D. S. BAJPAI, J. This is a jail appeal by Sole accused, Kanhaiya Lal, son of Shiv Charan, against the judgment and order dated 1-12-1982 passed by the Special Judge, (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi, con victing the accused under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and awarding him imprisonment for life. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the case are that the accused had committed the murder of his own mother, Smt. Janka, on 11-7-1982 at 10 p. m. in a village Galiyara of village Behaiya, hamlet of Beniganj in the district of Hardoi out side the house of Ram Asrey. The accused is said to have committed the murder by causing her death by firing a shot on her from close range and the deceased is said to have died instantaneously on the spot. A written F. I. R. , Ext. Ka-1, pertaining to this occurrence was lodged at P. S. Beniganj the same night (12-7-1982) at 00 33 hours, i. e. half an hour after midnight of the same night By Buddha Lal alias Budhai, son of Shiv Charan, the own brother of the accused, at Police Station Beniganj. The informant also resided in the same house. 3. The prosecution story in a nutshell, as disclosed from the F. I. R. is that the complainant resided in the village of Belhaiya, hamlet of Beniganj and his family comprised his father, Shiv Charan, his mother, Smt. Janka deceased, the real elder brother Kanhaiya Lal, the accused and younger two brothers, Budhai and Daya Ram. Though Kanhaiya Lal, the accused had been married, he was doing nothing and not even lending a supporting hand to his father in cultivation. It was alleged that there was constant quarrel between Kanhaiya Lal and his deceased mother all the moment and Kanhaiya Lal wanted partition of the holding. The relations were so strained that some times the mother even refused to give food to Kanhaiya Lal. It is said that about 3-4 days back Kanhaiya Lal took out half a bag of wheat forcibly from the house to sell it in the market at Beniganj and the informants father on being informed went to Beniganj Market and snatched away the wheat bag from Kanhaiya Lal whereupon on returning to the house Kanhaiya Lal beat his mother, Smt. Janka and the informant saved her. It is alleged that on the fateful night when the informant was at his house and the informants father had gone to Jasharans grove nearby, the deceased went out at about 10 p. m. to attend to the call of nature and when she reached the house of Maiku Lal Yadav, son of Lakhan and Ram Asrey, son of Baldeo, in the Gali, he heard the cry of his mother that the accused -vas beating her to death (Daura Kanhaiya Lal Mars daal raha hai) whereupon the informant and the neighbours, Maiku Lal and Ram Asrey, rushed to the place and the accused thereupon fired a shot on the deceased and ran towards Beniganj. The shot hit the deceased on the left side of the chest when she fell down and died shortly thereafter at the spot It was on the basis of this written F. I. R. said to have been scribed by Chhedi Lal Verma that a Chik report, Ext, Ka-2, was prepared and a case under Section 302, I. P. C. was registered against the accused Kanhaiya Lal, vide G. D. No. 2 of 12-7-1982 of which Ext. Ka-3 is a true copy. According to the G. D. report, the complainant Buddha Lal along with Babu Ram, Kamta and Chhedi Lal had gone to the police station to over the written report. The investigating officer proceeded, with, the investigation, reached the spot at 1. 30 a. m. the same night and recovered the body of the deceased at the Tiraha towards sought of the house of Ram Asrey which was being guarded by the family, people and the other neighbours. There is no dispute about the fact that the day of occurrence was a pitch dark night and that there was no light available on the spot of occurrence nor was there any light available nearby which could create any visibility at the said spot. It was in these circumstances that the Panchayatnama was done in the morning at 7 a. m. and the body sent duly sealed through Constable, Debi Din and Chaukidar, Lakkha, for post-mortem which was performed on 13-7-1982 at 4 p. m. by Dr. S. K. Luthra as the District Hospital, Hardoi. It was in these circumstances that the Panchayatnama was done in the morning at 7 a. m. and the body sent duly sealed through Constable, Debi Din and Chaukidar, Lakkha, for post-mortem which was performed on 13-7-1982 at 4 p. m. by Dr. S. K. Luthra as the District Hospital, Hardoi. The accused was said to have been arrested on 14-7-1982 while he was sitting on a Puliya of river Charwa on the outskirts of the village and one country-made revolver and some empty and live cartridges along with it were reco vered from his possession as also some money and other articles. 