JUDGMENT
Madam, J.
1. This criminal appeal arises out of judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge Kishangarh whereby each of the appellants (Bhanwari, Harji, & Goma) has been convicted and sentenced Under Section 147 IPC to undergo two years R-I, and Under Section 302/149 IPC to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- (in default, further 6 months’ RI).
2. The prosecution launched against the appellants has resulted out of a report (ExP10) lodged on 25.7.99 at PS Arai (Ajmer) by Ranglal (PW8) alleging therein that his mother Chandri had gone to look after their agricultural field as usual while he had gone to attend meeting of Gram Panchayat and when he returned back in the evening at about 5 PM then Kalu (PW 4) gave out that Chandri was dragged and thrown into well by Bhanwari, Harji, Gheesa Bhagchand, Goma alongwith their wives, Teju & Amra, by forming an unlawful assembly having common intention at about 3.30 PM. On such a report crime (FIR No. 106/99 ExP11) was registered for offence punishable Under Sections 147, 149 and 302 IPC. After usual investigation a challan was filed against the appellants and the investigation was kept pending Under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to which case was committed by the learned Additional Judl. Magistrate Kishangarh to the court of Sessions. The appellants were charged for offences Under Sections 147 and 302 IPC. As many as 12 witnesses were produced by the prosecution in support of its case besides getting nine documents exhibited. The appellants were examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence they got exhibited statements recorded Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Kalu (Ex.D.1), Bishanlal alias Kishanlal (PW6) (Ex.D.2) & other documents. After completion of trial, hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court convicted & sentenced each of the appellants as indicated above. Hence this appeal.
3. Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar Sr. Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Praveen Balwada, appearing for appellants contended that as per first information report (Ex.P10) eleven persons including five women are alleged to have dragged Chandri (deceased) around 3.30 PM on 25.7.99 and then thrown into the well, and such an information is based only on the version given out to informant Ranglal (PW8) by Kalu (PW4) and admittedly the prosecution case hinges on solitary witness (PW4) & Kishanlal (PW6) while two of prosecution witnesses Harkaran (PW9) & Rodu (PW10) having turned hostile did not support the prosecution and further as per first informant (PW8) he had animosity with the accused persons who had left the scene of occurrence in a tractor of co-accused Teju, inasmuch as out of 11 accused persons having similar allegations, only these appellants have been charged by keeping investigation pending Under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. According to Shri Dhankhar, testimony of Kishanlal cannot be accepted because his name did not find mention in FIR as eye witness, Kalu (PW4) (sole eye witness) did not hold him (PW6) as ocular witness either in police statement Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D.1) or court statement, nor Ranglal holds but him (PW6) as witness to the incident; further according to him (PW6) his police statement was recorded after two and half months of the incident but he failed to explain as to why he did not give ocular account of the incident to the villagers or any information to Ranglal (PW8); that apart as per him (PW6) the incident was over before 12 noon as he returned home by then, inasmuch as even as per Nathulal Morya (Addl. SP) (PW 5), he (PW 6) was not held out as eye witness to the incident. Thus according to Shri Dhankhar. Kishanlal (PW 6) an old man of 65 years was a chance witness, rather details as to the incident given out by him (PW 6) are sketchy and such a conduct on his part makes his testimony totally discredit worthy by impeaching his credibility.
4. To discard testimony of sole eye witness Kalu (PW 4), Shri Dhankhar contended that the story as put by this eye witness as to the dragging of the deceased at the instance of eleven accused is belied by site plan (Ex P2) because there has been absence of marks of dragging at the place of occurrence having been not shown by the maker (IO) (PW 12) of the site plan, inasmuch as despite there being admission in the evidence of Phusaram (IO) (PW 12) as to existence of a wall of 6 ft. in height of alike stone barrier, chances of Kalu (PW 4) having seen the ocular account of the incident from his agricultural field being situated to the east of the well, so also at a considerable distance of about 1 km as per revenue map (Ex.D.3), were nay nil. Shri Dhankhar then urged that despite the first information being based on facts disclosed by Kalu (PW 4) to Ranglal, curiously enough he was not associated with site plan (Ex P2) nor his statement was recorded very day during investigating, rather he (PW 4) resiled from his police statement (Ex.D.1).
