JUDGMENT S. N. Sahay, J. 1. This appeal has been presented against the judgment of the illrd additional sessions judge, unnao holding guilty under section 302/34 ipc. He has sentenced appellants jagat pal, lav kush singh, ram sagar singh and putan singh to undergo imprisonment for life. The sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment has also been awarded to appellant lav kush singh under section 324 ipc and it has been ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. According to the prosecution, the alleged occurrence took place on 25-2-1977 at about 6 p.m. In village barbatpur, p. S. Maakhi, district unnao. The village barbatpur is towards south of police station at a distance of 6 miles. Ashok kumar pw 1 lodged the written report of the occurrence on 25-2-1977 at the police station at 10-30 p.m. In the report, the aforesaid four appellants were named. According to the report, on 25-2-1977, ashok kumar was irrigating his onions (field) by his engine from badi gadhiya (tank) situated towards east of the village at 8 a.m. All the four appellants came and lav kush said you fix your engine everyday in the nali, it causes us loss, i will not allow to install it today. Their companions also said favouring them that their engine be closed. Bindesbwari prasad father of ashok kumar said "water will irrigate our onions, onions are drying." thereupon the appellants were bent upon to quarrel. At that time, dhaniram lodh and ram dayal kumhar and others of the village intervened. At this jagat pal said "you take the water dialy, we will see you soon." after saying so, they went away. The same day after digging out the engine in the evening bindeshwari prasad was returning home with ashok kumar and sardar. At about 6-30 p m. They reached at the southeast corner of guru prasad's home. Then taking protection of wall and charhi (crib), jagat pal singh appellant challenged bindeshwari prasad and fired upon him by katta. Bindeshwari prasad fell down having received injury, then lav kush and putan singh appellants who were having knives in their hands started stabbing bindeshwari prasad on the head and neck of bindeshwari prasad. Ram sagar singh who was having lathi wielded it on bindeshwari. Bindeshwari prasad fell down having received injury, then lav kush and putan singh appellants who were having knives in their hands started stabbing bindeshwari prasad on the head and neck of bindeshwari prasad. Ram sagar singh who was having lathi wielded it on bindeshwari. Jagat pal singh, ram sagar singh shouted that "lav kush singh and putan singh strike knives carefully so that they may not escape." ashok kumar and sardar tried to save bindeshwari prasad upon which lav kush attacked sardar with knife which hurt little finger of his left hand. Ram sagar weilded lathi on ashok kumar but ashok kumar withdrew and was just saved. At the alarm of ashok kumar, sardar, sheo kumar pw 2 saroj and so many other people of the village raised alarm on which appellants fled away. Bindeshwari prasad had received injuries of bullet and knife on his body and he was bleeding. He had died. The police registered case against the appellants under section 302/324 ipc on the basis of the report. Sub-inspector rama nand yadav pw 3 investigated the crime. The first information report was registered in his presence. He recorded the statements of mr. Ashok kumar and sardar at the police station and sent sardar to unnao for medical examination. He reached on the place of occurrence in the night itself at 2.30 a.m. There was no arrangement of light on the spot, therefore, the inquest report ext ka 5 of the dead body of bindeshwari prasad deceased and other papers were prepared on 26-2-1977 at 6 a.m. And the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination through lal bahadur end chowkidar dori in the morning. Eight blood stained wads ext 5 were also found near the dead body by the investigating officer. He took wads in his possession and also took sample of plain and blood stained soil from the place of occurrence and prepared site-plan ext ka 11 after making inspection of the place of occurrence. The appellants could not found, hence proceedings were taken against them under section 82/83 crpc. They appeared in the court on 9-3-1977. After making enquires from them on 24-3-1977. The investigating officer submitted charge-sheet ext ka 28 on 28-3-1977. 2. Dr. Dinesh kumar pw 4 was c.m.o. In sadar hospital, unnao. He examined the injuries of sardar on 26-2-1977 and prepared report ex ka 28. They appeared in the court on 9-3-1977. After making enquires from them on 24-3-1977. The investigating officer submitted charge-sheet ext ka 28 on 28-3-1977. 2. Dr. Dinesh kumar pw 4 was c.m.o. In sadar hospital, unnao. He examined the injuries of sardar on 26-2-1977 and prepared report ex ka 28. The following injuries were found on the body of sardar : 1. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/8" x 1/8" on the inner side of left little finger. 2. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/8" on the inner side of left hand on the palmer aspect. According to dr. Dinesh kumar rai, these injuries were simple and one day old at the time of examination. Injury no. 1 was caused by some blunt object and injury no. 2 was caused due to friction. 3. Dr. Dinesh kumar performed the post-mortem examination of deceased bindeshwari prasad on 26-2-1977 at 4-30 p.m. He prepared the report ext ka 39 after the post-mortem examination. Nine ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased which are as under : 1.lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" x bone deep on the fore-head right side, 3" above right eye brow. 2.three incised wounds on the right side head, 2 1/2" above the right ear in an area of 4" x 3 1/2". Smallest wound being of 1/2" x 1/4" x bone deep and the longest being of 2 1/2" x 1" bone deep. Margins smooth and clear cut. 3.five incised wounds on the right side neck in an area of 4 1/2" x 4". Average size 1" x 1/4" x muscle deep margins smooth and clear cut. 4.fire-arm wounds three in an area of 2 1/2" x 2" on the right hypoh-andrium. Longest being of 1 1/4" x 3/4" x cavity deep and smaller being of 3/4" diameter and cavity deep. Margins inverted. 5.abrasion 1 1/4" x 1/4" epigastric region 6.abrasion 1" x 1/2" on chest front middle. 7.abrasion 1" x 1/4" on the right cheek. 8.lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" x muscle deep on the right elbow outer- side. 9.incised wound 3" x 1/2" x muscle deep on the right side face. Margins smooth and clear cut directed from above down and medially. 4. 7.abrasion 1" x 1/4" on the right cheek. 8.lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" x muscle deep on the right elbow outer- side. 9.incised wound 3" x 1/2" x muscle deep on the right side face. Margins smooth and clear cut directed from above down and medially. 4. From the internal examination, it was found that there was fracture in the skull of the deceased towards south of frontal and parietal bones due to which membrane of brain towards south was damaged and congested and the right portion of the brain was also congested. Peritoneum was cracked towards right and blood was present in the cavity. Lever was torn and congested. Stomatch was empty. In the small intestine semi-solid food was present and in the large intestine there was little faecal matter. In the opinion of dr. Dinesh kumar rai, the death of bindeshwari was caused due to shock and excessive bleeding. The above ante-mortem injuries were ordinarily sufficient to cause death. Dr dinesh kumar took out 27 small shots and two brading piece from the body of the deceased and sent to the police office after sealing. He took out kurta, dhoti, baniyaeen, janeu and spectacle from the body of the deceased and having sealed and stamped he sent the same to the police station. The prosecution examined four witnesses, out of which ashok kumar and sheo kumar singh are eye witnesses and sub-inspector rama nand yadav and dr. Dinesh kumar are formal witnesses. Appellants have denied the allegations of the prosecution. They said in their statements that they have been implicated due to groupism and enmity. 5. The learned additional sessions judge found the evidence of both eye witnesses ashok kumar and sheo kumar singh reliable. In bis opinion, the evidence of eye witnesses is also corroborated by the doctor's evidence. Consequently, if he found that the charges pre established against the appellants, therefore, he sentenced the appellants in the aforesaid manner 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has said in his argument that the prosecution has failed to establish charge against the appellants. In support of the contention, he has put emphasis on the point that alleged motive behind the crime has not been proved by the prosecution and satisfactory evidence regarding the alleged incident is not available. The learned counsel for the appellants has said in his argument that the prosecution has failed to establish charge against the appellants. In support of the contention, he has put emphasis on the point that alleged motive behind the crime has not been proved by the prosecution and satisfactory evidence regarding the alleged incident is not available. As it has already been indicated that the prosecution examined eye witnesses ashok kumar pw 1 and sheo kumar pw 2. According to ashok kumar, on the day of occurrence at 7.30 a.m. He along with his father bindeshwari prasad had gone to badi garhiya (tank) with the engine of the pumping-set and irrigated his field of onions, while sun was setting, ashok kumar and bindeshwari prasad sent the pumping-set from garhiya to his house on bullock-cart which was being driven by his servant