Judgment : B.K.Sharma, J. 1. THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.4.1980 passed by Sri R. N. Sharma, 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 205 of 1978, State v. Sucha Singh and two others, whereby he gave the accused respondents the benefit of doubt and acquitted them of the offences under Sections 302/34 and 307/34, I.P.C. and also acquitted Hardev Singh acccused of the offence under Section 109, I.P.C. read with Section 302, I.P.C. 2. WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. Hardayal and Hardev Singh accused-respondents are sons of Sucha Singh accused-respondent. The deceased in this case was Jasvir Singh, and informant Darshan Singh (P.W. 1) was his father. 3. THE prosecution story was that there was litigation about land between the complainant side and the accused persons ; that the complainant side had got an agreement for sale from Sri Sultan Singh in favour of Mahant Singh and the complainant Darshan Singh by paying Rs. 24,000 to him, while Sucha Singh accused claimed the said land to be his own and wanted to take possession over the same and so he filed a case about it before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Rudrapur ; that in that case 6.9.78 was fixed ; that Sucha Singh accused also got a case registered under Section 145, Cr. P.C. in which 7.9.78 was fixed ; that sons of Sucha Singh accused had committed a theft of tyre of the trolley and about it the complainant had brought a case against them ; that because of these litigations the accused respondents had enmity with the complainant. 4. P.C. in which 7.9.78 was fixed ; that sons of Sucha Singh accused had committed a theft of tyre of the trolley and about it the complainant had brought a case against them ; that because of these litigations the accused respondents had enmity with the complainant. 4. THE prosecution story further was that the complainant Darshan Singh along with his son Jasvir Singh was coming from Rudrapur on 4.9.78 ; that at about 6-6 1/2 p.m. when they reached near the house of karnel Singh of their village, they saw all the accused-respondents standing two paces away from the culvert In the vicinity ; that Sucha Singh accused was armed with a double barrel licensed gun ; Hardev Singh accused was carrying a Kripan ; Hardayal accused was carrying a Tamancha ; that when the complainant and his son Jasvir Singh reached near the house of Karnail Singh the accused persons started hurling abuses loudly ; that when the complainant was asking them, why they were abusing and what harm they had done to them at that time witnesses Dhara Singh and Surendra Singh from behind and Surat Singh witness from the North also came there ; that the houses of Surendra Singh and Dhara Singh were in the vicinity and so they had come out there on hearing the sound of abuses ; that witness Surat Singh had come to the Dera of Baba in village Bagwara and he had reached near the house of Karnail Singh at the time of the occurrence ; that Hardev Singh accused took out his Kripan and exhorted his companions to fire saying "CHALAO GOLI INHONEN MUJHE BAHUT TANG KAR RAKKHA HAI : that thereupon Sucha Singh and Hardev Singh accused came forward and fired one shot each with their weapons which struck Jasvir Singh deceased who fell down ; that at the time of occurrence the informant moved slightly backward and cried "MUJHE GOLI MAR DIYA": that witnesses Dhara Singh and Surendra Singh also retorted saying "INKO KYO MARTE HO" and witness Surat Singh also retorted "INKO KYO MAR DIYA" : that then the accused persons went away from the spot; that Gurbachan Singh and others also came there on the spot and then Jasvir Singh deceased in his injured condition was taken in the tractor-trolley of Gurbachan Singh to Rudrapur Hospital where he was given first-aid at about 7.45 p.m.; that after some time at 8 p.m. he (Jasvir Singh) died. The complainant lodged a written F.I.R. (Ex. Ka. 1) at police station Rudrapur the same day at 8.45 p.m. Senior S. I. Balvir Singh was present at the police station when the F.I.R. was lodged and the case was registered. Accused respondent Sucha Singh also filed a written F.I.R. (Ex. VI) at the police station at 9.15 p.m. On the basis of the said report Chick report (Ex. Ka. 12) was scribed by H. C. Girish Chandra and a copy of the said Chick report (Ex. Ka. 12) was given to the accused-respondent Sucha Singh. Senior Inspector Balbir Singh (P.W. 9) took up the investigation of this case. He went to the hospital and interrogated the witnesses and then reached at the scene of the occurrence. Because it was raining he could not find blood stains there. He also could not find any empty cartridge tikli etc. on the spot. He prepared the Panchayat nama (Ex. Ka. 3) of the deceased and sent the body of the deceased in a sealed condition for postmortem examination. He then arrested Sucha Singh accused-respondent and recovered from his possession his licensed gun (Ex. I) along with its licence (Ex. VIII) and one cartridge (Ex. IX). He found that the barrel of the gun was smelling of gun powder. He then sealed it. He after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused-respondents. 5. THE post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Jasvir Singh was performed by Dr. S. P. Singh. Medical Officer, Civil Hospital. Haldwani on 5.9.78 at 12.30 p.m. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on his body : (1) Multiple gunshot wound left side chest in an area of 8 cm. x 2 cm. on the lateral side of the left nipple x skin deep. Margins inverted. No blackening and tattooing around the wound. (2) A gunshot wound 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x chest cavity deep on the right side of left nipple. Margins inverted. No blackening and tattooing around the wound-wound of entry. (3) A gunshot 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. on the right side chest above and lateral to the Xiphisternum x muscle deep. Margins inverted, blackening and tattooing not present around the wound-wound of entry. (4) Multiple gunshot wound in an area of 24 cm. x 10 cm. on the left arm and forearm front and medial side each measuring 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. on the right side chest above and lateral to the Xiphisternum x muscle deep. Margins inverted, blackening and tattooing not present around the wound-wound of entry. (4) Multiple gunshot wound in an area of 24 cm. x 10 cm. on the left arm and forearm front and medial side each measuring 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. size, some are skin deep and some are skin deep. Margins inverted. No blackening and tattooing wound of entries. (5) Multiple gunshot wound In an area of 25 cm. x 15 cm. lump of left thigh each measuring 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x muscle and skin deep. Margins inverted. No blackening and tattooing-wound of entries. (G) Multiple gunshot wound left side lower abdomen in an area of 10 cm. x 6 cm. x abdominal cavity deep measuring 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. Margins inverted. No blackening and tattooing-wound of entries. (7) Multiple gunshot wound right forearm middle 1/3 back and outer side in an area of 4 cm. x 3 cm. each measuring 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. Margins inverted. No blackening and tattooing-wound of entries. 6. ON internal examination the doctor found that pleura was lacerated on both sides ; left lung was lacerated on left side under injury No. 2 ; that paricardium was lacerated on left side ; that in heart there was a hole in left atrium with clotted blood around it and a pellet was recovered from it ; that in cavity two pellets found in the pelvis ; that stomach contained about 3 oz. of undigested food and only meat pieces were present in the stomach ; that small intestine was punctured at two places and tissue was clean ; that small and large intestines both contained faceal matter, G. B. full N. A. D. In the opinion of the doctor the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem gunshot injuries. He also opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his (Jasvir Singh deceased's) death. At the trial ocular evidence was given by Darshan Singh (P.W. 1), Surat Singh (P.W. 2), Surendra Singh (P.W. 6) and Dhara Singh (P.W. 7). Dr. N. M. Agrawal (P.W. 8) had attended the deceased in his injured condition at Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Rudrapur. Dr. At the trial ocular evidence was given by Darshan Singh (P.W. 1), Surat Singh (P.W. 2), Surendra Singh (P.W. 6) and Dhara Singh (P.W. 7). Dr. N. M. Agrawal (P.W. 8) had attended the deceased in his injured condition at Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Rudrapur. Dr. S. P. Singh (P.W. 5) had given evidence about the post- mortem. Sr. S. I. Balbir Singh (P.W. 9) gave evidence about the investigation of the case done by him. 7. THE accused-respondents did not lead any oral evidence from their side. 8. THE learned Sessions Judge did not accept the ocular evidence given by the prosecution witnesses. Consequently, he acquitted the accused- respondents from the charges levelled against them giving them the benefit of doubt. In the present Government appeal, the learned Addl. Government Advocate challenged the judgment of the Sessions Judge and claimed that the ocular testimony ought to have been accepted by the Sessions Judge. His arguments were that it was a day-light occurrence of the Abadi ; that there was motive to commit the occurrence ; as there was a litigation going on about land between the complainant Darshan Singh and Sucha Singh accused-respondent, in which 6.9.78 was fixed ; Sucha Singh accused-respondent had got a case registered in which 7.8.78 was fixed, while the present occurrence took place on 4.9.78, just few days before those dates and a theft of the tyre of the trolley of the informant Darshan Singh had been made in respect of which he had lodged an F.I.R. against Hardayal Singh and Hardeo Singh accused-respondents ; that the witnesses Surendra Singh (P.W. 6) and Dhara Singh (P.W. 7) were having their houses in the immediate vicinity of the place of occurrence and so they were natural witnesses ; that informant Dharshan Singh (P.W. 1) was own son of the deceased, who was accompanying him at the time of occurrence and had even taken him in his injured condition to Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Rudrapur, where he was medically examined at 7.45 p.m. and given first-aid and where he remained alive till 8 p.m. and succumbed to his injuries and so he was a competent and reliable witness. 9. THE learned Addl. Govt. 9. THE learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, further argued that informant Darshan Singh (P.W. 1) had lodged the F.I.R. promptly at 8.20 hours at the police station nominating the accused persons and also specifying their weapons which went to corroborate his testimony. He further argued that the informant being the father of the deceased was least likely to exclude the real culprits and instead implicate innocent persons. He further argued that Surendra Singh (P.W. 6) and Dhara Singh (P.W. 7) both being related to Sucha Singh accused- respondent were not likely to falsely implicate him and his sons Har Dayal Singh and Hardeo Singh accused-respondents in this case. He further argued that the ocular evidence was fully corroborated by the medical evidence. He pointed out that even the defence does not dispute that the deceased died by fire-arm injuries. He relied upon the circumstances that Sucha Singh accused- respondent had himself gone to the police station on the date of occurrence at 9.15 p.m. and lodged his written cross F.I.R. (Ex. VI) there, which was scribed by Lakhvendra Singh and that even a bail application (Ex. Ka. 19) was moved before the High Court by Har Dayal Singh accused-respondent relying on the said cross F.I.R. and supported by affidavit of Lakhvendra Singh (Ex. Ka. 20). In Ex. VI it is mentioned that Darshan Singh S/o Asha Singh, Pyara Singh, S/o Anokh Singh, Mahendra Singh S/o Harnam Singh etc. Ka. 19) was moved before the High Court by Har Dayal Singh accused-respondent relying on the said cross F.I.R. and supported by affidavit of Lakhvendra Singh (Ex. Ka. 20). In Ex. VI it is mentioned that Darshan Singh S/o Asha Singh, Pyara Singh, S/o Anokh Singh, Mahendra Singh S/o Harnam Singh etc. were litigating in respect of a land with Sucha Singh, that 6th and 7th September had been fixed in the said case in the court of S.D.M. Rudrapur, that in connection with the said case he had gone to the court to see his counsel at about 12 Noon, that Darshan Singh S/o Asha Singh, Jogendra Singh S/o Asha Singh, both real brothers, hurled abuses on him and also were saying that they would see him in the evening, that at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. he was seated at his house and the door of his house was open, that Darshan Singh S/o Asha Singh, Jogendra Singh S/o Asha Singh, Charanjit Singh S/o Darshan Singh, Jaspal Singh alias Jassu S/o Darshan Singh had gone to his house, that Darshan Singh was armed with a sword, Jogendra Singh with a rifle, Charanjit Singh with spear and Jaspal Singh with a country made pistol, that the aforesaid persons asked him to come out of the house, that he was alone at his house, that they were also hurling abuses, that in his self-defence he fired from his licensed gun and the aforesaid persons ran away, that Amir Singh, Sahib Singh etc. on hearing sound had also reached the place of occurrence. It was argued that this established the presence of Darshan Singh P.W. at the spot and also the participation of Sucha Singh accused-respondent in the occurrence. 10. HE also relied on the circumstance that when the licensed double barrel gun of Sucha Singh accused-respondent was taken into custody at the time when the Investigating Officer took Khana Talashi of his house on 5.9.78 from the barrel of the gun smell of gun-powder was coming out and argued that it was yet another circumstance in favour of the prosecution. The law in regard to appeals against acquittal in regard to appreciation of evidence by the appellate court in appeals against acquittal has been crystallised by a series of judicial decisions. The law in regard to appeals against acquittal in regard to appreciation of evidence by the appellate court in appeals against acquittal has been crystallised by a series of judicial decisions. The settled position is that the High Court has full, power to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal was founded and to reach the conclusion that upon the evidence, the order of acquittal should be reversed but in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusion upon fact, it should give proper weight and consideration to such matters as ; (1) the view of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witness ; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial ; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any real and reasonable doubts ; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge, who had the advantage of seeing the witness. The High Court should also take into account the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal and must express its reasons in the judgment which lead it to hold that the acquittal is not justified. Further, if two conclusions can be based upon the evidence on record, the High Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. It would follow as a corollary from that, that if the view taken by the trial court in acquitting the accused is not unreasonable, the occasion for the reversal of that view would not arise. 