JUDGMENT B.C. Jauhari, J. - This appeal has been filed by Shyama Charan. Ram Laraitev, Phool Chand. Ram Niwas and Naresh who have all been convicted under Sections 302/149 [PC. and have been sentenced for imprisonment for life. Shyama Charan, Ram Laraitey and Phool Chand have been further convicted under Section 146 Indian Penal Code. and have been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. Ram Laraitey v. Ram Niwas and Naresh have also been convicted under Section 147 Indian Penal Code. and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrent - vide the judgment of Sri Giri Raj Kishore. IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge. Shahjahanpur dated 6-6-1977. 2. The prosecution case is that two years prior to the occurrence Shyama Charan and Ram Laraitey who are real brothers had an altercation with the deceased Ram Naresh and his brother Ram Kumar P.W. I and injuries were received by Ram Laraitey and Shyama Charan. Ram Laraitey had lodged a report but no action was taken and on that account they bore enmity with deceased and Ram Kumar. On 11-5-1976 at about 10.30 a.m, deceased Ram Naresh and his brother Ram Kumar P.W. 1 started from their village Usmanpur and were going to market Sathra to purchase ghee. In the way they had to cross a river Bichhiachhutti. This river was covered by a narrow wooden bridge. While they were on this bridge, the accused-appellant Ram Laraitey, Ram Niwas and Naresh came armed with lathis. Ram Laraitey and Ram Niwas caught hold of the deceased and they strangulated him and knocked him down to the river. The accused-appellant Ram Naresh turned towards Ram Kumar to catch him but Ram Kumar ran towards Usmanpur and raised an alarm. He had gone about 100 paces when he met the witnesses Ram Pal P.W. 3, Khajan P.W. 4 and Samar Pal Singh who were also going to Bazar. He mentioned about the incident to them and they all then went towards the wooden bridge. As they were 40 or paces away from the place of occurrence. the appellant Shyama Charan armed with a gun accused Phool Chand armed with a spear challenged them not to proceed ahead if they wanted their lives to he Saved. He mentioned about the incident to them and they all then went towards the wooden bridge. As they were 40 or paces away from the place of occurrence. the appellant Shyama Charan armed with a gun accused Phool Chand armed with a spear challenged them not to proceed ahead if they wanted their lives to he Saved. This stopped the witnesses and the witnesses saw from there Ram Laraitey, Ram Niwas and Ram Naresh drowning the deceased Ram Naresh in the river killing him in a few minutes. Thereafter. Ram Laraitey uttered that the work was finished upon which the accused Shyama Charan and Phool Chand joined them and all the five accused went away towards the west. The witnesses Ram Kumar. Ram Pal and Khajan went towards the river and took out the hodv of the deceased Ram Naresh from the water and placed it on the bank. Then Ram Kumar P.W. I wrote out his report Ex.Ka.l and went to police station Kalan A here he lodged a report at 12.30 p in the same day. The report was taken down by Gorakh Prasad, Clerk-constable who registered a case in the General Diary. The Investigating Officer Kali Shanker P.W. 6 was not present at the police station and papers were sent to him. He, thereafter. reached the place of occurrence in evening the same day and after nominating the Panches prepared an inquest report and sealed the corpse and sent it for post-mortem examination through constable Mukarram Hussain. 3. The post-mortem on the dead-body was conducted by Dr. S. P. Srivastava P.W. 2 who found no external mark of injuries as the body had decomposed. This post-mortem was performed on 13-5-1976 at 13.30 O'clock. The internal examination revealed that larynx was fractured and there was a contusion in the neck and stomach contained about 250 grams of digested food along with dirty water and mud. In the )pinion of the doctor the death was due to asphyxia as a result of drowning. 4. The investigation was taken up from Kali Shanker P.W. 6 by Bhupal Singh P.W. 5 who interrogated the witnesses and submitted a charge-sheet in the case. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty and attributed their implication in the case to enmity. 6. In the )pinion of the doctor the death was due to asphyxia as a result of drowning. 4. The investigation was taken up from Kali Shanker P.W. 6 by Bhupal Singh P.W. 5 who interrogated the witnesses and submitted a charge-sheet in the case. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty and attributed their implication in the case to enmity. 6. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the appellants have been brought home and in the result he recorded conviction in the case. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned State counsel at great length and feel that this appeal must he allowed and the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained. In this case the incident is a broad day light incident and the incident is supported by the three eye -witnesses one of whom is the brother of the deceased and the two others are residents of village Golaganj. Despite testimony of these three eye-witnesses there are some significant circumstances in this case which render their testimony as unreliable and not worthy of belief 8. The first-information-report in this case is said to have been lodged at 12.30 p.m.. the distance of police station as mentioned in the F. I. R. is two miles. The incident is said to have taken place at 10.30 a.m. and prima facie this report appears to he quite prompt. The defence in this case has suggested that the first -informant Ram Kumar P.W. I is a clerk to a lawyer practising at Jalalabad and did not witness any incident and was called later on and this report came into existence much later and had been ante-timed. The argument advanced appears to have some force when we examine the inquest report. In the inquest report in the column of the person who informed about the death, the name of Ram Kumar is mentioned. Then in the column of distance of the village from the police 'station, entry mane is 3 miles to the south. If this F. 1. R. had come into existence at I2.30p.m. the distance given in that report namely two miles would have also been found in the inquest report and not three miles. The distance given in the F.I.R. does not tally with the First- Information" Report. If this F. 1. R. had come into existence at I2.30p.m. the distance given in that report namely two miles would have also been found in the inquest report and not three miles. The distance given in the F.I.R. does not tally with the First- Information" Report. Further the inquest report examined as a whole goes to show that on the third page where the Holia Lash has been described. there is a column for the opinion of the Panches and in this column writing has been given in a different pen with a different thickness which suggests that impressions of Panches must have been obtained earlier and the writing (lone later on. Not only that after this opinion of the Panches. there is final opinion of the Sub-Inspector and in that opinion after the word 'DHARA' figures 147, 1421, 149, 302 Indian Penal Code have been added subsequently. This is apparent from an examination of the inquest report. The Sub-inspector when asked whether he made this addition of the sections. he stoutly maintained that he did not add these subsequently. As we have observed earlier the addition is absolutely apparent on ocular examination From this we can infer that by the time the inquest report was prepared namely the evening of 11-5-1976, the F.I.R. had not come into existence and in the inquest report space for the crime No. and the sections was left to he filled later on and was actually filled later on. In the case of Jagdeo Singh v. State, reported in 1979 Cri LJ 236 a Division Bench of this Court in similar circumstances held at page 241 para 25 that the discrepancy in the distance given in two documents namely F. 1. R. and inquest report gives rise to an inference that the F.I.R. came into existence later on. 9. Once we hold that the F.I.R. was ante-timed and was prepared later on, then net sanctity can be attached to the statement of the first informant Ram Kumar and the two eye-witnesses whose names find mention in the F I. R. It is admitted by Ram Kumar that there is a background of enmity between him. the deceased and the accused. This enmity is a double edged weapon which cuts both ways. the deceased and the accused. This enmity is a double edged weapon which cuts both ways. Further suggestion of the defence that he was not present on the spot finds support from the late lodging of the F. 1. R. The suggestion of the defence that he is a clerk of a lawyer also appears to he true because he admits doing the work of the lawyer from time to time. He also admitted writing of petitions at, Allahabad. Consequently, this witness is not reliable. The other two witnesses namely, Khanjan P.W. 4 and Ram Pal P.W. 3 curiously enough belong to the village Golagani where the deceased Ram Naresh was married to the daughter of Chandrahhan. The witness Khanjan P.W. 4 has admitted that he, Ram Pal Singh as well as Chandrahhan were. co-accused in a murder case of Ganda Singh which ended in conviction by the trial Court but on appeal the conviction was set aside. Nevertheless the fact remains that these witnesses ha3c an affinity with the father-in-law of the deceased and, cannot, therefore. be termed as independent. They are chance witnesses having gone to purchase ordinary things from the market and on their owing admission, they had another market which was much nearer to the market to which they were going. It appears that they chose that particular market for the purpose of being witnesses. 10. Apart from the affinity of the witnesses and the enmity of Ram Kumar with the appellants, there are certain other features of this case which demolish the prosecution case to a great extent. The first circumstance in this case is that according to the statement of Ram Kumar, he and the deceased had taken the last meal the previous night and had started in the morning with a bare cup of tea. The doctor found 250 grams of digested food in the stomach and there is clear admission of the doctor that the deceased must have taken his last meal between 3 to 7 hours. This demolishes the prosecution case. It also demolishes the presence of Ram Kumar P.W. 1 along with the deceased. The next circumstance is that the deceased according to the prosecution version was carrying an empty tin along with some cash for purchasing ghee. Curiously enough neither the tin was discovered nor any cash from the person of the deceased. This demolishes the prosecution case. It also demolishes the presence of Ram Kumar P.W. 1 along with the deceased. The next circumstance is that the deceased according to the prosecution version was carrying an empty tin along with some cash for purchasing ghee. Curiously enough neither the tin was discovered nor any cash from the person of the deceased. Last but not the least the version of murder as disclosed by the prosecution witnesses is very quaint and queer. According to the statement of Ram Kumar and the F.I.R. the deceased and Rain Kumar were going on the bridge while the three appellants Ram Laraitey, Ram Niwas and Ram Naresh came with lathis and two of them namely Ram Niwas and Ram Laraitey strangulated and fell the deceased into the water. How he fell down into the water along with the two accused is not understood. Then the third accused Ram Naresh ran after the first informant who took to his heels and when he returned with the witnesses he was stopped by Shyama Charan armed with a gun and Phool Chand armed with a spear who asked them to keep away and then witnesses described that the three appellants namely Ram Laraitey. Ram Niwas and Ram Naresh strangulated and killed the deceased by drowning into the water repeatedly until he died. This story by itself appears to he highly unnatural and artificial in the extreme. 11. Considering all the facts and circumstances of this case we- feel that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 12. In the result the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellants are set aside. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged.