A. B. SRIVASTAVA, J. The IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur vide his judgment and order dated 26-1-1980 in Sessions Trial No. 584 of 1978 convicted accused-appellant Pahalwan in Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1980 of the offence under Section 302 of the I. P. C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, acquitted him of the charge under Section 148, I. P. C. and his co-accused persons Moti Lal, Bhagwan Sahai, Sunder Lal, Ram Asrey, Shiv Kumar and Chandra Mohan (respondents in Government Appeal No. 632 of 1980) of the charge under Sections 148 and 302/149, I. P. C. while Pahalwan has preferred appeal against his conviction, the State has preferred the connected appeal against acquittal. Both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The deceased Chnotey Lal, his elder brother informant Bade Lal (PW 1) are residents of village Raghunathpur within jurisdiction of Police Station Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur, six of the eight accused persons, named in the F. I. R. of this case, Pahalwan, son of Lalloo Lal, Moti Lal, Bhagwan Sahai, Sunder Lal, Ram Asrey, all sons of Natthu Lal and Shiv Kumar, son of Raja Ram, are also residents of village Raghunathpur, whereas Chandrabhan and Moheny are residents of village Khandahar within jurisdic tion of the same Police Station, while charge-sheet was submitted by the investigating agency against all the aforesaid eight accused persons, the trial took place only of seven of them, as Mohney was absconding. 2-A. The prosecution story, in brief, is that about 16 days before the incident of this murder, there had taken place another incident of exchange of fire between deceased Chhotey Lal and Ram Gopal on one side, and accused Pahalwan and his fellow men on the other. Although no one from either side was injured in the said incident but a goat belonging to Ram Niwas was killed. Cross-reports, one by accused Bhagwan Sahai and the other by Ram Niwas, had been lodged regarding the said incident at the Police Station. The rela tions between the two sides were strained on account of the said incident. On the date of occurrence, H-9-1978, at about 8 a. m. , it is alleged, Chhotey Lal left his home for going to Jalalabad market. The rela tions between the two sides were strained on account of the said incident. On the date of occurrence, H-9-1978, at about 8 a. m. , it is alleged, Chhotey Lal left his home for going to Jalalabad market. He had proceeded to a dis tance of about 100-150 yards towards South East of his House and was passing from the Pagdandi between the chari field of Deen Dayal and the field of Luxman Prasad, when he was accosted by the eight accused persons, all armed with fire-arms, Chhotey Lal raised alarm exhorting to rush to save him, hearing which informant Bade Lal who was tethering cattle in front of his house, Jhabba (PW 3), resident of village Khandahar, who was talking to Nabbu Lal under a Pakad tree towards north of his house, Brahm Swarup (PW 4) who was in his baithak, situated at a distance of about 60-65 steps towards west of the place of occurrence, Nabbu Lal and his son Drigraj, rushed towards the scene of occurrence. They saw accused Moti Lal, Bhagwan Sahai, Chandra bhan and Mohney, armed with guns, Pahalwan, Sunder Lal, Ram Asrey and Shiv Kumar armed with pistols, having caught Chhotey Lal on the Pagdandi towards North of the Chari field of Deen Dayal. Accused Mohney exhorted accused Pahalwan to shoot Chhotey Lal, whereupon Pahalwan by his country-made pistol shot at Chhotey Lal who was injured and fell. Seeing this, when the persons rushing towards the scene of occurrence raised alarm, all the accused persons made good their escape by fleeing towards east in the direction of village Kareli, Chhotey Lal died instantanieously on account of the fire-arm injury caused to him. 3. A written report regarding this incident (Exhibit ka-1) was prepared by informant Bade Lal, who went to the Police Station and lodged the same at 9. 45 a. m. the same day i. e. 11-9-1978 S. I. Indrapal Singh (PW 5) then second Officer at the Police Station Jalalabad, Shahjahanpur, in whose presence, the F. I. R, was lodged, took up the investigation and after recording the state ment of informant Bade Lal proceeded with the required force to village Raghunathpur where the occurrence had taken place. As the Jild Panehayatnama was with another S. I. , who had gone to make inquest in connection with another incident in village Narainpur, he deputed a constable to bring the same from the said place to village Raghunathpur. Reaching the place of occurrence at about 11. 