11. THE deceased, informant Darshan Singh and accused-respondents lived in the same village Bagwara. It is undisputed that there was litigation going on between the complainant Darshan Singh and accused-respondent Sucha Singh about land, one was a suit for possession before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rudrapur and the other was a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P.C. and then a theft of the tyre of the trolley of Darshan Singh complainant had taken place in respect of which a criminal case had been filed by the complainant against the present accused persons Hardev Singh and Hardayal Singh. THEre was bound to be an enmity between two sides on account of these litigations. P.C. and then a theft of the tyre of the trolley of Darshan Singh complainant had taken place in respect of which a criminal case had been filed by the complainant against the present accused persons Hardev Singh and Hardayal Singh. THEre was bound to be an enmity between two sides on account of these litigations. Darshan Singh complainant admitted that he had enmity with Sucha Singh accused respondent that his house was situated near the place of occurrence ; that Sucha Singh's father Kartar Singh had been murdered and in that murder Anokh Singh father, Gurbachan Singh and Pyara Singh, brothers of Dhara Singh P.W., Suresh Singh father of Surendra Singh P.W., Ambreek Singh, Shyam Singh and Mana Singh, brothers of Surendra Singh, P.W. and Jogendra Singh, cousin of Dhara Singh P.W. were accused persons. It has also come in the evidence that Mana Singh and Ambreek Singh, brothers of Surendra Singh P.W., were prosecution witnesses in the criminal case relating to theft of his tyre of the trolley against Hardeo Singh and Har Dayal Singh accused-respondents (sons of Sucha Singh accused-respondent). It was elicited from him that Gurbachan Singh and Sher Singh, brothers of Dhara Singh P.W. might be guarantors for the tractor taken by him. Surat Singh P.W. was admittedly also known by the name of Hari Singn. Jogendra Singh is the real brother of Darshan Singh complainant. Jogendra Singh and Darshan Singh were arrayed on one side in proceedings under Sec Jon 107/117, Cr. P.C. He had appeared as a defence witness on 21.1.75 on behalf of the present complainant Darshan Singh in S.T. No. 109/1973, State v. Darshan Singh and others, before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Rampur (Ex. Kha. 21). In the case relating to murder of Kartar Singh in the village, Surendra Singh P.W.'s father and Darshan Singh present complainant were both accused then in proceedings under Section 107/117, Cr P.C, which had started before the murder of Kartar Singh, Maluk Singh, Shisha Singh and Kartar Singh were on one side and Darshan Singh present complainant, Mara Singh and Surendra Singh P.W. were arrayed as the other party. THE defence suggestion to Surendra Singh (P.W. 6) in para 6 of his evidence was that in the Kartar Singh's murder case, Sucha Singh present accused-respondent was doing the pairvi against his house-holders. He pleaded ignorance and alter it as an after-thought he made a denial. THE defence suggestion to Surendra Singh (P.W. 6) in para 6 of his evidence was that in the Kartar Singh's murder case, Sucha Singh present accused-respondent was doing the pairvi against his house-holders. He pleaded ignorance and alter it as an after-thought he made a denial. In a case under Section 25 of the Arms Act against the present accused- respondent Har Daya Singh, Surendra Singh P.W. and Sher Singh, brother of Dhara Singh P.W. were cited as prosecution witnesses. Copies of the charge- sheet and the judgment in the aforesaid case were Ex. Kha. 12 and Ex. Kha. 2 respectively. Surat Singh P.W. admitted his conviction in a theft case and the pendency of a case under Section 326, I.P.C. and of a case of theft of tractor of Niyaz Ahmad against him. Surendra P.W. admitted his conviction in a case under Section 60 of the Excise Act and his prosecution in connection with beating of Jauhari Ganna Gram Stwak. Prosecutions of Surat Singh (P.W. 2) and Surendra Singh (P.W. 6) go to detract from the credit to be attached to these witnesses. 12. THESE witnesses have given evasive -eplies. Darshan Singh complainant gave evasive reply and pleaded ignorance when suggested that Gurbachan Singh, brother of P.W. Dhara Singh was prosecution witness in the criminal case relating to the theft of tyre which he had filed (Ex. Kha. 11) was the charge-sheet dated 23.7.76 submitted in that theft case by the police, wherein Gurbachan Singh S/o Anup Singh, has been cited as prosecution witness. He could not have forgotten who were the witnesses in that case. Surat Singh P.W. pleaded ignorance when suggested that his statement was recorded as defence witness in the court of Asstt. Sessions Judge, Rampur Sessions Trial State v. Darshan Singh, on 21.1.1975. The defence filed Ex. Kha. 21, a certified copy of the statement by this witness in that trial recorded on 21.1.1975. As noted earlier Hari Singh is alias of Dhara Singh P.W. Surendra Singh P.W. denied in his testimony to be a prosecution witness in the case under Section 25 of the Arms Act against present accused-respondent Har Dayal Singh. The certified copy of his statement (Ex. Kha. 12) under Section 25 of the Arms Act belies his denial. The certified copy of the judgment in that case dated 31.10.77 (Ex. Kha. The certified copy of his statement (Ex. Kha. 12) under Section 25 of the Arms Act belies his denial. The certified copy of the judgment in that case dated 31.10.77 (Ex. Kha. 12) shows that Surendra Singh was a witness of the fact of recovery of unlicensed weapon. The defence suggestion to this witness was that accused-respondent Sucha Singh was against him in the criminal case relating to the murder of Kartar Singh. He at first pleaded ignorance and then made a denial of the same. This again indicates the tendency of evading hard facts. Dhara Singh P.W. gave a large number of evasive replies. He stated that he did not know whether in the case under Section 25 of the Arms Act Surendra Singh was a witness against Har Dayal Singh present accused-respondent or not. He also stated that he did not know whether Mana Singh had filed a complaint for a theft of the tractor against Har Dayal accused-respondent and whether his brother Pyara Singh and Surendra Singh's brother Ambreek Singh were also prosecution witnesses in that case or not. Ex. Kha. 15 is the charge-sheet in the tractor's theft case lodged by Mana Singh against accused-respondent Har Dayal Singh. In the said charge- sheet Pyara Singh and Ambreek Singh, brother of Surendra Singh P.W. have been cited as prosecution witnesses. He also pleaded ignorance when asked about the filing of a case of theft of the tyre by Darshan Singh complainant against Har Dayal accused-respondent. Dhara Singh P.W. also pleaded ignorance when suggested that he was an eye-witness in Faiyaz Khan's murder case. Charge- sheet (Ex. Kha. 9) filed in the said case positively shows that he was cited as P.W. in respect of that murder case. All these evasive go to detract from the credit to be attached to the testimony of these witnesses particularly because these witnesses are partisan and because there is enmity between the two sides. Against the background of above noted facts the learned Sessions Judge concluded that all the eye-witnesses had associations with each other in one way or the other. About the prosecution argument that accused-respondent Sucha Singh being admittedly real cousin of Surendra Singh P.W. and being real cousin of Dhara Singh P.W. their evidence against accused-respondents Har Dayal Singh and Hardeo Singh (sons of Sucha Singh accused-respondent) should have great probative value. About the prosecution argument that accused-respondent Sucha Singh being admittedly real cousin of Surendra Singh P.W. and being real cousin of Dhara Singh P.W. their evidence against accused-respondents Har Dayal Singh and Hardeo Singh (sons of Sucha Singh accused-respondent) should have great probative value. The learned Sessions Judge has observed in his judgment: ".........It has come out that the brothers of Sri Surendra Singh and Sri Dhara Singh had appeared as witnesses against the accused Hardayal Singh. This circumstance finds corroboration from the documents Ex. Kha. 11, Ex. Kha. 12 and Ex. Kha. 13. Sri Ambrik Singh the brother of the prosecution witness P.W. 6 Sri Surendra Singh was a witness against the present accused Hardayal Singh in connection with the theft of trolley and this complaint was filed by Sri Darshan Singh. Similarly, Gurbachan Singh the brother of the prosecution witness Shri Dhara Singh was also witness in the criminal case to which the charge-sheet Ex. Kha. 11 pertains. Similarly Sri Surendra Singh P.W. 6 himself was a witness against the accused Hardayal Singh which was under Section 26 of the Arms Act. His brother Mahendra Singh was also a witness. Sri Pyara Singh the brother of P.W. 7 Sri Dhara Singh was also a witness in the criminal case to which the charge- sheet Ex. Kha. 12 pertains. All these circumstances point out that P.W. 6 Sri Surendra Singh and P.W. 7 Sri Dhara Singh, though related to the accused persons, are inimical to them. Their brothers have been appearing against them in one case or the other...." The learned Sessions Judge inferred that Surendra Singh P.W. and Dhara Singh P.W., though related to accused-respondent, had animosity towards the accused-respondents and so they cannot be termed as independent witnesses. In view of this portion the learned Sessions Judge was right in approaching the prosecution witnesses of the occurrence cautiously. 