R. K. SAKSENA, J. ( 1 ) BISHRAM Singh, appellant, stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with a sentence of imprisonment for life, per judgment and order dated the 12th of May, 1978 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Budaun. Three persons, namely, Ompal Singh, Gulzari and Roshan were also tried along with Bishram Singh, for committing the offence of murder, punishable with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They have been, by the same order, acquitted on that charge and also on other charges framed under various sections, except Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code under which Gulzari and Roshan, were found guilty and convicted but were afforded the benefit of the provisions of U. P. First Offencers Probation Act. ( 2 ) ONE Nand Ram was fatally wounded on the night between he 25th and 26th of June, 1973 at about 3. 30 a. m. on the Chabutra of Khargi of village Gara, within police circle Dataganj, district Budaun. A shot was fired at him from a very close range as a consequence whereof his death was instantaneous. The shot was allegedly fired by the appellant, who had enmity with him. It may be mentioned at the outset that the date, time and place of occurrence, the identity of the deceased, the cause of his death which was homicidal, were not disputed before us on behalf of the appellant and the Court below has rightly recorded findings to this effect. ( 3 ) THE further claim of the prosecution is that Ompal Singh, Gulzari and Roshan had also accompanied Bishram Singh, who had used gun, thereby wounding Nand Ram. Ompal Singh had a Kanta, Gulzari and Roshan, each, had a lathi. Mahendra Pal Singh (P. W. 8) is the real Bhanja of Nand Ram, deceased. He was allegedly sleeping on the same Chabutrd by the side of Nand Ram on that night. When he started running from that place to his house, which is in close proxmity, he was given a chase by the said four persons. Bishram Singh had allegedly fired a shot at him while pursuing, but he escaped injury. The prosecution goes on to say that when Mahendra Pal Singh entered into his Baithaka, Gulzari, Roshan and Ompal Singh started making assault on him with their respective weapons. Bishram Singh had allegedly fired a shot at him while pursuing, but he escaped injury. The prosecution goes on to say that when Mahendra Pal Singh entered into his Baithaka, Gulzari, Roshan and Ompal Singh started making assault on him with their respective weapons. The shouts and alarm raised by the inmates of the house attracted some persons and on their intervention, all the four persons bolted away. It is also claimed by the prosecution that about 15 days before this incident there was a wordy-dual between the father of Gulzari and Roshan, on one ha,ld,and Nand Ram, on the other, while the latter was trying to put mud on the land belonging to ihe father-in-law of the deceased. ( 4 ) A report of the occurrence was allegedly recorded at 8. 30 A. M. on the 26th of June, 1973 at police station Dataganj, district Budaun, which is about 6 K. M. away from the village of incident, on the information given by Mahendra Pal Singh (P. W. 8 ). The usual investigation that followed resulted in the submission of charge-sheet against the said four persons, who were tried for committing different offences. As pointed at above, the trial culminated in the conviction of Bishram Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the conviction of Gulzari and Roshan under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Gulzari and Roshan have not assailed the judgment and order under appeal; it has been attacked only by Bishram Singh. Ompal Singh, who was allegedly having Kanta stands acquitted, primarily on the ground that neither Nand Ram nor Mahendra. Pal Singh had suffered any injury which can be ascribed to a sharp cutting weapon like Kanta. The State Government has not preferred appeal either against his acquittal of acquittal of Gulzari and Roshan recorded under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and other Sections under which they were tried. ( 5 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also Shri Gyaneshwar Bhatt, learned Additional Government Advocate and have carefully considered the material on record. ( 5 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also Shri Gyaneshwar Bhatt, learned Additional Government Advocate and have carefully considered the material on record. It was rightly contended on behalf of the appellant that even if we assumed that there has some wordy duel between Bishram Singh and Ompal Singh, on one hand, and Nand Ram, on the other, about a month before the fateful night and further that some hot words were exchanged 15 days before the incident between the father of Gulzari and Roshan, on one Rand, and Nand Ram on the of her, it was too weak a motive to actuate four persons to come on a common platform to end the life of Nand Ram and his nephew, Mahendra Pal Singh (P. W. 8 ). Petty grounds of this nature very often take place in villages and it does not stand to reason that the persons, who did not form a group and who had no animosity, of any nature what-so-ever from before the alleged conduct of collecting or taking or placing of mud, joined together for ending the life of Nand Ram and also his nephew Mahendra Pal (P. W. 8 ). ( 6 ) HOWEVER, let us consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish its version about the firing of shot by Bishram Singh, causing wounds on the person of Nand Ram which proved fatal. There is the testimony of Mahendra Pal (P. W. 8), alone on this point. It was urged on behalf of the State that he had received injuries on that very night almost in the same transaction and, therefore, his statement be attached considerable weight. True, the statement of an injured witness is ranked high, but if there are disquieting features therein, it has to be jettisoned. ( 7 ) THE first point that arises for determination is as to whether he really received injuries on that night in the manner claimed by him. His statement is that Vishram had fired a shot at him while he was running towards his house from the Chabutara of Khirgi. The learned Trial Judge has rightly found-that this claim is false and untrue and has, therefore, acquitted