JUDGMENT A N. Dikshita, J. 1. These four Criminal Appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 10-9-1982 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 1982 convicting the appellants Titu, Ram Babu, Ashok Kanja and Rajendra under sections 302/34 IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment for iife. 2. Titu has filed Criminal Appeal no. 2489 of 1982, Ram Babu has filed Criminal Appeal No. 2529 of 1982, Ashok Kanja has filed Criminal Appeal No. 2530 of 1982 while Rajendra has filed Criminal Appeal No. 2719 of 1982. One Gopinath resided with: his sons Chandra Bhan, PW 3, Rajendra, Vinod, Vrishbhan and Satya Bhsan alias Satto (hereinafter called Satto) in Mohalla Ghiya Mandi in the city of Mathura. 3. The prosecution story as; is revealing from the record,is that a day prior to the occurrence while Janakpuri was being decorated in Mohalla Ghiya Mandi, a verbal altercation took place between Vrishbhan and appellant Titu. However, with the good offices of the residents of the locality they were separated. 4. In Mohalla Mandi Ram Das in the city of Mathura a woman called Mai aged between 35-40 years was residing with her young daughters this woman was of a shady character. It is alleged that Titu appellant asked Vrishbhan to tell his brother Satto mot to visit the house of this woman otherwise dire consequences would ensue. Vrishbhan did not like this and asked Titu appellant as to why his brother Satto is being defamed. Vrishbhan was then threatened by Titu appellant telling him that if his message is not conveyed to Satto he would break his hands and feet. Satto, a well known Dada (notorious character of the town went that very night to the house of Titu which was at a distance of about 50 paces from his house. Titu was note present at his house but abuses were hurled at him whereafter Satto returned to his house. On 18-10-1981 at about 1.15 P.M. Satto and Chandrabhan, PW 3, were going to Sangeet Talkies, where they had their restaurant, on the rickshaw of Hari Shankar, PW 1. As they had reached near Gali Ganga Dayal in Mandi Ram Dass, the four appellants met them. Ram Babu appellant was armed with a country made pistol while the remaining appellants were holding knives. As they had reached near Gali Ganga Dayal in Mandi Ram Dass, the four appellants met them. Ram Babu appellant was armed with a country made pistol while the remaining appellants were holding knives. After stopping the rickshaw all the appellants began to pull down Satto from the rickshaw and when Chandrabhan, PW 3, tried to come in between to save Satto the appellant Ram Babu fired at him. The shot missed the target and did not hit Chandrabhan PW 3? who jumped out of the rickshaw. Satto was then pulled down from the rickshaw and appellants Titu, Ashok Kanja and Rajendra assaulted him with knives. In a quest to save his life Satto ran 10-12 paces from the spot into a lane (gali Ganga Dayal) but was fired at by Ram Babu appellant resulting in gunshot injuries to his person. After about 4- 5 paces Satto fell down and died (Gali Ganga Dayal). The appellants thereafter took to their heels. 5. Chandrabhan, PW 3, wrote the first information report at the spot and lodged it at P. S. Kotwali, Mathura at 2.30 p.m. on the same day i.e. 18-10-1981, the Police Station being at a distance of about 1 Km., from the place of occurrence. 6. With the lodging of the firstl information report, Kazi Sirajuddin, PW 8 was entrusted with the investigation and after collecting necessary papers and adequate force left for the spot where he reached at 3.10 P.M. The statement of Chandrabhan, PW 3, was first recorded whereafter the inquest report and other necessary papers were prepared. The dead body was sealed in a cloth wrapper but prior to that a Rampuri Chaku (knife) was found in the waist of Satto deceased which was also sealed. A site plan was prepared. The dead body was handed over to constable Anwar Singh, PW 7, and constable Chandrapal along with sample seals and other necessary papers for being taken to mortuary around 6.00 P.M. On 19-10-1981 the papers were handed over to the concerned official by the constables. The Reserved Inspector requested the C.M.O., Mathura for conducting the post mortem examination. Dr. The dead body was handed over to constable Anwar Singh, PW 7, and constable Chandrapal along with sample seals and other necessary papers for being taken to mortuary around 6.00 P.M. On 19-10-1981 the papers were handed over to the concerned official by the constables. The Reserved Inspector requested the C.M.O., Mathura for conducting the post mortem examination. Dr. K. C. Jain, PW 4, conducted the post mortem examination on 19-10-1981 at 11.30 a.m. and the following ante mortem external injuries were found on the body of Satto deceased : On internal examination the left 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs and right 4th, 5th and 8th ribs were found to be fractured and pleura, both lungs, pericardium, heart, peritoneum and stomach were found to be punctured. 