S. K. AGARWAL, J. This appeal was filed by Amolak appellant against his conviction under Section 302 IPC and consequence sentence of life imprisonment inflicted upon him by Shri R. C. Awasthy, the then Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Saharanpur by his judgment in ST 163 of 1970. 2. The facts giving rise to the offence are as under : On 18-4-1976 around 12 noon when the informant Shobha Ram and his brother Sadhoo were present in his house and were taking meal six persons Ishwar Dayal, Virendra, Rishipal, Raj Kumar, Ghanshyam and Ramesh Chauhan came to his house and sat down thereafter encoring about Sadhoo. It is alleged that at that time Amolak appellant reached there. All these persons used to visit Sadhoo. It is alleged that at about 1. 00 p. m. (noon) Amolak took away Sadhoo to his shop. He was followed by all the above said accused persons. The motive for the incident as alleged was squabble between Bachhi and Sadhoo. Some 7-8 days days before the incident milkman Bachhi had lodged a First Information Report against Sadhoo. Having this motive in the back of his mind the informant also claimed to have reached the shop of Amolak at about 1. 30 p. m. He saw Amolak, Ishwar, Virendra, Rishipal, Raj Kumar, Ramesh and Ghanshyam assaulting Sadhoo with bricks and knives at the shop of Amolak. The informant raised shouts of save. His alarm attracted Vishamber s/o Ridka, Baljit s/o Bhola, Raghuvir s/o Yugal, all residents of Kutubpur, and many others the spot. They intervened and save Sadhoo. Sadhoo sustained number of injuries in incident and was lying on the ground inconspicuous in a pool of blood. Amolak was allegedly arrested by the witness at the spot after giving him thorough beating. After a while a police Inspector with two constables also reached the spot. Amolak was handed over to him by the witnesses. The rest of the accused who took to their heels, were chased by the witnesses. They arrested Ishwar Dayal and Virendra near the canal. They were brought to the spot and handed over to the police. The informant lodged the injured on a bullock cart and brought him to the road. He took him to Roorkee Hospital for medical aid. The rest of the accused who took to their heels, were chased by the witnesses. They arrested Ishwar Dayal and Virendra near the canal. They were brought to the spot and handed over to the police. The informant lodged the injured on a bullock cart and brought him to the road. He took him to Roorkee Hospital for medical aid. But neither any medical examination was held nor any medical assistance was given to the victim due to non-availability of the doctor. While they were bringing him back to Hardwar the deceased at about 6. 30 p. m. in the evening breathed his last near Ranipur Barrier. Abandoning the body in the taxi at that very place the informant Shobha Ram had prepared a report and took it to police station. This written report is Ex. Ka-2. It was lodged by him on 18-4-1976 at 8. 00 p. m. at O. P. Ranipur, PS, Jwalapur. 3. The autopsy on the person of deceased Sadhoo was conducted by Dr. Jagdish Prasad (PW-1) on 19-4- 1976 at 12. 00 noon. Following ante-mortem injuries were noted. (1) Lacreated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep right temporal region. (2) Contusion 5 cm on right side of face of (head) in front and above right ear in temporal region. (3) Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm at the outer end of right eyebrow. (4) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep right side of scalp 6 cm above right ear. (5) Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on left forehead 1-1/2 cm above midpoint of left eyebrow. (5) Abrasion 1 cm x 1/2 cm on left side of forehead 1-1/2 above (5 ). (7) Abrasion 3-1/2 cm x 2-1/2 cm left face 2-1/2 cm infaront of left ear. (8) Contusion 5 cm x 3 cm over and around right ear. (9) Contusion 4 cm x 1-1/2 cm on the lower side on face of left eye (left side of face ). The internal examination shows extravagation blood clot 12 cm x 7-1/2 cm on right parietal and temporal region. An internal extravagation blood clot 7 cm x 4-1/2 cm over left temporal region. Depressed and commuted fracture on right parietal and temporal bones in an area of 9 cm x 5 cm under injury No. 4 was also noted by doctor. The internal examination shows extravagation blood clot 12 cm x 7-1/2 cm on right parietal and temporal region. An internal extravagation blood clot 7 cm x 4-1/2 cm over left temporal region. Depressed and commuted fracture on right parietal and temporal bones in an area of 9 cm x 5 cm under injury No. 4 was also noted by doctor. He also found membrane lacerated and torn in an area of 2 cm x 1 cm under fractured bone. Brain was found deeply congested all over. On the right side lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm under fractured bones was also detected on the left. Blood clot 15 cm x 8-1/2 cm. over left hemisphere especially over temporal region was also detected. Two ounces of blood was found present in the internal cavity. Fracture of left cranial fossae and fracture on both middle fossae were also found. The stomach was found containing two ounces digested food. The small intestine was empty and large intestine contained faecal matter. Gall bladder was found full. Urinary bladder was found empty. 