These two connected criminals appeals have been filed by Ram Dheeraj against judgment and order dated 25-9-1985 of Sri Kazi Khurshed Ahmad, Special/additional Sessions Judge, Gonda passed in Sessions Trial No. 431 of 1984 convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life. Since both the appeals arise out of same judgment they have been connected and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The prosecution case which emer ges from the F. I. R. is that appellant Ram Dheeraj was elder brother of deceased Radhey Shyam. There developed illicit relationship with the appellant and the wife of his younger brother with the result that every now and then there were quar rels between the two brothers. The brothers had separated inasmuch as the appellant used to live with his father while the deceased lived with his mother. On the night intervening 19/20th October 1984, the appellant, his father and the mother of the appellant were sleeping in the Osara. Deceased Radhey Shyam was sleeping at the boring well at the out skirts of the village. The mother of the appellant woke up in the night and she found that the appellant was not on his cot, but came after some time and went to sleep. At about 4 a. m. informant Dashratha Dei got up to give fodder the cattle. When the deceased did not turn up, she went to the boring and found the deceased lying murdered. On seeing this, she started weeping and wail ing which attracted the villagers. It is fur ther mentioned in the F. I. R. that earlier also the appellant had extended threats to the life of the deceased and hence the informant believed that the murder was committed by the appellant. This F. I. R. was lodged on 7th October 1984 at P. S. Utraula, which is about 11/2 miles from the spot. On the lodging of the F. I. R. usual investigation ensued. The body of Radhey Shyam was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted by P. W. 7 Dr. M. N. Singh who found the following anti-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased: (1) Lacerated wound 1. 5 cm x 0. 2 cm x skin deep horizontal 1. 5 cm below (L) angle of mouth (wound is superficial ). (2) Lacerated wound 0. 3 cm x 0. M. N. Singh who found the following anti-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased: (1) Lacerated wound 1. 5 cm x 0. 2 cm x skin deep horizontal 1. 5 cm below (L) angle of mouth (wound is superficial ). (2) Lacerated wound 0. 3 cm x 0. 1 cm x skin deep (superficial) 0. 5 cm ahove injury No. (1) (3) Lacerated wound 1. 3 cm x 0. 2 cm x skin deep superficial) oblique on chins. (4) Lacerated wound 0. 5 cm x 0. 3 cm x skin deep (superficial) on chin 0. 3 cm away (L) side injury No. (3 ). (5) Contusion on upper part of neck horizontal 13 cm x 3 cm on and above thyriod cartilage underlying skin parchment like sub cutaneous tissue. Muscles contused. (6) Contusion 7 cm x 6 cm on lower side of face on (L) on side (Paper torn ). (7) Abrasion 0. 3 cm x 0. 2 cm x tip of (R) thumb. (8) Multiple abrasions on whole of back size varying from 7 cm x 1. 5 cm to 2 cm x 1 cm. 3. Death was due to strangulation. After completing investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and in due course, the case was committed to the Court of Session. 4. At the trial, the appellant pleaded not guilty. 5. In support of its case, the prosecu tion examined as many as 13 witnesses. PW. 1 Smt. Dashratha Dei is the informant of the case, PW. 2 Jalil Ahmad and PW. 3 Maqbool Ahmad are witnesses of the recovery of the weapon of assault and recovery of clothes of the accused, which were alleged to be worn by him at the time of commission of the crime. PW. 4 Mohammad Naki is witness of inquest. PW. 5 Sohrab Ansari is witness of last seen and witness of motive, but he did not sup port the prosecution case and was declared hostile. PW. 9 Mazar Ahmad is also wit ness of last seen, but he also did not sup port the prosecution case and was declared hostile. PW. 6 Rajendra Prasad is witness of formal nature and he had taken the dead body for the purpose of post-mortem ex amination. PW. 7 Dr. M. N. Singh con ducted the post-mortem examination on dead body of Radhey Shyam. PW. PW. 6 Rajendra Prasad is witness of formal nature and he had taken the dead body for the purpose of post-mortem ex amination. PW. 7 Dr. M. N. Singh con ducted the post-mortem examination on dead body of Radhey Shyam. PW. 8 Lalji Yadav was the constable clerk who had taken down the F. I. R. at the police station. PW. 10 Abdul Hakim Qureshi is also a formal witness. PW. 11 S. I. Anjani Kumar Upadhyay was the station officer who had conducted the investigation of the case. Evidence of PW. 12 Janeshwar Yadav is of purely formal nature. Lastly, PW. 13 Dr. . U. Khan had examined the appellant. At the close of the evidence, the appellant again pleaded not guilty and he examined two witnesses in his defence. They are D. W. 1 Ram Prasad who was a peon in the office of the District Magistrate and D. W. 2 Jamadar Singh, stenographer of the office of the District Magistrate. Accepting the prosecution case, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. The appellant has now come up in appeal to this court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State coun sel at length and have also perused the evidence on record. 