15 a. m. the same day, the Investigating Officer inspect ed the place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Exhibit Ka-8 ). He took in possession from the dead body a purse containing currency notes worth Rs. 50 and also found the pair of shoes of the deceased. He gave the same in the supurdgi of informant Bade Lal, prepared its memo (Exhibit Ka-2) had there after recorded the statements of the eye-witnesses. The same day at about 3 p. m. he prepared the inquest report (Exhibit Ka-9) of the dead body and sent the same in duly sealed condition along with the other relevant papers to the Sadar for post-mortem examination through constables Raj Kumar Singh and Shri Prakash. He did not find any blood on the ground but the shirt, baniyan and Dhoti worn by the deceased bore marks of blood. 4. The post-mortem examination of the dead body of Chhotey Lal was conducted by the PW 2 Dr. M. M. Lal on 12-9-1978 at 4 p. m. and the follow ing ante-mortem injuries were found: (1) A lacerated wound (penetrating wound) 1. 7 cm X 1. 2 cm X abdo men cavity deep on the left side abdomen at the level of umblicus 2 cm to left of it with margins scorched and area alround blackened and tatooed in area 12 cm X 14 cm (scattered defaint gun powder ). (2) An irregular contusion 3 cm X 2 cm on the lower part left side back 2 cm above gluteal fold and 2 cm from mid line to left with extreme extravasation of blood underneath in subcutaneous (sick ). 5. In the opinion of the Doctor vide post-mortem examination report (Exhibit Ka 3) death of deceased had been caused due to shock and haemor rhage on account of gun-shot wound in abdomen fired from a distance of. 6. After usual investigation the Investigating Officer laid charge-sheet against all the eight accused persons named in the F. I. R. seven of whom had either been arrested or surrendered, while Mohney Singh was absconding. 7. 6. After usual investigation the Investigating Officer laid charge-sheet against all the eight accused persons named in the F. I. R. seven of whom had either been arrested or surrendered, while Mohney Singh was absconding. 7. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 148 and 302, I. P. C. against accused Pahalwan and under Sections 148/302/149, I. P. C. against the remaining six accused persons, to which all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. All these accused persons denied having form ed in unlawful assembly with a common object of committing the murder of Chhotey Lal and having committed his murder in prosecution of such object. Accused Pahalwan denied having caused the fatal injuries by pistol to the deceased while rest of the accused persons denied having accosted or caught the deceased to facilitate his being shot at. They all stated to have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity and also contended that death of Chhotey Lal did not take place in the manner, at the place or the time stated by the prosecution. A suggestion was also made that on account of quarrel which took place between deceased Chhotey Lal and Bade Lal on account of the illicit relationship developed by Bade Lal who is unmarried, with the wife of Chhotey Lal either he committed suicide or had been killed by Bade Lal himself and his dead body had been placed on the mend of the chari field of Deen Dayal in order to falsely implicate the accused persons which include four real brothers. 8. The prosecution in this case examined PW 1 informant Bade Lal, PW 3 Jhabba and PW 4, Brahm Swamp as eye-witnesses of the alleged inci dent. The PW 1 Bade Lal also proved the F. I. R. (Exhibit Ka-1 ). The PW 2 Dr. M. M. Lal proved the factum of post-mortem examination, the injuries found on the dead body of Chhotey Lal and the post-mortem examination report (Exhibit Ka-3), the PW 5 S. 1. The PW 1 Bade Lal also proved the F. I. R. (Exhibit Ka-1 ). The PW 2 Dr. M. M. Lal proved the factum of post-mortem examination, the injuries found on the dead body of Chhotey Lal and the post-mortem examination report (Exhibit Ka-3), the PW 5 S. 1. Indrapal Singh is the Investigating Officer who stated about the various steps in investigation and proved the various documents including chik F. I. R. Exhibit Ka-6, the relevant G. D. Entry Exhibit Ka-7, the memo regarding the purse money and the shoes alleged to have been found on the persons of the deceased, the inquest report (Exhibit Ka-9) and the charge-sheet (Exhibit Ka-17 ). 