JUDGMENT H. C. P. Tripathi, J. - Appellant Bhure has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence of two years R.I. and fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 477 I.P. C. recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Jhansi. 2. On November 28, 1961, a complaint was filed by Rajendra Kumar (P.W. 1) before the court of a 1st Class Magistrate of Lalitpur against the appellant on the allegations that he had borrowed Rs. 120/- from the complainant on November 14, 1959 against a hand note, that on November 24, 1961 at about 10 A.M. at the house of the complainant the appellant approached him and asked him to return the handnote after taking payment, that thereupon the complainant brought the book containing the handnote and began calculating the interest accrued thereon, that the appellant meanwhile to tore away the hand note and gulped it down his throat, that this was witnessed by Dashrath, Brishbhan and Bidyadhar, who were present there, that a Panchayat was held on the next day in which the appellant admitted to have borrowed the money and to have destroyed the pronote but expressed his inability to pay back the loan and that thereupon the complainant lodged a report to the police. 3. The magistrate framed a charge under Section 477 I.P.C. against the appellant and committed him to stand his trial before the court of session. 4. At the trial the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied to have taken any loan from the complainant against the execution of a handnote. He also denied the allegation that he had gulped down the aforesaid handnote and attributed his false implication in the case on account of prevalent party factions in the village. 5. The prosecution story rests on the testimony of complainant Rajendra Kumar, Dashrath, Brishbhan and Bidyadhar who have been examined as eyewitnesses of the occurrence, Panna Lal has testified to the execution of the handnote by the appellant in favour of the complainant on receiving a sum of Rs. 120/- from him as loan. 5. The prosecution story rests on the testimony of complainant Rajendra Kumar, Dashrath, Brishbhan and Bidyadhar who have been examined as eyewitnesses of the occurrence, Panna Lal has testified to the execution of the handnote by the appellant in favour of the complainant on receiving a sum of Rs. 120/- from him as loan. One Brishbhan Singh, Sarpanch of the Nyay Panchayat of the village who was examined in his defence, has deposed that on November 15, 1959 a Panchayat was held in the village in respect of a subsisting dispute between the appellant Bhure on one hand and Kalle on the other and that in that Panchayat it was settled that Bhure would deposit Rs. 120/- with one Daulat Ram Jain and that Kalle will withdraw his criminal case against him and thereafter that amount will be paid to Kalle. Brishbhan has proved Ex. Kha. 1 the settlement deed which was arrived at in the Panchayat and which had been signed by him and also Gajadhar father of Brishbhan (P.W. 4). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the statements of the prosecution witnesses with care. I am of opinion that the prosecution story bristles with improbabilities and the testimony of the witnesses does not inspire reliance. 7. Complainant Rajendra Kumar says that he had kept the book containing the handnote at a distance of one span from him and that the three prosecution witnesses Dashrath, Brishbhan and Bidyadhar were sitting about a cubit away from him and when the appellant tore away the hand note from the book he immediately exclaimed as to what he i had done. Even then the appellant succeeded in putting the handnote inside his mouth and gulping it down. It is difficult to believe that in the presence of four persons who were sitting just close to the appellant he could succeed in not only tearing away the handnote from the book but also in gulping it down. If Rajendra Kumar could hear the sound of the tearing of the handnote from the book there was nothing to prevent him in catching the hand of the appellant and thus frustrating his design of gulping down the handnote. 8. If Rajendra Kumar could hear the sound of the tearing of the handnote from the book there was nothing to prevent him in catching the hand of the appellant and thus frustrating his design of gulping down the handnote. 8. Even if it is assumed that the complainant and his witnesses could not prevent the appellant from destroying the handnote, there is no reason why they did not arrest him then and there and take him to the police station. The appellant, according to the prosecution, had committed a cognizable offence at the house of the complainant in the presence of four persons even then he was allowed to go away from the place. The whole story appears to be too dramatic to be real. 9. Panna Lal (P.W. 2) who says that he had scribed the handnote executed by the appellant in favour of the complainant is an interested witness. He has admitted that he had taken loan from Rajendra Kumar and that he too indulges in money-lending. He could I not give the exact amount which he had taken on loan from Rajendra Kumar. 10. According to Dashrath (P.W. 3) the incident had taken place at the shop of Rajendra Kumar and not at his house. This is in direct contradiction of what has been stated by the complainant. In my opinion he is a got up witness. Dashrath also stated that his uncle Kallu had stood as a candidate for the post of Sabhapati and had lost to Bhupati Singh and the appellant was a partisan of Bhupati Singh. No reliance can, therefore, be placed on the testimony of this witness. 11. Brishbhan is an obvious liar. He expressed his inability to recognise the handwriting of his father though he has been living with him. He also signed ignorance of the fact as to whether his father had stood for election as a Gram Sadasya or not. According to the complainant the handnote was scribed by Panna Lal, but this witness says that it was in the handwriting of Rajendra Kumar himself. 12. Complainant Rajendra Kumar nowhere stated that any amount of money was shown by the appellant but this witness stated that Bhure had shown to the complainant ten rupee notes for payment. 13. According to the complainant the handnote was scribed by Panna Lal, but this witness says that it was in the handwriting of Rajendra Kumar himself. 12. Complainant Rajendra Kumar nowhere stated that any amount of money was shown by the appellant but this witness stated that Bhure had shown to the complainant ten rupee notes for payment. 13. According to Rajendra Kumar Bhure had admitted execution of the pronote and its destruction before the Panchayat but had expressed his inability to return the loan as he had no money. Bidyadhar says that Bhure had offered before the Panchayat his cow and calf in lieu of the loan. He also says that on the date of the incident no Panchayat had taken place, though the statement of the complainant Rajendra Kumar is to the contrary. 14. This brief resume of the prosecution evidence makes it evident that the eye witnesses of the occurrence have contradicted themselves on material points and no reliance can be placed on their testimony. 15. The following circumstances appearing on the record also throw a cloud of doubt around the prosecution story. 16. The incident is said to have taken place on November 24, 1961, at 10 a.m. but the first information report was lodged on the next day at 8 p.m. The only explanation that has been offered for this delay in lodging the first information report is that the complainant was arranging for holding of Panchayat and it was only when the appellant did not agree to pay the amount in the Panchayat that he lodged the report. This explanation if found to be established will certainly be a valid explanation for delay in lodging the report. But the story of the Panchayat too appears to be highly doubtful. The complaint in the case was filed five days after the incident but no mention was made in it that any Panchayat was held in the village in which the appellant had accepted his liability of payment of the loan but had expressed inability to pay the same. It is inconceivable that a shrewd money-lender like Rajendra Kumar who must have been assisted, as he says, in the drafting of the complaint by a lawyer, could have missed to mention this important fact. 17. It is inconceivable that a shrewd money-lender like Rajendra Kumar who must have been assisted, as he says, in the drafting of the complaint by a lawyer, could have missed to mention this important fact. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion of the evidence and circumstances appearing on the record the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. He need not surrender.