JAIN, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh dated 21.10.86 whereby he has convicted the accused appellant u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further six months R.I. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also convicted the appellant u/s. 27 of the Indian Arms Act and has sentenced him to three years R.I. (2). The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant Banwari is the step brother of Abhimanyu and was cultivating the land of his step sister Roshni. On 11.6.84, the appellant had his turn of watering his field. At 6.55 a.m. his brother Satpal and servant Chhida Singh went to cut out the water. At that time both complainant and the accused came out of their respective Dhanies, situated nearby. It was alleged that the appellant Banwari gave a Lalkar to Satpal and shot fire at him with a 12 bore pistol, which hit Satpal. Satpal fell down. Banwari, the appellant ran away. Thereafter, Abhimanyu, Roshni and Chhida Singh went near Satpal and saw that due to fire and injury he was bleeding from the chest and they found him dead. It was also alleged that the land of Roshni which was earlier cultivated by the appellant was later on taken back and the same was given to Totaram Singh on 1/3 rd share which caused grievance to the accused. A report of this incident was lodged by Abhimanyu at P.S. Pilibanga on 11.6.84 at 10.15 a.m. On this, a case u/s. 302 IPC and 27 Arms Act was registered. The appellant was arrested on 14.6.84. After due investigation challan was filed in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh who committed the case to the court of Additional Sessions Judge for trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges, to which the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and filed 23 documents and in defence the appellant examined two witnesses and also filed two documents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after due trial found the case well established against the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Hence this appeal. (3). Mr. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and filed 23 documents and in defence the appellant examined two witnesses and also filed two documents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after due trial found the case well established against the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Hence this appeal. (3). Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove motive and the appellant has been falsely implicated due to enmity. He has also submitted that the possibility of two fires shots is not ruled out as the dimensions of injury no. 4 and 6 are different. He has further submitted that the prosecution has produced three witnesses, out of them P.W. 1 Chhida Singh has turned hostile and the remaining two witnesses are the most interested persons and their evidence does not inspire confidence against the appellant. Mr. Kharlia, has submitted that the F.I.R. is delayed one, and the F.S.L. and post mortem report do not support the prosecution case, hence they cannot be utilized against the appellant. He has further submitted that the short comings and improvements made by the prosecution have not been considered by the trial court. (4). Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial court and has submitted that conviction for brutal murder committed by the appellant cannot be set aside merely on the basis of minor discrepencies, which are not very material. (5). We have heard Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. It is not disputed that the deceased did die a homicidal death. P.W. 3 Dr. (5). We have heard Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. It is not disputed that the deceased did die a homicidal death. P.W. 3 Dr. V.K. Sawansukha has conducted the post mortem examination and found following injuries on the person of deceased Satpal:- 1- vkXus; kL= ls vk;k gqvk ysljsVsM ?kko& ftlds fdukjs vUnj dh vksj eqM+s Fks o vksoy vkdkj dk Fkk ftldk vkdkj 2** x 2** Fkk tks vUnj Nkrh ds nhokj esa tk jgk Fkk] ?kko ij dksbZ tyu ;k dkykiu ds fukku ugha Fks] ?kko lVjue dh Åijh lhek ls 3 bap uhps FkkA 2& vkXus; kL= dk ysljsVsM ?kko fdukjs vUnj eqM+s gq, o vksoy 2** x 2** Nkrh ds dsfoVh esa tkrk gqvkA dksbZ tyu ;k dkykiu dk fukku ughaA Nkrh ds nkfgus vksj lkeus dh rjQ fuiy ls ,d bap Åij Åij ds 1@3 HkkxA 3& vkXus; kL= ls vk;k gqvk ?kko fdukjs vUnj dh vksj eqM+s gq, vksoy 2** x 2** Nkrh dh dsfoVh esa tkrk gqvkA dksbZ dkykiu o tyu dk fukku ughaaA Nkkrh ds nkfguh vksj lkeus Åij ds 1@3 Hkkx esa LVjue dh vksj fuiy ds e/; ls Ms<+ bap uhpsA 4& vkXus; kL= dk ysljsVsM ?kko fdukjs vUnj eqM+s gq,] vksoy] 1@2** x 1@2** Nkrh ds dsfoVh esa tkrk gqvkA Nkrh ds nkfguh vksj lkeus uhps ds 1@3 Hkkx esa fuiy esa 4** uhpsA dksbZ dkykiu o tyu dk fukku ughaA 5& vkXus; kL= dk ysljsVsM ?kko fdukjs vUnj eqM+s gq,] vksoy 3* x 3**Nkrh dh dsfoVh esa tkrk gqvk] Nkrh ds nkfguh vksj