9. On behalf of the defence there were examined DW 1 Lamual Mittal, L. D. C. Governors Secretariat, DW 2 Kushal Pal Sharma, A. S. T. In the office of D. I. G, Bareilly Range Barielly DW 3 Chandradhar Awasthi, Clerk and DW 4 Suresh Chandra Srivastava Postman in the Governments Camp Post Office, Lucknow, DW 5 K. C. Misra, Private Secretary and DW 6 Ram Krishna Bihari and DW 7 Luxmi Shanker Nigam both under Secretaries in the Gov ernors Secretariat. These witnesses were examined by the defence with reference to some applications moved by Natthu Lal and his son accused Bhagwan Sahai to the police authorities and Governor Uttar Pradesh alleging false impli cation of the accused persons which includes all the four sons of Natthu Lal on false charge of committing murder of Chhotey Lal at the instance of the local police, informant Bade Lal and others of his group. 10. The learned Sessions Judge on a consideration of the evidence led before him came to the conclusion that the murder of deceased Chhotey Lal was committed at the time and place stated by the prosecution, by accused Pahalwan by causing fire-arm injury by a country-made pistol. He, however, disbelieved the prosecution theory of the remaining accused persons having formed an unlawful assembly along with the accused Pahalwan with common object of committing murder of Chhotey Lal, or having participated in the said crime by accosting, or catching-hold deceased Chhotey Lal. He accord ingly convicted appellant Pahalwan and sentenced him to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the I. P. C. and acquitted the rest of the accused persons. 11. He accord ingly convicted appellant Pahalwan and sentenced him to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the I. P. C. and acquitted the rest of the accused persons. 11. In this appeal we have heard Shri P. N. Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused- appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1990 and accused-respondents in Government Appeal No. 682 of 1980 and Shri Jagdish Tewari, learned A. G. A. appearing on behalf of the State and have been taken through the evidence on record. 12. On behalf of the appellant Pahalwan, the findings recorded and the verdict of conviction handed down by the learned trial court has been assailed on a number of grounds. The principal almost these being that the accused persons had no motive to commit the murder of deceased Chhotey Lal, the time and place of the alleged murder stated by the prosecution, is not establish ed, the entire prosecution theory regarding the manner of commission of this murder by the accused persons by forming an unlawful assembly and the alleg ed role played by them in it, is highly improbable, it was not possible for the witnesses to have seen the occurrence and the person or persons, responsible for committing the crime. The incident in question, it is contended, was a hit and run affair and the murder in all probability had been committed much earlier than the time stated by the prosecution and the assailant could not be seen. The accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case with the support of witnesses who are partisan and inimical to them. 13. On behalf of the State in the two appeals the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court has been tried to be supported as being based on proper appraisal of them. 14. On behalf of the State in the two appeals the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court has been tried to be supported as being based on proper appraisal of evidence and an attempt has also been made to contend that the learned trial Court was not justified in acquitting the accused other than appellant Pahalwan, in view of the evidence on record. 15. As far as the factum of murder of Chhotey Lal is concerned, the said question need not detain us in this appeal, in view of consistent evidence supported by circumstances. 15. As far as the factum of murder of Chhotey Lal is concerned, the said question need not detain us in this appeal, in view of consistent evidence supported by circumstances. The prosecution case that Chhotey Lal was done to death by firing shot with a pistol which hit him in the abdomen is duly supported by medical evidence consisting of the testimony of the PW 2 Dr. M. M. Lal and the post- mortem examination report (Exhibit Ka-3) prepared by him on 12-9-1979. The Doctor found besides a contusion on the left side back, a lacerated (penetrating) fire-arm wound on the left side abdomen on the level of umblicus. Death was found to have occurred due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the said gun-shot wound in the abdomen. There is nothing in the nature and the seat of this injury which could go to even faintly suggest that it was a sucicidal injury caused by deceased himself-and not a homicidal one caused by an assailant. Not a single question was put to the Doctor which could go to indicate that the fatal injury to the deceased could be self-inflicted. Under these circumstances, there is no room for doubt that deceased Chhotey Lal died a homicidal death on 11 9-1978, on account of a gun- shot injury. 