Judgment Ram Naresh Thakur, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for an offence under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code. He has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00 and in default of payment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 19-1-1981 Most, Sugia Devi (P. W. 6) was tying her cattle, when this appellant came and protested that the entire land belongs to him, P. W. 6 Most. Sugia Devi said that half of the plot belongs to her and half to him (appellant) and she was tying her cattle in her own share. Thereafter this appellant took out a pistol and fired at Sugia Devi. Sugia Devi was injured and she fell down In the meantime, the deceased Lahari Yadav son of Sugiya Devi came and protested as to why he was doing such Julum, This appellant filed his pistol at Lahari Yadav, which hit at his chest with the result Lahari Yadav fell down and died then and there. In the meantime, Gyan Chandra Yadav (P. W. 5), Nepali Yadav (P. W. 3) and Shri Yadav came and wanted to catch this appellant, but this appellant is alleged to have fired at them due to which these three persons also received injuries. It is further said that during this occurrence father of this appellant Hukku Yadav was also there and at his instigation the appellant committed aforesaid offences. After the occurrence the appellant and his father are alleged to have filed away to their house. When they went to their Darwaja appellant Shev Nath in self defence assaulted his father with lathi, saying if his father was dead the members of the prosecution party would be hanged. 3. After the occurrence the appellant and his father are alleged to have filed away to their house. When they went to their Darwaja appellant Shev Nath in self defence assaulted his father with lathi, saying if his father was dead the members of the prosecution party would be hanged. 3. P. W. 14, on some information, came to the place of occurrence on 19-6-1981 and recorded the statement of P. W. 8 on the basis of which a formal First Information Report was instituted and a case was registered He took up investigation and handed over charge of the case to P. W. 9 who submitted charge-sheet against this appellant and his father. 4. On 20-6-1981 at 9.15 A. M., P. W. 13 Dr. O. N. Jaiswal conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Lahari Yadav and found following injuries : "Six circular pellet marks each 0 3" in diameter on the anterior aspect of left side of chest and abdomen, upper part. One of them was on the antero leteral aspect of the left arm, mid part. They were spread in an area of 12" x 12" and distance between them was from 1" to 4". The death in his opinion was caused due to rapture of the heart and lungs and the resultant internal haemorrhage and shock due to gun shot wounds. The time elapsed since death between 6 to 36 hours. Three pellets were also recovered from the dead body. Ext. 4 is the postmortem report. P. W. 12 had examined Gyan Chandra Yadav on 19-6-1981 at 8.10 P. M. and found following injuries. (i) Multiple abrasions on left, some overleeps and mostly discrete, size 1/8" x 1/2" no charring. Two pellets removed. (ii) Multiple abrasion on the right thigh, size 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" no charring. On the same day at 8,20 P. M. he had examined Shree Singh and found following injuries. (i) One abrasion on right thigh in the middle. Size 1"x 1/2", no charring. On 20-6-81 at 6.25 A. M. He examined Smt. Sugia wife of Shree Brahmdeo Yadav and found following injuries : (i) One abrasion on the left temporal regions size 1/8" x 1/8", it is 1" above from the left temporal mendibular, joint, no charring. (ii) Two abrasions on the right upper arm, size 1/2". Size 1"x 1/2", no charring. On 20-6-81 at 6.25 A. M. He examined Smt. Sugia wife of Shree Brahmdeo Yadav and found following injuries : (i) One abrasion on the left temporal regions size 1/8" x 1/8", it is 1" above from the left temporal mendibular, joint, no charring. (ii) Two abrasions on the right upper arm, size 1/2". It is 2" below the right auxiliary region, no charring, (iii) One abrasion on the right forearm, size 1/2" x 1/2". It is two inches below the right elbow joint. No charring. On 20-6-1981 at 6.20 A.M., he examined Shri Nepali Yadav and found following injuries. (i) Two abrasions on the left leg, one above the knee joint, and either below the knee joint. Size 1/8" x 1/8". 