JUDGMENT Mr. G.D. Dube, J. - The respondents, eight in number, were acquitted by the 7th Additional Sessions, Judge, Shahjahanpur of the charges under Section 147/148/452/302/149 I.P.C. Aggrieved by this order the present appeal has been filed by the State of U.P. 2. The case of the prosecution as narrated in the First Information Report lodged by Ram Swaroop Singh (P.W. 1) on 9.9.1978 at 10.30 p.m. at Police Station Schramau South District Shahjahanpurwas expressed within a short compass. According to the reporter, the reporter and his family members were involved in the murder of one Phool Singh. These persons had been acquitted by the Sessions Judge on 30.8.1978. At that time Lalloo and Narsingh respondent had told the reporter that he has been acquitted any the Sessions Judge but will not escape conviction from their hands. It has been alleged that at about 8.30 on 9.9.1978 Hakim Singh son of the reporter was sleeping on a bed below a room covered with tin shed on the first floor of the house. Jadunath Singh (P.W. 2) was laying on a bed towards south of the room where Hakim Singh was sleeping. At that time Lalloo, Pahalwan, Ramlal, Ranvir, Narsingh, Prahlad, Sarnam, Munshi and Shishupal armed with country made pistols, guns, lath is and appears entered the house of the reporter. They came on the first floor of the house through the staircase. The caught hold of Hakim Singh and Lalloo fired his gun towards Hakim Singh. This gun was fired by keeping mouth of the barrel close to the chest. After firing a single shot, the accused ran away. Reporter and his brother Jadunath flashed their torches and raised alarm whereupon Ram Bilas (P.W. 3), Sher Singh and Haripal alsoreached there flashing, their torches but the miscreants ran away. 3. It was alleged that a lantern was burning in the house near the stair case. The miscreants were recognised in the light of the torches and the burning lantern. After the occurrence Ram Swaroop lodged the First Information Report which was registered by Hirdayal Narain Shukla (P.W. 5), Virpal Singh (P.W. 6) was a Station Officer of the Police Station concerned. He took up the investigation and prepared the inquest report. The dead body was sent to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. Dr. Mohammed Sharif (P.W. 4) had conducted the post-mortem examination at 5.00 P.M. on 10.9.1978. He took up the investigation and prepared the inquest report. The dead body was sent to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. Dr. Mohammed Sharif (P.W. 4) had conducted the post-mortem examination at 5.00 P.M. on 10.9.1978. The Doctor found the following injuries on the person of the deceased : Gun short wound of entry 2.5cm. X 2.5cm. X abdominal cavity deep, with inverted margin on upper most part of abdomen in the carte 2cm below from the xyphi-sternum with blackening in the area of 5 cm. X 5cm. around the wound. 4. On internal examination the Doctor found two large metalic pellets and one wadding piece in the abdominal cavity. The stomach was empty. Small and large intestine contained faecal matter. According to the Doctor, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemonem injuries. The Investigating Officer had conducted the usual investigation. He had collected blood stained materials and prepared site plan of the occurrence. He had thereafter submitted charge-sheet against the respondents. P.W. 1 Ram Swarup Singh, P.W. 2 Jadunath Singh and P.W. 3 Ram Bilas are witnesses of facts. The role of the remaining witness has been stated above. 5. The accused have pleaded not guilty to the charges. They did not produce any witness in defence. They alleged that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. After appraising the evidence from the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Subsequently, the accused were acquitted. 6. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the stated that the occurrence had taken place in the house. The witnesses produced by the prosecution were the only natural witnesses who could have witnesses the occurrence. These witnesses are stating the correct version of the prosecution. They have stated whatever they could have seen in the circumstances of the case. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the opposite party also. The learned Counsel has drawn our attention to various improbabilities in the case. 8. P.W. 1 Ram Swarup says he is the father of the deceased Hakim Singh. He has stated in the First Information Report that the gun was fired towards chest of Hakim Singh when the mouth of barrel was almost touching the skin. The nature of injury quoted above does not support this version. 