Judgment P.N. Goel, J. 1. THE decision of these appeals rest on the credibility of the evidence of Rajendra Prasad Gupta (PW1), injured, a young lad of about 18 years, resident of village Dhata within police station Khakheru, District Fatehpur, because the only other eye witness examined Jeet (PW2) resident of village Dhata appears to be in the habit of giving evidence in cases. 2. REMARKABLE feature of the case is that Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukla (PW5), who examined the injured, Jageshwar Prasad, S. I. (PW4), who investigated into the case and the prosecuting agency did not faithfully perform their duties. The evidence of Rajendra Prasad (PW1) has to be judged in the light of the defence of the appellants that they had not assaulted Rajendra Prasad and that the alleged gunshot injuries were fictitious. 3. RELATIONS between the family of Rajendra Prasad Gupta and the family of the appellants were highly strained from before the date of occurrence, i.e. 5-5-1974. On 3-1-1974 a dacoity was committed in the house of Rajendra Prasad Gupta. The dacoits had caused the death of his mother. Lalta Singh, Madan Singh and Virbhan Singh appellants were prosecuted for the dacoity. In this case the appellants were granted bail. Attempt was made by the members of the family of Rajendra Prasad Gupta to get their bail cancelled. An application for cancellation of bail was actually moved on 16-4 1974 and the bail of Madan Singh appellant was cancelled on 14-5-1974. In the instant case the defence contention is that in order to get the bail cancelled, the present occurrence of 5th May, 1974 was concocted. A case under Section 107 CrPC between the parties was also pending on the date of occurrence. 4. In the instant case the defence contention is that in order to get the bail cancelled, the present occurrence of 5th May, 1974 was concocted. A case under Section 107 CrPC between the parties was also pending on the date of occurrence. 4. THE case of the prosecution against the appellants and Gappu Singh alias Prem Singh, brother of Lalla Singh, appellant was that on 5-5-1974 at about 7.30 a.m. Rajendra Prasad Gupta was going from his village Dhata to his field in village Ketmai to bring the harvested Arhar crop, that when he reached on the culvert all the four persons came out from behind a tree, that Madan Singh had a country made pistol, that 3 other persons had lathis, that the lathiwalas immediately began to assault Rajendra Prasad Gupta avowedly saying that he be killed, that thereupon Rajendra Prasad ran backwards, that Madan Singh fired a shot from his buck side, that Jeet (PW 2) and one Budhari came up and reprimanded the assailants, who bolted away towards east and the said witnesses took him to his house. On reaching his house Rajendra Prasad Gupta wrote out a report himself and then went to the police station which is 10 miles away. At 9.30 a.m. he lodged the report. The police sent him with a constable to Vijaipur hospital for the examination of his injuries but the doctor was not available there. Therefore, he was taken to Klaaga hospital where Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukla examined him at 2 p. m. Oae gun-shot wound on the middle third off the back and another gunshot wound on the inner side of the left arm were found. Margins of both the wounds were black. Three contusions on the front of left forearm, on the right forearm and right side of back were also found. 5. JAGESHWAR Prasad, A.S.I, took up investigation from the next day of the lodging of the report. On that date he examined the eye witnesses and prepared site plan. Then he took up investigation on 20-5-1974 on which date he interrogated Rajendra Prasad Gupta and took his bloodstained clothes which he was putting on at the time of occurrence. 6. JEET (PW 2) as stated above, has given evidence in a large number of cases as is evident from his own statement. Therefore, he can easily be characterised as a professional witness. 6. JEET (PW 2) as stated above, has given evidence in a large number of cases as is evident from his own statement. Therefore, he can easily be characterised as a professional witness. Bisides, his presence at the place of occurrence is not natural. Therefore, he can also be characterised as a chance witness, The III Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the three appellants and acquitted Gappu Singh, despite the fact that the evidence of Rajendra Prasad injured, implicated him also. 7. THE appellants examined Dr. V. P. Singh (DW 2). On the data of occurrence, he was Medical Officer Vijaipur. He clearly stated that on the date of occurrence he was on his duty in the hospital from 7.30 to 12.30 hours. It means that Rajendra Prasad has wrongly stated that the doctor 'was not available at Vijaipur and, therefore, he was taken to Khaga. This goes to show that Rajendra Prasad wanted to get himself examined by a doctor of his choice. 