V.S. DAVE, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur on 30.08.1989 whereby he convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine he was directed to further undergo seven days rigorous imprisonment. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that a first information report was lodged at Police Station, Mania district Dholpur on 6.06.1987 at 9.30 pm. by Prayag Singh (pw. 1) wherein it was stated by him that in the noon one Mukandi and Pritam Jatav had come from village Kailashpur to borrow some money from his uncle When they were returning, Bachana son of Bhima Thakur, who is their neighbour and is a decoit, came to their house and started beating Jatavas. He was asked as to why he was beating these persons on which Bachana replied that he will beat them and they should not forget the earlier happenings when he had set on fire his field. Bachana thereupon said that in the evening, he would show it again. In the evening at about 6.30 pm., before sun-set, when he and his uncle Ramji Lal along with his brother Pappu and another uncle Chob Singh were on their tube-well in the field, accused-appellant Mohra armed with a revolver and Bachana armed with a 12 bore gun came there Mohra told the complainant as to why they were siding with Jatavas and they would have to pay the price for the same. Saying this, Mohra fired towards Chob Singh, which hit him in the stomach. He fell down as a result of injury and died on the spot. Bachana had fired on the author of the report Prayag Singh, but it passed away near his arm and he was not injured. On their raising alarm, villagers came along with their guns and they opened fire. On receipt of this report, a case for offence under Secs. 302 and 307 read with Sec. 34 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. 3. Mr. Than Singh (pw. 7) Investigating Officer, immediately went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body lying on a cot. On receipt of this report, a case for offence under Secs. 302 and 307 read with Sec. 34 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. 3. Mr. Than Singh (pw. 7) Investigating Officer, immediately went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body lying on a cot. Since it was 11.30 in the night, he deferred the investigation for the next day and placed a guard at the place where dead body was lying. Early morning he prepared an inquest report and site inspection memo. According to site inspection memo Ex. P.3, the Investigating Officer found the corpse lying near the tube well in the field of the compliant. The dead body was sent for autopsy and the postmortem examination was conducted by Or. Sarin who found following injuries on the person of the deceased— ^^’kjhj us vUMu FkhA xksyh ds ?kqlus dk ?kko 0-5 ls-eh- x 9-5 xksyh nkbZ rjQ ihB ds fupys ,d frgkbZ fgLls ij jh< dh gM~Mh ds fcYdqy cnu ls o ?kko ds ckgj rks dksbZ dkyka’k ugh Fkh ysfdu ?kko ds vUnj ;kuh fd Ropk ds uhps og kjhj ds Hkhrj [kkl rkSj ij vkuk; ds pkjks rjQ dh fyd FkhA xksyh fudyus dk /kko 7 lseh x 5 ls-eh- isV ds vEcykf;u okys fgLls ds Åijh fgLls ls rFkk blesa ls vkarks dk ,d xqPNk ckgj fudyk gqvk FkkA ko dks [kksy us ij ik;k fd mldk ,cMksefud dsfofV [kwu ls Hkjh gwbZ Fkh o fny ds pkjksa pSEcj [kkyh Fks rFkk mlds vuk; dh cM+h vkar QV pwdh Fkh o NksVh vkar ds nks txg ij Nsn FksA^^ In his opinion death was caused due to gun shot injury to the vital organ on the body causing haemorrhage and shock. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant alone, in view of the fact that Bachana absconded and was not traceable. 4. The accused-appellant was committed to the court of session at Dhol-pur and the learned Sessions Judge framed charges for offence under Sec. 302 and 307 read with Sec. 34 IPC against the appellant, who pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses in support of its case and the accused none. 6. The learned Sessions Judge held the accused guilty of offence under Sec. 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. 5. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses in support of its case and the accused none. 6. The learned Sessions Judge held the accused guilty of offence under Sec. 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. He, however, acquitted the accused appellant for offence under Sec. 307 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC. 7. Challenging the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating the evidence in right perspective. It is submitted that there is no independent witness available in the case and the four witnesses viz., Prayag Singh (pw.1) Pappu (pw.2), Ramji Lal (pw.5) and Bachhu Singh (pw.9) belong to one family. It is submitted that deceased Chob Singh is brother of witness Ramji Lal and uncle of Prayag Singh, Pappu and Bachhu Singh. It is also submitted that name of Bachhu Singh does not find place in the F.I.R. also, It is submitted by learned counsel that the F.I.R. which is a written report and lodged son after the incident, is not corroborated by the medical evidence. No entry wound has been found on the stomach of the deceased, as mentioned in Ex. P.l. It is also submitted that it is subsequent to the post-mortem report that the Investigating Officer has made embroideries in the case and has made over writings in the statements recorded under Sec. 161 Cr. P.C where instead of word Pet (PET) he has altered it to Peeth, (PEET) Similarly, it is submitted that over writings have also been done in Ex. P.4, the alleged inquest report. It is submitted that there is no consistent evidence about the place of occurrence also. The complainant party admittedly had removed the corpse from the place of occurrence and has placed it on the cot. According to the prosecution own witness, no blood was found at the place where the incident is alleged to have been shown while it is submitted that the other witnesses have stated that injury was caused on stomach from the point blank range on the back of the deceased but according to the medical evidence, no blackening or tatoling was found. 8. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the complainant Shri S.K. Gupta, have supported the judgment of the trial Court and vehemently argued that the evidence of all the four eye-witnesses is consistent; that, it was the gun-shot fired at by accused-appellant Mohar Singh which hit the deceased in the back. It is submitted that on the basis of minor contradictions, acquittal of the accused cannot be recorded and the case has to be seen from the totality of circumstances available. It is submitted that in cases of gun-shots, the witnesses can make slight error in observing the exact place of hitting the body and in the instant case because there was bigger whole in the stomach, the witnesses might have stated initially that the injury was caused in the stomach. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the record carefully. 10. In the instant case, prosecution has relied on the statements of Prayag Singh (pw.1), Pappu (pw.2), Ramji Lal (pw.5) and Bachhu Singh (pw.9). It is not denied that they all belong to one and the same family to which the deceased belonged. In fact, deceased Chob Singh and Ramji Lal were real brothers and Prayag Singh, Bachhu Singh and Pappu are the nephews of deceased Chob Singh being sons of his third brother Hakim. It is also not denied that there is a previous enmity between the two families and criminal cases were going on in as much as accused-appellant Mohra and Bachana, both were alleged to have set on fire the tube-well of deceased. Hence, the eye-witnesses are both interested as well as having enmity with the accused. In this view of the matter, we have to carefully scrutinize their evidence and further to see independent corroboration to their statements as it is a settled law that when the witnesses are inimical and interested, their evidence requires corroboration from the independent source. 11. According to Prayag Singh (pw.1) incident took place at 6.00 p.m. when Bachana and Mohra came to his tube-well where he along with Ramji Lal, Bachhu, Pappu and Chob Singh were sitting. According to him accused Mohra touched the barrel of the gun on the back of deceased Chob Singh and then fired and the bullet came out of the stomach. Bachana is alleged to have fired at him which did not hit him. According to him accused Mohra touched the barrel of the gun on the back of deceased Chob Singh and then fired and the bullet came out of the stomach. Bachana is alleged to have fired at him which did not hit him. According to him, at that time Chob Singh was watering the field and was near the tube well. He fell down on the ground where the blood came out and spread on the ground. In cross-examination, he has admitted the previous enmity and stated that Chob Singh used to stay at the tube well round the clock and Bachhu, Pappu and Chob Singh had come there on that day in the morning and stayed there till evening. He then stated that when Mohar Singh and Bachana came, Bachbu and Pappu were sitting near the tube-well while Chob Singh and Ramji Lal were watering the field. According to him, Chob Singh was watering Palejwala field which measures about 3 bighas and it is on the turning of that field that he was standing and the accused had gone there. He then stated that he cannot show the direction and also not the direction from which side, Mohra and Bachana came but stated that he was about 20 to 25 cubic from the tube-well. The witness was confronted with his police statement as he has given the aforesaid place of occurrence in his police statement and he staled that because he was not asked, he has not mentioned the same. The witness then stated that distance between Mohra and Bachana was about 4 to 5 cubic and the distance between him and Chob Singh was about 60 ft. He was confronted with the FIR wherein he mentioned that injury was given in the stomach. He stated that in Ex.P. 1 he has not dictated that the injury has been caused in the stomach. He stated that he does not know how the police has recorded in the FIR that the injury was caused on stomach. He does not remember when the police interrogated him thereafter. According to him the dead-body was placed at a distance of 1 or 2 ft. in the dry place from the place where the incident had taken place. He stated that he does not know how the police has recorded in the FIR that the injury was caused on stomach. He does not remember when the police interrogated him thereafter. According to him the dead-body was placed at a distance of 1 or 2 ft. in the dry place from the place where the incident had taken place. He denied the submission that the incident had taken place some where else and Chob Singhs body had been brought from Jungle to the field and name of accused persons had been taken because of enmity. 