R. U. SHIIKLA, J. This criminal ap peal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26-9-1980, passed by Ses sions Judge, Sitapur, in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 1980, eonvieting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 2. Factual background of this appeal relates to sole accused appellant who al legedly nursed grudge against deccased Raghunath because wife of the appellant was abducted by him. The occurrence thus took place while Ragunath deccased was reluming from Biswan in District Sitapur on a cycle with a bag of paddy on 21-10-1976 and reached at about 11 a. m. towards south of a place where two heaps of PAYAL were stored. Accused appellant Soney along with one unknown person, whose identity could not be traced till this dale, came out from the backside of the heaps of PAYAL. He asked the deccased for BIDI smoking with him and it was at that time when accused Soney s un known companion shouted to kill the deccased. Thereupon accused Soney fired from country made pistol Ragunath of at who cried whereupon wit nesses Hardwari, Jai Karan Singh and Gulam came to the scene of the crime. The accused in the meantime had run away. Hardwari reached the place of occur rence and found Ragunath dead lying other. Thereafter FIR was lodged at police station at 3. 30p. m. on The same day. Inves tigation to fllowed and The accused was charge-sheeted. The trial Court recorded evidence of the witnesses examined in the case and concluded at page 16 of the judg ment under appeal that the prosecution produced two witnesses, Jai Karan Singh (PW-2) and Gulam (PW-3) who actually saw the accused causing fatal injury to the deccased. They were solely reliable wit nesses of the occurrence. Hardwari (PW-1) was informant and father of the deccased. He also saw the occurrence. The trial Court further found that the occur rence had taken place ai about 104 sleps from the place where he was working. The trial Court further held that he was an old man and he could not see and recognise persons even in day time beyond six 10 seven sleps but he could very well recog nise the accused appellant as well as vic tim, his son by their voice on hearing their conversation. The trial Court further held that he was an old man and he could not see and recognise persons even in day time beyond six 10 seven sleps but he could very well recog nise the accused appellant as well as vic tim, his son by their voice on hearing their conversation. He, therefore, rushed to he scene of crime and found his son lying dead. The trial Court thus believing the evidcnce on the record convicted the ap pellant and sentenced him to life im prisonment, resulting in the present ap peal. 3. The appeal has been pressed on the ground that the trial Court failed to ap preciate the evidence on the record, result ing in the incorrect conclusion regarding the guilt of the appellant. 4. We have heard the partie Counsel and perused the record. 5. The trial Court relied on the ocular evidence of PW-1 Hardwari, PW-2 Jai Karan Singh and PW-3 Gulam. It is now to be seen as to how-far the trial Court has been able to appreciate the evidence properly. 6. The FIR in this case was lodged on the same day at 3. 30 p. m. when the occur rence had allegedly taken place at about 11 a. m. on 21-10-1976. The FIR demon strated I hat the deccased died due to si nglc fire arm injury which he received in his head. The post mortem report (Ext. Ka-2) detailed the direction of the injury aiul PW-4 Dr. Om Prakash, while proving the post-mortem report, prcpaied by him stated in the crossrexamination thatthe accused and the deccased in case were infront of each other at the time of assault then the injury in question could not he caused. The trial Judge held, at page 16 of his judgment, that scat of the injury is infronl of the lateral end of left eye brow and the outer angle of left eye. According to the trial Court it was not in the evidence thatthe assailant and the victim bofh were jusi infront of each other and the victim remained static throughout till he received injury so as to rule out the possibility of the injury having been caused on The lateral end of left eye-brow. It was for the eye wit nesses to detail as to how the injury in question was caused and that having not been done in the evidence, as concluded. It was for the eye wit nesses to detail as to how the injury in question was caused and that having not been done in the evidence, as concluded. by The trial Court, clearly showed that the assailant and the victim were not infronl of each other when the fatal butlet was fired. 