G.K. SHARMA, J.—All the three appeals have been directed against the judgment dt. 7th August, 87 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge. No. 2, Alwar, whereby convicting and sentencing each appellant as under:- Hakumat Rai U/S. 201 I. P. C: Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one months R. I. U/S. 324 read with Sec. 34 I. P. C:- Two years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months R. I. Lekh Raj and Kailash: U/S. 302/34 I. P. C. Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months R.I. 2. In this Sessions Case 10 persons including the appellants were prosecuted in various offences. All the accused-persons, were tried belong to one family and attempt has been made by the complainant party to implicate all the male-members of one family. 3. According to the prosecution case a Parcha Bayan of Jahur Khan (PW1) was recorded at 1030 p.m. on 20-6-85 by Shri Gauri Shankar S. H. (X P. S. Ramgarh and on the basis of that Parcha-bayan F. I. R. Ex. P 16 was chalked out. According to this Parcha-bayan the accused, Hakumat Rai, was elected Sarpanch in the last Panchayat election defeating his rival Shri Raja Ram. The complainant-party is said to be the supporter of the defeated candidate Raja Ram. This is the cause of the enmity between the two parties. It is further alleged that on 19th June, lv85 exchange of abuses had taken place over a piece of land where the manure was lying dump, but the matter was pacified on the intervention of Shri Sampat, Jahur Khan and Chahat. It is further alleged that on 20-6-85 all the accused persons surrounded the house of complainant at about 9 a.m. Jahur Khan, PW 1, is alleged to have made a complaint about this fact to the Sub-Inspector, Police Station Ramgarh and the same report has been forwarded to the Head Constable, outpost Nawgaon, which is situated only one kilometer from the village Mohammadpur. It is alleged that the Head Constable had directed the informants Shri Jahur Khan to bring the witnesses in support of his allegations, but he failed to do so. It is alleged that the Head Constable had directed the informants Shri Jahur Khan to bring the witnesses in support of his allegations, but he failed to do so. It is further alleged that at 7 p m. on 20-6-85 when Hanif, his brother Jamaluddin and Mst. Bashiri wife of Chahat were in the house and Bashiri was cooking their food while Subba and Ramzan were feeding fodder to the cattle, at this juncture, the accused alleged Hakumat Rai came on the roof of stair-case of the house of Hansraj and standing on the said roof made a gun fire causing injuries to Hanif which resulted in his death. Accused Kishore who is absconding made another gun fire from the way outside the house of the complainant, causing injuries to Mst. Bashiri. One more fire is alleged to have been made by accused Hakumat Rai from the roof of the house of Hansraj causing pellet injuries to Mst. Bashiri. The accusation made against Lekhraj accused was that he made a fire from gun standing near the well causing injuries to Mst Mushi. Kailash accused, according to the Parcha bayan caused injuries to Subba Khan and Ramzan from a gun fire made by him standing near the Gharat. Other accused-persons namely Maharajmal, Pradeep Kumar, Prem Chand and Harish Chand etc, were alleged to have pelted stones causing injuries to the members of the complainant party. It is further alleged that after the incident, PW 6 Rehmat was sent to the Police outpost, Nawgaon to report the matter. Accordingly, Rehmat had gone to Police outpost Nawgaon where he met Incharge Shri Om Prakash and gave him out the entire details of the incident. Shri Om Prakash Incharge of the outpost accompanied by constables came on the spot and also made enquiries from the witnesses and took steps to send the injured persons to the hospital. Subsequently, the S. H. O. Police Station Ramgarh Shri Gauri Shankar reached on the spot and recorded the Parcha-bayan Ex. P 1 of Shri Jahur Khan. 4. On this Parcha-bayan a case was registered at 10.45 p.m. and the F. I. R. of which is 88/86. 5. The S. H. O. Gauri Shankar inspected the site and prepared site-plan Ex. P 2. The accused-persons were arrested. P 1 of Shri Jahur Khan. 4. On this Parcha-bayan a case was registered at 10.45 p.m. and the F. I. R. of which is 88/86. 