JUDGMENT Surya Prasad, J. 1. This is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 8th March, 1983, passed by the then learned Sessions Judge, Budaun, in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 1983 (State v. Bhagwant and others) convicting the appellant Sompal under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to the imprisonment for life and further sentencing the appellants Bhagwant, Horam and Harpal under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentencing them to the imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that Jaspal Singh (P.W. 1), son of Bhagwant Singh is a resident of village Nauna, within the circle of police station' Islamnagar, district Budaun. His son Jagan deceased was present at his house on 19th September, 1982. It was learnt that Bhagwant, resident of village Jafarpur and his sons, named, Horam and Sompal and his son-in-law named, Harpal were turning the groundnut crop with ploughs. Consequently his son reached the groundnut crop field at about 10 A.M. Jaspal Singh (P.W. 1) also followed him. They found that Horam and Harpal were turning the Bajra and groundnut crops with ploughs and that Bhagwant Singh and Sompal were sitting on the western Mend of that field. Therefore, Jagan asked them why they were turning up his crops and expressed that their litigation was going on and that they would give the field to them in the event of their success in the litigation. He asked them not to turn up the crops whereupon Bhagwant abused him, and angrily expressed that he was boasting much and that he be done to death. Consequently Sompal fired a shot from a double barrel gun at Jagan. Having received injury, Jagan ran away. In the process of his running Sompal fired second shot. Jaspal raised alarm, whereupon Bhagwant, Horam and Harpal rushed holding lathis and surrounded Jagan in the cultivated field of Prem Singh, belaboured him with lathis and caused him to fall down. It was then that Sompal fired two shots at him (Jagan). Hearing the alarm raised by Jaspal and the sounds emimated from the fire shots, Ram Autar (P.W. 2), Bhajan Lal (P.W. 4), Chharta Singh, Asha Ram and others reached the scene of occurrence and saw the entire incident. They threw challenge to the accused. Consequently the accused ran away towards west leaving the ploughs, (.lagan breached his last on the spot itself. They threw challenge to the accused. Consequently the accused ran away towards west leaving the ploughs, (.lagan breached his last on the spot itself. It is further alleged that the accused generated the feelings of animosity towards Jaspal (P.W. 1) in respect of the said field. The said field which belonged to Smt. Naraini alias Bhagwati. Jaspal (P.W. I) had taken that field on payment of money in advance from her. It Is further alleged that Smt. Naraini died one and half year's back. After her death, the accused Bhagwan and others set up one Kishan Lal fictitiously as her heir and obtained an agreement from htm In respect of her land. A litigation was going on between Sukhlal, brother of Smt. Naralni and Kewal on the one side and Bhagwant and others, on the other, in connection therewith. Jaspal had deposed in that case on behalf of Sukhlal. The accused, therefore bore grudge against him. Jaspal (P.W. 1) lodged an oral report at the police station Islamnagar, about the incident. On that basis a chick report: was prepared and an entry to that effect was made in the general diary. The case was ultimately registered against the accused. After the registration of the. case, its investigation was entrusted to the then Station Officer of the said police station, Ummed Singh (P.W. 10). Consequently he took down the statement of the informant Jaspal Singh (P.W. 1) at the police station itself. Thereafter he proceeded to the place of occurrence. Reaching there, he held inquest on the dead body of Jagan and prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka-3. He setzed, sealed and sent it to the mortuary for post-mortem examination, through the constable Sahab Singh (P.W. 5) and the village Chaukidar Ram Singh. He took the blood-stained and plain earth into his custody from the place of occurrence and prepared a memo in respect thereof. He took down the statements of Ram Autar (P.W. 2), Asha Ram and certain others. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared its site- plan Ext. Ka-13. 3. Dr. A. C. Sharma (P.W. 3) conducted (the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Jagan on 20th September, 11982 at 12 noon and found the following ante-mortem injuries thereon : 1. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. x scalp deep on right side of head 9 cm. Ka-13. 3. Dr. A. C. Sharma (P.W. 3) conducted (the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Jagan on 20th September, 11982 at 12 noon and found the following ante-mortem injuries thereon : 1. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. x scalp deep on right side of head 9 cm. above and behind right mastoid process, chitted blood present in the wound and edges are staining not washable and cleaning. 2. Lacerated wound 7 cm. x 1 cm. x scalp deep 3 cm. above and in front of injury No. 1. a Lacerated wound 2.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. x scalp deep 2 cm. in front and above injury No. 2. 4 Lacerated wound 1.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. x scalp deep 1.5 cm. behind injury No. 1. 