MADAN MOHAN LAL, J. -This an appeal against a judgment and order dated 4-10-1978 passed by Sri P. K. Jain, the then Vllth Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad by which he has convicted Chhotey Lal and Shambhoo appellants under Sections 302/114 and 201, IPC and has sentenced each of them to life imprisonment under Section 302/201, I. P. C. (instead of Sections 302/114, I. P. C. for which they were convicted) and three years R. I. under Section 201, I. P. C. He has further convicted Ladlay Shankar appellant under Sec tions 302, 307 and 201, I. P. C. and has sentenced him to under go life imprison ment, R. I. for seven years and R. I. for three years respectively thereunder. The sentences of all the appellants have been made to run concurrently. 2. Chhotey Lal appellant is the father of Ladlay Shankar appellant. Shambhoo appellant is the uncle of Chhotey Lal appellant. 3. P. W. 1 Ram Shankar, informant, P. W. 2 Shiv Shankar and Hari Shankar are the sons of Goverdhan Lal deceased. 4. There was a well on the boundaries of the fields of Goverdhan Lal deceased and the appellants. Goverdhan Lal deceased had filed a suit with respect to the said well in the year 1973 againgst Chhotey Lal and Shambhoo appellants, etc. In the same the defendents, by way of an interim order were restrained from interfering with the rights of Goverdhan Lal deceased in taking water from the said well. On 16-2-1974 the said interim injunction was modified by way of which the defendents were permitted to take electric con nection and energize the said tube well. The right of Goverdhan Lal deceased to take water from the said tube well was not disturbed. In the year 1976 prior to the murder, Goverdhan Lal deceased had moved an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2 (A), C. P. C. praying for action against the defendants on the ground that by restraining him from taking water from the said tube well they had flouted the order. Vide an order dated 16-8-1976 the learned Munsif allowed the said application and besides imposing a fine on the defen dants sentenced them to one months civil imprisonment. The appellants were thus harbouring enmity against Goverdhan Lal deceased who was making demand to take water from the said tube well. 5. Vide an order dated 16-8-1976 the learned Munsif allowed the said application and besides imposing a fine on the defen dants sentenced them to one months civil imprisonment. The appellants were thus harbouring enmity against Goverdhan Lal deceased who was making demand to take water from the said tube well. 5. According to the prosecution on 30-11-1976 at about 11 a. m. Goverdhan Lal deceased started digging a pit in his field, adjoining the aforesaid tube well within a view to take water from the said tube well. At that time ladlay Shankar appellant, armed with a gun and the remaining two appellants, armed with lathis went there. The appellants told Goverdhan Lal deceased that because the tube well belonged to them they would not allow him to take water from the same. They, therefore, asked him not to dig the said pit. Goverdhan Lal deceased did not aggree and said that because the Court had passed orders against them hence he would draw the water. Thereupon Chhotey Lal and Shambhoo exhorted Ladlay Shankar appellant to kill Goverdhan Lal. On the same Ladlay Shankar appellant, fired two shots from his gun killing Goverdhan Lal instantaneously. Ram Shankar, informant, with his two brothers Shiv chankar and Hari Shankar, who were nearby, saw the occurrence. Ladlay Shankar, appellant fired shots at them but the same did not hit them. Hueandery was raised which attracted witnesses to the place of occurrence. Chhotey Lal appellant by placing the deadbody of Goverdhan Lal on his back and Shambhoo appellant holding his legs took the deadbody towards a nearby river. The appellants had advanced threat that if anybody came be would be done away with. 6. P. W. 1 Ram Shanker went to the police station Kannawj, situated at a distante of four miles, where he handed over a written report of the incident on the same day at 12. 30 p. m. 7. In support of its case the prosecution examined P. W. 1 Ram Shanker and P. W. 2 Shiv Shankar, who not only deposed about the motive but also narrated the incident in detail. 8. The investigation of this case was conducted by S. I. Sri Satish Chandra Singh P. W. 3 on the same day he went to the place of occurrence, where he found blood inside and around the pit. 8. The investigation of this case was conducted by S. I. Sri Satish Chandra Singh P. W. 3 on the same day he went to the place of occurrence, where he found blood inside and around the pit. He took samples of blood stained and unstained earth from that place. The Investigating officer went to the aforesaid river and searched for the deadbody but to no avail. 9. Next day the Investigating officer again got the deadbody searched. At 10 a. m. the deadbody of Goverdhan Lal, tied in a dhoti, was found in kali River at a distance of 10-15 steps from the bank. The said deadbody was wtihout a head but it was identified by Ram Shanker, informant and others. Inquest report of the deadbody was prepared. 