4. In the opinion of the doctor the death was caused as a result of head injuries and consequent shock and haemorrhage. The doctor was of the opinion that these injuries could be caused by bricks if the blows were inflicted with force. The injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. It was further opined by the doctor that the death could occur at 1. 30 p. m. (noon ). The post-mortem report is Ext. Ka-1. He was not cross-examined by the defence at all. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined PW-2 Shobha Ram who is maker of the First Information Report. He is also an eye-witness and claimed to have arrested the appellant on the spot alongwith others. Baljit is PW-3. He is a chance witness. He had stated that he was gong to Vishamber carpenter for getting his agricultural instruments repaired. Vishamber is PW-4. He is also a chance witness. He claimed that he had gone to Saddique for getting his quilt prepared. Saddique PW-5 was also examined by the prosecution but he turned hostile and denied to have seen anything. But he has admitted that he had heard hue and cry from the shop of Amolak. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are formal witnesses. He claimed that he had gone to Saddique for getting his quilt prepared. Saddique PW-5 was also examined by the prosecution but he turned hostile and denied to have seen anything. But he has admitted that he had heard hue and cry from the shop of Amolak. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are formal witnesses. One of them is PW-1 Dr. Jagdish Prasad. He has conducted the post mortem examination. His testimony has been discussed earlier. The next witness is PW-6 Raj Pal Singh, Head Moharir. He registered the FIR and prepared check report Ext. Ka-3 and GD entries. PW-7 Keshav Deo Verma is Investigating Officer, who reached the spot at about 12-1. 00 noon on receiving the information about Sadhoo being beaten at the Chabutra of Amolak. On reaching the spot, received in his custody the appellant who was in the captivity of the witnesses. He had also taken in his custody two other accused persons who were also apprehended by other witnesses. The Investigating thereafter was taken over by SHO PW-9 S. S. Verma. He sent PW-7 to prepare inquest on the person of deceased Sadhoo whose body was lying at Ranipur barrier. He had also prepared other relevant papers and sent the dead-body for post mortem examination through constable Kamta Nath and Prahlad. Constable Jay Prakash is PW-8 who escorted the dead body to Hardwar for post-mortem. After completing the formalities the charge-sheet against the accused persons was submitted. No charge-sheet was submitted against Ramesh. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant has urged before us that there is no reliable evidence on the record to establish the presence of witnesses. They are highly partition and belong to the community of the deceased and the informant. PW-2 Shobha Ram is brother of the deceased. The version has been materially altered from the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 161 Crpc which renders their reliability seriously in doubt. The origin of the Marpit is shrouded in mystery and the evidence of the witnesses fails to prove it in right earnest. On the contrary these witnesses appears to conceal truth from the Court. No independent witnesses of the locality where the incident had taken place were examined. The origin of the Marpit is shrouded in mystery and the evidence of the witnesses fails to prove it in right earnest. On the contrary these witnesses appears to conceal truth from the Court. No independent witnesses of the locality where the incident had taken place were examined. In the FIR names of Saddique and Yashpal find place and the presence of many other persons being admitted as witnesses of the incident, non-production of independent witnesses belonging to the locality is fatal to the prosecution case. The next submission is that no explanation has been offered in the trial Court with regard to the injuries of the appellant. According to the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant the injuries of the appellant clearly show that they are the result of assault launched upon the appellant by the deceased. It is borne out from the evidence that the deceased was a dare devil and was involved in number of cases of dacoity, assault and theft etc. His history sheet was also opened at the police station. The probability that the incident occurred on account of the deceased attempting to extort money cannot be ruled out in the circumstances of this case. He may have been assaulted by the shopkeepers including Amolak appellant in exercise of right of private defence of their person and property. It has been further stressed on behalf of the appellant that he had absolutely no motive to assault the victim and the motive alleged by the prosecution runs against its own case and supports the defence. The FIR also appears to be ante timed. In order to appreciate the above said argument, we have to examine closely the evidence of PW-2 Shobha Ram, PW-3 Baljit, and PW-4 Vishamber. The other witness PW-5 Saddique has turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution case. 7. PW-2 Shobha Ram being brother of the deceased is most important witness of the incident. He had claimed to have seen the incident from its inception till its culmination in the death of his brother Sadhoo. The deceased was called from his house and taken to the shop of the appellant by seven persons including Amolak around 12. 