lkeusA fuiy ds <+kbZ bap ckgjh vksj chp esa dksbZ tyu o dkykiu dk fukku ughaA 6& vkXus; kL= dk ysljsVsM ?kko 1@2** x 1@2** x 2** fdukjs vUnj dh vksj eqM+s gq,] dksbZ dkykiu dk fukku ughaA nkfguh cktw ds ckgj dh vksj e/; esaA 7& vkXus; kL= dk ysljsVsM ?kko fdukjs vUnj dh vksj eqM+s gq, vksoy 2** x 2** x 2**] dksbZ dkykiu o tyu dk fukku ughaA nkfguh cktw ds uhps 1@3 ds uhps ds 1@3 Hkkx esa ckgj dh vksjA 8& vkXus; kL= dk ysljsVsM ?kko 8** x 6** pksV u- 6 ls lEidZ djrk gqvk] fdukjs vUnj dh vksj eqM+s gq,] nkfguh cktw ds e/; Hkkx esa dksbZ dkykiu o tyu dk fukku ugha] tks fudklh dk ?kko FkkA 9& vkXus; kL= dk ysljsVsM ?kko 3** x 3** pksV u- 7 ls dEi;quhdsV djrk gqvk] fdukjs ckgj dh vksj eqM+s gq,] dksbZ dkykiu o tyus dk fukku ughaA nkfguh cktw ds uhps 1@3 Hkkx ds e/; esaA ;g pksV ua- 7 dh fudklh dk ?kko FkkA 10& vkXus; kL= ds nks ysljsVsM ?kko izR;sd 2** x 2** x 1** nkfguh vksj vkeZ ds e/; Hkkx esa ihNs dh vksj fdukjs vUnj dh vksj eqM+s gq,] dksbZ dkykiu o tyu dk fukku ughaA ;g oqaMl vkWQ ,aVjh FkkA 11& vkXus; kL= ds nks ysljsVsM ?kko ua- ¼1½ 0-5** x 0-1** ¼2½ 0-3** x 0-2** x 0-1** nkfguh cktw ds e/; Hkkx esa lkeus dh vksj fdukjs ckgj dh vksj eqM+s gq,] dksbZ dkykiu o tyu dk fukku ugha] ;g fudklh dk ?kko FkkA (6). It is not out of place to state here that the prosecution has examined all the three eye witnesses, P.W. 1 Chhida Singh, P.W. 4 Abhimanyu and P.W. 5 Roshni. Out of them P.W. 1 Chhida Singh is the servant of the complainant party but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. The remaining two eye witnesses viz. P.W. 4 Abhimanyu and P.W. 5 Roshni are real brother and sister of the deceased respectively. (7). P.W. 1 Chhida Singh has stated that when he returned after checking Khala, he saw that Satpal was lying dead and showed his ignorance as to how Satpal had expired. This witness was declared hostile. In his cross-examination he has denied that he heard any sound of gun shot. In his cross-examination he has stated that Abhimanyu was not residing in Dhani but at Dulmani and on the date of incident Abhimanyu was not in Dhani. He has also denied that Roshni was present there as she was at her in- laws house, situated in another village. He has further stated that he saw Satpal dead at about 4-4.30 a.m. He has further stated that a person has to reach field to check Nakka and Khala before 2-21/2 hours on the turn of water supply. Thus, the testimony of this witness does not help the prosecution at all. (8), This leaves us with the testimony of P.W. 4 Abhimanyu and P.W. 5 Smt. Roshni. (9). P.W. 4 Abhimanyu, the first informant has stated that the accused, who is his step-brother, was cultivating the agricultural land of Roshni, his real sister, for the last so many years. Later on, he and Satpal gave this land to Tota Singh Majbi. Due to this accused Banwari was annoyed. He has stated that 1 1/2 years back his brother Satpal had gone to start water supply at about 7 in the morning. The informant accompanied by his sister Roshni, was also going towards Bandha, and their Siri (servant) Chhida Singh was taking care of Khala (water course). He has also stated that at that time the accused Banwari accompanied by his son Shraman Kumar came out from their Dhani. Thereafter, Banwari asked Satpal to get ready and fired a shot with pistol, which hit Satpal and he fell down in Khala and when they reached near Satpal, he had already passed away. He has also stated that at that time the accused Banwari accompanied by his son Shraman Kumar came out from their Dhani. Thereafter, Banwari asked Satpal to get ready and fired a shot with pistol, which hit Satpal and he fell down in Khala and when they reached near Satpal, he had already passed away. In his cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that on the day of incident he was serving at Pilibanga. He has admitted that Prithviraj, husband of Mst. Roshni was present in Dhani at the time of incident but due to illness he could not come. The distance between Dhani and the place of incident has been given at about 5 Bighas. He has also denied the suggestion that at the time of occurrence Roshni was at her field at 6 L.K.S. but has maintained that she was with them. He has also denied that accused Banwari was not cultivating any land of Roshni. He has admitted that in the F.I.R. he had not stated in the clear terms that Satpal was also with him in giving the land of Roshni to Tota Singh Majbi and he explained that he has used word Hum which included Satpal. At the time of receiving fire arm injury, Satpal was sitting and his face was towards the North and his right hand was between stomach and chest. He has stated that distance between him and Satpal was about 30-35 paces and Roshni was 5-7 paces behind him. He has admitted that they did not raise hue and cry when the incident had taken place. He has also stated in his cross-examination that police reached at the place of incident at 11 a.m. He has also