5. The S. H. O. Gauri Shankar inspected the site and prepared site-plan Ex. P 2. The accused-persons were arrested. The accused Lekhraj gave information for the recovery of a licenced gun and cartridges and on the basis of that information Ex. P 45 the gun and cartridges were recovered vide memo Ex P 46. On 21-6-85 the S. H. O. recovered empty cartridges, one broken nall of the katta and wooden nut vide memo Ex. P 10. On the information of accused potty of cartridges was recovered vide memo Ex. P 11. Blood-stained clothes were also recovered by the Investigating Officer. The Panchayatnamas of dead-bodies of Hanif and Mst. Bashiri were prepared which are Ex. D 14 and D 15. The articles were sealed and sealed-packets were sent to forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Dr. M. K. Singhal PW 13 examined the injuries of Subba S/o Rehmat Khan, Ramzan S/o Gaffoor and Mushi w/o Kalu Khan. Dr. P. S. Aggarwal examined the injuries of Ramzan s/o Gaffoor Khan, Subba s/o Rehmat Khan, Jamaluddm S/o Kalu Khan and Mst. Mushi w/o Kalu Khan. He also conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Hanif S/o Kalu and found the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report Ex. P 30. In the opinion of the doctor the death occurred due to gun shot injuries on chest with puncture of pleura and left lung with haemorrhage and shock. He also conducted the postmortem on the body of Mst. Bashiri and her external and internal injuries have been mentioned in the postmortem report Ex. P 31. In his opinion death occurred due to gun shot wounds on chest with puncture of left lung, heart with haemorrhage and shock. The doctor also stated that in the ordinary course of nature the injuries were sufficient to cause death. 6. After completing the usual investigation a challan was filed against 10 persons. Kishore was shown absconded. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused-person under S. 147. 302/149 307/149, 336 and 120B 1. P. C. He framed charge against Hakumat Rai u/s. 146, 302, 307/ 149 and 120B I.P.C. The accused-persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. The prosecution has examined 16 witnesses. Kishore was shown absconded. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused-person under S. 147. 302/149 307/149, 336 and 120B 1. P. C. He framed charge against Hakumat Rai u/s. 146, 302, 307/ 149 and 120B I.P.C. The accused-persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. The prosecution has examined 16 witnesses. Three witnesses were produced in defence. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after concluding trial convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as mentioned above. The trial Court found no case against accused Naresh Kumar, Hemraj, Mahendra Kumar, Pradeep Kumar, Maharaj Mal, Prem Chand and Harish Chandra and acquitted them from all the charges levelled against them. 8. The State of Rajasthan has preferred the D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 410/87 against the acquittal of the accused-persons and also filed appeal against the appellants with regard to the offences for which they have been acquitted. 9. Shri Ganpat Ram, learned counsel for the appellants argued that in all 7 shots have been fired with the gun of 12-Bore cartridges. Two shots have been fired by Hakumat Rai accused, two shots have been fired by Kailash, two shots have been fired by Kishore and one shot by Lekhraj. According to the prosecution the shots fired by Hakumat Rai hit Hanif and Mst. Bashiri. Kishors shot hit Mst. Bashiri and Jamaddin. Kailashs shots hit Subba and Ramzan and the shot fired by Lekhraj hit Mst. Mushi. This incident had taken place in the chowk as mentioned in the site-plan Ex. P 2, The shots were fired by Hakumat Rai from the roof of the stair-case of the house of Hansraj. He was standing at the height of about 15-20 feet and at place A in Ex. P. 2 Mst. Bashiri was lying on the cot when Police arrived at the spot. But in the site-plan Ex. P. 2 it has not been mentioned as to where the deceased and injured persons were standing when the gun shots hit them. According to prosecution evidence it was shown in Ex. P2 that Hanif and Mst. Bashiri deceased were lying on cot at such and such place. Hanif was lying on the roof of the room while Mst. Bashiri was lying in the chowk. But the prosecution has not pointed out the places in Ex. P 2 where the gun fire shots hit the deceased and the injured persons. P2 that Hanif and Mst. Bashiri deceased were lying on cot at such and such place. Hanif was lying on the roof of the room while Mst. Bashiri was lying in the chowk. But the prosecution has not pointed out the places in Ex. P 2 where the gun fire shots hit the deceased and the injured persons. According to him this is a great lacuna in the prosecution case and it is not clear as to where the deceased and the injured were standing when they were hit by gun shots. The learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Mathur learned counsel for the complainant could not reply this argument. He has admitted that in this site-plan Ex. P 2, the places