S. I. JAFRI, J. ( 1 ) STATE of U. P. has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 29-11-1977 passed by Sri Ramji Lal II Additional Sessions Judge, Etah vide his judgment and order thereby purging the respondents Rameshwar Singh, Raja Ram, Sher Singh, Ishwari, Ram Chandra, Soran and Raghubar Singh of the charges under Section 396/147, 302 and 302/149 I. P. C. in S. T. No. 19 of 1976. ( 2 ) IT is a case of dacotiy with murder in which seven persons from the side of complainant and one unknown dacoit were killed in shooting and one person from the side of complainant was injured. Complainant in the instant case is Babu Ram who lost his two sons, namely, Panna Lal and Tula Ram in the incident. ( 3 ) THE facts as revealed by the prosecution are that on 27-9-1975, at about 5 p. m. in village Chandanpura, hamlet of village Bahoranpur, P. S. Sidhpura, District Etah, Babu Ram (complainant) along with Dinanath, Babu, Jaivir Singh Ram Sahai, Bankey Lat, was sitting at the chaupal of Bankey Lal exchanging friendly chat. Panna Lal son of the complainant and cousin Jayanti Prasad were conversing while sitting in front of the house of Pyare Singh. It was about that time that Kamta: Kachi, resident of the same village, all of a sudden appeared at the scene in the company of 8 or 9 miscreants from the eastern side whereas his brother Neksey alongwith 9-10 miscreants emerged from the side of the hut of Rameshwar Ahir and they launched a concerted attack at the house of Pyare. Miscreants, in the first instance, shot down Panna Lal son of the complainant. Jayanti Prasad slipped inside the house out of fear and on being chased, he climbed on the roof of the house. The dacoits chased Jayant Prasad and they shot down Jayant Prasad at the roof of the house. Thereafter, all the dacoits targetted the house of the uncle of Babu Ram (complainant) and they shot down Pyare, his wife Smt. Triveni and his grand son, namely, Dharmendra as well as nexts son of the complainant, namely, Tula Ram who was at that time present at the house of Pyare. Thereafter, all the dacoits targetted the house of the uncle of Babu Ram (complainant) and they shot down Pyare, his wife Smt. Triveni and his grand son, namely, Dharmendra as well as nexts son of the complainant, namely, Tula Ram who was at that time present at the house of Pyare. On hearing the reports of firing, Dilla, alias, Ram Dayal brother of Pyare Singh was attracted to the scene and he also was preyed on by the dacoits. Smt. Ram Lali, wife of Jayant Prasad son of Pyare, succeeded to smuggle out of the house alongwith her son from the backdoor of the house whom also the dacoits were looking for. Dma Nath, a gun licensee of the village positioned himself vis-a-vis the dacoits and opened fire at the dacoits. Meanwhile, number of witnesses, namely, Dinanath, Bankey Lal, Ram Sahai, Jaivir Singh, Lala Ram, Lekhraj, Ramnath Todi, Mulayam, Kishan Pal and Ramlal etc. were attracted to the scene of occurrence. The dacoits continued their looting spree at the house of the uncle of Babu Ram complainant for about 2-3 hours and they made away with licensed gun of Pyare alongwith other valuables. In the incident, one of the dacoits, namely, Shiv Shankar as was obvious from the engraving on his hand, was also killed in the firing opened by Dinanath aforesaid. Some of the dacoits had also sustained injuries in the firing. According to the prosecution case, all the dacoits were attirred in Khaki uniform. In the incident, Ram Sahai, uncle of Babu Ram had also sustained injuries. All the accused persons were recognised by the witnesses excluding unknown dacoits. ( 4 ) REPORT of the occurrence scribed by Jaivir Singh at the dictation of Babu Ram complainant was lodged at the Police Station by Matroo, the village Chaukidar where it was registered at 7. 30 a. m. on 28-9-1975. On receipt of the written report, Panna Lal P. W. 4 registered a case in the General Diary of the Police Station under Section 396 I. P. C. Investigating of the case was entrusted to S. I. Om Prakash Yadav, P. W. 5. He arrived at the scene of occurrence alongwith S. I. C. B. Sharma, A. S. I. Han Singh Tyagi and the Police force. We need not reiterate the precise details and would prefer to dwell on those facts which bear on the merit of the case. He arrived at the scene of occurrence alongwith S. I. C. B. Sharma, A. S. I. Han Singh Tyagi and the Police force. We need not reiterate the precise details and would prefer to dwell on those facts which bear on the merit of the case. The Investigating Officer deputed the Police force to hunt down the accused persons. He interrogated Smt. Ram Lali, widow of Jayanti Prasad. He also removed Ram Sahai injured for medical examination to Civil Hospital Etah. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan. Later on, he interrogated other witnesses. He collected fire cartridges and other articles from the scene and prepared recovery memos. Dma Nath, who had braved the dacoits, produced fired cartridges and the Investigating Officer took them also into his possession and prepared recovery memos. S. I. , C. B. Sharma prepared inquest reports of the body of the deceased and sent them for post mortem examination. Autopsy on the dead bodies was conducted by Dr. S. Prasad, Dr. S. N. Bhatnagar, Dr. R. S. Gupta, Dr. R. R. Sharma, Dr. J. P. S. Chauhan. After concluding the investigation, chargesheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the court. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and attributed their false implication in the case to enmity. ( 5 ) THE prosecution examined In all six witnesses and out of them, Ram Babu P. W. 1, Dinanath P. W. 2, Jaivir Singh P. W. 3 and Ram Sahai (C. W. 1) were examined as ocular witnesses of the occurrence. Ram Babu, complainant has dwelt in length on the prosecution case. His testimony is lent full corroboration by Dinanath P. W. 2 Jaivir Singh P. W. 3, Ram Sahai, C. W. 1, Ram Sahai who is injured in the occurrence is also an eye witness. The learned Sessions Judge in the conspectus of the evidence coupled with facts and circumstances on the record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to substantiate the charges against the respondents and, consequently they were purged of the charges and acquitted We have sifted the findings arrived at by the Trial Court very carefully and we find that the learned Sessions has given cogent reasons in brushing aside the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case as unreliable. ( 6 ) WE propose to deal with each and every finding arrived at by the Trial Court vis-a-vis the facts and circumstances on the record of the case and the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The learned Sessions has drawn a conclusion that the First Information Report of the occurrence was prepared after the Investigating Officer had arrived at the scene of the occurrence. To adjudge the merit of this finding, we advert to the finding of the Trial Court on this point. According to Babu Ram, F. I. R. was scribed by Jaivir Singh P. W. 3 at the dictation of Babu Ram at the village between 8 to 9. 30 p. m. in the night and handed over to village Chaukidar Matroo which the village Chaukidar delivered at the Police Station next morning i. e. on 28-9-1975 at 7. 30 a. m. The reason disabling the village Chaukidar to proceed to Police Station during the night was ascribed to a Nala who was in spate. In a grueling cross-examination, which the complainant was subjected to, he conceded that at the time of occurrence, the chaukidar alongwith 10-15 persons had managed to come over to the scene of occurrence after crossing the very Nala which who was described in spate. The Trial Court has rightly deduced from the above set of circumstances that Nala, being in spate, should not have been a stumbling block for the Chaukidar to start for the Police Station in the night or he should have been able to arrive at the Police Station in the early hours of the morning of 28-9-1975. The another circumstances relied upon by the Trial Court to the detriment of the prosecution case is the variance in the distance given in the chalk report by the Head constable and in the inquest reports prepared by the Sub-inspectors C. B. Sharma, in as much as that in the Chalk report the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is shown as six miles while in the inquest report the distance has been given as 10 miles. In view of this contrariety, it is deducible that when the preparation of the inquest reports commenced, the first Information report was not in existence. This inconsistency further undermines the truthfulness of the prosecution case. In view of this contrariety, it is deducible that when the preparation of the inquest reports commenced, the first Information report was not in existence. This inconsistency further undermines the truthfulness of the prosecution case. ( 7 ) THERE is yet another aspect which adds further dimension to the falsity of the prosecution case, Admittedly, all the eye witnesses examined in the case were collaterals and highly partisan. It is eloquent enough from the F. I. R. lodged in the case that number of independent witnesses were attracted to the scene of occurrence but curiously enough, none of them was examined in the instant case nor any plausible explanation is forthcoming on the record for their non-examination. What is further intriguing is the non-examination of Dma Nath, a gun licensee of the village, in whose firing one dacoit had been killed. If further aggravates the suspicion about the veracity of the prosecution case. It has also come in the evidence that accused persons were known to the witnesses and village people. Hence to inspite confidence in the prosecution case, independent corroboration was a necessity. In the conspectus of the above discussions, it will not be safe to place implicit reliance on the testimony of interested witnesses short of independent corroboration from independent witnesses. ( 8 ) TO cap it all, no motive in the first Information report for the commission of the crime by the accused persons has been disclosed. At a later stage, the prosecution sought to impute motive in the statements recorded under Section i61 Cr. P. C. which is too feeble to be accepted as a gospel truth without being strengthened from any other facts or circumstances on the record. Under the circumstances, it is difficult for us to hold that the respondents had a motive to commit the crime. ( 9 ) WE have devoted our thoughtful considerations to the facts and circumstances on the record. We have re-appraised the evidence of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution and upon a consideration, we fell that we cannot eschew the possibility that dacoity had taken place during the night but. ( 9 ) WE have devoted our thoughtful considerations to the facts and circumstances on the record. We have re-appraised the evidence of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution and upon a consideration, we fell that we cannot eschew the possibility that dacoity had taken place during the night but. at the same time, we find ourselves unable to hold that the respondents were the authors of the crime in the aforesaid dacoity vis-a-vis the fact that the witnesses examined in the case were collaterals and they were highly partisan and interested and that the prosecution failed to examined independent witnesses qua their availability. Hence we hold that it were not the respondents who had participated in the occurrence. In the result, the appeal med by the State of U. P. fails. The Judgment and order acquitting the respondents by the Trial Court is affirmed. The respondents are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged. Appeal dismissed .