JUDGMENT Mr. Palok Basu, J. - The age old question whether it is a case of 'hit and run' has once again arisen in this appeal. There is a solitary assailant, solitary deceased and solitary shot and it has to be seen whether deceased's son and his nephew could be present at the spot to witness the occurrence? 2. Ombir has preferred this appeal against his conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life as passed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, on 31.8.79 in Sessions Trial No. 108 of 1979. The charge against the appellant was that in the night of 4.5.78 at about 3.30 a.m. he committed an offence by intentionally causing the death of Chidia Singh in village Nagla Tashi, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut, and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case was that appellant Ombir's father Mukhtiar Singh and deceased as well as the informant, who too are father and son, were having enmity from quite some time before. Litigations between two families had been going on and their relations were strained severely. It is said that on 4.4.1978 the she-buffalo belonging to Mukhtiar Singh and the appellant had entered the field of the deceased and the deceased had taken it out. Altercation had taken place and the appellant had threatened the deceased of dire consequence. 4. It is said that in the night at about 3.30 a.m. Jagbir Singh got up at the barking of the dog. He opened the main door of the house and flashed torch and then he saw that appellant Ombir and a stranger were standing near the cot of his father Chidia. He could see it in the light of the lantern which was burning there as also in his torch light. When the informant proceeded towards his father, the appellants fired from his country made pistol, which hit the deceased Chidia on the chest. A hue and cry was raised which brought Inderpal (P.W. 2), nephew of the deceased, to the scene of occurrence. A chase was given to the two persons but they could not be caught. However, while running away, those two assailants were seen by Sahendra (P.W. 3). 5. The appellant has denied his participation and has alleged his false implication due to enmity. A chase was given to the two persons but they could not be caught. However, while running away, those two assailants were seen by Sahendra (P.W. 3). 5. The appellant has denied his participation and has alleged his false implication due to enmity. He has further stated that his father and appeared as a witness against Dharampal and Rajpal, first cousins of Jagbir Singh, the informant. Before election of deceased's son Omprakash as Pradhan of the village, the appellant's father Mukhtiar Singh had been the Pradhan. He has moved an application on 30.8.1977 for suspending Omprakash from the office of the Pradhan. He had made another application joined in by other villagers. These applications have been filed as Exts. Kha-1, Kha-2 and Kha-3. In this connection it may be interesting to mention here that P.W. 4 Amar Singh, who has been examined by the prosecution to prove the motive part relating to the she-buffalo incident in the proceeding evening has himself admitted that he was Upa Pradhan of the village and that Omprakash was suspended on the complaint of the appellant. But he has further stated that some stay order was obtained as regards the said suspension. 6. In view of the documents filed by the defence and the trend of the cross-examination and the answers given by the three witnesses, it is established beyond doubt that relations between Jagbir Singh, the informant, (P.W. 1), Inder Pal (P.W. 2) and Amar Singh (P.W. 4) were extremely strained. It has already been mentioned above that Jagbir Singh was son of the deceased. As regards Inder Pal (P.W. 2) it is in evidence that he is not resident of this village and had come per chance to see his sister married in this family. Sahendra (P.W. 3) admittedly lives in the villages about 150 yards away from the place of occurrence. His presence at the scence of occurrence was highly improbable, if not impossible, at the time of incident. He has admitted in his statement that the land on which he and his father have built their house belonged to the deceased. His partisanship, therefore, is also established. 7. Coming to the actual incident, Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the appellant, argued that infact the case of hit-and-run had been tried to be given colour of having been witnessed by the eye-witnesses. His partisanship, therefore, is also established. 7. Coming to the actual incident, Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the appellant, argued that infact the case of hit-and-run had been tried to be given colour of having been witnessed by the eye-witnesses. The first attack that he made was that vital contradictions exist in the First Information Report and the statements made in the Court. P.W. 2 Jagbir Singh has said in the First Information Report that alongwith the appellant Ombir; there was another man empty handed and at any point of time he has not said that he was having any arm in his hand. However, in his deposition in Court he has said that the said stranger was carry in lathi. He further said that the lathi was pressed on the chest of the deceased and then the appellant had fired. Even this part is missing from the F.I.R. It becomes very difficult to accept the statement of Jagbir that he had infact seen the incident when the firing had taken place. In this connection, another fact emphasised rightly was that in paragraph 5 of his statement Jagbir Singh has admitted that after the appellant and his accomplice had run away that he shouted for Inderpal (P.W. 2). In such a short time arrival of P.W. 2 Inderpal at the scene and seeing the incident is simply ruled