JUDGMENT Mr. K.K. Birla, J. - This is State appeal against the order dated 1.12.1978 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai acquitting accused Shiv Singh and Virendra for thecharge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 2. It is an unfortunate case where Sarju aged 15 or 16 years was murdered in the morning/early hours of 30th June, 1974. Shiv Singh and Virendra accused were aged about 14 years at the time of the occurrence, according to the age given by them in their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. 3. According to the prosecution case in brief there was altercation between Sarju and Shiv Singh respondent in the evening of 29th June, 1974. At about 7.00 or 8.00 a.m. On 30th June, 1974 both the respondents took Sarju towards the well of Man Singh on the pretext easing themselves. The respondents pushed Sarju in the well and started hitting him with bricks. On the cries of Sarju Daryao Singh P.W.5, Ram Shankar P.W.6 and P.W.7 Devendra Singh reached there and challenged the respondents who ran away. Sarju was drowned in the well. Sarju and the respondents were also seen coming towards the well by Hun Lal P.W.3 and Puseo P.W.4 Devendra Singh went to the deceased's house and narrated the incident to Ram Swaroop who came to the spot and then lodged the F.I.R. at 1.00 p.m. at the police station. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is 3 miles. 4. The post mortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Vijay Singh P.W.9 at 4.30 p.m. on 1st July, 1974. He found the following injuries on his person. 1. Lacerated wound 4 cm. X 1cm. scalp deep left side head 6 cm. above the ear. 2. Lacerated wound anterior posterior 6cm. X 1cm. scalp deep 6cm. above bridge of nose. 3. Lacerated wound 1cm. X cm. scalp deep 6cm. above left eye brow. 4. Lacerated wound 2cm. X 1cm. skin deep 2cm. above right eye brow middle. 5. Lacerated wound 8.5cm. X 1cm. bone deep right side head 9cm. above right ear anterior posterior. 6. Lacerated wound 2cm. X 1cm. back of head on the middle scalp deep. 7. Lacerated wound 3cm. X 1cm. sub-cutaneous tissue deep below right lower jaw 3cm. from the tip of chin. 8. Abrasion cm. above right eye brow middle. 5. Lacerated wound 8.5cm. X 1cm. bone deep right side head 9cm. above right ear anterior posterior. 6. Lacerated wound 2cm. X 1cm. back of head on the middle scalp deep. 7. Lacerated wound 3cm. X 1cm. sub-cutaneous tissue deep below right lower jaw 3cm. from the tip of chin. 8. Abrasion cm. X cm. on the tip of chin. 9. Two contusions on right arm crossing each other almost at right tongue 10cm. X 3 c.m. and 7cm. X 3cm. anterior lateral side on middle right humerous fractured underneath. 10. Abrasion 4cm. X 2.2cm. front of chest. 5. According to him the death was caused about one and half or 2 days before due to shock and haemorrhage and coma resulting from the multiple injuries. After investigation the I.O. Sri P.N. Nigam P.W.8 submitted charge-sheet. 6. In support of its case the prosecution examined 9 witnesses including the above mentioned witnesses. According to the accused they have been falsely implicated on account of the party Bandi. 7. After considering the prosecution evidence and circumstances of the case the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the oral evidence given by the eye-witnesses was inconsistent with the medical evidence and the state ments of.the eye-witnesses did not much inspire confidence. He disbelieved the prosecution evidence and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the State has preferred this appeal. 8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the State and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 9. The main thrust of the argument of the State Counsel is that the prosecution evidence has been wrongly disbelieved and there are eye-witnesses who had no motive to depose falsely. After hearing both the learned Counsel we are of the opinion that the prosecution version has been rightly disbelieved by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Clearly enough, there are certain strong circumstances which go to show that the incident could not have taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. 10. The doctor found no symptoms of drowning contributing towards the death of Sarju. He found both the lungs to be normal and stomach empty. In his cross-examination he has clearly stated that if Sarju would have received the bricks injuries on his head inside the well and had gone inside the, water, there should have been water in the lungs and the stomach. He found both the lungs to be normal and stomach empty. In his cross-examination he has clearly stated that if Sarju would have received the bricks injuries on his head inside the well and had gone inside the, water, there should have been water in the lungs and the stomach. He did not rule out the possibility that the Sarju was murdered and thereon in the well. According to him if he would have died after drowning in the well there had been such symptoms on his body. It is also clear that if a person is inside the well and, bricks are thrown on him it is more probable that after receiving the injuries he may become unconscious and will go inside the water and in that case drowning symptoms would have been found by the Doctor. Therefore, the medical evidence in this regard is clearly inconsistent with the oral testimony of eye-witnesses and it is the strong circumstance going against the credibility of the oral evidence. 11. Not only this the breadth of the lacerated wounds is not more than 1cm. As pointed out by the doctor this is highly improbable that all the bricks thrown on the deceased will hit in such a manner that only the corner had hit him. Therefore, if the incident would have taken place as alleged by the prosecution witnesses, the width of some of the injuries would have been certainly more. This circumstances goes against the credibility of the statements of the eye-witnesses. 12. Not only this there does not appear to be any strong motive or so for causing murder by the respondents. In the FIR it is alleged that there was altercation in the previous evening between the deceased and Shiv Singh respondent. Ram Swaroop P.W.I informant has not stated that any altercation had taken place in his presence. Not only this, he has simply stated that there was altercation amongst the boys but he did not name any one of them. Therefore, this part of the motive has also not been proved and has been rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 13. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution Pusu (P.W.4) and Ram Shankar (P.W.6) have become hostile. P.W.3 Hub Lal has also not supported the prosecution case, that all the three were seen going together. He was not sought to be declared hostile. 13. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution Pusu (P.W.4) and Ram Shankar (P.W.6) have become hostile. P.W.3 Hub Lal has also not supported the prosecution case, that all the three were seen going together. He was not sought to be declared hostile. Therefore, the prosecution version that all these three namely, Sarju and the respondents Shiv Singh and Virendra were seen going together is also not proved. 14. Devendra Singh (P.W.7) and Daryao Singh (P.W.5) have stated that they saw Sarju hanging in the well by catching a chain. This clearly appears an after thought as it was not stated in the statement under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code and probably has been introduced with a view to show that Sarju died on account of the injuries and then went under the water. 15. The another unusual circumstance in this case is that inspite of all these witnesses being the eye-witnesses of the occurrence they did not try to take out Sarju from the well. Devendra (P.W.7) went to inform Ram Swaroop at his house, Ram Swaroop came to the well and after seeing the dead body in the well Ram Swaroop went to the police station. It is in evidence that the dead body was taken out by the police from the well. In our opinion all these circumstances will go to show that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is perfectly right. 16. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is confirmed.