JUDGMENT : - J.C. Gupta, J. 1. THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.12.1980 passed by Sri M. S. Premi the then IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No. 246 of 1975 convicting and sentencing the appellants for life imprisonment under Section 302/149, I.P.C. Appellants Girand Singh, Raju Singh and Shambhu Singh have further been convicted and sentenced to two years R.I. under Section 148, I.P.C., four years R.I. under Section 307/149, I.P.C. and to a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 323 read with section 149, I.P.C. Appellant Ranveer Singh has further been convicted and sentenced to one year R.I. under Section 147, four years R.I. under Section 307/149, I.P.C. and to a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 323, I.P.C. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. THE prosecution case as revealed from the first information report, in short, is that on 13.3.1975 at about 5 p.m., Bharat Singh, brother of first informant, Balbir Singh, P.W. 1 had gone to Government Tube well in village Harsinghpur for drawing water for the irrigation of his fields. Jaggu Singh of Harsinghpur was present at the Tube well, seeing Bharat Singh at the Tube well, he went to his village and after a short while reappeared with Girand Singh, Virendra Singh, Raju Singh, Shambhu and Ranvir Singh. Jaggu Singh, Girand Singh and Virendra Singh were armed with guns, Raju Singh and Shambhu had country made pistols while Ranvir Singh had a lathi. Seeing Bharat Singh all alone, they said that it was a good occasion and he be killed as he was deposing against them. Saying this, Virendra Singh from his gun, Raju and Shambhu from their country made pistol opened fire on Bharat Singh, whereby Bharat Singh fell to the ground. Thereafter Ranvir Singh assaulted Bharat Singh with lathi which also caused him injuries. When Kalyan Singh, Chandra Pal Singh, Kalka Singh intervened to save Bharat Singh, they were also fired upon by Virendra Singh, Jaggu Singh and others as a result of which they also suffered injuries. Meanwhile Balbir Singh, first informant, Dafedar Singh, Yadu Nath, Pratipal and Daya Ram also reached there challenging the accused persons. Ranvir Singh accused assaulted Dafedar Singh with lathi which hit him on his right arm, thereafter, accused persons ran away from the spot. Meanwhile Balbir Singh, first informant, Dafedar Singh, Yadu Nath, Pratipal and Daya Ram also reached there challenging the accused persons. Ranvir Singh accused assaulted Dafedar Singh with lathi which hit him on his right arm, thereafter, accused persons ran away from the spot. The motive alleged in the report was that Bharat Singh was a witness against accused Raju and Shambhu in a robbery case launched by his sister-in-law and for that reason, accused persons were bearing enmity with Bharat Singh. 3. AFTER accused persons had fled, the witnesses brought Bharat Singh to their village where he breathed his last. Thereafter Balbir Singh got a written report scribed by Ameer Singh. Leaving deceased and injured persons in the village, Balbir Singh proceeded with the written report and lodged the same at police station, Mohammadabad at 9.10 p.m. Head Moharrir Radhey Shyam Pathak prepared check F.I.R. Ex. Ka.-2 on the basis of this written report and registered the case at G.D. No. 7 copy of which has been proved as Ex. Ka.-3. 4. RAVI Dutt Tyagi P.W. 8 was second officer at police station, Mohammadabad. He was present at the police station when Balbir Singh lodged his report. Investigation was entrusted to him and he recorded statement of the first informant at the police station itself. Thereafter he proceeded to the place of occurrence. He did nothing during night. Next morning, he recorded statement of the witnesses Damodar Singh, Chandra Pal Singh, Kalka Singh and Kalyan Singh. Inquest was thereafter held and dead body of Bharat Singh was sent to mortuary for post-mortem examination. He also collected blood stained and plain earth from the scene of occurrence through memo Ex. Ka.-16. One empty cartridge, two damaged cartridges and one tikli were also found at the scene of occurrence. They were also taken into custody through memo Ex. Ka.-17. Accused Jaggu Singh was arrested on the same day from the crossing of Mohammadabad Bus Stand. Dr. B. B. Bansal, P.W. 6 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Bharat Singh on 13.3.1975 at 2 p.m. Deceased was aged about 36 years and about 2 days had passed since his death at the time of post-mortem examination. Following ante-mortem injuries were noticed : (1) Lacerated wound 1-1/2" x 1" x bone deep, 3" above the right ear. (2) Lacerated wound 1-1/2" x 3/4" bone deep over back of head. Following ante-mortem injuries were noticed : (1) Lacerated wound 1-1/2" x 1" x bone deep, 3" above the right ear. (2) Lacerated wound 1-1/2" x 3/4" bone deep over back of head. (3) Lacerated wound 1" x 1/4" bone deep 1" right to injury No. 2. (4) Gun shot wound 1/10" x 1/10" over left cheek. (5) Gun shot wound 1/10" x 1/10" over right cheek. (6) Five gun shot wound in an area of 4" x 2-1/2" each 1/10" x 1/10" over left side chest, round the left nipple, wounds are cavity deep. (7) Five gun shot wound 1/10" x 1/10" in an area of 3" x 3-1/2" over left lateral side of chest lower. (8) Two slip injury shot abrasion over right side chest at 2' O'clock position at 1.2' x 2-1/2" away from right nipple size 1/2" x 1/10" and 3/4" x 1/10". (9) Abrasion 3" x 1/2" over left scapular region upper part. (10) Abrasion 2" x 1/2" over left scapular region 1" below injury No. 9. (11) Two gun shot wound 1/10" x 1/10" each over left hip. (12) Gun shot wound two in number 1/10" x 1/10" over right side abdomen near mid line. (13) Abrasion 3/4" x 1/2" over left front leg, 3" below knee joint. Blackening and charring was not present in any of the gun shot wound. Internal examination revealed multiple fracture of skull bone. Brain was lacerated and haematoma was present. 4th and 5th ribs were fractured. Pleura was lacerated and contained about 1-1/2 pound of blood. Left lung and aorta were also lacerated. Stomach was lacerated and contained about 6 ounce semi-digested food. Both small and large intestines were empty and lacerated. The cause of death in the opinion of the doctor was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. Seven pellets were extracted from the dead body, three from chest cavity, two from abdomen cavity, one from face and other from left shoulder. Post-mortem report is Ex. Ka.-4. 5. DR. M. P. Agarwal, P.W. 9, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Mohammadabad, examined injuries of Chandra Pal Singh on 14.3.1975 at 8 a.m. and found following injuries. (1) Punctured wound 1/10" x 1/10" round in shape on left side chest 2-1/2" above nipple. (2) Punctured wound 1/10" x 1/10" round in shape, 1-1/2" outer to left upper chest. Ka.-4. 5. DR. M. P. Agarwal, P.W. 9, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Mohammadabad, examined injuries of Chandra Pal Singh on 14.3.1975 at 8 a.m. and found following injuries. (1) Punctured wound 1/10" x 1/10" round in shape on left side chest 2-1/2" above nipple. (2) Punctured wound 1/10" x 1/10" round in shape, 1-1/2" outer to left upper chest. (3) Punctured wound 1/10" x 1/10" on right side abdomen round in shape 4" below and outer to navel. (4) Punctured wound 1/10" x 1/10" round in shape on upper part of left arm. (5) Punctured wound on upper part of left thigh 1/10" x 1/10" round in shape. (6) Punctured wound in left side chin 1/10" x 1/10" round in shape. All the injuries were simple, caused by gun shot. Duration was about half day old. Injury report of Chandra Pal Singh is Ex. Ka.-6 6. ON the same day Dr. Agarwal also medically examined Dafedar at 8.15 p.m. and following injuries were noticed : (1) Abrasion 1/10" x 1/6" on the base of right thumb. (2) Abrasion 2" x 1/4" on middle of right forearm. All injuries are simple caused by some friction against hard surface, duration about half day old. Injury report of Dafedar is Ex. Ka.-7. Injuries of Kalyan Singh were also medically examined by Dr. Agarwal on the same day at 8.30 a.m. and following injuries were noticed : (1) Punctured wound 1/10" x 1/10" on middle phalanx of right little finger round in shape. (2) Abrasion 1/8" x 1/2" on top of right shoulder. (3) Punctured wound 1/12" x 1/12" on upper part of right leg round in shape. (4) Punctured wound 1/10" x 1/10" on middle of right thigh round in shape. (5) Punctured wound 1/10" x 1/10" round in shape on left knee joint. (6) Punctured wound 1/10" x 1/10" on upper middle part of left leg outer side round in shape. (7) Punctured wound 1/10" x 1/10" round in shape on upper part of left thigh. (8) Punctured wound 1/10" x 1/10" on lower part of left thigh. (9) Punctured wound 1/10" x 1/10" round in shape on upper middle part of left thigh. (10) Punctured wound 1/10" x 1/10" on right side abdomen below ribs. (11) Punctured wound middle part of abdomen 2-1/2" above navel. (12) Punctured wound 1/8" x 1/8" on middle of abdomen 1" left to navel. (9) Punctured wound 1/10" x 1/10" round in shape on upper middle part of left thigh. (10) Punctured wound 1/10" x 1/10" on right side abdomen below ribs. (11) Punctured wound middle part of abdomen 2-1/2" above navel. (12) Punctured wound 1/8" x 1/8" on middle of abdomen 1" left to navel. (13) Punctured wound 1/10" x 1/10" on right side abdomen 3" right and lower to navel. Injury report of Kalyan Singh is Ex. Ka.-8. 7. KALKA Singh was also examined by the same doctor on the same day at 9 a.m. and only one injury on his person was noticed : (1) Punctured wound 1/10" x 1/10" on lower middle part of left forearm. (2) Injury report of KALKA Singh is Ex. Ka.-9. 8. P.W. 11 Dr. R. P. Gupta, radiologist, District Hospital, Fatehgarh, conducted X-ray examinations of Kalyan Singh, Kalka Singh and Chandra Pal Singh. X-ray of Kalyan Singh revealed radio opaque shadow. Similarly, x-ray of left forearm of Kalka Singh showed an irregular radio opaque shadow. X-ray reports of Kalyan Singh and Kalka Singh are Ex. Ka.-23 and Ex. Ka.-24. P.W. 7 Sone Lal was the station officer of P. S. Moham-madabad. He on 18.3.1975 took investigation into his own hands and recorded statements of Daya Ram and others and after completing other formalities submitted charge-sheet Ex. Ka.-5 in Court against all the accused persons who were in due course committed to the Court of Sessions to stand their trial. They were duly tried. 9. BEFORE, the trial court, prosecution produced 11 witnesses in all, out of whom Balbir Singh, P.W. 1, Chandra Pal Singh, P.W. 2, Kalka Singh, P.W. 3 and Daya Ram, P.W. 4 were witnesses of fact. 10. THE defence case was of complete denial. Accused Girand Singh in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. stated that he was called for recruitment test in police lines on 14.3.1975 at 7 a.m., therefore, he had left his village in the afternoon of 13.3.1975 and stayed in the police lines through out the night. Recruitment test was held on 14.3.1975 from 7 a.m. and he was interviewed at about 8 p.m. by Superintendent of Police and thereafter, he left the police lines on 15.3.1975. Recruitment test was held on 14.3.1975 from 7 a.m. and he was interviewed at about 8 p.m. by Superintendent of Police and thereafter, he left the police lines on 15.3.1975. On reaching home, he came to know that there was some quarrel between Jaggu Singh, Nahar Singh, of his village and Bharat Singh and others over the issue of taking water for irrigation and lathi and guns were used from both sides. Accused Ranvir Singh denied the prosecution allegations and stated about his false implication due to enmity. Accused Raju Singh pleaded alibi by stating that he was at Kanpur at his phupha's place from 9.3.1975 to 25.3.1975. Shambhu Singh also denied his presence at the scene of occurrence. They preferred not to examine any witness in defence. On examination of evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as indicated above. 11. SHRI A. D. Giri, Sr. Advocate assisted by SHRI Ajay Yadav appeared for appellant Girand Singh. SHRI S. P. N. Singh appeared for appellant Ranvir Singh while SHRI Ajay Yadav argued on behalf of appellant Raju Singh. On behalf of State, SHRI A. K. Verma, A.G.A. made submissions. 12. AT the outset, it may be mentioned that C.J.M., Farrukhabad, through the report dated 18.3.1999 informed the Court that Shambhu Singh appellant had died during the pendency of his appeal. None of his legal representatives applied for continuation of his appeal. Accordingly, his appeal stands abated. It may also be not out of place to mention here that accused Jaggu had died during the pendency of trial itself. Thus, we are required to examine the correctness of the order of conviction and sentence as regards appellants Girand Singh, Ranvir Singh and Raju Singh. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted before the Court that though the prosecution came out with a specific motive but it has not been proved. As a matter of fact, no documentary evidence was brought on record in support of that allegation. On the other hand, the occurrence of incident in question as suggested by the defence is more probable. In short, it is argued that the true origin of marpeet is not only coloured but also concealed from the Court and the possibility of incident occurring in the manner and for the reason as suggested by the defence is more convincing. On the other hand, the occurrence of incident in question as suggested by the defence is more probable. In short, it is argued that the true origin of marpeet is not only coloured but also concealed from the Court and the possibility of incident occurring in the manner and for the reason as suggested by the defence is more convincing. Presence of informant at the time of occurrence has also been challenged as he himself did not suffer any injury and the eye-witnesses have also not named him in their statements recorded during investigation. Since presence of first informant was highly doubtful, therefore, first information report becomes a suspicious document. The witnesses produced at the trial have animosity with accused persons. They belong to a adjoining village and, therefore, came forward to support a coloured version which was far from the truth. They all are partisan. A false genesis of marpeet was tried is be proved by the prosecution witnesses for oblique motive. It was also submitted that the picture that emerges from the circumstances available on the record clearly indicate that the incident in all probability took place on the tube-well. Hostility was already existing between the two sides on account of sharing of water. Firing and brick batting was resorted to by the complainant party when a resistance to divert the water was made by accused party and thus defence version has been rendered more probable from the circumstances appearing in the case and from the spot situation as was found by the Investigating Officer when he visited the scene of occurrence. With the police assistance, the story apparently has been given the present shape. The tube-well operator-Bahadur Chand was present at the time of occurrence. He was nominated as a prosecution witness in the charge-sheet. His evidence in this scenario thus assumes great importance but he was deliberately withheld by the prosecution. He was examined by the court below as a court witness (C.W. 1) to ascertain the truth. His statement given before the trial court unerringly shows that the incident had not occurred in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Number and nature of injuries of the prosecution side further negative the prosecution case of the firing having been resorted to from a close range. The brick batting has been denied by the prosecution witnesses but is proved from the circumstances. Number and nature of injuries of the prosecution side further negative the prosecution case of the firing having been resorted to from a close range. The brick batting has been denied by the prosecution witnesses but is proved from the circumstances. No injuries were caused by lathi to the deceased but were result of the brick batting. Presence of brick bats and broken nali was also noticed by C.W. 1 Bahadur Chand, the tube well operator. The fact that C.W. 1 Bahadur Chand, the tube well operator, noticed presence of brick bats and broken nali materially supports the version of the defence. As regards injured witnesses, Shri Giri further urged that the nature of injuries suffered by them show that they were of stray pellets which further strengthens the defence version that these witnesses were placed at a considerable distance from the deceased who himself has sustained gun shot injuries from some distance and the defence version that a large number of persons belonging to village Behrampur attacked the accused becomes more probable. Shri S. P. N. Singh, appearing for the appellant Ranvir Singh submitted that on the dead body of the deceased, three ante-mortem blunt object injuries were also found which could not occur in the manner as alleged by the prosecution witnesses. Owing to this medical discrepancy the evidence of prosecution witnesses is rendered unreliable. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submitted that the incident had occurred in broad day light and the appellants being known to the witnesses from before were easily identified. The prosecution produced two witnesses, namely, P.W. 2 Chandrika Pal and P.W. 3, Kalka Singh who themselves sustained injuries during the course of incident and thus their presence could not be doubted. They could not be expected to falsely nominate accused persons in place of real culprits. It was further submitted by the State counsel that first information report of the present case was lodged without an undue delay on the same evening. The mere fact that Bahadur Chand, tube well operator did not support the prosecution case when called by the Court will not be sufficient to throw the evidence of the prosecution overboard. According to him, the case against the appellants has been fully established beyond reasonable doubt. 13. THE factum of death of Bharat Singh has neither been challenged nor disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. According to him, the case against the appellants has been fully established beyond reasonable doubt. 13. THE factum of death of Bharat Singh has neither been challenged nor disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is also fully established from the evidence on record. Dr. B. B. Bansal, P.W. 6 who had performed post-mortem examination on the dead body of Bharat Singh has categorically stated in his statement before the trial court that cause of death of the deceased was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. THE post-mortem report indicates that there was multiple fracture of his skull bone, brain was lacerated with presence of haematoma. 4th and 5th ribs were fractured. Pleura, left lung and aorta were also found lacerated. Dr. Bansal further opined that death of Bharat Singh was possible on the evening of 13.3.1975. There could thus be no doubt that Bharat Singh met a homicidal death as a result of gun shot as well as blunt object injuries. 14. IT also could not be assailed or disputed that Chandra Pal Singh, P.W. 2, Kalka Singh, P.W. 3, Dafedar and Kalyan Singh had sustained gun-shot injuries as is evident from their injury reports prepared by Dr. M. K. Agarwal, P.W. 9 who also categorically stated that the injuries of aforesaid injured persons could be caused on the evening of 13.3.1975 at about 5 p.m. The X-ray examination of Kalyan Singh and Kalka Singh clearly revealed presence of radio opaque shadows of metallic pellets. The fact that they suffered fire-arm injuries cannot be doubted. So far as the motive aspect is concerned, in the first information report only this much was alleged that deceased Bharat Singh was a witness against Raju and Shambhu in a robbery case. At the trial, it is further alleged that an incident of robbery occurred with Smt. Phoolmati sister-in-law of the informant and the deceased but neither any F.I.R. nor any documentary evidence to prove this fact was brought on record to establish that two appellants Shambhu Singh and Raju were accused in that robbery case and deceased Bharat Singh along with Kalka Singh and others were witnesses. The only evidence that came forth in the case is the oral statement made by P.W. 1 Balbir Singh in the trial court. The only evidence that came forth in the case is the oral statement made by P.W. 1 Balbir Singh in the trial court. Apart from it, there is no other evidence on record to establish this allegation especially when this fact could have easily been proved from the documentary evidence. We find sufficient force in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that the oral evidence of P.W. 1 Balbir Singh is not sufficient to establish the said allegation in the absence of any document to support the same or any other corroborative evidence particularly when the witness admitted that he was not a witness in that robbery case nor the incident had occurred in his presence and he only had heard of that incident. He further stated that Phoolmati and villagers had told him about that incident and that F.I.R. of that case was not lodged in his presence. Phoolmati was not examined at the trial. Both the accused persons have specifically denied this allegation. We thus find that the motive as alleged by the prosecution remained unproved. In order to overcome this discrepancy, learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment at page No. 107 of the paper book has observed that it is not necessary that the motive should be proved in every case, especially where eye-witness account of the incident from injured witnesses is available. He has used the statement of appellant-Girand Singh made under Section 313, Cr. P.C. that there was a quarrel between Bharat Singh and Jaggu Singh and others on the use of water of the tube well for irrigation. Therefore, enmity was admitted to Bharat Singh. This is a negative approach adopted by the Sessions Judge to infer motive in favour of the prosecution. This part was shorn of from his statement despite the defined legal position that statement of an accused has to be read as a whole. Where a specific and definite motive is alleged by the prosecution for the incident, the burden always lies on the prosecution to prove it to the hilt. In the present case, as already pointed out above, the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the motive as alleged in the first information report and also in the statement of Balbir Singh, P.W. 1. Failure of the Investigating Officer to verify this fact from the records is yet another circumstance negating its existence altogether. In the present case, as already pointed out above, the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the motive as alleged in the first information report and also in the statement of Balbir Singh, P.W. 1. Failure of the Investigating Officer to verify this fact from the records is yet another circumstance negating its existence altogether. Pre-meditation aspect in the incident thus becomes obdurate. It is true that where direct evidence regarding incident is worthy of credence and believable, the question of motive loses its significance or recedes to the background but at the same time, once there is a defence version of the incident this motive aspect cannot be lost sight of. Normally there is always a motive behind any criminal act and for that reason, the investigating agency as well as the Court should have ascertained as far as possible the immediate or impelling motive against the accused which led to the occurrence of the incident in question. In the present case, motive is of importance rather it assumed ascendance because of the fact that as per defence case, incident occurred on account of an altogether different reason and if the motive as alleged by the prosecution is found not established at all, the origin of marpeet is rendered doubtful and is to be viewed with suspicion. It renders the incident occurring in the manner as suggested by the defence more plausible and viable. 15. AS already pointed out above in this case, the prosecution has produced four witnesses of fact. P.W. 1 Balbir Singh is the first informant. He is brother of deceased Bharat Singh. He claimed that he was scrubbing grass near the tube well at about 5 p.m., deceased Bharat Singh had gone to divert water from this tube-well. He was all alone. Jaggu Singh accused was also present at this tube well. On seeing Bharat Singh, he returned to his village and a little afterward reappeared there with Girand Singh and Virendra with gun, Shambhu and Raju with country made pistol and Ranvir Singh with lathi. They told Bharat Singh that he is frequently giving evidence against them. Today they have a golden opportunity to kill him. Girand Singh from his gun and Shambhu and Raju from country-made pistols fired on him. All the fires struck Bharat Singh. He fell down. They told Bharat Singh that he is frequently giving evidence against them. Today they have a golden opportunity to kill him. Girand Singh from his gun and Shambhu and Raju from country-made pistols fired on him. All the fires struck Bharat Singh. He fell down. When Kalyan Singh, Chandra Pal Singh, Kalka Singh rushed to save Bharat Singh, Jaggu Singh and Girand Singh fired on them also. They sustained fire-arm injuries as a consequence of firing. Ranvir Singh gave lathi blows to Balbir Singh. When Dafedar Singh, Yadunath Singh, Dayaram and Praitipal Singh arrived there and challenged the accused persons, Ranvir Singh struck a lathi on Dafedar. On the challenge from the witnesses, the assailants took to their heels. After their departure when the witnesses came to Bharat Singh, they found him alive and breathing but he was unable to speak. With the help of villagers, they brought him back to their house where he died. After his death, he (Balbir Singh) dictated the F.I.R. Ex. Ka. 1 to Amir Singh. After the report was ready, he proceeded to police station Mohammadabad, which was about 8 miles from the spot. After lodging the report, he came back to his village. The Investigating Officer came to his village the next morning. Inquest was prepared by the Investigating Officer and the same was thereafter, sent to Fatehpur Hospital. The witness admitted that when Bharat Singh had arrived at the tube-well in the evening at about 5 p.m. the witness was at a distance of a furlong from him. He further admitted that his village Behrampur was at a distance of 6 furlong in the north from the tube-well. Harsinghpur village according to him was inhabited by Yadavas and Jatavas. There are about 100 houses of Yadav as and only 2-3 houses of Jatavas. He further admitted that he did not know any Yadunath Singh of Harsinghpur. He claimed that he had never gone into inhabited area of village Harsinghpur. He had only gone up to the tube-well. He had never held any talks with the accused persons before the occurrence. He had never asked about the details of these accused persons from any villager before transcribing the F.I.R. He admitted that the tube-well near the place of occurrence was a Government tube-well and the operator used to be present there normally. He had never held any talks with the accused persons before the occurrence. He had never asked about the details of these accused persons from any villager before transcribing the F.I.R. He admitted that the tube-well near the place of occurrence was a Government tube-well and the operator used to be present there normally. According to him at the time of occurrence, the tube-well operator, Bahadur Chand, was, however, not present. This tube-well was situated 100 steps towards west of village Harsinghpur. The western side of the ground, adjacent to the tube-well is about 1 or 1-1/2 balist low. He stated that towards the eastern side of the tube-well, he had his agricultural land and Andi crop was standing there. In between his trees and the tube-well, there was a gap of about one feet to 1-1/2 feet. It was in the shape of a ditch. He admitted that by the side of the field of Itwari and Keshav Singh, a pakka Government drain passes. The field in which Bharat Singh fell down was adjacent to the field of Keshav Singh in the west. These fields are separated only by the pakka Government drain. Bharat Singh fell down in the north eastern corner of the field of Kiran Singh. This place was about 70 steps from the tube-well. In this field wheat and mustard crop of man's height was standing. The drain of tube-well was about 1-1/2 - 2 feet high from the level of the fields. From this drain, the spot where Bharat Singh fell down is just 10 steps west and 4 steps towards south. The other injured persons received gun shot injuries when they were in the field of Keshav Singh. This place was 10-15 steps away from the place where Bharat Singh fell down. Injured persons were fired after the fall of Bharat Singh. Bharat Singh was being assaulted with lathi when the witnesses rushed to save him. The assailants threw the spent cartridges at the spot. The firing was made by the assailants while standing on the drain. Ranvir Singh appellant had gone to Bharat Singh to assault him with a lathi. The crop around the deceased was crushed. Bharat Singh was being assaulted with lathi when the witnesses rushed to save him. The assailants threw the spent cartridges at the spot. The firing was made by the assailants while standing on the drain. Ranvir Singh appellant had gone to Bharat Singh to assault him with a lathi. The crop around the deceased was crushed. Regarding the F.I.R. his evidence is that when he dictated the report to Amir Singh, he had also told him to write down that he was present at the spot and had seen the occurrence but this fact was not written by Amir Singh in the report. He could advance no reason for this important omission which contradicts his claim of being present at the spot. The witness further admitted that when Bharat Singh went to take water from the tube-well it was not running. Bharat Singh was on the drain of the tube-well. This creates a doubt that Bharat Singh had gone to divert water from the tube-well because if the tube-well was not running there was no occasion for the deceased to be there. According to the witness he was scrubbing grass in the north of the tube-well at a distance of about a furlong. He again stated that the place where he was scrubbing grass was in the east of the drain. He admitted that he did not tell the Investigating Officer as to what was he doing at the time of occurrence as the Investigating Officer had not asked him. He did not tell it to him on his own. He claimed that he had told the Investigating Officer about his presence at the spot when the incident occurred but if it was not written in his statement by him he cannot offer any reason for its absence. The Investigating Officer when examined in the trial court stated that Balbir Singh had not stated the above fact to him when he was interrogated under Section 161, Cr. P.C. The witness admitted that no blood had fallen at the place on the drain where the deceased, Bharat Singh was standing when he was fired upon and between the place where he ultimately fell down. Blood was found only at the place where Bharat Singh fell. According to him the Investigating Officer came to his village at about 4 p.m. He straight-away came to his house. Blood was found only at the place where Bharat Singh fell. According to him the Investigating Officer came to his village at about 4 p.m. He straight-away came to his house. The Investigating Officer stayed at the spot only upto 1 p.m. The pakka road which leads from Fatehgarh to Bewar is about 6/7 furlongs from his village. In between it police station, Mohammadabad falls. It anyone moves from this road to Fatehgarh, he will get buses at a short interval regularly. He claimed that he went to lodge the report on foot and not by a bus. Ram Avtar was Chaukidar of his village. He claimed that Ram Avtar was informed and he came to the village but could not disclose when this Ram Avtar visited him. He further stated that he had asked Ram Avtar to accompany him to lodge the report but he did not go and, therefore, he had gone to lodge the report alone. He had denied that bricks were taken out by breaking the drain of the tube-well. He had heard it later on that accused persons broke the drain of the tube-well. Thus, as per his admission the drain was broken and its bricks were removed. He had denied presence of any pellet marks on the walls of the tube-well. According to him, none from his side fired towards the tube-well or any accused. He admitted that when the Investigating Officer visited the spot some 10-20-25-50 bricks were lying near the tube-well. The Investigating Officer did not collect them. No memo was prepared regarding these bricks. Till the presence of the Investigating Officer the operator of the tube-well did not arrive. According to him, the operator met him after a year. He had admitted very clearly that in the days of occurrence, water was abundantly needed for irrigation of their fields. He did not accompany the dead body of his brother. He denied the defence suggestion that the people of his village had forcibly diverted water flowing to the field of Nahar Singh at the time of occurrence. He has clearly admitted that between the field of Keshav Singh and Girand Singh, a kachcha mud channel emerged from the main drain that runs from the tube-well east-west. From this kachchi nali (drain) fields of his village Behrampur used to be irrigated but added that no water goes to his field from it. He has clearly admitted that between the field of Keshav Singh and Girand Singh, a kachcha mud channel emerged from the main drain that runs from the tube-well east-west. From this kachchi nali (drain) fields of his village Behrampur used to be irrigated but added that no water goes to his field from it. He further denied that Bharat Singh was habitual in diverting the water at his will to themselves. On 20.11.1963 Bharat Singh did not assault the tube-well operator and had not damaged the machine. He did not know whether any report was lodged by operator against Bharat Singh or anyone else. 16. FROM the facts and circumstances emerging in his statement, a great deal of doubt is created regarding his presence at spot where the incident has occurred. In his own F.I.R. he had not stated of his presence at the time of occurrence. The omission assumes importance. He even did not state his presence or about his scrubbing the grass in his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer which further falsified his claim of his being present at the time of occurrence. It is also noteworthy that all other witnesses examined at the trial have not stated about the presence of this witness at the time of occurrence in their statements made to the Investigating Officer under Section 161, Cr. P.C. He did not suffer any injury on his person. No attempt on his part to rush to save his brother was made though he claimed his presence near the spot which further goes to belie his presence at the spot. According to him, when he went near Bharat Singh where he had fallen down, he found him alive. If we look to the number and nature of injuries sustained by the deceased Bharat Singh, it is doubtful that he was alive even after the departure of accused persons. The deceased had three lacerated wounds on his head. The dimensions are 1-1/2" x 1" x bone deep, 3" above the right ear, 2" x 3" x bone deep over back of head, and 1" x 1/4" x bone deep, 1" right to injury No. 2. He had an injury on the chest cavity deep (injury No. 6). He had number of pellet injuries on all parts of his body, back and front. There was multiple fracture of skull bone. He had an injury on the chest cavity deep (injury No. 6). He had number of pellet injuries on all parts of his body, back and front. There was multiple fracture of skull bone. Brain was found lacerated and haemotoma was present. Aorta was found lacerated. Left lung, stomach, small and large intestines were all found lacerated. In the circumstances, it was highly doubtful that the deceased remained alive when the witnesses went to him. In the circumstances, it remained unexplained why the body of Bharat Singh was removed from the spot. Absence of any blood where the assault was commenced and the place where the deceased had ultimately fallen was yet another circumstance which creates a doubt regarding the manner of incident as alleged by this witness. All these facts and circumstances if taken conjointly make it highly doubtful that this witness was present at the spot when the incident occurred. It shall be apt, at this juncture, to deal with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant regarding ante-timing and ante-dating of the first information report. According to the prosecution, report was made at the police station at 9.10 p.m. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer came to the scene of occurrence on the next morning. It is beyond our comprehension that if F.I.R. was lodged at 9.10 p.m., why the Investigating Officer did not rush to the scene of occurrence in the night itself. No plausible explanation has been given by the Investigating Officer, why he did not deem it necessary to visit the scene of occurrence immediately after lodging of the F.I.R. This is a circumstance, which seriously impairs the prosecution case regarding prompt registration of the F.I.R. The claim of the defence in this regard is further fortified from our finding which we have recorded above that it was doubtful that the informant was present at the spot. When and in what manner the F.I.R. came to be transcribed is also shrouded in mystery. The incident had occurred at about 5 p.m. wherein one person lost his life and several other suffered fire arm injuries. When and in what manner the F.I.R. came to be transcribed is also shrouded in mystery. The incident had occurred at about 5 p.m. wherein one person lost his life and several other suffered fire arm injuries. As admitted by P.W. 1 Balbir Singh, village Chaukidar Ram Avtar had come to the spot but his service was not availed for lodging the F.I.R. Admittedly fast conveyance on the road was available frequently and round the clock, at short intervals yet for the reasons best known to Balbir Singh, he covered all the distance to police station on foot. It sounds too nostalgic. Injuries of injured Chandra Pal Singh, Dafedar and Kalyan Singh were also examined on the next morning between 8 p.m. to 8.30 a.m. on chithi majroobi of police station Mohammadabad. As per prosecution case, Chandrapal Singh and Kalyan Singh had suffered a number of fire arm injuries. Injuries No. 1 and 2 of Chandrapal Singh were on left side of chest and injury No. 3 was on right side of abdomen. From the injury report of Kalyan Singh it appears that he sustained as many as 13 fire arm injuries on different parts of his body. It is inconceivable that if F.I.R. had come into existence at 9.10 p.m. as claimed by the prosecution, the medical examination of all these injured persons would have been deferred to the next day. At least, these persons ought to have been sent promptly for their medical. The fact that injuries of these injured persons were medically examined in the morning of 14.3.1975 further supports the defence argument that it was doubtful that F.I.R. had come into existence in the night of 13.3.1975. 17. ACCORDING to P.W. 6 Dr. B. B. Bansal, the dead body of Bharat Singh was received in the Hospital on 14.3.1975 at about 9 a.m. The concerned papers were received in the mortuary on the next morning on 15.3.1975 at 9 a.m. In this connection, the statement of C.W. 2 constable Ram Niwas cannot be lost sight of. ACCORDING to him, the dead body was handed over to him in a sealed condition at 10.30 in the morning on 14.3.1975. ACCORDING to him, the dead body was handed over to him in a sealed condition at 10.30 in the morning on 14.3.1975. From the spot he went to the police lines, Fatehgarh and got entry of his arrival made in the general diary there at 6.45 p.m. He then proceeded to the District Hospital, Fatehgarh, and produced the dead body there on the next day, i.e., 15.3.1975. It is admitted that from the police lines, the District Hospital was situated at a distance of about 2 kms. ACCORDING to him, he remained in the District Hospital through out the night with the dead body. He had not handed over the dead body to any officer of the Hospital though he met the Jamadar and the Doctor on duty during his stay here. He also did not hand over the papers there. The dead body and papers were handed over by him to the Doctor in the morning on 15.3.1975 at 9 a.m. The Hospital was about 20-22 Kms. from the place of occurrence. Though an attempt was made by this witness to explain the late arrival of dead body and papers in the Hospital but the explanation in our opinion is not only an after thought but is not convincing at all. As per the statement of P.W. 1, Balbir Singh, the dead body was dispatched from his house at 7 a.m. on a bullock cart. The circumstance that the dead body had reached after nearly 14 hours to the mortuary and papers were received next day also create serious dent in the prosecution assertion regarding the promptness of the F.I.R. The Investigating Officer has also admitted that the case diary that was used by him in the investigation of this case contained signature of C.O. only but no date was there underneath it. He had handed over parcha Nos. 1 and 2 to the Station House Officer at the police station concerned on 14.3.1975 but the first parcha of the case diary does not bear any initial of the Station House Officer nor any date was put on it by him. This is yet another circumstance creating serious doubt in registration of the case at 9.10 p.m. on 13.3.1975. The fact the inquest was prepared in the morning, and statement of witnesses Dafedar Singh, Chandrapal Singh etc. This is yet another circumstance creating serious doubt in registration of the case at 9.10 p.m. on 13.3.1975. The fact the inquest was prepared in the morning, and statement of witnesses Dafedar Singh, Chandrapal Singh etc. were also recorded in the morning, also lends support to the above said defence argument. Thus, considering all these facts in their totality, it is doubtful that F.I.R. was registered at 9.10 p.m. on 13.3.1975 as alleged by the prosecution and the possibility that it was transcribed after the arrival and spot inspection by the police inspector in the circumstances discussed above not only cannot be ruled out but it is probabilised also. 18. WE now turn to the statement of P.W. 2 Chandrapal Singh, P.W. 3 Kalka Singh and P.W. 4 Daya Ram, of whom Chandrapal Singh and Kalka Singh are injured. Both these witnesses have stated that they suffered fire arm injuries at the hands of these accused persons. The third injured Dafedar was not examined from the prosecution side. The criticism against P.W. 2 Chandrapal Singh and P.W. 3 Kalka Singh is that their presence though could not be challenged yet there is no guarantee of the truthfulness of their evidence. According to Shri Giri, learned counsel for the appellants, there is no guarantee or presumption that whatever these witnesses have stated in Court must be accepted as truthful version of the incident. He urged that a close scrutiny of their evidence in the wake of attending circumstances show that there was some confrontation between the parties on the question of taking water from the tube-well and when the deceased tried to use force, there occurred throwing of brickbats and cross firing in between persons of village Behrampur and Harsinghpur in which the deceased and other injured persons received injuries. Their evidence lacks reliability as they have tried to twist facts in order to give it a shape that the incident occurred in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. They miserably failed in their attempt. In view of our findings regarding authenticity of F.I.R. and presence of P.W. 1 Balbir Singh, being doubtful, we are under an obligation to examine evidence of these witnesses with much greater care and caution. Both P.W. 2 Chandrapal Singh and P.W. 3 Kalka Singh have stated of their presence at the scene of occurrence. In view of our findings regarding authenticity of F.I.R. and presence of P.W. 1 Balbir Singh, being doubtful, we are under an obligation to examine evidence of these witnesses with much greater care and caution. Both P.W. 2 Chandrapal Singh and P.W. 3 Kalka Singh have stated of their presence at the scene of occurrence. As they themselves suffered injuries, their presence at the scene of occurrence is not open to doubt. P.W. 2 Chandrapal Singh has stated that before the incident occurred, he was scrapping grass in the field of Keshav Singh. He admitted that the tube-well was near Harsinghpur and it was a Government tube-well. People of his village were also irrigating their fields from its water. He further admitted that after the occurrence, the Investigating Officer had come to the spot. He was summoned by the Investigating Officer at about 5 a.m. at the door of P.W. 1 Balbir Singh where the dead body of Bharat Singh was rested. Kalyan Singh, Kalka Singh and Dafedar Singh were also summoned there and their statements were recorded. Thereafter he and other injured persons were sent for their medical examination to Mohammadabad Hospital. He further stated that the village Chaukidar was called after the incident but could not give out the time when he was called. He admitted that he had seen him at the door of Bharat Singh at about 4 O'clock in the morning. Since he was injured, he did not go to the police station although he was in a position to walk. He admitted that immediately after the occurrence darkness fell. They were apprehending danger, therefore, they did not go to the police station. When Balbir Singh left for the police station, he carried a torch with him. This shows that Balbir Singh started for the police station after the fall of darkness. It was suggested to him that marpeet was initiated by people of village Behrampur and for this reason, the injured persons did not dare to go to the police station. He further admitted that he had seen Balbir Singh only after the accused had already taken to their heels. Though he claimed that he had disclosed to the Investigating Officer Balbir Singh as one of those who witnessed the incident but significantly name of Balbir Singh is not mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. He further admitted that he had seen Balbir Singh only after the accused had already taken to their heels. Though he claimed that he had disclosed to the Investigating Officer Balbir Singh as one of those who witnessed the incident but significantly name of Balbir Singh is not mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. and this witness could not explain why it was not there. This is an