10. On 17-12-1976 the Investigating Officer was handed over head of human body by Ram Shanker, informant who had found the same by the side of the kali River. 11. The appellants in their statements denied the case of the prosecution. Chhotey Lal appellant further stated that Goverdhan Lal deceased used to entice away women, that he used to commit thefts and dacoities and also that he was involved in a few murder cases. The appellants, however, did not produce any witness in defence. 12. The trial Court, however, believed the case set up and the evidence produced by the prosecution and has eaccordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same the appellants have filed this appeal. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the State and have perused the record carefully. 14. There is no doubt about the fact that the relations between the parties were constrained. Goverdhan Lal deceased had filed a civil suit against the appellants in which he had asserted his right to take water from the afore said tube well. The appellants had opposed the said suit on the ground that the said tube well was in their field and belonged to them and Goverdhan Lal deceased had nothing to do with the same. The appellants had opposed the said suit on the ground that the said tube well was in their field and belonged to them and Goverdhan Lal deceased had nothing to do with the same. Goverdhan Lal deceased had been successful in that respect and he not only obtained a temporary injunction order against the appellants by wah of which the appellants were restrained from interfering with the right of Goverdhan Lal, deceased to take water from the said tube well but by moving an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2 (1)A, C. P. C. he had also got Chhotey Lal and Shambhoo appellants sentenced to a fine and civil imprisonment for one month on 16-8-1976. Enmity is however, a double edged weapon. On account of enmity people do commit murders and other crimes. But it cannot be denied that because of enmity persons are also falsely implicated merely on account of suspicion. Therefore, it has to be determined in this case whether on account of the aforesaid enmity the appel lants had committed the murder of Goverdhan Lal deceased or it was on account of the enmity that the appellants have been implicated in this case merely on suspicion. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants has urged before us that the only two witnesses examined in this case, i. c. P. W. 1 Ram Stenker and P. W. 2 Shiv Shanker, who are the sons of Goverdhan Lal deceased, had not seen the incident at all. To support his submission the learned counsel for the appel lants has taken us through the post mortem examination report of the deadbody of Goverdhan Lal deceased and has tried to urge that the post mortem examination report belies the version given by the said two eye-witnesses. 16. The post mortem examination of the deadbody of Goverdhan Lal was conducted on 2-12-1976 at 2. 30 p. m. at Fatehgarh. The Medical Officer, who conducted the said post mortem examination, found the following injuries on the deadbody: Post mortem Injuries.-Neck cut alround at the level of C-5 vertebrae C-5 vertabrae purctured, proximal part of body was missing. Ante mortem Injuries.-1. Gun shot lacerated wound 2"x2" (circular) margins charred at right posterior exillary fold upper part, cavity (cheat ). 2. Four gun shot wounds, skin Jeep margins charred right side cheat upper part. 3. Ante mortem Injuries.-1. Gun shot lacerated wound 2"x2" (circular) margins charred at right posterior exillary fold upper part, cavity (cheat ). 2. Four gun shot wounds, skin Jeep margins charred right side cheat upper part. 3. Three gun shot wounds internal to right scapular in an area 4"x4" skin deep margins charred. 17. On internal examination the pleura was found lacerated laynx upper part cut (PM) Lunge were also found lacerated. Both the inteatines weie full of gas and faecal matter. 18. According to the doctor the death of Goverdhan Lal deceased occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. 19. From the deadbody the doctor had recovered three big shot which were sent to the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur. The aforesaid ante mortem injuries reproduced above show that charging was present at all the aforesaid three injuries. Although the doctor was not examined in this case, yet it cannot be denied that presence of charring indicates that the firing at the victim was made from a close range. Not only the presence of charring at the place of injuries but also the absence of dispersion of pellets indicates that the shots were fired not from a distant place but from a close rangev In his book "medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology" Mr. J. P. Modi has observed that if a fiream is discharged very