JUDGMENT I. P. Singh, J. 1. Sukhlal, Ghanshyam, Mangu Singh and Jagdish Singh convicts appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of Sri D. D. Srivastava, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor, dated 1-6-77, convicting and sentencing each one of them under Section 302/34 IPC to imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case is that one Niader Singh of village Matora Bhan, Police Station Dhampur, district Bijnor had four sons namely Kadhera Singh, Bakshi Singh, Ghanshyam (appellant) and Nathu Singh (deceased). Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 and his brother Budhu Singh are sons of Nathu Singh (deceased). Bakshi Singh died about 15 years ago leaving his widow Smt. Naraini. This widow entered into Karao with Ghanshyam appellant. Kadhera Singh had no issue. Nathu Singh deceased alone lived in village Mitora Bhan, while his other three brothers lived in village Parma Wala, where they had joint land.Since Kadhera Singh had no issue, he wanted to give his/and in equal shares to Ghanshyam (half share) and Balwant Singh and Budhu Singh s/o Nathu Singh (half share). However, Ganshayam wanted Kadhera Singh to give his entire land to him. Kadhera Singh, Ghanshyam appellant alongwith other co-appellants and one Harbeer co-accused (since acquitted; had, about two years prior to the present occurrence, abducted Kadhera Singh. However, he was released by them on the intervention of the complainant PW 1 and others. It was further alleged that at about 3 months prior to this incident, the said five persons had come to the village Mitora Bhan and wanted to abduct Nathu Singh (deceased), but they failed in their design at the intervention of Jaipal Singh PW 4 and Ram Nath of that village. All these attempts were made so that Ghanshyam Singh appellant could obtain the entire land of Kadhera Singh to the exclusion of Balwant Singh complainant and his brother Budhu Singh sons of Nathu Singh deceased. 3. On 10-5-1974 Kadhera Singh executed a sale deed of his land transferring half of it to Ghanshyam appellant and the remaining half to Balwant Singh PW 1 and his brother Budhu Singh. 4. Jagdish Singh appellant is son of Mangu Singh appellant. Mangu Singh appellant was brother-in-law (Jeeja) of Smt. Naraini who had entered into a Karao with Ghanshyam appellant. Harbeer co-accused (since acquitted) is the son of Sukhlal appellant. They all are associates of Ghanshyam appellant. 4. Jagdish Singh appellant is son of Mangu Singh appellant. Mangu Singh appellant was brother-in-law (Jeeja) of Smt. Naraini who had entered into a Karao with Ghanshyam appellant. Harbeer co-accused (since acquitted) is the son of Sukhlal appellant. They all are associates of Ghanshyam appellant. On 1-3-1975 at about 6 p.m. Nathu Singh deceased and his son Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 were returning from their field after doing Chhaul of their sugarcane. They reached between the fields of Deena Nath and Lallu (in village Mitora Bhan). At that time Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 happened to be 3-4 paces ahead of his father Nathu Singh deceased. All the four appellants and Harbeer co-accused (since acquitted) arrived there running from behind (from north side). Sukhlal appellant carried a lathi, while the other four had Kantas. They immediately caught hold of Nathu Singh deceased. Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 took to his heals, raising alarm and ran into the nearby field of Ram Pal PW 2 (lying towards west of the said field of Lallu) Ram Pal PW 2, Prem, Vikram PW 5 and Shiv Charan etc. came running and joined Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 and happened to see the occurrence. It was on their shouts that the four appellants and Harbeer after murdering Nathu Singh deceased ran away. 5. A written report of this incident was lodged by Balwant Singh complainant (PW 1) the next morning i.e. on 2-3-1975 at 6.40 A. M. at P. S. Dhampur, 9 Kms. away. 6. That post-mortem examination on the dead body of Nathu Singh was conducted by Dr. R. B. Saxena (PW 7), M. O. Primary Health Centre, Shercot, Bijnor on 2-3-75 at 5 P. M. The probable time since death was one day. This takes back the death to 5 P. M. of 1-3-1975. However, the doctor in his statement stated that this death could take place even at 6 P. M. of 1-3-1975. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person- 1. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" x skin deep on left side back of head 4" above and behind left ear. 2. Incised wound 3-1/2" x 1" x 1" on front of neck (part to right side) on left side of neck just above adam's prominence. Skin below jaw on left side is sliced. Vertiberal column of neck visible through wound. All structures of left side are severed. 2. Incised wound 3-1/2" x 1" x 1" on front of neck (part to right side) on left side of neck just above adam's prominence. Skin below jaw on left side is sliced. Vertiberal column of neck visible through wound. All structures of left side are severed. 3. Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x fascia deep on right side neck below and outer to adam's prominence. 4. Sliced gapping wound 3" x 1" x 1" on back of neck of left side, 1" below occipital prominence. 7. The internal examination revealed that the trachea was severed completely at third cervical level in neck; large vessels of left side neck were severed with a line of impact on third cervical vertebra. In the opinion of the doctor death was due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of neck injuries. 