BHANWAR SINGH, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of Decem ber 15, 1979, passed in Sessions Trial No. 468 of 1979, by Ilnd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi, convicting the appellants under Section 302/34, I. P. C. and sentencing them to rigorous imprison ment for life and a fine of Rs. 4. 000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the accused were directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal maybe narrated as below: 3. Sri Chhotey Lal, son of Sri Baldco, resident of village Misripur, district Har doi submitted a written report to the Sta tion Officer, Beniganj Police Station, slat ing therein that his son Chandrashekhar alias Punne had been killed by the accused Chhail Behari, Chhotey Lal, son of Prabhu Dayal, Raj Kumar and Banshidhar at about 10 p. m. on 5-1-1976. Describing details of the brutal murder of Chandrashekhar alongwith the back ground in which the offence was alleged to have been committed, the complainant Chhotey Lal stated that his house and that of the main accused Chhail Behari were situated in front of each other with a lane in between the two houses. Chhail Behari bore animosity with the complainant on account of the past litigation in between the two. Fifteen days prior to this occur rence, Chhail Behari had murmured in the village in presence of a few village men that he had seen the complainants son Chandrashekhar alias Punne since deceased in compromising position with Shyama (Chhail Beharis sister-in-law, who was in village for some time ). At this juncture, Chandrashekhar was just a lad of about 17 years of age and Chhail Beharis sister-in-law Shyama was about 36 years old married woman and a mother of two children. The illicit relationship between Chandrashekhar and Shyama lowered down the family prestige of the accused Chhail Behari and he felt disturbed, as a young boy living in front of his house, played with his reputation. Not only that the prime accused Chhail Behari conveyed this fact of illegal relationship between the two, but he also vowed in presence of several villagers that he would teach a les son to Chandrashekhar. Also he had as saulted his sister-in-law Shyama and sent her back to her Sasural in a different vil lage. Not only that the prime accused Chhail Behari conveyed this fact of illegal relationship between the two, but he also vowed in presence of several villagers that he would teach a les son to Chandrashekhar. Also he had as saulted his sister-in-law Shyama and sent her back to her Sasural in a different vil lage. In order to wreak his vengeance the accused Chhail Behari accompanied by his sisters son-in-law Chhotey Lal and the latters brother Raj Kumar as also a rela tion, namely, Banshidhar (all appellants) came to the house of the complainant at about 9 or 10 p. m. on 5-1- 1976. It was a chilly night and the complainant and his family members including Chandrashek har were warning themselves while sitting in his Barotha around bonfire. In the meantime, the accused Chhail Behari gave an affectionate call from outside asking Chandrashekhar to come of his house. At tracted by the said call, Chandrashekhar went out of the Barotha and being curious enough the complainant and other family members also followed him. The com plainant, his wife and sons were shocked to witness that Chandrashekhar was being bundled out by all the four accused appellants. The accused had a brief conversation with Chandrashekhar and in the process, Chhail Behari thrust his Angochha (towel) in the mouth of Chandrashekhar for help or raising any shrieks. Whereas Chhail Behari was armed with a Banka, the accused Chhotey Lal was having a Kanta in his hand. The other two accused, namely, Raj Kumar and Banshidhar were armed with a gun and a country-made pistol respectively. Chhotey Lal and Raj Kumar forcibly lifted Chandrashekhar and proceeded towards the jungle and travers ing through the village streets, all the accused took him away into the grove of Ram Avtar situated at the out-skirt of the vil lage. The complainant and other family members on having witnessed the accused taking away Chandrashekhar forcibly, raised hue and cry, attracted by which there came many villagers including Baijnath, Manohar and Ram Lotan. These villagers, when endeavored to challenge the ac cused, were threatened of dire consequen ces by the accused who fired numerous airy shots to scare them away. Despite the threat hurled by the accused, the com plainant and villagers kept on chasing the accused maintaining a safe distance. These villagers, when endeavored to challenge the ac cused, were threatened of dire consequen ces by the accused who fired numerous airy shots to scare them away. Despite the threat hurled by the accused, the com plainant and villagers kept on chasing the accused maintaining a safe distance. When the accused arrived at the grove of Ram Autar, the villagers heard the report of gun fire and when they came a little closer to grove land, they saw Chandrashekhar being butchered by the accused. On the pressure being created by the villagers, the accused ran away leaving behind the dead body of Chandrashekhar. The com plainant and his family members as also the villagers when arrived at the site of occurrence, found that Chandrashekhar had died by then with his head almost severed from his body. The throat and neck of the deceased had been completely cut, as a result of which the head was hanging against the body on a thin tag of skin. The