have not been mentioned where the deceased and injured persons were standing and where they were hit with gun shots. We have also considered the arguments advanced by Shri Ganpat Ram learned counsel for the appellants and after seeing the site-plan Ex. P 2, we are also not convinced with the prosecution story that the deceased persons and the injured persons were hit in the chowk shown in Ex. P 2. The Investigating Officer should have pointed out the places where deceased Hanif and Mst. Bashiri were standing as well as other injured persons were standing at the time of gun fire. As in the prosecution evidence that the dead bodies of Hanif and Mst. Bashiri were lying on cot when Police arrived at the spot, is clear from the photos produced by the prosecution which are Ex. P. 3 to Ex. P. 8. Thus, it is clear that after the incident the dead bodies were brought and kept in the chowk. Gaffor PW 8 has stated that Hanif was taken out through stair-case but he was Put on the cot and the cot was lifted with a rope to the roof. It means that Hanif was hit by gun fire at some other place and he was brought on a cot and then kept on the roof We fail to understand why the dead body was removed from the place where gun shot hit Hanif. They should have waited for the arrival of Police and then they could have removed the dead body from the spot. Similarly the dead body of Mst. They should have waited for the arrival of Police and then they could have removed the dead body from the spot. Similarly the dead body of Mst. Bishiri was lying on cot in the chowk at place A. It is not clear as to from which place the dead body of Mst Bashiri was brought At which place the gun shot hit Mst. Bashiri has not proved by the prosecution. So this is a lacuna in the prosecution story. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that this lacuna creates doubt in the genuineness and correctness of the story has force. We also are of this opinion that the prosecution should have proved and should have shown in the site-plan Ex. P. 2 the place where the gun shot hit Hanif and Mst. Bashiri and other injured persons. Not proving this fact certainly creates doubt in the correctness of the prosecution story. Similarly, it has not been shown in the site-plan Ex. P 2 as to where the prosecution witnesses who had witnessed the occurrence were standing. This fact should have been mentioned in this site-plan by the Investi-gating Officer. Not mentioning the place of standing of the witnesses creates doubt in the presence of the prosecution witnesses and creates doubt in the story. 10. It was also argued that 7 shots were fired by guns. Two shots hit Hanif and Bashiri. According to the prosecution story these shots were fired from the roof of the stair-case of Hansrajs house. The argument is that according to Forensic Science Laboratorys report Ex. P 49, the cartridges used in this firing were 12-Bore K.F. special cartridges. It was also argued that each cartridge contains pellets numbering 100-200. When Hakumat Rai and Kishore fired at Hanif and Bashiri when they were in the chowk there must be pellets lying on the ground. The gun was fired from a distance and the pellets of which should have been spread hitting the wall which is on the eastern side of the chowk. But no pellets were found and recovered by the Investigating Officer during investigation and preparing site-plan Ex. P 2. It was also argued that each cartridge contains four weds and total 16 weds came out from the cartridges. These weds are of flat type and of disk type. These weds cannot enter into the ground or in the wall. But no pellets were found and recovered by the Investigating Officer during investigation and preparing site-plan Ex. P 2. It was also argued that each cartridge contains four weds and total 16 weds came out from the cartridges. These weds are of flat type and of disk type. These weds cannot enter into the ground or in the wall. So weds should also have been recovered and found there. As no pellets or weds were recovered by the Investigating Officer it creates doubt about the place of occurrence. The learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor could not reply to this argument. The learned Public Prosecutor simply replied that the chowk was not cemented one and the pellets might have entered in to the ground. This is not reply. If this is so, the pellets should have left the marks of entering into the ground. The weds which are of flat type could not enter into the ground or into the wall. As no pellet or weds were recovered by the Investigating Officer, doubt is created about the place of occurrence. We, therefore, agree with the argument advanced by Shri Ganpat Ram, learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. The argument that the prosecution has changed the place of incident has also force. 