00 noon on the day of occurrence. Sadhoo, according to the FIR was taking his meal when seven accused persons reached his house and called him. The deceased was called from his house and taken to the shop of the appellant by seven persons including Amolak around 12. 00 noon on the day of occurrence. Sadhoo, according to the FIR was taking his meal when seven accused persons reached his house and called him. In trial Court this witness had modified his case and stated that both of them were taking their meals. Now he has stated that the appellant alone visited his house and had taken the deceased from there. No one else accompanied him. He has stated in the FIR and the statement made under Section 161 Crpc that on account of suspicion he had also followed these two persons upto the spot of occurrence. But he had changed this version in the trial Court and stated that he had gone to village Mirpur on account of some work. He did not specify that work. On reaching Mirpur he found Sadhoo being assaulted by Amolak by bricks. He had changed the version in the trial Court, from the FIR and the statement under Section 161 Crpc to the extent that now according to him except Amolak on one else participated in the assault upon his brother. He had further stated that he had seen 3-4 persons also assaulting him. This run contrary to the allegation made by him in the FIR as well as in his statement under Section 161 Crpc. Out of these 4-5 persons he could identify in Court only the appellant. He declined to identify the other assailants who were also present there alongwith the appellant. He further claimed that he had taken his brother on Buggi upto Pathri and from there he took him to Roorkee Hospital. He had stated that he on his own had taken his brother for medical examination. Due to holiday no doctor was available at Roorkee Hospital so he was bringing him back to Hardwar. When he reached Ranipur Barrier his brother died. It was about 6-7. 00 p. m. He further admitted that the FIR was got transcribed by PW-9 (SHO) from none Balchand Saini. A constable came at the place where the dead body was lying and called him to sigg the written report. He further claimed that he had arrested Amolak on the spot and handed him over to the police. 00 p. m. He further admitted that the FIR was got transcribed by PW-9 (SHO) from none Balchand Saini. A constable came at the place where the dead body was lying and called him to sigg the written report. He further claimed that he had arrested Amolak on the spot and handed him over to the police. He denied the arrest of any other accused either by him or the witnesses, although the FIR and statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Crpc clearly disclose the arrest of Ishwar Dayal and Virendra from the jungle soon after the occurrence. In the FIR he had named with parentage as many as seven persons including the appellant as those who came to his house and took away the deceased with them. He further admitted in cross-examination that he did not know who dictated the written report. He had signed it only. He went to the police station and signed it there. He further admitted that there are two Garhs. One Garh is known as Garh No. 1 and another as Garh No. 2. The incident had occurred in Garh No. 2 in front of cycle shop of the appellant. There are several shops and residential houses. All these shops were opened and persons were present in their shops. According to him further none of the shopkeepers and witnesses had also arrived at the scene of occurrence. He admits his relationship with the witnesses produced in this case. These witnesses belong to his own village. They are all Saini by caste. He further admitted that the deceased had taken his meal before he left the house. The deceased remained unconscious all along after the assault. He denied that any statement of his was recorded by the Investigating Officer. He further admitted that 5-6 police personal visited his village. He made no attempt to save his brother. Other witnesses also stood at some distance. He has admitted that police station Jwalapur is about 3 miles from Bahadarabad and falls on the main road leading to Hardwar. Sadhoo was removed from the spot within 4-5 minutes. He admitted clearly that he for the first time is stating in the trial Court that Sadhoo was assaulted by Amolak alone in the trial Court. He has further admitted that his brother, deceased Sadhoo was involved in some 2-3 cases of dacoity, theft and robbery. Sadhoo was removed from the spot within 4-5 minutes. He admitted clearly that he for the first time is stating in the trial Court that Sadhoo was assaulted by Amolak alone in the trial Court. He has further admitted that his brother, deceased Sadhoo was involved in some 2-3 cases of dacoity, theft and robbery. These cases were going on against him. He was history sheeter also. He also admitted that the deceased was jailed on a number of occasions. He denied that the deceased had kidnapped the daughter of Roopram, Village Pradhan but admitted that she had ran way herself. He further admitted that the police was always in the look out to arrest and jail his brother. From his statement following facts emerge out very clearly. 