important circumstance favouring the defence suggestion that Balbir Singh was not present at the spot at the relevant time. The witness further claimed that he started scrapping just 10-15 minutes before the incident. Before that, he was at his house. In between and up to the place of occurrence, he did not see any witness. He could see other witnesses after he himself suffered firearm injuries. He further admitted that the witnesses came on the scene of occurrence after he suffered injuries. He further, in clear terms, admitted that the place of occurrence is about 80-100 steps from the place where he scrapped grass. He further admitted that he did not disclose to the Investigating Officer any reason for his presence at the spot. He had seen Jaggu Singh at the tube-well after some grass was scrapped. He saw Jaggu Singh only when he stood up. He did not notice him at the tube-well so long as he was scrapping grass. He clearly admitted that from the place where he was scrubbing grass a person on the tube-well was not visible. When he noticed Jaggu Singh at the tube-well, he too found Bharat Singh moving towards the tube-well. He was near the field of Keshav Singh. No conversation between Bharat Singh and Jaggu Singh took place until then. According to him the tube-well was not running on that day but this was contrary to the averments made by tube-well operator Bahadur Chand examined as a Court witness. After the departure of Jaggu Singh he again started scratching grass, therefore, he could not say whether Bharat Singh had gone upto the tube-well or returning back. He stood just for a few seconds and in that period he had seen Jaggu Singh going towards his village and Bharat Singh coming back. When the accused persons re-appeared and challenged Bharat Singh, then he again stood up. He stood just for a few seconds and in that period he had seen Jaggu Singh going towards his village and Bharat Singh coming back. When the accused persons re-appeared and challenged Bharat Singh, then he again stood up. When the accused persons reached the boundary of the tube-well they started hurling abuses on Bharat Singh and also challenged him. This is an important admission. He claimed that he had seen all the accused persons at the boundary of the tube-well for the first time. As earlier admitted by him, he could not see any person at the tube-well while sitting and scrapping grass. Bharat Singh at that time was standing on the drain. The place where Bharat Singh was standing over the drain is about 50-52 steps westward from the tube-well. He has admitted that from this very place a kachcha drain leads towards the fields of village Behrampur. Bharat Singh was standing at the junction of kachcha and pakka drain. This is a very important circumstance occurring in his evidence. The accused persons were standing near the tube-well and the firing was resorted to from that place. The place where Bharat Singh was standing on the tube-well drain's wall was about 2 to 2-1/2 palm above Kiran Singh's field. He did not go to the place where Bharat Singh was standing after the occurrence and, therefore, he could not see whether the drain was about 5' above the fields or not. He had not seen the accused persons re-loading their weapons after the fall of Bharat Singh. This again is an important admission. He was unable to disclose the number of fires made by the accused persons. According to his estimate, 5/6 fires were made. When Ranvir Singh struck a lathi blow on Bharat Singh, he was about 6/7 steps away from him. Only one or two lathis were plied on Bharat Singh. This is yet another important admission. When fire was made on him, assailants were about 20-25 steps away from him. They were in whose field was not disclosed by him. According to him, Virendra Singh and Sambhu fired towards him. Till then no lathi was struck on Bharat Singh. Then corrected himself by stating that by that time Bharat Singh was already assaulted with lathi. The accused persons stayed on the east of the drain. They were in whose field was not disclosed by him. According to him, Virendra Singh and Sambhu fired towards him. Till then no lathi was struck on Bharat Singh. Then corrected himself by stating that by that time Bharat Singh was already assaulted with lathi. The accused persons stayed on the east of the drain. He has admitted that the field in which he was scrapping grass contained peas, wheat and mustered crops. The crops were upto shoulder height. No crop or plant of that field was damaged because of his running. He was in the west of the drain at the time when he sustained firearm injuries. He retreated few steps backwards. He had suffered only a pellet injury on upper part of his thigh. He claimed that Bharat Singh was taken to the village on the hands. No cot was used in taking him to the house. He was moving ahead of Bharat Singh. Since he had suffered injuries, therefore, he had not noticed that blood was falling on the road or not. No blood from his injuries fell on the road or at the place where he had suffered the injury. He was wearing a sandow baniyan and a jersey which he later on explained as full arm sweater. He was also wearing a tehmad. His baniyan and jersey had a little stain of blood. No blood fell on his tehmad. His tehmad had a pellet mark, but none of his clothes were taken into possession either by the Investigating Officer or by the Medical Officer, who examined him. He denied to have seen any damaged drain at the spot. He also denied that he had seen any broken bricks there. He also denied that any one from his side fired towards the tube-well. He was unable to tell what was the crop in the field of Kiran Singh where Bharat Singh fell down after receiving injuries. He very categorically admitted that during the days of incident fields were urgently needing water for irrigation. He denied the suggestion that water was running in the field of Nahar Singh and people of Behrampur forcibly diverted it towards themselves. He clearly admitted that apart from the fields of Keshav Singh and Girand Singh he could not give details of any other field in the vicinity of incident. He denied the suggestion that water was running in the field of Nahar Singh and people of Behrampur forcibly diverted it towards themselves. He clearly admitted that apart from the fields of Keshav Singh and Girand Singh he could not give details of any other field in the vicinity of incident. He denied that people of his village went to the spot with ballams and Tamanchas and resorted to firing and brick-batting on the accused. He has also denied the defence suggestion that the people of the village of the accused persons were possessing licenced weapon and used them from the roof of Raghunath or from behind the tube-well. He had also denied that he had not sustained any injury on the spot but had self-suffered it with the help of a suja and got pellets placed therein. He has also denied the defence suggestion that he has deposed on account of village relationship. 19. FROM his statement following facts have emerged : that he has denied to notice any broken drain at the spot. He had not disclosed to the Investigating Officer the reason for his presence in his statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. and for the first time at the trial he introduced the theory that he was scrapping grass in a nearby field but no inspection of that field was made by the Investigating Officer to verify the veracity of this part of his statement. He had also heard that village chaukidar was called and he arrived at 4 a.m. Though initially he admitted that he had not seen Balbir Singh going to the police station till he remained present there but subsequently changed his stand by stating that he had left at 6.00 or 6.30 p.m. In order to notice the presence of appellant Jaggu Singh at the tube-well, he momentarily stood up and as soon as he retreated, he again resumed scrapping grass, though initially he admitted clearly that from this place, any person standing at the tube-well, would not be visible while he was sitting and scrapping grass. It appears to us that only for this reason, he made this development that he stood up to notice him. Nothing transpired between appellant Jaggu and the deceased to make this witness stand up. He had seen Bharat Singh moving towards the tube-well and at that time, he was near the field of Keshav Singh. It appears to us that only for this reason, he made this development that he stood up to notice him. Nothing transpired between appellant Jaggu and the deceased to make this witness stand up. He had seen Bharat Singh moving towards the tube-well and at that time, he was near the field of Keshav Singh. It may be noted that this was the place from where the water could be diverted to their fields from the main drain running from the tube-well. This fact amply supports the defence case that Bharat Singh and other persons of village Behrampur had collected there to divert water forcibly and it belies the prosecution version that this incident did not occur at the tube-well. According to this witness, no conversation between Bharat Singh and Jaggu Singh took place. It further creates a dent in the prosecution story as set up in the first information report that before the incident a conversation took place between these two persons. He with ulterior motive stated a falsehood that tube-well was not operating on that day. This fact is otherwise fully established from the other evidence on record. Why the running of tube-well was being concealed by this witnesses, the answer is obvious that it was for an oblique motive as according to the defense version, the tube-well was in operation and villagers of village Behrampur had collected there to forcibly divert water from the drain which was being objected to by persons of village Harsinghpur. The witness further admitted that accused persons never went on the tube-well and they were in the field near the tube-well. This again is against the theory set up in the F.I.R. The distance between the tube-well and the place where this witness was standing was about 80-100 steps. The prosecution case initially had been consistent that the incident had occurred at the tube-well and realising that he could not have received injuries from such a long distance, he deliberately introduced a change in the place of incident that the accused persons had moved closure to the deceased when he was at the drain. This was not the case of the prosecution in the F.I.R. nor such a fact was recited by this witness in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during investigation. This was not the case of the prosecution in the F.I.R. nor such a fact was recited by this witness in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during investigation. He admitted that no crop was trampled because of his running towards the place of occurrence, it is also an unacceptable proposition. His not going to police station along with Balbir Singh is also a circumstance adverse to the prosecution interest. According to him, he himself suffered fire arm injuries. It does not look sound that even after receiving fire arm injuries, he would neither go to the police station nor to any Hospital for taking medical aid for whole of the night. His denial that he had not seen any drain of the tube-well broken is contrary to the admission made by the Investigating Officer. How the drain of the tube-well was found broken is not explained by the prosecution in the evidence adduced by it. The fact that drain of the tube-well was found broken is also a supportive factor to the defence theory. His denial that no one from his side had fired towards the tube-well is also contrary to the other evidence on record. His further admission that there was urgent need of water to irrigate their fields in village Behrampur is also a very important circumstance favouring the defence. Although he denied that water was perforce diverted to themselves from the field of Nahar Singh but the circumstances appearing in the case and the spot position coupled with his admission that place where Bharat Singh was noticed standing by him was that place from where a kachcha drain towards their fields run and the fact that Bharat Singh also suffered fire arm injuries at that very place is a very vital and important circumstance favouring the defence suggestion that water was being diverted by Bharat Singh and the villagers of Behrampur to which this witness also belongs and it was the actual reason which led to the incident. 20. COMING to the evidence of P.W. 3, Kalka Singh, we find that this witness has claimed that at about 5 - 5.30 p.m., he was returning to his house from his field. As soon as he reached near the field of Keshav Singh, he noticed Bharat Singh coming from the side of the tube-well. Jaggu Singh's presence was also noticed by him. As soon as he reached near the field of Keshav Singh, he noticed Bharat Singh coming from the side of the tube-well. Jaggu Singh's presence was also noticed by him. He like Chandrapal Singh stated that Jaggu, Girand Singh and Virendra Singh were armed with guns, Raju Singh and Shambhu Singh with country-made pistols and Ranvir Singh was holding a lathi. Deceased Bharat Singh was fired upon and he fell down in the field of Keshav Singh west to the drain of tube-well. When he, Chandrapal Singh and Kalyan Singh ran to save him they were also fired upon by Virendra Singh and Jaggu Singh. Like P.W. 2 Chandrapal Singh he also admitted that he was summoned by the Investigating Officer at the house of Balbir Singh in the morning. In the cross-examination this witness admitted that he was not in the field since the morning and had gone there only two hours before. Since P.W. 2 Chandrapal Singh who was examined earlier in the trial court had admitted that when the incident occurred it was time for the irrigation of their field, this witness was made to state that it was not a time for irrigation of their field. This change in its stand was a deliberate attempt on the part of the prosecution to get over the admission made by Chandrapal Singh who was examined before this witness. Earlier he had admitted that he had gone to his field just two hours before the occurrence. In order to explain this anomaly he had now stated that after coming from his field, he stopped in the field of Pratipal Singh whose field was to west of his field. He could not say whether Pratipal Singh was also looking after his field at that time or not. This was an important circumstance because if Pratipal was not there, there was no occasion for this witness to sit in his field. He before the Investigating Officer did not state the reason for his presence at the place of occurrence. This reason given at the trial besides being contrary and changed from time to time does not convince us. As admitted by P.W. 2 Chandrapal Singh, it was a high time for the irrigation of their fields so it was probable that they may have assembled at the spot to forcibly divert the water running into the defence fields. This reason given at the trial besides being contrary and changed from time to time does not convince us. As admitted by P.W. 2 Chandrapal Singh, it was a high time for the irrigation of their fields so it was probable that they may have assembled at the spot to forcibly divert the water running into the defence fields. Since the reason given by this witness for his presence is far from convincing, we find enough weight in the defence argument that the defence case is more probable and the incident occurred for a reason other than one suggested by the prosecution that persons of village Behrampur had assembled there to forcibly divert the water to the drain leading to their village Behrampur. The witness further admitted that he had not disclose to any person about the incident till the date of his deposition in Court. He denied the defence suggestion that the drain at the field of Girand Singh was of about his height. According to him he saw Bharat Singh for the first time on the day of occurrence on the drain of the tube-well from a distance of 100-150 steps. He was coming from the village on the pakka nali and then turned towards the tube-well. He also claimed that the tube-well was not operating that day. He further admitted that he had not heard any conversation between Jaggu Singh and Bharat Singh. Thus, from the statement of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 this part of the prosecution case that any conversation took place between Jaggu Singh and Bharat Singh before he moved back is not established. It further supports the defence version of the incident. He admitted that he was told by Balbir Singh that Bharat Singh had gone to take water from the tube-well. This is a most important admission supporting the defence case. He has also brought the assailants close to Balbir Singh in a field on the east of the pakka drain. He could not notice the assailants throwing the spent cartridges in the field and reloading their weapons because of his placement at a distance of 40-50 steps from them. According to him, two fires were made simultaneously and the pellets struck him, Kalyan Singh and Chandrapal Singh. Even as per this witness, he was placed at a long distance from the deceased like Chandrapal Singh, P.W. 2. According to him, two fires were made simultaneously and the pellets struck him, Kalyan Singh and Chandrapal Singh. Even as per this witness, he was placed at a long distance from the deceased like Chandrapal Singh, P.W. 2. It was therefore, not possible for these witnesses to say with precision as to who actually fired upon the deceased particularly when the defence suggestion of attack by a number of persons belonging to village Behrampur is probabilised from the evidence on record. Only one pellet struck him. He was wearing a baniyan but the pellet did not penetrate his baniyan. Little blood came out of his injury but it did not stain any of his clothes. When he had taken Bharat Singh to his house blood had fallen on road but he could not see that. According to him he had told the Investigating Officer of his suffering injury and had even shown it to the Investigating Officer. However, his attention was drawn towards his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. but he could not explain as to why it was not clearly mentioned therein that he had himself suffered a pellet injury. He also could not explain when he did not tell the Investigating Officer about Balbir Singh having witnessed the incident. He further stated that he could not say in whose field the water was running. It clearly means that the tube-well was operating and water was running in someone's field. He denied the defence suggestion that whenever people of Behrampur desired, they used to divert the water of the tube-well towards their field. So far his statement is concerned, it is discernible clearly that he was present at a distance of 100-150 steps from the place of occurrence. He had gone to his field just two hours before and after sitting there for an hour, he started returning towards his village. The distance of his village from the spot is just 5/6 furlongs. In order to explain the anomaly, he introduced a story that he stopped in the field of Pratipal Singh on his way back. It is unworthy of any credence. He had not mustered courage to state that Pratipal was present in his field at that time and, therefore, he sat there. He has denied making any statement to the Investigating Officer. It is unworthy of any credence. He had not mustered courage to state that Pratipal was present in his field at that time and, therefore, he sat there. He has denied making any statement to the Investigating Officer. If his statement was not recorded it clearly means that he was not present in the morning at the house of Balbir. His denial is purposeful because in the trial court story was enormously modulated from his Section 161, Cr. P.C. case. His admission that he had seen Bharat Singh on the tube-well drain is also of significance. He has also admitted that he came on the pakka drain from his village and then turned towards the tube-well. His statement in the beginning that he was walking at a distance of 50-60 steps from the pakka drain and then the change that he was walking by the side of the drain is only to probabilise his injury in the incident. If he was actually walking 50-60 steps from the drain, there was no possibility of his suffering any injury in the incident. His further admission that Balbir Singh told him that Bharat Singh had gone to take water from the tube-well is of prime significance. This fact was told to him at the house where they had brought the body. His admission that he did not hear any abuse coming from the side of village Harsinghpur nor any such abuses from the side of the tube-well is contrary to the statement of P.W. 2 Chandrapal Singh and completely demolishes the prosecution case of any exchange of abuses. His admission that he did not hear any fire report has also serious bearing in its case and is helpful to defence. He had been modulating his statement time and again, inasmuch as later on he had stated that he had not seen any of the accused persons reloading their weapons because he was at a distance of 40-50 steps from them. In this situation also, it is abundantly clear that he could not suffer the injuries and if he could not see these facts from a closure distance of 40-50 steps, how can he witness the entire incident from a distance of 100-150 steps. However, he had modulated the statement and brought down the distance from 100-150 steps to 90-100 steps. In this situation also, it is abundantly clear that he could not suffer the injuries and if he could not see these facts from a closure distance of 40-50 steps, how can he witness the entire incident from a distance of 100-150 steps. However, he had modulated the statement and brought down the distance from 100-150 steps to 90-100 steps. He had also stated that only two fires were made subsequent to the injuries sustained by Bharat Singh and the pellets of which had caused injuries to him, Kalyan Singh and Chandrapal Singh. Only one pellet injury was there on his person, but his admission that the pellet did not pierce his baniyan creates suspicion in his sufferance of any injury. His further claim that though the blood had come out from his injury but it did not stain his clothes also astounds us. His claim that he had not noticed blood falling from the body of Bharat Singh while he was being removed to the village is also a clear falsehood. His denial of breaking of the tube-well drain at the point from where kachcha drain goes to their side is also purposive. His denial contrary to the admission of P.W. 2 Chandrapal that chaukidar was not summoned at the spot at any point of time is also deliberate. Because, that will pose problems to the prosecution regarding the time of lodging of the F.I.R. It is also apparent from the statement of these two witnesses that Bharat Singh had not gone to lodge the F.I.R. at any point of time. The services of the chaukidar was apparently used to call the police at the spot and in consultation with the police the F.I.R. was subsequently prepared and sent through the chaukidar in the morning. His not clearly stating to the Investigating Officer about his injury having been caused from a pellet is also of importance. The omission of Balbir Singh in his statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. altogether is also of importance. 