JUDGMENT K. Nath, J. - The appellant Sharwan Kumar has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The deceased Shyam Lal is the brother of appellant Sharwan Kumar, both, residing in village Nauwapur, police station Nighasan, district Lakhimpur-Kheri. It is said that there was some quarrel between the appellant and the deceased over a widow Thakurain with whom the appellant is said to have had some intimacy. The deceased did not want the lady to visit the house. On 6.3.77 at about 3 P.M. an altercation between the appellant and the deceased is said to have followed infrant of their house. The appellant is said to have whipped out a country made pistol and to have fired at Shyam Lal deceased. The incident is said to have been witnessed by several persons including Arjun Lal, Ram Bahadur, the brother Lalluram and Smt. Bina Tewari. They are said to have over-powered the appellant and a fired pistol was seized from him. It is said that Ram Bahadur brother of the deceased and the accused transported Shyam Lal injured on a bullock-cart to the Primary Health Centre at Ramia Behta where Dr. R.P.S. Chauhan (P.W.7) examined him medically at 4.30 p.m. Shyam Lal was in semi-conscious state and ultimately died at the centre at 5.15 p.m. Thereafter Ram Bahadur brought the dead body of Shyam Lal back to the village and is said to have left for the police station along with the pistol and a cartridge filed therefrom where he lodged the F.I.R. at 10 p.m. S.I. Ram Abhilakh Singh (P.W. 6) was present. He left the police station on a cycle to the village 12 miles away, where he arrived at 2 a.m. in the night between 6th and 7th March, 1977. He prepared the inquest report and forwarded the dead body in sealed state at 4 a.m. through constable Chandra Pal Singh for postmortem examination. There- after he interrogated the first informant, Ram Bahadur. He is said to have found the appellant shut in a room and took him in his custody. He prepared a site plan of the place of occurrence and is said to have stayed at the spot till 7 or 8 p.m. on 7.3.77. There- after he interrogated the first informant, Ram Bahadur. He is said to have found the appellant shut in a room and took him in his custody. He prepared a site plan of the place of occurrence and is said to have stayed at the spot till 7 or 8 p.m. on 7.3.77. He returned to the police station along with the accused who was received by Constable Chandra Deo Singh at the police station on 8.3.77 at 6.16 a.m. Of which an entry was made in the G.D. The packet containing the country-made pistol and the fired cartridge, allegedly used by the appellant, was sent from the police station to Sadar Malkhana on 29.8.77 and was examined by the Ballistic Expert on 7.2.78. The Ballistic Expert Sri B. Raj (P.W. 10) made an expert examination thereon and came to the conclusion that the cartridge in question had been fired by the pistol referred to above. The postmortem examination on the dead body of Shyam Lal was made on 8.3.77 at 10 a.m. by Dr. A.K. Saxena (P.W. 1) who described two fire-arm wounds of entry and one firearm wound of exit in addition to six abrasions on the person of the deceased. The firearm wounds no. 1 was in short, described as a wound of entrance, two in number, on the right front part of chest, 2 cm below the right nipple, 1 cm apart, above down ward, oval shaped 1.1 cm x each x chest cavity deep, margins lacerated and inverted with blackening and scorching. The other firearm wound was described as wound of entrance, four in number, 1 cm x 1 cm each in an area of 5 cm x 2 cm on medial ulnar border and adjoining area of left wrist and forearm, margins inverted, lacerated with blackening and scorching present around it. The firearm wound of exit was described as three in number on the left forearm ventral aspect 4 cm above the left wrist joint. In the course the appellant was prosecuted for the murder. He pleaded not guilty and said that he had gone to the place of his father-in-law and was not present at the spot at all. The prosecution examined Smt. Bins Tewari, the wife of the deceased (P.W.2), Arjun Lal (P.W. 3), Ram Bahadur (P.W.4) and Lalluram (P.W. 5) as eye-witnesses of the murder. He pleaded not guilty and said that he had gone to the place of his father-in-law and was not present at the spot at all. The prosecution examined Smt. Bins Tewari, the wife of the deceased (P.W.2), Arjun Lal (P.W. 3), Ram Bahadur (P.W.4) and Lalluram (P.W. 5) as eye-witnesses of the murder. The rest of the prosecution witnesses provided connected evidence medical and formal. The appellant examined (D.W. 1) Banshidhar a relative of Smt. Bina Tewari, to prove that Smt. Bina Tewari was not at her husband's house at all on that day but was at the place of her own parents, he examined (D.W. 2) Phool Chand to prove that, likewise, he himself was not at the spot of occurrence but was at the house of his parents-in-law. It may be mentioned that the murder took place on the day of the Holi Festival. Informant Ram Bahadur (P.W. 4) and Lalluram (P.W. 5) did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile by the prosecution. The rest of the eye-witness account was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, the medical evidence was considered to corroborate the prosecution case. The defence witnesses were nut considered to be credible. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that Smt. Bina Tewari (P.W. 2), the wife of the deceased, is not proved to have been present at the spot. Rather, she could have been at her own parents place as stated by (D.W. 1) Banshidhar. There are two features in this regard. Firstly, the name of Smt. Bina Tewari does not find place in the F.I.R. Secondly, the prosecution evidence is not consistent about the stage of the incident which the lady is purported to have seen. In her examination-in-chief she stated that on the date of the incident at about 3 p.m. she was inside her house while her husband was sitting outside infront of a thatch when all of a sudden she heard noises. She came out and saw that the accused was hurling abuses on her husband while Ram Bahadur (P.W. 4) was trying to intercede. According to her, there were others as well. She said that the accused fired at her husband with a pistol. She came out and saw that the accused was hurling abuses on her husband while Ram Bahadur (P.W. 4) was trying to intercede. According to her, there were others as well. She said that the accused fired at her husband with a pistol. She added that when she saw her husband, he was on the cot but she could not tell whether her husband had been picked from the ground and then placed on the cot. In para 34 of the cross-examination she said that when she came out from the house she saw the pistol in the hands of the accused and immediately thereafter the shot was fired. This would indicate that this lady had come out of the house at the earliest stage i.e. when exchange of abuses between the accused and the deceased was going on and Ram Bahadur was interceding. She should have actually seen the appellant firing at Shyam Lal. But the other eye-witness (P.W. 3) Arjun Lal's statement would show that Smt. Bina Tewari could not have seen the actual firing. In para 35 of his statement he stated that after the shot had been fired the wife of Shyam Lal came out of the house and weeping and wailing started. He said that when he saw Shyam Lal's wife at the spot, the shot had already been fired. The learned State Counsel has referred to para 13 of the statement of this witness where he had said that Shyam Lal was hit by the shot, fell down on the ground and Shyam Lal's wife also had arrived at the door. The inference sought to be drawn is that Shyam Lal's wife had already arrived at the door and it was only later that the witness saw her. A noticeable feature is that (P.W.3) Arjun Lal admitted that he had witnessed the altercation and exchange of abuses between the appellant and the deceased preceding the firing by the appellant. In this connection the circumstance, although a minor one, that the lady could not tell whether her husband, after being" injured, had been picked up from the ground or not when he was laid on the ground would make it doubtful whether she had actually seen the occurrence. In this connection the circumstance, although a minor one, that the lady could not tell whether her husband, after being" injured, had been picked up from the ground or not when he was laid on the ground would make it doubtful whether she had actually seen the occurrence. There seems to be no proper reason for disbelieving the version of (D.W.) Banshidher that on the day of occurrence the lady was at the house of her own parents. The 'sale' of Banshidhar is married to the 'Nand' of Smt. Bina Tewari (P.W. 2) and it is not improbable that on the occasion of the festival of Holi he had also gone to the house of Smt. Bina Tewari's parents where he might have seen the lady. The learned counsel for the appellant then urged that the persistent case of tie prosecution that the death was caused by single pistol fire is negatived by the medical evidence. Reliance is placed upon the fact that while one set of firearm wounds of entry was found below the right nipple on the right side of the chest, the other set of firearm wounds of entry was found at the left wrist forearm on medial ulnar border. Both sets of injuries had blackening and scorching and therefore the distance must have been very short a contention is that there could not have Seen enough dispersal of the pellets to cause simultaneous injuries found in the two sets of the firearm wounds of entry. The learned State Counsel, as also the lower Court, however felt that the left arm of the deceased could have been perched on the right side of the chest in such a fashion that the single firearm shot could have caused both the sets of injuries. There might have been something to say in favour of this suggestion but for the evidence of Dr. A.K. Saxena when specifically questioned on the situation he said that the two sets of injuries could not be caused by one shot. The learned Sessions Judge observed that Dr. A.K. Saxena perhaps did not realise the implication of his answer or perhaps he did not understand the question itself. We should think that this is merely conjectural inference. How far the evidence off a doctor should rest upon the implications to follow is itself a debatable question. The learned Sessions Judge observed that Dr. A.K. Saxena perhaps did not realise the implication of his answer or perhaps he did not understand the question itself. We should think that this is merely conjectural inference. How far the evidence off a doctor should rest upon the implications to follow is itself a debatable question. The medico-legal expert has to be precise on facts and need not bother about implications. It is rather difficult to consider that the doctor would not have understood the question and if the court felt that it could be so it should have been the court's duty to recall the doctor and to question hire in it is regard. Indeed he prosecution having not questioned the doctor on this point it would not be proper to say that the doctor