5. It is the case on behalf of the appellants that Ranglal (PW 8), his mother Chandri (deceased) and Bhanwari (accused) are closely related. Chandri (deceased) was mother-in-law of Bhanwari (accused). Shri Dhankhar Vociferously contended that Ranglal (PW 8) has gone to speak lie even against the judicial record by stating that neither his father Chhagna nor Chandri (deceased) had ever lodged any report against him nor criminal cases were ever pending, whereas FIR No. 85/92 was registered at the behest of Chandri (deceased) against him (PW8) while FIR No. 26/91 was at the behest of Chhagna; and all these facts are stated by Pusharam (PW 12) (IO), and such a conduct also makes his testimony doubtful.
6. Shri Dhankhar then contended that according to endorsement put on FIR (ExP11) crime was registered at PS Arai at 10 PM on 25.7.99 on written report (Ex.P10) of Ranglal (PW 8) while in his court statement he (PW 8) has completely changed the position by stating that the police first came to the village whereafter he went to the place of incident alongwith police where he gave the report (ExP10) which impeaches his credibility. Further as per Ranglal (PW 8) he instituted a revenue suit against Harji (appellant) Bhagchand & Gheesa (accused) which makes it clear that both the parties had inimical terms by reason of pendency of cases between them.
7. Lastly Shri Dhankhar contended hat significant aspect of the prosecution
evidence there is neither corroboration to the testimony of sole eye witness (PW 4) by
other’s versions whereas their versions are contradictory to each others. Statements
of the appellants Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. revealed a probable situation favouring with their
innocence. Shri Dhankhar mainly cited decisions in G.B. Patel v. State of Maharashtra
(1), Shrwan Singh v. State of Punjab (2) and Mohd. Iqbal Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (3).
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court and those conclusions according to him are based on well appreciation of the prosecution evidence and other material on record warranting no interference in the impugned conviction against each of the appellants.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record consisting of prosecution as well as defence version appearing in their evidence, with reference to their rival contentions. The medical evidence did not appear to have been disputed on behalf of the accused appellants during the course of hearing before this Court or even during trial. Ex.P6 to P9 relate to the arrest and search memoes of the accused appellants which have been admitted by their counsel before the trial Court.
10. However, we must have a look at the injuries found on the person of deceased during autopsy report (ExP1) prepared by the medical Board consisting of three doctors out of whom Dr. Rajesh Kumawat (PW1) has appeared to support the prosecution as to the cause of death being of homicidal in nature. Left lung was found with Lacerated wound about 3 cms. x 2cms. x 2 cms. on anteromedial aspect of midzone. Pleurae was found ruptured at fracture site and pleural cavity full of blood. Autopsy was conducted on 26.7.99 at 12.45 P.M. Following external injuries were found on the body of deceased –