21. FROM the evidence of this witness also, important facts and circumstances have emerged which make the defence version of the incident more probable and we find weight in the defence argument that both these witnesses have deliberately suppressed the true genesis and the origin of the occurrence and have not presented true facts before the Court. 21. FROM the evidence of this witness also, important facts and circumstances have emerged which make the defence version of the incident more probable and we find weight in the defence argument that both these witnesses have deliberately suppressed the true genesis and the origin of the occurrence and have not presented true facts before the Court. Therefore, it is not safe to place any implicit reliance on their testimony with regard to the manner of incident vis a vis the present appellants. 22. NOW the last witness in the chain is P.W. 4 Daya Ram. He is also a resident of village Behrampur. According to this witness, he was present in the field at about 5 p.m. and was picking arhar when he heard gun shot sounds emanating from the side of the tube-well. He ran towards the tube-well and saw the incident. According to him his field was about 100-150 steps from the field of Keshav Singh where the deceased Bharat Singh fell down. He like P.W. 2 Chandrapal Singh had come from his village to his field just 15 minutes before the incident. He further stated that when he reached his field there was none in the vicinity. This denial is very purposive and was deliberately made to eliminate large gathering of his village men at the spot just to avoid any adverse inference of forcible diversion of water. According to him, when he was moving towards his field, he had seen Bharat Singh walking towards the tube-well on its wall. He was 10-20 steps behind him. He denied that he came from the side of kachcha drain towards pakka drain. He further stated that he had seen Bharat Singh going towards the tube-well from his field and some people of village Harsinghpur at the tube-well. This was an important admission favouring the defence. He further admitted that the field where he was collecting arhar was about 100-150 paces away from the field of Girand Singh. According to him he met the Investigating Officer on 5th day of the occurrence. He had denied that he ran away for the fear of police from the village immediately after the incident. Though he admitted that the Investigating Officer had come to the village on the night of the occurrence itself but he did not meet him as he was busy in his agriculture. He had denied that he ran away for the fear of police from the village immediately after the incident. Though he admitted that the Investigating Officer had come to the village on the night of the occurrence itself but he did not meet him as he was busy in his agriculture. He was not called by the Investigating Officer even on the next day nor he went to him on his own. He was called by the Investigating Officer at the house of Balbir Singh on the 5th day at 9 a.m. At that time he was all alone there and none of the witnesses were there. The Investigating Officer did not take him to the spot. He did not remember whether he had shown to the Investigating Officer that arhar field from where he was picking up grass. It may be relevant to mention here that P.W. 8, S. I. Ravi Dutt Tyagi, who did initial investigation has stated that he had reached the place of occurrence in the night of 13.3.1975 itself but he did nothing during the night. In the morning he recorded the statements of Damodar Singh, Chandrapal Singh, Kalka Singh and Kalyan Singh but statement of Daya Ram was not recorded. According to him he made inspection of the scene of occurrence at about 12 noon on the next day and at that time Balbir Singh informant Yadunath Singh, Mahipal and Daya Ram were with him. Chandrapal Singh and Kalka Singh had gone for medical examination. Thus, from the statements of Shri Ravi Dutt Tyagi it is evident that P.W. 4 Daya Ram remained all along with him upto the time of inspection of the scene of occurrence which was made at about 12 noon. Yet his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer and for the first time this witness was interrogated on 18.3.1975 by Inspector Shri Soney Lal when he took up the investigation from Shri Tyagi. This late examination of the witness creates a doubt in our minds in his being an eye-witness. Though as per Shri Tyagi scene of occurrence was inspected in the presence of witnesses including P.W. 4, Daya Ram yet the field where this witness is alleged to be picking up arhar has not been shown in the site plan Ex. Ka.-15. This late examination of the witness creates a doubt in our minds in his being an eye-witness. Though as per Shri Tyagi scene of occurrence was inspected in the presence of witnesses including P.W. 4, Daya Ram yet the field where this witness is alleged to be picking up arhar has not been shown in the site plan Ex. Ka.-15. It is also significant to note that in his statement before the Court this witness stated that he did not remember if he had disclosed to the Investigating Officer name of Yadunath Singh only as the person who ran towards the firing. When his statement recorded by Shri Soney Lal, second Investigating Officer under Section 161, Cr. P.C. was readover he admitted that only name of Yadunath Singh was written therein as an eye-witness. He was unable to explain the anomaly. Shri Soney Lal, P.W. 7 admitted that Daya Ram had disclosed to him only the name of Yadunath Singh as a witness of the incident and none else. He further stated that in his statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. he did not tell the name of Balbir Singh amongst the persons present at the scene of occurrence. This witness further stated that he had seen the witnesses running on the pakka drain and had also seen Chandrapal Singh on the same pakka drain near the field of Keshav Singh. This was the place from where kachcha drain ran towards the fields of village Behrampur. This is a very important circumstance favouring the accused leading to an inference that defence story was more probable. He admitted that the place where Bharat Singh fell down, i.e., field of Keshav Singh, it was not possible for him to see anything from his field. According to him he ran for a distance of nearly 100 steps from his field and then saw Bharat Singh falling in the field of Keshav Singh. At that time assailants were in the field of Itwari Singh. This is a new situation. The other witnesses have also changed the place, in their deposition in the trial court, from where the accused persons had opened fire on Bharat Singh. Initially the prosecution case was that the fires were made from the tube-well. Realizing its adverse import the witnesses were made to change the place of firing. This is a new situation. The other witnesses have also changed the place, in their deposition in the trial court, from where the accused persons had opened fire on Bharat Singh. Initially the prosecution case was that the fires were made from the tube-well. Realizing its adverse import the witnesses were made to change the place of firing. This witness for the first time in the trial court stated that the firing was made from the field of Itwari Singh which is not supported by the evidence of other witnesses. This witness thus reduced the distance of firing to 20-25 steps or even less. From his evidence as well we find that up to the stage of investigation he had not disclosed the reason for his presence at the scene of occurrence. In the site plan that field was not shown where according to this witness he was picking up arhar. He himself did not sustain any injury. His statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. was recorded on 18.3.1975 though as per the first Investigating Officer this witness remained present with him when he made spot inspection and prepared site plan the next day. He also took somersault in changing the place of firing in order to reduce the distance of firing. From the initial place of firing i.e., tube-well Bharat Singh would not have suffered any fire arm injury of the nature he suffered at the place where he was present and fell down because of the long distance. After close scrutiny of his evidence, we find that his statement is so much mixed with untruth, that it does not deserve any credence and accordingly we have no option but to discard it as unreliable. Separation of grain from chaff in his case is impracticable. 23. P.W. 7 Shri Soney Lal, the second Investigating Officer, has admitted that he had recorded the statement of tube-well operator Bahadur Chand and as he gave an eye-witness account of the incident, he cited him as a witness in the charge-sheet. Bahadur Chand was, however, not examined as a witness from prosecution side. Since he appeared to be a material and independent witness being a Government servant, the trial court summoned him as a Court witness. Bahadur Chand was, however, not examined as a witness from prosecution side. Since he appeared to be a material and independent witness being a Government servant, the trial court summoned him as a Court witness. In his statement before the Court he admitted that he was on duty on 13.3.1975 at the Government tube-well as a tube-well operator which was established in Harsinghpur. As per his statement water was running on that day in the field of Nahar Singh. According to him he remained present at the tube-well upto 1 p.m. and thereafter went to pakhawan to submit the progress report. From pakhawan he went to Mohammadabad. When he left the tube-well, the electric supply was snapped. He had handed over the key of the tube-well to Nahar Singh with an intention that as soon as the electric supply is resumed the tube-well could be operated. He claimed that he returned to the tube-well the next day. He had noticed marks of pellets on the western wall of the tube-well on his return. He had also found bricks having been removed from the pakka drain from its upper layer. He further found bricks and broken pieces of bricks near the tube-well room. When he had left the tube-well on the preceding day no such things were there. According to him, the Investigating Officer reached the tube-well after 2- 3 days. When he inspected the tube-well kothari the pellet marks were still on its wall. The Investigating Officer has also seen the broken pieces of bricks lying there in the vicinity. He also saw the damaged portion of the pakka drain. In the north of the tube-well village Behrampur is situated. A drain was running towards this village from the pakka drain. On one side of it is the tube-well room and there was land at a lower level on the other side. The tube-well room was about 30 steps away from the drain. The field adjacent to the pakka drain was about 4-5 feet lower in level. He denied that he gave any such statement to the Investigating Officer that the incident had occurred in his presence and firing was resorted to from both the sides but Inspector Soney Lal admitted it. The tube-well room was about 30 steps away from the drain. The field adjacent to the pakka drain was about 4-5 feet lower in level. He denied that he gave any such statement to the Investigating Officer that the incident had occurred in his presence and firing was resorted to from both the sides but Inspector Soney Lal admitted it. He did not think it proper to check the register regarding distribution of water nor attempted to find out that on the day of occurrence whose turn it was to irrigate their field. No such register was taken by him into his custody. Bahadur Chand is the most material witness as undisputedly he was tube-well operator. He was cited as an eye-witness for the prosecution in the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer. His evidence was not challenged in cross-examination by the prosecution. Thus, we find no valid reason to disbelieve the existence of facts so stated by him. Prosecution deliberately withheld him. On close examination of his evidence, we find that it also indicates that the incident most likely occurred in the manner suggested by the defence as he admitted that when he returned to the tube-well next day, he found brickbats near the tube-well room and also marks of pellets on its wall. The Investigating Officer also admitted in his statement that he had found some brickbats on the scene of occurrence but denied to have noticed any pellet marks on the wall. We have no reason to disbelieve Shri Bahadur Chand on this issue. We have already found above that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including injured persons is not reliable as they have twisted facts and have given a distorted version of the incident. 