M. C. JAIN, J. There are five appel lants, namely, Ram Manohar, Sheo Dulare, Hira, Babu Lal and Moti Lal. They have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 2nd of August, 1980 passed by Sri N. K. Maheshwari the then II, Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 195 of 1979. Out of them Hira Lal has been convicted under" Section 147 IPC, and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment. He has fur ther been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under Section 323, IPC simpliciter and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment. The remaining four appellants have been convicted under Section 148 IPC and each of them has been sentenced to two years rigorous imprison ment. Each of them has further been sen tenced under Section 302/149 IPC and sen tenced to life imprisonment. Each of them has also been convicted under Section 323/149 IPC and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences of each accused have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The appellants Ram Manohar and Sheo Dulare are real brothers. The appel lant Babu Lal is the son of the sister of the wife of Ram Manohar and the appellant Moti Lal is the brother of the wife of Ram Manohar. The appellant Hira is said to be on family terms with the remaining appellants. 3. The murder of one Ram Pal is involved in the case which took place on 9-6-1976 at about 9. 30 p. m. in village Deoli, P. S. Thariyawan, District Fatehpur. The FIR of the incident was lodged at the concerned Police Station Thariyawan by the deceaseds brother Jagat Pal on 10-6-1976 at 6. 30 a. m. the distance of the Police Station was three kilometres. It had been scribed by Sunder Lai, PW 5. The inform ant Jagat Pal died a natural death before his evidence could be recorded in the trial. The prosecution case as per the FIR and the evidence adduced in the Court was that at about 5 p. m. on the day of occurrence the deceased Ram Pal was taking his cattle for grazing towards his field. When the cattle reached near the door of the ac cused- appellants Ram Manohar, they started eating his grains spread on a cot. When the cattle reached near the door of the ac cused- appellants Ram Manohar, they started eating his grains spread on a cot. Ram Manohar took ill of it and an alterca tion between him and the deceased Ram Pal took place. Ram Manohar had then abused Ram Pal and offered threats to him. On return from the field with cattle. Ram Pal informed his brother Jagat Pal of what had happened. His wife Smt. Jamuna Devi P W 3 also heard the conversation between Raj Pal and Jagat Pal in this behalf. The same night at about 9. 30 p. m. Ram Pal was sitting on a cot in the open land situated in the north of his house. Chhangu, P W1 was also sitting there and talking with him. The deceased complainant Jagat Pal was also there. Smt. Jamuna Devi, PW 3 wife of Ram Pal was also sitting just near and outside the main door of her house open ing towards northern side. The five ac cused-appellants came over there from the western side. The accused- appellant Hira Nai was armed with a lathi whereas the remaining four were armed with guns. It was a moonlit night. Accused-appellant Ram Manohar said that it was a good opportunity to kill him. Ram Pal got up from the cot and ran towards the eastern side. The appellants chased Ram Pal. After covering a distance of about 5-6 paces towards the eastern side the accused-ap pellant Sheo Dularc and Babu Lal opened fire on Ram Pal but the shots missed the target and hit the bullock of Manni Lal PW 4, tied on his cattle trough in the eastern side. The bullock died. Ram Pal turned to and ran towards south and reached under the thatch of Jagat Pal. Chhangu, PW 1 and Jhalloo also ran and reached near the cat tle trough of Manni Lal PW 4 along with Jagat Pai and Smt. Jamuna Devi, PW 3 Ram Manohar fired a shot from his gun which hit Ram Pal at the back head when he was near the thatch of Jagat Pal. Ram Pal entered the Kothri of Jagat Pal and turned towards the east. He wanted to close the door. Just then the accused- ap pellant Moti fired on him which hit him in his abdomen. Ram Pal fell down on the ground inside the Kothri and died. Ram Pal entered the Kothri of Jagat Pal and turned towards the east. He wanted to close the door. Just then the accused- ap pellant Moti fired on him which hit him in his abdomen. Ram Pal fell down on the ground inside the Kothri and died. At that time Kesariya, wife of Jagat Pal was cook ing food under the thatch. When Ram Pal fell down, his wife Smt. Jamuna Devi, P W3 reached near the thatch weeping and wail ing. The accused-appellant Hira Nai then struck 2-3 lathi blows on her. The witnesses continued to raise alarm from near the cattle trough of Manni Lai, PW 4. The accused persons ran away towards the southern side. Thereafter all the witnesses went inside the Kothri where Ram Pal was lying dead. Sunder Lal PW 5 is the son of the sister of the deceased and is resident of village Taksaria. After the incident, he was called through Ram Sahai and the report Ex. KA 3 was dictated to him by Jagat Pal under the thatch. On its lodging it at the Police Station next day at 6. 