11 means that the fire-arm injury was c a used when the back of the head of the deccased was towards the assailant which suggests that the deccased was running away from the assailant. It is not in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that such was the case when fatal butlet was fired. Therefore, the trial Court led itself imo the realm of imagination while set tling inconsistency in the prosecution case with reference to the medical evidence and ocular evidence on the record. Further PW-4 Dr. Om Prakashstated that the post mortem examination was conducted by him on 22-10-1976 at 3 p. m. and the time of death of the deccased at the lime of the post -mortem cxaminalion was 1-1/4 days. He furl her stated in The cross-examination thatthere should be a difference of abeul tour hours in the said duration of death which means that the deccased had died at least 34 hours earlier to the post-mor tem examination. The time if counted from 22-10-1976 at 3 p. m. Then it means that the deccased had died in the early hours of 21-10-1976. Obviously this lime does not conform to the prosecution evidence adduced in this case. The medical evidence on the record, therefore, has not supported The prosecution case regarding The time of dealh of The deccased. The Investigating Officer prepared blood gained and simple earth samples. He prepared recovery memo Ext. Ka-8. It does not bear the signatures of the witnesses. The Investigating Officer in his evidence as PW-6 Brij Raj Singh specifically ad-milled that he forge, to get the signatures of the public wimesses on this recover) memo which could mean thatthe blood was noi recovered from The place noted in this recovery memo because medical evidence, as discussed above, indicated in consistency in the prosecution evidence regarding the time of death. 7. P W-1 Hardwari is an eye witness of Ihis case. He is father of the deccased. 7. P W-1 Hardwari is an eye witness of Ihis case. He is father of the deccased. The trial Court al page 16 of its judgment held that he was al abeul 104 steps from The Clace of occurrence and he could not see eyond six to seven steps due to weak eye-sight. Thatbeing the position the wit ness was in no position to see the accused committing the crime in question. This fact is further corroberated by the fact that the informant in this case Hardwari (PW-1) detailed facts in FIR (Ext. Ka-l) which he later on did not corroberate. The FIR detailed thatragunath had abducled wife of accused appellanl Soncy and was laking her from one place to other. Evidence of PW-1 Hardwari in cross- examinalion shows I hat the woman was abducted by Raghunath and one Ram. However, Raghunath deccased brought woman in the house of Hardwari abeul len days earlier to the occur rence. Hardwari told him thathe would not altow the woman to live in the house but Soney accused informed him that he has no objection in case the woman was kept by Raghunath. There after Raghunalh was allowed to live in the house with the woman. Soney never lodged any report for abduction of his wife by the deccased. The sfory abeul BIDI smoking has not been deiailed in The FIR. In para 11 of the cross-examinaiion of PW-1 Hardwari he admitted that Ihis fact was omilled in The FIR because it was lodged by his son-in-law Ram Prasad. H is further revealing in para 12 of his cross-cx-aminaiion that The FIR was not lodged at the police station when this witness alongwith his son-in-law weni to thatplace. The report was noted at the place of occurrence. These facts suggcsl that even investigation in this case had not been fair. 8. PW-2 Jai Karan Sihgh revealed in his cross-examination thathe never met The Invesligaling Officer and he gave his statetment relating to the occurrence for the first time in the Court, it means the witness,was not available during inves tigation and had been procured in the tiial for the first time. His statement was noted by the Investigating Officer under Section 161, Cr PC without knowledge of this wit ness. His statement was noted by the Investigating Officer under Section 161, Cr PC without knowledge of this wit ness. This witness PW-2 Jai Karan Singh in para 4 of his cross-examination stated specifically that deccased Raghunalh and Soney were infront of each other when they were talking and in that position Soney fired at the deccased which means the gun-shof was fired infront of the deccased which position has been denied by the medi cal evidence on the record, discussed above. Therefore, the medical evidence and the statement of this witness Jai Karan Singh run contrary to each other and it only means that this witness was not present at the time of the occurrence and that is wby his state ment was not recorded by the Investigating Officer as stated by this witness. 9. PW-3- Gulam was not named in the FIR. He stated that the accused threatened the deccased that his wife had been abducted by the deccased and, therefore, he would be killed. This statement is neither supported by the FIR nor by the statements of witnesses PW-1 Hardwari and PW-2 Jai Karan Singh. He stated in para 4 of his cross-examination that he did not know either Jai Karan Singh (PW-2) or Hardwari (PW-l),bypw-l Hardwari at pages of his cross-examination stated that he know witness Gulam from before. This on even material circumstance witnesses differed with each other. Their statements run in contradiction to the medical evidence on the record. Such evidence, therefore, is not reliable. The learned Ses sions Judge erred in believing this con tradicfory, inconsistent and unreliable evidence. 10. Result of the discussion, therefore, is thatwe find thatthe prosecution failed to prove its case with convincing, cogent and consisienl evidence. Result therefore, is thatthe appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviciion and sentence awarded by The impugned judgmenl are set aside. The appellant is acquilied of the charge under Section 302, IPC. The appel lant, being oh bail, need not surrender. His bail bends are camelled and sureties are discharged. Appeal allowed .