11. It is the admitted fact that the dead bodies of Hanif and Mst. Bashiri were lying on cot. It was argued that if the prosecution story is believed that they were hit by the shot at the place where they were lying then there must be blood on the ground just under the cot. There must be blood on the cot it self. As no blood has been found on the cot as well as on the ground, where the cot was lying creates doubt in the genuineness of this story. In Site-plan Ex. P. 2, it has not been mentioned that the blood was lying at such and such place. This is such circumstance which should not have been missed by the Investigating Officer while preparing site-plan Ex. P 2. When a site is inspected in a murder case and the place of incident is noted and site-plan is prepared then it is always shown the place where the dead body was laying, where the deceased were inflicted injuries and where the blood was lying. P 2. When a site is inspected in a murder case and the place of incident is noted and site-plan is prepared then it is always shown the place where the dead body was laying, where the deceased were inflicted injuries and where the blood was lying. This is the usual way of investigation. But in the present case we find that the Investigating Officer did not mention this circumstance in the site-plan Ex. P 2. It was important circumstance and the investigating Officer should have shown the place where the blood was lying. Shri Gaffor PW 8 has stated in his statement that blood was lying at the place where Mst, Bashiri was lying. Similarly, blood was lying where Hanif was lying. He has also stated that blood was lying on the roof under the cot. He has also stated that he had noted the marks of pellets on the wall of Bhagal. He has also stated that he has shown the pellets and the blood marks to the police. Inspite of this statement the Investigating Officer Shri Gauri Shankar did not show in the site-plan Ex. P 2, the marks of pellets on the wall and the blood which was lying under the cots of Hanif and Mst. Bashiri. 12. All the witnesses have stated that gun shots were fired from the place marked as No. 7 & 8 in site-plan Ex. P 2 and by those shots Mushi, Subba and Ramjan were injured. It is in the evidence that these persons were standing on the eastern side of the place No. 7 and 8. According to site-plan Ex. P 2 the numbers marked as 26 & 27 are two rooms and their wall is on the west side i. e. in front of the point No. 7 & 8. When the shots were fired from the places No. 7 & 8 of Ex. P 2 the injured were standing towards east side so the pellets must have left marks on the wall of the room shown at No. 26 & 27. The pellets must have fell down on the ground. One tractor was standing and there must be some marks of this tractor, but no blood was found, no pellets were recovered and no marks of pellets were found on the wall of the rooms. No explanation has been given to this circumstance also. The pellets must have fell down on the ground. One tractor was standing and there must be some marks of this tractor, but no blood was found, no pellets were recovered and no marks of pellets were found on the wall of the rooms. No explanation has been given to this circumstance also. This circumstance should not have been missed while preparing the site-plan Ex. P 2. Therefore, it creates doubt in the correctness of the story and it strengthens the argument that the incident might have taken place at some other place. 13. It was also argued on behalf of the appellants about the conduct of the complainant-party. The dead body of Hanif was kept on the roof and the idea according to prosecution was that he would get better and fresh air on the roof. It is also in the evidence that Hakumat Rai fired gun shot from the roof of staircase. So taking Hanif on the roof would be quite unsafe. Then, according to the record Hanif died immediately and there was no question of taking the dead body to the roof for getting fresh air. The complainant party also thought that it is a safe place to keep the dead body of Hanif on the roof. If they think that keeping the dead body of Hanif on the roof for getting fresh air is quite a safe place then it reveals that Hakumat Rai had not fired from roof otherwise they would mi have kept the dead body on the roof. This argument has also some force. 