SURYA PRASAD, J. This is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 17-12-1979 passed by the then learned Sessions Judge, Banda in Session Trial No. 207 of 1979 convicting the appellants Vinod and Kishori Lal under Section 302, I. P. C. simpliciter and Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and sentencing them to imprisonment for life respectively thereunder. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that the informant Chandra Bhan Singh PW 2 is a resident of village Khandeha within the circle of Police Station Mau, District Banda. His real cousin Ramesh Chandra Singh deceased was a lawyer in Karwi. He along with other members of his family was living in Mohaila Nai Bazar, Karwi. There was a long standing enmity bet ween Chandra Bhan Singh PW 2 and the other members of his family on the one side and the accused Kishori Lal of his village on the other. The regional youth rally was going on at Chitrakoot Inter College, Karwi. The deceased Ramesh Chandra Singh had gone to witness that rally. Chindra Bhan Singh PW 2 along with Ram Singh, PW 5 and Natthu ha d also come from Khandeha to see that rally. They met Ramesh Chandra Singh deceased at the rally. The sports were over at about 5. 45 or 6. 00 p. m. on the sugges tion of the deceased Ramesh Chandra Singh, Chandra Bhan Singh and his two companions agreed to stay at the house of Ramesh Chandra Singh in the night. All of them therefore, started for the house of Ramesh Chandra Singh located in Mohaila Nai Bazar, Karwi, when they reached near the level crossing, the saw four accused standing near the railway gate. The accused Kishori Lal was armed with a rifle as soon as Ramesh Chandra Singh deceased and his three companions reached the other side of the gate. The accused Vinod at the instigation of Kishori Lal threw a bomb on the back of the deceased. Consequently Ramesh Chandra Singh fell down. When his three companions challenged, Raj Bahadur and Vindeshwari fired from their country-made pistols held by them, but none was injured. All the accused then fled away towards the western side. Ramesh Chandra Singh had become unconscious. He had received injuries on his back. He was bleeding from his nose. Consequently Ramesh Chandra Singh fell down. When his three companions challenged, Raj Bahadur and Vindeshwari fired from their country-made pistols held by them, but none was injured. All the accused then fled away towards the western side. Ramesh Chandra Singh had become unconscious. He had received injuries on his back. He was bleeding from his nose. He was taken in a Rickshaw to the Police Station Karwi, Chandra Bhan Singh wrote a report and submitted it there, Ramesh Chandra Singh was then sent to Karwi hospital, where his injuries were medically examined. Hid condition was precarious and therefore, the Medical Officer advised that he should be shifted to Allahabad for better treatment. An Ambulance Car was arranged. While being taken in the Ambulance Car was Chandra Singh died after covering a distance of 3-4 furlongs. The dead body of Ramesh Chandra Singh was taken back to the police station in the same Ambulance Car. Girish Chandra Dubey, the then Head Clerk of P. S. Karwi recieved the First Information Report (Ex. Ka-1) on 10-12-1978 at 7. 05 p. m. The occurrence had taken place on the level crossing. That place law within me jurisdiction of G. R. P. Manikpur. A wireless message was sent to P. S. Manikpur for conveying the information to the Station Officer, G. R. P. Manik pur about the incident. Consequently, the First Information Report and the other relevant papers were sent to the G. R. P. , Manikpur, Sri Asha Ram Tripathi. PW 10 was the then Station Officer of P. S. Karwi. He held an inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest report (Ex. Ka-33 ). He wrapped and sealed the dead body of the deceased in a sheet of cloth and sent it to the Karwi mortuary for post-mortem examination, Sri Chandra Bhan Singh Chauhan, the then Station Officer of G. R. P. , Manik pur investigated into the case. He went to the Karwi mortuary, where he met the informant Cahandra Bhan Singh. He took down the statements of Chandra Bhan Singh and certain others. He then visited the place of occur rence along with Chandra Bhan Singh. Having reached there, he inspected it and prepared its site-plan (Ex. Ka-5 ). 3. Dr. He went to the Karwi mortuary, where he met the informant Cahandra Bhan Singh. He took down the statements of Chandra Bhan Singh and certain others. He then visited the place of occur rence along with Chandra Bhan Singh. Having reached there, he inspected it and prepared its site-plan (Ex. Ka-5 ). 3. Dr. R. N. Gupta PW 7, who had examined the injuries of Ramesh Chandra Singh, subsequently conducted the post mortem examination on his dead body and found the same injuries as were found by him at the time of examination of his injuries. These are as follows:- (1) Contusion in an area of 20 cm. X 18 cm. on the left side back of chest and in the middle region of the shoulder. It had deep abrasion in an area of 13 cm. X 9. 5 cm. the contusion had a swelling and surgical emphysema blood was coming from several place, cloth over the wound was torn into a pieces and the smell of explosive powder was coming out of it. (2) Contusion 6 cm. X 3. 5 cm. on the forehead over the left brow, contusion was present and there were abrasions at several places. (3) Abrasion 2 cm. X 1. 5 cm. on the face near the outer aspect of left eye; blood was oozing. 4. After completion of the investigation into the case and on the receipt of the post-mortem report, he submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. 5. The prosecution examined Ayodhya Prasad PW 1, Chandra Bhan Singh PW 2, Babu Ram Mishra PW 3, Sheo Muni Singh PW 4, Ram Singh PW 5, Chandra Bhan Singh Chauhan PW 6, Dr. R. N. Gupta PW 7, Girish Chandra PW 8 Satya Prakash Purwar PW 9 and Asha Ram Tripathi PW 10 and relied upon certain documents in support of its case. 6. The accused pleaded not guilty. They have stated that all the allegations levelled against them are wholly wrong and incorrect. They have pleaded ignorance about many of the fact relating to the case. They have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. They have also stated that the witnesses have deposited against them due to enmity. 