4. At the trial Budda PW 1, Ram Asrey PW 3 and Maiku Lal PW 4, the three eye-witnesses, along with Chhedi Lal, the scribe of the F I. R. besides Devi Din PW 5, a constable at the Police Station, Beniganj, who carried body for post-mortem, Sobaran PW 6, Station House Officer at the Police Station, Beniganj, the Investigating Officer, Raghubans Singh PW 7, Head Moharrir, Police Line, Hardoi, who deposited the relevant papers for post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased, Sripal PW 8, a witness of recovery of the firearm and other articles fro n the possession of the accused and Dr S. K. Luthra, PW 9, the Medical Officer, who conducted the post mortem on the dead body, were examined by the prosecution. Neither any defence witness was examined, nor was any evidence adduced. 5. The accused, however, pleaded not guilty. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, as stated hereinabove awarded, life im prisonment to the accused after holding him guilty of an offence under Sec tion 302 I. P. C. and the accused is serving out the sentence in jail. The appeal was sent by the accused from jail through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Fatehgarh. This Court appointed Sri A. B. Mathur, Advocate, amicus curiae to appear and defend the accused. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the accused appellant as also the learned Assistant Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence led by the prosecutions was unworthy of reliance and did not inspire confidence so as to warrant conviction of the accused and as such the judgment and order of the court below could not be sustained. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence led by the prosecutions was unworthy of reliance and did not inspire confidence so as to warrant conviction of the accused and as such the judgment and order of the court below could not be sustained. Submissions made in support of the contentions were firstly that the father of the accused was not examined and he was the only persons to spell out the motive for commission of the offence. The second submission of the learned counsel was to the effect that the F. I. R. was written between 8. 9 a. m. and recorded at the Police Station at 11 am. for which he pointed out to the testimony of PW 2, the scribe. 9. It was also pointed out that in fact the accused was not arrested from the culvert outside the village, as alleged, but he was, arrested from the house of his in laws (Sasural ). A close scrutiny of the evidence of eye-witness Buddha PW 1 would indicate that at the time when the alleged incident is said to have taken place he was in his house, his mother, the deceased, had cooked food and had kept in the house and that he was protecting it his father had gone to the grove for its rakhwali, but after some time he heard some noise being made by his mother that Kanhaiya Lal was trying to kill her (Kanhaiya Mare dalta hal) and it was only then that he ran from the house and Ram Asrey and Maiku ran from their respective houses and saw that Kanhaiya Lal had placed a Tamancha on his mothers chest which he fired and ran westward. The deceased is said to have fallen down and died after some time. He is alleged to have gone alonwith Babu Lal and Chhedi Lal son of Godhe. He also states that his father had also accompanied him to the police station but t was he who lodged the F. I. R. He further supports the defence version when he states in paragraph 9 in the cross-examination that he got the report prepared between 8 and 9 oclock in the morning. He also states that his father had also accompanied him to the police station but t was he who lodged the F. I. R. He further supports the defence version when he states in paragraph 9 in the cross-examination that he got the report prepared between 8 and 9 oclock in the morning. It cannot be said that the statement has been made by the informant under some confusion in as much he further clarified that after dictating the report in the village between 8 and 9 Oclock in the morning, he carried the report to the police station where he reached at about 11 a. m. where he stayed for about an hour and thereafter he and his father came back home. In reply to a specific question as to when police, i. e. police investigating team reached the village, he categorically stated that the police investigating team reached at 1. 30 oclock in the night. The team, he stated, comprised Station House Officer and three constables. On further cross- examination he stated that the Police reached the very night the informants mother was murdered. Finally, the death knell was struck by PW 1 to the prosecution story when he stated, "gaon wale khabar karane gaye the aur mere gaonke neta Ajay Pal guye the". This totally shatters the F. I. R. version of the incident and a heavy cloud overshadows the prosecution case. It thus cannot be said as to when the occur rence took place, when and where and at what time the report was prepared and who accompanied PW 1 to the Police Station for lodging of the F. I. R. , as also the time and date when the F. I. R. was lodged. F. I. R, Ext. Ka-2 states the date of occurrence to be 11-7-1982, the time to be 10 p. m. and the date of lodging F. I. R. as 12-7-1982, but the time when the F. I. R. was actually registered could not be deciphered from the perusal of the original. It has been stressed by the learned Counsel for the accused that in any case the F. I. R is antetimed and antedated and the arrival of the investigating team at 1. It has been stressed by the learned Counsel for the accused that in any case the F. I. R is antetimed and antedated and the arrival of the investigating team at 1. 30 Oclock in the same night, i. e. ll/l2-7-1982 would not only be improbable but unbelievable in view of the admitted fact as borne put from the statement of the informant PW 1 that he went to the Police Station in the morning and lodged the F. I. R. only at 11 a. m. The informant has further stated that there was no light on the spot and the night was pitch dark. He further stated that the threat extended by the accused to shoot his mother was given in the presence of his father, Ram Swarup and Dewi Ram. Signifi cantly none of the persons alleged to have been present has been examined by prosecution to establish the motive. The statement of informant appears to be unbelievable inasmuch as he has been trying to shift his stand and improve the story by saying once again that his father, Babu and Neta Ajay Pal had gone to lodge the F. I R. at the police station in the company of Chhedi son of Ram Lal, while in another breath he said that Chhedi had not ancompanied them and that his father had alone gone with the said Neta to lodge the F. I. R. in the night and that no paper had been carried by them from the village. Confusion is further apparent in his statement when he stated that the accused had beaten his mother in the evening and in another breath he stated that he had also beaten his mother in the noon. The fact that the deceased had taken food and it was only half an hour after taking food that the deceased had gone to ease herself is clear from his statement, but the same is believed from the post-mortem report which indicates that the stomach was empty and that the small intestine only contained liquid faecal gases and the large intestine only had faecal matter or gases. The spot where the murder is said to have taken place is about 30 steps and from the house of the deceased it was doubtful as to whether the shouts of deceased Smt. Janka, could be heard by PW 1 from inside the house. The spot where the murder is said to have taken place is about 30 steps and from the house of the deceased it was doubtful as to whether the shouts of deceased Smt. Janka, could be heard by PW 1 from inside the house. In this view of the matter there being apparent and glaring material contradictions which go to shatter the prosecution story, the state ment of Budhai cannot be relied upon mere so when he has not even been declared hostile. 10. It cannot also be lost sight of that to establish the immediate motive for the commission of crime neither father of the accused, nor other persons, i. e. Ram Swarup and Daya Ram said to have been present when the accused is alleged to have extended the threat were examined and therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed on the motive of the crime. 11. Coming to PW 3 Ram Asrey, it would be seen that he stayed 15-20 steps away from the place of occurrence and did not proceed. Keeping in view that it was a pitch dark night, the learned counsel submitted that he could not recognise the accused. The said witness also stated that, in fact, when the shot was fired PW 1 was at the door of his house PW 4 Maiku Lal similarly stated that Gonda was about 25-30 steps from the sport and when he proceeded towards the place of occurrence, he was 10 paces away and he heard the voice of Smt. Janka saying that Kanhaiya was killing her. He further stated that PW 3 Ram Asrey had reached the place. 12. The submission of the Government Advocate that PWs. were inde pendent witnesses and there was no reason for them to give false evidence does not carry much force inasmuch as evidence bristles with inconsistancies and destroys the very fabric of the prosecution story. We are also not inclined to accept the submission of the State Counsel that since PWs. were known persons of the same locality, they could recognise the accused even without light since it cannot be said that in a pitch dark night unknown persons can be definitely recognised with certainty so as to sustain a conviction of life imprisonment under Section 302 I. P. C. and it would be laying down a very dangerous proposition of law. 13. 13. In view of the facts and reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge dated 1-12-1982 convicting accused Kanhaiya Lal to undergo life im prisonment under Section 302 I. P. C. is set aside and the accused is exonerated of the charge. The accused is in jail and shall be released forth with unless wanted in some other connection. Appeal allowed. .