Material contradictions in the testimony of an eyewitness can create reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the testimony and may lead to the acquittal of the accused.

1. - The judgment impugned in this appeal is dated 20.3.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Hanumangarh recording conviction of the accused appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 Indian Penal Code and sentencing as under:-

Under Section 302 I.P.C. - Life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months simple imprisonment.

Under Section 323 I.P.C. - Three years' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo seven days' simple imprisonment.

2. The facts necessary to be noticed for adjudication of the appeal are that the Station House Officer, Police Station Hanumangarh on 18.10.2008 at 02:50 AM reduced in writing the statement made by Shankarlal (PW- 1) and on basis of that lodged a criminal case for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 Indian Penal Code against accused appellant Shankardas. As per the statement that was reduced in writing, Shankarlal used to visit Baba Chhotunath from last about two years. On 17.10.2008 he came to the place of Baba Chhotunath at about 05:30 PM. Baba Chhotunath sold a part of land under his possession to Shankardas (accused) for a consideration of Rs. 8000/-, where he constructed a hut. The hut was removed by the Municipal Board, Hanumangarh for constructing a road. Shankardas being unhappy with removal of his hut was annoyed with Baba Chhotunath. In the intervening night of 17th and 18th October, 2008, at about 01:00 AM Shankarlal (PW-1) was sleeping outside the hut of Baba Chhotunath and Baba Chhotunath was strolling nearby. Accused Shankardas armed with an iron rod came there and gave iron rod blows on the head of Baba Chhotunath. Baba Chhotunath fell down and on intervention, a blow from the rod was also given to Shankarlal (PW-1). Shankarlal ultimately caught hold of assailant Shankardas and carried him to Shri Ravi Seth. All the facts about giving assault to Baba Chhotunath were narrated by Shankarlal to Ravi Seth and while doing so accused Shankardas fled from the spot. Information then was given to Shri Baldev and Shri Sukha. On being called by Sukha telephonically, police came at the spot of occurrence and found Baba Chhotunath dead.

3. The investigating agency commenced the investigation and during that corpus of deceased Baba Chhotunath was subjected to autopsy. As per the postmortem report (Ex.P-11) deceased was having following injuries:-

(1) Transversely placed lacerated wound 3" x 11/2 " behind left ear over left mastoid region, bone deep with exposed underlying bone and soft tissue which is covered with many blood clots.

(2) Lacerated wound right infraoibital area 1" x 1/2" x bone deep.

(3) Swelling right forehead 5" x 4" extends below upto right upper eye lid.

(4) Lacerated would 2" x " x bone deep over left parietal area obliquely placed in relation to mid line, broken skull bone and underlying soft tissue visible with clotted blood in the area.

4. The cause of death given was injuries to vital organs like brain tissues, its membranes, soft and bony tissues leading to excessive blood loss ultimately causing haemorrhagic shock. All the injuries were antemortem.

5. Accused Shankardas was arrested and on basis of the disclosure made by him a blood stained iron rod was recovered. The iron rod and the blood stained clothes of deceased were sent for their serological examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, report of that is available on record as Ex.P-27. As per the Forensic Science Laboratory's report, the clothes of deceased and the iron rod recovered at the instance of accused Shankardas were having blood stains of group 'B'.

6. After completing the investigation a police report was filed before the court competent and the case being sessions triable was committed to the court of Sessions. The Sessions court after providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused framed a charge