13. IT is not in controversy that the murder of deceased took place on 4.9.78. About the time of occurrence the prosecution case is that it was 6.30 p.m. on that date. IT has come in the evidence of Dr. S. P. Singh (P.W. 5), who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Jasvir that his stomach contained undigested meat particles. In his opinion, the deceased might have eaten meat one or two hours before his death. On the evidence of Dr. IT has come in the evidence of Dr. S. P. Singh (P.W. 5), who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Jasvir that his stomach contained undigested meat particles. In his opinion, the deceased might have eaten meat one or two hours before his death. On the evidence of Dr. N. M. Agrawal, Medical Superintendent, Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Rudrapur, the deceased died in the hospital at 8. p.m. on the date of occurrence i.e. 4.9.78. Seeing the injuries on the body of the deceased, his taking meat after the occurrence is ruled out. So, it would appear that the occurrence might have taken place at 6.30 or 7 p.m. and that he must have eaten meat immediately before the occurrence and that is why no partially digested meat was found in the body of the deceased. 14. NOW coming to the place of the occurrence, as per prosecution evidence, the occurrence took place on the Rasta in the Abadi near the house of Karnail Singh. The defence has challenged the place of the occurrence. It is noticeable that no blood was found by the Investigating Officer on the spot when he claims to have visited it in the night on the date of the occurrence while Darshan Singh complainant (P.W. 1) admitted that plenty of blood had fallen from the body of the deceased after he had received fire-arm injuries on his body. Otherwise, also, considering the nature, number and location of fire-arm wounds, it is to be inferred that lot of blood must have fallen on the ground where the occurrence took place. To explain the absence of blood, the Investigating Officer has stated at the trial that it was raining at the time when he reached there and for this reason no sign of blood was found there. The prosecution relies in this regard also on the statement of Surat Singh (P.W. 2) at the trial that it was not raining at the time of the occurrence but after it in the night raining had taken place. But this witness could not say at what time the rain took place. The rain could not have washed away all the blood stains from the spot. It is significant to note that the Investigating Officer did not take any blood stained earth or simple earth from the spot at all. But this witness could not say at what time the rain took place. The rain could not have washed away all the blood stains from the spot. It is significant to note that the Investigating Officer did not take any blood stained earth or simple earth from the spot at all. The learned Sessions Judge has adversely noted about this treating it as a lapse of the Investigating Officer. In my view he did not take blood from spot because there was no blood found at the spot. So the corroboration of the prosecution case about the place of occurrence was wanting in this case and coupled with the circumstance that no empty cartridge or Tiklis or pellets were found by the Investigating Officer at the spot a grave doubt arises in the mind about the place of occurrence, particularly when the witnesses of the occurrence set up by the prosecution are not independent, nor inherently dependable. It may also be mentioned here that the Investigating Officer also did not find any turban or shoes of the deceased lying on the spot which also tended to throw doubt over the prosecution evidence. 15. DARSHAN Singh P.W. is not an injured in the occurrence. So, he is not a stamped witness. His presence at the scene of the occurrence in the ordinary course is, ruled out as he did not have a house adjacent to the scene of the occurrence so that he may be called a natural witness. On the prosecution story, his presence on the spot was dependent on the truth of his assertion that he was accompanying the deceased while he (the deceased) was returning from Rudrapur, where they had gone, to the village. We have noted above, about the presence of particles of undigested meat in the stomach of the deceased found by the autopsy surgeon. In the ordinary course, if the meat was eaten by the deceased immediately before the occurrence, the deceased Jasvir Singh and DARSHAN Singh complainant both would have taken the meat just before the occurrence. But the prosecution story as set out in the F.I.R. or in examination- in-chief excludes any such taking of meat by the deceased and the complainant together. But the prosecution story as set out in the F.I.R. or in examination- in-chief excludes any such taking of meat by the deceased and the complainant together. DARSHAN Singh complainant when specifically asked in his cross- examination in para 22 he stated that on the date of the occurrence they started from the house at about 4 p.m. and that the deceased separated from him saying that he had some work in the Bazar. He further stated that the deceased did not purchase and bring anything from the market. He further stated that they did not go through the market and that on that day some market was open and some was closed. He further stated that they would have taken 1 1/2 -2 hours at Rudrapur. He also stated that he did not eat anything at Rudrapur. About the deceased, he stated "MAIN NAHI KAH SAKTA KYONKI MAIN ALAG HO GAYA THA." As noted above, DARSHAN Singh P.W. claimed to be returning from Rudrapur and this excluded any taking of meat by the deceased shortly before the time of the occurrence. This reply clearly indicates that DARSHAN Singh complainant was not accompanying the deceased at or before the time of the occurrence. The defence suggestion to this witness in his cross-examination was that there live Rai Sikhs to the south of Kichha and they purchased illicit liquor, and the deceased took liquor and meat there and thereafter quarrel took place. To this suggestion DARSHAN Singh complainant replied that he did not know whether they purchase illicit liquor or not, and that it is wrong to say that the deceased had taken liquor and meat there. 16. WE will now come to the medical evidence and about the number of fires we would discuss a little later. Dr. N. M. Agrawal, Medical Superintendent, Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Rudrapur (P.W. 8) did not record any injuries of the deceased in the Medicolegal Register. 