JUDGMENT K. C. Bhargave, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.12.1979 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Unr.ao convicting both the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them imprisonment for life and; to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, further convicting appellant Chunnoo alias Om Prakash under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and :sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. This unfortunate incident happened on 158.1978 at 5.00 p.m. in which one Ram Kumar is alleged to have been done to death by the appellants. The prosecution order as disclosed in the first information report is that about three years before one Mohan son of Devi been had been (murdered by one Om Prakash alias Chunnoo and Trijugi, the accused persons of the present case, and others. The father of the complainant did pairavi. On account of this enmity Chunnoo alias Om Prakash and Trijugi appellants and others fired shots at his father, the case of which is pending before the court. Since: then Trijugi and others are having enmity with his father. A case under Sections 107-166, Cr. P.C. was also fought between the father of the complainant and Trijugi. On the date of incident viz. 15.8.1978 the father of the complainant. Ram Kumar, was going from his flour mill to his house. His servant Mohan Cudia (P. W. 3) was ploughing the field. His deceased father sat on the mend of the field and started talking to Mohan. In the meantime Trijugi armed with a gun and Chunnoo alias Om Prakash, appellant No. 2, armed with a D. B. B. L. gun came along with one unknown person who was armed with a Katta. Chunnoo alias Om Prakash fired a shot from behind which hit the father of the complainant on account of which he fell down in the field. On raising alarm Raj Rani wife of Mohan (P.W. 3) and his daughter Km. Ram Piyara came towards the place of the occurrence. Chunnoo alias Om Prakash fired a shot from behind which hit the father of the complainant on account of which he fell down in the field. On raising alarm Raj Rani wife of Mohan (P.W. 3) and his daughter Km. Ram Piyara came towards the place of the occurrence. On this Trijugi, appellant No. 1, came out of the field and started saying that Ram Kumar deceased was still alive and he should be killed. Thereupon he fired a shot towards his father which hit him on his mouth. Trijugi also assaulted his deceased father by means of the Butt of the gun. He also cried that if any body comes near him he would be shot dead. Since the wife of Mohan, Smt.Ram Rani (P. W. 1) started going towards the deceased, the accused- appellant No. 2 Om Prakash alias Chunnoo also fired a shot towards her which hit her and she fell down. After the incident the accused persons along with the unknown person ran away from the place of the occurrence. This report was lodged by Dinesh Kumar, son of the deceased Ram Kumar at 5.45 p.m. On 15.8.1978. The police station was only 8 miles from the place of the occurrence. After this report was lodged the investigation was taken over by I. B. Singh (P.W. 5). He recorded the statement of Dinesh Kumar at the police station and thereafter went to the place of the occurrence and prepared the inquest report, photo of the dead body and the challan of the dead body etc. He also took blood stained earth from the place of the occurrence and the shirt of the deceased in his possession. The dead body of Ram Kumar was sealed and was sent for postmortem examination. He also found Smt.Ram Rani (P.W. 1) in injured condition and she was also sent for medical examination. After completing the investigation he submitted charge-sheet against both the appellants. The post mortem examination of the body of deceased Ram Kumar was conducted by Dr. M. T. A. Khan on 16.8.1978 at about 4.00 p.m. He found the following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased. 1. Gunshot wound of entrance 3 cm. x 2 cm. on left side cheek between eye and ear, communicating with wound of exit on right side of cheek. Skin around wound is charred. Tatooing present. M. T. A. Khan on 16.8.1978 at about 4.00 p.m. He found the following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased. 1. Gunshot wound of entrance 3 cm. x 2 cm. on left side cheek between eye and ear, communicating with wound of exit on right side of cheek. Skin around wound is charred. Tatooing present. 2 Gunshot wound 1/2 cm. in circular on left lobula of ear and wound of entry on left mastoid bone on back of left ear lobule. 3. Lacerated wound on right cheek with margins averted. 3. Gunshot wound of entrance 1/2 cm. circular margins inverted on left side of chest upper part below shoulder. 5 Abrasion 2 cm. x 1 cm. with charring on front of left shoulder. 6 Gunshot wound of exit on upper end of back between both shoulder blades over the vertebral column. 7. Gunshot wound of entrance on left arm 1-1/2 circular back side upper part. 8. Gunshot wound of entry 2 cm. circular on right buttock at ischial tuberosity. 9. Gunshot wound of exit on right side of chest at level of nipple at mid axillary and posterior exillary line. 10. Gunshot wound right arm medial side. Right humerus bone broken. 4. On the internal examination of the dead body he found that nosal Zygomatic and mustoid bones were broken and vertebral column was also broken. He also found two pieces of cork and seven pieces of pellets from the dead body. In the opinion of the doctor the death was caused on account of the shock and haemorrhage which was the result of the ante mortem injuries. 