JUDGMENT S.K. Kaul, J. (for self and for Prem Prakash, J.) 1. Nankoo, Santu and Chhanga were asked to stand their trial for having committed the murder of Ram Kumar and his putative father Baijnath. Chhanga was charged simpliciter u/s 302 IPC while Santu and Nankoo were charged u/s 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 Penal Code. 2. It is not disputed in this case that Nankoo and Santu are real brothers while Chhanga is their cousin. It is also admitted in this case that Baijnath had three brothers, namely. Ram Autar, Bhagwan Din and Paragi. Faqire and Shambu were sons of Paragi. Chhanga is the son of Ram Autar, while Nankoo and Santu are sons of Bhagwan Din. In this way, the deceased Baijnath and his adopted son Ram Kumar may be said to be close relations of the three accused of this case. It is alleged by the prosecution that Baijnath had no issue. He had adopted Ram Kumar as his son. Ram Kumar was the son of Baijnath's brother-in-law. Initially Ram Kumar used to reside in village Bajpur, district Lucknow, but since his adoption he had been residing with Baijnath in village Chilehta where these accused also reside. About 11 years prior to this incident Ram Kumar was married to Raj Kumari, a prosecution witness of this case. Raj Kumari is the daughter of Ram Prasad, another prosecution witness. Ram Prasad resides in village Barethi which lies at a distance of about three miles from Chilehta. Since her marriage Raj Kumari resided with her husband and her father-in-law. The prosecution story further reads in this way that a year before this occurrence Baijnath executed a sale-deed of some agricultural property in favour of his son Ram Kumar. A mutation case had started on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deed and as a result of mutation the name of Ram Kumar had been entered in the relevant revenue papers. The accused did not like either the adoption of Ram Kumar or the transfer effected by Baijnath in Ram Kumar's favour and this had given a motive to the accused to commit this double murder. A day before this occurrence both Baijnath and Ram Kumar had informed Bishram Pradhan of village Barethi that the accused had adopted a hostile attitude. The accused did not like either the adoption of Ram Kumar or the transfer effected by Baijnath in Ram Kumar's favour and this had given a motive to the accused to commit this double murder. A day before this occurrence both Baijnath and Ram Kumar had informed Bishram Pradhan of village Barethi that the accused had adopted a hostile attitude. They had also requested the aforesaid Pradhan to inform Ram Prasad about this fact so that, he could come to village Chilehta for effecting of reconciliation between the deceased on one hand and the accused on the other. On 27th September, 1974, Ram Prasad accompanied by a co-villager Piarey Lal had come to Chilehta at about 3.30 P.M. They found Baijnath sitting at the well. They entered into conversation with Baijnath. At about 4 P.M. Ram Kumar taking the plough and the bullocks proceeded towards his fields which lay to the south east of his house. He was followed by his wife Raj Kumari. Ram Kumar had started ploughing his field from the northern side. On that occasion his wife Raj Kumari was taking out grass from the south portion. At about 5 P.M. Chhanga accused armed with a gandasa and Santu and Nankoo armed with bankas reached the field. They chased Ram Kumar upto a distance of 20 to 25 paces. When Ram Kumar had reached the parti land lying to the north of his field, he as surrounded by Santu and Nankoo who caught hold of him and felled him on the ground. Chhanga is said to have given a gandasa blow on account of which Ram Kumar's neck was severed causing his instantaneous death. This incident was said to have been seen by Raj Kumari who started weeping. Thereafter all these accused are said to have come to the well in the abadi where Baijnath was talking to Ram Prasad and Piarey Lai. Reaching there all these three persons started delivering blows upon Baijnath with their respective weapons on account of which Baijnath is said to have died on the jagat of the aforesaid well. Thereafter the three accused are said to have escaped towards the east. Ten or fifteen minutes after this murder of Baijnath, Raj Kumari came weeping to this well and narrated the incident connected with her husband to Ram Prasad and Piarey Lai. Thereafter the three accused are said to have escaped towards the east. Ten or fifteen minutes after this murder of Baijnath, Raj Kumari came weeping to this well and narrated the incident connected with her husband to Ram Prasad and Piarey Lai. Both these persons thereafter went to the place where Ram Kumar was lying dead. They found the dead body of Ram Kumar lying in the parti land. Piarey Lal was deputed to look after the dead body. Ram Prasad brought the the plough and the bullocks to the house. Thereafter Ram Prasad is said to have collected Kishun, Paragi and Bhagirath. These persons were taken to the parti to see what had happened to Ram Kumar. Ultimately Ram Prasad accompanied by Piarey Lal reached Kotwali, Barabanki, at