7. In the opinion of Dr. Jain the injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 8. In support of its case the prosecution examined Hari Shankar PW 1, Ghanshyam, PW 2, and Chandrabhan, PW 3, as the eye witnesses of the occurrence. The appellants pleaded not guilty and stated that they were falsely implicated on account of enmity. 9. Seven witnesses were examined in defence, namely, Constable Megh Singh, DW 1, V. P. Sharma, DW 2, R. P. Pandey, DW 3, R. C. Gigras, DW 4, Onkar, DW 5, Dr. Bhatia, DW 6 and head constable V. N. Misra, DW 7. 10. Sant Saran S. I., CW 1, was examined as a court witness. The trial court after considering the oral testimony and other material on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the appellants and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. 11. Chandrabhan, PW 3, supported the prosecution story. He is the brother of Satto deceased. He had lodged the first information report which is corroborated by him in his evidence. He has stated that on the date and time of the occurrence he along with Satto deceased was going on a rickshaw to their restaurant at Sangeet Talkies. He has also stated that when he tried to save his brother Satto from the assault he was fired at by Ram Babu appellant but the target was missed. He has stated that on the date and time of the occurrence he along with Satto deceased was going on a rickshaw to their restaurant at Sangeet Talkies. He has also stated that when he tried to save his brother Satto from the assault he was fired at by Ram Babu appellant but the target was missed. This endeavour has been made by him to show that he was present, It has now to be scanned whether Chandrabhan, PW 3, was present at the time when the incident took place. Justifying his presence he has stated that after receiving the knife as well as firearm injuries Satto had walked and covered a distance of about 10 paces. It has also to be seen whether the statement of this witness is in harmony with the evidence of Dr. K. C. Jain, PW 4, as well as that of Dr. N. R. Bhatia, DW 6, as per the prosecution case and the statement of this witness he was going on a rickshaw towards his restaurant located in Sangeet Talkies. He has stated that while he was trying to save his brother Satto Ram Babu appellant fired at him. The target might have missed but there is no cohesion in his statement. He has tried to improve upon his testimony. He has spelt out that when Satto was being pulled down from the rickshaw he was fired at and then Titu, Ashok Kanja and Rajendra, Appellants, assaulted Satto with knives. In his statement under section 161 CrPC he had stated that he was fired at after the appellants had already pulled down Satto and were assaulting trim with knives. This discrepancy does not appear to be trivial as it is borne out that this witness has not correctly stated the chain of events. It appears highly dubious as to how he could not narrate this singular fact correctly. Another conduct of this witness Chandrabhan, PW 3, militates against his truthful testimony when it is found that though he tried to save his brother Satto deceased but still emerged unhurt. It is belying the human conduct that a brother would not make efforts to save his brother and exhort for help when his own brother is being mercilessly assaulted. This conduct is highly unnatural and incompatible with the bondage of brotherhood. 12. It is belying the human conduct that a brother would not make efforts to save his brother and exhort for help when his own brother is being mercilessly assaulted. This conduct is highly unnatural and incompatible with the bondage of brotherhood. 12. It has further been stated by Chandrabhan, PW 3, that seeing his brother lying dead he settled down on the Chabutra of a shop on the road to scribe the report on a paper which was taken by him from some shop-keeper. After covering the body with cloth information was seat by him to his home requiring them to reach the spot at once. Still this witness decides to leave the dead body and start preparing himself for writing the report. IT is ironical that a brother would leave the dead body of his brother without waiting for few minutes till other members of the family arrive. Even after preparing the report as is stated by him he did not care to see that any relation of his had arrived near the body of Satto deceased but proceeded towards the police station to lodge the report. As stated by Chandrabhan, PW 3, the report was scribed as mentioned above. The manner in which the scribing of the report is described also smacks of incredibility. 