S. C. JAIN, J. The appellants, Sohanpal, Dharampal, Jaggi and Birba were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 2. Feeling aggrieved, they have challenged the said judgment and order dated 23-5-1980 by filing this appeal. Smt. Premwati was the step mother of Dharampal, appellant, and Shishpal was his step brother and Shishpal waf married to Arwati, deceased. Smt. Premwati was murdered and Shyam Lal and Smt. Arwati were tried for the murder of Smt. Premwati. Shyam Lal was found guilty and Smt. Arwati was acquitted. Shyam Lal was released on bail and after that it is alleged that he developed illicit relations with Smt. Arwati to the disliking of Dharampal, appellant. As per the prosecution version Dharampal was having motive to kill Shyam Lal and Smt. Arwati on that account. 3. On 5-11-1979 at about 5. 30 p. m. Shyam Lal and Smt. Arwati, deceased, were coming on a cycle and when they reached in the grove of Thakur Udaiveer Singh they were waylaid by all the four appellants who was armed with knife and lathis. They inflicted knife injuries and lathi injuries to Shyam Lal and Smt. Arwati. Smt. Arwati died as a result of those injuries on the bead whereas Shyam Lal, who became unconscious, was taken to hospital in injured condition where he also succumbed to his injuries on that very day. On information one Anokhey lodged the FIR. According to him PW 5 Udaiveer Singh scribed the FIR on the dictation given by Anokhey, on the basis of which a case was registered under Sections 302/307, IPC against all the four appellants at 605 p. m. on 5-11-1979 at police station Naroura. During investigation Shyam Lal was not medically examined first at 7. 15 p. m. on that very day and the Doctor opined two injuries on his body, i. e. lacerated wound 7 cm X g cm X scalp on left side head in vertical direction 12 cm. above the left ear and lacerated wound 3 1/2 cm x i cm X scalp media side of head in vertical direction 4 cm medial to injury No. 1. According to the doctor the injuries were caused by blunt object. After his death post mortem examination of the dead body was conducted by Dr. above the left ear and lacerated wound 3 1/2 cm x i cm X scalp media side of head in vertical direction 4 cm medial to injury No. 1. According to the doctor the injuries were caused by blunt object. After his death post mortem examination of the dead body was conducted by Dr. O. P. Khatri, PW 12 and as per post-mortem report four anti-mortem injuries were found on his body, which are as under : (1) Incised wound 2 1/2" X | X bone deep on the left side of head 4" from the left ear and 3" from the left eye brow, vertically placed. Clean cut edge no tailing present. (2) Contusion 1/2" X i" on the left side of forehead eye brow. (3) Abrasion 1 1/2" X 1/2" on the top of left shoulder. (4) Traumatic 3" x 3" on the left temporal region. 4. The cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of anti-mortem injuries. 5. On the post-mortem examination of the deadbody of Smt. Arwati nine anti-mortem injuries were found, which are as under : (1) Incised wound 1. 5" X 1. 2" X bone deep on the left eye brow just adjacent to it. Vertically placed spindle shaped clean cut edge. No tailing. (2) Contusion (three on the right side of fore-head in an area of 4 1/2" X 2" largest being 1 1/2" X 1" while smallest being 1/2" X 1/2" (3) Incised wound 1. 5" X 1/2" X 1/2" on the (sic) space. Left thumb index finger. (4) Incised wound j" X k" bone deep on the base of left index finger (metacarpal root ). (5) Incised wound 1 1/2 x 1/2x skin deep on the inner side of left hand 1 1/2. " from the ulna styled process. (7) Punctured wound 3" x 1 1/2" X cavity deep on the left side of upper part abdomen 1 1/2" above umbilicus at 1. 0 oclock position vertically placed. Spindle shaped, clean cut edge large bowel and small bowel is coming out of the wound. No tailing present. (7) Punctured wound 4" x 2 X cavity deep on the middle of abdomen 1/2" below injury No. 6 vertically placed. Clean cut edge spindle shaped, small bowel is protruding out from the wound. No tailing present, going to liver. Spindle shaped, clean cut edge large bowel and small bowel is coming out of the wound. No tailing present. (7) Punctured wound 4" x 2 X cavity deep on the middle of abdomen 1/2" below injury No. 6 vertically placed. Clean cut edge spindle shaped, small bowel is protruding out from the wound. No tailing present, going to liver. (8) Abrasion in an area V x 2" on the right thigh upper part largest being 1 1/2" X 1/2" while smallest being 1" x 1/2". 9. Abrasion 3" X 1 1/2" on the upper part of left thigh. 6. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witness including throe eye witnesses PW 1, Umashankar, PW 3 Mahavir Singh and PW 4 Anokhcy, the informant. Anokhey, informant, did not support the prosecution version and was declared hostile. Even in cross-examination he did not support the prosecution case. The entire case is based upon the testimony of the remain ing two eye-witnessees, namely, Umashanker Sharma and Mahavir Singh, PWs 1 and 3 respectively. 7. Umashanker Sharma, who appeared as PW 1 admitted in paragraph No. 6 of his cross-examination that maternal aunt (Mausi) of appellant, Dharampal, had filed a complaint against him in the year 1978. He got himself bailed out. That complaint was filed by Smt. Premwati. Smt. Premwati was step-mother of Dharampal. This witness admittedly was not a permanent resident of this village Niwari Banger. He was residing in village Narora permanently. According to him on that date at about 5 or 5. 30 p. m. he was coming to village Niwari Banger from village Narora. Mahavir Singh, PW 3, also met him in the way and both of them reached the place of occur rence at about 5. 30 p. m. The presence of this witness and that of Mahavir Singh at the place of incident at that time seems to be doubtful. Mahavir Singh, PW 3, admittedly was a school teacher of village Dibass which was at distance of 15 kilometers from the place of occurrence. According to Mahavir Singh on that day school was closed at 3. 30 p. m. and naturally he had left the school at 3. 30 p. m. According to him he was not having cycle on that day and he came on foot. According to Mahavir Singh on that day school was closed at 3. 