VIRENDRA SARAN, J. Jagdish has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 21-8-1981 of Sri V. C. Jain Sessions Judge, Unnao convicting and sentencinghim under Section 302, I. P. C. to imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case is that about three years prior to the incident, the appel lant developed illicit connection with Shiv Fiari, deceased. When this illicit relation ship came to the knowledge of her father Mohan Lal and brother Rani Ganesh, they reprimanded Shiv Piari and asked her to put an end to her illicit relationship. They also told the appellant not to play with the honour of their family. About six months prior to the incident, Shiv Piari was mar ried to someone else but even thereafter whenever Shiv Piari came to her parental house, the appellant made approaches to her, but Shiv Piari did not succumb to the desires of the appellant. In the above back ground the present incident took place in the night intervening 25th/26th October, 1977. On the fateful night Shiv Piari and her father Mohan Lal were sleeping on separate cots in a Barotha adjoining to their house in the south. The Barotha has openings in the south. Ram Ganesh, brother of the deceased was sleeping in an adjoining Kothari with closed doors. Smt. Phoolmati, real elder sister of Shiv Piari was sleeping outside the house under a Neemtreeatashort distance in front of the Barotha. A lighted lantern was hanging in the Barotha on the southern wall of the Barotha. At about mid-night the appellant arrived having a double barrel gun in one hand and a torch in the other hand and fired a single shot from his gun hitting Shiv Piari who died then and there. On hearing the sound of firing, Ram Ganesh as well as Smt. Phoolmali were aroused from their sleep and it is the prosecution case that Mohan Lal was already awake. Immedi ately after firing the single shot, the appel lant escaped, but was seen by the witnesses who chased the appellant. Basdeo, younger brother of the deceased as also Jai Ram, Ram Dayal Yadav, Ram Charan, Mahaveer, Sadhu and Chhotey Lal were also attracted on hearing the alarm raised and joined in the chase of the appellant. The appellant, however, entered his house. Basdeo, younger brother of the deceased as also Jai Ram, Ram Dayal Yadav, Ram Charan, Mahaveer, Sadhu and Chhotey Lal were also attracted on hearing the alarm raised and joined in the chase of the appellant. The appellant, however, entered his house. From outside the house, the wit nesses asked the appellant and his brother Jagdeo to come out but none responded. Thereafter in the company of the village Chaukidar, Ram Ganesh proceeded to police station Asoha and on his dictation FIR was written at 2 a. m. and a case was registered. S. I. Rananjai Singh, Station Officer Incharge of the police station im mediately look-up the investigation and proceeded to the spot alongwith S. I. Ram Sumer Upadhyay. An inquest report was drawn-up by S. I. Ram Sumer Upadhyay and the dead body was sent for post-mor tem examination at 8 a. m. Post-mortem examination on the dead body was con ducted by Dr. V. K. Verma of the District Hospital, Unnao on 27th October, 1977 at about 4 p. m. According to the doctor, the death had occurred about one or two days prior to the post-mortem. The doctor noted the following injuries on the person of the deceased: (1) Fire-arm wound of entrance obliquely placed 3" x 1"bone deep on right side of face on cheek causing fracture of maxilla and base of the skull on right side. (2) Fire-arm wound of exit 1" x 1" on left side temporal region. 3. Both the injuries were correspond ing with each other and had caused exten sive damage to cranical cavity. Scalp and face were disfigured. No tattooing was found. 4. On internal examination, fracture of right maxilla and left parietal and tem poral bones was found. Brain matter was found damaged and leaking. The stomach was empty. In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage asa result of fire-arm injury. 5. After transfer of Sri Rananjay Singh, Investigation was taken up by S. I. , R. K. Singh who submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. The case was com mitted to the Court of Session in due course. The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he has been falsely impli cated. 6. In support of its case the prosecu tion examined four eye-witnesses. P. W. 1 Ram Ganesh is brother of the deceased and informant of the case. The case was com mitted to the Court of Session in due course. The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he has been falsely impli cated. 6. In support of its case the prosecu tion examined four eye-witnesses. P. W. 1 Ram Ganesh is brother of the deceased and informant of the case. P. W. 2 Mohan Lal is father of the deceased. P. W. 3 Ram Bharosey is another eye-witness of the case. P. W. 4 Smt. Phoolmati is real Sister of the deceased. Rest of the evidence consists of evidence of P. W. 5 Dr. VK. Verma who conducted the post-mortem examination. P. W 6 Ram Sumer Upadhyay drew up the inquest report and P. W 7 S. I. Rananjay Singh had conducted major part of the investigation. The appellant did not produce any evidence in defence. 7. Accepting the prosecution case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant who has come up in appeal to this Court. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Govern ment Advocate at length and have perused the record. 