close to the or in actual contact, subcuteneous tissues over an area of two or the inch round the wound of entrance are lacerat ed and the surrounding skin is usually scorched and blackened by smoke and tatooed with unburnt grains of gun powder or smoekeless propell ant powder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blackening is found if a fire arm like shot gun is discharged from a distance of not more than 3 feet and a revolver or pistol discharged within about 2 feet. . . . . . . . . Blackening is not affected by wet surface although it can easily be femoved by a wet cloth. " 20. . . Blackening is found if a fire arm like shot gun is discharged from a distance of not more than 3 feet and a revolver or pistol discharged within about 2 feet. . . . . . . . . Blackening is not affected by wet surface although it can easily be femoved by a wet cloth. " 20. In his book firearme Investigation, Identification and Evidence by Majore General Julian S. Hatcher it has been observed that "entrance hole at a range of 2 or 3 less will be a single performation of large size- As the range increasses, there will be a feb outside pellets that will begin to spread away from the main charge and maks separate smeller performation around the main wound. 21. The aforesaid injuries do not show that there was any scattering of the pellets in an appreciable area. The presence of charring alround the wounds and the absence of any dispersion of the pellets shows that the firing was made on Goverdhan Lal deceased from a close range. 22. P. W. 1 Ram Shanker, informant, has admitted in his evidence that he and his brothers had accompanied the Investigating officer to the place where his father was murdered and that among other things he and and his brothers had shown to the Investigating Officer the place from where the appellant had fired shots and hit. He also admitted that the distance between these two places, that the place from where the assailant had fired and the place where the victim was standing, was measured and was found to be 20 paces. It may not be out of place to state that the Investigating officer in his site plan has also shown the said distance as 20 paces. It is a matter of common knowledge that a pace is cquivaiant to about 30". In Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary a pace has been defined as stride; step ; the space between the feet inwalking about 30". . . . . . . . . . . . thus according to the eye witnesses varsion given in this case firing was made at Goverdhan Lal deceased from a distance of about 50. In our opinion, if Goverdhan Lal was hit by two shots fired at him from a distance from 50 he would not have suffered the injuries of the aforesaid type. . . . . . . thus according to the eye witnesses varsion given in this case firing was made at Goverdhan Lal deceased from a distance of about 50. In our opinion, if Goverdhan Lal was hit by two shots fired at him from a distance from 50 he would not have suffered the injuries of the aforesaid type. To say in other words, the shots fired from a distance of 50 would not have caused charring around the wounds. Pellets fired from such a distance would have scattered on quite a big area of the body. The aforesaid injuries could not have been the result of shots fired from a dis tance of 50. 23. The learned counsel far the State has referred to us Jarnail Singh and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2119 and has argued that inconsistency between the opinion of expert and the prosecution story relating to distance from which gun shots were fired carries no weight. Although there could be no doubt regarding the said general proposition, yet the facts of that case before the Honble Supreme Court were different. In that case the doctor had simply made an observation that rupture of the stomach, liver, right kinwey, small and large intestines which had been caused by the pellets of th e shot, had been fired at victim by the firearm a distance within 6. In that case it was argued that judging from the area of spread, the gun shots were probably fired from a distance of 36 yards which would make the prosecution story inconsis tent with the above theory. In that context taking into consideration the fact about light and that the identification was not in doubt the Honble Supreme Court observe that inconsistency between the opinion of the expert and the prosecution story relating to distance carried no weight. The injuries sustain ed by the victim were not reproduced. This is not a case here. In this case before us all the aforesaid injuries sustained by the victim had charring alround wounds. There was no dispersion of the shots. According to the admitted case of the prosecution. Ladlay Singh had fired shots from the licensed gun of his father. The injuries sustain ed by the victim were not reproduced. This is not a case here. In this case before us all the aforesaid injuries sustained by the victim had charring alround wounds. There was no dispersion of the shots. According to the admitted case of the prosecution. Ladlay Singh had fired shots from the licensed gun of his father. We are thus convinced that the firing at Goverdhan Lal was made from a close range and not from a distance of about 50 as alleged by the prosecution. The place where the victim was standing at the time of the incident was fixed in this case because of the presence of the pit, there was no doubt regarding the place from where the assilant had fired the fatal shots because the said place was shown to the Investigating officer by the eye-wit nesses and the distance between the two places was measured. 