4. Gun shot wound of entry 5 cm. x 4 cm. in front of left shoulder joint margins irregular and Jagged, surrounding skin shows blackening and tatooing, on dissection the wound was found to be directing backwards, the outer part of left clavicle and upper part of the left humerous was found fractured into many fragments, the left braclied plexus and auxiliary vessels were found lacerated, clotted blood was found in the depth of wound, one wadding and two pieces of Tikli and twenty six small pellets recovered from the wound. Gun shot wound of entry 4 cm. x 4 cm. on front of left side of chest 1 cm. above and lateral to left nipple, margins irregular and jagged. Surrounding skin shows blackening and tatooing, on dissection the wound was found to be directing backwards, downwards and medially, fourth rib left side was found fractured, left pleura, left lung, the pericardium, left side of the chest, left down of diaphragm, anterior wall of stomach along the greater curvature and the spleen were found lacerated about two litre of blood was found in left plural cavity and pericardial cavity, about half litre of blood was found in peritoneum cavity, about a quarter litre of blood mixed pasty material was found in stomach, one wadding and one Tikli and eighteen small pellets were recovered from depth of wound. 5. Contustion 4 cm. x 1.5 cm. with an abrasion 1.5 cm. x 1 cm. 5. Contustion 4 cm. x 1.5 cm. with an abrasion 1.5 cm. x 1 cm. at its outer end present on outer aspect of middle third of] the left upper arm (paper tourn) by swelling, on dissection the shaft of left Humerous under the injury was found fractured. 6. Multiple Gun shot wound of entry each measuring 0.4 cm. * 0.4 cm. in the left upper arm contusion 4 cm. x 2 cm. in middle thigh were found over an area 7 cm. x 6 cm. on back on right forearm, subcutaneous deep, four small pellets recovered. 9 MULTIPLE gun shot wound (paper tourn) half of back of chest and the small of the back (paper toum), backs of both thigh and backs of both legs, each measuring 0.4 cm. x 0.4 cm. (paper tourn) pellets recovered. Dr. A. C. Sharma prepared the post-mortem report Ext. Ka-2. In his opinion the death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of ante-mortem Injury No. 6 on 19th September, 1992 at 10 a.m. He has, however, stated in the cross-examination that there can be difference of 8 hours in the duration of death on either side. According to him, it was quite likely that Jagan deceased might have taken food 2-4 hours before his death. The post-mortem report shows that the large intestine contained semix solid faecal matter. He has further stated that there is possibility of injuries Nos. 5 and 6 having been caused at a distance of 3 feet and Injuries Nos. 8 and 9 from greater distances. 5 On the receipt of the post-mortem examination report and after the completion of the investigation into the case the Investigating Officer Ummed Singh (P.W. 10) submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. 6 The prosecution examined Jaspal Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Autar (P.W. 2), Dr. A. C. Sharma (P.W. 3), Bhajan Lal (P.W. 4), Sahab Singh (P.W. 5). Megh Singh (P.W. 6). Lakhan (P.W. 7), Sukh Lal (P.W. 8), Rajan Lal (P.W. 9) and Ummed Singh (P.W. 10) and relied upon certain documents In support of its case. 7. Jaspal Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Autar (P.W. 2) and Bhajan Lal (P.W. 4) are eye-witnesses and others are formal ones. 8 The accused pleaded not guilty. They have stated that all the allegations levelled against them are wrong and incorrect. 7. Jaspal Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Autar (P.W. 2) and Bhajan Lal (P.W. 4) are eye-witnesses and others are formal ones. 8 The accused pleaded not guilty. They have stated that all the allegations levelled against them are wrong and incorrect. They have displayed their ignorance about many of the facts relating to the case. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the evidence on the record the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants-accused, through his impugned Judgment and order. Aggrieved, they preferred this appeal against the same. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence on the record. 8. Smt. Naralni alias Bhagwat was born and brought up in the village Nauna itself. She owned nearly 36 bighas of land. The informant Jaspal Singh asserts to have taken the land from SMT. Naraini on payment of Rs. 2,500 as advance two years before her death. There is no mention of Rs. 2,500 as advance in the first information report. There is no mention therein as to when the land was actually taken by him from her. Nor does it disclose the period for which it was taken. There is no evidence to this effect. The statements of Jaspal Singh (P.W. 1) and Sukh Lal (P.W. 8) are in complete contradictions to each other on this aspect of the case, and, therefore, do not Inspire confidence. There is no evidence worth the name to show that the informant Jaspal Singh owned and possessed the land field in which the incident is alleged to have been initiated. Nor is there an iota of evidence to show that he had cultivated the groundnut and Bajra crops therein.. Jaspal Singh (P.W. 1) has alleged that there were mixed crops of groundnut and Bajra in the field in question. But the site plan indicates nothing as Such. The site-plan shows that there was Bajra crop and groundnut crop In the northern and southern portions respectively in the said land and that there was a demarcating line in between those portions. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that Jaspal Singh or his son Jagan deceased had any concern or connection with this field. The site-plan shows that there was Bajra crop and groundnut crop In the northern and southern portions respectively in the said land and that there was a demarcating line in between those portions. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that Jaspal Singh or his son Jagan deceased had any concern or connection with this field. Jaspal Singh (P.W. 1) has disclosed in his statement that one Gulfam had informed his son Jagan deceased that the accused had turned the groundnut and bajra crops with ploughs. Consequently Jagan had gone to the said field and he (Jaspal Singh) had also followed him. Butt there is nothing in the first information report or in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that Gulfam had informed him (Jaganl of the said fact. Gulfam is none else than the son of Bhajan Lal (P.W. 4). The proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated at the Instance of Smt. Naraini, against Bhajan Lal (P.W. 4), Jaspal Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Autar (P.W. 2), Nathoo and Gulfam. They therefore, belong to one and the same party. And yet the name of the Gulfam was not mentioned in the first Information report. This is something very strange. 