M. C. JAIN, J, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal has been preferred by three accused-appellants, namely, Shankar Singh, Shatrughan Singh and Lala Ram against the judgment and order dated 20-1-81 passed by Sri K. S. Rakhra, the then V Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Sessions Trial No. 115 of 1980, convicting them under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentencing each of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. 00. The appeal has abated so far as the appellant Lala Ram is concerned, as he has died. ( 2 ) SALIENT features of the case, as emerging from the F. I. R. and the evidence adduced in the Court, may be detailed briefly. The incident occurred on 14-6-79 at about 7 p. m. in village Ukasa, P. S. Ata, District Jalaun. The report of the incident was lodged the following day i. e. 15-6-79 at 10. 30 a. m. by P. W. 2 Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu-mother of the deceased. The distance of the police station was about 3 miles. On the fateful day and time, the informant was sitting at her door when Jogeshwar Dayal with his son Pappu had gone to nearby well to make measurement of the rope needed to draw water from well. When he was on his way back to his house at about 7 P. M. and reached near the door of Lala Ram accused, Shatrughan Singh armed with gun and Shankar Singh and Lala Ram armed with country-made pistols were sitting at the Chabutara of one of them, Lal a Ram, Shankar Singh shouted that it was opportune to avenge the murder of his father and he (Jageshwar) be done to death. Then Instantaneously Shatrughan Singh with the licenced gun of his father and Shankar Singh and Lala Ram with their country-made pistols fired shots on Jageshwar Dayal who fell down and succumbed to the injuries. Pappu-son of Jageshwar Dayal who was accompanying him at the relevant time rushed to his house. The incident had allegedly been seen by Virendra Kumar. Daya Shankar Brahamin and Sukhbir Brahmin. They challenged the accused persons but they managed to run towards the eastern side. Pappu-son of Jageshwar Dayal who was accompanying him at the relevant time rushed to his house. The incident had allegedly been seen by Virendra Kumar. Daya Shankar Brahamin and Sukhbir Brahmin. They challenged the accused persons but they managed to run towards the eastern side. The background was that about a couple of years before, Puttu Singh-father of the accused Shankar Singh, had been murdered for which Jageshwar Dayal was tried and convicted by the trial Court, but ultimately acquitted by the High Court. On the lodging of the F. I. R. , a case was registered against the accused persons and investigation started with the reaching of the Investigating Officer at the spot. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem after completion of the formalities. It may be related here that post-mortem was conducted by P. W. 4 Dr R. C. Singh on 16-6-79 at 10. 30 a. m. The deceased was aged about 46 years and about 11/2 day had passed since he died. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the post-mortem : 1. Gunshot wound of entry on left wrist size 0. 5 cm in diameter on outer side, lower part of wrist, rounded. 2. Gunshot wound of exit 3 cm in diameter on 3 cm above the left wrist joint with the fracture of left radius and ulna bones. 3. Gunshot wound of entry with blackening all around on back left side, size 2 cm in diameter, 3. 75 medially from inferior angle of left shoulder blade, burst the left and right lung 2 cork pieces obtained from right lung. 4. 5 Gunshot wounds of exit size of each. 5 cm in diameter situated 3 cm sternum in middle 1 cm apart each other one situated from 7. 5 cm above and medially from left nipple, one passes from 1 cm below midline end of clavicle with fracture of 3rd and 4th ribs right and sternum. 5. Gunshot wound of entry on right gluteal fold size 2 cm in diameter oval in shape, blackening all around, fracture of right femur and right sternum bone. Two corks found and 3 pellets obtained from hip right and 2 pellets obtained from liver. ( 3 ) THE death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from gunshot wounds sustained by the deceased. Two corks found and 3 pellets obtained from hip right and 2 pellets obtained from liver. ( 3 ) THE death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from gunshot wounds sustained by the deceased. ( 4 ) ON conclusion of investigation, three accused-appellants were put to trial which resulted in their conviction and sentences as declared in the earlier part of the judgment. The defence was of denial. Accused-appellants Shankar Singh and Shatrughan Singh pleaded false implication due to enmity, whereas Lala Ram took up the stand under Section 313, Cr. P. C. that he and informant were Brahmins and that his father had turned her out of Biradari, not inviting in marriages etc. and as such she was annoyed. ( 5 ) AT the trial, the prosecution examined six-witnesses P. W. 1 Sukhbir Singh, P. W. 2 Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu-informant and P. W. 3 Pappu, child witness (son of the deceased) as eye-witnesses. Three other witnesses were examined as P. W. 4 Dr. R. C. Singh, P. W. 5 I. O. Gaj Raj Singh and P. W. 6 H. C. Sunder Singh, who was the Head Constable at the relevant time, and had taken down the F. I. R. of this incident. ( 6 ) APPELLANT Shankar Singh was arrested and sent to jail during pendency of the appeal. For him Sri Jai Raj Singh Tomar, Advocate was appointed Amicus curiae. The other accused-appellant Shatrughan Singh is represented by Sri A. D. Giri, learned Senior Advocate. ( 