B. N. KATJU, J. Manphar has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Pilibhit dated 7th Ausust, 1980 passed in sessions trial No. A-194 of 1979 convicting him under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18th August, 1979 at about 6. P. M. while Har Lal deceased and his sister-in-law Smt. Rampa were sitting on one cot and Ram Bahadur (P. W. 10, Prem Raj (P. W. 2) and Nanhey were sitting on -another cot under the Chhapar in front of the house of Har Lal deceased in village Jamunia and Ram Nath was sitting on a cart close to the cot of the deceased the appsllaot came there armed with a pistol and fired at Har Lal deceased which resulted in his death immediately. 3. The first information report was lodged by Ram Bahadur (P. W. 1) at 7. 10 P. M. on the same day (18th August, 1979) at Police Station Madhotanda, the distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence being six kilometres. 4. The postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. R. C. Maheshwari (P. W 4) on 19th August, 1979 at 4 P. M. and the under mentioned ante mortem external injuries were found on the body of the deceased: 1. 15 (fifteen) gun shot wounds of entry 0. 2 cm. x 02 cm. each side on right side of the forehead scattered in an area of 6 cm. x 5 cm. Margins inverted. Clotted blood present. 2. 22 (twenty-two) gun shot wounds of entry 02 cm. x 0. 2 cm each size on left side of the forehead scattered in an area of 7 cm. x 5 cm. Margins inverted. Clotted blood present. 3. 5 (five) gun shot wounds of entry 0. 2 cm. x 0. 2 cm. each size on the left side of face in an area of 3 cm. x 3 cm. about 1. 5 cm. away from the left eye. Clotted blood present. Margins inverted. No blackening and tattooing on the above injuries 1, 2,3. 4. Abrasion 15 cm. x 05 cm. on the left side of neck above 3 cm. above the left collar bone, 5. x 3 cm. about 1. 5 cm. away from the left eye. Clotted blood present. Margins inverted. No blackening and tattooing on the above injuries 1, 2,3. 4. Abrasion 15 cm. x 05 cm. on the left side of neck above 3 cm. above the left collar bone, 5. On internal examination the frontal bone of both the sides was found to be fractured, the membrane was found to be ruptured and brain matter was coming out of the skull bones and meningial blood vessels were found to be ruptured. 6. In the opinion of Dr. Mahesh-wari (P. W, 4) the injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 7. The prosecution examined two eye witnesses, namely, Ram Bahadur (P. W. I) and Prem Raj (P. W. 2 ). 8. Tika Ram (P. W. 5) deposed that he saw the appellant armed with a pistol running away shortly after the incident. 9. Angan Lal (P. W. 3) was examined to prove the notice. 10. The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he was implicated falsely due to enmity. 11. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeded -in establishing the guilt of the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned earlier. 12. Prem Raj (P. W. 2) supported the prosecution case regarding the incident. It was stated by him that he had come to the house of Har Lal deceased about two hours before the incident and gave him three pieces of cloth to stitch. He remained sitting on a cot in front of the house of the deceased till the incident took place. It was stated by him that he told the Investigating Officer that he had gone to the house of the deceased for getting his clothes stitched but this was not mentioned in his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and he could offer no explanation for this omission. In these circumstances the explanation furnished by him for his presence at the time of the incident appears to be doubtful. P. C. and he could offer no explanation for this omission. In these circumstances the explanation furnished by him for his presence at the time of the incident appears to be doubtful. Moreover, even if it be accepted that he had come to the house of the deceased for getting his clothes stitched there appears to be no adequate reason for him to sit in front of the house of the deceased for about two hours till the incident took place. It was first stated by him in his cross-examination that when he turned round after the shot had been fired at the deceased he saw the appellant running away. Subsequently it was stated by him that he saw the appellant firing at the deceased and also saw him running away. There is, therefore a material discrepancy in his statement regarding the point of time when he saw the appellant. In these circumstances implicit reliance cannot be placed on his testimony. 13. Tika Ram (P. W. 5) deposed that on the day of occurrence he was sitting in his house when he heard the sound of gun fire. He went toward east and saw the appellant running armed with a pistol. It was stated by Ram Bahadur (P. W. 1) that both Tika Ram (P. W. 5) and Lalta Prasad came to the place of occurrence shortly after the incident and told him that they had seen the appellant running away and they were present at the place of occurrence when the first information report was written. Tika Ram (P. W. 5) has, however, deposed that Lalta Prasad is his brother-in-law but he did not meet him on the day of occurrence. Further the statement of Tika Ram (P. W, 5) was recorded by the Station Officer four days after the incident although it was admitted by him that he had gone to the place of occurrence on the morning of 19th August, 1979 when the Investigating Officer was present there. In these circumstances the delay in the examination of Tika Ram (P. W. 5) by the Investigating Officer remains