4. Dr. S. N. Misra (P. W. 7) examined the injuries of Smt.Ram Rani wife of Mohan (P.W. 1) on 16.8.1978 at 2.00 a.m. and found the following four injuries on her person:- 1. Fire-arm wound present on the anterior aspect of the right thigh measuring 1.4 cm. x 1.2 cm. x muscle deep, 6 cms. below the right anterior superior iliac spine. Margins are irregular edges lacerated, nearly circular in shape. Margins have been blackened, blackish colour blood was coming out of the wound. No F. B. could be found inside this wound. 2 A fire-arm wound present on the anterior surface of the knee joint (right), measuring 4 cm. x 6 cm. x muscle deep, irregular edges lacerated. Margins had been blackened out with the surrounding skin. Margins have been blackened, blackish colour blood was coming out of the wound. No F. B. could be found inside this wound. 2 A fire-arm wound present on the anterior surface of the knee joint (right), measuring 4 cm. x 6 cm. x muscle deep, irregular edges lacerated. Margins had been blackened out with the surrounding skin. No F. B. present inside the wound. 3. A fire-arm wound 8 cm. x 6 cm. present on the lateral aspect of the right knee joint 25 cm. above of the right ankle joint. Margins irregular, edges lacerated. No blood is coming out. No F. B. was present in the wound. Muscle deep, surrounding skin blackening. 4 A fire-arm wound of 8 cm. x 1 cm. present on the medial aspect of the left knee joint 38.5 cm. below and medial of the left interior, superior iliac spine, shape, oval, no blood was coming out of the wound. No F. B. was present inside the wound. Muscle deep, margins irregular, edges lacerated. All the injuries had been kept under observation and advised X-ray for confirmation of the presence of any F. B. inside the wound. All the injuries were caused by fire arm. Duration about 1/2 day only. After committal of the case to the court of sessions the prosecution examined seven witnesses in all out of which the witnesses of fact are Smt.Ram Rani (P. W. 1) who is also an injured witness, Dinesh Kumar (P. W. 2) and Mohan (P. W. 3). 5. After perusing the evidence on record the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao convicted and sentenced both the appellants as aforesaid. They have now come in appeal and have challenged the correctness of the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge. 6. We have heard Sri Vishnu Sahai. learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the appellants has attacked the judgment of the learned trial court on various counts. According to the learned counsel in the present case the place of incident has not been proved by the prosecution. 6. We have heard Sri Vishnu Sahai. learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the appellants has attacked the judgment of the learned trial court on various counts. According to the learned counsel in the present case the place of incident has not been proved by the prosecution. According to the learned counsel the facts which support the argument are ft) that the dead body was not found at the place of the occurrence, (ii) it has not been proved that the blood found at the spot was human blood, and (iii) that the tikli and the pellets were not found at the spot. It is an admitted fact that the dead body of the deceased was not found by the Investigating Officer at the place of the occurrence. Dinesh Kumar (P. W. 2) who is complainant, has stated in para 7 at page 28 of the paper book that he had to go to the police station to lodge the report and he had a feeling that if the dead body of his father is left at the place of occurrence then it might be removed, hence the dead body was taken to the house. As seen in the earlier part of the judgment the police station was only 8 miles away from the place of the occurrence and the report had been lodged on the same day at 5.45 p.m. i.e. 45 minutes after the commission of the occurrence. The month is of August and in the month of August the sun does not set early. The complainant could have made arrangement of some body for guarding the dead body till the arrival of the police personnel from the police station specially when the police station was very near and the report had been lodged very promptly after the incident. Therefore the reason given by the complainant for removing the dead body from the place of the occurrence does not inspire confidence. The presence of the dead body at the place of the occurrence would have conclusively proved that the incident took place at the place where it is alleged by the prosecution. 7. According to the evidence on record the investigating officer had taken the blood from the place of the occurrence. The blood was sent to the Chemical Examiner whose report has been received. 7. According to the evidence on record the investigating officer had taken the blood from the place of the occurrence. The blood was sent to the Chemical Examiner whose report has been received. The report of the Chemical Examiner shows that the drops found at the place of the occurrence were blood. The report of the Chemical Examiner is Ext. Ka-11. The blood stained earth found at the place of the occurrence has not been sent to the Serologist in order to determination whether the blood was of human origin or not. There is no reason as to why step was not taken by the investigating officer. Had the blood stained earth been sent to Serologist for examination it could have conclusive effect in determining the place of the occurrence, in view of the fact that the dead body was not found at the place of the occurrence. 