After appreciating the evidence available on record, a significant fact which emerges is that the three material eye witnesses, namely, Singari (P.W.1), the first informant, Shanti (P.W.5) and Devaram (P.W.6), all alleged that all the four accused persons were armed with Kassis, which is a sharp edged weapon. It is not in dispute that Kirtaram was a 75 years old man. The accused all young men were four in number, whereas the victim was all alone. The incident took place in front of the house of the accused. As per the prosecution case, Shanti heard the cries of her grandfather, after which, she came out of the gate of the house and claims to have seen accused indulging in the assault. As per the statement of Dr. Pratap Singh (P.W.11), a solitary injury was noticed by the medical jurist on the head of the deceased. Landing this solitary blow would take a fraction of seconds only, after which the victim must have raised the hue and cry. Thus, the possibility of the eye-witnesses actually seeing the first blow being landed on the victim was virtually negligible. This blow was specifically attributed to the accused Bheekha Bharti in the dying declaration (Ex.P/10) as well as by the witnesses Singari (P.W.1), Shanti (P.W.5) and Devaram (P.W.6). We have a serious doubt in our mind as to whether the eye-witnesses could have actually seen the first blow being caused to Kirtaram and thus, their evidence to this extent is doubtful. Furthermore, considering the fact that as per the site inspection plan (Ex.P/2), there is a distance of about ‘23 pawandas’, which is about 50 to 70 yards, the possibility that the witnesses could have seen the accused landing the blows on the body of the deceased that too with the “ reverse ” side of the Kassis is well nigh non-existent. The witnesses Shanti and Singari also alleged that they too were
