M. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants-accused-Indra Pal, Mishri Lal and Mohan Lal have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 1-10-1980 passed by Sri K. K. Srivastava, the then IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 329 of 1979. Each of them has been convicted under S. 302, I. P. C. read with S. 34, I. P. C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellants-Indra Pal and Mishri Lal are real brothers and the murdered person was their own father Nanku. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case may be set forth in its broad essentials. The incident took place between the night of 23rd and 24/06/1977 at the outskirts of village Hasanpur, Police Station Bindki, District Fatehpur. The report was made by P. W. 1 Baboo (brother of the deceased) on 24/06/1977 at 8. 30 a. m. The distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was nine miles. The deceased-Nanku was aged about 60 years and, as stated above, he was the father of accused-appellants-Indra Pal and Mishri Lal. The third accused-appellant-Mohan Lal is said to be related to the accused-appellant-Mishri Lal in that the daughter of the brother of his wife is married to him (Mishri Lal ). Indra Pal and Mishri Lal used to quarrel with their father Nanku and the issue was that he was not giving to them share in the land. Panchayats had also held for settling the dispute on several occasions but Nanku had refused to give shares to his sons Indra Pal and Mishri Lal. As a consequence, there was bad blood between Indra Pal and Mishri Lal on the one hand and their father Nanku on the other, so much so that Nanku had started residing with his brother P. W. 1 Baboo. Indra Pal and Mishri Lal harboured deep seated grudge against their father Nanku over the refusal of the latter in not giving any share to them in agricultural land. In between the fateful night, Nanku was sleeping on a cot outside the door of his tube-well and Chakki. P. W. 1 Babboo and his another brother P. W. 2 Lalloo were also sleeping nearby on separate cots. A lantern was blazing on the door. In between the fateful night, Nanku was sleeping on a cot outside the door of his tube-well and Chakki. P. W. 1 Babboo and his another brother P. W. 2 Lalloo were also sleeping nearby on separate cots. A lantern was blazing on the door. At about midnight, making a panicky sound Nanku fell on his brother P. W. 1 Babboo, awakening him as well as his another brother P. W. 2 Lalloo. Both of them saw that throat of Nanku had been cut and he had fallen down dead. They saw the accused-appellants-Indra Pal, Mishri Lal and Mohan Lal running away from the place of occurrence. It came down from their testimony before the Court that Indra Pal had a Gandasa and Mishri Lal and Mohan Lal had axes. A hue and cry was raised by both the witnesses namely, P. W. 1 Babboo and P. W. 2 Lalloo which attracted the witnesses Desh Raj and Babu Lal. Desh Raj is the own son of P. W. 1 Babboo. The accused-appellants managed their escape good from the scene of occurrence. ( 3 ) P. W. 1 Babboo got scribed the first information report by one Raghubar Dayal. The same was lodged by him at the Police Station on 24-6-1977 at 8. 30 a. m. as mentioned earlier. A case was registered and the investigation followed. Ultimately, the three accused-appellants were booked for trial. ( 4 ) THE post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased was conducted by P. W. 4 Dr. B. R. Bajpai on 25-6-1977 at 3. 00 p. m. It would be profitable to relate below the ante-mortem injuries found on his person. They were the following : 1. Incised wound 3" x 1" x bone deep on the front of neck 3" below the middle of chin. Margins were clean cut. Transversely placed along the midline. Trachea, larynx oesophagus, large vessels, muscles and nerves were clean cut underneath. 2. Incised wound 1" x 1/4" x bone deep on the middle of left collar bone. Margins were clean cut. Bone was cut underneath. ( 5 ) THE death had occurred about 11/2 days before the autopsy was conducted. The cause of the death was shock and haemorrhage resulting from ante-mortem injuries. 2. Incised wound 1" x 1/4" x bone deep on the middle of left collar bone. Margins were clean cut. Bone was cut underneath. ( 5 ) THE death had occurred about 11/2 days before the autopsy was conducted. The cause of the death was shock and haemorrhage resulting from ante-mortem injuries. ( 6 ) THE defence of the accused-appellants-Indra Pal and Mishri Lal was not only of denial but they came up with the case that actually their uncles P. W. 1 Babboo and P. W. 2 Lalloo along with Desh Raj, Lala and Dhanwa had murdered their father and falsely implicated them to grab his property. The statement of the third accused-appellant-Mohan Lal was that P. W. 1 Babboo and P. W. 2 Lalloo used to quarrel with Nanku deceased. He used to favour Nanku and, therefore, he was also falsely implicated. ( 7 ) AT the trial the prosecution examined seven witnesses, out of whom P. W. 1 Babboo and P. W. 2 Lalloo were the eye-witnesses. P. W. 4 Dr. B. R. Bajpai had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and rest were formal witnesses including the Investigating Officers. The learned trial Judge believed the prosecution case and evidence. He, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as related in the earlier part of the judgment. ( 8 ) WE have heard Sri A. D. Giri learned counsel for the accused-appellants and the learned A. G. A. on behalf of the State. We have also carefully examined the evidence and material on record. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the prosecution story was inherently improbable and the evidence adduced by it was too weak to be believed to warrant their conviction. On the other hand, learned A. G. A. has vehemently supported the impugned judgment, submitting that the conviction of the accused-appellants cannot be flawed. In our quest to reach the right conclusion, we intend to judicially analyse the different aspects of the case herein-below. ( 9 ) IN the first instance, it is to be taken note of that it is an unusual case where the own sons of the deceased are said to have committed his murder with the help of one another over property issue. ( 9 ) IN the first instance, it is to be taken note of that it is an unusual case where the own sons of the deceased are said to have committed his murder with the help of one another over property issue. However, we find that the prosecution could not adduce any independent evidence of any resident of the village to support the interested testimony of P. W. 1 Babboo that actually there had been quarrels between the deceased and his two sons Indra Pal and Mishri Lal in the remote or near past over the property matter. P. W. 1 Babboo insisted that Panchayat had been held at the instance of Indra Pal and Mishri Lal for getting their share in the agricultural land of their father Nanku. According to him, Lal Dewan and Raj Narain had participated in such Panchayat. He admitted that they were alive and not inimical to him. Still, none of them was produced as a witness in support of the alleged previous background of there being strained relations between Nanku and his two sons over the property issue and a Panchayat having allegedly been held in this behalf fruitlessly. Thus, the prosecution could not prove any motive, what to say to firm motive against the accused-appellants for the commission of this crime. Even if it is taken for the sake of argument for a moment, though there is no evidence to this effect either, that Indra Pal and Mishri Lal were not having very cordial relations with their father, then that alone could not tempt them to commit the murder of their father with the help of another person Mohan Lal. Minor differences and bickerings amongst the members of families are usual, but for the commission of a serious crime of murder, and that too by the sons of their own father, there must be some plausible reason or motive for going to such an extent. In the present case, in the absence of motive on the part of the accused-appellants, out of whom two are the own sons of the deceased, we are required to scrutinize the interested testimony of P. W. 1 Babboo and P. W. 2 Lalloo with great caution. In the present case, in the absence of motive on the part of the accused-appellants, out of whom two are the own sons of the deceased, we are required to scrutinize the interested testimony of P. W. 1 Babboo and P. W. 2 Lalloo with great caution. While putting the testimonial assertions of P. W. 1 Babboo and P. W. 2 Lalloo to the judicial scale, this itself sounds to be doubtful that any of them would actually be present at the scene of occurrence. We note that P. W. 1 Babboo deposed that Nanku was sleeping on his tube-well adjacent to his Chak. It also came down from his cross-examination as well as of his brother P. W. 2 Lalloo that all the three brothers (these two and the deceased-Nanku) had separated twenty years back and were living separately. It is an indicator that these two witnesses and Nanku had separate Chaks and there was nothing joint amongst them. Under these circumstances, it sounds to be improbable that these two witnesses would also have been sleeping at the Chak of their brother-Nanku deceased in the fateful night. A new fact was introduced by the two eye-witnesses in their testimony before the Court that for the last about three years Nanku deceased, after quarrelling with his sons, had started living with one of them (P. W. 1 Babboo ). It was not mentioned either in the first information report or in the statement under S. 161, Cr. P. C. made to the Investigating Officer. To us, it appears that it was an improvement made as an afterthought to provide strength to the alleged presence of the two eye-witnesses at the time of the incident, showing thickness with the deceased. ( 10 ) ANOTHER unusual feature of the case which creates doubt in the prosecution story is that the first information report was got scribed by one Reghubar who was the resident of another village Dhansenpur at a distance of about 3 or 4 Kms. The statement of PW 1 Babboo is that that night Raghubar had become available after the incident at the flour mill (Chakki) where the incident had taken place. He could not explain as to how could Reghubar reach there at that hour of time. He simply pleaded ignorance in this behalf as to how could he be available there at that time. He could not explain as to how could Reghubar reach there at that hour of time. He simply pleaded ignorance in this behalf as to how could he be available there at that time. We gather the impression that it had all been a planned show of PW 1 Baboo and PW 2 Lalloo to impute the murder to the accused-appellants out of whom two are the own sons of the deceased. In the same context, it is also pertinent to state here that the accused-appellant Indra Pal even filed a complaint before the Court accusing the present two eye-witnesses and three sons of one of them (PW 1 Babboo) as the murderers of his father Nanku. Though it is beyond the scope of this appeal to dilate over the question as to whether the present two eye-witnesses themselves were involved in the murder of the deceased Nanku, but the fact remains that they could have an axe to grind in accusing the two sons of the deceased as his murderers. Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act provides that a person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered. At the time of commission of this crime, Indra Pal and Mishri Lal, sons of the deceased were quite young persons less than thirty years of age. Naturally, their sons, if any, would have been of very tender age. In case of their ultimate conviction for the murder of their own father and thus disqualified to inherit his property, the real and practical beneficiaries were to be none else than PW 1 Babboo and PW 2 Lalloo being the brothers of the deceased as his next nearest relatives. Judged in this correct perspective, the motive could be more on the part of PW 1 Babboo and PW 2 Lalloo to falsely implicate the accused-appellants out of whom two are the own sons of the deceased and one is close relative of one of them, who might be his helper or a well-wisher. ( 11 ) IT is also to be taken note of that the first information report, which is the earliest version of the prosecution, does not contain any description of the weapons which the accused-appellants allegedly had. The two eye-witnesses introduced the same in their testimony before the Court. ( 11 ) IT is also to be taken note of that the first information report, which is the earliest version of the prosecution, does not contain any description of the weapons which the accused-appellants allegedly had. The two eye-witnesses introduced the same in their testimony before the Court. It was an important aspect of the matter. In case the two eye-witnesses had actually scene the occurrence, the description of the weapons would have ordinarily found place in the first information report too. ( 12 ) WE discover another hole in the prosecution case which is of great significance that there is no satisfactory evidence regarding availability of light at the spot. In the first information report it was stated that a lantern was glowing at the door. PW 1 Babboo admitted in his cross-examination that the light of the lantern hung at the door would not be available to illuminate the scene of occurrence. A new fact was introduced in evidence before the Court by both the eye-witnesses that the lantern was hung on the Chhappar of the flour mill (Chakki) on a bamboo. It should also be observed that the first information report mentioned that the accused-appellants had been seen running. The two eye-witnesses awoke after the deceased fell down making a panicky sound on receiving the injuries. If it were so, the actual incident could not have been seen by the two eye-witnesses and in the absence of proper light they could not have identified the culprits when they were running. When the matter is judged through this pertinent angle, the prosecution story is rendered wholly doubtful as to the culprits being the present accused-appellants. ( 13 ) WE also wish to refer yet to another aspect of the matter which is of far reaching consequence. As per the site plan, the deceased was sleeping at the spot shown by letter a; PW 1 Babboo was sleeping at point b; PW 2 Lalloo was sleeping at point c and the dead body of the deceased was found lying at point d. The distance between the point a and b was five paces and the distance between the points b and d was two paces. Now, a look on ante-mortem injuries found on the person of the deceased would indicate as if two incised wounds had been caused by a single blow. His neck was almost severed. Now, a look on ante-mortem injuries found on the person of the deceased would indicate as if two incised wounds had been caused by a single blow. His neck was almost severed. There must have naturally been profuse bleeding and on receiving such incised wounds it would have not at all been possible for the deceased to have covered any distance at all, first to fall on PW 1 Babboo making panicky sound and then at point d, we note that the two eye-witnesses tried to give a twist to the original case set up in the first information report to come out of the difficult situation. It should be observed that in case the deceased had fallen down on PW 1 Babboo after receiving the injuries, the clothes of the latter would have been smeared with blood but nothing of the kind happened. The original case as per the first information report made by PW 1 Baboo was that Nanku had fallen down on him with a panicky sound and it had awakened him and his brother PW 2 Lalloo. To overcome the difficulty that no blood smeared cloth of PW 1 Babboo was there which could be produced as physical evidence the two eye-witnesses took prevaricating stand while deposing before the Court. PW 1 Babboo stated that Nanku had fallen down on the ground. But he also admitted that he had rightly so scribed in the first information report that Nanku had fallen down on him. PW 2 Lalloo made a varied statement that PW 1 Babboo tried to hold Nanku, but he could not do so. He also admitted that he had made a statement to the Investigating Officer that after receiving the injuries Nanku had fallen first on his brother. PW 1 Babboo and then they had awakened. The point that we wish to make is that on this aspect of the matter as to whether Nanku, after receiving injuries fell on PW 1 Babboo or on the ground, the testimonial assertions of the eye-witnesses go in a circle leading nowhere. They blew hot and cold together. At least this much is obvious that strenuous efforts had been made by both of them to explain away the absence of smearing of blood on the clothes of PW 1 Babboo by the alleged fall of the deceased on him. They blew hot and cold together. At least this much is obvious that strenuous efforts had been made by both of them to explain away the absence of smearing of blood on the clothes of PW 1 Babboo by the alleged fall of the deceased on him. It may also be stated at the risk of repetition that actually the deceased had received such injuries that his throat was almost severed and he could not move even an inch after being so assaulted. The two eye-witnesses have simply tried to reconstruct and repair the prosecution story in a vain attempt to prove the accused-persons guilty. We have related above as to how they are interested persons by accusing at least two appellants (sons of the deceased) as murderers of their father. When the prosecution case falls against the sons of the deceased, it falls to the ground against the third appellant Mohan Lal also who is the relative of one of them. ( 14 ) IT goes without saying that the finding of guilt or otherwise is to be based on rational deduction which the judicial mind makes on the probative force of the evidence on record and attending circumstances. In the case at hand, on scrutinizing evidence on record in the light of concomitant circumstances, we conclude that no case at all is substantiated against any of the accused-appellants. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced them without an in-depth judicial analysis of the evidence and allied factors. ( 15 ) IN view of the above discussion, we find that the appeal is well merited. We accordingly allow this appeal and quash the impugned judgment. The accused-appellants Indra Pal, Mishri Lal and Mohan Lal are hereby acquitted. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds and personal bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal allowed. .