30 a. m. by Jagat Pal a case was registered and investigation was started by ASI Rajednra Kishore, PW 6 but was concluded by SO Ram Mohan Rai. After the investigation a charge-sheet was laid against the accused- appellants who were tried and convicted and sen tenced as stated earlier. 4. It would be useful to state here that post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased Ram Pal was conducted by Dr. Avinash Chand Srivastava, PW 2 on 11-6-1976 at 12. 30 p. m. As per the post-mortem report Ex Ka-1 the deceased was aged about 42 years and about 1-1/2 day had passed since he died. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person. (1) Gun shot wound of entry 1" x 1" x through and through over abdomen 6" below ft. nipple. Blackening and tattooing were present. Directed from interior to posteriously. Margins inverted. Spleen, left kidney and large intestine were lacerated. Wadding pieces were recovered from spleen. (2) Gun shot wound of exit (8 in number) each measuring 1/4" x 1/4" in an area of 4" x 3" on left side of back 1" above iliac crest. No blacken ing was present. Margins were everted. These are the exist wounds of injury No. 1. Wadding pieces were recovered from spleen. (2) Gun shot wound of exit (8 in number) each measuring 1/4" x 1/4" in an area of 4" x 3" on left side of back 1" above iliac crest. No blacken ing was present. Margins were everted. These are the exist wounds of injury No. 1. (3) Gunshot wound of entry 1-1/2x1-1/2" x through and through on the back of head at the level of and 3" behind left ear. Fracture of 1st and 2nd cervical vertebra present. Brain, larynx, trachea and tongue were lacerated 25 small shots were recovered from the brain and 32 from the mount and mandible. Multiple frac tures of mandible were present. (4) Gun shot wound of exit 4" x 1-1/3" on chins. Margins were everted and lacerated. This is also exit wound of injury No. 3. 5. The Doctor took out 57 pellets and few pieces of wadding from the dead body of Ram Pal. The death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of firearm ante-mortem injuries. 6. The injuries of Smt. Jamuna Devi, PW 3 had been examined on 10-6 1976 at 8. 40a. m. which were as follows: (1) Lacerated wound 3/4" x 1/10" x skin deep on the left side of face 2" behind the left angel of mouth. (2) Lacerated wound 2/10" x 1/10" on the outer surface of pinna of left ear in the middle. (3) Contusion 1-1/2" x 1-1/2" on the right side of forehead 1/2" above the right eyebrow. Colour was red. 7. All the injuries were simple and had been caused by some blunt weapon. They were about one day old. 8. Post-mortem was also conducted over the carcass of the bullock of Manni Lal, PW 4 on 16-6-1976 by a veterinary surgeon in the village itself. The animal had received gun shot injuries. 9. At the trial, the prosecution ex amined six witnesses out of whom Chhangu, PW 1, Smt. Jamuna Devi, PW 3 and Manni Lal, P W 4 were the eye-witnesses of fact. P W 2 was Dr. Avinash Chand Srivastava, who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Sunder Lai, P W 5 was the scribe of the FIR and Rajendra Kishore PW 6 was the Investigating Of ficer of the case. 10. Accused-appellants pleaded not guilty. According to them, they had been falsely implicated. P W 2 was Dr. Avinash Chand Srivastava, who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Sunder Lai, P W 5 was the scribe of the FIR and Rajendra Kishore PW 6 was the Investigating Of ficer of the case. 10. Accused-appellants pleaded not guilty. According to them, they had been falsely implicated. The contention of the accused- appellant Hira was that the deceased Ram Pal had been tried for the murder of one Vishun Dutt and he had appeared as a witness from the side of the prosecution in that case and for the reason Jagat Pal falsely implicated him. 11. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the case under Section 429 IPC, for killing the bullock of Manni Lal, PW 4 was not proved against the ac cused-appellant, because the killing was not deliberate and the animus to kill animal was not there. However, he believed the prosecution case and the evidence as regards the other offences where for the accused-appellants had been charged. He accordingly convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in the ear lier part of this judgment. 12. We have heard Sri Amar Saran learned Counsel for the appellants and learned AGA from the side of the State at length and have carefully gone through the evidence and material on record. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that there was no motive on the part of the accused-appellants to commit the crimes; that the incident took place sometime late in night and not at 9. 