JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by Munshi Singh who has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar under section 302 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on July 12, 1973 at about 9 P.M. at Dharamshala situated in village Santpura, a Ramila party was singing filmy songs. The Ramlila was over a day earlier and it ended with Bhog ceremony. It is said that the deceased Zeetsingh came and objected to the singing of such songs. Thereupon, Pavitrasingh and Gurudeepsingh sons of Munshi Singh who were listening to the songs, asked Jeet Singh as to who he is to prevent singing of songs. Then wrangle took place between them and Zeetsingh inflicted a lathi on the head of Pavitrasingh and they grappled with each other. Zeetsingh then caught hold of Gurdeepsing by his lock of hair. Then both Pavitrasingh and Gurdeepsingh grappled with Zeetsingh and his hair were also caught hold by both of them. According to the prosecution, at that time, the appellant came armed with a 12 bore double barrel gun. It is said that Sukhdeo Singh (informant) and Jalawar Singh (P W.3), who were intervening and separating them, made themselves away and at that time, it is alleged that Gurdeepsingh and Pavitra Singh exhorted their father to fire a shot. Thereupon, Munshi Singh fired a shot, which hit Zeetsingh on the left side. Zeetsingh fell down. The persons assembled ran away from the spot. According to Sukhdeosingh, he went to the house of Zeetsingh and informed his mother. Zeetsinghs brother Baldeosingh was not available. Zeetsinghs mother informed that Baldeosingh had gone to Sri Ganganagar and he might have come to Nukera and so, he may proceed to Nukera. Sukhdeosingh then went to Nukera. He sent his brother Gurbachansingh to find out Baldeosingh at Sangariya. Two other persons viz., Gurdeosingh ad Gurbuxsingh were sent to Dholnagar to find out Baldeosingh. Baldeosingh was found at Dholnagar and he came to Santpura. The occurrence was narrated to him. They saw Zeetsingh lying dead. Govind Kotwal and two other persons were left near the dead body and Sukhdeosingh went to Sangariya to lodge the report. The report Ex. P was lodged on the same night at 2. 45 A.M. A case under s. 302/34 I.P.C. was registered by Niranjansingh (P.W.5). The occurrence was narrated to him. They saw Zeetsingh lying dead. Govind Kotwal and two other persons were left near the dead body and Sukhdeosingh went to Sangariya to lodge the report. The report Ex. P was lodged on the same night at 2. 45 A.M. A case under s. 302/34 I.P.C. was registered by Niranjansingh (P.W.5). He proceeded to the spot and conducted spot investigations. He also visited the house of the appellant Munshisingh and recovered a double barrel muzzle loading gun. The investigation subsequent changed hands. It may be stated here that on July 17, 1973, Harnek Singh, the brother of the appellant Munshisingh made a complaint to Dy. S.P. that the appellant has been falsely implicated and the killer of Zeetsingh is Gurbachansingh. After investigation, challan was presented against Gurbachansingh. At this stage, a complaint was filed by Sukkdeosingh and after holding the enquiry, he was also committed to the court of Sessions for trial. Both the accused were tried by the learned Sessions Judge. In sessions case No. 68 of 1974, Gurbachansingh was acquitted and in sessions case No.281 of 1974, Pavitrasingh and Gurdeepsingh were acquitted and the appellant Munshisingh was found guilty of having shot Zeetsingh dead. 3. Before the Sessions Judge, at the trial in this case, 5 witnesses were in all examined. Dr. Swadesh Mitra Saini was examined as P.W. 1, Sukhdeosingh (P. W. 2 and Zilawar Singh (P.W. 3) were examined as eye witnesses and Chanan Singh (P.W. 4) is the Motbir of the recovery of the gun from the house of the accused-appellant Munshisingh and he is also a witness to prove that after the occurrence when he visited the spot, Zeetsingh's wife and mother told him that Munshisingh and his sons have killed Zeetsingh P.W.5 Niranjansingh is the Investigating Officer 4. Dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard Mr. R. N. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr L. S. Udawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. The entire case hinges on the testimony of P. W. 2 Sukhdeosingh and P.W. 3 Zilawarsingh. It may be mentioned that Sukhdeosingh and Zilawar Singh both are highly interested witnesses. Zeetsingh was the son of the sister of Sukhdeo Singh mother. Zilawarsingh is also related to the deceased. He stated that from the maternal side, Zeetsingh is his mother's sister's son. It may be mentioned that Sukhdeosingh and Zilawar Singh both are highly interested witnesses. Zeetsingh was the son of the sister of Sukhdeo Singh mother. Zilawarsingh is also related to the deceased. He stated that from the maternal side, Zeetsingh is his mother's sister's son. He further stated that Gurbachansingh, who was challaned by the Police is his real mothers sisters son. P. W. 4 Chanansingh is the real brother of Gurbachansingh and deceased Zeetsingh is his nephew. Thus, it would appear that P. W. 2 Sukhdeosingh, P. W. 3 Zilawarsingh and P. W. 4 Chanansingh are deeply interested in Zeetsingh and