14. It was also argued that Rehmat PW 6 after the incident was sent to Police outpost Nawgaon to report the matter. Rehmat PW 6 has also stated as such. He came to Police outpost where he met the Incharge Shri Omprakash and narrated him the entire story. Omprakash must have recorded this report in the Rojnamcha. Omprakash came on the spot but the entry of the Rojnamcha has not been produced. When Rehmat PW 6 reached at Police outpost Nawgoan and what he narrated to Omprakash, the Incharge of outpost, has not been explained by the learned Public Prosecutor or the learned counsel for the complainant. The Rojnamcha of outpost Nawgaon should have been produced. Another strange aspect is that Omprakash Incharge of outpost Nawgaon has not been examined. When Rehmat PW 6 reached at Police outpost Nawgoan and what he narrated to Omprakash, the Incharge of outpost, has not been explained by the learned Public Prosecutor or the learned counsel for the complainant. The Rojnamcha of outpost Nawgaon should have been produced. Another strange aspect is that Omprakash Incharge of outpost Nawgaon has not been examined. We fail to understand how the cases are conducted on behalf of the State. Om prakash who is an important witness and who had arrived at the spot first of all. Non-production of Rojnamcha entry and non-examination of Omprakash creates doubt and is fatal on the whole prosecution case. 15. Gaurishankar PW. 16, the S.H.O., PS. Ramgarh has stated that on 20-6-85 he received information from outpost Nawgoan that dispute had taken place in Mohammadpur. On this report the S. H. O. came to Mohammadpur where he recorded the Parcha-bayan of Jahur Khan, Ex.P 1. There is nothing on the record as to what information Gauri Shankar S.H.O. PW 16 received from outpost Nawgaon. Why this report has been suppressed by the Prosecution. Omprakash must have conveyed him something and what was that message is a very important one. So non-production of that report which was lodged at out post and which was conveyed to the S.H.O. is also fatal to the prosecution story. 16. In this connection it was also argued that the Parcha-bayan Ex. P I was subsequently recorded after due deliberation. The F. I. R. was registered on the basis of this Parcha-bayan Ex. P 1 and such F. I. R. looses its spontaneity. Jahur Khan PW 1, in his cross-examination, has stated that when Naib Sahib came on the spot he was with him and other witnesses were also present and they have shown the places where the occurrence had taken place and he had taken the details of the incident. Naib Sahib after hearing them told that when S.H.O. will come he will record the report. This is very unusual. When Head Constable was narrated the entire story and he had seen the site why he waited for S.H.O. He could have taken the report in written or could have recorded the Parcha-bayan. He has also stated that when S. H. O. arrived there, he also inspected the site and he was narrated the entire story and then he recorded his statement. He has also stated that when S. H. O. arrived there, he also inspected the site and he was narrated the entire story and then he recorded his statement. This shows that the Parcha-bayan Ex. P 1 was recorded after due deliberation. This also creates doubt in the prosecution story. 17. It is in the evidence that Hanif was going with pitcher containing animal food (khal). It is also in the evidence that the pitcher had broken at the time of gun fire and pieces of pitcher as well of animal food were lying on the ground. But the S. H. O. Gauri Shankar PW 16 has stated that he had not seen any pieces of broken pitcher and animal food lying on the ground, in site-plan Ex. P 2 this circumstance has not been mentioned. This also creates doubt in the prosecution story. 18. It is also in the evidence of the witnesses that Mst. Bashiri was cooking food in the kitchen She was preparing flour for chapaties and her hands were full of wet flour. The flour was in the Parat which was in the kitchen but this fact has not been stated by S. H O., Gauri Shankar PW 16. He has denied that he has not seen any such circumstance which shows that Mst. Bashiri was preparing flour for chapaties. He did not find any wet flour on the hands of Mst. Bashiri. This is an ordinary circumstance but the difference in the statement of the S. H. O. and the other witnesses creates doubt in the correctness of the story. Similarly, all the witnesses have stated that at the time of incident Chahat was smoking Hukka but no Hukka was found by the S. H. O. during investigation. Thus, on this point the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants has certainly some bearing. 