admitted that Hansraj is his relative. (10). P.W. 5 Mst. Roshni has almost made a similar statement as P.W. 4 Abhimanyu. She has stated that Chhida Singh reached the place of occurrence after the deceased had sustained fire shot injury. She has also stated that Thanedar had not asked her about Chhida, so she did not name him. She has further stated that they raised hue and cry but none joined them. Like P.W. 4 Abhimanyu, she has also denied that she was wrong in saying that they took land from Banwari. (11). She has also stated that Thanedar had not asked her about Chhida, so she did not name him. She has further stated that they raised hue and cry but none joined them. Like P.W. 4 Abhimanyu, she has also denied that she was wrong in saying that they took land from Banwari. (11). Thus, as already stated above, out of three eye witnesses, we are left with P.W. 4 Abhimanyu and P.W. 5 Roshni, who are real brother and sister of the deceased respectively. Law does not debar a court from relying upon the evidence of interested witness. What the law requires is that where the witnesses are interested, the court should approach their evidence with care and caution in order to exclude the possibility of false implication. (12). A close scrutiny of the testimony of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 goes to show that their evidence is full of infirmities and cannot be accepted as they have shown very strange conduct. These witnesses have not uttered a single word in their statements at any place that at any point of time accused-appellant had tried to attempt to quarrel with any one of them particularly when he was annoyed with them, so also at the time of occurrence when they were very much present there and the accused was armed with a pistol whereas they were unarmed, despite that the appellant did not assault or attempt to assault them who as per their own statement was on more, inimical terms with them and he left them to give evidence against him. It is highly improbable that the accused will allow two eye witnesses who have same parentage to go, alive. It is curious enough that when the land was belonging to Mst. Roshni and Abhimanyu was the person who gave this land to Tota Singh whereas Satpal was not a party to it as in the F.I.R. name of Satpal was not mentioned though later on they included his name in their statement despite that he was murdered. In other words, if there existed any kind of enmity, that could be between Roshni owner of land or Abhimanyu and not with Satpal and it is doubtful that the appellant left his main enemies and killed Satpal for nothing. In other words, if there existed any kind of enmity, that could be between Roshni owner of land or Abhimanyu and not with Satpal and it is doubtful that the appellant left his main enemies and killed Satpal for nothing. The conduct of these witnesses further creates doubt when both the witnesses stated in almost same words that they did not raise hue and cry as Satpal had already expired, nor they fallen on the deceased as no blood stain was found on their cloth, which is not a usual conduct of human being who witnessed murder of real brother. For a while, it is accepted for a man like P.W. 4 Abhimanyu but it is highly improbable and unbelievable when such conduct is seen in a sister, whose brother has been brutally murdered by her own stepbrother in her presence. In this episode none of them tried to stop the accused from committing such a henious act. They did not raise hue and cry to save life of their real brother nor did they try to the accused. (13). So far as the injuries received by the deceased are concerned, P.W. 3 Dr. V.K. Sawansukha has found 11 injuries as stated above. P.W. 3 Dr. V.K. Sawansukha has opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock due to injuries of vital organs-lungs, heart, liver by gun shot. In the cross examination, P.W. 3 Dr. V.K. Sawansukha has stated that the direction of injuries no. 6 and 7 was different from injury no. 10. He has also stated that these injuries could be caused by two or three fires. He has further stated that if the pellets of injury no. 11 has force, then they could re-enter. He has admitted that he is not a ballistic expert. He has further stated that fire arm was before chest or stomach pellets of injury no. 6 and 7 could re-enter from injury no. 8 and 9 but simultaneously he has admitted that there was no such sign of re-entry of pellets in the body of deceased. (14). As per the statements of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 the accused fired a shot with his pistol, due to which Satpal died. 6 and 7 could re-enter from injury no. 8 and 9 but simultaneously he has admitted that there was no such sign of re-entry of pellets in the body of deceased. (14). As per the statements of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 the accused fired a shot with his pistol, due to which Satpal died. The evidence of P.W. 3 Vijay Kumar and post mortem report create a doubt on the testimony of eye witnesses P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 Roshni because as per the statement of P.W. 3 Dr. V.K. Sawansukha the injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by two-three fire shots. As regards injury no. 6 and 7, their direction was different from injury no. 10. He has stated that in case fire arm was before chest or stomach, pellets of injuries no. 6 and 7 could re-enter from injuries no. 8 and 9 but simultaneously he has stated that there is no such sign of re-entry. As per his statement the dimensions of injury no. 4 and 6 are different from all the other injuries as injuries no. 4 and 6 are of 1/2x1/2x2" size whereas all the other injuries are of 2x3" size. As per the statement of P.W. 4 Abhimanyu and P.W. 5 Roshni, the deceased sustained fire arm injury on the chest but the deceased has received injuries on his arm also. P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 have also stated that they saw blood coming out from the chest of the deceased but nowhere in the F.I.R. nor in their statements they spur a word that there was any injury on arm whereas P.W. 4 Abhimanyu remained there all the time and signed exhibits prepared by police. Thus, the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. (15). Now, we proceed to examine infirmities in the prosecution which have material bearing in this case for which it will be useful to read evidence of Investigating Officer P.W. 6 Abdul Aziz, in brief. P.W. 6 Abdul Aziz has stated that he had recovered Kassi from the place of incident vide Ex.p-11 and prepared the exhibits. He has also stated that at the instance of the accused vide Ex.P-15 he has recovered from the house of the accused one pistol alongwith one empty. P.W. 6 Abdul Aziz has stated that he had recovered Kassi from the place of incident vide Ex.p-11 and prepared the exhibits. He has also stated that at the instance of the accused vide Ex.P-15 he has recovered from the house of the accused one pistol alongwith one empty. In his cross-examination he has admitted that the F.I.R. reached the Magistrate on 11.6.84 at 8 p.m. He has categorically stated that he did not write in Ex-P-6, the place from where the shot was fired and also in Halat Mauka Ex.P-9. He has also admitted that in the Halat Mauka he has not mentioned names of the witnesses and stated that as he was not assured about the range of fire, so he did not show the place of fire. He has denied the suggestion that he took the signature of P.W. 4 Abhimanyu on Ex. P-7. A bare perusal of Ex.P-6 site plan shows that there is no mention of place at which the accused was standing. In Ex.P-9, Description memo of site plan also the place of accused has not been shown from where shot was fired. He has also admitted that the two motbirs before whom Ex. P-15 was prepared were not examined. The I.O. P.W. 6 Abdul Aziz has admitted that he had not mentioned where from the accused fired a shot. On the contrary there are statements of P.W. 4 and P.W.5 that they showed the place from where the accused fired a shot. A bare perusal of Ex. P-6 and Ex.P-9 further reveals that the place where the witnesses were said to have been standing does not show the name of witnesses which creates serious doubt. P.W. 6 Abdul Aziz has given a very unusual statement that foot prints of one person were visible but were not traceable. An occasion for noting foot prints would arise usually when accused is unknown. His statement further creates doubt when he states that he was not sure about the range of fire, so he did not mention the place from which the fire was shot. As stated above when P.W. 4 Abhimanyu and P.W. 5 Roshni had already shown the place of fire. Where was the necessity for the I.O. to be assured of the range of fire. As stated above when P.W. 4 Abhimanyu and P.W. 5 Roshni had already shown the place of fire. Where was the necessity for the I.O. to be assured of the range of fire. These infirmities create doubt on the prosecution story as to whether the witnesses were actually present at the place of incident or not because if they had been present at the time of incident certainly their names would have found mention in the inquest report Ex. P-8 and Surat Haal Ex. P-7. On these documents neither the name of the accused nor the names of witnesses are written and only F.I.R. number has been written, so also is the position of Ex. P-6 Site Plan and Ex. P-9 Site Inspection Note. This infirmity in preparation of the inquest report is suggestive of the fact that at the time these documents were prepared, the name of the accused was not known to the police. Under these circumstances the possibility that the alleged eye witnesses who are highly interested and close relatives of the deceased were not present cannot be ruled out and their names might have been added afterwards. Likewise the name of accused was added subsequently as is apparent from Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-7, more so the statement of Investigating Officer regarding foot-steps of a person and range of fire which can be taken into consideration only when the accused is not known coupled with the fact that the postmortem report does not corroborate the prosecution story. Therefore, we are of the opinion, that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Additional Sessions Judge hais erred in convicting the appellant u/s. 302 IPC. Thus, the judgment passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside and the conviction passed against the appellant deserves to be quashed . (16). In the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant Banwari u/s. 302 IPC and u/s. 27 of the Arms Act deserves to be quashed. The Judgement passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is set aside. The appellant is in jail, he be released forthwith if not required in any other case. (Per Honble R.S. Verma, J.) : (17). I agree with my learned brother that this appeal should succeed. The Judgement passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is set aside. The appellant is in jail, he be released forthwith if not required in any other case. (Per Honble R.S. Verma, J.) : (17). I agree with my learned brother that this appeal should succeed. I need not narrate the facts of the case because they have been narrated in sufficient details by my learned brother. However, I would like to give my own reasons briefly for agreeing with my learned brother. (18). It is beyond pale of controversy that the deceased died a homicidal death due to fire arm injuries, details whereof appear in the testimony of Dr. Vijay Kumar Sawansukha PW 3, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body. Dr. Vijay Kumar has indicated the possibility that deceased might have been fired at twice or thrice, depending upon the position of the hand of the deceased at the time shots were fired. Of course, he does not say that he must have been so shot. (19). The conviction of the appellant entirely rests upon the alleged eye witness account given by P.W. 4 Abhimanyu and P.W. 5 Roshni. Both of them have deposed in unison that one shot was fired by the appellant at the deceased and they saw him firing the fatal shot. If it was so, both these witnesses must have noticed the place from where the appellant fired the shot and they must have shown the investigating offficer the place from which the appellant fired at the deceased. Any prudent investigating officer would have asked the two witnesses to indicate the place from which the appellant had fired. The investigating officer has admitted that he did not indicate in the site plan, the place from which the appellant is said to have fired the gun shot. He gives a very curious reason for not doing so. According to him, he was not sure of the range from which the deceased had been fired at. This shows that the two witnesses did not indicate to the investigating officer the place from which the appellant is said to have fired the gun shot. If they had really seen the incident, they would have definitely indicated the place from which the assailant had fired the gun shot. This shows that the two witnesses did not indicate to the investigating officer the place from which the appellant is said to have fired the gun shot. If they had really seen the incident, they would have definitely indicated the place from which the assailant had fired the gun shot. This infirmity creates a good deal of doubt about the veracity of the version given by Abhimanyu and Roshni, both of whom are highly interested witnesses. (20). The motive that has been set up is that appellant was cultivating the land of Roshni. Deceased Satpal and P.W. 4 Abhimanyu took over this land from him and gave the same to one Tota Singh for cultivation and this caused the grouse. The appellant has denied this story altogether. The prosecution evidence on this aspect of the matter is highly discrepant. In cross-examination, Abhimanyu stated that it was really land of Prithvi Raj (husband of Roshni) which the appellant was cultivating and the land did not stand in the name of Roshni. This Prithvi Raj has not been examined. Likewise, Tota Singh to whom land is said to have been handed over after alleged taking ever from the appellant has not been examined. It is admitted that no girdawari whatever was ever recorded in name of Tota Singh. Roshni has tried to suggest that she got some land from her in- laws and this land she had handed over to the appellant for cultivation and since appellant was not giving any yield from the field, Abhimanyu along with Satpal got the land vacated from the appellant and gave it to Tota Singh. From this evidence, it has not been established satisfactorily that Roshni possessed any land and the same had been given to