7. There is no denying of the fact that there is no eye-witnesses in this case and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. To bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution relied upon several cir cumstances. The anchor-sheet of the prosecution case is the evidence of PW. 1 Dashratha Dei and the prosecution case is that Dashratha Dei lodged prompt F. I. R. at 6. 45 a. m. giving out her version. Dashratha Dei has initially supported the prosecu tion case, but subsequently she made several statements, which run counter to the prosecution case. Learned State coun sel has argued that the very important circumstance in this case is that Dashratha Dei, who happened to be mother of the appellant, had herself lodged prompt F. I. R. a the police station vividly giving out the , prosecution case which goes a long way to show that the prosecution has come to Court with a truthful version. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence speaks in volume that the F. I. R. in this case was not lodged at the time suggested by the prosecution but it had come into existence long afterwards and has been anti- timed. In this connection, learned counsel of the appellant has added that it appears that the thumb-impression of the informant Dashratha Dei was obtained on some paper on which the F. I. R. was later on writ ten out. In this connection we may refer to the evidence of Dashratha Dei. In para 13 of her statement-in-chief she stated that after seeing the dead body of her son she straightaway went to the police station where she got the F. I. R. scribed by one Samiullah. In her cross- examination she stated that when she had reached the police station, it was before dawn-and she further stated in para 15 of her cross-ex amination that Samiullah met her at the police station and she got the report scribed by Samiullah outside the police station. When she was further cross-ex amined she stated that she did not have any paper, but she purchased the paper from the market. She further stated in her cross-examination, that she got a paper shop opened at that time and then purchased the paper. She denied that the paper was procured from the police reside near the police station and whosoever goes to the police station gets acquainted with Samiullah. In para 16 of her cross- ex amination she stated that Samiullah was in fact residing in village Acidadha which is at a distance of about half a mile from the police station. The statement given by Dashratha Dei goes to show that Samiullah had written out the FIR. The story given by Dashratha Dei that Samiullah causally met her out side the police station is not at all convincing. She tried to im press that Samiullah was residing close to the police station and gets in touch with all those who visit the police station, but she had to admit that he is residing in another village which is about half a mile from the police station. Why Dashratha took the services Samiullah remains unex plained. She tried to im press that Samiullah was residing close to the police station and gets in touch with all those who visit the police station, but she had to admit that he is residing in another village which is about half a mile from the police station. Why Dashratha took the services Samiullah remains unex plained. The story given by Dashratha Dei that she got the paper shop opened at dawn time is also far from convincing and the reality appears to be that the paper was procured from the police station. The prosecution has tried to impress upon the Court that the entire prosecution version which came from the mouth of Dashratha Dei is to be found in the F. I. R. which was lodged at 6-45 a. m. in which it was clearly stated that the appellant was having illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased and that he was found missing from his cot at night and the accused was named in so many words in the F. I. R. It has come in the evidence of P. W. 2 Jalil Ahmad that he reached the spot at about 6 or 7 a. m. and he found that Smt. Dashratha Dei, her hus band as also appellant Ram Dheeraj were there and they were weeping and wailing. He again stated that they were weeping there. P. W. 2 Jalil Ahmad went on to state that after he had reached the spot, the investigating officer (Darogaji) reached there after about one hour and even at that time the appellant, the informant and appellants father were all present there weeping. If it were a fact that the F. I. R. had already come into existence against the appellant and the case under Section 302 IPC had been registered at 6. 45 a. m. the investigating officer would not have al lowed the appellant to move away and would have arrested him then and there. As has already been observed above, ac cording to the evidence of he investigating officer, the appellant was arrested at about 4 p. m. in the outskirts of the village and only then he was interrogated. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that at one sage the prosecution had cross- ex amined the witness with the permission of the Court. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that at one sage the prosecution had cross- ex amined the witness with the permission of the Court. However, in the cross-examina tion by the State not even a suggestion was made to him that he had falsely stated that when the investigating officer had reached at the spot in the morning the appellant along with his parents was there on the spot weeping and wailing. We are of the considered opinion that the evidence of P. W. 2 Jalil Ahmad does not show that he was siding with the appellant. 8. There is yet another fact which when taken together with the circumstances of the case casts a doubt on the existence of the F. I. R. According to the prosecution case, check FIR was drawn out at about 6-45 a. m. In the check F. I. R. distance of the police sta tion from the spot has been described as one and a half mile. However, in the inquest report this distance has been mentioned in kilometres as three kilometres. If the inves tigating officer was possessed of the check F. I. R. at the time when the inquest report was drawn, the distance would have been the same as has been maintained in the check F. I. R. . There is yet another fact, which stares at the face of the prosecution case. In the in quest report there is a column regarding "cause or death as disclosed by the inform ant". In that column of the inquest report, the case of death has been noted as stran gulation. However, in the F. I. R. it is not men tioned that the diseased was strangulated. This again goes to show that at the time when the inquest report was drawn out, the ver sion of the F. I. R. was not in existence because the F. I. R. does not say that the cause of death was strangulation. However, in the F. I. R. it is not men tioned that the diseased was strangulated. This again goes to show that at the time when the inquest report was drawn out, the ver sion of the F. I. R. was not in existence because the F. I. R. does not say that the cause of death was strangulation. At the risk of repetition, we would like to observe that when the informant had herself reached the police station, there was no point in her running about here and there, get a shop opened, buy a paper and even thereafter stay at the gate of the police station procuring services of Samiullah to write the F. I. R. She would have easily walked into the police station and an oral F. I. R. would have been lodged at the police station. The totality of cir cumstances go to show that the F. I. R. did not come into existence as suggested by the prosecution and in all likelihood the F. I. R. has been anti-timed. 9. The anchor-sheet of the prosecu tion in this case is the evidence of P. W. 1 Dashratha Dei but before we deal with her evidence we would like to refer to other piece of circumstantial evidence. 10. The prosecution has tried to es tablish that at or about the time of the murder, the appellant was seen near the tube-well and this as sought to be proved from the evidence of P. W. 5 Sohrab Ansari and P. W. 9 Mazhar Ahamad. Both these witnesses have not supported the prosecu tion case and were declared hostile. The prosecution cross-examined these two wit nesses but could not elicit anything in their cross-examination which may lend sup port to the prosecution case. The prosecu tion has also come out with a case that after his arrest at about 2 p. m. on the informa tion furnished by the appellant, blood stained underwear and a Baniyain and a blade of plough were recovered at the pointing out of the appellant from within the house of the appellant. The prosecu tion case in this regard is also not proved by any convincing evidence. There are two public witnesses on the point of discovery at the behest of the appellant. The prosecu tion case in this regard is also not proved by any convincing evidence. There are two public witnesses on the point of discovery at the behest of the appellant. PW-2 Jalil Ahmad is initially supported the prosecu tion case, but at a later stage stated that nothing was recovered in his presence. He was cross-examined and the cross-ex amination could not be completed till lunch hours. When the cross-examination was resumed after lunch hours, he again stated supporting the case of the prosecu tion and went to the extent of stating that he had made wrong statements earlier. It appears that the witness was tackled by the prosecution taking advantage of the lunch interval and he was forced to make a state ment suiting to the prosecution. He had earlier stated that he had gone to purchase betel and when he returned back, the recovered article were there. Even after he was cross-examined by the prosecution, he was again cross-examined from the side of the appellant and he struck to his state ment that he had gone to buy betel but feigned ignorance as to whether he had gone to buy betel before the recovery or after the recovery. Such a vacillating state ment of this witness does not lend coun tenance to the prosecution case on the point of recovery. The other witness on the point of recovery i. e. PW-3 Maqbool Ahmad has also stated that he did not enter into the house of the appellant with the investigating officer and the investigat ing officer had himself brought out the blood-stained clothes. When he was cross-examined on behalf of