Byas, J.:— Accused (1) Mukh Ram (2) Sanwat Ram (3) Nagar (4) Mahendra and (5) Balvir were convicted under sections 302/149, 148 and 323/149 I.P.C and each was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 50/- on the first count, one year's rigorous imprisonment under the second count and one month's rigorous imprisonment on the last count by the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu by his judgment dated January 21, 1986. The convicts have come up in appeal and challenge their convictions. Accused Mukh Ram is the father and the remaining four are his sons.

2. Stated in short, the prosecution case which is short and simple, is as follows:— The appellants are residents of village Budania P.S Pilani, District Jhunjhunu. The deceased victim Pala Ram was the Panch and Ram Kumar P.W 2 was the Upsarpanch of gram panchayat Budania. Accused Mukh Ram made unlawful encroachment on a portion of the Johar of the village. P.W 2 Ram Kumar and the deceased Pala Ram summoned the accused Mukh Ram to remove his encroachment. Mukh Ram did not appear before them. His son accused Balvir appeared and abused them at about 7.00 or 7.30 A.M on 27.7.1985 Pala Ram and Ram Kumar thought it proper to consult Ganpat and Makhan in the matter. They left the village to go to the fields of Makhan and Ganpat after sometime on the same day. When they reached the field of one Kana shown by mark ‘1’ in the site plan Ex. P-3 at about 9.00 A.M, the appellants came from behind armed with lethal weapons. Accused Sanwat had a Gandasi, Mahendra had an axe and the rest three had lathies. Accused Sanwat and Mahendra struck blows with their Gandasi and axe on the head of Pala Ram. Pala Ram fell down. The remaining accused thereafter struck blows to Pala Ram with their lathies. When Ram Kumar tried to intervene to rescue Pala Ram, accused Balvir struck a blow on his left back side with his lathi. Balvir raised cries, Makhan Ram P.W 3 and Ratiram P.W.I who were working in their fields situate nearby came there. Seeing them the appellants retreated and fled away. Pala Ram was not able to move. Makhan Ram and Rati Ram brought a camel cart and took Pala Ram in it to their village Budania. From Budania, Pala Ram was being taken in a Jeep to Jhunjhunu. When the Jeep reached Baggar, the condition of Pala Ram became very precarious and Page: 329critical. He was taken in the Government Hospital, Baggar where his injuries were examined by the Doctor. The Doctor prepared his injury report Ex. P-26. The injuries of Ram Kumar P.W 2 were also examined and injury report Ex-P-25 was issused by the Doctor. Despite medical treatment, Pala Ram did not survive and succumbed to the injuries in the hospital at about 11.15 A.M on that very day. The Doctor accordingly informed the police out-post Baggar; P.W 7 H.C Sheesram —incharge of the police out-post arrived in the hospital and prepared the inquest report Ex. P-6 and the inspection note Ex. P-7 of the dead body. The shirt of Pala Ram was found drenched with blood. It was seized and sealed.

3. Ram Kumar P.W 2 went to Police Station Pilani and presented written report Ex. P-1 at about 5.00 P.M on that very day. The police registered a case and proceeded with the investigation. The Station House Officer inspected the site and prepared the site plan. The post mortem examination of the victim's dead body was conducted and the following ante mortem injuries were found on his person:—

1. ‘An incised wound 7 cm. × 1 cm × ¼ cm. on the right parietal surface of scalp. 10 cm. above right ear. Simple and sharp.

2. A rounded swelling 8 cm. × 8 cm. on left temporal region of scalp cracking ferling left temporal bone seems to be fractured. Grievous and blunt.

3. A rounded swelling 7 cm. × 7 cm. on the occipital region. Simple and Blunt.

4. A swelling 6 cm × 6 cm on right temporal region, rounded, crack feeling on the right temporal region on palpation. A corner of bone piece is raised. Grievous & Blunt.

5. Bluish red bruise 3 cm × 1½ cm on the upper eyetia of right ear. (Simple and Blunt).

6. Two parallel bruises 17 cm long 2 cm wide redish blue coloured bruises commencing from left side of back to right side of back. Simple and Blunt.

7. 8 cm. below the inferior angle of right scapula Two parallel bruises reddish blue coloured 12 cm long and 2 cm wide on the right side of back. Simple and blunt.

8. 3½ cm long and 1½ cm wide abrasion on the posterior aspect of upper ⅓rd of left forearm. Simple and Blunt.’

4. According to the Doctor, the death was caused by Coma due to head injury resulting from brain leceration and membrances. rupture and Middle menin geal haemorrhage. The post mortem report prepared by the Doctor is Ex. P-27. The appellants were arrested and in consequence to their information. Lathies, Gandasi and axe were recovered. On the completion of the investigation the police submitted a challan against the five appellants in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate. Chirawa who in his turn committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 302/149, 148 and 323/149 I.P.C against them to which they pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and filed som docum ents. In defence, the accused adduced no evidence. The defence taken by the appe llants was that of complete denial. On the completion of trial, the Sessions Judge held the charges duly brought home to the appellants. They were consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very outset.

