JUDGMENT : Praveer Bhatnagar, J. 1. The State has preferred this criminal appeal against the judgment dated 20.07.1998, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, in Sessions Case No.28/1997 (145/1997), whereby the respondent Nos.1 to 4 were acquitted under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 323 /34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, " IPC "). 2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that PW-9 Kanhaiyalal gave a Parcha Bayan, Exhibit P-14 to the effect that his elder brother Hukumchand was operating a 'Dhaba' (restaurant) on his land, situated in Junakheda near Tirahe Balaji Road and at about 11:00 P.M., he came to meet his brother, Hukumchand, at his Dhaba where his brother's servant Jankilal Meena, Chhotulal, and Rameshchand were also present. It is also stated in the Parcha Bayan that Kailash Chandra and Roshanlal were eating food and consuming liquor. It is further stated that Balchand Bheel’s truck was parked on Junakheda Road, and his driver was sleeping in the truck. While eating food, Kailash Meena started abusing, and upon hearing his voice, truck driver Banney Singh came there and took Kailash in his truck. After 15 to 20 minutes, Kailash took out a 'tommy' (tool) from the truck, and Roshanlal, Rameshwar, and Ramgopal also came with sticks in their hands and started abusing. It is also described in Parcha Bayan that his brother Hukumchand went out of the Dhabha and tried to pacify them then accused Rampal hit Hukumchand’s head with a stick and Kailash also assaulted with a 'tommy' and took the deceased to Baba Ji’s Dham where deceased fell and they continued to assault the deceased with sticks & tommy. It is also mentioned in the parcha bayan that upon intervention Ramgopal caused injury to Kanhiyalal's left wrist and right shoulder with the aid of a stick. The four men, believing his brother to be dead, ran towards Balram Patidar's field and thereafter the restaurant's servants picked up his brother- Hukamchand and gave him water to drink. A short while later, a police jeep arrived, carried the deceased Hukamchand to Asnawar Hospital & got the deceased admitted, however, the deceased died soon after his hospitalisation. 3. On the Parcha Bayan, Exhibit P-14, Case No.153/1996, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was registered. A short while later, a police jeep arrived, carried the deceased Hukamchand to Asnawar Hospital & got the deceased admitted, however, the deceased died soon after his hospitalisation. 3. On the Parcha Bayan, Exhibit P-14, Case No.153/1996, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was registered. After investigation, the Police charge-sheeted Kailash Chandra, Ramgopal, Roshanlal and Rameshwar under read with , 323/34 of . 4. The learned Trial Court, after framing charges against the accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 323 of IPC commenced the trial. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded; however, the accused persons did not submit any defence evidence. 5. The learned Trial Court, after hearing both the parties vide impugned judgment dated 20.07.1998, acquitted the respondents Kailash Chandra, Roshanlal, Rameshwar under Section 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and acquitted the accused Ram Gopal under /34 and Section 323 of . 6. The State has filed the present appeal against the respondents. 7. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.4- Rameshwar expired and the proceedings qua the respondent No.4- Rameshwar stands abated. 8. It is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court erred in acquitting the respondents under Section 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC . It is argued that although the material eye witnesses, PW-1 Chotulak, PW-2 Janaki Lal, and PW-3 Baney Singh, have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution's story, however, the sole testimony of PW-9 Kanhaiyalal, who gave the Parcha Bayan, Exhibit P-14, has supported the prosecution's account. The learned trial Court has not considered and appreciated the evidence of the Parcha Bayan in its entirety. Further, PW-9, in his examination-in-chief, has categorically stated that his brother, the deceased Hukamchand, was assaulted by respondents and sustained injury; however, the learned trial Court ignored his version. It is also argued that there is no gainsaying to the fact that the death of deceased- Hukamchand was homicidal, as 16 injuries were found on his body. In the postmortem report, it has been specifically mentioned that there were several incised wounds and abrasions over the various body parts of the deceased and the cause of death was the cumulative effect of the injuries. 9. In the postmortem report, it has been specifically mentioned that there were several incised wounds and abrasions over the various body parts of the deceased and the cause of death was the cumulative effect of the injuries. 