16. Now this brings us to the question of time and place of occurrence. It would be found that the case of the prosecution is that deceased Chhotey Lal was done to death at about 8 a. m. on 11-9-1978 on the Pagdandi adjoining the Chari field of Deen Dayal situated, on the outskirts of the abadi of village Raghunathpur at a distance of about 150 yard from his house, while on way to Jalalabad market. To this effect is also the statement of PW Bade Lal, PW 8 Jhabba and PW 4 Brahm Swarup vvho stated to have seen deceased Chhotey Lal having been surrounded and caught held by his assailants, while passing from the Pagdandi towards North of the chari field of Deen Dayal, and on the exhortation of accused Mohney being shot at by Pahalwan. The Investigating Officer PW 5 Indrapal Singh also stated to have found the dead body of Chhotey Lal lying on the said Pagdandi and to have made inquest at the said place. The Investigating Officer PW 5 Indrapal Singh also stated to have found the dead body of Chhotey Lal lying on the said Pagdandi and to have made inquest at the said place. It would however be found that there was not found any blood on the spot where the dead body is alleged to have been found by the Investigating Officer on the Pagdandi or near about it. This is so despite the fact that the deceased is stated to have fallen at the very same place after receiving the injury, blood oozing from the same having smeared his clothes, and the dead body lying at the same place for about seven hours when after inquest it was removed from the said place. It appears highly improbable in these circumstances that no blood would have fallen on the ground from the abdomen injury of the deceased. It is all the more so when we find in the evidence of the PW 2 Dr. M. M. Lal who conducted the post-mortem examina tion that the deceased would not have died instantaneously after receiving the injury although he might have died shortly thereafter. He specifically stated that since he did not find any blood in the heart, it was indicative of the fact that the heart did function for sometime after the causing of injury and as result thereof the blood had been pumped out of the heart. No question was put by the prosecution to the DW 2 Dr. M. M. Lal to corroborate its contention that the deceased did not bleed externally after receiving the injury so as to eliminate the chances of blood having fallen on the ground, and being recovered by Investigating Officer from the spot. 17. This fact of absence of blood on the spot of occurrence, when considered in the background of other numerous factors, indicating the pro secution story regarding this incident to be highly improbable, goes to throw serious doubt about the incident of murder having occurred so close to the abadi of the village, on the Pagdandi towards north of the chari field of Deen Dayal. Even if it be fact that the deceased bled internally and for this reason no blood would have fallen after he fell on the ground, in view of the various infirmities in the prosecution story and the testimony of its witnesses, which we shall shortly discuss, the chances of the place of occurrence having been shifted to suit the prosecution, cannot be ruled out. 18. It also appears highly improbable that the assailants would have chosen a place close to the abadi to commit the murder of the deceased when they could have done so at any lonely place away from the abadi, on the way leading to Jalalabad avoiding the chances of being noticed by any one. It is all the more so because the deceased was employed as Kamdar at the seed store situated in village Khandahar and as per evidence of the prosecution itself the duty hours at the seed store started from 7 a. m. and the deceased ordinarily would be leaving home quite early in the morning. 19. The incident in question having occurred in the month of September, to be precise on 11th of September, the sun-rise would have been quite early and in any case before 6 a. m. and day break would have been still earlier, near about 5. 30 a. m. The deceased Chhotey Lal is alleged to have left home at about 8 a. m. to go to Jalalabad. Obviously, therefore, in the normal cause he would be expected to have eaten his breakfast before leaving home about 2/2i hours after day break. The post- mortem examination report however shows that the stomach of the deceased was empty. There was also not found any semi-digested food material in his small intestine nor any faecal matter in the large intestine. All these go to indicate that the deceased in all probability was done to death quite early, in the morning, immediately or shortly after he had eased himself and not at 8 a. m. as contended by the prosecution. 