out. A perusal of the site plan shows that the cot of Inder Pal (P.W. 2) was at a distance of about 20 steps in north of the deceased's cot and the informant Jagbir Singh was about 30 steps away from him on the next side of the Usara (Open land). Under the circumstances the whole story appears to be utter concoction. If any one was to get up, it must have been the deceased himself and that is ruled out because he has an injury of the following description : "Gun shot wound of entry 2cm. X 1.5cm. X chest cavity deep on the left side of the upper part 4cm. below the clavicle junction of middle and lateral third 7 cm. from left nipple at 10 o'Clock position of the wound are contused inverted. Surrounding area 11cm. X 5cm. in size with contused blackening and tatooing present. X 1.5cm. X chest cavity deep on the left side of the upper part 4cm. below the clavicle junction of middle and lateral third 7 cm. from left nipple at 10 o'Clock position of the wound are contused inverted. Surrounding area 11cm. X 5cm. in size with contused blackening and tatooing present. There is no wound of exit." This injury has been found to be noted in the post-mortem examination report which was conducted by P.W. 6 Dr. K.D. Sharma on 5.4.1978 at 10.30 b.m. He has found that the age of the deceased was about 80 years and the injury was about one day old and that the said injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. On the internal examination he found that there was .fracture in the 2nd and 3rd ribs and pleura was lacerated and left frontal cavity was full of blood, pellets and even wadding was recovered from the chest wall and left lung. 8. Comparing this injury with the description of the shot said to have been set out by P.W. 2 Inder Pal, it is said that he is working on his imagination. In an answer to the Court question. Inderpal has said that the firing was don' from a distance of about 1 or 1 feet from the cot of the deceased. In this connection the attention of the Court was invited to the statement of Sahendra (P.W. 3) wherein in paragraph No. 2 he has deposed that the deceased was lying with the quilt over his body, though it is not very clear as to whether the quilt was there from before the occurrence or was put after it. The fact, however, remains that blackening and charring and entry of the wal may not have been possible from the country made pistol even from a distance of P/2 feet as deposed to by Inderpal (P.W. 2). The dimension of the injury is indicative of practically point blank injury, with the result that all the pellets including wedding had entered the body and lodged and remained inside the chest cavity. The description given by Inderpal, therefore, does not fit in with the medical evidence. The dimension of the injury is indicative of practically point blank injury, with the result that all the pellets including wedding had entered the body and lodged and remained inside the chest cavity. The description given by Inderpal, therefore, does not fit in with the medical evidence. As stated above, the presence of P.W. 3 Sahendra, even if admitted, does not go to indicate that he could have been in a position to come at the location so as to identify anybody who may be running after shooting the deceased. Whatever amount of time he may say, the fact remains that in running about 50 steps not even a fraction of a minute had been consumed. Therefore, the arrival of P.W. 3 Sahendra towards the crossing so as to identify or notice the appellant and a stranger is out of question. His partnership has been noted above. 9. It may be mentioned here that the First Information Report was lodged by Jagbir Singh (P.W.1) allegedly at 9.15 A.M. in the presence of P.W. 5 Charan Singh, who was the Station Officer, Police Station Sardhana, on the said date and he took up investigation then and there. He had prepared the Panchayatnama and sent the dead body for postmortem examination through Constables Ram Kumar and Mahendrapal alongwith necessary papers. He is said to have prepared the necessary memorandum regarding the recovery of the quilt, cot, lenater, torch and blood stained earth. After completing the investigation the said P.W. 5 Charan Singh had submitted the chrge-sheet against the appellant on 24.4.78. In the cross-examination he has mentioned that he has not noted the name of any accused in the inquest report and even the description of the weapon is absent. All that is said about the cause of death is "Goli Markar" Hatya Karna". On the facts of this case, there appears to be force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that if he had already come to know of the allegations made in the F.I.R., he would have noted that the death was due to firing from a country made, pistol. He has further admitted that he had not seen the place of resident of P.W. 3 Sahcndra in the site plan. It is admitted that the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is 10 miles. He has further admitted that he had not seen the place of resident of P.W. 3 Sahcndra in the site plan. It is admitted that the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is 10 miles. On the facts and circumstances it appears that belated F.I.R. was lodged and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the prosecution allegations. 10. It does appear, therefore, that it is a case of "hit-and-run" in the cover of darkness and nobody had seen the actual assailants and because of the long standing enmity the appellant Ombir was named as an assailant in the F.I.R. lodged by Jagbir Singh. It must, therefore, be held that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. 11. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. He is on bail. He need not surrender and his bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.