about 11.30 P.M. the same night and lodged the F. I. R. The police station lies at a distance of three miles from this village. Station Officer Ram Asrey Singh started investigation and is said to have interrogated Ram Prasad and Piarey Lal at the police station. Thereafter accompanied by Sub-Inspector Shyam Bahadur Singh and other constables and taking with him two petromax lamps the Investigating Officer reached this village at about 2.30 in the night. He found the dead body of Baijnath on the well. He prepared the inquest report relating to the dead body of Baijnath and sealed the dead body after preparing the relevant documents. He also prepared the inquest relating to the dead body of Ram Kumar and after sealing it he prepared the relevant papers in respect of that body as well. He then interrogated Raj Kumari and deputed constables to search for the accused. The search found the accused missing and nothing incriminating was recovered from their houses. The Investigating Officer took bloodstained and nearby plain earth from the place where Baijnath's body was lying. He sealed them in separate containers and then prepared memos. He also took into possession blood-stained and nearby plain earth from the place where Ram Kumar's dead body was lying and after sealing them in separate containers he prepared memos of the same. Thereafter he is said to have inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared a site-plan with the help of witnesses. He had found signs of recent ploughing in the field of Baijnath on the northern side. Thereafter he is said to have inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared a site-plan with the help of witnesses. He had found signs of recent ploughing in the field of Baijnath on the northern side. He also found some grass having been plucked from that very portion. Autopsy upon the dead body of Baijnath was conducted by Dr. K. R. Hasan on 28-9-1974, at about 4 p.m. The Doctor found the probable time of death to be about one day. He found the following ante-mortem injuries upon the dead body : * * * * 3. The internal examination revealed that 6th cervical had been cut corresponding to injury no. 4. The 4th and 5th ribs on the left side were cut "corresponding to injury no. 1. Large vessels were cut in the neck left side corresponding to injury no. 4. Left jaw was cut in the middle and tongue was also partially cut. Semi-digested food material 4 ozs. was present inside the stomach. The large intestines were full with gases and faecal matter. According to the opinion of Dr. Hasan, death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. 4. The same Doctor conducted autopsy upon the dead body of Ram Kumar on the same day, i. e., 28th September, 1974, at 5 P.M. According to him, the probable time of death was about one day. He found the following ante-mortem injuries upon the dead body : Incised wound 30 cm. X 1.5 cm. on the left side of neck cutting large vessels oesophagus, larynx and trachea at the level of 6th cervical vertebrae ; neck attached with skin on the right side. 5. The internal examination revealed the 6th cervical vertebrae cut. Larynx and trachea were cut in the neck. Semi-digested food was present in the stomach. Small intestines were empty while large intestines were full of gasses and faecal matter. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the aforesaid injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 6. The Investigating Officer submitted report for taking proceedings under Sections 82/83 Code of Criminal Procedure. He obtained orders and then deputed Sub-Inspector Suraj Pal Singh to implement those orders. 6. The Investigating Officer submitted report for taking proceedings under Sections 82/83 Code of Criminal Procedure. He obtained orders and then deputed Sub-Inspector Suraj Pal Singh to implement those orders. He was informed by Suraj Pal Singh on 1st October, 1974, that attachment of the property of the accused had been effected and all proceedings relating to the above mentioned Sections were fully implemented, it, however, appears that all the accused had surrendered in Court. We may note here that there is, no doubt, report of the Chemical Examiner on the record in respect of the bloodstained earth found at two places, but there is no report of the Serologist on the record to prove whether the aforesaid blood was human blood or not. 7. After completing investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused and on that basis they were asked to stand their trial on the lines indicated above. 8. The defence of all these three accused was complete denial and false implication. The defence of Nankoo further was that Raj Kumari was not delivering any child and he used to tell Baijnath that this woman may be divorced and Ram Kumar may be married again. 9. The Addl. Sessions Judge as a result of the appraisement of evidence and placing implicit reliance upon the testimony of the three eye-witnesses P.Ws. Rani Prasad, Piarey Lal and Raj Kumari, came to the conclusion that Chhanga had committed the murder of Ram Kumar and that the other two accused had helped Chhanga in the commission of the aforesaid crime. He also held that these three accused had combined together to commit the murder of Baijnath and had committed that crime. Having come to that conclusion, he awarded the sentence of death to Chhanga, while he awarded imprisonment for life to the remaining two accused. He also made the usual reference for confirmation of the death sentence awarded by him to Chhanga. It is in these circumstances that Criminal Appeal No. 791 of 1976 filed by the three accused, Cr. A. No. 802 of 1976 filed by Chhanga and Capital Sentence Reference No. 17 of 1976 have come up before us. Since these two appeals and the capital sentence reference were connected with the same transaction and arise out of the same judgment, these were taken up together and shall be disposed of by one judgment. 10. A. No. 802 of 1976 filed by Chhanga and Capital Sentence Reference No. 17 of 1976 have come up before us. Since these two appeals and the capital sentence reference were connected with the same transaction and arise out of the same judgment, these were taken up together and shall be disposed of by one judgment. 10. The motive adduced in this case, according to the prosecution, is twofold, namely, that the accused did not like adoption of Ram Kumar and secondly that they definitely disliked the transfer of the agricultural property by Baijnath to Ram Kumar. We, however, find that both these motives have not at all been proved in this case. So far as the adoption of Ram Kumar is concerned, nothing substantial has been said vis-a-vis the accused on that basis. In fact, the prosecution story is that since the age of three years Ram Kumar was residing with Baijnath and his marriage also took place about 11 years before this occurrence. If the accused had resented the adoption, some overt act could have been done by them to show that resentment. On the other hand, Ram Prasad frankly admitted in cross-examination that there were two sons of Paragi, namely, Faqire and Sharrbhu. It is not understood what object could have been achieved by the accused in the commission of this crime. Moreover, Ram Prasad admitted that Baijnath was separate from his three brothers. He further admitted that he had no talk with any relation of Baijnath on the question of adoption nor any relation of Baijnath in his presence raised objection to this adoption. Indeed, he had to confess that, apart from this murder, Baijnath had no quarrel with any relation of his, whatsoever. It is, therefore, obvious that this motive, namely, that the accused did not like the adoption of Ram Kumar is an airy one. Coming to the second motive, Ram Prasad admitted that previous to these murders in connection with the sale there was no "Kahasuni" or altercation between Baijnath and his relations. It is obvious that no objections were levelled by the accused in the mutation proceedings otherwise the prosecution would have filed those documents. On the other hand, Ram Prasad admitted that he did not know whether the accused or their father had filed any objection in the mutation Court. It is obvious that no objections were levelled by the accused in the mutation proceedings otherwise the prosecution would have filed those documents. On the other hand, Ram Prasad admitted that he did not know whether the accused or their father had filed any objection in the mutation Court. He admitted that in the mutation case neither the accused nor their father were parties. He further admitted that the Tahsildar had sent the case to the S. D. O. and that the case was decided five or six days after this incident by the S. D. O. We, therefore, find that this motive has also been introduced for reasons best known to Ram Prasad when definitely it was not there. It is true that motive is not material in criminal cases where direct evidence is forthcoming. If however, motive is adduced and it is not proved, the testimony of those witnesses, who are said to have seen this occurrence, has to be scrutinised with caution and care. 11. Coming to the prosecution story, it is surprising that even in the F. I. R. it was mentioned as if at the time of the murder of Baijnath, which is said to have taken place in the heart of the abadi and which place is surrounded by several houses, there could not have been a single human being present at the time which is 5 p.m. specially when, according to Ram Prasad, he and Piarey Lal had raised shouts. In order to meet this contingency, it was mentioned in the F. I. R. as if none was present at the house but they had gone on their respective work. Ram Prasad, however, stated that the murder of Ram Kumar had taken place in the field. It is surprising that the villagers were not present at their houses. They were also not present at the field ; all of them including the ladies and grown up children appear to have disappeared in the air. This is a circumstance which clearly shows that since none of these two murders was witnessed by any one-it having taken place at a time when it was dark-none of the villagers was prepared to enter the witness box or oblige the