JUDGMENT P. N. Harkauli, J. 1. JAMSHED and his son Kunwar Khan have preferred these appeals against the judgment and order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. JAMSHED, appellant in appeal No. 745 of 1977, has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to death on the first count and one year's R.I. on the second count. Kunwar Khan has been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. THERE is also the usual reference for the confirmation of the sentence of death passed against Jamshed. Four persons,, namely, Qabool Ahmad(70), his son Jamshed, appellant (45) and Jamshed's two sons Vakil Baboo (20) and Kunwar Khan, appellant (16) were put on trial before the learned IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur on the allegations that on 21-6-1976 at about 5 p.m. in village Gadharana P. S. Manglore, district Saharanpur, in furtherance of the common intention of the four accused persons, Jamshed appellant committed the murder of Ram Singh by firing at him with a country made pistol, which was recovered from his possession a little later, and Kunwar Khan appellant gave a blow with a Balkati (a sharp edged weapon) to the deceased. 3. THE prosecution case, in brief, was that at the relevant time Dilawar Singh, informant, was employed as Vassolyabi Amin in Tahsil Roorki district Saharanpur. On the day in question the Amin had gone i to village Godrona with his peon, Ram Singh deceased, for realising government dues. He made realisations from different persons during the day at the Baithak of one Tara Chand Pandit. At about 5 p. m. Jamshed appellant came ' to the house of Tara Chand Pandit and told Dilawar Singh to calculate the amount due from him. He said that he would pay the amount due from him at his house and asked Dilawar Singh to come to his place. Accordingly Dilawar Singh and his peon Ram Singh went with Jamshed to his house. Jamshed took both of them to the Tukariya (some sort of room) inside his house and seated them there. Jamshed's father Qabool Ahmad and his two sons Kunwar Khan and Vakil Baboo also came to that place. Accordingly Dilawar Singh and his peon Ram Singh went with Jamshed to his house. Jamshed took both of them to the Tukariya (some sort of room) inside his house and seated them there. Jamshed's father Qabool Ahmad and his two sons Kunwar Khan and Vakil Baboo also came to that place. THEse persons asked the informant how much money was due from them and the informant told them that the sum of Rs.33000/- was due from them. THEreupon Jamshed told the informant to write out a receipt. On this Ram Singh deceased, said that no receipt could be prepared unless the money was paid. Jamshed, however, insisted on the receipt being prepared saying 'Raseed kaise nahi kat sakti'. Ram Singh then enquired in a defiant tone as to what the accused persons could do if the receipt was not prepared. At this stage Qabool Ahmad and Vakil Baboo caught hold of Ram Singh and Jamshed appellant took out the pistol which he had kept hidden and shot at Ram Singh from almost point balank range, under the ear. Kunwar Khan brought a Balkati and give a blow with it on the neck of Ram Singh. Ram Singh fell dead at the spot. THEreafter Jamshed appellant told the informant to write out the receipt. Out of fear the informant prepared the three receipts (Exhibits Ka-1 Ka-2 and Ka-3) under a back date, as desired by Jamshed, and handed over the same to Jamshed. THEreafter the four accused persons detained the informant inside the Tukariya. 4. A little later Daya Ram (PW 2) happened to come to that place in search of the Amin and then Jamshed appellant took him also inside the Tukariya at the point of pistol and detained him too inside the Tukariya. At about 9 p. m. when it became dark the four accused persons put some Phoos and Bhoosa and kandas in the Buggi, which was standing in the Angan sand then forced the informant and Daya Ram to help in putting the body of the deceased Ram Singh in the Buggi. They also put a tin of Kerosene oil in the Buggi. They also put a tin of Kerosene oil in the Buggi. While this was being done Daya Ram got an opportunity and he fled from there into the abadi of village and started raising alarm.; On hearing the alarm Suraj Bhan (PW 3), Madan Giri (PW 4) and some other residents of the village reached the spot and apprehended the four appellants. They also snatched the pistol from the hand of Jamshed appellant and also took the three receipts (Exhibits Ka-1 to Ka-3) out of the pocket of Jamshed. 5. THE informant then wrote out a report and went to the police station Manglore, which was 3 1/2-4 miles away, with some persons of the village and lodged the written report there at 1-30 a. m. He also handed over the pistol recovered from the possession of Jamshed, the Balkati used by Kunwar Khan, one empty cartridge and the three receipts there. 