30 p. m. as alleged by the prosecution that there was no common bond amongst the accused-appellants and that eye- witness account is not reconcil able with the medical evidence as con tained in the post-mortem report of the deceased. 13. On a thoughtful consideration, we are of the opinion that there are several black spots and unexplained factors which render the prosecution case and evidence to be doubtful. We intend to deal with these factors in succeeding discussion one by one. 14. At first we take up the question of motive. No doubt, motive is not evidence in a case but at the same time it satisfies the judicial mind about the authorship of a particular crime. In the case at hand, the motive assigned by the prosecution is wholly weak and infirm, incompatible with the crime. 14. At first we take up the question of motive. No doubt, motive is not evidence in a case but at the same time it satisfies the judicial mind about the authorship of a particular crime. In the case at hand, the motive assigned by the prosecution is wholly weak and infirm, incompatible with the crime. The motive is said to be that at about 5 p. m. the same day when Ram Pal was taking his cattle to his field to graze they started eating the grain spread by Ram Manohar on a cot outside his house falling in the way. Over it some altercation allegedly took place between Ram Manohar accused-appellant and deceased Ram Pal and the former offered threats of the latter. Having regard to the natural conduct of an ordinary human being it could not be a sufficient motive for five persons joining hands to murder Ram Pal a few hours later. It is also significant to note that of them, Babu Lal is a resident of another village Ratanpur at a distance of about 3 Kos from the village of the incident and Moti is also a resident of another village Banpurwa at a distance of about 4 Kos from the village of the incident. No doubt both of them are the relatives of the accused-appellant Ram Manohar whose brother is Sheo Dulare accused- appellant. But it does not stand to logic that they would have been called by Ram Manohar or Sheo Dulare after cattle grazing inci dent from their respective villages to join hands with them in this incident. Even if it is assumed that they were in the village from before having come to Ram Manohar, it is illogical that they would have participated in the commission of this crime without any personal or strong reason. So far as the accused-appellant. Hira Nai is concerned, it is not shown that he had any common bond with Ram Manohar and Sheo Dulare or was thick with them and would have joined them with premeditation to cut short the life of Ram Manohar over the insignificant 2 cr eation that had taken place between him on one hand and Ram Manohar on the other over the eating of grain by the cattle of Ram Pal. The fact is also there that the accused- appellant Hira had earlier ap peared as a witness against the deceased Ram Pal in the case of the murder of Vish nu Dutt. So, the motive assigned by the prosecution against the accused- appel lants for the commission of the crime is like a square peg in a round hole. 15. Secondly, it arouses great suspicion as to why the report was not lodged in the night itself. To say in other words, the lodging of the FIR the next day at 6. 30 a. m. is shrouded in dubious cir cumstances. The distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was only three miles. It has come in the tes timony of IO Rajendra Kishore, PW 6 that Police Station Thariyawan is at a distance of 14 miles from Fatehpur on G. T Road. The distance of Fatehpur from village Deoli (place of occurrence) is 11 miles. Deoli is away from G. T Road at a distance of three furlongs only. It has also come in the testimony of Smt. Jamuna Devi, P W 3, wife of the deceased that Sunder L d, P W 5 had reached the village in the night itself who had been called through Ram Sahai. The statement of Sunder Lai, PW 5 is that the distance of his village Taksari from the place of occurrence is five miles and the distance of his village from Police Station is two miles. Smt. Jamuna Devi, PW 3 has also stated that FIR was scribed in the night itself. If Ram Sahai, could go to call Sunder Lai, PW 5 to another village at a distance of about five miles in the night itself and he had come in the night itself whereafter he had scribed the FIR in the night, there does not appear to be any reason for not lodging the FIR in the night itself at the Police Station, situated at a shorter distance of three miles on main G. T Road which was only three furlongs away from the village of occurrence. The non- lodging of the FIR in the night itself leads to a justifiable inference that there had been deliberation as to the contents of the FIR and about the person to be named therein as culprits. 16. The non- lodging of the FIR in the night itself leads to a justifiable inference that there had been deliberation as to the contents of the FIR and about the person to be named therein as culprits. 16. Suspicion in the above regard arise hen matter is judged in the light of Panchayatnama Ex. Ka 5, sketch of dead body, Ex. Ka 6 and Chitthi Ex. Ka 10. A bare sight of these documents shows that initially only Section 302 IPC had been written thereon. Other Sections, i. e. 147, 148, 149 and 323 and 424 IPC, were in serted later on. The Panchayatnama is shown to have been started on 10-6-1976at 10 a. m. and finished at 11. 30 a. m. In case the FIR was ready and had been lodged earlier to the preparation of Panchayat nama and other related papers accessory for post-mortem, there does not seem to be any reason as to why all sections of IPC whereunder the case was registered were not incorporated in one go. The interpola tion or addition of sections in the docu ments aforesaid creates a genuine doubt as to actual time when the FIR was lodged. The learned AGA argued that the accused side did not interrogate the Investigation Officer in this behalf and as such no in ference can be drawn on the basis of the same. In this regard we would like to refer to the case of Bandhu v. State, 1997 (35) ACC245 (LB); 1997jic (A11) (LB)206. In that case also, the discrepancies arising out of Panchayatnama and Challan Lash were not put to Investigating Officer when he was in the witness box. It was held that it was not for the defence to fill in the lacuna in the prosecution evidence. It was for the prosecution to have explained the facts incorporated in these documents. " The prosecution had not tried to get explained the facts incorporated therein from the Investigating Officer and the benefit thereof was afforded to the accused. The present case stands on identical footing and it does not lie in the mouth of learned AGA to say that it was the duty of the defence to have got these documents ex plained by interrogating the Investigating Officer. We are of the opinion that the FIR was not even lodged on 10-6-1976 at 6. The present case stands on identical footing and it does not lie in the mouth of learned AGA to say that it was the duty of the defence to have got these documents ex plained by interrogating the Investigating Officer. We are of the opinion that the FIR was not even lodged on 10-6-1976 at 6. 30 a. m. as purported but it was lodged some time later after the Panchayatnama and other released papers had been prepared. In other words, even at the time of preparation of Panchayatnama, the prosecution was not certain about its story and about the actual culprit (s ). 17. Another important factor which gives serious jerk to the prosecution case is that the testimony of Chhangu, PW 1 as to where the deceased received the first shot fired by Ram Manohar on the back of his head does not reconcile with the testimony of the other two eye-witnesses. The ver sion of Chhangu, PW1 is that Ram Pal was under thatch of Jagat Pal when he received the shot fired by the accused- appellant Ram Manohar. Thatch was situated out side the Kothri of Jagat Pal in which the deceased allegedly received the second shot fired by Moti accused-appellant when he (Ram Pal) was trying to close the door of the Kothri. The second gun shot wound of entry had been received by the deceased in his abdomen. On the other hand, Smt. Jamuna Devi, PW 3 wife of the deceased and Manni Lal, P W 4 have stated that Ram Pal received both the shots-one opened by Ram Manohar and the other by Moti, when he was trying to enter the Kothri of Jagat Pal. Manni Lal PW 4 has also stated that the first shot hitting the deceased had been fired by Ram Manohar. Ram Pal had turned to close the door of the Kothri. There is noticeable conflict between the ocular version and the medical evidence as contained in the post- mortem report and the evidence of Dr. Avinash Chand Srivastava, PW 2 who conducted autopsy on the deadbody of the deceased. As mentioned above, the deceased received two shots, one on the back of his head and the other in his abdomen. This is the prosecution evidence that the first shot opened by Ram Manohar was received by him in the back of his head. Avinash Chand Srivastava, PW 2 who conducted autopsy on the deadbody of the deceased. As mentioned above, the deceased received two shots, one on the back of his head and the other in his abdomen. This is the prosecution evidence that the first shot opened by Ram Manohar was received by him in the back of his head. Having regard to the seats of the two gun shot wounds of entry received by the deceased (one on the back of the head and the other on the abdomen), it is abundantly clear that while receiving the shot in the back of his head, his back was towards the assailants and at the time of receiving the other gun shot wound in the abdomen, he was facing them. The clear statment of Dt. Avinash. Chand Suvastava, PW 2 is that the victim would have died instantaneously on receiving shot on the back of his head and it could not be possible for him