19. Shri Ganpat Ram learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Investigating Officer recovered a country-made pistol with empty cartridges (tubes) and damaged barrel from the chowk of Hansraj. Brass empty cartridges were also recovered from Rehmat. A licenced gun of Lekhraj was also recovered. The recovered weapons and the cartridges were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and opinion. The report of F. S. L. is Ex. Brass empty cartridges were also recovered from Rehmat. A licenced gun of Lekhraj was also recovered. The recovered weapons and the cartridges were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and opinion. The report of F. S. L. is Ex. P 49 and it was opined that:- (1) two 12-bore cartridge cases (C/1 & C/2) from packet A and one metallic head of 12-bore cartridge case (C/5) from packet K have not been fired from submitted 12-bore SBBL gun (W/3) from packet J. However, no opinion could be given on the cartridge cases in question with damaged country-made pistol (W/1&W/2) as the same was not found in working order. 20. It was also opined that it has not been possible to give opinion on lead pellets from packets C, E & M in order to lirk with submitted 12-bore firearms from packet A & J. 21. So after seeing the report of F. S. L. Ex. P 49, the recovered pellets the gun and the country-made pistol are not connected with the crime. The recovery of gun from Lekhraj has no value because the cartridge recovered could not have been fired with this gun. 22. Argument was also advanced with regard to recovery witness Shri Ilias PW 10 and the recovery memos are Ex. P 10 and Ex. P 11. It was argued that this witness has admitted that portion C to D in Ex. P 10 has been incorrectly written. Similarly, in Ex. P 11 in portion marked as C to D is also written so. In such circumstance the recovery is manipulated one. We have also gone through the statement and the recovery memos and found that the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants has some force. It was also argued that Jahurkhan was not on the roof but in order to create him a witness he was made to say that after hitting Mst. Bashiri he climbed on the roof. The reason in giving this statement is that from the roof he could see and say about the action of other accused-persons. We have also gone through the statement of Jahur Khan PW 1 and we find that this witness is not of a sterling worth. 23. The next argument advanced is that the F. I. R. Ex. P 16 was prepared on the basis of Parcha-bayan Ex. P 1. We have also gone through the statement of Jahur Khan PW 1 and we find that this witness is not of a sterling worth. 23. The next argument advanced is that the F. I. R. Ex. P 16 was prepared on the basis of Parcha-bayan Ex. P 1. This F. I. R. was registered on 20/6/85 at 10.45 p.m. and was sent to the concerned-Magistrate through special messenger and was received by the learned Magistrate on 22-6-85 at 11 a.m. Thus there is delay in sending the F. I. R. to the concerned-Magistrate. No explanation has been given by the learned Public Prosecutor as to why the F. I. R. Ex. P 16 was sent to the concerned-Magistrate after two days delay. In case of Ishwar Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1) their Lordships have observed as under:- "Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as well as of 1973 both require the first information report to be sent "forthwith" to the Magistrate competent to take cognizance of the offence. No explanation is offered for this extraordinary delay in sending the report to the Magistrate. This is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting, as Mr. Anthony suggested, that the first information report was recorded much later than the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence". 24. The next argument of Shri Ganpatram, learned counsel for the appellant is that the medical evidence also falsifies the prosecution story. All the prosecution witnesses have stated that Hakumat Rai was on the roof of the staircase of the house of Hansraj and from that roof he fired gun towards Hanif and Mst. Bashiri who were in the chowk. It is in the evidence that the roof where Hakumat was standing is about 15-20 feet in height The place where Hanif was standing and where the shot hit him was about 25 feet away from the roof. So the gun was fired from roof and the gun shot came from upward to downward. Dr. P.S. Aggarwal PW 14, in his cross-examination, has stated that there were no exit wound on the bodies of Bashiri and Hanif. In both the cases there were no external mark like charring and burning around the gun shot wound. So the gun was fired from roof and the gun shot came from upward to downward. Dr. P.S. Aggarwal PW 14, in his cross-examination, has stated that there were no exit wound on the bodies of Bashiri and Hanif. In both the cases there were no external mark like charring and burning around the gun shot wound. The direction of gun shot wounds in case of Bashiri and Hanif was not from upward to