nanda. Bindeshwari had called sardar from the way to load the engine. Sardar was resident of village gauri situate at a distance of two furlongs. As soon as bullock- cart carrying the engine started, ashok kumar, bindeshwari prasad and sardar started on foot on pagdandi towards the house. Bindeshwari prasad was leading and he was being followed by ashok kumar and sardar at a distance of about 7-8 paces. When bindeshwari prasad reached at the south-east corner towards south of the house of guru prasad, then jagat pal singh coming out of the protection of gharahi warned and fired on bindeshwari prasad by country made pistol. That fire was hit at the right abdomen of bindeshwari prasad due to which he fell down. Then ram sagar wielded 2-3 lathis on bindeshwari prasad and lavkush and putan singh both stabbed with knife 8-9 times on the head and neck. While lavkush and putan were stabbing, then jagat pal and ram sagar were saying to him that bindeshwari prasad should not escape. Ashok kumar and sardar tried to save bindeshwari prasad, then ram sagar wielded lathis on ashok kumar but ashok kumar saved himself. Lavkush rushed towards sardar with knife and stabbed him due to which sardar received injuries on the left hand. After beating the aforesaid all the accused-appellants fled away ashok kumar has also stated that when jagat pal fired on bindeshwari prasad at that time they had raised alarm and besides ashok kumar and sardar sheo kumar singh and saroj have also witnessed the above occurrence. After beating the aforesaid all the accused-appellants fled away ashok kumar has also stated that when jagat pal fired on bindeshwari prasad at that time they had raised alarm and besides ashok kumar and sardar sheo kumar singh and saroj have also witnessed the above occurrence. After running away the appellants when ashok kumar went to his father, then he found him dead. Ashok kumar has said in his cross-examination that he returned in the morning after transmitting the engine and again in the evening brought the engine ashok kumar and bindeshwari prasad had gone to garhiya without taking meals. Having reached garhiya after one and one and half- an-hour bindeshwari prasad came to the house and after taking meals returned after about an hour. Thereafter, on his saying, ashok kumar came to his house and returned to garhiya after half-an-hour. While ashok kumar had gone to the house for taking meals, by that time the onion filed was half filled and when he returned after 5-10 minutes the field was totally filled on that day bindeshwari prasad had given water on rent to manau and ram tahal also and had realised 30-35/- as rent. The number of onion field of ashok kumar is rot known. This is also not known as to whether the lekhpal has entered the onion crops in his field or not. The contention of ashok kumar is that he had shown to the investigating officer the onion-field which was irrigated but the investigating officer ram saran yadav pw 3 has admitted that he has not shown that onion filed in the site-plan ext. Ka 11 and also did not see papers. Manau and tahal ram have also not been produced. In this way, this fact has not been corroborated by any independent evidence that ashok kumar and bindeshwari prasad have irrigated their onion-field from their pumping-set on the day of occurrence and had given water on rent. The purpose of staying at badi garhiya throughout the day was to irrigate the onion-field and to give water to others on rent. There is no reasonable ground to believe that ashok kumar and bindeshwari prasad remained in the badi garbija throughout the day and in the evening at the time of occurrence they were returning from badi garhiya to their home. There is no reasonable ground to believe that ashok kumar and bindeshwari prasad remained in the badi garbija throughout the day and in the evening at the time of occurrence they were returning from badi garhiya to their home. This will cot be out of way to state here that at the time of examining the motive of the crime, the learned sessions judge has also not accepted the prosecution version that some quarrel took place in between ashok kumar and bindeshwari prasad and the appellants on the question of taking water for irrigation from badi garhiya through pumping-set and on the basis of this ground (the learned sessions judge) has come to the conclusion that the motive of the crime as alleged by the prosecution has not been proved. He has overlooked this reference on the ground that where eye witnesses are available their the motive of the crime has no special significance. In nakshtra singh v. State of Punjab, 1975 (3) scc 266 , it has been stated that if the prosecution fails to prove the motive of the crime, then this does not mean that the entire prosecusion case will not be accepted. In such cases, it is duty of the court that other evidence specially scrutiny