12. Pappu (pw.2) is a child witness who gives identical statement in examination-in-chief but according to his cross-examination, Prayag Singh and Ramji Lal had come to the held at 3-4 p.m. while he has watering the Palejwala field since morning. The witness was confronted with his previous statement Ex.D-2, portion A to B where the previous incident of challenge by Bachana was mentioned that he has not given such a statement to the police. He also stated that he had told that the FIR was made by Mohra from a point black-range rather touching the barrel with the back of the deceased but why the police has not recorded the same he cannot say. The witness also could not explain about Chob Singh, deceased, changing the water course at the time of the incident. The witness stated that when the police came, the dead-body was lying on the ground just near the place where the incident had taken place. According to him when Bachna fired at Prayag Singh, the distance between the two was about six steps. He, however, admitted when further cross-examined, that it is true that he only learnt about firing of the gun when he heard the gun-shot sound. He stated that he had not mentioned in the police statement that the injury was caused on the stomach but he does not know as to whether the police has written that it was on the back. According to him, 15 to 20 persons of the village had come on the spot. 13. Ramji Lal (pw.5) in his cross-examination has given different place of occurrence. According to him, Chob Singh was standing in the field near creepers where he was hit towards the portion where sugar cane had been grown. He was about 20, to- 25 cubic from the tube-well. 13. Ramji Lal (pw.5) in his cross-examination has given different place of occurrence. According to him, Chob Singh was standing in the field near creepers where he was hit towards the portion where sugar cane had been grown. He was about 20, to- 25 cubic from the tube-well. According to him he has not given a version about this place of occurrence in his police statement. Then he stated that he had narrated it to the police but the police had not written it for the reasons best Known. He has been confronted with various parts of his police statement where he has contradicted with 1 is earlier version and his stock answer is that he had given the statements but the same has not been written according to what he has stated. He, however, admitted that when the police came, the dead-body was lying at the place where the murder had taken place and it remained lying till morning. When asked it was lying on a cot, he stated that he does not know. The witness was also confronted regarding the placement of the injury to which he could not give satisfactory answer. He admitted that no empties have been found on the place of occurrence and also could not give names of the persons who have come from the village. 14. Bachhu Singh (pw.9) is a witness who has not been named in the FIR. In examination-in-chief, he has given the same version as the other witnesses have stated. He could not stand the cross examination. According to him, the field where cucumber and water melon etc. were grown was adjacent to the sugar cane field and when the incident took place he was sitting at the tube-well while he does not give out the place where deceased was standing when the incident took place except saying that Mohar Singh had touched the barrel of the gun with the back of the deceased. He, however, has been confronted with his police statement where he has not given the aforesaid statement. According to him, when the police came, the corpse was lying on the ground. He, however, had not seen any blood at the place of incident. 15. This is all the ocular evidence in the case. 16. Dr. N. S. Sarin (pw.8) has stated about the injuries he had noticed in the FIR. According to him, when the police came, the corpse was lying on the ground. He, however, had not seen any blood at the place of incident. 15. This is all the ocular evidence in the case. 16. Dr. N. S. Sarin (pw.8) has stated about the injuries he had noticed in the FIR. mentioned above and has stated that there was no blackening or tattooing on the skin but he had seen the blackening of gun powder inside the wound. He, however, could not notice the wad in side the wound. He stated that the entire intestine had come out but there was no bleeding.. 17. Investigating Officer (pw.7), Than Singh, has been examined twice in this case. He has been confronted with the police statements of Prayag Singh (pw.1) Pappu (pw.2), Ramji Lal (pw.5) and Bachhu Singh (pw.9) and was asked about the interpolation made therein. He stated that he had corrected the statement at the time of recording the statements itself and not thereafter. He denied the suggestion that the might have done the corrections after receipt of the post-mortem report and instead the word PET he had made it PEET. According him, he when he arrived at the spot, the corpse was lying on a cot and the place of occurrence was also shown near the same. Since the copies did not have corrections, the court asked the questions to the witness which he could not explain satisfactorily. 18. It would also be relevant to mention the statement of Ram Sadan (pw.6) who is Head Constable and had gone along with the SHO when he went for investigation. According to him, the corpse of Chob Singh was at his residence where it was lying on a cot and 10-20 persons were sitting there. 