unexplained. His evidence cannot, therefore be implicitly relied upon. 14. We are thus left with the testimony of Ram Bahadur (P. W. 1 ). He supported the prosecution case regarding the incident and also deposed that the appellant had illicit relations with Suit. His evidence cannot, therefore be implicitly relied upon. 14. We are thus left with the testimony of Ram Bahadur (P. W. 1 ). He supported the prosecution case regarding the incident and also deposed that the appellant had illicit relations with Suit. Munni the daughter of Babu Ram who was the maternal uncle of the appellant which constituted the motive for the crime. It has however, come out in the cross-examination of Ram Bahadur (P. W. 1) that Babu Ram was the uterine brother of his mother and that Babu Ram cultivated the fields of his maternal grand father till he came to village Jamuina about four years before the occurrence and that he began to cultivate the fields of his maternal grand father thereafter. In these circumstances the relations between the appellant and Babu Ram could not have been friendly. Even if it be accepted that the appellant was having illicit relations with the daughter of Babu Ram this could not have therefore caused much annoyance to the appellant. There was thus no adequate motive for him to have committed the murder of the deceased. Further the inquest report mentions the distance of the place of occurrence from Police Station Madho Tanda to be 11 kilometres while the first information report mentions the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station to be 5 kilometres. It was stated by Om Prakash Sharma Investigating Officer (P. W. 6) that the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station Kachcha Road is about 6 kilometres while the distance between the Police Station and the place of occurrence by metalled road is 11 kilometres. That is why he mentioned 11 kilometres; as the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station. In our opinion this explanation of the Investigating Officer (P. W. 6) does not appear to be satisfactory. If a copy of the first information report was with the Investigating Officer when he prepared the inquest report as stated by him there was no reason why the same distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station should not have been mentioned in these two documents, namely the first information report and the inquest report. Moreover, the time of occurrence mentioned in the challan lash is 710 P. M. whereas in the first information report the time of occurrence is mentioned as about 6p. Moreover, the time of occurrence mentioned in the challan lash is 710 P. M. whereas in the first information report the time of occurrence is mentioned as about 6p. M. It was stated by the Investigating Officer that he mentioned the time of occurrence in the challan lash as T10 P. M. as the first information report had been lodged at that time. This explanation is also not at all satisfactory. If a copy of the first information report was in fact within. Investigating Officer (P. W. 6) when he wrote the challan lash at the place of occurrence shortly after preparing the inquest report the time of occurrence in the challan lash should have been the same as mentioned in the first information report, nanlely, about 6 P. M. In these circumstances it appears that information report had not come into existence when the inquest report and the challan lash were prepared by the Investigating Officer but came into existence much later. Dr. R. C. Maheshwari (P. W. 4) deposed that the gun shot injuries caused to the deceased were as a result of two fires. As he was not a ballistic expert we examined Budul Rai (H. C. W. 1) in this Court who stated that gun-shot injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been the result of a single fire in view of the fact that size of all the injuries is the same, namely, 2 cm. x 0%2 cm. the total number of shots if all the injuries was less than the number of pellets in No. 4 cartridge which appears to have been used and all the injuries were in one zone of firing. The statement of Budul Pai Ballistic Expert (H. C. W. 1) appears to be reliable. It appears to be highly improbable that the appellant would have fired at the deceased in the presence of a large number of the witnesses. The possibiliy of the appellant having fired at the deceased while he was sitting alone on a cot in front of his house at the time of the incident cannot be ruled out. It appears to be highly improbable that the appellant would have fired at the deceased in the presence of a large number of the witnesses. The possibiliy of the appellant having fired at the deceased while he was sitting alone on a cot in front of his house at the time of the incident cannot be ruled out. Ram Bahadur (P. W. 1) has deposed regarding the presence of Prem Raj (P. W. 2) at the time of the incident and the arrival of Tika Rain (P. W. 5) immediately after the incident which in our opinion are open to grave doubt for the reasons already given. Ram Bahadur (P. W. 1) is obviously an interested witness as he is a close relation of the deceased. In these circumstances implicit reliance cannot be placed on his testimony regarding the participation of the appellant in the incident. 15. The result, therefore, is that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant under Section 302 I. P. C. beyond reasonable doubt. 16. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. 17. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith unless wanted in connection with any other case. .