of the evidence of eye witnesses should be done with more care. In molu v. State of haryana, 1976 (4) scc 362 , it has been laid down that if eye witness account is reliable, then the value of the motive of the crime is only theoretical. In the present context, it will not, be sufficient to evaluate the failure of the prosecution in respect of irrigation from the pumping-set with reference to the motive of the crime only. If the reliable evidence has not been adduced to prove that ashok kumar and bindeshwari prasad bad irrigated their onions field and given water on rent and this is also not proved that they had quarrel with the appellants, then the possibility of this story becomes very bleak that appellants would have inflicted injuries on bindeshwari prasad and ashok kumar. 7. As far as the question is whether the occurrence took place or not at the time of sun-set and whether injuries were inflicted on bindeshwari prasad in the alleged manner or not, the statement of ashok kumar does not get full support from the medical evidence. 7. As far as the question is whether the occurrence took place or not at the time of sun-set and whether injuries were inflicted on bindeshwari prasad in the alleged manner or not, the statement of ashok kumar does not get full support from the medical evidence. According to ashok kumar, bindeshwari prasad had taken meal in trie day in between at about 9-10 a.m. Thereafter, there is no evidence to the effect that thereafter or before the occurrence bindeshwari prasad had eaten. If the above statement is correct, there would be strong possibility that there was no food material in the stomach and intestines of bindeshwari prasad because in between the time of taking meals and the time of occurrence there is a difference of about seven hours. But according to the post-mortem examination, the stomach of bindeshwari prasad was empty, there was semi-solid food in the small intestine and small quantity of faecal matter in the large intestine. This means that bindeshwari prasad had taken meals about 2-3 hours prior to his death. The learned sessions judge relying on the statement of ashok kumar to the effect that for about a month prior to the occurrence, bindeshwari prasad had fallen ill and sometime he used to become ail right but after sometimes he used to fall ill again, has said that on the day of occurrence bindeshwari prasad would have taken light meals and due to this at the time of death semi-solid food was present in his small intestine, while small quantity of faecal matter was present in the large intestine. On the basis of this imagination, the learned sessions judge has said that the evidence of ashok kumar stand corroborated by the medical evidence. This argument is not acceptable and contrary to the opinion given in modi's medical jurisprudence regarding the duration of the system of digestion. Modi has said that generally the food is completely digested within 6 to 7 hours. From the above contradiction, it appears to be doubtful that the occurrence took place at the time of the sun-set. The learned sessions judge has mentioned this fact that on the day of occurrence the sun-set took place at 5.54 p.m. If there is a difference regarding the time of occurrence, then the question of light will arise. From the above contradiction, it appears to be doubtful that the occurrence took place at the time of the sun-set. The learned sessions judge has mentioned this fact that on the day of occurrence the sun-set took place at 5.54 p.m. If there is a difference regarding the time of occurrence, then the question of light will arise. It is note worthy that except the natural light there is no evidence regarding availability of any other type of light. In the month of february at the alleged time of occurrence at 6.30 p.m. The availability of sufficient light is also doubtful and if the occurrence took place thereafter, then undoubtely in the absence of light it would have been impossible to recognise the assailants. 8. According to the doctor's evidence, no stabbing wound was found on the body of the deceased bindeshwari prasad, the contention of ashok kumar is that after the fall of sri bindeshwari prasad he was attacked with lathi and simultaneously with knife. He was asked as to whether the knives were being stabbed on your father. In reply to this question, ashok kumar demostrated by taking his right hand towards left shoulder and told that stabbing by knife was done like this. In such a manner besides lacerated would, deep incised and wounds of stabbing were also probable but no such wounds were found. Dr. Dinesh kumar pw 4 has also not written in post-mortem examination that no sign of scorching or blackening were found near the fire arm injuries. He has said in his evidence that he cannot say as to from how much distance fire-arm injuries were caused but if the firearms were