20. All these go to indicate that the deceased in all probability was done to death quite early, in the morning, immediately or shortly after he had eased himself and not at 8 a. m. as contended by the prosecution. 20. All the above facts also thus go to highly probablise the theory of the defence that deceased Chhotey Lal was murdered not in the immediate vicinity of the abadi of village Raghunathpur rather was done to death some where in the fields at quite some distance from the abadi of the said village and with a view to suit the prosecution, the time of occurrence has been shifted to 8 a. m, and the place thereof to one in the vicinity of the houses of the informant and other witnesses. 21. Apart from the above stated facts creating serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution story, the accused persons in this case also do not appear to have sufficient cause or motive to commit the murder of deceased Chhotey Lal. According to the prosecution, about fortnight before the present incident there was an exchange of fire between members of the two sides. Chhotey Lal, Ram Gopal on one side and accused Pahalwan and his fellowmen on the other. It is the own case of the prosecution, however, that in this incident no one from any side was injured. A goat is alleged to have been killed in the said incident but there is no medical or other evidence to prove the same, nor has there been filed any document to disclose the result of police investigation in the said matter. Under these circumstances, of the facts which could provide an inclining (sic) into the background of the alleged enmity of the accused persons with the deceased, not being established, it cannot justifiably be held that any of these accused persons, or for that matter accused Pahalwan, had motive to commit murder of deceased Chhotey Lal. 22. Even if we accept the allegations of the prosecution in this regard, on face value, the incident stated was not of such nature, as to prompt the accused persons to take it to their head to commit the murder of the deceased. 22. Even if we accept the allegations of the prosecution in this regard, on face value, the incident stated was not of such nature, as to prompt the accused persons to take it to their head to commit the murder of the deceased. On the other hand, the happening of such an incident would itself indicate that the deceased himself was not a peace loving person, rather was a bully, and as such would have had other enemies too and chances of his being eliminated by any such persons in a hit and run manner cannot be ruled out. 23. Now coming to the incident itself, the manner of its commission, and the persons involved, we may look into the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses. The PW 1 informant Bade Lal who is the elder brother of the deceased stated that 4-5 minutes before the incident Chhotey Lal had left home on way to Jalalabad. He himself was tethering cattle near his house when he heard the cries of Chhotey Lal to save him and ran towards south, from which direction the noise was coming. Simultaneously, Jhabba (PW 3) Brahm Swarup (PW 4) Nabbu Lal and Brij Bai also rushed towards the same direc tion. He saw the 8 accused persons having surrounded Chhotey Lal on the Pagdandi towards north of the chari field of Deen Dayal. Chandrabhan and Mohney had caught hold of him and Mohney exhorted Pahalwan to kill, whereupon he fired with his pistol at Chhotey Lal who fell injured and all the 8 assailants ran towards east. He and other witnesses also raised alarm. Going near Chhotey Lal they found him dead. He further stated that he was in a position to see the accused persons while running towards the scene of occurrence. He had covered a distance of about 100 yards, when from a distance of about 25-30 steps he saw the shot being fired by the deceased. He did not shout immediately on seeing the armed accused persons having surrounded and caught hold of Chhotey Lal although the latter kept on raising alarm to save him. 24. He had covered a distance of about 100 yards, when from a distance of about 25-30 steps he saw the shot being fired by the deceased. He did not shout immediately on seeing the armed accused persons having surrounded and caught hold of Chhotey Lal although the latter kept on raising alarm to save him. 24. The PW 3 Jhabba who is a resident of village Khandahar, stated that he had purchased a goat from Nabbu Lal and in that connection was talk ing to him beneath a Pakad tree at a distance of about 30-36 yards from Nabbu Lals house and 60-70 yards from the place of the occurrence when he heard the cries of the deceased to