8. P.W. 1 Ram Swarup says he is the father of the deceased Hakim Singh. He has stated in the First Information Report that the gun was fired towards chest of Hakim Singh when the mouth of barrel was almost touching the skin. The nature of injury quoted above does not support this version. If the mouth of the barrel of the gun was almost touching the skin then there should have been charring and scorching on the skin around the entry wound. The velocity of the fire should have been so immensed that it ought to have caused exist wound also. Dr. Mohammad Sharif had stated in his cross-examination that even if a man was wearing a shirt then in a close fire the skin underneath should also bear the marks of scorching and blackening. According to the Doctor, the fire had been opened from a distance of about four feet from the body. 9. P.W. 1 Ram Swarup has stated in his examination in chief that he saw the respondents entering the house going to the staircase but he had heard a sound of gun fire from the tin shed where his son was sleeping. He had also heard the assailants saying that they have killed Hakim Singh and, thus, achieved satisfaction. He stated specifically that throughout the occurrence he remained concealed in darkness. After the occurrence the assailants went away. This story narrated by the P.W. 1 is not in conformity with the facts narrated in the First Information Report. From the First Information Report it transpires that the maker of the report was seeing the whole occurrence and was observing the minutes details. That is why he had given a very detailed description of the assault. 10. The role of First Information Report in a case of murder cannot be under estimated. It holds a very material basis for assessing the prosecution version. The version given by P.W. 1 on oath before the Trial Court is contradictory to the version given in the First Information Report. The medical evidence does not support the prosecution version as narrated in the First Information Report. 11. The facts discussed above to show that the First Information Report was dictated at such a time when the maker of the report had sufficient opportunity to deliberately carve out a story regarding the manner of assault. 12. The medical evidence does not support the prosecution version as narrated in the First Information Report. 11. The facts discussed above to show that the First Information Report was dictated at such a time when the maker of the report had sufficient opportunity to deliberately carve out a story regarding the manner of assault. 12. P.W. 1 Ram Swarup has stated in paragraph 12 of his examination-in-chief that he had heard sound coming from the house of Ram Bilas. He had also seen Jadunath (P.W. 2) flashing torches. The discussion of the evidence of Jadunath (P.W. 2) and Ram Bilas (P.W. 3) as made in the following paragraphs would indicate that these witnesses too had no opportunity of seeing the assailants. 13. P.W. 2 Jadunath has admitted that both of his legs are useless from the age of 11 years and he can move with the help of his hands. The site-plan shows that in between the roof where this witness was sleeping and the room where the deceased was sleeping there is a wall. There were only two doors in the room. This wall, therefore, intervening between this witness and the assailants. On account of his disability this witness would not have been able to move from his bed during the occurrence. Hence even if he had Clashed his torch, he would not have been able to see the assailants. P.W. 3 Ram Bilas has stated that he was standing near the eastern wall of the house of Ram Swarup. He was standing in his courtyard. The occurrence was taking place on the first floor. The topography as indicated in the site plan shows that a wall extending North-South intervened between him and the place where Hakim Singh was sleeping. In the situation in which Ram Bilas was placed it was not at all possible for him to see the assailants even in torch light coming from his torch. 14. A very strange feature is coming forward in this case. According to the prosecution, Hakim Singh was sleeping. His stomach was empty. No explanation has come forward as to whether he had gone to bed without taking food. 15. The evidence adduced by the prosecution was not of such character from which it could be said that the assailants had actually committed the murder. The prosecution is not coming forward with a truthful version. His stomach was empty. No explanation has come forward as to whether he had gone to bed without taking food. 15. The evidence adduced by the prosecution was not of such character from which it could be said that the assailants had actually committed the murder. The prosecution is not coming forward with a truthful version. There are very patent infirmities in the prosecution version. The statement even of the father of the deceased cannot be believed for the reasons noted above. He is not coming forward with clean hands. He is contradicted by his own version given in the First Information Report. The lower Court has rightly disbelieved the prosecution story. The Trial Court has rightly observed that all the witnesses were inimical to the respondents. Hence if the witnesses were flashing their torches then the appellants-respondents who were armed with deadly weapons could have easily killed these persons who were flashing their torches. 16. There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed.