IN CRIMINAL CASES, THE PROSECUTION BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IF THERE IS REASONABLE DOUBT REGARDING THE CREDIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE OR THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE, THE ACCUSED MUST BE ACQUITTED.

V.G. Palshikar, J.-Being aggrieved by the Judgment and order of conviction recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 56/ 92, the appellants Mukhtiar Singh, Khanda Singh, Onkar Singh, Mahendra Singh, Pritam Singh and Joginder Singh have preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also on the grounds canvassed before us during the course of arguments. Accused appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-for offence Under Sections 302/149, IPC and for the offence Under Section 147, IPC, they were fined with Rs. 1000/-and in default, simple imprisonment for one month.

2. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned P. P., we have. re-appreciated the evidence on record and have scrutinised the entire record and heard the learned Counsel for both parties.

3. Stated briefly the story of the prosecution is that on 15-6-92 at about in the evening, the deceased Jagtar Singh and Gurmeet Singh were going on motor cycle when the accused persons riding a blue tractor of Ford Company collided the tractor with the motor cycle and crushed them under the tractor. This First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the police on the basis of the information verbally shouted to the police by the son of the deceased Baldeo Singh PW. 1. On the basis of this report, investigation was carried on by the police and ultimately challan against the accused persons as named in the charge sheet, was lodged. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses to prove its case. Of the 9 witnesses, 2 are eye witnesses and the others are mostly witnesses from the police and all other witnesses involved in the investigation. The prosecution story as narrated by PW. 1 Baldeo Singh in Court is that he and his brother Gurdeo Singh PW. 2 were going towards the village when Gurmeet Singh and his father were going by the motor cycle towards the village and a blue tractor was coming towards them and the accused persons were sitting in the tractor, which was driven by Khanda Singh. They dashed the tractor against the motor cycle of Gurmeet Singh and as a result of which, both Gurmeet Singh and Jagtar Singh fell on the ground and the accused appellants crushed them the tractor 2 or 3 times driving the tractor. The witness has admitted rivalry between the parties and he has executed several documents (Exhibit P12 to Exhibit P/15).

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence of these witnesses, came to the conclusion of guilt and accepting this conclusion, sentenced the accused persons imprisonment with life for various offences as mentioned above. It is this order, which is impugned in this appeal by the learned Counsel for the accused on several grounds. The grounds, which have been stated briefly are: (a) admittedly according to the eye-witnesses, the incident has occurred in broad day light near bus stand of village Sameja Kothi at around 5 PM, no independent witness from near the scene of occurrence is examined nor is there any

statement, that no such witness was available either by the Investigating Officer or by any eye witness, who was present and, therefore, decision on the testimony of any two witnesses, who are directly and closely related to the deceased, is grossly unsafe for recording conviction. (b) The evidence of the so called eye-witnesses is untrustworthy and serious contradictions exist in the deposition and the police record and consequently, these witnesses cannot be believed. (c) The evidence of the eye witnesses is again falsified by the medical evidence on record and, therefore, these eye wit nesses are liable to be disbelieved. (d) The conduct of the eye witnesses who are direct relations of the deceased, is so unnatural that their testimony deserves no credence at all. (e) Consequently, there is no evidence on the basis of which it can be said that these accused persons have been