9. The informant Jaspal (P.W. 1) had heard what Gulfam and the accused Bhagwant had actually uttered. But he has given vacillating statements to this effect. Not only this but his statement to this effect does not also find support from what has been mentioned in the first information report in this regard. This indicates that he had not actually heard anything such as alleged by him. This is so because he was not actually present on the spot. 10. Jaspal Singh (P.W. 1) had been raising alarm since the very inception of the incident from a distance of 50 paces. His village is at a distance of hardly one furlong from the place of occurrence. There is no evidence on the record to show that he tried to run away towards his village: crying for support to save his son from being assaulted by the accused. Nor did he try to save his son in any manner whatsoever. His act and conduct appears to be most un-natural. Jaspal Singh (P.W. 1) had been standing and raising alarm throughout the incident. Nor did he try to save his son in any manner whatsoever. His act and conduct appears to be most un-natural. Jaspal Singh (P.W. 1) had been standing and raising alarm throughout the incident. There is no evidence to show that he was armed with any weapon. And yet, the accused did not abuse or assault him. This is something more surprising. Had Jaspal Singh been actually present at the time of the incident, the accused would not have certainly spared him to witness the incident and ultimately to depose against them. 11. Jaspal Singh (P.W. 1) has stated that the accused Bhagwant, Horam and Harpal assaulted Jagan with lathis while he was running. Having received lathi injuries, he fell down and it was then that the accused Sompal fired two shots at him, with the result that he died on the spec. The first information report shows that the accused Bhagwant, Horam and Harpal surrounded Jagan in the cultivated field of Prem Singh, assaulted him with lathis and caused him to fall down. But he (JASPAL Singh) has given a complete go-bye to all this in his statement. This is so because he has not stated even a word in his statement that Jagan was surrounded by the accused Bhagwant, Horam and Harpal in the field of Prem Singh. Ram Autar (P.W. 2) and Bhajan Lal (P.W. 4) have introduced altogether a new case when he says that; Jagan Mi down in the field of Prem Singh after receiving the second shot and that it was then that Horam, Bhagwant and Harpal belaboured him with lathis and that Sompal fired two shots again at him (Jagan) after their recession after belabouring him. In view of all this it can be unhesitatingly expressed that the prosecution has not established the mode and manner in which the incident is alleged to have actually taken place. 12. A careful consideration of the post-mortem report Ext. Ka-2 coupled with the statement of Dr. A C. Sharma (P.W. 3) lead to conclude that the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular account. This indicates nothing but the falsity in the prosecution case. The informant Jaspal Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Autar (P.W. 2) and Bhajan Lal (P.W. 4) alleged to have seen the incident, are partisans. The prosecution has not examined any independent witness on the factum of the incident. This indicates nothing but the falsity in the prosecution case. The informant Jaspal Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Autar (P.W. 2) and Bhajan Lal (P.W. 4) alleged to have seen the incident, are partisans. The prosecution has not examined any independent witness on the factum of the incident. This further points out the falsity in the prosecution case. 13. The Investigating Officer, Ummed Singh (P.W. 10) has asserted that he had interrogated the Informant Jaspal Singh (P.W. l) at the police station itself. But Jaspal Singh (P.W. 1) has denied this. There is nothing on the record to show at whose instance/pointing out Ummed Singh (P.W. 10) had actually inspected the place of occurrence and ultimately prepared its site-plan. He did not send the blood-stained earth for experts examination. Nor did he Interrogate Prem Singh In whose field the dead body of Jagan was found. He has not noted down in the case diary the time of taking down the statements of the witnesses. Nor has he done so with regard to his departure from and return to the police station from the place of occurrence. He asserts having returned to the police station from the place of occurrence next day, i.e. on 20.9.1982. But the witnesses have categorically stated that he had been at the place of occurrence for about 3-4 hours only and that he had returned from that place same day. Constable Sahab Singh (P.W. 5) has categorically stated that he had kept the dead body at Islamnagar Bus Station throughout the night, without any rhyme or reason. In view of all this, it can very well be said that the investigation of the said case is not fair but tainted. 14. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the possibility of the accused-appellants having been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity cannot altogether be ruled out. In the result the appeal is allowed. The Impugned judgment and order are set aside. The appellants-accused are acquitted of the offences with which they have been charged. The appellants-accused Bhagwant, Horam and Harpal are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties stand discharged. The appellant-accused Sompal is in jail. He shall be released forthwith unless wanted in some other cases. Appeal allowed.