16. WE will now come to the medical evidence and about the number of fires we would discuss a little later. Dr. N. M. Agrawal, Medical Superintendent, Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Rudrapur (P.W. 8) did not record any injuries of the deceased in the Medicolegal Register. He only produced the outdoor patient register of the Hospital, in which there was entry about the name of the deceased, and in which there was also an entry of the time of the arrival of the deceased at about 7.45 p.m. and an entry about his death at 8 p.m. However, the point of importance is that the doctor wrote a memo to the Station Officer police station Rudrapur informing about the arrival and the death of the deceased. On the basis of the said memo an entry was made in the General Diary (Ex. Ka. 10). In the said memo sent by the doctor, it is stated that the deceased had been brought in the Hospital by Sri Gurbachan Singh. In the ordinary course, if the complainant Darshan Singh, who was the father of the deceased, had taken the deceased in his injured condition to the said hospital as claimed by him, the doctor would have recorded his name as the person who had brought the deceased to the said Hospital and not the name of any one else instead. The testimony of the complainant Darshan Singh is that Gurbachan Singh and others came to the spot (after the occurrence) and then the deceased was taken to the Hospital in the tractor trolley of Gurbachan Singh, where the doctor saw him and gave first- aid and after which the deceased died. So the memo of the doctor strongly suggests that Gurbachan Singh P.W. had picked up the deceased in his injured semi-conscious or unconscious condition to the Hospital and there he died soon after and that complainant Darshan Singh was not at all accompanying the deceased. It is significant to note that complainant Darshan Singh does not claim that he went straight away from the scene of the occurrence to the police station and sent the deceased in his injured condition to the Hospital with Gurbachan Singh P.W. It may be mentioned here that Gurbachan Singh is not cited as an eye-witness in the F.I.R. lodged by complainant Darshan Singh, though Gurbachan Singh is a panch in the panchayatnama (Ex. Ka. 3). Ka. 3). Darshan Singh P.W. as noted earlier, was not an injured in the occurrence. In the matter of enmity he and the deceased sail in the same boat and there appears substance in the argument of the defence that if Darshan Singh had accompanied the deceased and the occurrence had been done by the accused persons as claimed by the prosecution, then he could not have escaped unhurt as he would have been equally made a target by the assailants. The absence of injuries on his body assumes all the more significance when it is found that no two but four or five shots had been fired and had struck the deceased. Darshan Singh complainant has claimed that he had retraced a little backward towards back side to explain the absence of injuries on his body. He further claimed that he cried, "MUJHE MAR DIYA". It cannot be believed that even on his cry he would have been left untouched by the assailants more so when he was accompanying the deceased. It is not a case of seeing the occurrence from some distance. 17. THE learned Sessions Judge has also placed on record a circumstance that the clothes of Darshan Singh complainant were not taken into custody by the investigating Officer. If the evidence of the prosecution was true the clothes of the complainant must certainly have got stained with blood coming from the wounds of the deceased as he claimed to have taken the deceased in his arms. 18. BEFORE we proceed forward it may also be placed on record that Surat Singh (P.W. 2) was only a chance witness and this circumstance further detracts from the credit to be given to his testimony. The prosecution claims that the medical legal evidence is consistent with the prosecution evidence of the deceased having been injured by fire of only two shots. It is claimed that ante-mortem injuries Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 were caused by a single shot while ante-mortem injuries Nos. 3 and 7 were caused by another single shot. It is true that in case the medical legal evidence is consistent with the prosecution evidence then it gives a strong corroboration to the prosecution case about the manner in which the occurrence took place. The learned Sessions Judge has dealt with the subject and observed that the replies of the autopsy surgeon Dr. It is true that in case the medical legal evidence is consistent with the prosecution evidence then it gives a strong corroboration to the prosecution case about the manner in which the occurrence took place. The learned Sessions Judge has dealt with the subject and observed that the replies of the autopsy surgeon Dr. S. P. Singh (P.W. 5) were evasive on this most crucial point and that the ballistic expert could correctly explain whether the deceased sustained injuries as a result of two shots or five shots. In other words, he put the blame on the prosecution for not producing the ballistic expert. At the close of his Judgment, the learned Sessions Judge observed that the circumstances unfolded lead to the inference that the deceased received injuries from more than two shots instead of two shots. 19. WE are of the definite view that the ante-mortem injuries Nos. 1 to 7 found on the body of the deceased could not in any case have been caused by two shots and must have been caused at least by four or five shots. If the learned Sessions Judge felt that the help of ballistic expert was necessary for him to come to a definite conclusion, he could have called the ballistic expert as a court witness. But here the number, nature and location of the ante-mortem injuries are quite obvious and so the need of ballistic expert was hardly there. 20. THE post-mortem report shows that paricardium was lacerated on the left side, pleura was lacerated on both sides and heart had a hole in left atrium with clotted blood around it and a pellet was recovered from it. Then two pellets were found in pelvis and small intestines were also found punctured at two places. In all 15 pellets were recovered from the different parts of the body of the deceased. Unfortunately, the post-mortem report does not indicate the location from which parts of the body of remaining pellets were recovered, apart from one pellet that was recovered from the heart and two pellets which were recovered from the cavity in the pelvis region. The first point to be noted is that the ante-mortem injuries Nos. 1 and 4-7 were each multiple gunshot wound of entry and there was no blackening and tattooing found in it or indeed in any of the other ante-mortem wounds. The first point to be noted is that the ante-mortem injuries Nos. 1 and 4-7 were each multiple gunshot wound of entry and there was no blackening and tattooing found in it or indeed in any of the other ante-mortem wounds. So in this regard the position of all the ante-mortem injuries is the same. They all are wounds of entry and no ante-mortem injury is wound of exit. 21. WE now take up each specific ante-mortem injury. Ante-mortem injury No. 1 was multiple gunshot wound on left side of chest in an area of 8 cm. x 2 cm. on the lateral side of the left nipple i.e., on the left side of the left nipple. In other words, its location was farthest from the medial line of the body. It was, of course, on the front side. All the shots have been recorded as skin deep. These shots have obviously been caused by a single shot fired from a fire-arm from distance. 