8. The FIR was not prepared by this witness. He had only signed it. Sub-Inspector S. S. Verma PW-9, clearly appears to be its author. Even the presence of this witness at the spot in all probability is rendered doubtful from his own statement and conduct as he was present at the spot alongwith his own relative and villagemen yet no attempt was made to save his brother from the assault. The circumstances appearing in his statement clearly support the probability that he was summoned through constable and after his arrival at the police station his signatures were procured on the ready report long after the incident. No doubt this witness has claimed that the victim was removed within 4-5 minutes, but this part of his statement is belied from the statement of first Police Officer PW-7 Keshav Deo Verma. This Police Officer has stated that he had tried to arrange a vehicle for sending the victim to the hospital for treatment, but this witness had declined his assistance and told that he would take his brother himself. He had even declined the help of a constable also. This story is culled out by the prosecution in order to explain the delay in sending the victim for any medical assistance. It appears only a figment of imagination. The deceased being taken to Roorkee and then brought back Hardwar does not stand to our reason. The condition of the victim was precarious. Hardwar has a civil hospital. Any sensible Sub-Inspector would have straight away dispatched the victim to the civil hospital and not to PHC at Roorkee. It appears only a figment of imagination. The deceased being taken to Roorkee and then brought back Hardwar does not stand to our reason. The condition of the victim was precarious. Hardwar has a civil hospital. Any sensible Sub-Inspector would have straight away dispatched the victim to the civil hospital and not to PHC at Roorkee. We are further fortified in our conviction in view of the fact that a Primary Health Centre was available at Jwalapur, yet the victim was taken to Roorkee. This was an attempt to explain the lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer for no effort to provide the victim any medical help in time. We are also unable to find why was he brought back to Hardwar and why he was not sent with a Chitthi Mazroobi through a constable. It leads to only conclusion that no attempt was made by the Investigating Agency to provide the deceased any medical treatment before his death. Rather conduct of the Investigating Agency shows that the police had deliberately waited for the deceased to bleed to death. PW-2 Shobha Ram appears clearly to have been called after the death of Sadhoo. This witness gives up its initial case of seven persons coming to his house to take Sadhoo to the shop of Amolak and assault on him by these persons with bricks and knife is also very strong circumstances running against the presence of this witness at the spot. There is yet another circumstance that run against the presence of this witness. He has denied the arrest of Ishwar Dayal and Virendra. He had refused to identify them in the Court. He only identified the appellant. These circumstances are too strong to dismissing the presence of this witness at the spot at the time of incident. In the circumstances we find it unsafe to place any reliance upon his evidence. 9. Next witness is Baljit (PW-3 ). According to PW-2, Baljit and Vishamber were attracted to the spot by his alarm. PW-3 has stated that he did not know any other accused except the appellant. He claimed that he had never seen them before. He is a chance witness. He claimed that he was going to Vishamber carpenter for getting his agricultural instruments repaired. It was 12-1. According to PW-2, Baljit and Vishamber were attracted to the spot by his alarm. PW-3 has stated that he did not know any other accused except the appellant. He claimed that he had never seen them before. He is a chance witness. He claimed that he was going to Vishamber carpenter for getting his agricultural instruments repaired. It was 12-1. 00 p. m. He was present at the shop of Vishamber when he heard the cries of hai Hai from the side of the shop of the Amolak. He reached there and had seen the victim being assaulted by Amolak with brick. Sadhoo fell unconscious as a result of those injuries. He further supported the arrest of the appellant. He had also supported the arrest of Ishwar Dayal and Virendra. He claimed that the deceased was taken by his brother PW-2 Shobha Ram on a dunlop cart after an hour of the incident for the hospital. He did not accompany him. He stayed at the shop of Vishamber to get his instruments repaired. He admitted the presence of many people of the locality at the spot but stated that he did not know them by name. He denied that any statement of his was recorded under Section 161 Crpc by the Investigating Officer. His statement recorded under Section 161 Crpc was put to him. He denied statement to Investigating Officer to the effect that Amolak was holding a brick which he had struck on Sadhoo. He fell down and blood started oozing out. Sadhoo raised alarm save save which attracted Raghuvir, Saddique and Yashpal and many others. They tried to save Sadhoo. 3-4 more persons were present with him. One of them was armed with knife. Whose name was being told as Ghanshyam. He failed to explain the above said statement made to the Investigating Officer by him. He further failed to explain that part of his statement, which shows the arrest of Ishwar Dayal and Virendra. As a matter of fact this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and he was cross-examined. He was suggested by the prosecution that he had colluded with the accused and hence he is not supporting the prosecution. He initially stated that he had not appeared for the police as a witness. But subsequently admitted his appearance in some police cases. He had given evidence on the Shobha Ram. 10. He was suggested by the prosecution that he had colluded with the accused and hence he is not supporting the prosecution. He initially stated that he had not appeared for the police as a witness. But subsequently admitted his appearance in some police cases. He had given evidence on the Shobha Ram. 10. The facts and circumstances discussed above lead us to only conclusion that the testimony of this witness is not worthy of credence. It is unsafe to hold that this witness was present at the spot of occurrence and had at all gone for getting his agricultural instruments repaired on the fateful day. According to his statement recorded under Section 161 Crpc at 12. 00 noon he had (sic) Amolak and six other persons alongwith Sadhoo. After one and half hour he claimed that he had gone to the house of Vishamber for taking daranti. According to his statement under Section 161 Crpc the time of occurrence was about 1. 30 p. m. Thus from his Section 161 Crpc statement, brought on record as Ext. Ka-12 and proved by PW-9 we find his presence highly doubtful at the spot at the time of occurrence. Even he has not stood by his claim that he affected the arrest of two others as well. It is very difficult for us to accept his statement that he alongwith other witnesses arrested appellant and handed him over to the police. He also admitted to have accompanied Shobha Ram from his village on being summoned by the police after the incident was over. In our opinion this witness like Shobha Ram in all probability had gone to the spot after an information of death of Sadhoo was sent by the police to their village. 11. So far as PW-4 Vishamber is concerned, his evidence can be very safely discarded for the above said reasons. He is also a chance witness. He claimed that in the month of April 1976 he had gone to the shop of Saddique for the preparation of a quit. We do not find any substance in his explanation for his presence near the shop of the Amolak at the time of occurrence. Admittedly, Saddiquis shop was at a distance of 100-125 paces from the shop of Amolak. According to him it was 1-1. We do not find any substance in his explanation for his presence near the shop of the Amolak at the time of occurrence. Admittedly, Saddiquis shop was at a distance of 100-125 paces from the shop of Amolak. According to him it was 1-1. 30 p. m. when he heard an alarm coming from the shop of Amolak, according to him, Amolak was the only assailant. None else was with him. He also denied the arrest of Ishwar Dayal and Virendra. He had claimed to have arrested only the appellant. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and he was cross-examined. He denied any statement to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr. P. C. The entire statement of 161 Cr. P. C. was put to him by the prosecutor. He pleaded ignorance about this statement. He was also suggested that he had colluded with the accused persons hence is denying the truth. His plea that he had gone to Saddique for getting his quit repaired is a being pretext having no substance. In cross- examination he has admitted that he had already got prepared his quilt before the occurrence. This completely demolishes his above explanation for his presence at the spot. It is common knowledges that in the month of April quilt are not used. He was unable to give out the topography of the place of occurrence from the house of Saddique. He had also not accompanied Shobha Ram to the hospital. He too had made no attempt to save the deceased from the assault. He also adhered to same stenotyped changed version in Court with regard to the arrest and participation of other six accused persons. In the circumstances we find it highly unsafe to place any reliance upon his testimony as well to uphold the conviction of the appellant. 12. In our opinion none of the witnesses were present at the spot the time of occurrence. They reached the scene of occurrence on receiving the information from police much later. PW 7 Keshav Dev Verma claimed to have arrived at the scene of occurrence in between 12-1. 00 p. m. on receiving the information about assault upon the victim from some source. According to PW-7 he reached the spot where Sadhoo was lying in an injured state. He found Amolak in the custody of the witnesses Shobha Ram etc. PW 7 Keshav Dev Verma claimed to have arrived at the scene of occurrence in between 12-1. 00 p. m. on receiving the information about assault upon the victim from some source. According to PW-7 he reached the spot where Sadhoo was lying in an injured state. He found Amolak in the custody of the witnesses Shobha Ram etc. He further claimed that he was told by the witnesses that Amolak and his associates had assaulted Sadhoo. These witnesses now have completely abandoned the participation of any other accused in the incident. His claim that he taken taken Amolak in his custody and left in the custody of Chaukidar and had gone in search of other accused person is very tricky and mischievous. He had stated in examination-in-chief that he reached the spot of occurrence with two constables Jay Prakash and Jawahar. It is wholly unacceptable that he had gone in search of the assailants in the jungle abandoning the appellant to Chaukidar. Negative witness had stated about the presence of Chaukidar at the spot. We do not find any substance further in his statement that he tried to help Shobha Ram in sending the victim for medical