Judgment A.P.SINHA and B.P.GRIYAGHEY JJ. 1. These three appeals have been filed by three sets of accused persons, all of whom have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the judgment of the Sessions Judge of East Champaran for the murder of one Poshan Bhagat. Criminal Appeal 227/77 has been filed by the co-accused Madan Prasad Singh, Criminal appeal 229/77 by the accused Baidyanath Lall and Mahendra Prasad Singh and the third appeal No. 233 by the remaining co-accused Bahadur Roy, Ram Chandra Roy and Ram Baran Roy. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that in the night between 28th and 29th March, 1975 deceased Poshan Bhagat, the father of the informant was sleeping in the palani north of the kutcha road which is situated in village Chak Roza Shamsuddin on the Motihari-Muzafferpur pitch road, which emanates from a kutcha road. It is stated that the deceased Poshan Bhagat was sleeping in the Palani to the north of the kutcha road, while his son P. W. 9 Ramchandra Bhagat the first Informant was sleeping in another Palani south of that kutcha road. It is said that at about 1.30 or 2 A.M. in the night the first informant heard a groaning sound from the adjacent Palani where his father was sleeping and on hearing that sound when he awoke with the help of his torch light he saw these appellants surrounding his father. Thereafter he raised Hulla and certain villagers came, who are the witness in the case and then it is said that the accused persons began to flee away, and while fleeing away it is claimed that those witnesses had indentified the accused persons in the moon lit night. Thereafter those witness went inside the Palani and it is said that they saw. Poshan Bhagat dead there. It is further stated that in the night no action was taken to lodge information at the police station, but in the following morning at about 5-A.M. it is said that the first informant along with some witnesses went to the police station Mehsi, which is at a distance of 3 miles from the place of occurrence. It is further stated that in the night no action was taken to lodge information at the police station, but in the following morning at about 5-A.M. it is said that the first informant along with some witnesses went to the police station Mehsi, which is at a distance of 3 miles from the place of occurrence. First information was however, not lodged at that time, but it was lodged at 10.30 A.M. and for that an explanation is given that when at 5 A.M. the first informant had reached the police station he was informed that the officer incharge was doing his puja and that he would come aftet some time. It is said that he went there after some time when the officer incharge had finished his puja, But even then it is stated that the first information report was not lodged, because, it is said that the officer incharge insisted that the dead-body should be brought to the police station and then only the first Information report would be recorded. It is stated that on this demand made by the officer incharge, the first informant got aggrieved and sent a telegram to tbe Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police, but it is staled that thereafter the first informant again went to the police station and there he could give his statement at the police station, which was recorded as ext. 2. The police after investigation, however, submitted charge-sheet against these accused persons, who arc the appellants in the present appeals and all of whom were claimed by the witnesses to have been identified in the occurrence in that night. The accused persons on the trial by the Sessions Judge were convicted for an effence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge after baxing considered the evidence of the witnesses, as examined on behalf of the prosecution believed their claim to have identified the accused persons in that night and to have committed the murder of Poshan Bhagat and therefore, convicted all of them as mentioned above. It is against that judgment of conviction that these appeals have been filed. 3. It is stated that the first informant had since long dispute with the accused persons and it is on that account that the appellants have killed his father. 4. It is against that judgment of conviction that these appeals have been filed. 3. It is stated that the first informant had since long dispute with the accused persons and it is on that account that the appellants have killed his father. 4. Tbe point for determination in these appeals is as to whether the evidence of the prosecution was reliable to prove beyond doubt that these accused persons have comitted the murder of Poshan Bhagat in that night. 5. On appraisal of the different circumstances appearing on the records it appear that it was wholly impossible that these witnesses could have identified the accused persons in that night when they are alleged to have comitted the murder. The eye-witnesses about the occurrence are of two sets. The first set is the first informant who claims to have identified these accused persons while assaulting his father and committing the murder in the Palani north to the road. This first informant was sleeping in another Palani south to the road. The claim made by this first informant (P. W. 9) is that he had identified these accused persons by tbe torchlight that he flashed at that time on the accused persons, while they are alleged to be assaulting his father. But it is wholly impossible to believe the claim of the first informant because the first important thing is that the torch which was the only means of identification was not produced by the first informant before the investigating officer. It may be mentioned at this place that the learned Sessions Judge bis taken this point as a dereliction of duty on the part of the Investigating Officer himself as not having taken the torch from the informant. But really when the informant claimed to have identified the culprits by means of the torch light that he claimed to have flashed by his torch, he himself ought to have produced that torch to the Investigating Officer, which he did not. This is a very important fact to disbelieve the claim of the first informant about the identification. Secondly, the circumstance, in which