Vishram Singh, appellant, on the charge framed against him under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code which directly covers this claim of the witness. The learned Trial Judge has rightly found-that this claim is false and untrue and has, therefore, acquitted Vishram Singh, appellant, on the charge framed against him under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code which directly covers this claim of the witness. We do not think it necessary at all to repeat the cogent reasons given by the learned trial court for arriving at the said conclusion. ( 8 ) FURTHER, the court below has rejected the assertion of this witness that Om Pal Singh, who was allegedly armed with a Kanta had also attacked him on that night. Interestingly enough, no injury suffused by him can be ascribed to a Kanta blow. This was also a fabricated link to falsely implicate Om Pal Singh, a completely innocent person. ( 9 ) YET another absurdity in the claim of Mahendra Pal Singh, P. W. 8, deserves a mention. His assertion is that after the shot causing the death of Nand Ram had been fired, he started running from the Chabutara towards his house. He states in the same continuation that all the said four persons, who were tried by the court below, had given a chase and that three had succeeded in delivering belows from their respective weapons on his person. The doctor had found only one lacerated wound (1 x 1/8 x skin deep) on the skull 2. 5 above right eyebrow. Other injuries noticed by the doctor were abrasions and they cannot be held to be the result of blows given by blunt objects The recitals of the report made by him at the police station and his statement at the trial show that the attack was made on him, pursuant to a prior plan to finish him off but only minor simple injuries of the said nature were sustained by him. It cannot be swallowed without demur. ( 10 ) YET another infirmity in his statement may be pointed out here. It is his claim that he had succeeded in catching hold of Gulzari by waist, but on account of a blow given on his head region causing injury reproduced above, Gulzari went out of his grip and then he caught hold of Roshan whose lathi was snatched by him. It is his claim that he had succeeded in catching hold of Gulzari by waist, but on account of a blow given on his head region causing injury reproduced above, Gulzari went out of his grip and then he caught hold of Roshan whose lathi was snatched by him. His further statement is that Roshan had almost muffled his face with a zanani dhoti which had also fallen on the ground in that grappling (the two witnesses, namely, Smt. Harpyari and Smt. Premwati have used the words LIPTA JHAPTI and PATKA PATKI in their statements ). If this was the situation, the other associates of Roshan would not have spared him. The claim is ridiculous and can be rejected without hesitation. Again, Mahendra Pal Singh stated that he had recognised Roshan while he was standing on the Chabutara of Khirgi. If Roshan had muffled his face with a Zanani dhoti it was not possible at all to recognise him. ( 11 ) YET another development in his statement is noticeable and is significant. The recitals of the report show that he got up from sleep on hearing shot fired by Vishram Singh at Nand Ram, who was lying nearby on another cot and he had started running immediately thereafter. In the statement, on the contrary, we find a detailed and vivid description of the manner in which shot was fired from gun by Vishram and it was claimed that he had got up before the shot had been fired. ( 12 ) THESE infirmities and absurdities, in the statement of Mahendra Pal Singh go a long way to show that he is not at all dependable and is not a truthful witness. The learned Trial Court has erred In placing reliance on his testimony. It appears to be a hit-and-run type of crime from a close range, which was not witnessed by any person. Had he been on the Chabutara at the time when Nand Ram was fatally wounded, he would not have been spared either by the associates of tile shooter or by the shooter himself. The statement is based on imaginary flight and conjectures. There is, thus, no reliable evidence for concluding that the appellant, Vishram Singh, had fired shot causing the death of Nand Ram. ( 13 ) THERE remains the testimony of Smt. Harpyari and Smt. Premwati, respectively, P. Ws. 1 and 2. The statement is based on imaginary flight and conjectures. There is, thus, no reliable evidence for concluding that the appellant, Vishram Singh, had fired shot causing the death of Nand Ram. ( 13 ) THERE remains the testimony of Smt. Harpyari and Smt. Premwati, respectively, P. Ws. 1 and 2. Their claim is, firstly, that they had witnessed the assault made on Mahendra Pal by three persons, namely, Om Pal Singh, Gulzari and Roshan with different weapons and, secondly, that they had seen Vishram Singh standing outside, their house at the time when Mahendra Pal was assaulted. They are real sisters and were married to Nand Ram, deceased. We have shown the absurdities appearing in their statements about the manner in which Mahendra Pal was assaulted. They were inside the house and their claim that they had seen Vishram Singh standing outside the house is not all acceptable for the simple reason that the person standing outside could not be seen. The evidence of these interested relation witnesses is therefore, unworthy of credence. The learned trial Court has erred in accepting their version on the said points. ( 14 ) FROM the discussions made above, it is patently clear that it is a case of false implication of innocent persons. Therefore, we are not only inclined, to set aside the conviction of the appellant but are of the opinion that it is a fit case where jurisdiction which vests in this court should be exercised for setting aside the conviction of Gulzari and Roshan erroneously recorded under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the trial court. ( 15 ) IN the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed; the judgment and order under appeal are set aside in entirety. The appellant is also found not guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is acquitted thereon. He is on bail, His bail bonds are cancelled and his sureties are discharged. .