save him. On this, he Nabbu Lal and Brahm Swarup ran in that direction and saw Chandrabhan and Mohney having caught hold of one arm each of the deceased and the rest of the 5 accused persons, all armed with fire-arms standing nearby. On the exhortation of Mohney to kill, accused-appellant Pahalwan fired the fatal shot, Chhotey Lal fell injured and died. All the accused persons thereafter ran towards east. Further he stated that at the time of the incident he was talking to Nabbu Lal about purchasing the goat. The place of occurrence was about 2 furlongs from his house. From the place where he was talking under the Pakad tree the place where Chhotey Lal was murdered is visible. While rushing towards the scene of occurrence all the persons including Bade Lal were shouting, Mohney and Chandrabhan after catching hold of one arm each of Chhotey Lal had stretched it. After he ran upto a distance of about 20-25 yards when the shot was fired. 25. The next witness of the prosecution Brahm Swarup PW 4 stated that he was inside his baithak, situated at a distance of about 60-65 steps from the place of occurrence giving fodder to his cattle, when he heard the alarm raised by Chhotey Lal and rushed towards the said place raising noise and saw Mohney and Chandrabhan Singh catching hold of one arm each of Chhotey Lal and the remaining accused persons also present at the same place with their fire-arms, Chhotey Lal was trying to twist his body in an attempt to fire himself from the clutches of his captors. Meanwhile on the exhortation of Mohney, accused Pahalwan fired shot which hit Chhotey Lal who fell and died. In the field of Deen Dayal abetting place of occurrence there was chari crop of sufficient height. 26. It has been vehemently argued, by the learned counsel for the appellant Pahalwan and his co- accused persons, that the entire story set up by the prosecution is highly improbable. The incident in the manner alleged could not have taken place. There was hardly any reason or occasion for the eight accused persons, four of them real brothers with fire arms to participate in this crime, where the intention was to kill the person with a single shot and run away to safety. It is highly unlikely that the assailants even if eight in number, would have executed the crime in such a leisurely manner as contend ed by the prosecution, by first accosting and surrounding the deceased, giving him a chance of raising alarm attracting his family members and the residents nearby, and thereafter two of them would catch hold of his two arms and stretch it, allowing him opportunity to attempt to free himself, and only when the informant and the other alleged eye-witnesses rushed towards the scene of occurrence, and covered a distance of about 50 to 75 yards, to fire one single shot on him and then make a bid to escape. 27. Having given careful consideration to all these aspects of the matter and the evidence, we find inclined to accept these contentions. As per the prosecution version itself no one except accused Pahalwan fired any shot at the deceased, nor any one of them tried to assault or labour him. None of them is alleged to have fired any shot to scare away the witnesses, while commit ting the crime, or making good their escape. Under these circumstances, it appears highly unlikely that these eight accused persons would have participat ed in this crime or it would have been committed in the manner stated by the prosecution. None of them is alleged to have fired any shot to scare away the witnesses, while commit ting the crime, or making good their escape. Under these circumstances, it appears highly unlikely that these eight accused persons would have participat ed in this crime or it would have been committed in the manner stated by the prosecution. The assailants would not have been foolish enough to provide such a long rope to the deceased as to raise alarm, try to free himself, and shoot him only after he had successfully attracted the attention of the witnesses by raising alarm, and the latter had virtually approached the place of occur rence after covering a distanse of about 50 to 75 yards. It is hardly believable that the intention of the accused persons would have been to commit this crime in such a manner as to give fullest opportunity to the witnesses to see them committing the crime, while the entire task could have been accomplished by even one or two of them, and within a twinking of eyes, unnoticed by any one, In fact, the whole gamut of evidence when considered in the light of the surrounding circumstances, would go to show that the incident was simply a hit and run affair in which alone assailant took upon the deceased unawares, fired a single fatal shot and escaped. The story put in the FIR and further elaborated and embelished in the witness box, has been invented simply to rope in the eight accused persons named in the F. I. R. on account of vendetta and enmity. 