to cover even a pace or two. In this view of the matter, it is not acceptable that the deceased could go in side the Kothri of Jagat Pal from under the thatch where he allegedly received the shot in the back of his head as per Chhangu, PW 1. He would have fallen down and denied instantaneously on receiving this shot on the back of his head as per the medical evidence, which according to the ocular testimony was the first shot received by him. In the circumstances, there could hardly be any occasion for his facing the assailants and receiving the second shot in his abdomen. In case the shots had been received by him while entering the Kothri of Jagat Pal then also he could not be in a position to turn and face the assailants in an attempt to close the door after receiving the first shot in the back of his head. This shot on the back of his head being the first and fatal, he would have fallen down and died instantaneously without any oppor tunity of facing the assailants whereafter a shot could be fired on him in the abdomen. This shot on the back of his head being the first and fatal, he would have fallen down and died instantaneously without any oppor tunity of facing the assailants whereafter a shot could be fired on him in the abdomen. So, the point of the matter is that the receipt of the two gun shot wound of entry by the victim, the first on the back of his head and thereafter in his abdomen is not capable of being explained by the state ments of the eye-witnesses. Thus, the serious conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence creates genuine doubt about the manner in which the inci dent is said to have taken place as per the eye- witness account. 18. Lastly, the prosecution case is that it was Hira accused- appellant who had given 2-3 lathi blows to Smt. Jamuna Devi, PW 3 after Ram Manohar and Moti had opened fire on her husband Ram Pal. At that time, she had allegedly reached under the thatch of Jagat Pal. Neither she or any of the remaining eye- witnesses stated that she or any other witness had tried to block the way of the accused per sons and had attempted to apprehend them. Neither she nor any other witness was armed with any weapon. It runs against natural human conduct that after finishing the job of murdering Ram Pal, Hira would have struck 3-4 lathi blows on Smt. Jamuna Devi, PW 3 when neither she nor in the running away of the accused person. The natural conduct of the accused would have been not to tarry at the spot even for a second and to have run away. 19. Touching the different aspects of the case in the light of the judicious evalua tion of the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution story has been reconstructed and the evidence has been attempted to be tailored accordingly. but several unpatchable holes are visible and the evidence of the prosecution does not stand a close scrutiny. The ocular ver sion is in conflict with the medical evidence also as discussed hereinabove. The distance to be bridged between may and must has not been bridged and covered in this case by the prosecution. but several unpatchable holes are visible and the evidence of the prosecution does not stand a close scrutiny. The ocular ver sion is in conflict with the medical evidence also as discussed hereinabove. The distance to be bridged between may and must has not been bridged and covered in this case by the prosecution. It has left the gulf unabridged, leaving many things in the womb of mystery and it is not possible to salvage the prosecution case out of this gulf. Dark clouds of doubt hover all around, benefit whereof has to be af forded to the accused-appellants. A gold en thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that it is for the prosecution to prove its case to the hilt by clinching and trustworthy evidence. In the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to dis charge this burden. The possibility is also very much there of the false implication of some of the accused and it is not at all possible to arrive at a definite conclusion in this regard as to who are the accused-appel lants who have been falsely roped in. Other wise also, the whole prosecution case suffers from patent weaknesses and the conflict between the medical and ocular version also stares in the face. 20. For the reasons contained in the discussion made hereinabove, we finally reach the conclusion that the prosecution case against the accused-appellants is not free from doubt and the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. We, there fore, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated 2-8-1980 passed in ST No. 195 of 1979. The accused- appel lants Ram Manohar, Sheo Dulare, Hira Babu Lal and Moti Lal are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The ac cused- appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their personal bonds and bail bonds are hereby cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal allowed. .