecution has not been able to prove its story against accused-respondent beyond all reasonable doubt. 15. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the judgment impugned passed by the trial court. 16. Accordingly, present criminal appeal is dismissed. Thus, from the above evidence available on record, the prosecution has not been able to prove its story against accused-respondent beyond all reasonable doubt. 15. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the judgment impugned passed by the trial court. 16. Accordingly, present criminal appeal is dismissed. The Judgment dated 11.06.1998 passed by the trial court is affirmed. 17. The record of the learned trial court be sent back forthwith.