28. A very important factor in this regard in that none of the eye witnesses examined are independent persons rather, they all have a common cause to even falsely implicated these accused persons. It has come in the evidence of the prosecution has been murdered about 4-5 months before this incident. Although PW 1 Bade Lal initially denied that his cousins Ram Sewak and Ram Gopal were also accused in the case relating to the said murder, subsequently he admitted that those two persons were also accused in the said case, Hari Ram one of the accused in the said case is the son, and another accused Beeru is the nephew, of Nabbu Lal named a eye-witness in the present case, yet other accused Sujan is the real nephew of PW 4 Brahm Swarup. He further admitted during his deposition that one Ashiq All as well as father of Ram Pratap were also accused in the said murder case and both Ashiq Ali and Ram, Pratap were present on the dates of evidence of the eye witnesses of this case in the court. He further admitted that accused Bhagwan Sahai of the present case who is a school teacher, had a few months before this incident lodged an F. I. R. under Section 302, I. P. C. against his cousins Ram Sewak, Ram Gopal and Madan Gopal in connection with an incident relating to copying in examination. It may be worthwhile to mention here that besides Bhagwan Sahai three of his real brothers are also accused in the present case. The PW 4 Brahm Swarup admitted that besides his nephews, his son was also an accused in the case relating to murder of Ram Sudhar, and Ram Bahadur also a brother accused Bhagwan Sahai was named as a witness of the prosecution in the said murder case. 29. The fact that out of five eye-witnesses named in the F. I. R. four Bade Lal, Nabbu Lal his son Drigraj and Brahm Swarup had direct and recent enmity with most of the accused persons and Jhabba PW 3 is resident of another village and consequently a chance witness for whose present there was hardly any occasion, goes to quite eloquently confirm the conclusion that the incident in which deceased Chhotey Lal was murdered, was simply a hit and run affairs. The murder having been committed quite early in the morning away from the habitant of village Raghunathpur, was not seen by anyone, and on account of enmity and personal vendetta, these accused persons have been roped in, by coining an imaginary story, hardly standing to reason. 30. The murder having been committed quite early in the morning away from the habitant of village Raghunathpur, was not seen by anyone, and on account of enmity and personal vendetta, these accused persons have been roped in, by coining an imaginary story, hardly standing to reason. 30. It has been contended by the learned A. G. A. that the mere fact of the allegations and charges having not been established against the rest of the accused-persons, does not necessarily go to lead to similar conclusion about accused appellant Pahalwan, while there can be no dispute about the proposi tion that the rejection of one part of the prosecution story and evidence does not necessarily entail the rejection of the entire evidence, or failure of the pro secution version as a whole, but any conclusion in this regard will depend upon the totality of facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case the facts relating to the role of all the eight accused persons, alleged to be responsible for this incident, are so intertwined that once the part assigned to seven of them is disbelieved, the very happening of the incident in the manner stated, and the possibility of the prosecution witnesses having seen the same, will become highly doubtful. This, in our opinion, will also render their testimony wholly unreliable and conviction even of appellant Pahalwan for committing the murder of deceased Chhotey Lal would not be sustainable. 31. For all the above reasons therefore, we uphold the acquittal of Moti Lal, Bhagwan Sahai, Sunder Lal, Ram Asrey, Shiv Kumar and Chandrabhan. We also hold that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubts the charge of murder against appellant Pahalwan, and he too is entitled to acquittal. 32. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1980 is allowed. The con viction of the appellant Pahalwan for the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded there under is set aside. He is on bail and need not surrender. His sureties are discharged. 33. The Government Appeal No. 682 of 1980 is hereby dismissed. Decided accordingly. .