JUDGMENT : Rajani Dubey J. 1. Since both the appeals involve common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, therefore, the same have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The present appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2016 passed by the learned 2 nd Upper Session Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in ST No.34/2018, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 148/149, 328/149 and 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year, RI for 5 years and life imprisonment, respectively, with default stipulations. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.12.2017, the complainant made oral complaint to the Police Station Kota against the appellants that his father Malikram had obtained Rs.20,000/- from the appellant Bhan Singh for execution of sale of land and the said amount was not returned by his father to the appellant Bhan Singh, due to which there was some dispute between his father and appellant no.1 and the appellants committed marpeet with his father Malikram and Malikram was poured poison by the appellant Bhan Singh and thereafter the appellants ran away from the spot and Malikram was admitted in Kota Hospital, from where he was referred to CIMS Hospital and thereafter died during treatment. On the basis of complaint made by the complainant, police registered the case against the appellants and they were arrested. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the concern Magistrate. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused/appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants jointly submit that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The learned Trial Court has not considered that no internal or external injury was found on the body of the deceased. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants jointly submit that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The learned Trial Court has not considered that no internal or external injury was found on the body of the deceased. The learned Trial Court has also not considered the statements of PW-3 & PW-4, who clearly stated that the deceased was consuming liquor at the time of the incident and on a trivial issue, a dispute arose between the deceased and the appellants, out of which a sudden fight took place, in which the deceased sustained some injuries, thereafter he died during treatment, but all these aspects of the matter have not been considered by the learned Trial Court and it wrongly convicted the appellants. Therefore, the appeals deserve to be allowed. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Sandeep Kumar and others vs State of Uttarakhand , reported (2022) 14 SCC 544, Sonali Mukherjee vs Union of India , reported in (2010) 15 SCC 25, Allarakha Habib Memon and others vs State of Gujarat reported in (2024) 9 SCC 546 , Nand Lal and others vs State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2023) 10 SCC 470 . Meharaj Singh vs State of U.P. reported in (1994) 5 SCC 188 , Sekaran vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2024) 2 SCC 176 , Kailash Gour and others vs State of Assam reported in (2012) 2 SCC 34, Ramesh Baburao Devaskar and others vs State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 13 SCC 501 and in the matter of Ramesh Baburao Devaskar and others vs State of Maharashtra reported in . 5. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Ravi vs State, represented by Inspector of Police reported in AIR 2004 SC 4164 and Raj Kishore Jha vs State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 2003 SC 4664 6. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Ravi vs State, represented by Inspector of Police reported in AIR 2004 SC 4164 and Raj Kishore Jha vs State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 2003 SC 4664 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 147 read with Section 149, Section 148 read with Section 149, Section 328 read with Section 149 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. 8. The first question for consideration before us is that whether the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature or not? 9. Aman Kumar Patle (PW-1) stated that on the date of incident, all the accused persons came to his house and assaulted his father and administered poison on his father’s mouth. He admitted his signatures on the inquest memo (Ex-P/1) and dehati nalisi (Ex-P/2) on A to A part. 10. The Inspector Krishnakant Singh (PW-19) stated that upon receiving information, he reached Village Billiband and as per information of Gulshan Kumar Patle, he lodged dehati nalisi (Ex- P/2). ASI Yogesh Gupta (PW-10) stated that he lodged merg intimation No.0/557/2017 under Section 174 of CrPC (Ex-P/21) on the basis of police memo (Ex-P/20) and he lodged merg intimation about the death of Malik. He issued notice for inquest (Ex-P/6) and before witnesses, he prepared inquest memo (Ex- P/1) and as per advice of witnesses, he gave application for postmortem, vide Ex-P/10 of the body of the deceased Malik Ram. Doctor N. Varun (PW-6) conducted the postmortem of the deceased on 03.02.2017 at 3:10 pm and he found internal injuries as under:- He found that no definite opinion regarding the cause of death is possible to be given and gave his report Ex-P/10. 