Investigating Officer who appears to be the moving spirit behind this prosecution by starting this cooked up story. This is a circumstance which clearly shows that since none of these two murders was witnessed by any one-it having taken place at a time when it was dark-none of the villagers was prepared to enter the witness box or oblige the Investigating Officer who appears to be the moving spirit behind this prosecution by starting this cooked up story. We are asked to be lieve that in that month when normally sun is at its highest, Ram Kumar would go at 4 p.m. to plough his fields. Bharosey (PW 9) admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of occurrence the fields were being ploughed and that people used to start ploughing even from early hours of morning before sun-rise. That would go to show that looking to the month in which the occurrence took place, the normal time of ploughing in that village was in the morning before the sun rays could start affecting both the animal and the man who was engaged in ploughing. That being so, it is difficult to believe that Ram Kumar would have gone at about 4 p.m. to plough the field. Raj Kumari admitted that at the time no body else was ploughing the surrounding field. What is more surprising is that, according to her, neither any body saw the murder of her husband nor did she meet anybody right from her field upto the well on the way. This in itself shows that the whole story of Ram Kumar having been murdered while he was engaged in ploughing had been set up to make it a broad day light occurrence. The prosecution was conscious that at the time when the Sub-Inspector came to the spot, no bullock or plough were to be found in the field. It is surprising that Ram Prasad, who finds his daughter to have become widow by reason of her husband being murdered and happens to see Baijnath being murdered before his own eyes, is so much conscious and mentally alert that instead of running to the police station to lodge a report, he engages himself in taking the plough and the bullocks to the house of Baijnath. This story was put up to show the absence of these things from the field. This story was put up to show the absence of these things from the field. No doubt, the Sub-Inspector tried to say that he had seen signs of recent ploughing in the field, but incidently the spot inspection was done on 28th September and if the field was ploughed in the early hours of the morning of 27th of September, it could still appear to be recent to the Sub-Inspector. From this circumstance it cannot be inferred that the murder must have been committed at the time when Ram Kumar was engaged in ploughing. Moreover, the conclusions of the autopsy report of Ram Kumar leave no room for doubt that this murder was committed when Ram Kumar was probably lying asleep. A suggestion thrown out to the witnesses was that Ram Kumar being Kahar by caste also used to dabble in fishing and probably in the night when he had cast his net and was lying asleep by the aside of the river, his murder was committed. The fact remains that when one blow chopped off the neck completely, it is obvious that the deceased must have been in a position not to struggle. This is only possible when the man was asleep. We are asked to believe that all the time the deceased was struggling when Chhanga managed to chop off his neck. Had this been so and had he been thrown on the ground, we would have expected some abrasions on the body apart from some other marks. It is difficult to believe that even if he was caught hold of by Santu and Nankoo, Chhanga would have been in a position to deliver such a blow, when the deceased had struggled, as to result in the injury that appears in the autopsy report. No doubt, Raj Kumari was examined as a witness to prove this murder of Ram Kumar, but curiously enough we are asked to believe that even though her own father had come to the villa and was engaged in talks with Baijna the daughter would go along with I husband without caring to see that I father was given some refreshment in evening. Since Raj Kumari had to be made an eye witness, she was shown to have accompanied the husband for purposes of weeding out the grass. Since Raj Kumari had to be made an eye witness, she was shown to have accompanied the husband for purposes of weeding out the grass. Since we have already discarded that part of the prosecution story regarding ploughing the field by Ram Kumar at that hour in that month, the other part of the prosecution story regarding Raj Kumari accompanying her husband also falls to the ground. Raj Kumari admitted in her cross-examination that the accused used to incite her father-in-law to turn her out since she was not giving birth to to any child. This is exactly what was one of the defences taken by the accused in this case. That being so, it clearly goes to show that the accused were not inimical to Ram Kumar but wanted Ram Kumar to have children. Moreover, it also goes to show why this woman wanted that the accused should brought to book. Apart from it, this woman stated that although she had seen the murder of her husband, she had not touched him and, far from looking after the dead body, which no recent widow would leave, she goes weekping to the house leaving the dead body alone as if she knew that the accused would have gone to the well. This conduct also belies her presence at that time. We have already noted above how it was tried to be shown by this woman that at the time of murder there was no other witness either near about the scene of occurrence or right from the place of occurrence upto the well. It is surprising that in this village at about 5 P.M. not a single person should have been there to have come to the spot either at the well or at the place where Ram Kumar is alleged to have been murdered. We, therefore, do not see any reason to rely upon the testimony of Raj Kumari, more so when she had her own axe to grind vis-a-vis the accused. Her conduct belied that she had witnessed this occurrence. Finally, we would like to mention that this lady was examined u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. This fact was admitted in cross-examination by the Investigating Officer. Indeed, this Investigating Officer had got the statements, apart from Raj Kumari, even of Ram Prasad and Piarey Lal recorded u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. Finally, we would like to mention that this lady was examined u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. This fact was admitted in cross-examination by the Investigating Officer. Indeed, this Investigating Officer had got the statements, apart from Raj Kumari, even of Ram Prasad and Piarey Lal recorded u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. This in itself shows that the prosecution was not feeling safe even about the testimony of Raj Kumari, Ram Prasad and Piarey Lal and that is why their statements were recorded u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. We are surprised that when the murder is connected with her own husband and father-in-law. Raj Kumari should have been examined u/s 164 by the Investigating Officer. This suggests that since the whole story was creation of the Investigating Officer, he could not take chances with the same and got the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure for reasons manifest. This circumstance coupled with the facts and circumstances noted above are sufficient to discard her testimony. 12. We now come to the murder of Baijnath which is said to have been witnessed by Ram Prasad and Piarey Lai. We have already noted above that Ram Prasad and Piarey Lal were examined u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, both these witnesses reside in a different village. The Supreme Court in Bahal Singh Vs. The State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 2032 , observed in paragraph 10 : "If by coincidence or chance a person happens to be at the place of occurrence at the time it is taking place, he is called a chance witness. And if such a person happens to be a relative or friend of the victim or inimically disposed-towards the accused, then his being a chance witness is viewed with suspicion." To this we may add that when such witnesses are examined u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, the evidentiary value of their testimony is rendered to its minimum. In this case both these witnesses are said to have come at a time to have witnessed not only the murder of Baijnath but to have also heard the story told by Raj Kumari regarding the murder of her own husband. These two persons are said to have come to this village probably for reconciliation purposes as was the prosecution story. These two persons are said to have come to this village probably for reconciliation purposes as was the prosecution story. According to them, they started from their village at 1.30 P.M. As noted above, looking to the month and hour, it is surprising that they chose such an odd hour to arrive at this village. Moreover, Raj Kumari stated that the accused were exciting her father-in-law to marry Ram Kumar again and turn her out. That reason would also enure to the benefit of he accused vis-a-vis Ram Prasad. So far as Piarey Lal is concerned, he admitted in his cross-examination that he had turned out his first wife on account of the fact that she was carrying a child and that Santu accused was said to be the person responsible for that. No doubt, he tried to deny as if both of them were ex-communicated and that after Panchayat Santu had been asked to take his wife as his wife, but looking to the biradari to which these persons belong, there can be no doubt in our mind that this must be true. Moreover, once he blamed Santu for making his wife pregnant, it is clear that he becomes an inimical witness. In order to show that these two persons arrived in the village, the prosecution thought fit to examine Bisram (PW 8) who is the Pradhan of village Barethi. Bishram stated that he had come a day earlier to Barabanki and while returning from Barabanki to his village when he passed by village Chilhata, he met Baijnath and Ram Kumar who asked him to send Ram Prasad so that he may effect