In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Any doubt in the prosecution's story or the reliability of the evidence should be resolved in favor of the accused.

1. - This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 17th Mar., 1982, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur, by which, appellant Bhoora has been found guilty under section 307, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's rigorous imprisonment; while appellants Madan & Narain have been convicted under section 307/34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 21/2 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/. each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's rigorous imprisonment each.

2. One Hariya lodged a report on 5th July, 1980, at about 10.50 PM, at PS Cloth-ka-Barwada in District Sawaimadhopur, alleging that on the same day, at about 9 PM, in village Chainpura, he was taking rest, along with other persons, in front of his house, while Bhoora and Narain were passing along front of his house; they abused him and his sons Ramnarain and Kishanlal. The accused persons were annoyed due to some dealings in purchase of some land. Bhoora and Narain, while passing, stopped for a while, and Bhoora gave a lathi-blow to Kishanlal on his left hand. One Dhuliya was also sleeping nearby, and hearing some noise, he woke up. At that time, the complainant and the accused parties were abusing each other. And, it is alleged that Bhoora and Narain then went to their house, and came back along with accused Madan. Bhoora was having a sword in his hand, Madan an axe and Narain had a lathi in his hand. They started beating Ramnarain. Hearing the noise, Shankar, Gopi and Jeevan came to the spot, and the accused persons ran away. Ram Narain was then taken to hospital, who was examined by the doctor. On this report, the police registered a case under sections 307 & 326/34, IPC. After routine investigation, the police submitted a challan against three persons under sections 307 & 504/34, IPC.

3. The trial court framed charges against Bhoora under sections 337 & 504. IPC; and as against Madan and Narain under sections 307/34, IPC. After completing the trial, the trial court found the appellants guilty and sentenced each of them, as mentioned above.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that according to the prosecution witnesses, the incident had taken place in front of the house of complainant Hariya. The SHO, during the investigation, prepared a site-map at the instance of complainant Hariya; and this site map is Ex.P. 4. Therein, the place of incident has been shown/marked as "X"--this is a front of the house of Prema Mali near the house of accused Bhoora. According to this site-plan No. 1 is the place where the complainant along with others. was sitting, and this place is in front of the house of complainant Hariya. From point "Y" the distance of point "X" has been shown as 30 paces. Though there is overwriting on figure "30", it seems that previously, there it was written "40" paces, then, it was overwritten and made "30" paces. This overwriting has no signature. It means, the SHO (investigating officer), who prepared the site-plan in presence of witnesses, had initially written it as 40 paces and later on, he interpolated and wrote it as 30 paces. This is the conduct of the investigating officer, once he writes something and then he changes it. It might be possible that while writing the distance, by mistake, first he wrote it as 40 paces and then he might have corrected it as 30 paces. But, he should have put his signature for this overwriting and noted the witnesses to put their signatures as well, so as to avoid any suspicion which is created in the mind of the Court. Criminal cases should always be clean and the police or prosecution should not create any sort of doubt, because, if any doubt is created, it is always fatal to the prosecution-case, so its benefit goes to the accused. So, the above-mentioned overwriting done by the investigating officer creates a doubt in the correctness of