complainant got the report Ex. Ka-1 written by his son Gaya Prasad. However, he could not muster courage to go to the Police Station during the night as he had strong apprehension of his being eliminated by Chhail Behari and others. On the following day, the complainant went to the police station and submitted his report whereupon Chik F. I. R. was drawn and a case under Section 302, I. P. C. registered. The Station Officer Iftedar Hussain took up for himself the task of investigation and immediately he proceeded to the site of occurrence. First of all, the dead-body was examined, its report was prepared and after being packed and sealed, it was sent Compost-mortem. The Investigating Officer then prepared the site plan Ext. Ka-12 and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He examined the lantern which was al leged to be burning in the Barotha of the complainant and also the torches in the light of which Baijnath, Manohar and Gaya Prasad had seen the accused while chasing them. Memos of these articles were prepared. The three accused, namely, Chhail Behari, Raj Kumar and Banshidhar were arrested while the fourth Chhotey Lal surrendered himself in the Court on 23-1-1976. On having completed all the formalities of the investigation, the Sta tion Officer of Beniganj Police Station submitted charge-sheet Ext. Ka-15 against the accused. 4. Memos of these articles were prepared. The three accused, namely, Chhail Behari, Raj Kumar and Banshidhar were arrested while the fourth Chhotey Lal surrendered himself in the Court on 23-1-1976. On having completed all the formalities of the investigation, the Sta tion Officer of Beniganj Police Station submitted charge-sheet Ext. Ka-15 against the accused. 4. As many as seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. Whereas P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal, P. W. 2 Ram Lotan and P. W. 3 Gaya Prasad were the eye-witnesses, the remaining four were formal witnesses. P. W. 4 Sqmpal Singh was posted as Sub-Inspector at PS. Beniganj. He prepared the inquest reportand sent the dead-body of Chandrashekhar for autopsy. He had also collected pallets which were on the body of the deceased. P. W. 5 Dr. J. K. Verma examined the dead body and prepared the post-mortem report Ext. Ka-11. P. W. 6 Iftedar Hussain is the Investigating Officer of this case. P. W. 7, Girdhari, the Chaukidar of the village, had taken the dead-body of Chandrashek har for post-mortem. 5. The defence version was that the accused had been falsely implicated in this case. Chhail Behari revealed before the trial Court that Chandrashekhar was a boy of loose character and he had illegal con nections with Pasi girls Ganga Devi and Launga. The family members of these girls were behind his murder. Such family mem bers had killed Chandrashekhar and thrown the dead-body in the grove of Ram Avtar. The other three accused disclosed that they were falsely implicated in this case on account of their relationship with Chhailbehari. 6. On a close scrutiny of the prosecu tion evidence and the defence version, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that Chandrashekhar was brutally murdered by the accused appellants on the night of occurrence and accordingly a verdict of the accused being guilty of the offence under Section 302/34, I. P. C. was recorded. In the result the accused were convicted and sen tenced to rigorous imprisonment for life as indicated earlier, besides a fine of Rs. 4,000 against each of them. 7. Feeling aggrieve 1 of their convic tion and sentence, Us accused have preferred the appeal in and, reiterating that they were falsely implicated in this case by the complainant on account of enmity. 8. 4,000 against each of them. 7. Feeling aggrieve 1 of their convic tion and sentence, Us accused have preferred the appeal in and, reiterating that they were falsely implicated in this case by the complainant on account of enmity. 8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Addi tional Government Advocate and perused the record. 9. The first lapse on the part of the prosecution pertains to an inordinate delay in lodging the F. I. R. A careful perusal of the first information report and the evidence of prosecution witnesses would reveal that the offence of killing the complainants son had taken place at 10 p. m. on 5-1-1976. The written report Ext. Ka-1 was submitted to the Station Officer of Beniganj police station at 9. 40 a. m. i. e. about twelve hours after the occurrence. The distance between the place of occur rence and the police station is indicated on the F. I. R. as 4 miles. It is no doubt a fact that during night walking over to a police station or even travelling by a bullock cart in the countryside is not regarded to be safe, but the apprehension of being waylaid or assaulted has to be scrutinised with comparative features and also looking to the relative urgency of emergency. In the case in hand, a young boy of 17 years was done to death in a brutal manner, as stated by the factual witnesses at about 10 p. m. on 5-1-1976 and the complainant and about fifty villagers felt scared of going to police station during night. What is sig nificant to note is that P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal and fifty other witnesses who were chasing the assailants were not at all scared of the airy shots which were being allegedly fired by them while they were proceeding towards the grove land of Ram Autar. II has come in the evidence of P. W. 1 Chhoicy Lal, P. W 2 Ram Lotan and P. W. 3 Gaya Prasad that they raised an alarm when the accused proceeded towards the grove of Ram Autar with Chandrashekhar in their capacity and on hearing the alarm, about 40-50 villagers came and joined them and mounted a pressure upon the assailants to run away after they had committed the crime. Further, it is very important to men tion that not one but many villagers includ ing Ram Lotan, Baijnaih and P. W. 1 Chhoidy Lal himself were the licence-holders of the fire-arms and they had their guns in the their houses but in spite of their being licence holders, they did not make it a point to bring out their guns and chal lenge the assailants at the very outset of the accused having called Chandrashekhar from inside his house. The guns are meant to meet out such contingencies and even tualities. Chhotey Lal has not been able to give a satisfactory explanation as to why he did not bring out his gun soon after he heard the call of his enemy Chhail Behari requesting his son Chandrashekhar to come out of his house. In natural course. Chhotey Lal was expected to have brought out his gun and similar suit would have been followed by other gun-holders and not only that, they should have challenged the assailants before the letters could ar rive to the grove land of Ram Autar and even if for some reason, the accused suc ceeded in achieving their target of eliminating P. W. 1 Chhotey Lais son, all the villagers holding guns could have very well managed to go to the police station to lodge the report. In these circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the explana tion for delay in reporting the matter to the police creates a long shadow of doubt upon the prosecution case as has been narrated by P. W. I Chhotey Lal. 10. The motive propounded by the prosecution behind the commission he crime could not be established beyond doubt. It was said that Mrs. Shyaina, the sister of Chhail Behari wifes, had come in the village to stay in Chhail Beharis house. She was aged 34 years, married and mother of two children. The deceased was a young boy 17 years of age. Fantasy and infatua tion have no meets and bounds for either sex, yet from the record of this case, it cannot be believed to have been estab lished that the prime accused Chhail Be hari whispered about the illicit relation ship between Shyama and Chandrashek-har and conveyed the same to some vil lagers that his reputation had been spoiled by Chandrashekhar. According to the evidence of P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal, Bhagwati Pasi disclosed to him that Chhail Behari had taken about the illegal relationship between his sister-in-law and the deceased and has staled further that Chhail Behar had also vowed to finish the complainants son Chandrashekhar as the latter had played with his prestige. It is relevant to note that Chhail Behari launched prosecu tion of P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal and Bhagwatis father Tokai. In that case, it was alleged by Chhail Behari that he was beaten by Chot-tey Lal and Tokai. When the relations of Chhail Behari and Bhagwatis father Tbkai were strained it was not expected of the former to have conveyed to Bhagwati about the confidential phenomenon which had brought the prestige of his fami ly to disrepute. Moreover, Bhagwati was neither interrogated by the Investigating Officer nor he was examined before the trial Court. Chhail Behari stated and also it was suggested to P. W. 1 that neither Shyama came to the village and stayed with Chhail Behari nor she had developed any intimacy with the deceased. No other evidence was brought on the record to show the relationship between the two. Moreover Chhail Behari would have been provoked to see Shyama and Chandrashekhar in a compromising posi tion and his reaction would have been imminent without waiting for some time to lapse. Shyama was not interrogated by the Investigating Officer nor there was any convincing evidence on record from which it could have been derived that Shyamas illegal intimacy with Chandrashekhar prompted Chhail Behari to eliminate the complainants son. Obviously thus the theory of motive, as projected by the prosecution does not appear to inspire any confidence in its genuineness. 11. The prosecution story that the accused appellants came on the night of occurrence to the house of the informant beckoned Shekhar out of his house and then, traversing through the streets of the village, took him forcibly to the grove land of Ram Autar, does not seem to be prob able. 11. The prosecution story that the accused appellants came on the night of occurrence to the house of the informant beckoned Shekhar out of his house and then, traversing through the streets of the village, took him forcibly to the grove land of Ram Autar, does not seem to be prob able. If there was an iota of truth in what has been described as the prosecution case, the accused who were armed with deadly weapons would have killed Chandrashekhar soon after the latter came out of his Barotha and even if the assailants preferred to take him away to a quiet place like a garden, there were numerous grove lands in between the points shown by Figures 5 and 10 in the site-plan Ext. Ka-12, i. e. from the complainants house to Ram Autars grove-field. A bare look at the site-plan would reveal that in the north of the village were located the groves of Gram Samaj, Rambir, Ramdas, Deep Singh and Indal. A question arises as to why the accused did not find any place which