8. According to the prosecution three shots had been fired at the place of the occurrence. Two shots hit the deceased and one shot hit Smt.Ram Rani (P.W. 1). The shot which was fired at Smt.Ram Rani was also fired from a distance. The Investigating Officer reached the place of the occurrence soon after the lodging of the first information report. According to the statement of Sri I. B. Singh, the Investigating Officer (P.W. 5) the report of this incident was lodged in his presence and after taking the statement of Dinesh Kumar complainant, he proceeded for the place of the occurrence and reached the place of occurrence at 10.45 p.m. and prepared Panchayatnama and other papers. He has nowhere stated that he found tiklis or pellets at the place of the occurrence. If two shots were fired, as stated by the prosecution, from some distance then it is natural that tiklis and pellets must have been found on the ground at the place of the occurrence and they must have been recovered by the investigating officer from the place of the occurrence. Thus we find that all these three grounds which have been taken by the learned counsel for the appellants disputing the place of the occurrence find support from the evidence on record. Thus we find that all these three grounds which have been taken by the learned counsel for the appellants disputing the place of the occurrence find support from the evidence on record. The absence of all these facts mentioned above go to show that the prosecution has failed to prove the place of the occurrence and has not been able to show that the deceased was done to death at the place where he is said to have been shot. 9. The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that according to the prosecution only two shots were fired at the deceased. Ram Kumar, while according to the post mortem examination report and the statement of the doctor M. T. A. Khan (P.W. 6) ten injuries were found on the person of the deceased which could be caused by not less than three shots. In the earlier part of the judgment the ante mortem injuries which were found on the person of the deceased have been reproduced. Dr. M. T. A. Khan who conducted the post mortem examination has stated in his cross-examination that all these injuries could have been caused by at least three fires. In the examination-in- chief he has stated that injury No. 1 is possible by a single shot. Injuries Nos.2, 3 and 4 could have been caused by another shot and injury Nos.7 and 8 could have been caused by third shot. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has argued that all these injuries could have been easily caused by two shots only. According to the learned counsel for the State injury Nos.7, 8 and 10 could have been caused by a single shot as there would be dispersal because the shot was fired from a distance of about 19-20 feet (13 paces) and the dispersal would be about 12 inches at this distance. According to the learned counsel injury No. 2 could have been caused by deflection of pellets of a shot which caused injury No. 1. With respect to injury No. 6 he has further argued that the pellets from the shot causing injury No. 1 would have caused injury Nos.4, 5 and 6. Injury No. 6 is the exit wound and vertebra has also been broken. With respect to injury No. 6 he has further argued that the pellets from the shot causing injury No. 1 would have caused injury Nos.4, 5 and 6. Injury No. 6 is the exit wound and vertebra has also been broken. According to the learned counsel for the State this wound would have been caused by a shot which caused injury No. 1 and the shot would have travelled after being deflected from skull bone through esophagus and traches and after hitting the bone it got again deflected and after breaking the vertebral column got out of injury No. 6. In order to understand this argument it will be necessary to repeat injury Nos.1 and 6 which are as under:- 1. Gunshot wound of entrance 3 cm. x 2 cm. on left side of cheek between eye and ear, communicating with wound of exit on right side of cheek, skin around wound is charred. Tattoing present. 6. Gunshot wound of exit on upper end of back between both shoulder blades over the vertebral column. From a perusal of both the injuries it would be clear that injury No. 1 is a gun shot wound which has entered from the left side of cheek between eye and ear and it has also caused exit wound on the right side of the cheek. This injury shows that the skin around the wound is charred and tattoed. This shows that this shot was fired from close distance which fact is also supported by the statement of witness Dinesh Kumar (P. W. 2) complainant who has stated in para 8 of his statement at page 34 of the paper book that this shot was fired at his father from a distance of about 9-13 Inches. Thus the record goes to show that the shot which caused injury No. 1 was fired from a very close range which caused charring and tattoing. The exit wound communicates with the entrance wound. Therefore the pellets which hit the deceased causing injury No. 1 got out of the body from the right side of the cheek and they did not get deflected from anywhere. The argument of the learned counsel for the State is that the pellets of the gun shot which caused injury No. 1 formed a geometrical design and came out of the injury No. 6 which is also an exit injury. The argument of the learned counsel for the State is that the pellets of the gun shot which caused injury No. 1 formed a geometrical design and came out of the injury No. 6 which is also an exit injury. This argument does not hold good in view of the placing of the injuries on the person of the deceased and the manner in which injury No. 1 has been caused. injury No. 6 is the exit