30 p. m. and naturally he had left the school at 3. 30 p. m. According to him he was not having cycle on that day and he came on foot. It has to be seen whether a person can travel at a distance of 15 kilometres on foot within 1 1/2 or 2 hours. We do not find any proper explanation about this fact. It seems to be improbable that a person can travel 15 kilometres on foot within this period of 1 1/2 or 2 hours. When this theory of Mahavir Singh of covering this distance within this period is not believed, it is also not believable that PW 1 Umashanker met Mahavir Singh in the way and both of them reached the place of occur rence at 5 or 5. 30 p. m. Besides this, Mahavir Singh was also having enmity with the appellants inasmuch as in paragraph No. 6 of his statement he has stated that he lodged a complaint against Kunwar Pal and Ranveer Singh for the theft of his gun. Ranveer Singh is the brother of Jaggi, appellant. Besides this fact it has been admitted by the witness himself that he has also admitted that Ram Singh, father of Dharampal, appellant, won panchayat election against him and naturally he must be having some grudge against Ram Singh, father of Dharampal, Thereafter Ram Singh was got murdered. In view of these circumstances, can we treat both these eye witnesses as reliable witness. The circumstances also do not show that they could be present at the place of incident on the date and time. There is another factor which indicates that these two witnesses could not be present at that time and place. The first information report was registered at 6. 05 p. m. on that date. It has come in the statement of PW 5, Udaiveer Singh, the scribe, that the incident in question took place at about 5. 40 p. m. He scribed the first information report on the dictation of PW 4 Anokhey. The paper and ink-pad were brought from the village which took 20 minutes. Another 20 minutes time was taken in writing the first information report. 40 p. m. He scribed the first information report on the dictation of PW 4 Anokhey. The paper and ink-pad were brought from the village which took 20 minutes. Another 20 minutes time was taken in writing the first information report. It means that it took about 40 minutes in writing the first information report and it could be completed near about 6 p. m. The police station was at a distance of 2 1/2 kilometers from that place and it must have taken 40-45 minutes to reach the police station. In this circumstances when the first information report was recorded at 6. 05 p. m. the incident could not have taken place at 5 or 5. 30 p. m. and it must have taken place earlier to that. If the incident in question took place earlier to that, their presence stands belied from their own statements. In view of these circumstances which have come on record we are not in a position to accept the fact that they were present at the time of alleged incident and that they have made reliable state ments. We, therefore, discard their statements and hold that these witnesses could not be present at that time and place where the alleged incident took place. 8. The informant, Anokhey, PW 4, has not supported the case of pro secution at all and stated that his thumb-impression was obtained on a paper telling him to be a panchayatnama and he did not sign any first information report. He denied the suggestion that he dictated the first information report to PW 5, Udaiveer Singh. He was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination by the public prosecutor but nothing material came out which could support the prosecution version. In the absence of a statement of Anokhey, can we believe the statement of Udaiveer Singh, PW 5, the scribe. This witness, Udaiveer Singh, has not seen the occurrence and has relied upon the versions given by PW 4, Anokhey. His statement at the most is a hear-say evidence as far as the occurrence is concerned. Regarding scribing the first information report at the instance of PW 4, Anokhey, when Anokhey has himself denied it, it is very difficult to accept this statement of this witness as correct. 9. His statement at the most is a hear-say evidence as far as the occurrence is concerned. Regarding scribing the first information report at the instance of PW 4, Anokhey, when Anokhey has himself denied it, it is very difficult to accept this statement of this witness as correct. 9. Besides these facts which lead us to disbelieve the statements of these witnesses, there is another factor on record which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. There are major contradictions in the medical reports of Shyam Lal, deceased, who was medically examined at the earliest point of time and only two lacerated wounds were found on his body whereas in his post-mortem report, four anti- mortem injuries were found which were incised wound, con tusion, abrasion and traumatic. These two contradictions in these two medical reports cast doubt on the prosecution version regarding the injuries allegedly received by the deceased, Shyam Lal. 10. The learned trial court has not correctly appreciated the facts and law while convicting these appellants for the offence of murder of Shyam Lal and Smt. Arwati and, therefore, we have no option but to set aside the judg ment and order passed by the learned trial court convicting these four appellants and to accept the appeal filed by them. 11. The appeal is accepted and the judgment and order dated 23-5-1980 is set aside and the appellants, Sohanpal, Dharampal, Jaggi and Birbal, are hereby acquitted of the charge levelled against them. 12. It is pointed out that the bail bonds of these appellants were ordered to be cancelled by order of this Court earlier as they absconded when the appeal was listed for hearing and non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against them. As the appeal filed by the appellants has now been accepted and they have been acquitted of the charge levelled against them, we hereby order that the non-bailable warrants ordered to be issued against them if not executed be withdrawn as unexecuted and if they have been arrested in pursuance of the non-bailable warrants issued against them, they will be released forthwith from jail, if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed. .