6. THIS report was said to have been lodged in the presence of the Investigating Officer, Sri S. N. Misra (PW 9) who immediately proceeded to the spot and reached there at 4 a. m. He found the body of the deceased Ram Singh in the Buggi. After preparing in- inquest report he sent the body for post mortem examination. He also took into his possession a sample of Kandas, Bhoosa, and phoos as well as the tin of kerosene oil which he found in the Buggi and prepared a recovery memo about it. He found blood on the ground inside the Tukariya as also on a cot lying therein and took blood stained and the ordinary earth into his possession. The post mortem examination was performed by Dr. V. K. Chowdhary (PW 5) on 22-6-1976 at Hardwar. He found the following injuries :- 1. Gun shot wound of entry 2.5 cm. and 2.0 cm., with burning and charring present around wound, 2.0 cm. wide around the wound, present on left side of the neck 0.5 cm. below the left ear, direction upward to downward, from left to right side. 2. Gun shot wounds of ext.-2 wds., each measuring 1.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. 0.5 cm. apart, present on right side of the neck, 4.5 cm. below the right ear. 3. Incised wound 7.5 cm, X 0.5 cm. X 0. 25 cm. on left side of fleck 7.5 cm. below left ear. 4. Multiple linear-Abrasion-Each 7.0 cm. 2. Gun shot wounds of ext.-2 wds., each measuring 1.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. 0.5 cm. apart, present on right side of the neck, 4.5 cm. below the right ear. 3. Incised wound 7.5 cm, X 0.5 cm. X 0. 25 cm. on left side of fleck 7.5 cm. below left ear. 4. Multiple linear-Abrasion-Each 7.0 cm. X 0.5X2.0 cm below injury No. 3. fracture of rt. mandible below injury No. 2". 7. IN the opinion of the Doctor death was caused by haemorrhage and shock due to gun shot wounds fired from a distance less than 4 feet. 8. ALL the accused persons pleaded not guilty. The suggestion advanced on their behalf was that there was an altercation and exchange of abuses on that day in the evening between Qabool Ahmad and the informant in the course of which the informant threatened to see Qabool Ahmad. Latter that night some miscreants surrounded the informant and his peon as they were returning from Gad-harona. The informant managed to run away but Ram Singh could not escape and he was murdered by the miscreants. The informant utilised this opportunity falsely to implicate Qabool Ahmad his son and grandsons. Thirteen witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case. Dilawar Singh (PW 1) is the informant and an eye witness of- the occurrence. He deposed about the entire prosecution story which has been given above in detail. Daya Ram (PW 2) stated that at about 5.30 p. m. he went to the house of Jamshed appellant in search of the Amin and then Jamshed took him sit there. About 9 in the night the accused person put the body of Ram Singh in the Buggi with his and Amin's help and in this process he got an opportunity to run away and he raised an alarm on which village people came there and arrested the accused persons. Suraj Bhan (PW 3) and Madan Gjiri (PW 4) stated that they reached the appellants' house on hearing the alarm raised by Daya Ram and apprehended the appellant and the other tw6 accused and recovered the pistol and the receipts from Jamshed appellant. 9. SRI Ram Krishna (PW 10) lis the Tahsildar, who proved the; amount of the Government dues and Dharm Giri (PW 8) is a witness of the recovery of the Kandas, Bhoosa etc., from the buggi. 9. SRI Ram Krishna (PW 10) lis the Tahsildar, who proved the; amount of the Government dues and Dharm Giri (PW 8) is a witness of the recovery of the Kandas, Bhoosa etc., from the buggi. Head Constable Vishnu Dutt Sharma (PW 12) prepared a formal first information report and S.I. SRI S. N. Misra (PW 9) investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet. Dr. V. K. Chaudhary (PW 5) performed the post mortem examination. The rest of the witnesses are police Constables, who gave the evidence of the formal nature. The appellants did not produce any defence. 10. THE learned Sessions! Judge held that Jamshed appellant had j killed the deceased by firing at him, with a country made pistol which was recovered from his possession. He' further held that Kunwar Khan appellant Shared the intention to kill Rani Singh with Jamshed. He was, however, of the opinion that since Jamshed has suddenly whipped out the pistol it could not be said that Qabool Ahmad and Vakil scared Jam- shed's intention to kill Rami Singh. He accordingly gave the benefit of doubt to Qabool Ahmad and Vakil Baboo and convicted and sentenced Jamshed and Kunwar Khan as already mentioned. After going through the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are clearly Of the opinion that the prosecution evidence is unreliable, that the prosecution version is extremely improbable and that things could not have happened in the manner stated by the prosecution witnesses. 