8. All the appellants and Harbeer accused denied their participation in the alleged murder and alleged that they were falsely implicated in this case. Sukhlal appellant suggested that his son Harbeer had taken his tractor in the marriage of son of Vikram Singh (PW 5) sometime before the present occurrence. Vikram Singh (PW 5) and some of his relations wanted Harbeer accused to drive its tractor to Kotwali Dehat for drinking liquor, whereupon Harbeer refused and he left the marriage party and brought his tractor back to his home. PW 5 Vikram was thus aggrieved and got both Sukhlal and Harbeer falsely implicated in this case. Harbeer accused adopted the same plea. Ghanshyam appellant contended that Balwant Singh complainant PW I wanted to appropriate the land belonging to Smt. Naraini, who had entered into Karao with him (Ghanshyam). Since it was opposed to by Ghanshyam appellant, so Balwant Singh complainant (PW 1) falsely implicated him in this case. Mangu Singh appellant (jeeja of Smt. Naraini) having lost his wife also wanted Smt. Naraini to enter into Karao with him. This was opposed to by Ghanshyam appellant, who in fact, succeeded in getting Karao effected with Smt. Naraini. It is contended that in this way Mangu Singh appellant and for that matter his son Jagdish Singh appellant were not on good terms with Ghanshyam appellant and as such there was no question of joining their hands with Ghanshyam appellant to commit the present murder. They contended that they were falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. It is contended that in this way Mangu Singh appellant and for that matter his son Jagdish Singh appellant were not on good terms with Ghanshyam appellant and as such there was no question of joining their hands with Ghanshyam appellant to commit the present murder. They contended that they were falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. However, no evidence was led by the appellants or Harbeer accused in this case. 9. The prosecution, in order to establish their case, in all, examined 9 witnesses including three eye witnesses namely Balwant Singh complainant (PW 1) Ram Pal (PW 3) and Vikram Singh (PW 5). Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, after assessing the evidence on record, acquitted Harbeer accused, giving him the benefit of doubt, but convicted and sentenced each one of the four appellants as already mentioned. 10. The prosecution have alleged a motive on the part of Ghanshyam, appellant. The others are said to have joined hands with Ghanshyam appellant on account of friendship. It is alleged and is even deposed by Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 that Kadhera Singh, who had no issue of his own, wanted to give his land, half to his brother Ghanshyam appellant and the remaining half to his nephews Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 and his brother Budhu Singh, sons of Nathu Singh. However, Ghanshyam appellant had desired to have the entire land from Kadhera Singh. He has stated that with that object Ghanshyam alongwith the other appellants and Harbeer had once abducted Kadhera Singh to persuade him to give his entire land to Ghanshyam. However, Kadhera Singh did not oblige him and in the end, he was got released from Ghanshyam appellant through the intervention of the complainant Balwant Singh and others. He has further stated that about three months prior to the incident Ghanshyam appellant and his associates namely other three appellants and Harbeer accused had come to village Matora Bhan, in order to abduct Nathu Singh deceased in an effort to obtain the entire land from Kadhera Singh, but their design to abduct Nathu Singh was frustrated with the intervention of Jai Pal Singh PW 4 and Ram Nath of village Matora Bhan. Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 has admitted that no report was lodged with the police regarding any of the two incidents. Nathu Singh was murdered on 1-3-75. Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 has admitted that no report was lodged with the police regarding any of the two incidents. Nathu Singh was murdered on 1-3-75. The attempt to abduct Nathu Singh was said to be with the object of persuading him to secure the entire land of Kadhera Singh for Ghanshyam appellant, but it has come in evidence that Kadhera Singh had executed a sale deed of his land on 10-6-74, 9 months prior to the murder of Nathu Singh, giving half land to Ghanshyam and the remaining half to his nephews Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 and his brother Budhu Singh, sons of Nathu Singh deceased. If it was so, there does not seem to be any truth in the assertion that there was a design or attempt on the part of Ghanshyam to abduct Nathu Singh because Kadhera Singh had already executed the sale deed and there could be no point in persuading either Nathu Singh or through him his brother Kadhera Singh to give the entire land, to Ghanshyam appellant. Moreover, Jai Pal Singh PW 4, who is the witness to say that Ghanshyam and his companions had Come to village Matora Bhan to abduct Nathu Singh, has stated that this was four months prior to the murder of Nathu Singh. This is in contradiction to the assertion made by the complainant Balwant Singh PW 1 according to whom that it had happened about 3 months prior to the murder of Nathu gingh. Moreover, Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he had full knowledge of the facts concerning the above two incidents. However, it is note-worthy that none of these two incidents were mentioned in the FIR lodged by him even then they are said to provide a motive for the murder of Nathu Singh. We, therefore, are of the opinion that none of the suggested two incidents connected with the alleged abductions have any truth about them. 11. It is next alleged by the prosecution and also deposed by Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 that Ghanshyam appellant felt frustrated in not getting the entire land of Kadhera Singh and this frustration provided motive to Ghanshyam appellant to murder Nathu Singh. We fail to appreciate this assertion. Kadhera Singh had given half of his land to Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 and his brother Budhu Singh. We fail to appreciate this assertion. Kadhera Singh had given half of his land to Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 and his brother Budhu Singh. If there could be any grudge on the part of Ghanshvam, it could be against Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 and his brother Buhu Singh and not against their father Nathu Singh deceased. There is not an iota of evidence that Nathu Singh deceased was instrumental in any way to persuade Kadhera Singh, not to give entire land to Ghanshyam appellant, but to give atleast half of it to Balwant Singh PW 1 and Budhu Singh. Accordingly we find ourselves unable to agree that Ghanshyam appellant could have any motive to murder Nathu Singh. 