9. Therefore, the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court deserves to be set aside and the respondents are liable to be convicted and sentenced accordingly. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents justifies the order passed by the learned trial Court. It is contended that the learned trial Court has elaborated on the probative value of testimony of PW-9 Kanhaiyalal and did not find his testimony credible. The trial Court appreciated the evidence of PW-9 on sound principles of law and has provided cogent reasons for disbelieving the testimony of PW-9 Kanihyalal. Furthermore, the presence of the witness at the scene of the occurrence is highly doubtful and upon cross- examination it was revealed that his testimony is entirely unconvincing. 11. Heard and perused the record. 12. The material eye-witnesses, notably PW-1 Chhotulal, PW-2 Jankilal and PW-3 Baney Singh have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution's story. 13. The other material witness, PW-9 Kanhaiyalal, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that Kailash Chandra started abusing and Baney Singh came from the truck and tried to pacify Kailash Chandra. Thereafter, Kailash Chandra came along with Ram Gopal, Roshanlal and Rameshwar and with the aid of tommy, Kailash Chandra hit the head of the deceased- Hukamchand. He also gave a blow with the stick on the head of the deceased Hukamchand and the other accused, Roshanlal and Rameshwar, also started beating Hukamchand. Thereafter, they dragged Hukamchand near Babaji Ki Tapri and when he tried to intervene, Ramgopal caused injury to his right shoulder and left wrist with the stick. He has also deposed that thereafter, a Police Jeep came and took his brother- Hukumchand to the Hospital and all the accused ran away in the field of Balram Patidar. In his deposition, he has also stated that he knows Ramgopal and Rameshwar. The witness has also deposed that his father accompanied the deceased in a Police Jeep and the deceased also narrated the story to his father. The deceased- Hukamchand died in the hospital. He has also stated that the Police recorded his version, Exhibit P-14, which bears his signature. 14. The witness has also deposed that his father accompanied the deceased in a Police Jeep and the deceased also narrated the story to his father. The deceased- Hukamchand died in the hospital. He has also stated that the Police recorded his version, Exhibit P-14, which bears his signature. 14. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the deceased’s left-hand finger was cut and that the injury was caused with the aid of a sword. He has also deposed that the respondent Rameshwar, was having a sword in his hand as well as a stick. He has further stated that he did not state in the examination-in-chief that Rameshwar was armed with a sword. Furthermore, during his cross-examination, he said that he had been serving for the last three months in Bhawanimandi and frequently visited Hukam Chand’s Dhaba. During his cross-examination, he has demonstrated his inability to confirm who was residing in 'Babaji Ki Tapri'. 15. He has further deposed that two 'babas' were residing and probably one was Radheyshyam Das and he does not remember the name of the other Baba. He has further deposed that he and his father accompanied the deceased Hukumchand in a Police Jeep, however, the deceased died soon after he reached the Hospital. It is also stated that the report was lodged at 01:30 A.M. and he also showed the presence of one Baba, who witnessed the entire incident, who has also said that Ramgopal had no enmity with the deceased. 16. PW-15 Bhanwar Singh, who is the Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination, has stated that he does not remember the time when he proceeded from the Police Station to the place of the incident. He has further stated that he obtained telephonic information about the fighting and based on that information, he arrived at the scene of the occurrence. He has shown his inability to name the person who gave the information; however, he has admitted that the information furnished to the Police Station may have been recorded in the 'Rojnamcha'. He has also stated that the Police Station is only 8 to 10 minutes away from the place of occurrence and when he arrived at the scene of the incident, Hukamchand was outside the Dhaba and they immediately took him to the hospital and admitted him. The deceased Hukamchand died within 10 to 15 minutes after admission to the hospital. He has also stated that the Police Station is only 8 to 10 minutes away from the place of occurrence and when he arrived at the scene of the incident, Hukamchand was outside the Dhaba and they immediately took him to the hospital and admitted him. The deceased Hukamchand died within 10 to 15 minutes after admission to the hospital. He expressed unawareness about when he arrived at the Hospital. He has also stated that PW-9 Kanhaiyalal was also present with him in the Jeep. He has also stated that whatever Kanhaiyalal stated was written in Exhibit P-14 and nothing has been left out and the fact that Hukamchand was unconscious was admitted. 17. After perusing the statement of PW-9 Kanhaiyalal along with the statement of PW-15 Bhanwar Singh, it is apparent that when Hukamchand was taken from the place of occurrence to the Hospital, he was not conscious. PW-9, in his deposition, stated that his father accompanied Hukamchand to the hospital in a Police Jeep; however, PW-15, an Investigating Officer, said that Kanhaiyalal was present in the Jeep. PW-9 Kanhaiyalal, in his deposition, has also stated that in the Jeep, the deceased Hukamchand stated to his father that the accused caused injuries to him. Indubitably, it is never a prosecution story that the deceased father also arrived after being informed and the deceased had told his father about the incident. Thus, the version of the witness showing the presence of his father and accompanying the deceased in a police jeep seems to be highly doubtful. The investigating officer, PW-15 Bhanwar Singh, neither showed the presence of the deceased father in a police Jeep nor stated that the deceased had narrated the incident before him to his father. Further, he has explicitly stated that the deceased was unconscious; therefore, the version of PW 9 Kanhiyalal showing his father's presence and the deceased's utterance of the incident is not reliable. 18. Similarly, PW-9 Kanhaiyalal, in his cross-examination, has stated that Hukamchand’s left-hand finger was cut and accused Rameshwar caused the injury with the sword and was also having the stick; this version of the witness was never the prosecution's story. 18. Similarly, PW-9 Kanhaiyalal, in his cross-examination, has stated that Hukamchand’s left-hand finger was cut and accused Rameshwar caused the injury with the sword and was also having the stick; this version of the witness was never the prosecution's story. The prosecution has not alleged that accused-respondent- Rameshwar was having a sword and a stick with him and with both, he caused injuries to the deceased; therefore, the version of PW-9 Kanhaiyalal stating himself to be an eye-witness seems to be highly doubtful. The post-mortem report shows that six injuries caused to the deceased were incised wounds. It appears that the prosecution witness, PW-9 Kanhaiyalal to justify the injuries sustained by the deceased, has deposed that the injuries were caused by the sword. It is also pertinent to mention that PW-15 Bhanwar Singh, the Investigating Officer, has not placed on record the information received at the police station regarding the incident. The prosecution has suppressed the said information; the information received at the Police Station about the incident may reveal the factual aspects about, who provided the information, who reached the place of occurrence, and who was accompanying the deceased in the Jeep. It is also relevant to mention here that the deceased died as soon as he reached the hospital; however, the Parchabayan, Exhibit P-14 given by PW-9 Kanhaiyalal were not recorded by PW-15 Bhanwar Singh but rather by PW-10 Shodhan Singh, who was a head constable at the relevant time and that too in the police station. The investigating officer could not provide a plausible explanation as to why despite the presence of PW-9 in the Hospital, no report was submitted to him and what prevented him from recording his statement. Thus, the aforesaid aspects caused severe suspicion about the presence of PW-9 Kanhiyalal at the place of occurrence, albeit the testimony of the sole witness can be relied upon; however, it requires a very minute scrutiny, and the court must be more wary if the witness is a close relative or a chance witness. It is admitted that PW-9 Kanhaiyalal is the real brother of the deceased and not residing or operating any business near the place of occurrence, but instead works at Bhawani Mandi, a place not in the vicinity of the place of occurrence; therefore, his presence at the spot was not natural, and the prosecution has miserably failed to establish his presence. 19. 19. The record also shows that the other eyewitnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution's story. 20. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Investigating Officer never interrogated the deceased’s Hukamchand father, nor was his statement recorded in the course of the investigation. The PW-9 has also shown the presence of some 'baba'; however, the Police have not recorded the statements of any other eyewitnesses apart from PW-1 Chhotulal, PW-2 Jankilal, and PW-3 Banney Singh. 21. Upshot to the above discussion, it is safe to conclude that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of star witness PW.9 and acquitted the respondents under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC . 22. Accordingly, we do not find any force in the appeal; the appeal is hereby dismissed.