appellant for cultivation and later on Satpal along with Abhimanyu got the land vacated from the appellant and gave it to one Tota Singh. Thus, the story of motive has not been established beyond doubt. (21). Even if Roshni and Abhimanyu are to be believed on this count, then appellant would have a similar grouse against Roshni and Abhimanyu. There is nothing on the record to show that appellant had any special enmity or grouse against Satpal only. It is baffling that he chose Satpal as the only target and allowed Roshni and Abhimanyu to go scot free so that they may appear to give evidence against him. There is nothing on the record to show that appellant had any special enmity or grouse against Satpal only. It is baffling that he chose Satpal as the only target and allowed Roshni and Abhimanyu to go scot free so that they may appear to give evidence against him. It is difficult to believe that he would have spared these two persons even though they were present on the scene of occurrence and he could have made them an easy target. Therefore, the claim of Roshni and Abhimanyu that they saw the appellant firing at Satpal does not inspire confidence. (22). The conduct of these two witnesses is also not consistent with their story. Abhimanyu does not claim that he raised any hue and cry at the time of the incident. He has rather stated that since the incident had already taken place, there was no need to raise alarm. A real brother of the deceased would not have allowed the assailant to go away scot free and would have definitely raised alarm to attract others so that the assailant may be nabbed. Smt. Roshni has prevaricated on this point. First, she admitted that she or Abhimanyu did not raise any alarm; in the next breath, she prevaricated to say that they had started wailing and weeping but none came near. Why should she prevaricate on this apparently insignificant point, is astounding. (23). Both Roshni & Abhimanyu have tried to suggest that they had told the investigating officer about the place from which the appellant is said to have fired at the deceased. Had really these witnesses told the investigating officer about the place from which the assailant fired the shot, such place would have been definitely indicated in Ex. P.6 site plan and Ex. P. 9 description memo of site plan. But, both these documents are silent on this aspect and this fact goes to show that these witnesses are not stating the truth on this aspect of the case and this story that they had indicated the place from where assailant fired at the deceased is afterthought and does not inspire confidence. (24). Learned Public Prosecutor contended that defence has not shown why these two persons should falsely implicate the appellant. This is true that in his explanation recorded u/s 313, Cr. (24). Learned Public Prosecutor contended that defence has not shown why these two persons should falsely implicate the appellant. This is true that in his explanation recorded u/s 313, Cr. P.C., appellant has not given any specific reason for his false implication except that Roshni and Abhimanyu were his step- sister and step-brother. But, it is in the evidence of Roshni that the appellant was not giving her any share from the produce of the field, which according to her she got from her in-laws and the appellant was cultivating. If this is true, it would furnish a motive to Roshni to implicate the appellant falsely. Abhimanyu is the real brother of Roshni and if Roshni had a grouse against the appellant, he could be easily persuaded to depose falsely against the appellant. This probably has not been eliminated in this case beyond doubt. (25). The F.I.R. shows that it reached the Magistrate on 11.6.84 at 8 p.m. The incident took place on 11.6.84 at 6.55 a.m. F.I.R. is said to have been lodged the same day at 10.15 a.m. The Police Station Pilibanga is only at a distance of 25 kms from Suratgarh, the Head Quarter of the Magistrate. Investigating Officer has admitted that large number of buses plied between Pilibanga and Suratgarh. It is surprising, why the F.I.R. was not sent to the Magistrate promptly. There is a lurking doubt that the investigating officer was not sure about the true story; he found some foot-marks at the spot but such marks were not capable of identification. He, therefore, might have taken time to make some sort of preliminary investigation and thereafter the F.I.R. might have been recorded after such a long delay. There is no explanation, whatever, of the late despatch of F.I.R. to the Magistrate and this creates an infirmity in the prosecution story. (26). The testimony that Roshni and Abhimanyu have given, could have been given by them, even if they would not have seen the occurrence. Their parrot like statements do not inspire confidence at all. Here, I may mention that though the case rested upon the testimony of only two alleged eye-witnesses, and both were real brother and