9. The only independent witness in this case is Ram Bharosey. However, he has not supported the prosecution case and stated that he did not at all-go to the spot and did not see anybody running awanor did he chase anybody. He was declared hostile and was allowed to be cross-ex amined by the prosecution but the prosecution failed to elicit anything in his cross-examination which may go to sup port the prosecution case. P. W. 4. Smt. Phoolmati has been produced by the prosecution. Her evidence is of great sig nificance inasmuch as she is the real sister of the deceased and was sleeping outside the Barotha in the open. However, she stated that when she wokeup on hearing the sound of gun shot, she noticed a man coming out of the Barotha and running away with a gun and a torch but she could not recognize the miscreant properly and she was unable to say whether the miscreant was appellant Jagdish or not. She further stated that she guessed that the appellant was Jagdish. The prosecution was permitted to cross-examine Smt. Phoolmati and she was confronted with her statement under Section 161, Cr. PC. She further stated that she guessed that the appellant was Jagdish. The prosecution was permitted to cross-examine Smt. Phoolmati and she was confronted with her statement under Section 161, Cr. PC. She stated that she had told the Investigat ing Officer that the appellant was seen running away with a double barrel gun and a torch. But in further cross-examination by the defence, she clarified that since she had suspicion that the assailant was Jag dish, the appellant, she had taken his name on account of suspicion. Thus, the evidence of Smt. Phoolmati does not fix the identity of the appellant as the as sailant. Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that Smt. Phoolmati had either colluded with the appellant or was afraid of him. The argument of learned State Counsel cannot be accepted even for a moment. It is inconceivable that Smt. Phoolmati being real sister of the deceased would collude with the appellant who was an outsider belonging to a different caste. She is a widow of about 50 years of age with no liabilities and was living with her father and brothers and was dependent on them. She was the last person to side with the appellant and besides the bald suggestion of the prosecution there is nothing to show that she had any fear from the appellant. In cross-examination she categorically denied that she had colluded with the ap pellant or had any fear from him. It ap pears that since the appellant was having illicit relationship with the deceased, even though Smt. Phoolmati could not recog nise the assailant by face, she suspected that the crime was committed by him and she named the appellant out of suspicion. But at the trial when she had to state things on oath, her conscience did not permit her to falsely implicate an innocent person in a serious case like murder and she stated that the real fact was that she had named the appellant due to suspicion as the as sailant was somewhat like the appellant. The fact that Smt. Phoolmati did not sup port the prosecution case regarding par ticipation of the appellant is an important fact which casts serious reflection on the entire prosecution case and even on the testimony of other witnesses and creates doubt regarding the participation of the appellant in the crime. 10. The fact that Smt. Phoolmati did not sup port the prosecution case regarding par ticipation of the appellant is an important fact which casts serious reflection on the entire prosecution case and even on the testimony of other witnesses and creates doubt regarding the participation of the appellant in the crime. 10. P. W. 1 Ram Ganesh is yet another witness. He is brother of the deceased and is also the first informant. However, a close scrutiny of the evidence of Ram Ganesh makes it evident that he did not have the opportunity to reach outside the room where he was sleeping in time so as to mark the features of the assailant and recognise him. Admittedly, the incident took place at about mid-night, a time when people are fast asleep and a single shot had been fired. In the natural course of events the appellant must have taken to his heels without loss of time and would have disappeared before arrival of Ram Ganesh. Ram Ganesh too admitted that he was sleeping in a Kothari with its doors closed. P. W. 2 Mohan Lal stated that the doors had been latched. The Kothari was towards north of the Barotha and the appellant fired the shot from south of the Barotha, turned round and started running away, towards south-west. Thus, by the time Ram Ganesh could be roused from his deep slumber, collect his wits, pick- up the torch, open the doors and come out of the Kothari, the assailant must have covered sufficient distance and it would have been impossible to recog nise him. To overcome the above, Ram Ganesh in para 9 of his evidence tried to say that at the time of the incident he was awake but his assertion of being awake is a patent falsehood and is belied by own evidence. In para 4 of his deposition he clearly stated that at that time he was sleeping in his Kothari and further slated that his sleep was broken on hearing the report of gun shot. We are not inclined to accept Ram Ganesh when he states that he was awake. We may also mention here that Ram Ganesh has himself stated that when he came out of his Kolhari and reached the door of the Barotha, the appellant had already escaped out. We are not inclined to accept Ram Ganesh when he states that he was awake. We may also mention here that Ram Ganesh has himself stated that when he came out of his Kolhari and reached the door of the Barotha, the appellant had already escaped out. Thus, we are of the view that Ram Ganesh was not in a position to recognise the assailant. It appears that he has falsely implicated the appel lant who had developed illicit relationship with his sister and was source of ill-fame to his family. In village life, pre-marital sexual relationships are looked down upon and are not permitted. Such relationships brine the family disrepute and invite taunts for all the family mem bers and especially to the father and brothers of the girl involved in such illicit relationship. 