24. AS admitted by prosecution witnesses, water was badly needed to irrigate fields by the people of both the villages. P.W. 1 Balbir Singh has admitted that during the days of occurrence, Bahadur Chand was posted as tube-well operator on the tube-well in question and as per the statement of tube-well operator before he left the tube-well, water was running in the field of Nahar Singh of village Harsinghpur. This was also suggested by the defence to the prosecution witnesses but they deliberately denied the same. This denial was not without any purpose. This was also suggested by the defence to the prosecution witnesses but they deliberately denied the same. This denial was not without any purpose. They deliberately concealed the fact that it was the turn of people of village Harsinghpur to take water because admission of that fact would have supported the defence theory that there was some altercation between the parties on the question of diverting the water and thereafter there occurred exchange of brickbats and firing. Presence of Bharat Singh near the terminal of pakka drain from where a kachcha drain was running towards Behrampur village was also indicative of the fact that he and other villagers of Behrampur had collected there to divert the water from the drain towards their village with an intention to irrigate their fields. Most of these witnesses came to the spot just 15 minutes before the incident. Had the incident occurred in the manner as alleged in the F.I.R., Bharat Singh's body would have been found close to the tube-well room instead of the field adjacent to the kachcha drain from where water would have run towards village Behrampur. It appears that persons of village Behrampur had collected there to divert water to their village using force and to deprive the villagers of Harsinghpur whose turn was apparently on that day and their fields were being irrigated. This fact that water was immediately needed for the irrigation of their own fields was admitted by P.W. 2 Chandrapal Singh, though subsequent witnesses denied this fact obviously for the reason that such an admission was going to adversely affect the genesis of the incident and thereby the prosecution story. The fact that the dead body was removed from the scene of occurrence is also a factor seriously impairing the prosecution case. No blood was found by the Investigating Officer on the road from which he was taken to his house though he had sustained bleeding injuries. No attempt on the part of the Investigating Officer to start the investigation in the night is also a serious lacunae staring the prosecution side at its face. It is not the case of the Investigating Officer that no investigation could be done by him during night due to paucity of any light. Electricity was available to these villages. P.W. 8 Ravi Dutt Tyagi was the first Investigating Officer. According to him, F.I.R. was registered in his presence. It is not the case of the Investigating Officer that no investigation could be done by him during night due to paucity of any light. Electricity was available to these villages. P.W. 8 Ravi Dutt Tyagi was the first Investigating Officer. According to him, F.I.R. was registered in his presence. He reached the village of occurrence in the night. He made no investigation during the night. Only in the morning, he recorded the statements of Dafedar, Chandrapal Singh, Kalka Singh and Kalyan Singh. Inquest on the body of the deceased was prepared thereafter. The approach of the Investigating Officer from a perusal of his statement appears clearly partisan. The abadi of village Behrampur consisted mainly of Yadavas. The Investigating Officer deliberately denied any knowledge on his part of the fact that Rajendra Singh Yadav was M.L.A. from Mohammadabad region. According to him, he is the present legislator but before the incident whether he was a legislator or not he had no knowledge although he was posted in that very police station for the last 1-1/2 years. It appears that he deliberately concealed this fact since it may have affected credibility of his investigation. According to him, he started preparing inquest memo at about 8.00 a.m. and concluded the same by 10.30 a.m. The body was handed over to the constables for being carried to the mortuary at 11.45 a.m. it was taken in a bullock cart. The Investigating Officer then went to the spot at 12 noon, which was about 6 furlongs from the house where dead body was kept. Soon after registration of the case, he started for the village and reached there in the night itself, still no attempt was made by him to conduct any investigation is a shocking feature. No explanation whatsoever was offered by him for this inaction during night. According to him, the distance of the place where Bharat Singh fell down was about 50 steps from the room of the tube-well. He had found spent cartridges from near the tube-well room. No explanation whatsoever was offered by him for this inaction during night. According to him, the distance of the place where Bharat Singh fell down was about 50 steps from the room of the tube-well. He had found spent cartridges from near the tube-well room. That indicates that firing was resorted to from near the tube-well room but as per the statement of the witnesses Bharat Singh was placed at a very long distance from this room when he suffered injuries, which was not possible if firing had been made from near the tube-well and obviously in order to overcome this discrepancy in the trial, witnesses developed the case that the assailants moved closure to the deceased before opening fire upon him. The Investigating Officer had clearly admitted that he had noticed some broken bricks near the tube-well but he had not noticed any damage to the pakka drain. This he had said with a purpose. To avoid any damage being done to the bricks of the drain by the complainant party as suggested by the defence which fact has been clearly stated by independent witness Bahadur Chand, C.W. 1 the tube-well operator. The Investigating Officer had not found any blood at the spot and where the injured fell down nor had shown those places in the site plan. Again his statement that he did not notice any pellet marks on the wall of the tube-well or in the tree in the vicinity shows that he did not conduct investigation in a fair manner as according to him he did not think it proper to search for such things. This is clearly an evasive statement. It tends to be a half hearted admission of this crucial fact. It may again be pointed out here that as per statement of Bahadur Chand, C.W. 1 pellet marks existed on the wall of the tube-well even on the next day when he returned to the tube-well. The spot inspection was made after 12 noon. In order to test the veracity of the statement of the witnesses he did not think it proper to check the register of the tube-well operator regarding distribution of water nor he made any attempt to find out as to whether on the day of occurrence it was whose turn to irrigate the fields. No such register was taken by him into his custody. No such register was taken by him into his custody. He even did not make any attempt to contact the tube-well operator because he did not find it necessary. Thus, from the facts and circumstances as pointed out above, we are of the opinion that the investigation of the case was not fair and impartial. The inaction on the part of the Investigating Officer is inauspicious for the prosecution. Collusion with the complainant party on his part is writ large. 25. SINCE we have already held the presence of first informant at the time of occurrence highly doubtful and the first information report to be a suspicious document, no authencity could be attached to the version brought forth in the report and subsequently adhered to in the Court by the witnesses with serious modulation made therein. Not a single independent witness has been examined. All the witnesses produced at the trial belonged to village Behrampur and were interested inasmuch as the circumstances appearing in the case indicate that they had collected at the scene of occurrence to divert water in the kachcha drain leading to their village. In order to conceal the purpose for which they had collected, the witnesses for the first time at the trial concocted different stories regarding their presence at the scene of occurrence which was never disclosed up to the investigation stage. The defence version from the facts and circumstances, to us, appear to be highly probable. It is true that the defence has not examined any witness to prove their own version of the incident but this failure on their part will not absolve the prosecution from discharging its burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. An accused can be convicted only where the Court is able to come to a definite conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the offence in the manner alleged by the prosecution. No conviction can be based on mere possibilities nor it is permissible for the Court to speculate as to what had really happened or to invent a third theory. If both the parties come to Court with half truth or false case and conceal the real truth they are themselves to be blamed and they cannot expect the Court to arrive at a definite conclusion on the basis of unreliable evidence produced either for or against by either of the parties. If both the parties come to Court with half truth or false case and conceal the real truth they are themselves to be blamed and they cannot expect the Court to arrive at a definite conclusion on the basis of unreliable evidence produced either for or against by either of the parties. Where the prosecution evidence is of a highly partisan nature and the true origin and genesis of the occurrence has been concealed and twisted and distorted version was placed before the Court, it is not possible for the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. In a situation like this, the Court can only say that the matter is doubtful in the extreme and it may not be possible for the Court to arrive at any positive conclusion one way or the other. The defective investigation and conduct of the parties themselves are really responsible for the regrettable result and the Court has no option in such cases except to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused persons, especially when the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence and from the circumstances defence version finds enough corroboration and is highly probabilised. The outcome is acquittal. 26. FOR the reasons stated above, we are unable to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order of learned Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing the appellants is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offences charged for. They are on bail, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.