the appellant, he stated that he was made to sign on blank papers at the spot and also at the police station and that PW-2 Jalil Ahmad was also made to sign blank papers at the police station. In this manner, both the public witnesses have given their state ment which run counter to the statements of the investigating officer regarding the recovery of blood-stained clothes at the instance of the appellant and the blade of the plough. The suggestion of the prosecu tion is that the blood-stained clothes belonged to the appellant and that he was wearing them at the time of the incident. The suggestion of the prosecu tion is that the blood-stained clothes belonged to the appellant and that he was wearing them at the time of the incident. It does not stand to reason that the appellant would be so foolish as to keep the in criminating articles in his own house and would not have disposed them elsewhere when he had sufficient time at this disposal at night. PW-1 Dashratha Dei has given a queer statement regarding these clothes. In para 22 of her cross- examination, she stated that Baniyan Ext. 2 and Janghiya Ext. 3 belonged to the deceased and that they were taken out from the person of the deceased. She has added that the appellant was present there when these clothes were taken out from the person of the deceased. To sum up, the evidence of alleged recovery at the instance of the appellant is far from convincing and cannot be relied upon. The house from where the alleged two clothes and the blade of the plough were allegedly recovered was not in ex clusive possession of the appellant and it was shared by the father of the appellant. To fasten the recovery upon the appellant, the prosecution has tried to develop a story for the first time at the trial that the key of the room where the recovery was made was provided by the appellant. However, this is not to be found in the recovery memo and even at the stage of investigation the wit nesses did not say so. It was for the first time at the trial that wisdom dawned upon the prosecution and it introduced the story that the key of the room was provided by the appellant. The theory of supply of the key is clearly an after thought and cannot be accepted. 11. Lastly, we would like to advert to the evidence of Smt. Dashratha Dei, Smt. Dashratha Dei happened to be the mother of the appellant. She herself did not see the incident, but she has stated that the appel lant was having illicit affair with the wife of his younger brother Radhey Shyam, deceased, and due to this there was frequent quarrels between the two brothers and the wives of both the brothers had gone to their own parental houses. She added that she had herself seen the appel lant in a compromising position with her younger daughter-in-law. She added that she had herself seen the appel lant in a compromising position with her younger daughter-in-law. Thus, on the point of motive, the prosecution strongly relied upon the evidence of PW-1 Dashratha Dei. It is well settled that motive alone howsoever strong, cannot form the basis of conviction. Motive itself is always a double-edged sword. On one hand, it goes to show that the accused could have com mitted the crime due to the motive sug gested, but on the other hand if somebody else may have committed the crime, a strong suspicion due to motive may result in false implication of the accused. Moreover in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive alone is not enough proof of the guilt of the accused. So far as evidence of Smt. Dashralha Dei regarding the fact that at about midnight she found that the appellant was away from his cot and that he came back after a short while and again went lo sleep is concerned, such conduct of the appellant in itself is not incriminating. Often people go to urinate at night or they even go to ease themselves and return to bed there after. On the other hand, if it was found that the appellant was away from his cot for a short time may have resulted in strong suspicion against him with the result that he was implicated in the case. We have already observed in an earlier part of this judgment that the F. I. R. in this case came into existence not at 6. 45 a. m. but it has been subsequently ante-timed. If everything was well and if the entire version was disclosed by Smt. Dashratha Dei, there was no reason to ante-time the F. I. R. Our finding that the F. I. R. is ante-timed has far- reaching conse quences and it casts a serious doubt on the correctness of the prosecution case. We do not know what was the earliest version that came from the mouth of Smt. Dashratha Dei and which was not taken down as F. I. R. On the other hand, the case before the Court was conceived much conceived afterwards, and that is why the necessity to ante-time the F. I. R. arose. 12. Considering the totality of cir cumstances in this case. 12. Considering the totality of cir cumstances in this case. We are of the view that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. 13. Accordingly, the appeals are al lowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are set aside. The appellant is on bail. He need not sur render to his bail bonds, which are dis charged. Appeals allowed. .