7. They have stated that all the allegations levelled against them are wholly wrong and incorrect. They have pleaded ignorance about many of the fact relating to the case. They have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. They have also stated that the witnesses have deposited against them due to enmity. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having con sidered the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Vindeshwari and Raj Bahadur while giving them benefit of doubt but convicted the appellants accused through his impugned judgment and orders as mentioned earlier. Aggrieved, the appellants, accused have preferred this appeal against the same. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. 9. The deceased Ram Chandra Singh was a lawyer at Karwi, District Banda. He had rendered practice as a lawyer for about 14-15 years. Not only this but he had a good practice as a lawyer there. According to Chandra Bhan Singh PW 2, Ramesh Chandra Singh deceased had put on the sweater material Ex. 5, Under-wear material Ex. 6, Shirt material Ex. 7 and Baniyan material Ex. 8, at the time of the incident. Dr. R. N. Gupta had taken all these clothes from the dead body of Ramesh Chandra Singh before performing the post-mortem examination thereon. He had put these clothes in a sealed bundle. There is nothing on record to show that Ramesh Chandra Singh had put on a Dhoti, Pant or Trouser at the time of the incident. Nor is there any evidence on record to show that he had put on a pair of Chappals, Sandals or Shoes at that time, Ramesh Chandra Singh deceased being a lawyer of the standing of 14-15 years with a good practice, could not be expected to have gone bare-footed to see the youth rally without putting on a trouser, pant or Dohti. Therefore, the story set up by the prosecution appears to be wrong and incorrect. The incident is said to have taken place on 10-12-1978 at 6. 15, p. m. The Investigating Officer Chandra Bhan Singh P. W. 6 was posted as Station Officer at the G. R. P. , Manikpur. Therefore, the story set up by the prosecution appears to be wrong and incorrect. The incident is said to have taken place on 10-12-1978 at 6. 15, p. m. The Investigating Officer Chandra Bhan Singh P. W. 6 was posted as Station Officer at the G. R. P. , Manikpur. He has stated that the First Infor mation Report was made at the Police Station Karwi, from where a constable had conveyed him the information about the incident. He has also stated that a wireless message was sent from the Police Station, Karwi to Police Station, Manikpur. A memo regarding the wireless message was also received. He has categorically stated that the time of the incident was mentioned in that memo as 6. 00 p. m. (Ex. Ka-4) corroborates the same. Therefore, the time of the incident as alleged by the prosecution becomes doubtful. 10. The informant Chandra Bhan Singh PW 2 was arch enemy of the accused Kishori Lal, Chandra Bhan Singh PW 2 along with others was also accompanying the deceased. If Chandra Bhan Singh PW 2 had actually bean present at the time and place of occurrence, the accused Kishori Lal could not have allowed to go unhurt/uninjured. The prosecution case to the contrary does not appear to be correct. 11. The first information Report (Ex. Ka-1) was indisputably written by Chandra Bhan Singh PW 2 at the Police Station, Karwi itself. The Chitthi Majroobi (Ex. Ka-11) does not contain the case crime number. This means that the case was not registered till the preparation of Chitthi Majroobi. There is no explanation for the same. Therefore, the first information Report can be said to have been written after due deliberations and consultations. 12. The accused Kishori Lal exhorted others to kill Ramesh Chandra Singh with the result that the accused Vinod threw a bomb on his back. If there had been any tinge of truth in the prosecution case to this effect, the accused Kishori Lal could have fired at Chandra Bhan Singh or Ramesh Chandra Singh or both of them and/or Vindo could have thrown bomb on the back of Ramesh Chandra Singh immediately on their advert near them. Accused Krishori Lal and Vinod would not have allowed them to pass upto 3- 4 paces ahead of them. Accused Krishori Lal and Vinod would not have allowed them to pass upto 3- 4 paces ahead of them. Besides, there was no necessity for the accused Kishori Lal to have exhorted instigated others to kill Ramesh Chandra Singh. The insti gation as alleged by the prosecution appears to be unnatural and uncalled for particularly in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. The incident is said to have taken place in the month of December at 6. 15 p. m. But there is no source of light mentioned in the first Informa tion Report or anywhere else. Therefore, the possibility of the assailants not having been identified by the witnesses at the time of the incident, cannot altogether be ruled out. 14. Chandra Bhand Singh PW 8, Ram Singh PW 5 and Natthu had got scattered on the accused Vinod throwing the bomb on the back of Ramesh Chandra Singh deceased. Had this been the correct position, Chandra Bhan Singh, Ram Singh or Nathu must have also received the injuries from the splinters of the bomb, but there is nothing as such. Therefore, the prosecution case becomes doubtful for this reason as well. 15. There is a long standing enmity between Chandra Bhan Singh PW 2 and other members, of his family on the one side and the accused Kishori Lal of his village on the other. Accused Kishori Lal and Vinod are uncle and nephew. Therefore, the possibility of the appellants-accused having been falsely implicated cannot be ruled out. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside. The appellants accused are acquitted of the offences with which they have been charged. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. They need not surrender. Appeal allowed. .