ORDER : G.N. Ray, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5-5-1988 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 196 of 1978. By the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the three respondents by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur by judgment dated 17-1-1978. The said three accused-respondents were tried for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 323 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code for causing the death of one Sadhu Singh on 23-7-1976 at about 1 p.m. at Village Barhori. According to the prosecution case, there were strained relations between the deceased and the accused on account of sending delegates by an election in a cane society. When the deceased Sadhu had gone to purchase cigarettes from the village shop and reached a neem tree, the accused Khacheroo and his two sons, namely, accused Ranvir and Birender came to the place of occurrence and Ranvir was found armed with a rifle and Birender was armed with a double-barrelled gun. It is the prosecution case that Ranvir fired three shots from the rifle and Birender fired one shot from the gun which hit the deceased and he fell down. At that stage, the accused Khacheroo also dealt lathi blows on the person of the deceased. By that time, Mahesh Kumar, PW 1, Ganga Ram, PW 3, (Smt Vidya not examined) and Smt Shakuntale, PW 12, also reached there and they wanted to take the dead body of Sadhu, but they were prevented by the accused who also caused injury on their person. According to the prosecution case, the body of the deceased was thereafter dragged to the house of Khacheroo where such dead body was found lying in a room and Ranvir and Birender fired from their firearms on the door of their own house. Accepting that the prosecution case was established beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur convicted all the said three accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 323 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced the said accused to suffer life imprisonment for the offence of murder and rigorous imprisonment for nine months for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 by directing that the sentences would run concurrently. 2. 2. The said convicted accused thereafter preferred Criminal Appeal No. 196 of 1978 before the Allahabad High Court. It may be stated here that the body of the deceased was recovered from the room of the house of Khacheroo and at the time of recovery of such body by the Investigating Officer, the deceased was wearing only an underwear. A pistol was lying by the side of the dead body which was loaded and a spent-up cartridge was found inside it. The deceased was wearing a belt containing the cartridges for the pistol. It was the case of the deceased that Sadhu Singh being armed with a pistol came to their house and was trying to misbehave with a lady in the house and when the accused raised a protest, the deceased also fired from his pistol. Thereafter by way of self-defence, Ranvir and Birender fired from their licensed firearms causing the death of the said Sadhu Singh. The accused denied that the incident had taken place under the neem tree as alleged by the prosecution. 3. Although according to the prosecution case, the Investigating Officer recovered bloodstained earth from near the neem tree and also collected bloodstained earth from the passage leading to the house of the accused, such bloodstained earth was not kept in a separate packet but the same was mixed with bloodstained earth found in the house of the accused where the body of the deceased was found. It was, therefore, not possible to establish whether at all there were bloodstains near the neem tree or in the passage through which the deceased was alleged to have been dragged up to the house of the accused. According to the prosecution case, the Investigating Officer also found spent-up cartridges near the neem tree and also pellets and wads near the said neem tree and seized these articles by placing them in a sealed packet in the presence of panch witnesses but such panch witnesses have not been examined and no explanation has been given as to why such panch witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution to prove such seizure of pellets etc. It also appears that immediately after the incident, a photographer was called who had taken the photographs of the deceased and also of the place of occurrence but the photographer has deposed that he did not find any mark of dragging the dead body of the deceased from near the neem tree up to the house of the accused. From the medical evidence also, it does not transpire that the mark of dragging of the deceased from the alleged place of occurrence up to the house of the deceased which is about 18 paces (about 28 feet) was found by the doctor who held the post-mortem examination. Considering such features of the case, the High Court was not inclined to place any reliance on the deposition of the Investigating Officer that he had noticed bloodstained marks near the neem tree and on the passage and he had seized the spent-up cartridges and pellets from such place of occurrence. As the place of occurrence alleged by the prosecution could not be established beyond reasonable doubt the prosecution case was found doubtful and the High Court has given the benefit of doubt to the appellants and passed the order of acquittal in their favour since impugned in this appeal by the appellant State of U.P. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that apart from the injured eyewitnesses PWs 1, 3 and 12, Ram Chandra, PW 10, was also examined by the prosecution in support of the prosecution case. The High Court has not placed any reliance on the deposition of PW 10, Ram Chandra because his name was not mentioned in the FIR. The learned counsel has submitted that the evidence of Ram Chandra was not liable to be discarded simply because his name was not mentioned in the FIR. He has also submitted that Mahesh Kumar, Ganga Ram and Shakuntale PWs 1, 3 and 12 were injured witnesses and members of the family of the deceased. Their presence at the place of occurrence was natural and their depositions were also not liable to be discarded by the High Court. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant evidences which were placed for our consideration by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that the place of occurrence has been seriously disputed by the accused. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant evidences which were placed for our consideration by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that the place of occurrence has been seriously disputed by the accused. It was, therefore, necessary to establish the place of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. We fail to understand why the bloodstained earth stated to have been recovered from the place of occurrence had not been kept separately, but was mixed up with the bloodstained earth found in the house of the accused where the dead body was found by the Investigating Officer. The alleged seizure of the spent-up cartridges and also the pellets and wads from the said place of occurrence near the neem tree has also not been established beyond reasonable doubt because although there were panch witnesses for such seizure, such witnesses have not been examined and no explanation has been given by the prosecution as to why such witnesses have not been examined. According to the prosecution case, the deceased had died near the neem tree, but his body had been dragged up to the house of the accused which is about 28 feet away. But no dragging mark was noticed by the doctor on the person of the deceased. If the body had been dragged up to such distance over the village pathway, it was likely that some markings should be found on the body of the deceased by the doctor holding post-mortem examination. The deceased was also found in the house of the accused wearing only an underwear. It is not the case of the prosecution that he was properly dressed when he had gone out to buy cigarettes but such clothes had been removed in the house of the (sic accused). If on such disturbing features of the prosecution case the High Court has entertained doubt about the credibility of the prosecution case and has given benefit of doubt to the accused by passing order of acquittal in their favour, we do not think that such view is wholly unreasonable and against the weight of evidence for which interference by this Court is called for. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant should stand discharged. Appeal dismissed.