5. Both the accused persons (this appellant and his lather) were subsequently, put on trial where 14 witness were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The appellant denied the allegation and pleaded his innocence. Four witnesses were examined on their behalf. From the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and from the evidence of defence witnesses, case of the appellant further appears to be that on 19-6-1981 at about 4 P.M. Nepali Yadav (P. W. 3), Gayan Chandra Yadav (P. W. 5) and others came to the Angan of the appellant with various arms and started assaulting Hukku Yadav and his wife and in that occurrence deceased also received injuries. Ext. B is the fardbeyan of Katnda Devi wife of Hukku Yadav and mother of this appellant. 6. After considering the entire evidence, the learned trying court convicted the appellant, as stated above but gave benefit of doubt to another accused Hukku Yadav, who was acquitted. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the manner of occurrence and the prosecution case is not consistent with the circumstances appearing in the case and therefore, according to him, the findings of the trying court are not correct, After hearing both sides at length and perusing the entire evidence, we find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate the manner of occurrence beyond all reasonable doubts for the reasons stated below. 8. 8. According to the prosecution, the present occurrence took place at about 11,30 A. M. in the day time and the fardbeyan of P. W. 8 was recorded by P. W. 14 on the same day i. e. on 19-6-1981 at 8 P. M. According to the fordbeyan, it was recorded in the village of the Informant. The Informant is a resident of tola Simra Bench of Mauja Birai. In the Court P. W. 8 has stated, in-chief, that while he was going to police station he met the officer-in-charge at Bakharua crossing and thereafter he returned to his house along with the officer-in-charge where he gave his statement. In cross examination he says that the Sub-Inspector of Police came to his house at 6 P. M. and he remained there for about one hour. The Sub Inspector of Police had seen the dead body at the place of occurrence and had also arrested this appellant and Hukku Yadav and thereafter the Sub-Inspector of Police left for Mouza Birai alongwith arrested accused persons. His statement (P. W. 8s statement) was recorded at Mouza Birai and from Birai the Informant went to the Police Station along with the Sub-Inspector of Police. The Sub-Inspector of Police (P. W. 14) falsifies the Informant on this point. P. W. 14 has said in cross examination that on hearing rumour he came to the place of occurrence and met the Informant there. He recorded the statement of the Informant at the place of occurrence itself, 9. According to P. W. 14, he reached place of occurrence at 8 P. M. but other witnesses said that Darogs came at about 6 P.M. P.W. 3 has stated in paragraph 16 that Ramdeo had gone to Daud Nagar Police Station, which is at a distance of about 8 miles from his village Thakurbigha situates in between the village Birai and the Police Station. Thakurbigha is at a distance of three miles from his village. According to him, Ramdeo came along with the police officer at the place of occurrence. In paragraph 17 he says that after the arrival of the police, he went to the house of this appellant. P. W. 7 also says that Ramdeo had gone to inform the police at 12 noon in the day and came to the place of occurrence along with the officer. In paragraph 17 he says that after the arrival of the police, he went to the house of this appellant. P. W. 7 also says that Ramdeo had gone to inform the police at 12 noon in the day and came to the place of occurrence along with the officer. Therefore, the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P. W. 14) that he met the Informant for the first time at the place of occurrence is not supported by other witness, rather according to the evidence of other witnesses the Informant had gone to the Police Station and came back along with the Police. It has also come in evidence of P. W. 8 that village Birai is at a distance of one mile. 10. According to the evidence of P. W. 8 and the First Information Report, appellant was arrested before the fardbeyari was recorded but P. W. 14 says otherwise. In fardbeyan it is mentioned that when the Sub-Inspector of Police went to arrest the appellant he filed one shot but this fact is not supported by P. W. 14. 