7 ) WE have heard Sri A. D. Giri, learned Senior Advocate and learned amicus curiae from the side of accused-appellants and learned A. G. A. on behalf of the State. We have also carefully examined the record of the case which is before us. ( 8 ) THE arguments, in the main, from the side of appellants, challenging the impugned judgment are that the F. I. R. was lodged with inordinate delay; (sic) there was no firm motive on the part of the accused-appellants to commit the alleged crime; that the case rests on the testimony of the interested witnesses without any corroboration by independent sources. Per contra, the submission of the learned A. G. A. is that the delay in lodging the F. I. R. is satisfactorily explained. Per contra, the submission of the learned A. G. A. is that the delay in lodging the F. I. R. is satisfactorily explained. The motive is not at all important in the present case when the eye-witness account is available and that the testimonial assertions of P. W. 1 Sukhbir Singh, P. W. 2 Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu and P. W. 3 Pappu fully and clinchingly prove the guilt of the accused persons. We propose to deal with the relevant aspects of the matter in the discussion that follows. ( 9 ) AT first is taken the question of lodging of the F. I. R. It goes without saying that it has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether there is unexplained delay in lodging the F. I. R. In the present case, the incident took place on 14-6-79 at about 7 p. m. in Village Ukasa which was at a distance of about 3 miles from the concerned police station. However, the report was lodged the following day on 15-6-79 at 10. 30 a. m. by Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu mother of the deceased. Obviously, the report was lodged after inordinate delay. The informant P. W. 2 Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu claims herself to be an eye-witness of the incident. When welook for the explanation given by her, we find that she stated that due to fear she could not go to lodge the F. I. R. immediately after the incident. But this explanation does not stand the test of scrutiny because it has come down in her cross-examination that Rameshwar Dubey, Raghubir Dubey, Babu Ram and Natthu Ram are her Khandani and they reside in the same village. She also stated that after the murder, it had occurred to her that the report of incident be lodged but she did not call any of the above named persons to help her in lodging the F. I. R. The version of P. W. 3 Pappu son of the deceased is that after 10-15 minutes of the incident the villagers had collected at the spot who were about 15-20 in number and it was natural also, but it goes unexplained that the report was not lodged immediately after the incident and came to be lodged the following day at 10. 30 a. m. The delay becomes important when judged from this angle also that Virendra Kumar and Saya Shankar of the village were also named as eye-witnesses. So, we are of the view that in the present case, there was unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the F. I. R. which gives a jerk to the prosecution case. ( 10 ) THE aspect of motive may be taken up in the second instance. It is trite law that the motive is insignificant in a case of eye-witness account but where the prosecution comes with a motive, it is desirable that it should prove it so that it may be tested on the anvil of probabilities. In the present case, the motive assigned by the prosecution for the commission of murder of Jageshwar is that he was earlier an accused for the murder of Puttu Singh who was father of accused-appellant Shankar Singh. It is so stated in the F. I. R. that Shankar Singh had shouted aloud before the incident to take revenge of the murder of his father. The evidence is there that such murder had taken place about 15 years before the incident. P. W. 2 Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu admitted in her cross-examination that Jageshwar with others had been prosecuted for the murder of Puttu Singh and he had been convicted by the trial Court but acquitted by the High Court. It sounds to be improbable that all of sudden. Shankar Singh son of Puttu Singh would decide to take revenge of the murder of his father by Jageshwar and others, which incident had taken place 15 years back and he would join two others to complete the job. What we note is that the motive with which the prosecution has come forward is not consistent either. In her testimony as P. W. 2 Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu stated that the dispute was of the Khandhar in front of which Jageshwar was murdered and this was the enmity for which he was murdered. She specifically stated that Jageshwar had no enmity with the accused persons on any other score. However, it is also borne out from her cross-examination that previously Jagdish lived in that Khandhar who had died. Jagdish used to claim the said Khandhar to be belonging to him. She also stated that the sons of Jagdish are alive. She specifically stated that Jageshwar had no enmity with the accused persons on any other score. However, it is also borne out from her cross-examination that previously Jagdish lived in that Khandhar who had died. Jagdish used to claim the said Khandhar to be belonging to him. She also stated that the sons of Jagdish are alive. There is nothing on record to connect Jagdish and Jagdishs son with any of the accused-appellants which could have inspired them to murder Jageshwar for the dispute of Khandhar. It, thus, crystalises that the prosecution has not come up with a consistent