13. While screening the medical evidence on record and the statement of Chandrabhan PW 3 his presence also stands mitigated. Chandrabhan has stated that after receiving the knife-injuries his brother Satto deceased got himself released and tried to run in Gali Ganga Dayal when Ram Babu appellant instantly fired at him. The distance from the place where the knife assault was inflicted and where the firearm injury was inflicted is about 11 paces while the distance where the body lay dead from the place where Satto was fired at is about 5 paces Dr. K. C. Jain PW 4, who conducted the post-mortem examination of Satto deceased has stated that Satto could have walked this distance after receiving all the injuries, knife as well as firearm. However, Dr. N. R. Bhatia DW 6 Chief Medical Officer, Mathura a senior and experienced doctor has said that the deceased could not have walked 10 paces after receiving knife as well as firearm injuries No doubt in his cross-examination Dr. However, Dr. N. R. Bhatia DW 6 Chief Medical Officer, Mathura a senior and experienced doctor has said that the deceased could not have walked 10 paces after receiving knife as well as firearm injuries No doubt in his cross-examination Dr. Bhatia has stated that the deceased could have walked for 10-12 paces after receiving knife injuries and could have also walked for 4-5 paces after receiving firearm injuries, but this statement appears to have been made not combining the two kinds of injuries received. Dr. Bhatia while stating this fact should be understood to mean that if only knife injuries were caused the deceased could walk for 10-12 paces and if only those firearm injuries were caused he could walk for 4-5 paces. The statement of Dr. Bhatia in cross-examination could not be said to be at variance with what was stated by him in his examination-in-chief. Dr. Bhatia is a very senior doctor and with all his experience his testimony deserves to be accepted. 14. Another intriguing feature of this case is that in the inquest and in the Chalan lash section 307 has been apparently inserted. This clearly shows that the investigation introduced the presence of Chandrabhan, PW 3, into the case otherwise there was absolutely no occasion to have inserted 307 after 302. The investigation thus smacks of taintedness. As would be shown below the lodging of the report at 2.30 P.M. on 18- 10-1981 is also highly shady and wholly doubtful. 15. In view of the above it is difficult to hold that Chandrabhan, PW 3, was present at the time when his brother Satto deceased was assaulted. 16. Such a doubt as mentioned above becomes radiantly significant when it is found that the necessary papers were received at 9 a m on 19-10-1981 by Dr. K. C. Jain, PW 4, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on 19- 10-1981 at 11.30 a.m. Anwar Singh, PW 7, has stated that he and constable Chandrapal had been entrusted with the body of Satto deceased along with other necessary papers on 18-10-1981 around 5.30 p.m. for being taken for postmortem. He had taken the sealed body, of Satto deceased along with the sample seal and other necessary papers to the mortuary. He also states that it was on 19-10-1981 when he presented the sealed dead body of Satto deceased along with the necessary papers before Dr. He had taken the sealed body, of Satto deceased along with the sample seal and other necessary papers to the mortuary. He also states that it was on 19-10-1981 when he presented the sealed dead body of Satto deceased along with the necessary papers before Dr. K. C. Jain. He categorically states that the necessary papers were placed before Dr. K. C. Jain on 19-10-1981 at 9.00 a.m. and Dr. Jain had conducted, the post-mortem examination at 11.30 a.m. on that very day. In his cross-examination he has admitted that prior to taking of dead body he has to take it first to the Reserve Police lines and thereafter necessary orders have to be obtained from the Reserved Inspector. Only thereafter the Head Constable gives the necessary papers and then the body is taken to mortuary. With the same breath he states that on 18-10-1981 around 6.00 in the evening he had given the papers in the police hospital as per the rules. From there an employee takes the papers to the District Hospital at Mathura and then necessary orders are obtained from the Superintendent, District Hospital, to the doctor who was to conduct tie post-mortem. He is not aware as to who is the person who had gone to obtain the necessary orders from the Superintendent of District Hospital but he reiterates that prior to his departure such employee must have got his departure: entered in the G. D. of the Police Lines. Anwar Singh, PW 7, admits that he does not know as to whether his arrival has been recorded in the G. D. of the Police Lines or what entry has been recorded in the G. D. But this all stands falsified when it is found that the necessary papers along with sealed body of Satto deceased was placed before Dr. K. C. Jain on 19-10-1981 at 19.00 a.m. However, the version of Anwar Singh; PW 7, loses its credibility with that of the deposition of another prosecution witness constable Markandey Misra, PW 13. He has stated that on 19-10-1981 he was posted as Constable Mobarrir in the Reserve Police Lines and on that day Shiv Dass was the Head Constable Moharrir. He admits that on that day Anwar Singh, PW 7, and constable Chandrapal had brought the dead body of Satto deceased along with necessary papers. He has stated that on 19-10-1981 he was posted as Constable Mobarrir in the Reserve Police Lines and on that day Shiv Dass was the Head Constable