The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and credible evidence, the need for clear responsibility for the fatal injury, and the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused when evidence is not conclusive.

B. Prasad, J.-These two appeals have been filed by the two accused appellants against the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Anoopgarh against their conviction under Section 302, IPC and sentence of life and a fine or Rs. 1,000/-being awarded against them in Sessions Case No. 20/2002 dated 12th November, 2002.

2. The prosecution was initiated on the basis of a First Information Report lodged by one complainant Shivlal, Exhibit P/15 on 15.04.2001. According to the report on 14.04.2001 about 7.00 p.m., Mahendra, brother of the complainant Shivlal, came to him. His brother Mahendra was accompanied by Raju and Moduram. All the three persons had drunk liquor. They stayed for half an hour. After that all the three went together saying that they will have more liquor. When until late in the night, brother of the complainant, Mahendra, did not return the complainant went at about 2-3.00 a.m. to the Dhani of Raju. He saw that Mahendra was being belaboured by the two accused appellants. The complainant then alleges that he shouted from a distance as to why are they giving beating. The accused told him that if he would come he would also be dealt with similarly. He came back, being frightened, and slept at his own house. At about 6.00 a.m. in the morning PW. 6 Jagdish Pandit came and informed him that sometime before, Raju, accused came to him and called him to his Dhani. Moduram was also there. Both of them informed him that during the night they consumed liquor. They had a quarrel with Mahendra and Mahendra had died and his dead body is lying outside. This information was communicated by Jagdish Pandit to the complainant who then informed the police. The police registered FIR No. 56/2001. On the basis of Exhibit P/15, a written report, a formal FIR was recorded which is Exhibit P/29. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed which came up for trial before the trial Judge.

3. At the trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and produced 43 documents. Accused were examined under Section 313, CrPC, and four documents were exhibited in defence.

4. The trial Court, believed the testimony of PW. 5 Shivlal, complainant, that he had seen the accused and the deceased together and then in the night, he had gone to the place where the accused and the deceased were to take liquor and there he saw that the accused were giving beating to the deceased. He exhorted, on which he was threatened. On the testimony of Shivlal, implicit reliance has been placed by the learned trial Judge and conviction has been recorded. The circumstantial evidence of recovery has not been pressed into service because there was no sufficient material to link the accused with the crime.

5. The learned Counsel appearing the accused submitted that PW. 5 Shivlal who has been relied on by the trial Court is not a witness worth relying. If his statement is taken on its face value he alleges that at about 2-3.00 a.m. in the morning, when his brother had not come home, he had gone to the Dhani of Raju, where, from 15-20 panvdas he saw that the two accused were inflicting injuries to the deceased. Thereafter, he came home and slept. According to the learned Counsel, this kind of conduct is unbecoming of a brother and it cannot be expected that when a real brother is being belaboured in the dead of the night, real brother would not make an attempt to rescue his brother.

6. Further this witness, in his examination, states that at about 5-6.00 a.m. in the morning Jagdish Pandit, PW. 6 came and informed him that Raju came to him and took him to his Dhani. There Moduram was also there. They informed him that they gave beating to Mahendra who has died. Jagdish Pandit then went to the Dhani of Raju and saw that Mahendra was lying dead. Then this witness states that he informed the Police. According to the learned Counsel, the conduct of this witness is so unbecoming that it cannot be expected that he slept after seeing his brother being beaten