24. Undoubtedly testimoney of eye-witnesses would be preferable to medical evidence unless the medical evidence completely rule out the eye wit nesses version. See Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484 . In this case, the medical evidence has completely ruled out the eye witnesses version and hence we are not inclined to believe the eye-witnesses in this case. 25. There are other infirmities as well in the evidence given by the two eye-witnesses. It may be observed that both the eye-witnesses i. e. P. W. 1 Ram Shanker and P. W. 2 Shiv Shanker, are the sons of Goverdhan Lal deceased. They are not only highly interested persons but are also iniminal to the appellants. Therefore, their evidence has to be seen and read with care. 26. Goverdhan Lal deceased had sustained only gun shot injuries. Chhotey Lal and Shambhoo were not carrying any fire arm. They were merely armed with lathis but the victim had not sustained any athi injury. The case against Chhotey Lal and Shambhoo appellants was that they had exhorted Ladlay Shanker to kill Goverdhan Lal. Although P. W. 1 Ram Shanker stated about the same in his evidence, yet P. W. Shiv Shanker has belied him in this respect by stating that on the exhortion of Chhotey Lal (alone) Ladley Shanker had fired two shots. He did not say at all that Shambhoo appellant had also exhorted Ladlay Shanker to fire at Goverdha. i Lal deceased. He did not say at all that Shambhoo appellant had also exhorted Ladlay Shanker to fire at Goverdha. i Lal deceased. Because of the said contradictions it is obviouse that Shambhoo appellant was falsely implicat ed and he could not be convicted for the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. 27. It is not a case where other witnesses were not present. According to the narration given in the first information report this incident was witnessed by Lalta and Babu Ram but they did not came forwarded to support the case of the prosecution. 28. There is yet another glaring discrepancy which tends to show that probably P. W. 1 Ram Shanker and P. W. 2 Shiv Shanker were not present at the place of occurrence to witness this incident. According to the case of the prosecution after Goverdhan Lal had been hit by the aforesaid two shots, his deadbody was taken away by the assailants towards the Kali River. In our opinion, when Ram Shanker and Shiv Shanker simply saw the two shots bsing hit at Goverdhan Lal from a distance of 50 they would not have been certain that their father had died or merely had received severe injuries. Therefore, when the assailants were going away and their backs were towords them, it would have been their natural concern to see as to where the assailants were carrying away their father. P. W. 2 Shiv Shankar has admitted in his evidence that Ghat (Bank) of River Kali was situate only two furlongs from the tube well. In our opinion had P. W. 1 Ram Shanker and P. W. 2 Shiv Shanker been present and had they seen the assailants (carrying away Goverdhan Lal, they would have obviously known that Goverdhan Lal had been taken to the river bank close to the aforesaid tube-wall. If it was to be so, tnen the Investigating officer, who visited the place of occurrence on the same day, would have succeeded to recover the deadbody on that day, itself. It may be observed that despite search the Investigating Officer could not find the dead body on the pay of the incident but was able to recover the same only next day at a place 10-15 steps from the river bank. It may be observed that despite search the Investigating Officer could not find the dead body on the pay of the incident but was able to recover the same only next day at a place 10-15 steps from the river bank. This circumstance indicates that P. W. 1 Ram Shanker and P. W. 2 Shiv Shanker had not seen the assailants taking away the deadbody. 29. In view of the discussions made above and for the reasons stated, we are of the opinion that the case against the appellants was aot made out beyond reasonable doubt. They are entitled to get benefit of doubt. 30. Therefore, this appeal is allowed and Chhotey Lal, Shamboo and Ladley Shanker appellants are held not guilty of the offences for which they have been convicted and sentenced. They are accordingly acquitted of the same. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender to bail bonds which here by stand discharged. Appeal allowed. .