8. RAJENDRA Prasad has clearly stated that he remained admitted in Khaga hospital for 2 days. Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukla has not ventured to Estate that RAJENDRA Prasad was admitted to his hospital on the date of the examination of his injuries. Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukla has of course stated that: on the next day i. e. 6-5-1974 he extracted pellets from the gunshot injuries of RAJENDRA Prasad, but he made no mention of this fact either at the end of the injury report recorded by him/ on 5 5-74, nor he wrote any supplementary report about it, nor he made mention of it in any register of the hospital. Not only this, but he also handed (over the pellets to the first cousin of RAJENDRA Prasad Gupta. He did not caret to send the pellets extracted from the body of RAJENDRA Prasad to the Superintendent of police or to the Station Officer concerned in a sealed cover. It will further be noticed that Chain Bahadur Singh, head constable (PW3), noted down the injuries of RAJENDRA Prasad in the general diary (Entry copy Ex. Ka. 4). These injuries are 3 in number. They do not at all correspond with the injuries noted by Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukla in the injury report Ex. Ka. 8. The prosecuting agency made no attempt whatsoever to get this discrepancy reconciled. Ka. 4). These injuries are 3 in number. They do not at all correspond with the injuries noted by Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukla in the injury report Ex. Ka. 8. The prosecuting agency made no attempt whatsoever to get this discrepancy reconciled. It will be noticed that Jageshwar Prasad, Investigating Officer, did not care to go to Khaga hospital to interrogate the injured on 6-5-1974 on which date, according to the statement of Rajendra Prasad, he was in the hospital. Jageshwar Prasad has conveniently stated that he learnt that Rajendra Prasad had gone out of Khaga. It appears that Jageshwar Prasad himself did not at all care to go to Khaga hospital on 6-5--74. Had he gone there, he would have met Rajendra Prasad there. In that case he would have interrogated Rajendra Prasad at the earliest opportunity and would have also taken his bloodsmeared clothes. The head constable did not take the clothes of the injured at the time of the report on the ground that Rajendra Prasad did not have another set of clothes. This explanation is hardly convincing. Furthermore Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukla also did not care to take the clothes of the injured at the time of the medical examination. It is obvious that at the time of the medical examination Rajendra Prasad was putting on the same clothes which he was putting on at the time of the occurrence. Therefore, it was the duty of Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukla to have taken his clothes, sealed them and sent them to the police authorities. 9. JAGESHWAR Prasad, investigating officer, took the clothes of the injured on 20-5-74, but he did not deliberately send these clothes to the chemical examiner. He is not able to give any reason for the lapse. 10. IN view of all what has been discussed above, it cannot be said that the medical evidence in the present case goes to support the testimony of Rajendra Prasad Gupta. Taking into consideration the remarkable features indicated above, reliance cannot safely be placed on the bare testimony of Rajendra Prasad. It is not difficult to get fake injuries recorded by a doctor of the complainant's choice. 11. IN view of the above, there is no reliable evidence to sustain the conviction of the appellants. 12. Taking into consideration the remarkable features indicated above, reliance cannot safely be placed on the bare testimony of Rajendra Prasad. It is not difficult to get fake injuries recorded by a doctor of the complainant's choice. 11. IN view of the above, there is no reliable evidence to sustain the conviction of the appellants. 12. THE 111 Additional Sessions Judge convicted the three appellants under Section 307/34 IPC; and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for four years. Appeal is allowed and the order dated 30-6-75 convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 307/34 IPC passed by the 111 Additional Sessions Judge is set aside. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled. Appeal allowed.