ORDER : 1. On 11th September, 1977, while Hari Prakash, PW-1, along with his deceased father Ram Niwas were coming from the shop of M/s. Mathura Prasad Daya Ram at about 4.00 P.M. and proceeding towards their house, they were waylaid near the old Post Office lane. According to the prosecution case, while Rama Kant, respondent and Vishwadeo were armed with double barrel guns, Laxmi Kant was armed with a katta and Munnu was empty handed. It is alleged that at the instigation of respondent Rama Kant and his co-accused Vishwadeo that Ram Niwas be murdered (on account of previous enmity between the parties), Laxmi Kant, co-accused of the respondent, fired from his katta from a distance of about two paces, causing serious injuries on the back of Ram Niwas, who fell down. His son Hari Prakash, PW-1 raised an alarm. Respondent Rama Kant and Vishwadeo thereupon pointed their guns towards Hari Prakash, PW-1 and after threatening him, fled away from the scene of occurrence. On alarm being raised by PW-1, his brother Ashok Kumar, PW-2 along with his other brother Adesh Kumar and some villagers reached the spot. Leaving his father and brothers at the spot, Hari Prakash, PW-1 went to his house and prepared a written complaint, which was then taken to the Police Station and on its basis a First Information Report was registered. The investigation was taken in hand. The injured was removed to the hospital where Dr. Ram Prakash Gupta, PW-3 examined him and prepared his injury statement. Since the condition of Ram Niwas deteriorated, he was sent to Bareilly for treatment and on the night between 18th and 19th September, 1977, he succumbed to the injuries at about midnight. On intimation of death being sent to the Police Station, Sadar Bazar, a case for an offence under Section 304 Indian Penal Code was registered, which was later on changed to a case under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, respondent Rama Kant along with Vishwadeo, Laxmi Kant and Munnu were sent up for trial and tried for the offences by the learned Sessions Judge. Vide judgment dated 11th January, 1979, Laxmi Kant, Vishwadeo and Munnu were acquitted. Rama Kant, was however, found guilty of an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Vide judgment dated 11th January, 1979, Laxmi Kant, Vishwadeo and Munnu were acquitted. Rama Kant, was however, found guilty of an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. On an appeal filed by Rama Kant against his conviction and sentence, a division bench of the High Court, on 9th September, 1991, accepted the appeal and setting aside conviction and sentence of the respondent, acquitted him. Aggrieved, the State is in appeal by special leave. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 3. According to the prosecution case itself, PW-1 Hari Prakash is an eye-witness. He is the one who submitted a written complaint on the basis of which First Information Report was lodged at the Police Station. He is the son of the deceased. In the First Information Report, the ocular version given by Hari Prakash, PW-1 was to the effect that it was Laxmi Kant who had killed his father Ram Niwas and that respondent Rama Kant and his co-accused Vishwadeo had only instigated the commission of crime. This version, however, appears to have been given a go-bye at the trial, on the basis of a dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, PW-7 at 7.30 P.M. on the date of the occurrence, in the hospital. The Trial Court did not rely upon the dying declaration said to have been recorded by the investigating officer, first in point of time. It contains a version similar to the one which is contained in the FIR. In the dying declaration recorded by PW-7, the identity of the assailant has been changed. It is stated to be the respondent and not Laxmi Kant. The deceased was in a state of shock, having suffered a number of injuries, as a result of firing from the katta. His condition was deteriorating as admitted by the Doctor, PW-3. The prosecution has been unable to explain the change of the substratum of the prosecution case from the FIR to the dying declaration. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have completely ignored the fact that the version given in the dying declaration was a version completely different from the one given by the son of the deceased in the FIR, wherein he had disclosed as an eye-witness about the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. It was not a case of minor contradictions. It was not a case of minor contradictions. 4. Here the identity of the main assailant had become suspect. According to the eye witness, it was Laxmi Kant who had killed his father and the respondent was only one of the instigators. If that be so, the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the respondent and not the prosecution. 5. The prosecution has failed to establish the case against the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court, under the circumstances, took a correct view in acquitting the respondent, as the very genesis of the occurrence had become doubtful. The view taken by the High Court is a reasonable view. It suffers from no perversity or even unreasonableness. This appeal has no merits. It, therefore, fails and is dismissed. The respondent is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.