11. Lastly, there is evidence of Mohan Lal, who is father of the deceased and who is said to have been lying on a cot in the same Barotha as the deceased. He claimed that he was awake at that odd hours of night and saw the incident. H has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that implicit reliance cannot be place on the evidence of Mohan Lal for convicting the appellant as Mohan Lal was an old man of 92 years of age and his claim of seeing and recognising the appellant has to be taken with a pinch of salt. It cannot be denied that as a man nears his end, his bodily faculties deteriorate with ageing. At the age of 92 years, the life is at a low ebb. The vision of such an aged person gets impaired due to pathological and physical changes brought about by ageing. Perception of light and figures of such old people is very dim and blurred and it is common knowledge and due to ageing old people are often not even able to recognise their own kith and kin. Mohan Lal appears to be no exception as he him self stated that when the appellant arrived he thought that it was his daughter Phool mati who had arrived, but it was the appel lant. This statement goes to show that his visual perception was poor and he was unable to decipher between the figure of a male and a female. This statement goes to show that his visual perception was poor and he was unable to decipher between the figure of a male and a female. It is too much to expect that he would be able to make out faces clearly at night as the incident happened so suddenly without any previous apprehen sion. Moreover, the claim of Mohan Lal that he was awake at that time is also not very convicting. At about midnight people are fast asleep. However, the prosecution case is that Mohan Lal was suffering from dysentry, but it is not the case of the prosecution and it has not been stated even by Mohan Lal that he had gone to case himself prior to the incident and hence he was still awake. Mohan Lal has also not given any other reason why he was awake at that add hours of night. P. W 2 Mohan Lal too had grouse against the appellant who had been carrying on with his unmarried daughter and spoiling her life and brought disrepute to the entire family and had enough reason to falsely implicate theappellant. 12. As for the lantern light in the Barotha, we wonder whether Mohan Lal would keep a lantern hanging by the side of his cot as the same would have attracted innumerable insects to let loose hell on the persons sleeping there. Moreover, people usually lower the wick of the lantern while going to sleep and, thus, even if there was a lantern, the light would have been quit dim and not enough to enable an old man aged 92 years to clearly recognise the assailant. 13. The story that the appellant was chased upto his house is also not free from blemish. We are of the view that this story has been woven to impart strength to the prosecution case that it was the appellant who had committed the murder. The prosecution evidence on this score is also highly discrepant. In the F. I. R. it is mentioned that wnen the appellant entered his house, numerous witnesses who are chas ing him called the appellant and his brother Jagdeo, but none responded. In his evidence, the informant Ram Ganesh simply says that the appellant was chased upto his house, but he does not say that anybody called out the appellant or that his brother to come put. In his evidence, the informant Ram Ganesh simply says that the appellant was chased upto his house, but he does not say that anybody called out the appellant or that his brother to come put. According to him the chasers had simply returned. The assertion of PW 2 Mohan Lal is that after the appellant had bolted his door from inside, on being called out, appellants brother Jagdeo came out from ms house and Mohan Lal told Jagdeo that his brother had committed murder of his daughter. Phoolmati stated that the as sailant was chased upto the house of the appellant and that there is a Bungla (enclosure) in front of the house of the appellant and the assailant had escaped into the gate thereof. She does not say whether the appellant had bolted his door from inside or not. Even if we ignore the testimony of Smt. Phoolmati, the prosecu tion story on this score is highly unnatural. Had the prosecution case that a number of villagers had joined the chase been a fact, the villagers would have surrounded the house and the appellant would have been caught or closed inside the house and the police informed. On the other hand, if the brother of the appellant had come out, he would have faced the fury of the chasers as tempers must have been running very high due to the outrageous crime. The tame manner in which the witnesses returned from the house of the appellant marks the prosecution case regarding the chase of the appellant highly doubtful and un believable. 14. There is yet another intriguing feature in the prosecution case. The pro secution case is that the deceased was shot by the appellant from towards south while she was sleepingclose to the northern wall of the Barotha. The site-plan shows that a passage runs east-west tow-ards south of the Barotha. Point e has been shown towards south of the passage at some dis tance towards west of the place of the incident. When the Investigating Officer reached the spot, be found a piece of skull bone of the deceased lying on point e. It is anybodys guess how the piece of skull bone reached upto point e and was taken into possession or the investigating officer on his arrival on the spot. 15. When the Investigating Officer reached the spot, be found a piece of skull bone of the deceased lying on point e. It is anybodys guess how the piece of skull bone reached upto point e and was taken into possession or the investigating officer on his arrival on the spot. 15. The defence has also challenged the prosecution case that the F. I. R. was lodged on 26-10-1977 at 2 a. m. It is con tended that in fact the F. I. R. came into existence after the arrival of the Inves tigating Officer on the spot and after lot of deliberations and consultations the prosecution case was given a shape and the appellant was falsely implicated. The defence contention is not without force. According to the prosecution case, the F. I. R. was lodged at 2 a. m. and the police reached the spot at 4. 30 a. m. Pancnayat-nama was immediately drawn and the body was despatched for post-mortem ex amination. A close scrutiny of the evidence shows that there has been lot of delay in despatch of the body and hence the post-mortem examination could be conducted only on 27-10-1977 at 4 p. m. at the district headquarters, which according to the Challan-lash Ext. Kha-6 is only 25 miles away. The prosecution has tried to make us believe that the body was despatched from the spot as early as 8 a. m. on 26-10-1977 and a mention to this effect is to be found in the inquest report Ext. Ka-5. Evidence of P. W. 1 Ram Ganesh belies the above claim of the prosecution as it shows that the dead body started from the village as late as 12 noon and since it became late, the dead body remained lying at a place known as Sohramau throughout the night and thereafter it continued its further journey early in the next morning by means of Kharkhara (horse-trolley ). Had the dead body been despatched from the villageat 8a. m. on 26-10- 1977 it would have reached the headquarter on the same day by evening. The late sending of the body has its own significance because the dead body is sent for post-mortem ex amination alongwith copy of the F. I. R. , inquest report and other papers (See Ext. Ka-8 ). m. on 26-10- 1977 it would have reached the headquarter on the same day by evening. The late sending of the body has its own significance because the dead body is sent for post-mortem ex amination alongwith copy of the F. I. R. , inquest report and other papers (See Ext. Ka-8 ). Learned Counsel for the appellant has rightly pointed out that the delay in despatch of the body was due to the fact that in all likelihood, the F. I. R. was not in existence and hence the body could not be despatched promptly and remained in the village till noon of 26-10-1977. It is also important to note that in the column regarding sending of the occurrence report to the concerned Magistrate, time and date of sending the occurrence report are not to be found in the check F. I. R. and the only words used are, "dak Se", but there is no date or time. Section 157, Cr. P. C. commands the police officer to send a copy of the F. I. R. forthwith to the con cerned Magistrate. Section 157 states: ". . . . . . . he shall forthwith send a report of the same to Magistrate empowered to take cong-nizance of such offence upon a police report". . . . . 16. The provisions of Section 157, Cr. P. C. which provide a safeguard against antedating or ante-timing the F. I. R. have been violated in this case. It is also noteworthy that in this case the check F. I. R. which has been filed as Ext. Ka-1 is not on the printed police form but the format has been made on a plain paper by means of a pencil. The totality of cir cumstances in the case at hand lend coun tenance to the defence suggestion that the F. I. R. came into existence not at 2 a. m. on 26-10-1977 butlateron. 17. So far as motive of the offence is concerned, the prosecution case is that the appellant was having illicit relations with the deceased about three years prior to the incident, but about six months ago she was married to another person. Even there after the appellant used to make advances towards her, but she did not like the same and this was the motive for the crime. Even there after the appellant used to make advances towards her, but she did not like the same and this was the motive for the crime. We would like to observe that it was not only the appellant who alone had the motive to commit the murder. The husband of the deceased too could have motive had he come to know of the illicit relations of his wifewiththeappellant. 18. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the prosecution case has not been proved against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt and he is entitled to be acquitted. 19. In the result, this appeal is al lowed. Conviction of the appellant under Section 302, I. P. C. and his sentence for imprisonment for life is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed. .