reconciliation inasmuch as the accused were ill-disposed towards them. This story is obviously a manufactured one. Being Pradhan of the village he could be easily influenced by the police to appear for the prosecution once the Investigating Officer thought to manufacture a story in order to show why Ram Prasad and Piarey Lal residing in a different village could come to this village. Moreover, Raj Kumari had admitted in her cross-examination that 10 or 12 days previous to this occurrence her father had come to her house, but on that day neither her father had tried to effect reconciliation between the accused and Baijnath nor had he any talk with Baijnath on this topic. Moreover, Raj Kumari had admitted in her cross-examination that 10 or 12 days previous to this occurrence her father had come to her house, but on that day neither her father had tried to effect reconciliation between the accused and Baijnath nor had he any talk with Baijnath on this topic. This statement clearly belies the story that these two persons were called for by the deceased to effect reconciliation. Moreover, it is surprising that Ram Prasad could have been chosen to effect reconciliation when the accused, according to this lady, were annoyed with her so much so that they were pressurising her father-in-law to turn her out. It is, therefore, obvious that all these witnesses are not only chance and interested witnesses, but they were examined u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure by the prosecution so that later on they may not back out. On top of it, we are asked to believe that Piarey Lal and Ram Prasad both had gone to the police station when the F.I.R. was lodged, but the Head Constable Ram Singar Singh frankly admitted that Piarey Lai's name was not mentioned in the General Diary as having accompanied Ram Prasad. Considering that Piarey Lal is said to have been interrogated at the police station by the Investigating Officer, this omission becomes extremely significant and shows that neither Piarey Lal had come to the scene of occurrence nor had he accompanied Ram Prasad to the police station nor was he interrogated by the Investigating Officer at the police station. Moreover, all these persons tried to show as if, inspite of their shouts, none from the houses nearby the scene of occurrence came at all. This story is once again belied by Raj Kumari because she admitted that when she was weeping at the well, the wife of Maiku Ahir had not only come there but some persons were also passing by the scene of occurrence. This story is once again belied by Raj Kumari because she admitted that when she was weeping at the well, the wife of Maiku Ahir had not only come there but some persons were also passing by the scene of occurrence. If this was a fact, then the statement of these two persons that none arrived at the scene of occurrence inspite of their shouts appears to be a manufactured story because if this murder had taken place in the abadi at a time when normally one could have expected a lot of people to have come to the scene of occurrence when a number of blows were being delivered to Baijnath, we would have found some persons of this village residing near about the scene of occurrence to be prosecution witnesses. It appears that since none saw this murder, it was thought fit by the Investigating Officer not only to make a mention in the F.I.R. that no one of this village had seen this occurrence but also force these persons to say that inspite of their shouts none could come to the scene of occurrence. We have gone through their statements carefully. We find that they are chance witnesses. They are interested and inimical witnesses and they are witnesses who were not initially relied upon by the prosecution inasmuch as the prosecution had thought fit to examine them u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. Their testimony in these circumstances does not inspire confidence and has to be rejected. 13. It appears to us that this murder was tried to be solved by the Investigating Officer with his own crude methods. The Sub-Inspector Shyam Bahadur Singh examined in this case as PW 6 admitted that there was no overwriting in the relevant papers which were made out at the time of inquest report. In the inquest report relating to Ram Kumar there is an over-writing regarding crime number in the document photo-nash of Ram Kumar (Ext. Ka-26). There is again over-writing in the crime number in the photo-nash of Ram Kumar (Ext Ka-25). There was' overwriting regarding crime number and then it was scored out and it was again written. In the, naksha challan (Ext. Ka-27) curiously enough again there is overwriting in crime number and it clearly shows that some other crime number was noted and then it was scored out and again made. There was' overwriting regarding crime number and then it was scored out and it was again written. In the, naksha challan (Ext. Ka-27) curiously enough again there is overwriting in crime number and it clearly shows that some other crime number was noted and then it was scored out and again made. Besides, PW 1 Kishun, who is