12. Needless to say that it has been a consistent view of all the Courts of land that where the prosecution leads direct evidence of the occurrence, the absence or the weakness of the motive loses its importance. Motive is only a link in the evidence of the prosecution. It has an enhanced value when the evidence is only circumstantial. But it plays a subdued role when ocular evidence is advanced. As seen above, there are three eye-witnesses of the occurrence. They are Balwant Singh complainant PW 1, Bam Pal PW 3, Vikram PW 5. But before we come to assess their evidence, it would be appropriate, if the circumstances attending to the lodging of the FIR are discussed first. Learned counsel for the appellants has, at the out set, challenged that the FIR is very much delayed and is the result of due deliberations and consultations and as such cuts at the very root of the prosecution case. The incident is said to have taken place on 1-3-1975 at 6 P. M. Police Station is only 9 Kms. away from the place of occurrence. Even if no conveyance was avilable or utilised and the complainant was to reach Thana on foot, the said FIR could conveniently be lodged some time between 8 and 9 P. M. The reason for not proceeding to Thana that night is that night had fallen and the way to Thana passed through village Parmawala to which place the accused assailants belonged, and as such the complainant had not dared to proceed to Thana in the night. It was further explained that none of the villagers who had assembled after the occurrence had agreed to accompany the complainant to Thana in the night, so much so, that the Chaukidar, who was called from village Nawada had also refused to proceed to Thana in the night To us it seems incredible that none in the entire village had agreed to accompany the complainant to Thana soon after the occurrence, when it was not very late in the night We do not feel satisfied with the explanation of delay. Thus there is no doubt that the FIR was lodged very late 13. Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 has stated that although he had proceeded to Thana at about 4.00 on the morning, yet he had prepared the written report on the spot soon after the occurrence and it was that very written report, which he had taken with him to Thana, next morning. However, we find that the written report bears the date 2-3-1975 and opens with the words "Kal Shaam Karib Chhe Baje......". These facts show that the said report was not writen soon after the occurrence, otherwise it would have borne the date 1-3-1976 and would have opened with the words "Aaj Shaam Karib Chhe Baje......". 14. Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 has admitted in his cross-examination that at the time he wrote the written report (in the village soon after the murder of his father) he did not know the names of the father of Mangu Singh and Sukhlal appellants and their names were not known to him even on the day of his statement before the Court below. However, we find that in the FIR Sukhlal is described as son of Chhote Singh Of course name of father of Mangu Singh appellant was described as 'not known'. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that when the complainant did not know the name of the father of Sukhlal appellant, then there remains no doubt that the said name was supplied to him by some other agency at the time the report was lodged at the Police Station. We have had the occasion to look into the original written report and the original FIR. In both the name of Harbeer accused (since acquitted) clearly appears to be added afterwards. The FIR (chik report) was prepared on the basis of the original written report. We have had the occasion to look into the original written report and the original FIR. In both the name of Harbeer accused (since acquitted) clearly appears to be added afterwards. The FIR (chik report) was prepared on the basis of the original written report. It leaves no doubt in our mind that the name of Harbeer was added after the chik report had already been prepared. Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that this was deliberately and knowingly done to bring in 5th accused to add gravity to the offence and makes sections 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code applicable. We therefore, feel constrained to agree with him. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge was, therefore, quite right when he gave the benefit of doubt to Harbeer and acquitted him. Nonetheless the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of the eye witnesses regarding the participation of the four appellants even when they were not hesitant to implicate Harbeer accused and assign a definite role to him in the actual assault in question. 15. For the reasons discussed above, no reliance can be placed on this FIR. It cannot be said with certainty that it disclosed the correct version of the incident. It loses its all corroborative value. 