used from the distance of 4 fts. Then there will be blackening and scorching and if the fire is done from a distance of 6 fts. Then there will be a tattooing. The omission of important facts regarding injuries shows that either ashok kumar is not giving full details about the facts of the occurrence or in face he did not see the occurrence. It is said that at the time of occurrence one person named sardar was also with bindeshwari prasad and when appellants causing injury to bindeshwari prasad made him to fell down, then they also attacked sardar and caused injuries to him also. It is said that at the time of occurrence one person named sardar was also with bindeshwari prasad and when appellants causing injury to bindeshwari prasad made him to fell down, then they also attacked sardar and caused injuries to him also. According to ashok kumar, lavkush gave the knife blow to sardar due to which sardar received injuries on the left hand. Due to bad luck in due course of time sardar was murdered, as a result of which, the evidence of sardar regarding present case could not be available. Dr. Dinesh kumar pw 4 examined the injuries of sardar on 26-2-1977 at 2 p. M. After about twenty hours of the alleged occurrence. The fact that sardar was injured is mentioned in the first information report itself. No satisfactory explanation has come as to why undue delay was done in the medical-examination of sardar's injuries. At the time of medical- examination the injuries which were found on the body of sardar are most negligible. Dr. Dinesh kumar has said two injuries of sardar are superfacial and can be self inflicted. Besides that he has expressed this view in the report at the time of examination that both the injuries of sardar were caused by blunt weapons. This fact is totally incoherent with the evidence of ashok kumar that injuries to sardar were caused by knife. In this way, these circumstances compel us to think that actually ashok kumar is not an eye witness of the occurrence. 9. The prosecution has also produced sheo kumar pw 2 as an eye witness. The learned sessions judge has given importance to the evidence of sheo kumar on the ground that he is relative of appellant. Sheo kumar version is that at the time of occurrence he was in house. He has returned from 'siddheshwar mela' which is held at a distance of about two miles from his village. He remained in the mela up to 4 p.m. And then came from there to his house on foot. After coming from mela he was eating and came out of his house not after hearing any voice of fire or any noise and when he came out, then he saw the occurrence. At that time, no person of the vicinity came out. The entire occurrence finished within a minute or two. After coming from mela he was eating and came out of his house not after hearing any voice of fire or any noise and when he came out, then he saw the occurrence. At that time, no person of the vicinity came out. The entire occurrence finished within a minute or two. At the time of occurrence, sheo kumar did not raise any alarm but raised the alarm after the appellants fled away and reached the place of occurrence. At the time of a occurrence, he was at distance of 14-15 paces from the place of occurrence. From these facts, it appears that sheo kumar was not present at the time of occurrence. It is possible that he reached at the place of occurrence after the incident. His evidence cannot be treated as reliable only on the ground that he is or relative of appellant. He is also a relative of ashok kumar. In the present context "his relation of the either of the parties cannot be decisive in relation to the evaluation of the evidence. 10. On the basis of above discussions, we come to the conclusion that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of both prosecution witnesses ashok kumar and sheo kumar who have been produced as an eye witnesses of the occurrence. The prosecution has failed in proving that at the alleged time the appellants but bindeshwari prasad and caused injuries to him and killed him in the present case, the appellants cannot be held guilty on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, we do not concur with the findings given by the learned additional sessions judge. In our view, the reliable eye witness account regarding the occurrence of the murder of bindeshwari prasad is not available. Therefore, the appeal of the appellants is liable to be allowed and they are entitled to acquittal. This appeal is allowed and the order and the judgment against which the appeal has been preferred is set aside. The appellants jagat pal singh, lavkuss singh ram sagar singh and putan singh are acquitted of all those charges which have been framed against them or for which they have been convicted. The appellants are on bail they need not surrender. Their papers relating to bail bonds are cancelled. Appeal allowed.