motive on the part of accused-appellant to commit this crime and whatever motive has been assigned could not form foundation for the murder of the deceased. ( 11 ) PICKING up the thread from the aspect of motive, it may also be observed that it was for the murder of Puttu Singh father of accused-appellant Shankar Singh that Jageshwar Dayal had been prosecuted and ultimately acquitted by the High Court. Now, that could be a motive only on the part of accused-appellant Shankar Singh, and not on the part of other two who allegedly joined in the commission of this crime. No common bond has been shown between him and two others who allegedly participated in this crime. ( 12 ) NOW we intend to look into the testimony of eye-witnesses. We find that the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in discarding the testimony of so-called eye-witness P. W. 1 Sukhbir Singh. He has given cogent and convincing reasons in this behalf. He was relative of the deceased and resident of village Itaura, which was about 7 or 8 miles away from the place of occurrence. His presence at the place of occurrence was, therefore, no better than a chance and when he saw the deceased being killed, he did not stay there even for the moment and immediately rushed to his village, which could not be the conduct of an ordinary prudent man. While returning to his village, the police station fell on the way, but he did not pass on the information regarding this incident to the police either. While returning to his village, the police station fell on the way, but he did not pass on the information regarding this incident to the police either. ( 13 ) THE testimony of P. W. 1 Sukhbir Singh having disbelieved for valid reasons, as stated above there remains the evidence of P. W. 2 Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu, mother of the deceased and P. W. 2, Pappu, son of the deceased, who is child witness. It is well settled rule of law that the Court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. In the case of Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, 1957 Cri LJ 1000, the Supreme Court has classified oral testimony into three categories, namely, wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. Indeed, the testimony of both these witnesses does not fall in the category of wholly reliable. They cannot be termed to be wholly unreliable either. It is a fact that they are interested witnesses being close relatives of the deceased and, therefore, their testimonial assertions have to be viewed with great caution to come to the right conclusion as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused-appellants, having regard to the attending circumstances of the case. It has already been held that the F. I. R. lodged by P. W. 2 Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu is inordinately delayed without any satisfactory explanation and further that motive assigned for the commission of crime is inconsistent, weak and infirm. ( 14 ) IT is not a case where the independent witnesses were not available. Rather, truth of the matter is that Virendra and Daya Shankar, residents of the same village were cited as eye-witnesses in the F. I. R. They could be the independent witnesses of the incident. However, the disquietencing feature of the case is that none of them has been examined to support and back the prosecution case without any plausible reason. The prosecution case seeks strength from the testimony of P. W. 2 Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu and P. W. 3 Pappu who are the interested witnesses being very close relatives of the deceased. However, the disquietencing feature of the case is that none of them has been examined to support and back the prosecution case without any plausible reason. The prosecution case seeks strength from the testimony of P. W. 2 Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu and P. W. 3 Pappu who are the interested witnesses being very close relatives of the deceased. P. W. 2 Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu being the mother of the deceased, P. W. 3 Pappu being the son of the deceased, who also happened to be a child witness. Really speaking, their evidence has to be taken as that of one person through two mouths as both of them happened to belong to the family of the deceased. It is also relevant to state here that P. W. 2 Smt. Charauja alias Bari Bahu is not a simpleton rustic lady. Rather, she is well aware of the ways of litigation. It is noted from her testimony that she and her son Jageshwar had been prosecuted for keeping illicit arms. She herself had been convicted at the trial Court; but was acquitted in appeal. Jageshwar had been prosecuted for theft also. Her own mother had been murdered in village Ukasa for which Jagannath (elder brother of her husband) had been prosecuted and sentenced to life imprisonment. He served out the sentence. Later on, Jagannath was also murdered. It has also come in the earlier discussion that Jageshwar had also been prosecuted and convicted for the murder of Puttu Singh father of the deceased Shankar Singh, but was later on acquitted by the High Court in appeal. These facts amply throw light on the background of P. W. 2 Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu. It is noted that she and P. W. 3 Pappu have tried to corroborate each other in a parrot-like manner and testimony of P. W. 3 Pappu also betrays the traces of tutoring. He had appeared as a witness on 18-11-80. He gave his age as nine years meaning thereby he must have been about 71/2 years of age at the time of incident. It is also a fact that he is not an