22. ANTE-mortem injury No. 2 is a single gun shot wound 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x chest cavity deep on the right side of left nipple. The autopsy surgeon has even drawn a diagram about it in the post-mortem report. So the position was that this single gunshot wound was on the right side of left nipple and the said multiple gunshot wound of entry (injury No. 1) was on the left side of that nipple. One could apparently say that injury No. 2 could be caused by a stray pellet out of the charge constituting the main body of pellets which on dispersal after coming out from the barrel caused ante-mortem injury No. 1. However, we are of the view that this ante-mortem injury No. 2 could not have been the result of the same fire which inflicted the multiple gunshot wounds which have been recorded in the post-mortem report in the ante-mortem injury No. 1. If the main charge from the shot caused only skin deep wounds of entry in an area of 8 cm. x 2 cm. on the lateral side of left nipple it will show that the pellets which were coming from the front of that part of the body could not pierce more than the skin deep. If the main charge from the shot caused only skin deep wounds of entry in an area of 8 cm. x 2 cm. on the lateral side of left nipple it will show that the pellets which were coming from the front of that part of the body could not pierce more than the skin deep. When that was so, could it be believed that a stray pellet from that charge would be able to not only pierce the skin but even enter the chest cavity after piercing the muscles of the chest region and even enter the heart? There can be no doubt that the injury of the heart noted above could relate only to this ante-mortem injury No. 2 as this ante-mortem injury alone was chest cavity deep and it alone was on the left part of the body corresponding to the heart which is located in left side chest. It will be seen that this pellet had come with such a force that it not only pierced in the skin and the muscles of chest but also entered the chest cavity and further pierced the heart and got embedded in it. So while the multiple gunshot wounds recorded as ante-mortem injury No. 1 could be caused by one shot the ante mortem injury No. 2, must have been caused by an independent shot fired which was coming with much greater velocity. The ante-mortem injury No. 3 was a gunshot wound of entry 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. on the right side of the chest above and lateral to the xiphi-sternum. It was muscle deep. So it cannot be believed that this injury could be caused by another stray shot of the main charge of the shots coming from the fire-arm which caused multiple fire-arm wounds entry ante-mortem injury No. 1, each of which wounds was skin deep. So this ante-mortem injury No. 3 must have been caused from a separate shot or at the most by a pellet of the shot which caused ante-mortem injury No. 2. 23. THE ante-mortem injury No. 4 was a multiple gunshot wound of entry in an area of 24 cm. x 10 cm. on the left arm and forearm and in medial side. 23. THE ante-mortem injury No. 4 was a multiple gunshot wound of entry in an area of 24 cm. x 10 cm. on the left arm and forearm and in medial side. It is claimed by prosecution that ante-mortem injury No. 1 which was on the lateral side i.e. on the left side of left nipple could have been caused by the same shot. However, since the dispersal in ante-mortem injury No. 1 was in an area of 8 cm. x 2 cm., while the dispersal in this ante-mortem injury No. 4 was in an area of 24 cm. x 10 cm., even though in the same region in all probability ante-mortem injury No. 4 must be the result of a separate shot, whose dispersal covered a much wider area, than the ante-mortem injury No. 1. So injury No. 4 could have been the result of yet another separate shot. 24. THE ante-mortem injury No. 5 was a multiple gunshot wound in an area of 25 cm. x 15 cm. on lump of left thigh, measuring 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm., some of which skin deep and some of which muscle deep. It cannot be believed that this could be caused by the shot which caused ante-mortem injury No. 1 (on the lateral side of left nipple) or which caused ante-mortem injury No. 2, (a gunshot wound of entry on the right side of left nipple) or which caused ante-mortem injury No. 4 (multiple gun shot wound of entry in an area of 24 cm. x 10 cm. on the left arm and forearm). So ante-mortem injury Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be taken to have been caused by a single shot unless we are inclined to believe that the shots dispersed only upwards and downwards and not at all laterally. So ante-mortem injury No. 5, in our view, must also have been caused by a separate shot. The ante-mortem injury No. 6 was multiple gunshot wound on left side lower abdomen in an area of 10 cm. x 6 cm. x abdominal cavity deep. This injury being ligated in the same vicinity as injury No. 5. could have been caused by the same shot which caused ante-mortem injury No. 5, though, it could also have been the result of an independent shot. 25. x 6 cm. x abdominal cavity deep. This injury being ligated in the same vicinity as injury No. 5. could have been caused by the same shot which caused ante-mortem injury No. 5, though, it could also have been the result of an independent shot. 25. THE ante-mortem injury No. 7 was a multiple gunshot wound on the right forearm middle 1/3 back and anterior side in an area of 4 cm. x 3 cm., each measuring 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. THE location of this injury goes to show that it must have been a result of an entirely independent shot coming from right side of the body and could not have been caused by the shot which caused ante-mortem injury No. 3, or which caused any other ante-mortem injury. 26. FROM the side of the prosecution, evidence of each eye-witness is categorical that only two shots were fired. One was said to be fired by Sucha Singh accused-respondent by his gun in this regard the prosecution has tried to take support from the circumstance that the licensed gun of Sucha Singh, which was taken in the custody on the day following the date of the occurrence when the search of his house (Khana Talasi) was taken was found to be smelling of gun-powder. However, this is immaterial because no empty cartridge was found on the spot and the weapon was not sent to the ballistic expert even for the opinion that this weapon was freshly fired. In any case, it was immaterial because a shot could have been fired from the weapon even after It was seized by the police. The only reliable test could be the comparison of an empty cartridges found on the spot with the shots fired form the said weapon. It is impossible to conclude in the present case that seven ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased were caused by only two shots. In our view, it must have been the result of either six shots or seven shots. In any case it could not be result of less than five shots. There is a direct conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony. In this regard we may refer to the authority of a Division Bench of this court in Thakur and others v. State, 1955 Cr U 437. In any case it could not be result of less than five shots. There is a direct conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony. In this regard we may refer to the authority of a Division Bench of this court in Thakur and others v. State, 1955 Cr U 437. which lays down that in a case of such a conflict, a court can either believe the prosecution witnesses unreservedly and explain away the conflict by holding that the witnesses have merely exaggerated the incident or rely upon the medical evidence and approach the oral testimony with caution testing it in the light of the medical evidence. It has been further laid down that the first method can be applied in only those cases where the ocular evidence is above reproach and creates confidence and there is no appreciable reason for the false implication of any accused and where the evidence is not of that character and the medical evidence is not open to any doubt or suspicion, the only safe and judicial method of assessing evidence is the second method. In the present case the medical evidence is not open to doubt or suspicion and the oral evidence cannot at all be called irreproachable. We have, therefore, no option but to reject the ocular testimony led by the prosecution as that which had been given by perfect liers. It is clear that none of the eye witnesses had seen the occurrence, otherwise they would not have stated at the trial that only two shots were fired, which resulted in the ante-mortem injuries of the deceased recorded in the post-mortem report. 27. ABOUT the first information report (Ex. VI) claimed to have been lodged by Sucha Singh accused-respondent at the police station on 4.9.79 at 9.15 p.m. and the bail application moved on behalf of Hardayal Singh accused-respondent before the High Court (Ex. Ka. XIX) supported by affidavit of Lakhvindar Singh in which there was a mention of the said cross F.I.R. lodged by Sucha Singh accused-respondent Sucha Singh accused-respondent's case was that he never lodged any such F.I.R., nor gave any such instruction to the counsel to make the said bail application as given by him. Ka. XIX) supported by affidavit of Lakhvindar Singh in which there was a mention of the said cross F.I.R. lodged by Sucha Singh accused-respondent Sucha Singh accused-respondent's case was that he never lodged any such F.I.R., nor gave any such instruction to the counsel to make the said bail application as given by him. Har Dayal accused respondent pleaded ignorance about such affidavit and denied that Lakhvindar was his pairokar and also denied having instructed the counsel to move such bail application in the High Court. The learned Sessions Judge observed that the prosecution had not examined Lakhvindar Singh scribe of the said F.I.R. Ex. VI that accused- respondent Sucha Singh it appears was not conversant with Hindi language. He also concluded that the alleged signatures of Sucha Singh on the said F.I.R. Ex. VI differ from the other signatures of Sucha Singh on record. He also observed that these circumstances cast doubt on the genuineness of the said F.I.R. Ex VI. He also concluded that the said bail application moved before the High Court was not binding on the accused persons as there not being any confessional statement the allegations made in the said bail application by a counsel did not amount to his admission. He also held that from the said document, guilt on the accused persons cannot be fastened, specially when it did not contain any fact showing that as a result of fire by accused Sucha Singh, Darshan Singh had received injuries or that his son Jasvir Singh deceased was also with him. He also held that accused Sucha Singh would not have gone to police station to lodge the first information report (Ex. VI) because he would have apprehended his arrest at the police station. 28. HEAD Constable Girish Chandra, according to the prosecution, had received the original written F.I.R. (Ex. VI) purporting to have been scribed by Lakhvindar Singh and signed in Hindi and to have been signed by Sucha Singh accused in Urdu, but he was not examined by the prosecution at the trial. HEAD Moharrir Raj Pal Singh (P.W. 10) had claimed that HEAD Moharrir Girish Chandra had fracture in feet and that this document (Ex. VI) purporting to have been scribed by Lakhvindar Singh and signed in Hindi and to have been signed by Sucha Singh accused in Urdu, but he was not examined by the prosecution at the trial. HEAD Moharrir Raj Pal Singh (P.W. 10) had claimed that HEAD Moharrir Girish Chandra had fracture in feet and that this document (Ex. VI) was filed at the police station in his (witness's) presence at 9.15 p.m. by Sucha Singh accused and on its basis Chick report was scribed by HEAD Moharrir Girish Chandra in the Check register for non-cognizable cases. Its carbon copy made in same process was Ex. Ka. 12. He further claimed that copy of Ex. Ka. 12 was given to Sucha Singh accused in his presence and Sucha Singh had put his signatures (Ex. C-1) on this document (original of Ex. Ka. 12) in the chick register (Ex. 10) in his presence and that he has scribed other entries in the G. D., namely G. D. No. 45 at 9 p.m., G. D. No. 46 at 9.10 p.m., G. D. No. 48 at 9.20 p.m. and G D. No. 49 at 10 p.m. His explanation for not scribing this particular entry was that he had other duties to perform. The defence disputed the alleged signatures (Ex. C-1) of Sucha Singh accused. It was claimed that some space was left in the G. D. for recording entry in G. D. at serial No. 47 and later on this fictitious entry was made in the G. D. alleging the filing of this F.I.R. (Ex. VI) by Sucha Singh accused. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the circumstance that there was difference in the spacing In the last few lines of the G. D. Entry No. 47 (Ex. Ka. 18) which is a carbon copy of the said G. D. Entry No. 47 alleging the filing of this F.I.R. (Ex. VI) by Sucha Singh accused. The said carbon copy prepared in mechanical process reveals that it started from the bottom of the front side and continued on the reverse side from top to bottom and was concluded at the bottom and in doing so the last four-five lines were written with lesser spacing than the spacing given in the remaining lines of the reverse side. The said carbon copy prepared in mechanical process reveals that it started from the bottom of the front side and continued on the reverse side from top to bottom and was concluded at the bottom and in doing so the last four-five lines were written with lesser spacing than the spacing given in the remaining lines of the reverse side. In the ordinary course, this entry would have to be carried forward to the next page of the G. D. if equal spacing was given in the last lines also. So this lends support to the defence claim. Above Ex. C-1 (the signatures on the original copy of the chick report in the chick register Ex. 10) there is no endorsement made by Sucha Singh to the effect that he had received copy of the chick report. Above the signatures of Sucha Singh there is also no endorsement "Neqal Pal" made by the Head Moharrir. The prosecution had not examined Lakhvindar Singh who was the scribe of the written F.I.R Ex. VI. Ex. Ka. 12 is the carbon copy of the chick report prepared on the basis of F.I.R. (Ex. VI) and there is no endorsement written on this carbon copy "Sd. Sucha Singh". He (Head Moharrir Raj Pal Singh) also stated that after the accused Sucha Singh had lodged the report he was arrested and the said copy of the Chick F.I.R. was recovered from his possession. He further stated that the same was not deposited in the Malkhana of the police station because no necessity for the same was felt. He could not say as to where the same was kept. He admitted that there was no document to show as to what happened to that copy of chick F.I.R. In the normal course the search of the person of Sucha Singh accused-respondent was to be made at the time of his arrest and a recovery memo of the recovery made from his possession was to be prepared and so if the F.I.R., Ex. VI, was actually lodged by Sucha Singh accused at the police station and a copy of the chick report prepared at the police station on the basis of Ex. VI. was actually given to him, it must have been found from his person (the person of Sucha Singh accused-respondent). VI, was actually lodged by Sucha Singh accused at the police station and a copy of the chick report prepared at the police station on the basis of Ex. VI. was actually given to him, it must have been found from his person (the person of Sucha Singh accused-respondent). This witnesses could not say as to what happened to that document which was recovered from the possession of Sucha Singh accused-respondent, on the search of his person. 29. THE testimony of Senior S. I. Balvir Singh, P.W. 9 who was the Investigating Officer in this case, has been pressed in the service of the prosecution. Balvir Singh stated that this F.I.R. (Ex. VI) was lodged by Sucha Singh accused respondent at the police station in his presence, that on the basis of the said F.I.R (Ex. VI) a chick report was prepared and he (Sucha Singh accused-respondent) was arrested during the said process. However, his further statement was that there was a wall separating the office of the Station Officer and the office of the Head Moharrir at the police station, that he was busy in the office of the Station Officer in connection with the investigation of this case, that from the office of the Station Officer he could see nothing in the office of Head Moharrir of the Police Station and that at the time when Sucha Singh accused- respondent handed over the F.I.R. (Ex. VI) to the Head Moharrir, he was in the office of the Station Officer and he had come to know of the lodging of this F.I.R. Ex. VI when he was given a copy of the chick report prepared on its basis. Thus his claim that Sucha Singh accused-respondent had lodged the F.I.R. (Ex. VI) at the police station in his presence gets belied. About the search of the person of Sucha Singh accused-respondent at the police station he could not tell, whether the copy of the chick report aforesaid recovered from his possession was left with him (Sucha Singh accused-respondent) or it was taken in possession by the police. 