1. Contusion 4″ x 1″ on front of the chest on the left side of sternum, around nipple region.
2. Multiple abrasions on left side of chest on mid clavicular & mid axillary line.
3. Left side Rib fractured, number 4th, 5th, 6th at costo chandral junction.
4. Multiple abrasions on the left side of abdominal wall on mid axillary line.
5. Lacerated wound measuring 5 cms. x 2′ cms. bonedeep with compound fracture of the lower 1/3rd of the left humerous.
6. Laceration 3 cms. x 2cms. x bonedeep on right knee joint.
7. Laceration 2 cms. x 2cms. x bonedeep on left knee joint.
8. Fracture of lower end of Right side of Tibia and Fibula.
9. Laceration 2cms. x 1cm. on left side of 4th toe.
11. According to the members of the Board, the cause of death is haemorrhagic shock as a result of massive traumatic injuries inflicted on various parts of body. All injuries are antemortem in nature. Dr. Rajesh Kumawat (PW1) has proved autopsy report (ExP1) so also cause of death assigned therein. Ratanlal (PW2) motbir witness to Site plan (ExP2) so also inquest report (Ex.P3) besides memo (Ex.P4) of delivery of the dead body has proved preparation of Ex.P.2, 3 & 4 in his presence at the site. Madanlal (PW3) motbir witness to second site plan (Ex.P5) proved preparation thereof in his presence. Both (PW2 & 3) were not cross examined by the defence. Mangu (PW7) is motbir witness to inquest report (ExP3). Harkaran (PW9) & Rodu (PW10) since denied to have seen dead body at the well so both were declared hostile, though they were attesting witnesses to inquest report (Ex.P3). Maniram (PW 11) attesting witness proved site plan (ExP5). All the attesting witnesses (except two (PW 9 & 10) who turned hostile) proved the dead body having been taken out of the well of Chhagna & Ranglal during preparation of its inquest report in their presence. Ranglal (PW8) proved lodging of first information report (ExP10) at his instance to the police, besides memoes of delivery of dead body (ExP4), site plan (ExP2), inquest report (ExP3) having been prepared in his presence so also of other attesting witnesses. He proved the contents of FIR (ExP10) which is stated to have been ascribed on the basis of information given out by Kalu (PW 4) to him at 5 PM when he returned back to home after having attended meeting of Gram Panchayat. According to him (PW 8), Kalu (PW 4) gave out that his mother (PW 8’s) was thrown into well by Harji, Gheesa, Kamra, Bhawari, Teju, and wives of Gheesa, Goma, Harji, Bhagchand and in all they were 11
persons. In cross examination he admitted that before going to the well, the police had
come to him and by that time, he had not given information, which he gave to the
police in the evening. In fact he was witness to prove his report lodged on the basis of
information by eye witness (PW 4), so also attesting witness to the memoes prepared
during investigation by the police. He has proved the contents of the report and
memoes and during cross examination to that extent his version has not been distorted
so as to discard his testimony.
12. Merely because during cross examination he denied to have any knowledge as to pendency or launching of criminal case against him at the instance of his father or mother (Chhagna or Chandri) in the year 1992 or prior to the present incident, his testimony in our considered view cannot be impeached. The credit of a witness can be impeached by proof of any statement which is inconsistent with any part of his evidence in court, as delineated in Section 153(3) of the Evidence Act by keeping in view while reading Section 145 which consists of two limbs. Under its first limb a witness may be cross examined as to his previous statement without such writing being shown to him. But second limb provides that if it is intended to contradict him by the recitals, his attention must before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. In fact the first limb does not envisage impeaching the credit of a witness, but it merely enables the opposite party to cross-examine the witness with reference to his previous statement. And if the witness disowns having made any statement which is inconsistent with his present stand in court, his testimony on that score would not be vitiated until the cross examiner proceeds to comply with the procedure prescribed in the second limb of Section 145.
13. Mere inconsistency in evidence is not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness. Section 155 of the Evidence Act provides scope for impeaching the credit of a witness by proof of an inconsistent former statement, whereas Section 155 itself denotes that all inconsistent statements were not sufficient to impeach the credit of a witness. Even a former statement seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not be sufficient to amount to contradiction obviously because only such inconsistent statement which is liable to be “contradicted” would affect the credit of a witness. That being so, Section 145 of the Evidence Act enables the cross examiner to use any former statement of the witness but it cautions that if it is intended to “contradict” the witness, the cross examiner is enjoined to comply with the formality prescribed therein, inasmuch as Section 162 Cr.P.C. also permits the cross examiner to use the previous statement of a witness (recorded Under Section 161 Cr.P.C) for the only limited purpose i.e. to ‘contradict’ the witness.
14. Hence it is settled law that to contradict a witness therefore must be to
discredit the particular version of the witness. Unless former statement has the potency
to discredit the present statement, even if the latter is at variance with the former to
some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness. There are bound to be
some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak in
details, therefore, a serious view being adopted on mere variations falling in the
narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as
between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial
scrutiny. Thus viewed, unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same
should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Even corroboration of
evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases and therefore, trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence.
(See Rammi v. State of MP (4), Leelaram v. State of Haryana (5).
15. The court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and in case such an element is satisfied it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the court to accept the stated evidence.
16. In the case at hand, this witness (PW 8) was not shown the FIR alleged to have been lodged against him by Chhagna or Chandri in the year 1992 or so, before cross examining him with a view to discredit his version. Hence his version relevant to the proof of his report and memoes of inquest or site plan prepared in his presence by the police during investigation cannot be thrown out of consideration for appreciation of evidence on record to hold the appellants guilty.
17. Similar is the position of Pusharam (IO) (PW 12) who has proved memoes prepared by him during investigation, such as Ex.P3 to P8 &P11. This witness (PW 12) proved that site plan (Ex.P5) bore signature of Goma (accused), and thumb impressions of Bhanwari (accused) and Harji (accused). It was prepared on 28.7.99 in their presence and as per description made of the site inspection plan (ExP5) the SHO PS Arai described the place marked “q” where the accused are admitted to have formed an unlawful assembly and dragging the deceased who then was thrown into the well thereby causing her death. This site plan and description made by Pusharam (PW 12) was proved by him and nothing was elicited to discredit his version, nor anything was asked during cross examining him for contradictions.