injured witness. We do not mean to say that he could not be believed without himself being an injured. He had appeared as a witness on 18-11-80. He gave his age as nine years meaning thereby he must have been about 71/2 years of age at the time of incident. It is also a fact that he is not an injured witness. We do not mean to say that he could not be believed without himself being an injured. But the fact is that the factum of his having not sustained any injury under the facts and circumstances of the case, renders it highly doubtful that he actually accompanied his father at the time of incident. His version is that he was going with his father on his right side very closely. There were allegedly three assailants, all of whom allegedly fired. Out of them, one, namely, Shatrughan Singh must have been nearly 131/2 years of age at the time of incident. It sounds somewhat strange that all of the assailants were trained shooters and that they could hit only deceased Jageshwar, who was in moving state with his son P. W. 3 Pappu in very close proximity. It is to be noted that P. W. 2 Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu and P. W. 3 Pappu stated that all the shots had hit the deceased. P. W. 4 Dr. R. C. Singh stated that the ante-mortem injury No. 1 (injury No. 2 whereof is the exit wound) could be from the same shot which caused injury No. 3 (injury No. 4 whereof is the exit wound ). The ante-mortem injury No. 5 is another wound of entry. The possibility cannot be ruled out that only two shots had been fired. It is found that P. W. 2 Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu gave studied and well thought of answers to the questions put to her and P. W. 3 Pappu exactly followed her which is indicative of tutoring. An example may be cited. P. W. 2 Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu stated that "rameshwar DUBEY, RAGHUBIR DUBEY, BABU RAM AND NATTHU RAM SAB MERE KHANDANI HAIN. MAIN NAHIN KAH SAKATI KI RAT MEIN YEH LOG JAGESHWAR KI LASH KE PAS AAYE YA NAHIN MAIN RONE MEIN VYAST THI. " Exactly the same is answer given by P. W. 3 Pappu when questioned whether Nathu Ram Babu Ram and Rameshwar, Bhabute and Kashi Prasad had also come at the spot. MAIN NAHIN KAH SAKATI KI RAT MEIN YEH LOG JAGESHWAR KI LASH KE PAS AAYE YA NAHIN MAIN RONE MEIN VYAST THI. " Exactly the same is answer given by P. W. 3 Pappu when questioned whether Nathu Ram Babu Ram and Rameshwar, Bhabute and Kashi Prasad had also come at the spot. His answer was that he could not say as he was weeping. ( 15 ) SO far the value which can be attached to the testimony of a child witness is concerned, no fixed rule can be prescribed. The children have good memories and no conscience. They are easily taught stories and live in a world of make-believe. At times, they repeat glibly as of their own knowledge what they have heard from others. The credit to be given to the testimony of a child witness is to be judged with the help of surrounding circumstances without there being any precise rule in this behalf. In the present case, P. W. 3 Pappu is the elder of two sons of Jageshwar as stated by P. W. 2 Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu. His brother was two years younger to him. P. W. 2 Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu who lodged the F. I. R. and knew ways of litigation professed herself to be an eye-witness with elder son of the deceased as another eye-witness so as to support the prosecution case. Of course, she nominated P. W. 1 Sukhbir Singh (her relative) and two others, namely, Virendra and Daya Shankar as eye-witnesses of the incident. Sukhbir Singh has rightly been disbelieved and other two witnesses have not been examined. On being subjected to judicial scrutiny, the testimony of P. W. 2 Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu and P. W. 3 Pappu does not stand the test of reliability. ( 16 ) ON cumulative consideration of the entire facts, evidence circumstances of the case including that the report was lodged with inordinate delay on the next day, the possibility cannot be ruled out that actually the murder of Jageshwar took place in the night without having been witnesses by any body and P. W. 2 Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu, mother of the deceased nominated Lala Ram, Shatrughan Singh and Shankar Singh as culprits due to suspicion on the premise of previous background. There is no manner of doubt that Jageshwar was murdered by shooting, but guilt of accused-appellants is not established to the hilt by clinching, satisfactory and convincing evidence. The interested testimonial assertions of P. W. 2 Smt. Chirauja alias Bari Bahu and P. W. 3 Pappu, a child witness are full of black spots as discussed above. ( 17 ) IN view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are inclined to allow this appeal. ( 18 ) THE appeal is accordingly allowed. It has already abated in respect of the accused-appellant Lala Ram who has died. The accused-appellants Shankar Singh and Shatrughan Singh are acquitted. The accused-appellant Shankar Singh is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other connection. The accused-appellant Shatrughan Singh is on bail. He need not surrender. His personal bond and surety bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. ( 19 ) SRI Jai Raj Singh Tourar who argued for appellant No. 2 Shatrughan Singh as Amicus Curiae shall be paid his fee as Rs. 1000. 00. ( 20 ) LET a copy of this judgment along with record of the case be sent to the Court below for ensuring compliance under intimation to this Court within one month positively. Appeal allowed.