5. We have heard Mr. N.L Tibrewal—learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. O.P Sharma assisted by Mr. Jagdeep Page: 330Dhankar—counsel for the complainant. We have also gone through the case file carefully.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants did not challenge the cause of death of the deceased victim Pala Ram as stated in the post mortem report. We, therefore, need not discuss this matter. Suffice it say that the death of Pala Ram was homicidal and not natural.

7. In order to prove the charges against the appellants, the prosecution examined three eye witnesses—Ratiram P.W 1, Ram Kumar P.W 2 and Makhan Ram P.W 3. Each of whom had claimed to have seen the incident. The learned Sessions Judge took the evidence of these three witnesses dependable, reliable and sufficient to warrant the conviction. He treated them as witnesses of truth.

8. In assailing the conviction of the appellants, the first contention raised by Mr. Tibrewal is that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the motive. It was argued that the appellants and the victim were the residents of the same village Budania and there was no bad blood between them before this alleged incident. No proceeding for removing the encroachment of the appellants was initiated against them by the Panchayat. As such it could not be said that the appellants, had any grudge against the deceased Pala Ram. According to P.W 2 Ram Kumar, if anybody had picked up quarrel with him and the deceased Pala Ram, it was accused Balvir who abused them. As such if anybody was aggrieved, it was Ram Kumar P.W 2 or Pala Ram and not the appellants. The contention has considerable force.

9. No motive has been alleged by the prosecution which instigated the appellants to commit the murder of Pala Ram. Relations between them and Pala Ram were quite cordial and sweet before this alleged incident. It is true that according to P.W 2 Ram Kumar, accused Balvir addressed filthy words and abuses to him and Pala Ram at about 7.00 A.M on the day of incident. If, therefore, anybody was aggrieved, it was Pala Ram or P.W 2 Ram Kumar because they were abused by the accused Balvir.

10. It was argued by the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Dhankar that when there is direct evidence of the eye witnesses, the absence of motive loses its significance and importance. It is true that motive is not an ingredient of the offence of murder and when there is direct evidence against the accused persons for committing murder, absence of motive or inadequecy of motive has little or no significance. The motive then recedes in the back-ground. But absence of motive is a circumstance which should be taken into consideration in judging the veracity and credibility of the eye witnessess. Generally murder is not committed without a cause or motive. Absence of any cause or motive requires that the evidence of the eye witnesses must be carefully, closely and cautiously sifted, evaluated and screened. Generally motive—good or bad—is alleged in a case of murder. Here there is a complete want of motive in the instant case. This element of the absence of motive will have to be kept in view while assessing evidence of the eye witnesses.

11. It was next contended by Mr. Tibrewal that the court below grossly erred in treating P.W 1 Ratiram. P.W 2 Ram Kumar and P.W 3 Makhan Ram as witnesses of truth. It was argued that none of them had seen the incident as to how Pala Ram was killed. They have falsely introduced themselves as the ocular witnesses of the incident. It was contended that there are several factors to show that these three witnesses were not present at the scene of the incident. P.W 2 Ram Kumar and P.W 3 Makhan Ram had accompanied Pala Ram and they were present when the inquest report of the dead body of Pala Ram was prepared in the hospital at Baggar by P.W 7 H.C Sheesram. Both these witnesses did not come Page: 331out at the time when the inquest report was prepared that they had seen the incident and that the appellants had killed Pala Ram. This silence on their part seriously impair their testimony that they had seen the incident. The contention is not ineffective. It has much substance and strength.

12. Ex. P-6 is the injury report while Ex. P-7 is the ‘Ferd surat lash’ (memo regarding the condition of the dead body) prepared by P.W 7 Sheesram H.C Both these witnesses Ram Kumar P.W 2 and Makhan Ram P.W 3 were present at that time. They have admitted their signatures on these two documents. Now in both these documents, it has not been mentioned that these two witnesses had seen the incident and that the appellants were the perpetrators of the murder of Pala Ram. Both these witnesses also did not state during trial that they had disclosed the incident to P.W 7 Sheesram nor P.W 7 Sheesram stated that these two witnesses had stated the incident before him when he prepared Ex. P-6 and Ex. P-7. These witnesses had the earliest opportunity when Ex. P-6 and Ex. P-7 were prepared in their presence by the H.C Sheesram. Had they seen the incident and the appellants causing the death of Pala Ram, it is expected that they would have disclosed this when the inquest report Ex. P-6 and Ex. P-7 were prepared. This silence on their part and their non-disclosure of the incident by them strongly suggest that they had not seen the incident and the appellants causing the death of Pala Ram. In (1) Falaqsher v. Stale of Rajasthan (1978 Cr. L.R (Raj.) 613), it was observed by a Division Bench of this court in para 6 of the judgment:

“This inference is also reinforced by the circumstance that neither in the memo (Ex. P. 17) regarding the condition of his dead body of Baskaya nor in the inquest report (Ex. P. 8) which were prepared by the Investigating Officer soon after the arrival at the scene of occurrence, is there any mention about the assailants or about the manner in which the injuries found on the person of the deceased were inflicted. The Inquest Report is a document of vital importance in the investigation of a case. It has to be prepared promptly as it has to be sent to the doctor alongwith the dead body when the body is sent for post mortem examination. If the facts of the occurrence are not mentioned in the Inquest Report it can legitimately be inferred that till that time the investigating officer, who had prepared the Inquest Report was not sure about the facts. The evidence adduced by the prosecution, will have to be considered in this context.”