18. Kalu (PW 4) in chief examination deposed that there was squabbling in between mother-in-law (deceased) & daughter-in-law (accused) in the company and assembly consisting of Harji, Bhagchand, Teju, Gheesa, Amra, Coma, Harji’s & Coma’s wife and he was near the incident place; that firstly Bhanwari (accused) started squabbing and then all of them had beaten her (deceased) and by dragging, thrown her into the well. During cross-examination he (PW 4) deposed that he saw the incident from his field where he was standing, which was east to the well; that Chhagna is father of Rameshwar (Bhanwari’s husband) & Ranglal (PW8) and husband of Chandri (deceased).
19. In cross examination Kalu (PW4), deposed that he saw the incident from his field where he was sleeping and saw the deceased having been thrown into the well of Chhagna who was father of Rameshwar (husband of Bhanwari accused) & Ranglal (PW 8). He denied the suggestion of his field being situated at a distance of 1600 ft. from the place of occurrence but he deposed that his field was 100 meter away. In cross examination he denied to the defence’s suggestion again put as to his field being 600 paces away to the place of incident. In cross examination, he (PW 4) deposed that there had a squalling in between Chandri (deceased) & Bhanwari (accused) at the field 15 days’ prior to the impugned incident when Chandri had come to stand before the tractor so as to restrain from harvesting and this earlier incident was not given out by him because of the reason that the police did not ask him about previous incident, if any. He further deposed that at the time of incident he was doing one of agricultural works i.e. harvesting (Ninhan) at his field and that 15 minutes were taken by the accused to drag, beat and throw the deceased into well. As per cross examination, his field was situated on East to the place of incident, (well), just adjacent to which Bhanwari (accused) & Rameshwar’s field was situated; and he did not try to rescue but has been seeing the incident. He in cross examination admitted of being resident of Devpuri and next day upon the deadbody having taken out of the well by the police in his presence, and after investigation at the well, he went to Kishangarh via village Devpuri. Further he admitted of there having earthen heaped wall of 6 ft. in height at two sides of the well (east and west) of Chhagna (place of incident). Similarly, as per cross examination of Pusharam (PW 12) (IO) he could not say as to the suggestion of Kalu’s field being 1500 feet away to the well (place of incident) and there were stones laid in a heap upto 6 ft. in height alike wall at the well towards its east. As per cross examination of Pusharam (PW 12) (IO), since Chandri (deceased) was not allowed by Bhanwari to harvest at her field, her murder was done.
20. As scanned the prosecution evidence on record, we find that no doubt there were stones being laid on a heap towards east but in fact these stones heap was at the well itself, and rest of sides northern & southern were admittedly not covered. As per site inspection memo (Ex.P.2) prepared in presence of motbirs and other site plan (Ex.P.5) prepared in presence of accused, we find that at no eastern side of the well, “q”. mark is the place where Chandri was dragged and thrown into well; but just adjacent to place marked “q” no heap of stones is shown either in site inspection memo (Ex.P.2) or in site plan (Ex.P.5) or even in revenue map (Ex.D.3).
21. In order to impeach the prosecution witnesses during cross examination, cross examiner (defence counsel) merely cross examined either Kalu (PW 4) or Ranglal (PW 8) or Pusharam (PW 12) or Kishanlal (PW 6) but he failed to comply with requirement under second limb of Section 145 of the Evidence Act and he could not show aforesaid trioka site plans therefore on these scores the evidence of Kalu (PW 4 or Ranglal (PW 8) or Pusharam (PW 12) (IO) cannot be held to be vitiated so as to discard their testimony.