sister, yet they were not examined by the prosecution at one session. Abhimanyu was examined on 21.12.85 and Roshni was examined on 1.3.86. Their parrot like statements do not inspire confidence at all. Here, I may mention that though the case rested upon the testimony of only two alleged eye-witnesses, and both were real brother and sister, yet they were not examined by the prosecution at one session. Abhimanyu was examined on 21.12.85 and Roshni was examined on 1.3.86. A specific suggestion was given to Abhimanyu that Roshni was not produced on 21.12.85 in the court so that she may be apprised of the statement made in cross-examination of this witness. This is true that Abhimanyu has denied this suggestion. But, he has not explained why Roshni did not appear to give evidence that day. Examination of witnesses piecemeal in serious cases like murders is not at all desireable or proper and trial courts should ensure that as far as possible the evidence of prosecution witnesses is recorded day to day so that there is no occasion for the defence to contend that witnesses were being examined piecemeal so that lacunae in testimony of one witness are ironed out in the statement of the next witness. There is one more aspect of the case, which deserves to be taken note of P.W. 1 Chhida, though a hostile witness, has deposed that on the day of incident Abhimanyu resided at Dulmani near Pilibanga and Roshni resided at the village of her in-laws. No cross- examination has been made by learned P.P. on this aspect of his statement. P.W. 4 Abhimanyu has admitted in his cross-examination that he had a residential house at Dulmani near Pilibanga. He has also admitted that Roshnis husband Prithvi Raj had his fields at 7 LKS, which was at a distance of 10 squares from the Dhani at 4 LKS, near which the incident took place. Suggestion was given to Abhimanyu that on the day of incident he was at Dulmani; a suggestion was given to Roshni that on the day of incident, she was at 7 LKS. This is true that both these witnesses have denied these suggestions. Truly speaking, they could hardly be expected to admit the truthfulness of the suggestions put to them. But, the possibility that they were at their respective places on the day of incident remains there and this again creates suspicion about the truthfulness of their testimony. This is true that both these witnesses have denied these suggestions. Truly speaking, they could hardly be expected to admit the truthfulness of the suggestions put to them. But, the possibility that they were at their respective places on the day of incident remains there and this again creates suspicion about the truthfulness of their testimony. The cummulative circumstances of the case show that Roshni and Abhimanyu are not wholly reliable witnesses and the possibility cannot be ruled out that the appellant was roped in because he was in possession of some land belonging to in-laws of Roshni and he was not paying or giving any produce from the land to Roshni or her in-laws. (27). Learned trial Judge has used the recovery of a pistol and an empty at the instance of the appellant to hold that that very pistol had been used for the commission of the offence. It is pertinent that recovery memo Ex.P. 15 is said to have been prepared in presence of two witnesses viz Hans Raj and Tota Singh. None of them was examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged recovery. In the absence of examination of these witnesses and keeping in view the conduct of the investigating officer, Abdul Aziz, it is not safe to accept his testimony regarding the alleged recoveries. Ex. P. 15 shows that recoveries were made from village 4 LKS. None of the attesting witnesses belongs to 4 LKS. Hans Raj is resident of Pilibanga and Tota Singh is resident of Hansalia. This again presents the investigating officer in an adverse light. Investigating should have made recoveries in the presence of residents of locality. Hence, it would not be safe to accept testimony of Abdul Aziz on this point. (28). In veiw of what I have said above, I hold that charges u/s. 302, I.P.C. and 27, Arms Act have not been established beyond shadow of reasonable doubt against the appellant. His appeal is, thus, liable to be accepted. He deserves to be acquitted of charges u/s 302, I.P.C. and 27, Arms Act. R.S. Verma, J. : By the Court : (29). In the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant Banwari u/s. 302, I.P.C. and u/s. 27, of the Arms Act deserves to be quashed. The judgment passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is set aside. R.S. Verma, J. : By the Court : (29). In the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant Banwari u/s. 302, I.P.C. and u/s. 27, of the Arms Act deserves to be quashed. The judgment passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is set aside. The appellant is in jail, he be released forthwith if not required in any other case.