11. Apart from this, P.W. 14 says that he heard rumour about the occurrence, but he could not say from whom he heard this rumour because there was no mention about it in the case diary. Then he says that he heard rumour in village Thakurbigha. He further says that in between 8 P.M. to 32 P.M. he arrested the accused persons. Appellant was arrested in his house, but he does not remember as to where Hukku Yadav was arrested. He further adds that he does not find his name mentioned in the case diary, but he admits that Hukku Yadav was injured and had bleeding injury on his head and was not in a position to speak when he was arrested. He had prepared his injury report He had found appellant Shobh Nath Yadav in one of the open rooms of his house concealed in a Kothi, but he admits that this fact is not mentioned in the case diary. He had recorded the statement of the wife of Hukku Yadav on the basis of which a case was registered and he had also investigated that case. He took the accused persons and the deceased on a Tractor, but from whom he had taken Tractor, he does not remember. According to him, Hukku Yadav was unconscious. He had recorded the statement of the wife of Hukku Yadav on the basis of which a case was registered and he had also investigated that case. He took the accused persons and the deceased on a Tractor, but from whom he had taken Tractor, he does not remember. According to him, Hukku Yadav was unconscious. Therefore, he recorded the statement of his wife. Hukku Yadav was admitted in the hospital in the night of 19/20 of June, 1981 and was discharged on 27-6-1981. He examined Shri Yadav on 9-7-1981. He does not remember on whose Jeep or Car he came to the place of occurrence. He also does not remember whether any injured was sent to the hospital on the Jeep. According to P.W. 14, he did not meet Gyan Chandra Yadav and Shri Yadav at the place of occurrence when he went there because they had already left for hospital. P.W. 5 says that after receiving injury he became unconscious and regained his sense in Daud Nagar Hospital. P. W. 7 has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 6 P. M. Shri Yadav and Gyan Chandra Yadav went to Daudnagar on the Police Jeep. P.W. 3 says that when sun was setting, Ramdeo Yadav came along with the Police and several persons had collected there, who had surrounded the house of this appellant. Therefore, the prosecution evidence is not consistent on the point as to when the police came at the place of occurrence. From the prosecution evidence itself it becomes doubtful as to when and where the fardbeyan was recorded because according to the Informant, after arrest of the accused persons the fardbeyan was recorded, which is supported by the fardbeyan but from the statement of P.W. 14 will appear that the fardbeyari was recorded before appellant was arrested. According to the Investigating Officer, the fardbeyan was recorded at the spot, but according to the Informant, it was recorded in village-Birai when the P.W. 14 went to that village after arrest of the accused persons. 12. From the evidence on record, the conduct of the Investigating Officer also does not appear to be above board. He says on hearing rumour he went to the place of occurrence, but from whom he heard rumour, it was not mentioned in the case diary. 12. From the evidence on record, the conduct of the Investigating Officer also does not appear to be above board. He says on hearing rumour he went to the place of occurrence, but from whom he heard rumour, it was not mentioned in the case diary. According to the evidence of village witness, injured Sri Yadav and Gyan Chandra Yadav were sent to Daud Nagar on Police Jeep, but that Sub-Inspector of Police (P. W. 14) says that they bad gone earlier P. W. 12 says that he had examined Gyan Chandra Yadav and Shri Yadav on 19-6-1981 in between 8.10 P.M. to 8.20 P.M. From the First Information Report, it will appear that the place of occurrence is at a distance of 14 K.M. from the Police Station and according to the oral evidence, it is 8 miles. Be that as it may, it appears that Gyan Chandra Yadav and Sri Yadav were examined at the Daudnagar Hospital at about 8.15 P.M. Therefore, they must have left the place of occurrence much before 8 P.M. Gyan Chandra Yadav has said that after receiving injury, he became unconscious and regained his sense next day in the hospital. According to the doctor, who examined his injury, the nature of injury was superficial and simple. All injuries were found on leg and thigh. Therefore, nature of injury does not indicate that he would have become unconscious and he would have remained unconscious for such a long time. 13. P.Ws. 10 and 11 are the witnesses in whose presence blood stained earth was seized. According to P. W. 10 blood was scrapped at about 8 P. M. in the same night. P. W. 12 says that on the next day of occurrence at about 8.45 A.M. blood stained earth was scrapped. 