30. THE learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the Signatures (Ex. About the search of the person of Sucha Singh accused-respondent at the police station he could not tell, whether the copy of the chick report aforesaid recovered from his possession was left with him (Sucha Singh accused-respondent) or it was taken in possession by the police. 30. THE learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the Signatures (Ex. C- 1) aforesaid were different from other signatures of Sucha Singh accused- respondent on record but about it he has not placed on record sufficient data and we cannot categorically record a finding whether the said signatures were his or not. THE question, however, remains in the case, whether the prosecution has proved the contents of the document (Ex. VI), the F.I.R. lodged by Sucha Singh accused respondent, purporting to have been scribed by Lakhvindar Singh the prosecution did not examine Lakhvindar Singh scribe to show that this document was scribed by him at the instance or at the dictation of Sucha Singh accused-respondent and that after scribing he had read it over to him and that then he (Sucha Singh accused-respondent) had put his signatures on it. In any case, at the most the prosecution could be said to have established that Sucha Singh accused gave the said document (Ex. VI) at the police station but not that it was dictated by him or that it was scribed at his instance. So the contents of the said document cannot be read in evidence in any case. It is to be noted that on the basis of Ex. VI what the police had done was to register a non-cognizable case. The prosecution never registered this document as a cross F.I.R.. nor investigation was made in any such cross case. Moreover, it is not a case where the prosecution version runs parallel to a sufficient length with the version in Ex. VI. It is noticeable that in this document there is no mention of the presence of the other two accused-respondents, namely Har Dayal Singh accused-respondent and Hardev Singh accused- respondent, much less of any act done by them. It also does not say that Sucha Singh accused-respondent inflicted any injury on the person of the deceased, much less that the deceased died as a result thereof. It also does not say that Sucha Singh accused-respondent inflicted any injury on the person of the deceased, much less that the deceased died as a result thereof. The prosecution argument is that if the police had got a document fabricated at the time of the arrest the accused person Sucha Singh, it would have named the presence of the other two accused-respondents also and also recorded their participation in the occurrence in a positive manner. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the document Ex. VI was handed over voluntarily by Sucha Singh accused respondent at the police station as his version of the occurrence. Moreover, there comes the question whether this document, which would amount to a statement given at the police station by the accused at the time when the case against him had already been registered and the investigation had started could be admissible in evidence even if its contents were held to have been duly proved, i.e. to have been scribed at the instance and dictation of Sucha Singh accused signed by him and filed by him at the police station. There is an authority of the Supreme Court in Mahabir Mandal and others v. State of Bihar, (1972) SCC 748 at p. 762, paras 46-47), in which case reliance was placed by the prosecution upon the statement alleged to have been made by two accused at the police station in the presence of the informant after he had lodged the report at the police station. The Supreme Court held in para 47 that such statements are not legally admissible and cannot be used as substantive evidence. It was observed that Section 162, Cr. P.C. bars the use of such a statement for any purpose except to the extent permitted by proviso to Section 162, Cr. P.C. It. was observed that it is also well-established that the bar of inadmissibility operates not only on statements of witnesses but also on those of the accused. This is not a case of a confession made in the presence of a Magistrate, nor of a discovery of any incriminating material as may make them admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. So in that case the afroesaid statements were excluded from consideration by the Supreme Court. This is not a case of a confession made in the presence of a Magistrate, nor of a discovery of any incriminating material as may make them admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. So in that case the afroesaid statements were excluded from consideration by the Supreme Court. There is yet another authority of the Supreme Court in Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat, (1975) 4 SCC 257 (271 para 20). In that case the High Court relied on a complaint made by the accused before the police during the course of investigation which constituted his defence before the police. It was observed that the contents of the documents were closely connected with the facts of that case. In that case it Was admitted on all hands that the accused had given that statement to the police after the investigation into the F.I.R. lodged by the informant had already started and it was held by the Supreme Court that that was, therefore, clearly a statement given by the accused in the course of investigation and, therefore, hit by Section 162 of the Code. The Supreme Court, therefore, completely excluded that document from consideration. That being so, in this case also we have to exclude this document (Ex. VI) from consideration. The learned Sessions Judge in this case, therefore, in our opinion, rightly excluded this document from consideration. 31. IN the present case, the prosecution relies on the mention of lodging of this F.I.R. by Sucha Singh accused-respondent in the bail application of Har Dayal Singh accused-respondent, alleged to have been moved by Lakhvindar Singh on hie behalf in this case before the High Court. The learned Sessions Judge was right in observing that accused Sucha Singh had not made any admission regarding lodging of the said F.I.R. (Ex. VI) and that the admission of Lakhvindar Singh in the said bail application (Ex. Ka. 20) was not binding on him (Sucha Singh accused-respondent). As noted earlier, the contents of Ex. VI did not mention the presence or participation of Hardayal Singh accused- respondent in this occurrence and so there is nothing in it, which can be used against Har Dayal Singh or Kardeo Singh accused-respondent and it cannot be used against Sucha Singh accused respondents as Lakhvindar Singh was not shown to have filed the affidavit in the said bail application at the instance of Sucha Singh accused-respondent. The prosecution has not set out any bail application moved on behalf of Sucha Singh accused-respondent relying upon this document Ex. VI. So this document (Ex. VI) cannot be used against any of the accused-respondents. 32. IN view of the above discussion, there is no force in this Government appeal. The Government appeal is accordingly dismissed. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge giving the benefit of doubt to the accused-respondents, namely Sucha Singh, Har Dayal Singh and Hardeo Singh, and acquitting them are upheld. All the accused-respondents are on bail from this High Court. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.