11. As per FSL report, organophosphorus pesticides methyl parathion was found. In the Articles A & B, pieces of lungs, liver, kidney, spleen, pieces of stomach and small intestine of the deceased were preserved. In Article C, the blood of the deceased Malik Ram was preserved in the plastic bottle. In Article-D, sample liquid/salt solution was preserved, whereas in Article E, bottle of poison was preserved. In the Articles A & B, pieces of lungs, liver, kidney, spleen, pieces of stomach and small intestine of the deceased were preserved. In Article C, the blood of the deceased Malik Ram was preserved in the plastic bottle. In Article-D, sample liquid/salt solution was preserved, whereas in Article E, bottle of poison was preserved. Thus, it is clear that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to poisoning. It is clear from the statement of Dr. N. Varun (PW-6) that he did not opine that whether the death was homicidal or suicidal. Thus, we have to examine the statements of all the witnesses in this regard. 12. As per the prosecution, all the appellants assaulted the deceased Malik Ram and the accused Dinesh poured poison in his mouth. It has been argued that by the defense counsel that all the accused presents only assaulted the deceased Malik Ram and after that they left the house of the deceased and thereafter Malik Ram committed suicide and his son Aman Kumar (PW-1) with the help of prosecuting agency made the case of murder against the accused persons. 13. Aman Kumar (PW-1) admitted in para 9 of his cross-examination that on the date of incident SHO had come to his house and after investigation he went away and on that day the police did not lodge any report. He also admitted in para 11 that at the time of inquest memo, he did not lodge any report for murder and he admitted this fact that the inquest memo was prepared by the incharge of CIMS Chowki. It is clear from merg intimation Ex.P/20 & Ex.P/21 that the deceased Malik Ram died on 03.12.2017 at 10:55 am due to poisoning and Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P/2) was recorded by IO on 04.12.2017 at 16:30 pm. It is also clear from inquest memo that the same was prepared by PW-19 Krishnakant, Chowki incharge of CIMS on 03.12.2017 and it is written in Ex.P/1, the punchs have also given their opinion regarding the death of the deceased and they opined that since after examination, the doctor declared the deceased as dead and to know the exact reason, dead body should be sent for postmortem and this is their opinion. 14. 14. The son of deceased i.e. complainant Aman Kumar (PW-1) admitted his signature in inquest report (Ex.P/1) on A to A part, but in Ex.P/1, he nowhere stated about any assault or any act of the accused persons and the act of the accused Dinesh as to how he administered poison in the mouth of the deceased has not been descripted. PW-19 Investigating Officer Krishnakant Singh admitted in para 20 of his cross examination that on 03.12.2017 after getting information through telephone by his staff that the deceased Malik Ram has died, he went to Village Billiband and on that day did not take the statement of family members of the deceased and did not register FIR. In Para 21, he admitted that no written report regarding the death of the deceased was got registered. He also admitted that he did not file copy of rojnamchasanha – 182, which he mentioned in the FIR (Ex-P/26). 15. The son of the deceased PW-1 Aman Kumar admitted in para 25 of his cross-examination that when his father was coming after taking eggs, he was very angry and went inside the house. He also admitted that at that time what his father ate, drunk he did not see and cannot tell. He also admitted in para 16 that on the date of incident, his father consumed liquor in the morning and he also admitted that on the date of incident the accused Dinesh, Ganesh Gowrishankar reported against his father for commission maarpeet. 16. The wife of the deceased Birasbai (PW-2) stated different story from her son (PW-1). She stated that on the date of incident, quarrel took place between all the accused persons and her husband but on which issue they were quarreling she does not know. She also admitted that she has not seen them quarreling. She also admitted that her husband came from outside and fell down in yard and started vomiting and diarrhea, thereafter she told her son Aman to take her husband to hospital. The prosecution declared her hostile and cross-examined her, then she admitted all suggestions of prosecution that Aman Kumar told the incident to her and stated that Dinesh got consumed poison to her husband. The prosecution declared her hostile and cross-examined her, then she admitted all suggestions of prosecution that Aman Kumar told the incident to her and stated that Dinesh got consumed poison to her husband. She also admitted in para 3 of her cross- examination that on the date of incident, when her husband came back, she was not at the house and when she came back, her husband was lying down, then she told her son Aman to take him to hospital. PW-1 Aman Kumar and PW-2 Birasbai also admitted this suggestion of defence that they have previous enmity with the accused persons. 17. PW-3 Gulshan Kumar stated that on the date of incident, all the accused persons assaulted his uncle and Dinesh administered poison on the mouth of the deceased. Thereafter his uncle was admitted in hospital in Kota and was thereafter referred to CIMS hospital where he died. He also admitted this suggestion of defence that on the date of incident, her uncle was in drunken condition from the very morning. As per this witness, place of occurrence is the main road in village, but in para 6 of his cross- examination that he also stated that there was lot of rush on the main road on the date of incident. 