the first informant claims to have identified the accused persons is such that it is wholly impossible to believe. Tbe circumstance is that the first informant was sleeping not in the same Palani, but in an adjacent Palani intervened by a road. Secondly, the circumstance, in which the first informant claims to have identified the accused persons is such that it is wholly impossible to believe. Tbe circumstance is that the first informant was sleeping not in the same Palani, but in an adjacent Palani intervened by a road. He claims to have woke up by the groaning sound of his father. It is said that all the culprits, who were assaulting bis father were armed with deadly weapons. The post mortem examination held by the doctor (P. W. 5) shows that several injuries were inflicted by heavy and sharp cutting weapons. Therefore it is apparent that the deceased had nothing to save himself from the murder being committed by the miscreants. He could have been murdered within a short time, while he was sleeping and therefore, after the groaning sound made by the deceased it must have taken a very short time for the miscreants to murder and to flee away. It is claimed by the first informant that he saw the miscreants surrounding his father. Therefore also it was impossible for him to have identified all the six persons who are said to have surrounded the deceased. To add to that, the situation of the Palani and the opening of the Tati as stated by the witnesses and the Investigating Officer is that there was an opening on the eastern side, of that Palani. The first informant was sleeping in another Palani south to it. But he claims to have flashed his torch light through that opening and to have identified all the miscreants alright. This wholly improbable, because his Palani where he was sleeping was south to Palani where the deceased was sleeping. 6. The second set of witnesses who claim to have identified the accused persons are the villagers. Who are said to have come on Hulla raised by the first informant and to have identified the accused persons while they were taking to their heels. Those witnesses are P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 11. It is also wholly impossible to believe these witnesses to have identified all those persons while they were fleeing away. The first circumstance to dissuade any body to believe it is the fact that there was no means of identification at all except the moon-lit night, that is said to have been shining at that time. It is also wholly impossible to believe these witnesses to have identified all those persons while they were fleeing away. The first circumstance to dissuade any body to believe it is the fact that there was no means of identification at all except the moon-lit night, that is said to have been shining at that time. But the circumstances, in which these witnesses had arrived is such that it is wholly impossible to believe that they could have identified the miscreants all correctly in the moon-lit night, because the evidence of the first informant and P. W. 9 and all the witnesses is that it was on the Hulla raised that they had arrived there from their respective houses, where they were sleeping. The Hulla naturally as stated above in the situation must have been raised by the first informant alone after the miscreants had almost done bis father to death and in the process of fleeing away. On that Hulla those witnesses must have first woke-up suddenly and to have taken time to find out as to what was the matter and then must have run up after some time. It is not claimed by these witnesses that while running away they had opportunity to see the miscreants face to face, but the claim of these witnesses is that they had seen the miscreants from behind when they were fleeing away. Therefore, there must have been considerable distance between the miscreants and the witnesses, and in course of fleeing away it is not possible to believe that all the witnesses could have identified the miscreants fleeing away. The fact that these witnesses must have run up after a gap of considerable time as shown from the fact that they have stated that they had reached the place of occurrence at that time, they had found the dead body of Poshan covered with Chadar. That itself showed that some time had el 7. The fact that these witnesses must have run up after a gap of considerable time as shown from the fact that they have stated that they had reached the place of occurrence at that time, they had found the dead body of Poshan covered with Chadar. That itself showed that some time had el 7. Besides that by referring to the evidence of those witnesses it appears that most of them had some motive to claim falsely identifiction of these accused persons on account of some dispute for land as some sale deed and Jarpeshgi deed had been executed in relation to their lands It is admitted by the first informant P. W. 9 that he (the first informant) and Satnaraia Nirala are communists, It is suggested on behalf of the appellant to P. W. 9 that some of the appellants with whome it is alleged by P. W. 9 there was some trouble regarding land were falsely implicated at the instance of Satnarain Nirala, and the remaining Roy appellants at the instance of another man, though none could see the real miscreants who committed the murder. 