examination and treatment and that Shobha Ram refused to accept his help. Shobha Ram hence did not state any thing. It is common knowledge that injured persons are sent by police with Chitthi Mazroobi if it arrives at the scene of occurrence in time. In the present case no Chitthi Mazroobi was sent. If the police had reached the scene of occurrence before the injured was removed by friends or family members it is the obligation of the police to provide proper assistance for medical care to such victim. In the present case the conduct of the police is not only astounding but also unnatural. PW 7 had culled this story only to explain his own latches. It is apparent that since the deceased was a thorn in the flesh of the police being a hardened criminal, the police thought it proper to allow him to bleed to death. No effort whatsoever, was made by it to save the life of the victim despite its obligation though it claimed to have reached the spot in the mist of the incident. No effort whatsoever, was made by it to save the life of the victim despite its obligation though it claimed to have reached the spot in the mist of the incident. Despite denial by the witnesses to identify Ishwar Dayal and Virendra in Court as one amongst six accused persons this witness had supported their arrest by the witnesses and his taking them into custody. Thus, we find that even the police was recalcitrant towards its duty to assist the Court honestly instead it tried to conceal the truth from the Court. It leads us to only inference that the incident had not taken place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. 13. PW-9 S. S. Verma is the Investigation Officer. He claimed that he was present at the police station when the FIR was transcribed. He claimed that the copy of the FIR was with him when he reached the spot of occurrence. Inquest memo was prepared under his supervision. We examined inquest memo ourselves. We find that it did not specify any weapon of assault in the column meant for this purpose in this memo. It had been transcribed therein that the death had occurred as a result of injuries sustained by the victim. The inquest memo further contains that the dead body was sent through constables Jay Prakash and Jawahar. Contrary to it PW-7 stated that it was sent through constables Ramdhan and Prahlad. PW-7 has further stated that he prepared inquest memo himself on the instruction of S. S. Verma (PW-9 ). He did not state that it was prepared under the supervision of S. S. Verma (PW-9) who had arrived at the scene of occurrence after registration of the case. It is safely discernibly from the evidence available on record that the assault upon the deceased was complete before, PW-7 reached the scene of occurrence on receiving the information about the marpit from some source. We have already held that the witnesses PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 could not be present. The police was first to reach the spot of occurrence. The accused was present. He did not run away when first police officer Keshav Dev Verma arrived at the scene of occurrence. The condition of the victim was precarious. Instead of taking measures to send him for any medical care, he allowed him to bleed. The witnesses were called later on. The accused was present. He did not run away when first police officer Keshav Dev Verma arrived at the scene of occurrence. The condition of the victim was precarious. Instead of taking measures to send him for any medical care, he allowed him to bleed. The witnesses were called later on. There is absolutely no explanation offered by any of these witnesses for the injuries of this accused. All the formalities were completed by the police after the demise of Sadhoo. This is the natural inference amply flowing from the evidence. The dead-body was found near the Police Station Jwalapur strengthens the above conclusion. The admission of PW-2 Shobha Ram that the FIR was transcribed by the police and he was only called to sign from the place where the dead-body was lying. The brick recovered from the spot was not sent for serological examination to ascertain any human blood of the victim of it. 14. The last limb of the argument that the incident had not taken at the time as alleged by the prosecution, we find that the deceased was a hardened criminal and was involved in many cases of dacoity, robbery and theft. The motive suggested by the prosecution that the victim was called by the appellant and others to his shop to settle the dispute between him and Bachhi Milkman. Bachhi had lodged a report against Sadhoo 7-8 days before the incident is not proved by the prosecution by any cogent evidence. This FIR, lodged by Bachhi, had been brought on record. None of the witnesses other than PW-2 have stated about this motive. This F. I. R. is of great help to the Court. Although the FIR has not been exhibited but we can take recourse to this FIR and its contents because the first informant Shobha Ram has admitted its lodging by Bachhi against his brother Sadhoo 7-8 days before the incident. It was this incident between Bachhi and Sadhoo which had aroused his suspicion and he followed them. The prosecution has not established any affinity, friendship and relationship between Bachhi and the appellant. We this appellant may have taken on his head the killing of the deceased for Bachhis account remain thus a question wholly answered. 