IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a consistent and credible prosecution case, including evidence of motive or enmity, to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ BHANDARI, J.

1. Accused-appellants have preferred these appeals aggrieved by Judgment and Sentence dated 06.02.2017 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge, No.4, Ajmer, whereby appellant-Ravindra has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 & 324 IPC; for offence under Section 302 IPC, he has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/- and on non-payment of fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment and for offence under Section 324 IPC, he has been sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and on non-payment of fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. Appellant- Surendra has been convicted for offence under Sections 302/34 & 324/34 IPC and similar sentence has been awarded to him. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 23.09.2013, Jagdish submitted a written report (Ex. P-8) at Police Station Civil Lines, Ajmer, which is reproduced here as under:-

**Fkkukf/kdkjh egksn;]
iqfyl Fkkuk flfoy ykbZu
vtesj ¼jkt0½
fo"k;%& gR;k dh izFke lwpuk ntZ djokus ckcrA
egksn;]
mijksDr fo"k;kuqlkj ys[k gS fd vkt jkf= yxHkx 9-30 cts vfiZr lSuh] fgEer flag] _f"k 'kekZ esjs thtkth lquhy pkS/kjh mQZ lksuw iq= dkyqjke dks iqfyl ykbZu Vkad Ldwy ds ckgj jksM ij mrkjk tgka ij eSa eSu jksM ij [kM+k Fkk vkSj muds mrjus ds ckn ge yksx vkil esa ckrphr dj jgs Fks] brus esa nks yM+ds eksVjlkbZfdy ij vk;s] muesa ls ,d yM+dk ftldk uke jfoUnz dM+okljk gS rFkk nwljk yM+dk ftldks uke ls ugh tkurk ij lkeus vkus ij igpku tkÅaxkA jfoUnz dM+okljk us gkFk esa pkdw fudkydj tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls gekjh vkSj yidk mlus vfiZr ij pkdw ls okj fd;k] ftlls vfiZr ds nkfgus gkFk ij pksV vk;h] fQj jfoUnz o mlds lkFkh us esjs thtkth lksuw pkS/kjh mQZ lquhy dks idM+ fy;k o johUnz us pkdw ls esjs thtkth ij geyk fd;k] ftlls esjs thtkth ihNs gV x;s] fQj johUnz us nwckjk pkdw ls esjs thtkth lksuw mQZ lquhy ds lhus ij okj fd;k o pkdw esjs thtkth ds fny esa ?kqlsM+ fn;k esjs thtkth tehu ij fxj x;s] rc nwljk yM+dk esjs thtkth ds yxkrkj ykr ?kqls ekjrk jgk vkSj fpYykrk jgk bl dqRrs dks vkt gh [kRe dj nks] eSa vfiZr lSuh] fgEer flag] _f”k 'kekZ enn ds fy, fpYykrs jgs o Hkkxs rc og nksuksa eksVj lkbfdy ij cSBdj Hkkx x;s] rc ge esjs thtkth lquhy mQZ lksuw o vfiZr dks ysdj tokgj yky usg: fpfdRlky; igqaps tgka esjs thtkth lquhy mQZ lksuw dh e`R;q gks x;hA
fjiksVZ djrk gwa dk;Zokgh djsA
Hkonh;
txnh'k**

3. On the basis of said report, police lodged FIR No.409/2013 (Ex.P-9) and after due investigation filed charge-sheet against appellants for offence under Sections 302, 323, 34 IPC. Accused-Ravindra was charged for offence under Sections 302 & 324 IPC and accused-Surendra was charged for offence under Sections 302, 324 & 34 IPC. Both the accused-appellants denied the charges and sought trial, upon which, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 28 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. In defence, two documents were exhibited. Accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the arguments, accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as herein above stated, against which, these appeals have been filed.

4. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that the complainant- Jagdish (PW-3) who is brother-in-law of the deceased has turned hostile. The story now rests on the statements of PW-4 (Arpit Saini), PW-6 (Rishi Sharma) & PW-9 (Himmat Singh). It is contended that all these witnesses are residing at a distance of five kms. from the alleged place of occurrence. They are chance witnesses. It is also contended that no enmity has been pointed out. There is no motive whatsoever for committing the said offence. It is also contended that as per the FIR, at 09:30 pm, Arpit Saini (PW-4), Himmat Singh (PW-9) and Rishi Sharma (PW-6) dropped Sunil Choudhary @ Sonu at police line in front of Tank School. As per these witnesses, the incident took place at the same place, however, in the site plan (Ex.P-13), th