14. According to the prosecution case two empty cartridges and two live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the appellant, when he was arrested, but that seizure list has not been produced in this case. The revolver was not recovered from the possession of the appellant. According to the P.W. 14, the appellant was concealing himself in a Kothi, but this fact was not mentioned in the case diary. According to the fardbeyan when the Sub-Inspector of Police went to arrest him one shot was fired, but still the revolver was not found. The revolver was not recovered from the possession of the appellant. According to the P.W. 14, the appellant was concealing himself in a Kothi, but this fact was not mentioned in the case diary. According to the fardbeyan when the Sub-Inspector of Police went to arrest him one shot was fired, but still the revolver was not found. Injuries on Gyan Chandra Yadav and Sri Yadav were found on leg and thigh. Two abrasions were found on the person of Nepali Yadav (P. W. 8). Sru Singh has not been examined in this case. Even, in the fardbeyan, the said injury is not mentioned. As stated above, he was examined much after by the Investigating Officer. 15. According to the prosecution case when Sugia Devi was tying her cattle, the appellant went there and protested and fired at her. P.W. 3 says that in presence of the Police, this appellant fired twice, but still the fire-arm was not recovered from his possession or was found nearabout. P. W. 3 says that at about 8 P. M. Appellant surrendered and as it became night the Police remained in the village and next morning went to the Police Station along with him and other injured persons. He further says that Gyan Chandra Yadav and Shri Yadav were seriously injured. Therefore, the Police sent them to Daud Nagar Hospital in the same night. P. W. 3 in paragraph 3 says that the land in dispute has total area of 1 1/2 Khatas of land. On half Khata of land, this appellant used to tie his cattle and on rest of the half Khata of land Brahmdeo Yadav tied the cattle. Brahmdeo Yadav is the husband of Sugia Devi. The appellant got this land from Briksh Yadav and Sugia Devi got this land from Jattu Yadav. Briksh Yadav and Jattu Yadav were agnates. Then he says that Shob Nath Yadav (appellant) had purchased the entire 1 1/2 khata of land from the grand son of Briksh Yadav by registered deed and even Jattu Yadav sold the entire land to Butan Yadav. Butan Yadav was the father of P. W. 4. From his evidence it will appear that this appellant purchased the entire land about a year before when the prosecution party purchased the entire land. Butan Yadav was the father of P. W. 4. From his evidence it will appear that this appellant purchased the entire land about a year before when the prosecution party purchased the entire land. But he further says that after Kebala both the parties came in possession of half of the lands according to the share and there was never any quarrel in respect of this land. He further says that both the parties were coming in peaceful possession of their respective shares. He further says that there was no quarrel or difference in between them from before. In view of admission of P. W. 3, it does not stand to reason as to why this appellant went with pistol on the day of occurrence and asked Sugia Devi not to tie the cattle on her land. 16. It has come in evidence that all the eye witnesses are members of same family of the Informant. It is true that evidence of the interested witnesses cannot be brushed aside only on the ground that they are interested, but in the present case, it has come in evidence that none of the parties was on litigating term from before. There are houses of other persons near-by. There is also no evidence to show that both the parties belong to different camps. In that view of the matter, it is expected that some indepenent witnesses should have come to support the prosecution case, which has not been done. 17. According to the evidence of P. W. 14 itself when he went to the house of the appellant he found Hukku Yadav father of this appellant seriously injured. He was unconscious and found bleeding injury on his head. It does not look probable that the appellant would have assaulted his own father. 18. Taking into consideration entire facts and the circumstances appearing in the case, the prosecution case does not appear to be free of doubt. Accordingly, I find and hold that prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts. In view of this finding, it is not essential to discuss the evidence of defence witnesses. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order of eviction and sentences passed against the appellant is set aside and he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.