11. THE very first thing which throws a serious doubt on the prosecution case is that there is; intrinsic evidence in the first information report to show that it was prepared later on and it was ante-timed. THE informant Dilawar Singh has stated in the examination-in-chief itself that after the residents of the village reached the spot in response to the alarm raised by Daya Ram and apprehended the miscreants, he sat down an wrote out the report. According to his evidence, as also the evidence of Daya Ram Daya Ram rushed out and raised an alarm at or soon after 9 p.m. Obviously it could not have taken more than half an hour or at the very most one hour, for the witnesses to come to the spot in response to Daya Ram's alarm and to apprehend the culprits. So if Dilawar Singh's version is correct, he must have written the report at about 9-30 or 10 p. m. on the day of occurrence i. e. to say 21-6-1976. In the written report Ex. Ka-21 the informant had mentioned the date as 22-6-1976. If this report has really been written out at 10 p. m. on 21-6-1976 we fail to see how it could be dated 22-6-1976. Surely the informant could not have anticipated at 10 O'clock that he would lodge the report at the police station which was over 3 1/2 or 4 miles away after mid-night. So there could be no question of his post-dating the first information report in anticipation of that. In the circumstances it is quite clear that the report was really prepared the next day and that is why by over sight the next days date was mentioned in the written report. If the first information report was prepared later on and ante-dated, of which in the above circumstances there can be little doubt, it must throw a serious doubt on the prosecution case. How can any weight be attached to the version of an informant who indulges in fabrication right from the start ? 12. THERE is yet another aspect of this matter. The informant has stated in cross-examination that when he started from village Gadharona for the police station in order to lodge the report, he did not take the receipt book, from which he had issued the receipts to Jamshed, with him to the police station. He further stated that he had left that receipt book with his relation Alam Singh who had come to the village from Roorkee at about 11 a.m. It is obvious that no one could have been despatched from Village Gadharona to Roorke till the miscreants had been arrested and the informant had been freed, which as already stated, could not have happened till 9.30 or 10.00 p. m. So whoever went to inform Alam Singh must have left the village Gadharona about 9.30 or 10.00 p. m. Now writing out a report like Ex. Ka-21 could not have taken more than 15, 20 or at the most 30 minutes. Ka-21 could not have taken more than 15, 20 or at the most 30 minutes. So the report should have been ready by about 10.00 or 10.30 P.M. The evidence of the Investigating Officer Sri S. N. Misra (PW 9) shows that village Gadharona is at a distance of 9 or10 Kms. from Roorkee. It is obviously not possible that a man who started from village Gadharona at 9.30 Or 10.00 p. m. could have reached Roorkee and informed Alam Singh and returned to village Gadharona with Alam Singh covering a distance of 20 or 221 kms. in all within the short period of 1 or 1 1/2 hours. THEREfore, the statement of the informant that he did not proceed from village Gadharona for the police station till the arrival of Alam Singh clearly means that he stayed on in the village for quite a long time after the occurrence. Thus even if we were to take the informant's statement at its face value it would appear that there was a good deal of unnecessary delay in lodging the report. This again would throw doubt on the prosecution case. However it is unnecessary to go into the question in greater detail when there is intrinsic evidence in the first information report to show that it must) have been prepared the next day which, as already mentioned, is by itself a very suspicious circumstance. Apart from that the prosecution version does not appear at all probable. It will be noticed that according to the prosecution Jamshed took the informant and Ram Singh from the house of Tara Chand Pandit to his own house on the pretext that he would pay the dues there and then he took both of them inside the Tukariya of his house. Now if we look at the site plan we will find that for going into the Tukariya the informant and Ram Singh would have gone inside the Angan of Jamshed, and from there into the Kitchen of Jamshed and from Kitchen to the Tukariya. The site plan also shows that just to the south of Jamshed's Angan across the Gali is his Baithak. The informant's statement further shows that the informant as well as Ram Singh deceased had worked in his village for quite sometime prior to this occurrence. It certainly does appear very strange that Jamshed instead . The site plan also shows that just to the south of Jamshed's Angan across the Gali is his Baithak. The informant's statement further shows that the informant as well as Ram Singh deceased had worked in his village for quite sometime prior to this occurrence. It certainly does appear very strange that Jamshed instead . of taking the informant and Ram Singh to his Baithak took him right inside his house taking him across even his kitchen. No one, and certainly not Muslims, takes outsiders into the inner apartments of the house like this and it is really amazing that the informant and Ram Singh just went along