16. The above discussion lays bare, that the complainant PW 1 was not honest when he added and incorporated the name of Harbeer in the FIR. If Harbeer was implicated by the complainant and he in the course of his statement assigned a definite role to him in the assault of Nathu Singh deceased, then certainly he cannot be regarded as a wholly truthful witness, on whom implicit reliance can be placed. Similarly, when Ram Pal PW 3 and Vikram PW 5 also took the line of Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 in assigning specific role to Harbeer in the assault of Nathu Singh deceased, then they too cannot be regarded as independent truthful witnesses. It has been seen above that if there could be any enmity of Ghanshyam appellant on the question of land of Kadhera Singh then it could be against Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 and his brother Budhu Singh and not against Nathu Singh deceased. According to the prosecution, the appellants had way laid both Nathu Singh and his son Balwant Singh complainant PW 1. According to the prosecution, the appellants had way laid both Nathu Singh and his son Balwant Singh complainant PW 1. Then in all probability complainant PW 1 would have been their target of assault and not Nathu Singh deceased. Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 in his cross- examination has stated that at that time, he was only 3-4 paces ahead of his father In his examination-in-chief he has stated that he had become aware of the presence of the assailants only when they were about 10 paces behind them. He further stated that they came and caught hold of his father and that had also tried to catch hold of him. But he managed to run away raising alarm. If the situation was like that we do not think that the assailants would have on arrival, failed to catch hold of Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 and instead would have caught hold of Nathu Singh first. Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 does not say that he had taken to his heals the moment he bad become aware of the arrival of the assailants from a distance of atleast 10 paces from him. He stated that he run away only after they had caught hold of his father Nathu Singh and had tried to catch him. We have our doubts that in the circumstances, the assailants would not have been able to lay their hands upon Balwant Singh complainant PW 1. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the very fact that Balwant Singh complainant PW 1 escaped unhurt indicates that perhaps he was not at the spot. Otherwise he would not have been spared by the appellants. We find ourselves in agreement with this argument and entertain doubts about the presence of the complainant on the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence. If he was not present on the spot, then the entire prosecution story that he ran away raising alarm on hearing which witnesses including Ram Pal (PW 3) and Vikram Singh (PW 5) arrived at the spot, becomes very doubtful. It is further argued that when Ram Pal PW 3 and Vikram Singh (PW 5) maintained that they were attracted to the spot on hearing the alarm of Balwant Singh complainant and it was then that they saw the occurrence should not be believed. It is further argued that when Ram Pal PW 3 and Vikram Singh (PW 5) maintained that they were attracted to the spot on hearing the alarm of Balwant Singh complainant and it was then that they saw the occurrence should not be believed. We agree with this argument and for this reason, none of the said three eye witnesses are worthy of reliance. 17. The post-mortem examination report shows that the deceased, apart from having incised wounds and a sliced gaping wound on front, left and right of the neck, he had suffered a lacerated wound 1' x 1/2" x skin deep on the left side back of head 4" above and behind left ear. All the three eye witnesses have stated that they had seen Kanta blows being given by two of the appellants on the neck of the deceased Nathu Singh while the three other associates (including the two other appellants) had pressed down the deceased pinning him down on his back with face up. If it was so the deceased could not have got the lacerated wound on the back of his head. None of the witnesses has stated that any lathi blow was given to the deceased in their view. What we want to stress is that the prosecution evidence fails to explain the said lacerated wound on the back of the head of the deceased. In this way the direct evidence led by the prosecution is in conflict with the medical evidence on record. The only inference that can be drawn from this is that the incident did not take place in the manner as alleged. 18. As a result of the above discussion we have no hesitation to say that the prosecution have failed to establish their case beyond all reasonable doubts. The benefit of this doubt must go to the appellants. During the pendency of this appeal Mangu Singh appellant lost his life in a train accident as reported by C.J.M. Bijnor in his report dated 12-12-84. Therefore, the appeal of Mangu Singh appellant abates. 19. The appeal of other three appellants Sukhlal, Ghanshyam and Jagdish Singh is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to each one of these three appellants are set aside. These appellants are acquitted of the offence charged. They are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds, which are cancelled. Their sureties are discharged. 19. The appeal of other three appellants Sukhlal, Ghanshyam and Jagdish Singh is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to each one of these three appellants are set aside. These appellants are acquitted of the offence charged. They are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds, which are cancelled. Their sureties are discharged. Appeal allowed.