could be termed to be a safe and insulated as to commit a crime in the five grove lands referred to above. There was nothing special in the grove land of Ram Autar that could have prompted the accused to carry away the victim of occurrence to the said place. In view of his improbability, the suggestion pressed into service by the defence to the effect that Chandrashekhar was done to death during night by some assailants other than the appellants and his body was thrown the grove land of Ram Autar, can not be ruled out. The above possibility gets strengthened by a few more improbable features arising in the prosecution version. One of such reasons ruling out the pos sibility of there being no substance in the prosecution story is that no caps or wads of the cartridges were recovered from the entire path leading from the informants house to the grove land of Ram Autar. It is note-worthy that all the three witnesses testified that when the assailants were being chased by them and other villagers, they fired numerous shots in the air in order to scare the villagers away. It is note-worthy that all the three witnesses testified that when the assailants were being chased by them and other villagers, they fired numerous shots in the air in order to scare the villagers away. The In vestigating Officer clearly conceded that no Tikli, pellet or wad was recovered from the streets on which the accused were al leged to have walked over while carrying away the deceased. Non-recovery of such items clearly indicates that the statements of the witnesses about the accused having fired airy shots at the of their being chased by the villagers is not worthy of credence. 12. The other important feature reflecting against the prosecution version is the serious inconsistencies appearing in the evidence of the witnesses. P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal is stated to have come out of his Barotha soon after his son Chandrashekhar was called out by the ac cused. According to him, the accused Raj Kumar and Banshidhar who were armed with fire weapons had caught hold of Chandrashekhar while he was being for cibly taken towards the out-skirts of the village. Contrary to this, the informant mentioned in his F. I. R. that the accused Chhotey Lal and Banshidhar apprehended his son Chandrashekhar and bodily lifted him while Chhail Bchari thrust his mouth with his Angochha. When P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal was confronted with the recitals of the F. I. R. He con tradicted its version by stating that he had not mentioned in his report that Chhotey Lal accused had caught hold of Chandrashekhar. However, when the F. I. R. was read over to him, he changed his version and then stated that as a matter of fact, Banshidhar and Chhotey Lal had caught hold of his son. P. W. 2 Ram Lotan was unable to disclose as to who had lifted Chandrashekhar and took him away. Thus the evidence of P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal bearing serious inconsistencies on the point referred to above, is not reliable. 13. Again there are varying versions as regards the shots which were allegedly fired by the accused persons when they were being chased by the informant and other villagers. P. W. 2 Ram Lotan testified that Banshidhar fired airy shots from his country-made pistol. Quite converse to this, P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal deposed that the accused Raj Kumar fired airy shots from the licensed gun. P. W. 2 Ram Lotan testified that Banshidhar fired airy shots from his country-made pistol. Quite converse to this, P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal deposed that the accused Raj Kumar fired airy shots from the licensed gun. P. W. 3 Gaya Prasad, the brother of the deceased, failed to disclose as to who had fired airy shots. When asked about this, he expressed his ignorance, but in his statement under Section 161, Cr. PC. , he named Raj Kumar as the one who fired about 5-10 shots. These inconsisten cies and infirmities clearly lead to the con clusion that such variations were possible in the evidence of the witnesses only because there was not an iota of truth in what they proposed to testify before the trial Court. 14. P. W. 2 Ram Lotan asserted in his statement that the mother of the deceased also went alongwith other villagers up to the grove land of Ram Autar. As against this, P. W 3 Gaya Prasad, in para 6 of his evidence, testified that his mother had returned after a brief chase of the accused. Such inconsistencies are likely to arise when there is no truth in a particular ver sion. 15. Further, a perusal of the F. I. R. would reveal that in the grove land of Ram Autar, Chandrashekhar was shot at and when he had fallen on the ground, the accused inflicted various Banka and Kanta blows, as a result of which Chandrashekhar died instantaneously. The informant Chhotey Lal as P. W. 1 corroborated that the accused had fired a shot at Chandrashekhar in consequence whereof he had fallen on the ground and immedi ately thereafter he was given Banka and Kanta blows resulting in his instan taneous death. P. W. 2 Ram Lotan con firmed the statement of P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal and asserted specifically that a shot was fired at Chandrashekhar in the grove land of Ram Autar and similar emerged out a statement from the testimony of P. W. 3 Gaya Prasad. Not only this, but he fur ther testified that he had seen the blacken ing of a gun fire on the shirt of his deceased brother. 