22. A concomitant reading and careful look at the aforesaid trioka site plans (Ex.2, P.5 & D3) makes it crystal clear that a heap of stones was not laid at the well resulting into any invisibility or difficulty to the eye witness (PW 4) for having seen the ocular account of the incident. It is not the defence case or even the prosecution during cross examination that north east side was full of covering the well whereas field of Kalu (PW 4) is shown towards north east to the well, to which the stones heap was not barring or putting any difficulty to his ocular account. Further obviously the squabbling had taken place in between the deceased & accused at the fields of Bhanwari (accused) marked as “F” in site plans (Ex.P.5) from where the deceased was being dragged to the well which was situated just corner to southern side of field of Bhanwari thus the well was at east southern corner of her field. Whereas, field of Kalu (PW 4) was just towards northern eastern side having open place to have ocular account from it with no hurdles of any alleged heap of stones or alike wall which was at the end to the southern eastern corner to Bhanwari’s field and mid centre of well covering east south corner. There was no considerable distance allegedly of 1 km whereas according to prosecution evidence consisting of PW 4 (Kalu), Ranglal (PW 8) or Pusharam (PW 12) field of Kalu was at a distance of 100 meter only from which the he could have clearly seen the ocular account of the incident of Chandri’s dragging, beating and throwing into well by the accused nor it can be said that Kalu was not associated at the time when the police was interrogating at the well while making investigation for taking out the dead body of the deceased or preparing the inquest or site plans next day to the incident; even otherwise merely because he was not associated with site plan, his whole of testimony as to the ocular account described by him cannot be held to be impeached or that his ocular evidence stood inspired with incredence. None of his police statement (Ex.D.1) was put so as to contradict during cross examination before the Court for informing that he stood resiled from his previous version given out to the police Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. except its portion marked A to B “dead body was floating over the water in the well.” This portion relates to the post incident facts only to which he denied to have given out to the police. Rest of his versions given out at the earliest point of time to the police though may be next day morning to the lodging of the report (Ex.P.10) & P. 11), are neither contradicted nor impeached by the defence by complying with second limb of Section 145 of the Evidence Act, rather his testimony is wholly reliable and inspires full credence so as to sustain the impugned conviction. Non-association with site plan may be a lapse on the part of investigating officer and that would not affect the credibility of testimony of this witness (PW 4) or (PW 8) or (PW I2-10).
23. Even in GB Patel v. State of Maharashtra (supra) relied by the defence counsel, the Apex Court observed that delay of a few hours, simpliciter, in recording the statements of eye witnesses may not, be itself, amount to a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, and it assumes such a character only in cases where there are concomitant 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. Further, in Mohd. Iqbal Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (supra) after having scrutiny of the evidence the Apex Court found that it bristled with inconsistencies and improbabilities and the witness had contradicted from his police statement which made him thoroughly unreliable and in view of glaring infirmities pointed out after discussion of the evidence on record, the apex Court held that it would be unwise to rely on this witness and therefore his evidence cannot be pressed into service so as to bring home the charge against the accused.
24. We have no doubt or any dispute nor we cannot do it, as to the dictum of law laid down in the decisions (supra) including in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) that as a whole the prosecution story may be true; but between “may be true” and “must be true” there is inevitably a long distance to travel and such a distance must be covered by legal reliable and unimpeachable prosecution evidence prior to “recording of conviction to the accused. However, we must keep in mind Indian Society’s environment where it is difficult to find a witness having not made embellishment or exaggerations in his evidence and in that situation only it can separate the chaff from the grain and then act upon the grain. But, in a case of evidence of chaff only, the question of separating the chaff from the grain would not arise. If a witness is partly reliable and partly unreliable then only one may look for corroboration to the reliable part of the ocular version of a witness. Similarly in a case of eye witnesses duly suffered from same infirmities, and further in case of witness being wholly unreliable then question of corroboration would not arise.
25. However, once we have held not only eye witness (PW 4) but also informant (PW 8) as wholly reliable witnesses after having scanned their evidence, we do not find that the ratio decidendi in the decisions cited by Shri Dhankar in any manner does help to the defence for its cause in this appeal, as in the instant case we do not find any glaring infirmities or exaggeration or embellishment in the evidence either of the eye witness or others who have corroborated him inasmuch as their evidence was established and proved to be wholly reliable by reason of not having been either contradicted or impeached.