wound of injury No. 4. Injury No. 4 may be reproduced for this purpose at this place : 4 Gunshot wound of entrance 1 /2 cm. circular margins inverted on left side of chest upper part below shoulder. A perusal of this injury shows that it is a separate shot which hit the deceased on left side of the chest upper part below shoulder. The exit wound which is injury No. 6 is between both the shoulder blades over the vertebral column. If we see both these injuries Le. injury Nos.4 and 6 then it will be clear that the exit wound, injury No. 6, is (he result of the gunshot wound, injury No. 4. It cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that the shot which caused injury No. 1 would have also caused injury No. 4 and the pellets came out from injury No. 6. The pellets cannot have that much force so as to get reflected from various points and then to cause the wound of the nature of injury No. 6. 10. It cannot be said that injuries Nos.7 to 10 could not have been caused by one shot. As argued by the learned counsel for the appellants it appears to be sound that these injuries 7 to 10 are the result of one shot. Injuries Nos.7 to 10 are on the left arm. right buttack, right side of chest and right arm medial side. According to the evidence on record this shot was fired by Om Prakash alias Chunnoo from a distance of about 13 paces i.e. 20 feets. The dispersal from such a distance would be about 12 inches as argued by the learned counsel for the State. right buttack, right side of chest and right arm medial side. According to the evidence on record this shot was fired by Om Prakash alias Chunnoo from a distance of about 13 paces i.e. 20 feets. The dispersal from such a distance would be about 12 inches as argued by the learned counsel for the State. When a person is running and a shot is fired towards him then these injuries could have been the result of one shot because the portions of the body would not be stationary at that time and the parts in which these injuries are located could have been within the range of this shot. Therefore a perusal of the post mortem examination report coupled with the statement of the doctor goes to show that all these injuries are the result of not less than three shots and they could not have been the result of merely two shots. Therefore the argument of the learned defence counsel on this point is to be accepted that these injuries are the result of three shots and not two shots. 11. Now there has to be seen as to whether injuries Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 were caused by one shot or more than one shot. As seen in the earlier part of the judgment injuries Nos.7 to 10 are on left arm, right buttock, right side of chest and right arm medial side. According to the evidence on record this shot was fired by Om Prakash alias Chunnoo from a distance of about 20 feet. The dispersal from this shot would have been about 12 inches. The evidence on record also goes to show that the deceased Ram Kumar was sitting on the mend of his field and was talking to his servant Mohan (P. W. 3) when the shot was fired by Om Prakash alias Chunnoo. According to the State counsel it is just possible" that the deceased might have taken his right hand on the back side and some of the pellets of the shot fired by Om Prakash alias Chunnoo also hit his arm and other parts of the body causing injuries Nos.7 to 10. According to the State counsel it is just possible" that the deceased might have taken his right hand on the back side and some of the pellets of the shot fired by Om Prakash alias Chunnoo also hit his arm and other parts of the body causing injuries Nos.7 to 10. This argument appear that when a person is sitting and a shot is fired at him from a distance of about 20 feet then the dispersal of the shot would be about 12 inches and all these injuries Nos.7 to 10 could have been caused by one shot. Therefore it can safely be said on the basis of the evidence on record that injuries Nos.7 to 10 on the person of the deceased could have been caused by one shot because the area in which these injuries have been caused could have been within the range of the dispersal of the shot. 12. Therefore on the perusal of the entire post mortem examination report coupled with the statement of the doctor and the statements of the witnesses it can safely be said that all these injuries are the result of not less than three shots and they could not have been caused by two shots as stated by the prosecution witnesses. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants on this point has to be accepted that these injuries are the result of three shots. The prosecution has only alleged that two shots were fired towards the deceased which fact is disapproved by the medical evidence on record. Therefore the statements of the prosecution witnesses about the firing of two shots only towards the deceased cannot be believed and this evidence has to be rejected. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that according to the evidence on record starting from the first information report one injury was caused by the Butt of the gun on the mouth of the deceased by Trijugi accused. A perusal of the post mortem examination report will go to show that there is no Butt injury on the person of the deceased. Specifically the prosecution witnesses have also stated about this Butt injury but this fact is not supported by the medical evidence on record. A perusal of the post mortem examination report will go to show that there is no Butt injury on the person of the deceased. Specifically the prosecution witnesses have also stated about this Butt injury but this fact is not supported by the medical evidence on record. Therefore the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the allegations in the first information report go to show that there is a discrepancy between the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence. The injury which is alleged to have been caused by the Butt of the gun would have been on the face of the deceased but no such injury was found by the doctor during the course of the medical examination and as such this part of the statements of the witnesses and the allegation in the first information report cannot be believed. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that one unknown outsider was also taken by the appellants to the place of the occurrence. The outsider was also armed with a Katta. According to the learned counsel for the appellants if this outsider who was hired for committing the murder of the deceased was taken to the spot then it does not appeal to reason that he would not play any part in the commission of the crime. A perusal of the first information report goes to how that besides the appellants one unknown person was also on the spot armed with a Katta. To the same effect are the statements of the prosecution witnesses. They have not assigned any part to that unknown person. It does not appear probable that a person who is hired by the accused persons for committing the murder of the deceased in a pre-planned way, would not have taken any part in the commission of the murder specially when he was not known to the persons of the village and he would have been the safest killer in the crime. Non participation of that person also creates doubt on the prosecution story. 14. The evidence on record goes to show that Smt.Ram Rani (P. W. 1) wife of Mohan (P. W. 3) was injured on the spot. As mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment she had received four fire arm injuries in all. She was examined on the next day in the night at about 2.00. 14. The evidence on record goes to show that Smt.Ram Rani (P. W. 1) wife of Mohan (P. W. 3) was injured on the spot. As mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment she had received four fire arm injuries in all. She was examined on the next day in the night at about 2.00. a.m. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that if the wife of Mohan was injured at the place of the incident then she would have been taken to the hospital by her husband Mohan if he was present not the spot. The evidence on record shows that Mohan had not taken Smt.Ram Rani to the hospital for medical examination. According to the statement of Mohan (P.W. 3) the medical examination of his wife was done in Safipur Hospital did not go with her. In cross-examination he has stated in para 4 that after the dead body had reached the door of Ram Kumar and his wife also reached there. He went to ease himself at the time of sun-set outside the village. He came to know that the accused persons were out to kill him. Therefore he did not go back to the house of Ram Kumar deceased and ran away towards Pariat. In cross-examination in para 5 he has stated that before going to another village he did not give first aid to his wife. This conduct of Mohan (P.W. 3) does not appear to be normal. When his wife was injured and had sustained four gun-shot injuries it was his duty to have got his wife treated before he left the village. The statement of this witness that he left for another village is an after thought because his statement was also recorded by the investigating officer after four days. If he had left for another village then he must have told the son of the deceased and his wife that he was going to another village. The reason stated by him for leaving the village is also not convincing and no reliance can be placed on that statement. Non-examination of this witness by the investigating officer for four days itself goes to show that this witness was not present at the time of the occurrence and has been planted as an eye witness. Thus no reliance can be placed on the statement of this witness. Non-examination of this witness by the investigating officer for four days itself goes to show that this witness was not present at the time of the occurrence and has been planted as an eye witness. Thus no reliance can be placed on the statement of this witness. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution witnesses in this case are not independent. The evidence on record goes to show that there was enmity between the accused persons and the deceased. Dinesh Kumar (P.W. 2) is the son of the deceased. Mohan (P.W. 3) was the servant of the deceased and Smt.Ram Rani (P.W. 1) is the wife of Mohan (P.W. 3). Thus we see that Dinesh Kumar (P.W. 2) has enmity with the accused persons and the other two eye-witnesses mentioned above are the servant and the servant's wife of the deceased. Therefore, all these witnesses are interested witnesses and they cannot be termed to be: independent witnesses. In view of the entire evidence, comments on which have already been made in the earlier part of the argument, it will not be safe to rely on these partisan witnesses who are interested from the side of the prosecution. 15. Thus in view of what has been said above the prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused persons have committed the murder of deceased Ram Kumar in the manner alleged by it. The appellants are, therefore, entitled to acquittal. 16. In the result this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/34 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Appeal allowed.