16. Quite contrary to this categorical evidence of all the three witnesses, P. W. 5 Dr. J. K. Verma stated that all the three ante- mortem injuries would have been inflicted by Banka or Kanta. 16. Quite contrary to this categorical evidence of all the three witnesses, P. W. 5 Dr. J. K. Verma stated that all the three ante- mortem injuries would have been inflicted by Banka or Kanta. In other words, no injury was suffered by the deceased which could be attributed to a gun fire and obviously thus this medical evidence rules out the possibility of there being any truth in the evidence of three eye- witnesses that the deceased was first shot at and then butchered by Banka and Kanta. Dr. Verma clearly stated with refer ence to the post-mortem report that there was no blackening or tattooing around the abrasion referred to as injury No. 3 in the post-mortem report. The statement of P. W. 4sub- Inspectorsompalsinghthathc recovered six pellets from the body of the deceased is not at all acceptable in view of Dr. J. K. Vermas evidence to the effect that the deceased suffered no gun shot injury. It appears that the pellets were planted with a view to manufacture evidence. Thus, there is no consistency in the ocular ac count and in the medical evidence. There fore, we are of the opinion that the evidence of the eye-witnesses is not worth believable. 17. The averment of P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal regarding his having lodged the report on 6-1-1976 also seems to be suffering from improbability. He stated that he could not go to report about the occur rence to the police on 5-1-1976 itself as he feared that he and his family members would be waylaid had they gone to lodge the report. He stated further that he alongwith some villagers went to the police station on the following morning. Further the F. I. R. was drawn after a police inspector had seen the dead-body in the village and come back at 8 O clock in the night. P. W. 2 Ram Lotan also confirmed that a little after sun- rise, two police in spectors accompanied with Chhotey Lal complainant came to the village and one of them returned around noon to the police station. It was only after return of the police inspector that the F. I. R. had been written. P. W. 2 Ram Lotan also confirmed that a little after sun- rise, two police in spectors accompanied with Chhotey Lal complainant came to the village and one of them returned around noon to the police station. It was only after return of the police inspector that the F. I. R. had been written. Certainly the police would not have gone to the village at 8 p. m. on the night of occurrence because the occur rence itself took place at about 10 p. m. Naturally it would have been 8 p. m. on the other day i. e. 6-1-1976. As stated by P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal, a Sub-Inspector came back from the village after verifying the fact of Chandrashekhar being killed and it was then that the report was lodged. This proves that the F. I. R. was ante-timed and since it remained shrouded in the mystery until 8 p. m. on 6-1-1976 as to who were the killers, the report could not be drawn till then. Accordingly, we are of the view that the F. I. R. being anti-timed does not carry anyweight. 18. On having analysed the entire evidence on record, we are of the decisive view that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused. It appears that enmity between P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal and the main accused Chhail Bchari was the sole ground of the accused having been implicated in this case. P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal admitted that he alongwith Tokai was prosecuted for assaulting Chhail Behari. There was strained relationship between the two on account of consolida tion proceedings in the village. Sunder Lal, the son-in-law of P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal was murdered and Chhotey Lal was put on trial alongwith other accused, namely Chhail Behari, Babu Ram and Chandrabhal. Chhail Behari had also filed a complaint in that case, although he himself was chal-laned later. As accused of this case, Chhail Behari disclosed that there was a long drawn enmity between him and P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal and it was on account of his bitter relationship that he and his relations were booked in this case at the instance of P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal. As accused of this case, Chhail Behari disclosed that there was a long drawn enmity between him and P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal and it was on account of his bitter relationship that he and his relations were booked in this case at the instance of P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal. As ob served earlier, had there been some truth in the prosecution story, P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal being the licence holder, would have taken out his gun and challenged the ac cused and similar suit would have been followed by other villagers, namely, Ram Lotan and Baijnath who were also gun holders. 19. In view of what has been discussed above, we hold that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is al lowed and the judgment in appeal is set aside. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Judge are hereby set aside. The appellants are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds are hereby cancelled. Appeal allowed. .