26. Written report (Ex.P.10) was lodged at 10 PM on 25.7.99 at the well situated at 13 kms. away from the police station Arai for the incident alleged to have taken place at 3.30 PM. This report was made by Ranglal (PW 8) on the information of Kalu (PW 4) given out upon his return at about 5 PM to his village whereupon Ranglal called the village people and told about the incident at the instance of the accused. In cross examination he (PW 8) deposed that it is true that before going to the well the police had reached there to his place till then no report was given; report was lodged to the police in the evening with the ocular account of the incident as given out by Kalu (PW 4). We do not find any substance in the contention of Shri Dhankhar that Ranglal (PW 8) has completely changed the position when he deposed that the police first came to the village whereafter he went to the place of incident alongwith police. Such a deposition in his statement (PW 8) is neither inconsistent nor contradiction to his earlier statement nor makes his credibility in evidence as doubtful. When an eye witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness car possibly escape from making some discrepant details. An untrue witness being well tutored can perhaps successfully make his testimony totally non discrepant. Hence, the courts are to bear in mind that it should petition evidence only if discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version. Merely because there is inconsistency in evidence or mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness), it is not sufficient to impair the credit pf the witness inasmuch as even according to Section 155 of the Evidence Act, all inconsistent statements are not sufficient to impeach the credit of the witness. Only such of the inconsistent statement which is liable to be contradicted would affect the credit of the witness. Thus, to contradict a witness, therefore, must be to discredit the particular version of the witness. In the present case, the evidence of eye witness (PW 4) and informant (PW 8) evidence credibility. Kalu (PW 4) is most natural eye witness for the murder of the deceased which took place at the well situated nearby his field. That apart even otherwise, merely Because one portion of evidence of eye witnesses is disbelieved does not mean that the court is bound to reject all of it and further mere discrepancies in the testimony of investigating officer due to delay on his part during investigation would not affect credibility of the prosecution case (See Swam Singh v. State of Punjab (6).
27. During examining the accused and questioning him Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants instead of making an attempt to explain or clarify the incriminating circumstances inculpating and connecting them with the crime by their adamant attitude of either total denial of everything or stating only that they have been roped in due to inimical terms because of pendency of civil disputes and/or criminal cases. The fact of having found deadbody of deceased in a well situated at the east south end of field of accused Bhanwari has been proved by the prosecution in its evidence and when such circumstances were brought to the notice of the accused appellants, such incriminating links could, if at all, have been only explained by them and by nobody else, but they failed to explain rather gave false answers given to court. In the instant case, the eye witness (PW 4) was not related either to the first informant (PW 8) or even to any of the accused appellants nor it is the defence set up during offering explanation Under Section 317 Cr.P.C. or even during cross examining either eye witnesses (PW 4 & PW 6) or any of other prosecution witnesses that they bore inimical terms with eye witness or other witnesses except informant (PW 8). Rather, it is not in dispute that informant (PW 8) is brother-in-law of accused Bhanwari who was daughter-in-law of the deceased Chandri. It was not disputed that Chandri was living with her son Ranglal (PW 8), informant before the incident. Both the eye witnesses had no axe to grind against the appellants. Thus, the explanation offered by the appellants or the defence set up is not only inconsistent with their conduct but is palpably false and hence it cannot be worth consideration. The grudge stated in defence is against (PW 4 & PW 6) whereas the informant was not eye witness and his evidence was basted on information given out by eye witness (PW 4) having ocular account of the incident. The defence suggestion that Ranglal (PW 8) has roped in falsely with a view to snatch/grapple agricultural field of Bhanwari and he had also forcibly taken possession over a house having her husband’s share, is too unconvincing and very far fetched. No court can give any weight to such a theory when the case hinges on direct evidence of eye witnesses against whom there was no defence set up of having any animosity. It is not possible to countenance the contention that eye witnesses would have absolved those who had attacked the deceased and turned against the eleven accused falsely out of whom only three could have been apprehended and rest of whom are absconding resulting into pendency of investigation against them also Under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Such a defence theory will not fit in with logic. Statements of these three appellants Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. did not reveal a probable situation favouring with their innocence. Their defence were not true and has to be rejected. Rather the defence gives rise to admission of animosity between accused and deceased which is sufficient to infer motive on the part of accused party for the impugned incident inasmuch as none of the accused has denied to allegation of their presence at the well for dragging, beating and throwing the deceased into the well.
28. Given these unambiguous confirmatory circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the reliance placed by the trial Court on PW 4 & PW 6’s ocular evidence beside supporting evidence of PW 8 & PW 12 corroborating other circumstances leading to recovery of deadbody from the well, autopsy report, inquest report, site inspection memoes prepared in the presence of accused (Ex.P.5) and motbir witnesses (Ex.P.2) which are proved to the part played by the appellants in the perpetration of the crime. Having found no lacunae in the findings recorded by the trial Court either on facts or law, we do not interfere therewith.
29. Resultantly, we dismiss this appeal and affirm the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing each of the appellants for offences punishable Under Section 302/149 and 147 IPC. The appellants in jail be informed and detained therein and those on bail are directed to surrender to their bail bonds and be arrested to serve out the remainder imposed sentences.