Gurbachansingh. Accused-appellant Munshisingh was aged about 70 years at the time of the occurrence. His house is situated as per the statement of P. W. 5 Niranjansingh at a distance of 290 whereas the house of Gurbachan Singh was near to Dharamshala. The question arises as to whether the shot was fired by the appellant or by somebody else and at the time of firing of the shot, whether there was any light. P. W. 2 Sukhdeosingh has not stated in his earlier statement i.e. in the F.I.R. as well as in his complaint Ex. P. 2 and the statement before the Magistrate (Ex. D. 2) that the gas light was burning. It appears that he has made improvement in his statement. It appears that there was no light and it can be gathered from the statements of Sukhdeosingh as well as Zilawarsingh. They have deposed that Munshisingh asked as to who he is ? Thereupon, Gurdeepsingh and Pavitrasingh expressed : Bapu what is being observed. Here is Zeet Singh. From this statement of P. W. 2 Sukhdeosingh and P. W. 3 Zilawarsingh, it would appear that Munshi Singh was not in a position to identify. Thus, it would appear that the occurrence had taken place when there was no light or there was insufficient light. According to both these witnesses, Pavitrasingh and Gurdeepsingh were holding Zeetsingh by the lock of his hair. It means that two persons were on one side and Zeetsingh alone was on the other side. This being the situation, the grudge could have been only with the persons who wanted to side with Zeetsingh so that he may be separated and those who were grappling with him, may be penalised. It means that two persons were on one side and Zeetsingh alone was on the other side. This being the situation, the grudge could have been only with the persons who wanted to side with Zeetsingh so that he may be separated and those who were grappling with him, may be penalised. If the matter is viewed in this light, then this possibility cannot be ruled out that some one else might have fired the shot from the side of Zeetsingh which ultimately hit Zeetsingh though it was aimed either at Pavitrasingh or at Gurdeepsingh. Besides the above consideration, what is most material is that there is no independent evidence forthcoming to support the prosecution story. As stated above, P. W. 2 Sukhdeosingh and P.W.3 Zalawarsingh are highly interested witnesses and so, it would be unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of the two witnesses. There is no corroborative evidence available on record. Admittedly, the double barrel gun has not been made use of. The shot has been fired by 12 bore cartridge gun. 7. Mr. L. S. Udawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the Slate submitted that the report was lodged in this case at 2.45 A. M. and when a search was made of the house of Munshisingh, his wife had come to know that the police is investigating the case against Munshisingh and Munshisingh, Pavitrasingh and Gurdeepsingh were not available at the house when Niranjansingh visited the house. So this circumstance of lodging of the prompt report and non-availability of the three accused-persons go to point out that there is truth in the prosecution story. In a case of such a nature, where the police after investigation has put up a challan against another accused person and the appellant along with his two sons were prosecuted and tried on the complaint filed by Sukhdeosingh, in our opinion, it is highly essential that convincing evidence should be produced so as to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. We do not find the testimony of P. W. 2 Sukhdeosingh and P. W. 3 Zilawarsingh of such a nature on the basis of which it can be found that the accused Munshisingh fired a shot hitting Zeetsingh. In darkness somebody else could have fired and because of enmity, it is possible that the name of Munshisingh might have been introduced. In darkness somebody else could have fired and because of enmity, it is possible that the name of Munshisingh might have been introduced. When the house of Munshisingh was situated at a distance of 290 and there is no evidence on record that he was informed or that he was present and went to his house and brought the gun, it cannot be taken that on coming to know, Munshisingh came armed with gun and fired the shot. As regards the lodging of the report, there is a suspicious circumstance as well. The suspicious circumstance is that according to P. W. 2 Sukhdeosingh, Gurbachansingh was sent to Sangariya to find out Baldeosingh. When Gurbachansingh was already sent to Sangariya then the report could have been lodged by Gurbachansingh and there was no necessity of his returning to Santpura for lodging the report. Thus, in the absence of convincing and acceptable evidence of independent witnesses, in our opinion it would be unsafe to hold the accused Munshisingh guilty of the offence under section 302 I.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in our opinion, the accused Munshisingh is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant Munshisingh are set aside and he is acquitted of the offence under section 302 I.P.C. He is already on ball and so, he need not surrender to his bail bonds and his bail bonds are discharged.Appeal allowed. *******