did not understand the question. The courts must judge on the evidence as it stands. The distinction between conjecture and reason must be clear. The medical evidence being specific that the two sets of injuries could not be caused' by a single fire it is not for the court to say that it could have been so caused and that the doctor might not have understood the question. At any rate, the benefit of this situation must go to the accused. We should think, therefore, that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the injuries sustained are not consistent with the theory of a single fire cannot be easily thrown out. The learned counsel for the appellant has then referred to the fact that the arrival of the appellant in custody at police station Nighasan was recorded by constable Chandra Singh (P.W. 9) on 8.3.77 at 6.15 a.m. signifying that although S.I. Ram Abhilakh Singh (P.W. 6) had arrived at the spot at about 2 a.m. in the night between 6th and 7th March, 1977, the accused remained in custody of the police for more than twenty-eight hours, which according to him, is not only unreasonable but would cast doubt upon the theory of the prosecution that the appellant was at all present and had participated in the commission of the crime. It is here that reliance is placed upon the defence evidence of alibi afforded by the appellant's father-in-law Phool Chand (D.W. 2). It is here that reliance is placed upon the defence evidence of alibi afforded by the appellant's father-in-law Phool Chand (D.W. 2). Phool Chand said that the appellant along with his wife had arrived at his house in connection with the Holi festival one day before Holi. He stated that on the day following the Holi he received information that on the previous evening at about 7 or 7.30 Shyam Lal had been murdered. On this information the appellant along with the appellant's wife and his wife went away to village Nauapur. This witness has been disbelieved for the sole reason that he is the father-in-law of the accused. No effort was made to find out in the cross-examination at what time the information was received, at what time the accused left, what is the distance from the village of Phool Chand to the place of the murder, what is the probable time by which the appellant could have reached the village of murder. These questions would have been more appropriate than a mere reliance upon the circumstance that the witness had not lodged any report with any senior police officer that his son-in-law had been falsely implicated. The relevant feature in this connection is that according to the F.I.R. lodged by Ram Bahadur (P.W. 4) Shyam Lal was in the first instance taken in injured state to the Primary Health Centre at Ramia Behta where, after examination by Dr. Chauhan, Shyam Lal died at about 5 a.m. He then brought back the deceased to the village and proceeded to police station along with the murder, weapon and the cartridge to lodge the. report. It should have been natural and probable to take the appellant also to the police station at that time, but that was not done. S.I. Ram Abhilakh Singh (P.W. 6) cared to despatch the dead body at 4 a.m. for postmortem examination in the company of the constable and a chaukidar. He could have as well sent the appellant to the police station with police force. It is noticeable that in the challan lash Ext. Ka-7 the time of death is described to be 3 p.m. (on 6.3.77). He could have as well sent the appellant to the police station with police force. It is noticeable that in the challan lash Ext. Ka-7 the time of death is described to be 3 p.m. (on 6.3.77). Admittedly Shyam Lal had died at 5 p.m. The facts relating to the murder, the capture of the accused, the seizure of the murder weapon and the cartridge, the movement of Shyam Lal to the hospital and back home were all recorded in the F.I.R. (P.W. 6) S.I. Ram Abhilakh Singh admitted that the F.I.R. was lodged at the police station in his presence He was, therefore, in the know of the facts and yet when he prepared the challan lash he happened to write the time of death as 3 p.m. We are not satisfied that S.I. Ram Abhi lakh Singh (P.W. 6) was usefully occupied at the spot for the purposes of investigation till 7 or 8 p.m. on 7.3.1977, it should have been possible to conclude the investigation much earlier, there were only four witnesses of facts to be examined and interrogated, a siteplan to be prepared, Panchayatnama to be drawn, which had already been completed by 4 am. This inordinate over-stay by Ram Abhilakh Singh (P.W. 6) seems to fit in with the defence theory that neither Smt. Bina Tewari (P.W. 2) nor the accused appellant were available. If the very arrest of the accused is doubtful, the alleged seizure of the pistol and the fired cartridge from him would become doubtful. The fact that the Ballistic Expert found the cartridge to have been fired from the same pistol looses all its value in view of almost six month's unexplained detention 'of those articles at the police station before they were sent to the Sadar Malkhana for onward transmission to the Ballistic Expert. Indeed, the conduct of the investigation in this case is not fair or reasonable. For the above-mentioned reasons we are not inclined to place any reliance on the prosecution evidence. The case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant must be acquitted. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant Sharwan Kumar alias Choorey for the offence under Sector) 302, I.P.C. is set aside. He is acquitted. He is on bail: He need not surrender. The bail bonds are discharged.