Moharrir. He admits that on that day Anwar Singh, PW 7, and constable Chandrapal had brought the dead body of Satto deceased along with necessary papers. He has also stated that Anwar Singh, PW 7, and constable Chandrapal had left the body in the mortuary and had infact come far recording their entry as well as that of the dead body and also to obtain necessary orders from the Reserved Inspector to the doctor, it is on the basis of such an information given by Anwar Singh, PW 7, and constable Chandrapal that Head 'Constable Shiv Dass had made an entry in the G. D. vide report no. 8 at 8.00 a.m. on 19-10-1981. He had recognised the writing of Shiv Dass, Head Constable, who was on long leave. It is thus clear that the story as set forth by the prosecution that the body as well as the necessary papers were given to constable Anwar Singh, PW 7, and constable Chandrapal stands wholly incredible and highly unbelievable. Had the necessary papers been ready on 18-10-1981 at 5.30 p.m. when the necessary papers as well as the sealed body of Satto deceased was handed over to Anwar Singh, PW 7, and constable Chandrapal then there was no occasion for them not to have gone to the. police lines to get their arrival recorded. However, it was not done. The G. D. entry of the Police Lines recorded on 19-10-1981 at 8.00 A.M. clearly undermines the veracity and truthfulness of the fact that the first information report was in existence and was handedover to constable Anwar Singh, PW 7, and to constable Chandrapal. Another fact which creates a very serious doubt about the lodging of the first information report at 2.30 p.m. on 18-10-1981 is the testimony of Vishwanath Misra, DW 7. He was posted as Head Constable Moharrir at P. S. Kotwali, Mathura, on 18-10-1981. He has stated that on that day around 1.45 p.m. he had received a message from an unknown person that some murder had been committed in Mandi Ram Dass Gali by miscreants. He was posted as Head Constable Moharrir at P. S. Kotwali, Mathura, on 18-10-1981. He has stated that on that day around 1.45 p.m. he had received a message from an unknown person that some murder had been committed in Mandi Ram Dass Gali by miscreants. Acting on this information the Control Room which is also situate in the premises of P. S. Kotwali was directed with this loud voice to send the necessary force at the spot. However, his testimony becomes highly unbelievable when even this information was not recorded in the G.D Neither the name of the informant was entered in it. He is toying to wriggle out of this omission in not recording this information in the G. D. on the premise that the informant had not disclosed his name. He no doubt admits that he had conveyed the message on telephone and also about the death of a person to S.H.O and it was on the orders of the S.H.O that he bad directed the Control Room to send the necessary force for the place of occurrence. His statement that he received the information at 1.45 p.m. does not inspire confidence as he is stating only on the memory. The time was nowhere recorded nor did he state this fact in his statement under section 161 CrPC. 17. Satya Saran Misra, S. I. was examined as CW 1. He has written the report no. 6 of the G. D. of Control Room by his hand, which was written on the facts communicated to him by Head Constable Vishwanath Misra, DW 7. He had despatched the force from the Control Room. But the G. D. entry does not disclose the time. However explanation may be forthcoming about the non-mentioning of the time it is unconvincing. This witness was a Sub- Inspector since 1977 and was recruited in the police force in the year 1962 as a constable. Such an omission of mentioning time in the G. D. of the Control Room is again highly suspicious. 18. It has been urged on behalf of appellants that another fact which is wholly incomprehensible also deserves scrutiny in this case. Special Report was not sent in this case. When it was s?nt is not known nor is revealing from the record. This circumstance also it is submitted creates great suspicion and is doubtful. We need not advert to it. It has been urged on behalf of appellants that another fact which is wholly incomprehensible also deserves scrutiny in this case. Special Report was not sent in this case. When it was s?nt is not known nor is revealing from the record. This circumstance also it is submitted creates great suspicion and is doubtful. We need not advert to it. In view of the above also the presence of Chandrabhan, PW 3 at the time of the occurrence is wholly suspicious and it becomes highly doubtful that the report was ever lodged at 2.30 P.M. on 18-10-1981. 