inside the Tukariya without any doubt or suspicion arising in their mind. 13. FURTHER it will be seen from the site plan that the place of this murder is surrounded on all sides by the houses of other persons viz. Bishambhar, Alla Diya, Mir Bahadur, Latif, Bandu Khan and Sharif Chowkidar and that there houses are at a short distance from the house of Jamshed. It is obvious that the firing of a shot must have produced a considerable noise. Yet curiously enough no one seems to have heard the sound of gun-shot or to have come to enquire what the matter was. 14. DAYA Ram says that he had gone to Jamshed's house in search of the Amin and when he reached there he saw Ram Singh lying dead inside the Tukariya in a pool of blood. It is certainly very strange that even though the appellants had murdered Ram Singh inside the Tukariya they did not care to close the door of the Tukariya so that DAYA Ram could see the dead body from the Angan itself. It is very difficult to believe this story. The evidence of the informant that after the murder of Ram Singh, Jamshed forced him to write out the receipts in a back date is also not easy to believe. Unless Jamshed had intended to kill the informant also, it is difficult to see how he could believe that these receipts could serve any useful purpose. Could any one have thought that if the informant was left alive after issuing these receipts tie would not go and tell the officers about the circumstances in which he was made to issue the receipts. Could any one have thought that if the informant was left alive after issuing these receipts tie would not go and tell the officers about the circumstances in which he was made to issue the receipts. It is obvious that the informant could not possibly have paid several thousand rupees from his pocket, and unless he did so he would have to disclose to his officers the circumstances in which he issued the receipts. One is therefore totally at a loss to understand how Jamshed could possibly expect to gain by getting receipts exhibits Ka-1 to Ka-3 executed in such Bircumstances. No one would get documents executed in this manner if there was not the slightest chance of any benefit accruing to him from such documents. The only inference possible in the circumstances is that Jamshed did not get these receipts issued in the manner alleged and that they have been subsequently prepared for the purpose of making out some sort of case against the appellants. 15. FINALLY, it will be seen that the only witnesses produced to prove that village people rushed to the spot in response to the alarm of Daya Ram and arrested the appellants are Suraj Bhan )PW 3) and Madan Giri (PW 4). But the former on his own showing lives at a distance of nine hundred paces i. e. about 800 yards from the appellant's house and the later admits that his house is at a distance of two furlongs from the appellant's house. No doubt they explained that at that time they happened to be at a shop which was not far from the appellants house. But it is not easy to attach weight to such an explanation when we find that a large number of persons, including the Chaukidar, live almost adjoining to the appellants' house (vide site plan) and not one of them is forthcoming to corroborate the prosecution story. The fact that not a single person who lives close to the place of occurrence reached there, and only these two witnesses who live far away are said to have come to the place of occurrence cannot but raise a very serious doubt. 16. CONSIDERING all these circumstances we are clearly of the opinion that the prosecution evidence is open to very serious doubt. 16. CONSIDERING all these circumstances we are clearly of the opinion that the prosecution evidence is open to very serious doubt. The learned counsel for the State vehemently argued that Dilawar Singh informant is not shown or even alleged to have any enmity with the appellants or to have any other reason to falsely implicate them and therefore there was no reason for not relying upon his testimony. This argument does not appeal to us. Enmity is not the only reason which implies people to give wrong evidence. So in a case, where the FIR contains intrinsic proof of its unreliability, independent witness of the locality are not forthcoming and the evidence of the witnesses produced suffers from the serious improbabilities the mere fact that the informant is not proved to have a motive for falsely implicating the accused persons, cannot be a sufficient reason for placing implicit reliance upon his testimony. 17. ACCORDINGLY both these appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentences of Jamshed appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act and the conviction and sentence of Kunwar Khan appellant under Section 302/34 IPC are set aside. Kunwar Khan is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Jamshed is in jail. He will be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. The reference made by the learned Sessions Judge for the confirmation of the death sentence passed against Jamshed appellant is rejected. Appeal allowed.