a Panch witness stated in his cross-examination that both the dead bodies were sealed at the house of Baijnath and all of them had put their thumb impressions at the house of Baijnath. This would go to show that the body of Ram Kumar was removed from the alleged scence of occurrence to the house of Baijnath for purposes of preparation of the inquest report and yet the Sub-Inspector, who investigated the case, wants us to believe that he prepared the inquest report relating to the dead body of Ram Kumar at the scene of his murder. This strengthens our inference that after the two bodies were put together at the house of Baijnath, the investigating machinery started moving. We need not mention that this very Inspector tried to show as if he prepared the inquest report regarding the dead body of Baijnath at the well. If, therefore, the investigating agency removes the dead body from the scene of occurrence to a place which, according to the prosecution, was not the scene of occurrence, it creates doubt upon the scene of occurrence alleged by the prosecution. We may mention here that although the report of the Chemical Examiner has, no doubt, shown that blood was found on the earth of the two places, but in the absence of the report of the Serologist and in view of the circumstances noted above, we are doubtful whether this blood-stained earth sent to the Chemical Examiner belonged to the scene of occurrence or was also got up by the investigating agency in the same way in which it had tried to create the scene of occurrence. This witness Kishun was selected to be a Panch because he had a score to settle with Chhanga. He admitted in cross-examination that previous to this murder there was an altercation between his brother Hazari and Chhanga. The altercation between his brother and Chhanga again took place about four months earlier in connection with the same fact. This probably influenced the witness to appear for the prosecution. 14. He admitted in cross-examination that previous to this murder there was an altercation between his brother Hazari and Chhanga. The altercation between his brother and Chhanga again took place about four months earlier in connection with the same fact. This probably influenced the witness to appear for the prosecution. 14. As a result of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in coming to this conclusion that this unfortunate double murder was not witnessed by any one. The stomach contents go to show that the murder was committed after the deceased had taken food about four hours before. If, therefore, the deceased had taken food at about evening, say at 6 or 7 P.M., then the murders could have taken place at 11 p.m. The investigating agency being informed of this occurrence set the law in motion and that is why we find that although the FIR was registered at 11.30 p.m., the special report was despatched much later on. Moreover, the Head Constable admitted that only one cognizable case had been registered at the police station earlier and that was at about 8 p.m. in connection with a gambling case. We may note here that the crime number of the aforesaid gambling case was 36. If we scrutinise Exhibits Ka-26 and Ka-27, it would clearly show that the crime number initially shown on these papers was 37. Since the registration of this case had not taken place initially, crime No. 37 was shown of this murder case, but it appears that in between crime No. 36 and this crime number some other G. D. entries had been prepared and that is why when the mistake came to the knowledge of those who had cooked up this case, erasures and overwriting had to take place as noted above by us. This would explain why on the special report the circle officer's signatures were appended on 30th September, 1974. It has come on record that two Sub-Inspectors had accompanied the Station Officer. Both these Sub-Inspectors had come to work out this double murder and it appears that the consultations went on for a pretty length of time. Lodging of the F.I.R. had to be postponed because Ram Prasad had to be called for and it was on his arrival that the scene of occurrence had to be cooked up. In this connection we may refer to Kishun's statement. Lodging of the F.I.R. had to be postponed because Ram Prasad had to be called for and it was on his arrival that the scene of occurrence had to be cooked up. In this connection we may refer to Kishun's statement. This witness categorically stated that the Sub-Inspector had brought the dead body of Ram Kumar to the house of Baijnath at about 10 A.M. in the morning. Both the dead bodies were sent to Barabanki after the "sasuralwalas" of Ram Kumar had come to the village. 15. In view of what we have noted above, we would set aside the sentence and conviction awarded to these three Appellants with respect to the murder of both Ram Kumar and Baijnath and acquit them of the charges with which they were asked to stand their trial. Both the appeals are allowed and the reference made by the Sessions Judge is rejected. Chhanga is in Jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in some other connection.