18. Kodu Prasad Patle (PW-4) stated that on the date of incident, the deceased was drinking liquor near the shop of Dinesh and went away. Thereafter when he was reading newspaper in the shop of Manoj, the deceased Malik Ram came there having tabli and abusing the accused by saying that they are asking money from him, thereafter the accused persons assaulted him and the accused Dinesh administered fluid like substance on his mouth. 19. Raju Banjare (PW-8) stated that on the date of incident, he was in his house. The accused were assaulting the deceased Malikram, then he intervened and the deceased was taken to his home by his family members, thereafter he also came to his house. Thereafter the deceased started vomiting and having diarrhea, upon which he was taken to hospital, where he died. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him, then he admitted this suggestion of prosecution that Dinesh administered poison on the mouth of the deceased. 20. Thereafter the deceased started vomiting and having diarrhea, upon which he was taken to hospital, where he died. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him, then he admitted this suggestion of prosecution that Dinesh administered poison on the mouth of the deceased. 20. Yogesh Gupta (PW-10) prepared the inquest memo and he admitted in his cross-examination that before taking the deceased to CIMS, he was taken to Kota Hospital. He also admitted that during the inquest, the panchs have told that the deceased had consumed poison, as a result of which he was taken to Kota Hospital for treatment and was referred to CIMS, where the doctor declared him dead. 21. A close scrutiny of statement of all the witnesses including the Investigating Officer, it is clear that the statements of witnesses are contradictory to each other. Some witnesses stated that the incident took place in the house of Malik Ram and some witnesses stated that the incident took place near the shop of Gulshan Kumar. Gulshan Kumar stated that the incident took place in the main road of village. It is very surprising that the complainant/son of the deceased (PW-1) did not get lodge FIR on the same day when accused persons administered poison on the mouth of his father and died. The Investigating Officer also admitted this suggestion of defence that on the same day he reached on the spot i.e. 03.12.2017 but he did not lodge any dehati nalisi. It is clear from the inquest memo (Ex-P/1) that this memo was prepared by chowki incharge on 03.12.2017 and the complainant Aman Kumar was also the witness of inquest memo (Ex-P/1) but he did not state about how accused Dinesh administered poison his father’s mouth. Dehati nalisi (Ex-P/2) was also recorded by Krishna Kant Singh on second day i.e. on 04.12.2017 at 16:30. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sandeep Kumar (supra) held in para 66 as under:- “66. In this case, there is no evidence at all that the deceased died of poisoning. Secondly, there is no evidence to show that the appellants had poison in their possession. Thus, even proceeding on the basis that being the wife and daughter-in-law who was living with them that the appellants may have had the opportunity to administer poison, the other two tests are not satisfied. Secondly, there is no evidence to show that the appellants had poison in their possession. Thus, even proceeding on the basis that being the wife and daughter-in-law who was living with them that the appellants may have had the opportunity to administer poison, the other two tests are not satisfied. The police did not recover any poison from the appellants or their house. As already noticed the FSL report categorically rules out the presence of any poison. As regards the appellants not being found with any poison, we no doubt notice the view taken by a Bench of two learned judges and reported in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab6. The same reads as under: “24. From the foregoing cases, it will be seen that in poison murder cases, the accused was not acquitted solely on the failure of the prosecution to establish one or the other requirement which this Court has laid down in Dharambir Singh case [ Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1958, decided on 4- 11-1958 (SC)] . We do not also find any case where the accused was acquitted solely on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had the poison in his possession. The accused in all the said cases came to be acquitted by taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances including insufficient motive, weakness in the chain of circumstantial evidence and likelihood of the deceased committing suicide. 25. We do not consider that there should be acquittal or the failure of the prosecution to prove the possession of poison with the accused. Murder by poison is invariably committed under the cover and cloak of secrecy. Nobody will administer poison to another in the presence of others. The person who administers poison to another in secrecy will not keep a portion of it for the investigating officer to come and collect it. The person who commits such murder would naturally take care to eliminate and destroy the evidence against him. In such cases, it would be impossible for the prosecution to prove possession of poison with the accused. The prosecution may, however, establish other circumstances consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The court then would not be justified in acquitting the accused on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove possession of the poison with the accused. 