19. A perusal of the aforesaid evidence leads us to an irresistible conclusion that the story put forth by the prosecution is not only not corroborated by medical evidence and circumstantial evidence but is specifically contradicted. The story of the eye witnesses that they have seen the accused Mohar Singh firing after touching the barrel with the back of the deceased cannot be least reconciled with the fact that earlier the entry wound had been shown in the stomach. That shows that either the witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence or that the incident had taken place at some other place. That shows that either the witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence or that the incident had taken place at some other place. This is also relevant to mention that the complainant party had removed the dead body from the place of occurrence and no profoused bleeding was found at any place despite the fact that there was wound of 7 cm. x 5 cm. in the stomach. Even the evidence about placement of the corpse is contradictory- Some witnesses have stated that it was on the cot at about a distance of 1 or 2 ft. from the place of occurrence while some have stated that it was still lying on the ground at the place of occurrence and as per the Head Constable, it was at the residence of the deceased. Similarly, the place of occurrence is also not ascertainable in the case. Some witnesses have stated that it was near water melon filed on the corner while others have shown it in the sugar cane field and surprisingly no blood has been deducted at either of the aforesaid two places. The prosecution witnesses are unanimous on the point that villagers came on the spot opening fire and the accused ran away from the place of occurrence thereafter and they had also opened fire while running but no empties have been found in the vicinity to corroborate this | fact. No effort has also been made to examine any of the witnesses of the village, who had arrived at the place of occurrence and might have seen the accused running from the place of occurrence. It could not have been difficult for the villagers to have identified the accused as they belonged to the same village and that would have been a relevant evidence which could have lend corroboration to the statements of the eye witnesses. No reason has been assigned for not examining the villagers. It may also be mentioned here that the investigation in this case has been far from satisfactory and does not inspire confidence. The Investigating Officer, Shri Than Singh (pw.7) has apparently made changes subsequent to receipt of the post-mortem report. In Ex. No reason has been assigned for not examining the villagers. It may also be mentioned here that the investigation in this case has been far from satisfactory and does not inspire confidence. The Investigating Officer, Shri Than Singh (pw.7) has apparently made changes subsequent to receipt of the post-mortem report. In Ex. P. 4, Panchnama, with regard to his statement, was prepared after preparing the site plan in presence of Bahadur, Ram Singh, Damber, Nathi Singh, and Dwarka etc., he has not cared to obtained their signatures on each page and at the end of the Panchnama thumb impression of three persons viz., Ram Singh, Bahadur Singh and one illegible name, are in carbon ink. Similarly, his own signatures also is under the carbon ink. Obviously, this could not be the original copy of the document. As against this, on the thumb impression of Damber and Nathi, the same are written by a ball pen. Thus, obviously, this document has not been signed by all the witnesses at the same time, but has been signed at different times. This neither bears the signatures nor the thumb impressions of Dwarka son of Shri Nihal Singh, who was one of the Panchas named in the body of the Panchayatnama. The last line of this Panchayatnama also appears to have been inserted subsequently as that is squeezed between the thumb impression and the last line and only inference which can be drawn is that this document is not faithfully recorded and throws a great doubt about the genuineness of the investigation Similarly, in the police statement Ex. D-l, D-1A, D-2, D-3, D-4 and D-5, there are interpolations which according to the Investigating Officer are the corrections he had made at the time of recording of the statements. His this statement is a blatant lie as from the carbon copies which have been got produced on record, there are no corresponding corrections and which have been mechanically drawn. 20. For all the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that there is a lurking doubt in the truthfulness of the prosecution story. His this statement is a blatant lie as from the carbon copies which have been got produced on record, there are no corresponding corrections and which have been mechanically drawn. 20. For all the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that there is a lurking doubt in the truthfulness of the prosecution story. It has been observed by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh Ratan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1) that between may be true and must be true there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted. If the case is decided in the light of the aforesaid decision it falls short of proof beyond all manner of reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to that benefit. 21. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that this appeal is accepted the judgment, conviction and sentence passed against the appellant Mohra @ Mohar Singh are set aside. The accused is in jail and he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 22. Before parting with this judgment, we would like to observe that the Investigating Officer in such a serious case, has not discharged his duties faithfully and it is but for his conduct that accrual cold blooded murder is going unpunished. A copy of this order be sent to the Addl. Inspector General (Head Quarter Crimes) Jaipur.