13. The same view was expressed in (2) Banwari v. State of Rajasthan (1978 R.L.W 340).

14. The learned Public Prosecutor drew our attention to the observations made in (3) Mrs. Shakila v. Nausher Gama ((1975) 4 SCC 122 : AIR 1976 SC 1324), (4) Balaka Singh v. The State of Punjab ((1975) 4 SCC 511 : AIR 1975 SC 1962) and (5) Eqbal Baig v. State of A.P ((1986) 2 SCC 476 : AIR 1987 SC 923) and contended that the omission of the names of the witnesses and the accused persons in the inquest report is not fatal and the entire prosecution case cannot be discarded on this infirmity alone. In these three decisions, it was observed by their Lordships that if the names of the appellants and the accused persons have not been mentioned in the inquest report, it is a serious circumstance to be taken into consideration while assessing and evaluating the evidence of the eye witnesses. Any way this infirmity is a serious one and should be taken into consideration alongwith the other circumstances of the case.

15. P.W 1 Ratiram, P.W 2 Ram Kumar and P.W 3 Makhan Ram have stated that accused Sanwat Ram had a Gandasi and Mahendra had an axe. Each of them inflicted a blow with these weapons on the head of Pala Ram. Unfortu nately, this is not supported by the postmortem examination report Ex. P-27. Page: 332According to Ex. P-27, only one incised wound 7 cm × 1 cm × ¼ cm on the right parietal surface of scalp of the deceased victim was found. Though this injury has been stated to be incised wound caused by some sharp weapon, we have serious doubt as to whether such an injury can be caused by a sharp weapon at all. The depth of the injury is only ¼ cm which in all probability cannot be caused by an axe or a Gandasi. If the injuries inflicted by a Gandasi or an axe the depth of the wound must be much more than ¼ cm. Modi in his celebrated book on Medical Jurisprudence (1988 edition) observes on page 257:

“Occasionally, on wounds produced by the blunt weapon or by a fall the skin splits and may look like incised wounds when inflicted on tense structures covering the bones, such as the scalp, eyebrow, illiac crest, skin, qerineum etc. or by a fall on the knee or elbow when the limb is flexed.”

16. It appears that the Doctor who prepared the post mortem report misjudged this injury and wrongly described it as incised wound. This injury was caused not by an axe or a Gandasi but by a lathi. All these eye witnesses thus stand contradicted as regards injury number 1 of the deceased Pala Ram. The role imputed them to accused Sanwat Ram and Mahendra stands falsified.

17. P.W 2 Ram Kumar stated that accused Balvir struck a blow of lathi on the left side of his back. P.W 3 Makhan Ram stated that when he reached the spot on hearing the cries, he found an injury on the left back side of Ram Kumar. The same fact was deposed by P.W 1 Ratiram. Thus according to these three witnesses Ram Kumar was struck a blow on the left side of his back. Unfortunately, again Ram Kumar's injury report Ex. P. 25 does not support these three witnesses. Rather contradicts them on this point. Ex. P-25 shows that two parallel bruises were found on the left side of chest of Ram Kumar. No other injury was found on his person. The injury found on his chest has not been stated by the eye witnesses and the injury stated by them to have been caused does not find mention in it. This conflict again impaires the credibility of these three eye witnesses. We may also point out that P.W 1 Ratiram is the real cousin of the deceased and P.W 3 Makhan Ram was in litigation with the appellants. Thus on taking the facts (1) the absence of motive (2) the non-disclosure of the incident, the non-disclosure of the appellant's name and the non-disclosure that P.W 1 Ratiram, P.W 2 Ram Kumar and P.W 3 Makhan Ram had seen the incident in the inquest report Ex. P-6 and Ex. P-7(3) the persistent conflict between the medical evidence and the evidence of the eye witnesses and (4) the relationship of P.W 1 Ratiram with the deceased victim and the litigation between P.W 3 Makhan Ram and the appellants into consideration it can be confidently stated that the alleged eye witnesses had not seen the incident and they have falsely introduced themselves as ocular witnesses. Their evidence does not inspire confidence. These facts and circumstances demolish the entire edifice and fabric of the prosecution case. We arc, therefore, unable to maintain the conviction of the appellants for the offence they were convicted.

18. In the result, we allow the appeal of accused (1) Mukh Ram (2) Sanwat Ram (3) Nagar (4) Mahendra and (5) Balvir. Their convictions under sections 148, 323, 323/149 and 302/149 and the sentences awarded to them thereunder are set aside and they are acquitted of the said offences. Accused Mukh Ram, Nagar, Mahendra and Balvir are already on bail and they need not surrender. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Accused Sanwat Ram is serving the sentence in jail. He shall be immediately set forth at liberty if not wanted in any other case.