26. The prosecution may, however, establish other circumstances consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The court then would not be justified in acquitting the accused on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove possession of the poison with the accused. 26. The poison murder cases are not to be put outside the rule of circumstantial evidence. There may be obvious very many facts and circumstances out of which the court may be justified in drawing permissible inference that the accused was in possession of the poison in question. There may be very many facts and circumstances proved against the accused which may call for tacit assumption of the factum of possession of poison with the accused. The insistence on proof of possession of poison with the accused invariably in every case is neither desirable nor practicable. It would mean to introduce an extraneous ingredient to the offence of murder by poisoning. We cannot, therefore, accept the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. The accused in a case of murder by poisoning cannot have a better chance of being exempted from sanctions than in other kinds of murders. Murder by poisoning is run like any other murder. In cases where dependence is wholly on circumstantial evidence, and direct evidence not being available, the court can legitimately draw from the circumstances an inference on any matter one way or the other.” 23. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sonali Mukherjee (supra) held in para 39 as under:- “39. The only two other possibilities of the introduction of the tablets to Biswajit could be the forcible opening of his mouth by the accused and putting the tablets into his mouth and compel him to swallow the same or, secondly, Biswajit himself taking the tablets. It must be noted here that when we see the medical evidence and more particularly, the injuries described by Dr. Sahay, there is no injury on the face of Biswajit. The injuries were on the other parts of the body and they were extremely insignificant injuries. At least the injuries nowhere suggest that his mouth was forced open and then the tablets were put into his mouth compelling him to swallow the same. That does not appear in the tenor of evidence of Subbash Dass (PW-5). The injuries were on the other parts of the body and they were extremely insignificant injuries. At least the injuries nowhere suggest that his mouth was forced open and then the tablets were put into his mouth compelling him to swallow the same. That does not appear in the tenor of evidence of Subbash Dass (PW-5). For that matter, if we accept the evidence of Subbash Dass (PW-5) on the aspect as to what exactly happened on that night in that room, then there would be no other view possible excepting to exonerate Assadid Poddar (A-2) at least insofar as the introduction of the tablets to Biswajit is concerned. The witness very clearly says that all the time till the door was closed, Assadid Poddar (A-2) was outside and it was only Sonali Mukherjee (A-1), who was with Biswajit.” In view of the above legal principle, it is clear that in the case in hand, the conduct of the prosecuting agency is not reliable. 24. In the similar matter, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Allarakha Habib (supra) held in paras 19, 20 & 29 & 38:- “19. Since the Police Constable, Demistalkumar(PW- 12) claiming to be an eyewitness to the heinous assault had reported at the police station with the crime weapons, there was no reason whatsoever as to why his statement would not have been recorded immediately on his arrival at the police station. From the circumstances discussed above, a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court that the statement of Demistalkumar(PW-12) would definitely have been recorded in the daily diary(roznamcha) but his version may not have suited the prosecution case and that is why, the daily diary entry was never brought on record. Non-production of the daily diary is a serious omission on part of the prosecution. 20. There cannot be any doubt that the first version of the incident as narrated by the Police Constable, Demistalkumar(PW-12) would be required to be treated as the FIR and the complaint lodged by Mohammad Arif Memon(PW-11) would be relegated to the category of a statement under Section 161 CrPC and nothing beyond that. The same could not have been treated to be the FIR as it would be hit by Section 162 CrPC. The same could not have been treated to be the FIR as it would be hit by Section 162 CrPC. Evidently thus, the prosecution is guilty of concealing the initial version from the Court and hence, an adverse inference deserves to be drawn against the prosecution on this count.” 25. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Nand Lal (supra) held in para 23 as under:- “23. It can thus be seen from the evidence of PW-14, IO that the police had information about the incident at least prior to 11.45 PM on 3rd November 2006. No doubt that mere delay in registering FIR would not be fatal to the prosecution case. The effect of delay in lodging the FIR would differ in the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, admittedly, accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar had received grievous injuries which have not been explained by the prosecution. A specific defence has been taken by accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar that when he was coming after consuming liquor, he was assaulted by Atmaram (PW-1). Thereafter, he went to the Police Station along with accused No. 7 Charnu Jangde, accused