15. It was this incident between Bachhi and Sadhoo which had aroused his suspicion and he followed them. The prosecution has not established any affinity, friendship and relationship between Bachhi and the appellant. We this appellant may have taken on his head the killing of the deceased for Bachhis account remain thus a question wholly answered. 15. A perusal of the FIR clearly indicates that Sadhoo was in the habit of demanding money from peoples and in the event of denial he forcibly used to snatch it from them. This FIR was lodged just 8 days before the occurrence. In this FIR it had been stated by Bachhi that Sadhoo and Dasi had demanded money from them. When he refused to oblige them he was assaulted and was also divested his sico wrist watch and Sadhoo had removed Rs. 2,000/- from his pocket. This lends us two facts that there exists same force in the argument raised before us on behalf of the defence that the deceased might have come to market for collecting money from the shopkeepers and he may have been assaulted by the shopkeepers to resist any collection of money from them. It may be possible that the appellant may have refused to oblige the deceased and some quarrel took place between them when the deceased may have attempted to snatch or forcibly remove cash from his cash box the assault might have been the result to prevent the deceased from squeezing the money from the shopkeepers. The police have received the information from some of the shopkeepers about the incident and that is why Keshav Deo Verma PW-7 alongwith two constables reached first. The appellant continued to stay at his shop and was detained by the police. His injuries are noted in the GD which is on record. He had sustained injuries on his face, nose, lips, chin and abdomen. He was a young man of 35 years at the time of incident. It is also admitted by the prosecution that last year during Holi a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and the deceased on giving of the money. It is further stated by Shobha Ram that his brother was a bully type person and did not fear from any person. It is also admitted by the prosecution that last year during Holi a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and the deceased on giving of the money. It is further stated by Shobha Ram that his brother was a bully type person and did not fear from any person. The probability that the appellant was later involved in this offence by showing his arrest at the spot by the police in order to wash their hands. 16. Further use of brick is most uncommon. Presence of knife is admitted to witnesses with some of his associates at the initial stage although during the trial prosecution preferred to abandon its own case of participation of other accused persons in the incident purpose fully. Brick is normally used in absolutely abnormal circumstances. The person who is in dyer state and finds nothing to protest himself uses such unusual things in his defence in such unusual. The prosecution claims it to be a planned murder but it had abandoned this part by itself in evidence in Court. We find no substance in the case of prosecution in this regard. Arrest of the appellant at his place of business was not easy for few witnesses belonging to different place especially where his companions were present with sharpedged weapons. He could have easily run away. It is not the case of the prosecution that neighborhood shopkeepers had also participated in his arrest. These factors militate strongly against the prosecution version regarding presence of the witnesses, manner and weapon of the assault and also arrest of the appellant at the spot. The evidence of witnesses especially PW-2 Shobha Ram clearly shows that the FIR is ante-timed dictated by PW-9. It was only signed by the witness on being summoned at the police station. 17. Thus, from the above said discussion the probability that Sadhoo was murdered in different circumstances cannot be ruled out in this case. The version brought on record by PW-2 Shobha Ram, and PW-3 Baljit and PW-4 Vishamber does not inspire our confidence. The cannot of the police in this case is most reprehensible. Not only the FIR was dictated by it but also they have deliberately avoided any medical assistance to the victim and waited him to die. The version brought on record by PW-2 Shobha Ram, and PW-3 Baljit and PW-4 Vishamber does not inspire our confidence. The cannot of the police in this case is most reprehensible. Not only the FIR was dictated by it but also they have deliberately avoided any medical assistance to the victim and waited him to die. The admission of the police personal that two others were also apprehended by the witnesses from the spot is also not established from the evidence of the witnesses who had denied any such arrest. These facts and circumstances lead us to the inference that it is wholly unsafe for us to place any implicit reliance upon the evidence of the eye- witnesses with regard to the time and manner of the assault and their evidence with regard to apprehension on the spot of the appellant. The story with regard to participation and arrest of two other accused persons Ishwar Dayal and Virendra having been given up by the prosecution further assures us in our conclusion. We do not subscribe to the prosecution story of apprehension of the applicant by the witnesses at the spot as logical and probable. 18. In the result the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge against the appellant is set aside. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal allowed. .