19. Ghansbyam, PW 2, has stalled that on the day of the incident he along with his cousin Umesh were going from Gali Ram Kumar to chowk Bazar. As he went a little ahead of Gali Ram Kumar he saw Satto deceased and Chandrabhan going on a rickshaw towards Sangit Talkies. While walking ahead he saw the four appellants standing on one side of the road. They all stopped the rickshaw of Satto and Chandrabhan. They all caught Satto deceased by his collar and tried to drag him from the rickshaw hurling abuses. Chandrabhan, PW 3, objected to it. Ram Babu appellant thereupon fired at Chandrabhan, PW 3, but he was not hit and Chandrabhan jumped from the rickshaw and stood aside. Satto deceased was then dragged from the rickshaw and knife injuries were inflicted on him. As he was running away 10-12 paces after being released from the clutches of those persons Ram Babu appellant fired at Satto which hit him on his face. Sattoo ran for 4-5 paces whereafter he fell and died. Ghanshyam has admitted that his cousin Umesh is an Advocate. He also admits that he and the family of Satto deceased are of the same caste. He is admittedly a resident of village Mundesi which is at a distance of about 11 Km. from Mathura. He further admits that he is known to Satto deceased and his family. He has stated that he was present on the spot and the place where Satto fell dead was also visible from the place where he was standing. He admits that be had just a casual talk with Chando (Chandrabhan PW 3) who told him that he was going to lodge a report. He has categorically stated that Chandrabhan PW 3 and gone to lodge the report in his presence. He admits that be had just a casual talk with Chando (Chandrabhan PW 3) who told him that he was going to lodge a report. He has categorically stated that Chandrabhan PW 3 and gone to lodge the report in his presence. He has also stated that very many persons had reached the place and were standing near the dead body of Satto. He further admits: that no person of the family of Satto deceased was near his body who may have guarded it. This statement of Ghanshyam stands contradicted by the testimony of Chandrabhan, PW 3, who says that he was beside the dead body of Satto for sometime and then he had prepared the report near the place of occurrence on the Chabutra of a shop. Ghanshyam, PW 2, stated that he casually mentioned to offer necessary help to Chandrabhan PW 3. Apparently such an offer was made on account of kinship between him and Chandrabhan, PW 3. Though Ghanshyam PW 2, has appeared to render such help by appearing as a witness for the prosecution but it is contrary to human conduct and countenanced by behaviour of kinship that he would not wait near the dead body of Satto lying there knowing that Chandrabhan, PW 3, had left for the lodging the report. Further it is again very unnatural that he did not go with Chandrabhan, PW 3, to the police station. He could have been of great help in consoling Chandrabhan, PW 3, who had lost his brother. The conduct of Ghanshyam, PW 2, is reflective of the fact that he was not present there to witness the incident. It is thus clear that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of Ghanshyam, PW 2. Moreover, he has stated that Chandrabhan, PW 3 had left for lodging the report in his presence. No doubt in the first information report the presence of Ghanshyam PW 2, has been shown. It was known to Chandrabhan, PW 2, that Ghanshyam, PW 2, resides in village Mundesi but it is highly suspicious as to why the statement of this witness was recorded so late on 24-10-1981 by the investigating officer under section 161 CrPC. It is clear that he was present as per his own statement by chance. No reliance can be placed on his testimony. It is clear that he was present as per his own statement by chance. No reliance can be placed on his testimony. Moreover his testimony also deserves to be discarded in view of the rejection of the testimony of Chandrabhan PW 3. 20. Hari Shanker, PW 1, has supported the prosecution story. He has stated that he plies rickshaw. He admits that after the incident he ran away with the rickshaw from the scene of occurrence. He has stated that his father on hearing the entire incident had sent him to the village where he remained for about 2 or 2 1/2 months. In his cross-examination HARI Shankar, PW 1, admits that he has no licence for plying rickshaw. He states that his father Hori Lal has a licence for plying rickshaw but this statement stands discredited with the testimony of Kedar Nath Sharma, DW 2, who has stated that the records which he had brought before the court do not show that any licence was issued in favour of HARI Shankar son of Hori Lal or Hori Lal son of Phulwari. Kedar Nath Sharma, DW 2, admits that he does not know that Hori Lal was granted any licence for plying rickshaw except for the years 1976-77. Coupled with this circumstance as to the plying of rickshaw either by HARI Shankar or Hori Lal is the statement of Onkar, DW 5, who has stated that Ram Sahai was his grandfather. Ram Sahai had three sons Phulwari, Mool Chand and Babu Lal. Phulwari's son Hori Lal whose son is HARI Shankar, PW 1, Onkar, DW 5, has clearly stated that neither his nephew HARI Shankar, DW 1, nor HARI Shankar's father Hori Lal ever plied rickshaw in Mathura. On the other hand he has stated that HARI Shankar, PW 1, has a contract for cycle stand in Sangit Talkies. It thus becomes highly doubtful that HARI Shankar, PW 1, was ever plying rickshaw. Hari Shanker, PW 1, has stated that his father