No. 12 Paltan Jangde, Ashwini and Vinod, whereafter he was referred for medical treatment. Looking at the injuries of accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar, it appears difficult that he could have taken part in the second part of the incident. The prosecution has suppressed the first report lodged by Atmaram (PW-1) as well as by accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar. If Naresh Kumar was examined at 11.45 PM, the police must have had some information about the incident at least by 11.00 PM. As such, there is a delay of at least four hours in lodging the FIR.” 26. In similar matter, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sekaran (supra) held in paras 14 & 15 as under:- “14. We start with the FIR, to which exception has been taken by the appellant urging that there has been no satisfactory explanation for its belated registration. It is trite that merely because there is some delay in lodging an FIR, the same by itself and without anything more ought not to weigh in the mind of the courts in all cases as fatal for the prosecution. It is trite that merely because there is some delay in lodging an FIR, the same by itself and without anything more ought not to weigh in the mind of the courts in all cases as fatal for the prosecution. A realistic and pragmatic approach has to be adopted, keeping in mind the peculiarities of each particular case, to assess whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is an afterthought to give a coloured version of the incident, which is sufficient to corrode the credibility of the prosecution version. 15. In cases where delay occurs, it has to be tested on the anvil of other attending circumstances. If on an overall consideration of all relevant circumstances it appears to the court that the delay in lodging the FIR has been explained, mere delay cannot be sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case; however, if the delay is not satisfactorily explained and it appears to the court that cause for the delay had been necessitated to frame anyone as an accused, there is no reason as to why the delay should not be considered as fatal forming part of several factors to vitiate the conviction.” 27. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Kailash Gour (supra) held in paras 38.2.2, 38.2.3 & 38.3 as under:- “38.2 This Court in State of H.P. v. Gian Chand (2001) 6 SCC 71 dealt with the effect of failure of prosecution to satisfactorily explain the delay in the lodging of the FIR and declared that if the delay is not satisfactorily explained the same is fatal to the prosecution. This Court observed: 12. "If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is a possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case." 38.2.3 To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (2007) 12 SCC 641 , where this Court observed: "9. In criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the Court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. In criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the Court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either coming before the police or before the court, the courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case." 38.3 From the deposition of Mohd. Taheruddin (PW2), it is clear that the FIR was drawn only after the Investigating Officer had through this witness got the people from the locality gathered. The officer then interrogated them and after deliberations with the elders of the community got a report scribed by Abdul Jabbar (PW5) naming as many as 13 persons as accused. PW5 has in his deposition clearly admitted that Mohd. Taheruddin had discussed in the gathering of the prominent people of the area the facts to be mentioned in the ejahar. There were nearly 100/200 people who had assembled when the ejahar was written by him. It is difficult to appreciate how a report prepared after such wide consultation and deliberations could carry a semblance of spontaneity to be credible in a criminal trial of such a serious nature. Even the Investigating Officer was contributing to the creation of a report after confabulations with elders of the area. Mohd. Taheruddin has in this regard deposed: "While ejahar was being written at his house, he called the village President Abdul Jabbar and other prominent persons of the village and upon being advised by the I.O. Gaji Sahab also came……….The Daroga had interrogated prominent persons before the writing of ejahar." 28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Ramesh Baburao Devaskar (supra) held in para 18 as under:- “18. A First Information Report cannot be lodged in a murder case after the inquest has been held. The First Information Report has been lodged on the basis of the statements made by PW-11 to the informant himself at the spot. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Ramesh Baburao Devaskar (supra) held in para 18 as under:- “18. A First Information Report cannot be lodged in a murder case after the inquest has been held. The First Information Report has been lodged on the basis of the statements made by PW-11 to the informant himself at the spot. If the said prosecution witness who claimed himself to be the eye-witness was the person who could lodge a First Information Report, there was absolutely no reason as to why he himself did not become the first informant. The First Information Report was recorded on the basis of his information given to the first informant at the spot. All information given by him to PW-13 was made before the Investigating Officer himself. What prevented him from lodging the First Information Report is beyond our comprehension. PW-11, we may place on record, categorically stated that he had disclosed the details of information to all concerned. Therefore, it is expected that the first informant was informed thereabout. We have noticed hereinbefore that the information given by PW-13 had at least been recorded by the police in the Crime Register and he categorically stated a few facts, viz., the main accused Accused No. 9 committed murder of his brother Shivaji Patil and one Baburao Patil. Even the place where the murder took place was known to him. If we are to believe the investigating officer, he recorded the statement after holding inquest. The detailed report in regard to the nature of injuries as also the place where the injuries were inflicted was known to him as inquest report had already been prepared. Such an attempt on the part of the investigating officer has been deprecated by this Court in a large number of decisions. All other witnesses including the Panch witnesses must have been present there. If despite the same, according to Panch Witnesses, at least in respect of Baburao, unknown persons are said to be his assailants, it is evident that PW-11 did not disclose the names of the assailants; at least all of them before PW-9 as also the Investigating Officer.” 29. All other witnesses including the Panch witnesses must have been present there. If despite the same, according to Panch Witnesses, at least in respect of Baburao, unknown persons are said to be his assailants, it is evident that PW-11 did not disclose the names of the assailants; at least all of them before PW-9 as also the Investigating Officer.” 29. Applying the aforesaid legal propositions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the present case as well, it is clear that in the case in hand, dehati nalisi and FIR was lodged by the Investigating Officer after more than 24 hours of death of the deceased. It is very surprising that the inquest memo was prepared by chowki incharge on the same day of the incident i.e. on 03.12.2017, but at that time, the complainant did not state about the incident to him. The Investigating Officer also reached on the spot on the same day on 03.12.2017 but he also did not lodge any complaint or dehati nalisi and he also admitted this suggestion of defence that murder is a serious offence and anybody can inform about the murder but he self stated that in para 20 of the cross-examination before lodging any report, he wanted to be fully satisfied. He admitted this suggestion that had anybody reported the matter to him, he would have registered the report. PW-6 N. Varun did not mention about any injury on the body of the deceased Malik Ram in mouth area and no injury suggests that mouth of Malik Ram was forcefully opened and then the poison was administered into his mouth compelling him to drink the same. Only some contusions and abrasions were recorded by Dr. N. Varun (PW-6), which confirms the probability of the defence that on that day, some quarrel took place between the deceased and the accused persons and it is also admitted by the deceased’s son that on very same day, accused persons lodged FIR against the deceased Malik Ram for commission of maarpeet. In answer to question No.103, the accused said that on the date of incident, a quarrel took place between Aman Kumar and the deceased Malik Ram and they manhandled to each other and the deceased Malik died due to consuming of poisonous liquor or pesticide kept in the home. In answer to question No.103, the accused said that on the date of incident, a quarrel took place between Aman Kumar and the deceased Malik Ram and they manhandled to each other and the deceased Malik died due to consuming of poisonous liquor or pesticide kept in the home. It is also admitted by the son of deceased/complainant and other witnesses that Malik Ram consumed liquor in the morning of 03.12.2017 and there is no evidence collected by the prosecution that how the appellant Dinesh possessed the poison and no sign of any struggle in the mouth of deceased was found by doctor, which suggests that poison was forcefully administered to him. 30. Looking to the conduct of the son of the deceased (PW-1) and statement of Investigating Officer (PW-19), it is clear that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt that whether the death was homicidal or suicidal and also looking to the statement of all witnesses and conduct of the prosecution agency and guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove this fact that the accused persons assaulted the deceased and forcefully administered poison to him, as such the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable. 31. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges under Sections 148/149, 328/149 and 302/149 of IPC. 32. The appellants Ramesh Kumar, Dinesh Kumar and Gourishankar are in jail, whereas other accused Bhan Singh Lahre, Ramanrayan @ Suresh, Ganesh Ram, Smt. Baishakha Bai and Ravishankar Lahre are on bail. The appellants Ramesh Kumar, Dinesh Kumar and Gourishankar be released forthwith, if they are not required to be detained in any other offence. 33. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each before the court concerned forthwith. The bail bonds furnished by the appellants shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 34. The bail bonds furnished by the appellants shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 34. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.