downward. On the contrary it was straight. Thus the medical evidence has completely falsified the prosecution story and the statement of the witnesses The doctor has very clearly and specifically stated that in both the cases the gun shot was not fired from upward to downward. It was a straight gun shot fire, a fire which was fired level to level. Thus, the argument of Shri Ganpat Ram has force and we agree to it. 25. According to prosecution Kishore had fired one shot at Mst. Bashiri and the other shot was fired by Hakumat Rai by gun. According to site-plan Ex. P 2 Hakumat Rai was on the northern side of the chowk in Ex. P 2 and from there he fired at Mst. Bashiri. Kishore was standing on the western side of the chowk. He was standing outside the gate of the chowk on western side and from that direction he fired the gun shot at Bashiri. Mst. Bashiri had two pellet shots on the chest So one shot was fired from western side by Kishore and second shot was fired by Hakumat from the roof on the northern side. How it is possible? It can be possible if Mst. Bashiri after receiving the shot of Kishore from western direction turned towards northern direction in order to receive the shot from Hakumat Rai. Therefore, this fact also falsified the entire prosecution story. It is not possible that two shots hit Mst. Bashiri in the same vicinity and from two different directions. So the argument of Shri Ganpat Ram was that in case of other weapons used by the assailants the witnesses have to speak but in case of gun shot it is gun itself which speaks. Mst. Bashiri could not have received these gun shots from two directions as stated by the witnesses. Similarly, Hanif and Bashiri could not have received gun shots from upward to downward as stated by the witnesses. 26. Mst. Bashiri could not have received these gun shots from two directions as stated by the witnesses. Similarly, Hanif and Bashiri could not have received gun shots from upward to downward as stated by the witnesses. 26. In State Appeal, the learned counsel argued that Jahur prior to this incident had submitted a written report Ex. P 9. They apprehended that they would be beaten by the accused-persons and after submitting this report Jahur returned to the village at 3 p.m. and found that the accused-persons had surrounded them. He could not go back to the chowk. It was also argued that the learned Sessions Judge has committed error in acquitting the other accused persons and also acquitting the appellants from some offences. In view of our discussion made above, we are of this opinion that there is no substance in the State appeal. 27. PW 1 Jahur Khan is an important witness. He has given Parcha-bayan Ex. P 1 and has also submitted the written report Ex. P 9 at the Police outpost. But we have read the cross-examination of this witness and we find that he had disowned his own Parcha-bayan Ex. P 1. There are so many facts which Jahur Khan has stated in Court but has not stated in the Parcha Bayan Ex. P 1. When contradicted he stated that he had said so to the Police Officer but he might not have written them. It is unnecessary to repeat all these contradictions but sufficient to say that Jahur Khan has contradicted his own Parcha Bayan Ex. P i and we place no reliance on the testimony of such witness This Parcha-bayan was sent to Police Station through Sujan Singh PW 11. He has said that he handed over the Parcha Bayan Ex.P 1 at Police Station, Ramgarh who prepared the F. I. R. Ex. P 16. This F. I. R. was sent through Babu Singh Constable to Magistrate-concerned but Babu Singh has not been examined to explain delay in sending the F.I.R. 28. In view of our discussions, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Judge has committed error in convicting the appellants. The case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt is given to the accused-appellants. In view of our discussions, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Judge has committed error in convicting the appellants. The case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt is given to the accused-appellants. There is no force in the argument advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Mathur learned counsel for the complainants and as such there is no force in the State appeal. 29. As a result, the State Appeal No. 410/87 has no force and is hereby dismissed. The appeals No. 320/87 filed by Lekhraj and Kailash, 344/87 filed by Hakumat Rai are accepted. All the appellants are not found guilty of the offence u/s. 302/34, 324, 302 and 324/34 I. P. C. They are, therefore, acquitted from all the charges. All the appellants are in jail. They are set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.