on hearing about the incident had sent him to village where he remained for about 2 or 2 1/2 months. He admits that he delivered the rickshaw to his father at 1.35 p. m. He took his meals thereafter. Hari Shanker, PW 1, has stated that his father on hearing about the incident had sent him to village where he remained for about 2 or 2 1/2 months. He admits that he delivered the rickshaw to his father at 1.35 p. m. He took his meals thereafter. In the evening he saw a picture in Milan Talkies from 6.30 p. m. to 9.30 p. m. After seeing the picture he returned home and after taking his meals he left for his village. Such a description clearly belies the normal human conduct. If his father on hearing the news of the occurrence had become so scared then the normal human conduct for him would be to leave the place instantly. It clearly shows the mind of Hari Shanker, PW 1, that he was taking things easily and spent the evening merrily much against the wishes of his father. The explanation that he had gone to village appears to be highly unconvincing. 21. Hari Shanker, PW 1, has further admitted that Rajendra, elder brother of Satto deceased had a contract at Sangit Talkies and in connection with their business Chandrabhan, PW 3, and Satto deceased used to go on his rickshaw. Apparently he is an interested witness. This witness returned from his village about 2 or 2 1/2 months afterwards. His statement was recorded by the investigating officer as late as on 10-1-1982 on which date the chargesheet was also submitted. He has not stilted before the investigating officer that he had gone to his village at the instance of bis father nor did he disclose to the investigating officer as to where he was during all these two months. He admits that he gave an affidavit on 27-2-1982 on his return. Even in the statement he admits that he did not inform the investigating officer about the filing of the affidavit. The presence of HARI Shanker, PW 1, at the time of the occurrence is highly doubtful. His testimony also deserves to be discarded on the same ground as the testimony of Chandrabhan, PW 3, has been rejected above. It appears that this witness has been dubiously inducted to support the prosecution story. His presence is highly doubtful on the day and time of the occurrence. His testimony also deserves to be discarded on the same ground as the testimony of Chandrabhan, PW 3, has been rejected above. It appears that this witness has been dubiously inducted to support the prosecution story. His presence is highly doubtful on the day and time of the occurrence. Further HARI Shanker, PW 1, has stated that he was very often taking Satto deceased and Chandrabhan, PW 3, on his rickshaw to Sangit Talkies. It would thus be highly improbable that a person going on such a pet rickshaw would not know the name of the plier. His statement that he was taken by Chandrabhan, PW 3 to the investigating officer on 10-1-1982, the day on which the chargesheet was filed, is inherently doubtful and it appears that he has come forward to interestedly depose that he is a rickshaw puller and was taking Satto deceased and Chandrabhan, PW 3, on the day of the occurrence. No reliance can be placed on the testimony of this witness. 22. The prosecution story is that the occurrence took place on the road (Gali Ram Das). It was after the knife injuries were inflicted that Satto deceased ran for 10-12 paces and while entering into another lane (Gali Ganga Dayal) a shot was fired at by Ram Babu. Again he moved 4 or 5 paces after receiving the fire arm injuries and then fell. As discussed above this story is in conflict with the evidence of Dr. Bhatia, DW 6. The version of Dr. Bhatia that after receiving the knife as well as fire arm injuries Satto deceased could have moved 4 or 5 paces only as discussed above appears to be more convincing. The prosecution has spelt that blood was found on the wall of the house of Kishori Raman Varshneya in Gali Ganga Dayal and the spot where Satto deceased lay dead is about 4 or 5 paces from that wall. The probability that Satto deceased was assaulted with knife and inflicted injuries near that wall and thereafter receiving the fire arm injuries fell dead after moving 4 or 5 paces cannot be ruled out. This probability is wholly consistent with the evidence of Dr. Bhatia, DW 6. In all probability assault with knives and fire arm took place in the Gali (Gali Ganga Dayal) where Satto deceased lay dead. This probability is wholly consistent with the evidence of Dr. Bhatia, DW 6. In all probability assault with knives and fire arm took place in the Gali (Gali Ganga Dayal) where Satto deceased lay dead. Pursuant to the above discussion we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellants who are entitled to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 23. In the result all the four appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentences of the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted. The appellants are in jail. They shall be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Appeals allowed.