8. In view of the circumstances that the claim of the witnesses to have identified the culprits who had murdered the deceased in that night and the nature of the evidence as discussed above, it is also important to note that the delay in lodging the first information report in the case is very much material The occurrence of this murder had taken place at about 1,30 A M. in the night. The police station is at a distance of 3 miles only from the place of occurrence. Nothing is stated on behalf of the prosecution ia their evidence to say that there was any in tbility to lodge the first information report at the police station in the night itself. But it has been stated that the first informant had gone to the police station at 5 A.M. in the morning But the fact that remains is that the first information report of the case which has been lodged there shows that it was lodged at 10.30 AM. But it has been stated that the first informant had gone to the police station at 5 A.M. in the morning But the fact that remains is that the first information report of the case which has been lodged there shows that it was lodged at 10.30 AM. To cover up this delay, it appears that the first informant has taken care to create evidence of explanation by way of producing the receipt of the telegram which the first informant claims to have sent to the higher police officer for having not recorded the first information report at the first time at 5 A.M. or a little thereafter that first informant reached at the police station. The prosecution has not produced the telegram itself, the message, in which it is stated that such an allegation was made by him in the telegram sent against the officer incharge. Even if this verbal story of the first informant in this receipt (respect ?) is taken on its face value, it appears wholly unbelievable that simply when the officer-incharge had demanded the first informant to bring the dead body to the police station when the First information report would be recorded, the first informant would have got aggrieved and would have sent the telegram to the higher p dice officer. It is not stated by the first informant that the officer-in-chirge at that time had completely refused to record the first information report. The only demand, it is alleged was that the dead body should be brought to the police station. It is stated by the first informant that after sending the telegram to the higher police officers, he brought the dead body from the village to the police station and then the first information report was recorded. If however, he did it, there was no necessity or occasion for him to have sent the telegram. The purpose of the telegram could have been to have immediately get some direction from the higher officers to have recorded the first information by the officer-in-charge. it obviously appears that sending of the telegram, if it was that such a message was sent was simply to create an evidence for the explanation that the first informant had gone to the police station to lodge the first information. it obviously appears that sending of the telegram, if it was that such a message was sent was simply to create an evidence for the explanation that the first informant had gone to the police station to lodge the first information. It may be mentioned at this place that the learned Sessions Judge has taken very lightly this delay in lodging the first information at 10-30 AM, when the distance of police station was three miles only. But this delay, though not very much considerable, becomes very much significant on account of the false explanation that the first informant has given by this receipt by creating an evidence of sending the telegram to the higher police officers. From that the reasonableness of the argument that has been advanced on behalf of the appellant has to be accepted that the time lapse was to implicate the enemies and therefore, this delay is very much relevant. 9. In this connection the motive for the occurrence of this murder looms large in the circumstances of the case. At the very outset it may be mentioned that the prosecution has not adduced any evidence whatsoever about the motive of these three sets of accused persons who are said to have combined in that night, all of whom belong to several villages to collect together and to go to the house of the first informant in the dead of the night with so many deadly weapons and to have committed the murder of this deceased. It is no doubt true that the motive in some cases may not be relevant and necessary to be proved by the prosecution where there are good eye-witnesses of the actual crime to have been committed. But that would depend on the circumstancess of each case. The circumstances of the present case is that three sets of accused persons, who belong to three different villages and three different communities, for which there is no evidence that they had a common ground to meet and it is said, that in that night all of them had combined to come together armed with deadly weapons in the Palani of the first informant and to have committed the murder. In that case a court must demand the prosecution to prove as to what was the motive which led all those persons to make the plan to commit the murder in the night. In that case a court must demand the prosecution to prove as to what was the motive which led all those persons to make the plan to commit the murder in the night. The motive therefore, in the present case was necessary to be proved and in the absence of the same and in view of the nature of the evidence of the eye-witnesses the prosecution case cannot be believed 10. Besides that there is another aspect of the matter. It is not a case where the prosecution does not show that there was no motive for the occurrence and that the eye-witnesses had seen the murder being committed and that it is so proved and that therefore, the motive is not necessary. But it is a case where the motive for the murder is alleged namely, that it was due to land dispute. In a case of State of U. P. V/s. Hari Pd & others, AIR 1974 SC 1740 , it was observed that if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive it is relevant to enquire whether the pattern of crime fits in with the alleged motive. 11. In the present case the prosecution has not led any evidence at all regarding the land dispute for which it is said to be a motive alleged in the First Information Report. In the absence of the proof of the motive, there is nothing to believe that all the accused persons had combined in a planned way and had gone to the house and to have committed the murder in the dead of the night. In this view of the matter the defence of the motive is of paramount importance in this case, which leads conclusively to throw away the prosecution story as false that it was these accused persons who have murdered the deceased. It is therefore wholly impossible to accept the judgment of the trial court of having convicted the appellants on such unblievable and improbable evidence. The convictions are set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellants, if on bail, will be discharged of the liability on the bail bond. 12. I agree.