VISHNU SAHAI, J. ( 1 ) THROUGH this appeal the appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 26-2-1981 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich in Sessions Trial No. 277 of 1980, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced in the manner herein-after: Appellants Baley, Ram Asrey and Tahloo Under Section 147 of the I. P. C. to undergo one years R. I. and under Section 302 read with 149 of the I. P. C. to undergo imprisonment for life. Appellants Raj Bahadur and Babadeen: Under Section 148 of the I. P. C. to undergo one years R. I. and under Section 302 read with 149 of the I. P. C. to undergo imprisonment for life. The sentences of each of the appellants, on both the counts, were directed to run concurrently. It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the appeal, appellants Ram Asrey and Babadeen died and their appeal was ordered to be abated by this Court. ( 2 ) SHORTLY stated the prosecution case runs as under Appellants Raj Bahadur and Baley are sons of Appellant Ram Asrey. Appellant Tahloo is the brother of brother-in-law of appellant Raj Bahadur. Appellant Babadeen is the father-in-law of the brother of appellant Raj Bahadur. There was enmity between appellant Raj Bahadur and others on one side and the deceased Babadeen on the other. On account of it, on 8-5-1980 at about 10. 30 P. M. appellant Raj Bahadur alongwith a Banka, appellant Babadeen armed with a gun, appellants Baley, Ram Asrey and Tahloo armed with lathies came to the house of the informant in village Baruha, hamlet of Bambhora within the limits of Police Station Kaiserganj, District Bahraich. At that time, the informant Munni Devi (PW-1) and her daughter Lilawati (PW-2) were sleeping and their faces were covered with a chadar (bed-sheet) Appellant Raj Bahadur removed the chadar from the faces of the informant and her daughter and asked the informant where Babadeen was sleeping. Thereafter, appellants Raj Bahadur, Baley and Babadeen climbed on the roof of the informants house with the help of a ladder and appellants Ram Asrey and Tahloo caught hold of the informant and her daughter. The informant and her daughter saw appellant Raj Bahadur belaboring the deceased Baba-deen with a Banka, appellant Baley belaboring him with a lathi and appellant Babadeen firing two rounds on him. The informant and her daughter saw appellant Raj Bahadur belaboring the deceased Baba-deen with a Banka, appellant Baley belaboring him with a lathi and appellant Babadeen firing two rounds on him. In the meantime, witnesses Babadeen, Manorath and Chhotey with torches came to the place of the incident and in the light of their torches the informant and her daughter saw the incident. Thereafter the appellants ran away. Thereafter the informant went on the roof and found that her son Babadeen was dead. Thereafter she proceeded to Police Station Kaiserganj where she lodged the FIR. ( 3 ) THE evidence of S. O. Amarnath Singh, S. O. (PW-5) shows that on 9-5-1980 he was posted a Police Station Kaiserganj and in his presence the informant Munni Devi dictated the FIR (exhibit K 1) On the basis of the said FIR at 2. 15 A. M. the same night, a case was registered. It is pertinent to mention that the distance between the place of the incident and Police Station Kaiserganj was 12 KM5. ( 4 ) THE investigation was conducted in the usual manner by S. O. Amarnath Singh (PW-5) and since details relating to it are not necessary for the decision of this appeal we are not adverting to them. ( 5 ) GOING backwards the auto-psy on the corpse of the deceased Babadeen was conducted on 10- 5-1980 by Dr. V. M. Agarwal (PW-4) who found on it the following ante-mortem injuries1. Abraded contusion 3 cm x 1. 5 cm on left side face 1 cm outer to outer end of eyes. 2. Contusion with swelling 10 cm x 6 cm on left side cheek and sub-mandibular region. 3. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0. 5 cm x muscle deep on lower part of left ear. 4. Gunshot wound of entry 3 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on front of right side neck 2. 5 cm outer to thyroid cartilege. Margins inverted, wound directing backward and inward. Scorching, blackening and tattooing present around the wound in an area of 6 cm x 5 cm. 5. Gunshot wound of entry 3 cm x 3 cm x chest cavity deep on right side of chest just outer to right nipple. Margins inverted. Wound directing backwards and inwards. Scorching, black-ening and tattooing of skin present around the wound in an area of 8 cm x 7 cm. 6. 5. Gunshot wound of entry 3 cm x 3 cm x chest cavity deep on right side of chest just outer to right nipple. Margins inverted. Wound directing backwards and inwards. Scorching, black-ening and tattooing of skin present around the wound in an area of 8 cm x 7 cm. 6. Gunshot wound of entry 3 cm x 3. 5 cm x chest abdominal cavity deep on right side chest 13 cm below injury Nos. 5 and 8 cm away from midline. Wound directing upwards, black-wards and inwards. Margins inverted. Scor-ching, blackening and tattooing of skin present around the wound in an area of 8 cm x 8 cm. 7. Multiple gunshot wound of entry each measuring 0. 3 cm x 0. 3 cm x muscle deep on inner side of left thigh 13 cm below its root in an area of 4 cm x 3 cm. 15 pellets recovered. Scorching and blackening present in an area of 5 cm x 4 cm around the wound. Dr. Agarwal also found massive internal damage and mentioned in the autopsy report the cause of death to be shock and haemmerhage on account of the injuries suffered by the deceased. ( 6 ) THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner where the appellants were charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 read 149 of the I. P. C. In addition, appellants Raj Bahadur and, Babadeen were charged for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the I. P. C. and the remaining three appellants namely, Baley, Ram Asrey and Tahloo were charged for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the I. P. C. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Their defence was denial but they did not examine any witness. During trial, in all, the prose-cution examined five witnesses. Out of them two namely, Munni Devi (PW-1) and Lilawati (PW-2), the mother and sister respectively of the deceased Babadeen furnished ocular account. The learned Trial Judge believed the prosecution evidence and con-victed and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated by us in paragraph-i. Hence this appeal. ( 7 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. In our judgment this appeal deserves to be allowed. The learned Trial Judge believed the prosecution evidence and con-victed and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated by us in paragraph-i. Hence this appeal. ( 7 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. In our judgment this appeal deserves to be allowed. The conviction of the appellants rests on the ocular account furnished by Munni Devi (PW-1) and Lilawati (PW-2), the mother and sister respectively of the deceased Babadeen. We are not unmindful of the fact that the testimony of interests witnesses cannot be mechanically rejected and the law only enjoins that it should be examined with caution but we have no reservations in observing that once we examine their testimony with caution it would be difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants. ( 8 ) WE would first like to take up the evidence of Munni Devi (PW-i), the informant. In the FIR lodged by her she has categorically stated that appellant Raj Bahadur assaulted the deceased with a Banka and has not mentioned therein that appellants Baley, Ram Asrey and Tahloo, who were armed with lathies, belabored the deceased with lathies. However, a perusal of the ante mortem injuries suffered by the deceased, which we have extracted in entirely earlier, would show that the deceased did not sustain any incised wound and sustained three blunt weapon injuries namely ante-mortem injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3. In our judgment absence of incised wounds and presence of blunt weapon injuries on the person of the deceased clearly belie her claim in the F. I. R. of having seen the incident. ( 9 ) IT is well-settled that the FIR can be used to contradict and corroborate its maker. The importance of the F. I. R. cannot be over emphasized because it is the earliest version of the incident and where it is prompt as is the case here leads to the inference that the account in it is free from deliberations and confabulations. ( 10 ) COMING to the substantive evidence of Munni Devi we find that in the same she has stated that she and her daughter Lilawati saw the incident from the place where they were sleeping and from there could see the incident which took place on her roof. ( 10 ) COMING to the substantive evidence of Munni Devi we find that in the same she has stated that she and her daughter Lilawati saw the incident from the place where they were sleeping and from there could see the incident which took place on her roof. In her statement she has also categorically stated that appellant Raj Bahadur belabored the deceased with a Banks and did not state that the three appellants who were armed with lathies assaulted the deceased. ( 11 ) IN our view the conflict between the manner of assault deposed to by Munni Devi and the injuries found on the person of deceased render it unsafe to accept her testimony. ( 12 ) WE now come to the evidence of Lilawati (PW-2 ). It is hardly better than that of her mother Munni Devi (PW-i ). She has also categorically stated that appellant Raj Bahadur belabored the deceased with a Banka, but as mentioned earlier the autopsy surgeon did not find any incised injury on the person of the deceased. In our view since she is a highly interested witness and her version is belied by medical evidence and per se shows that she has falsely implicated the principal appellant Raj Bahadur and the other appe-Ilants are relations of Raj Bahadur it would not be safe to rely on her evidence. ( 13 ) WE may also mention that we find the account furnished by the said eye-witnesses to be in derogation with probabilities. According to the prosecution the appellants, after pre-planning, at 10. 30 PM on the night of 8-5-1980 came to murder the deceased who was very well known to them because there was enmity between them and the deceased. In our view appellants chose night time to commit the murder of the deceased because they did not want the eye-witnesses to recognize them. In such a situation we are not prepared to believe that appellant Raj Bahadur would have uncovered the faces of Munni Devi and her daughter, which were covered with a chadar. This conduct of Raj Bahadur can only be reconciled with the hypothesis that he wanted them to recognize the appellants and we are not prepared to accept this because it militates against probabilities. This conduct of Raj Bahadur can only be reconciled with the hypothesis that he wanted them to recognize the appellants and we are not prepared to accept this because it militates against probabilities. For the same reason we find the averment made by Munni Devi that the appellant Raj Bahadur asked her where Babadeen was sleeping to be highly improbable. ( 14 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, in our judgment, even if it is assumed that Munni Devi and Lilawati were present in their house at the time of the incident, it appears they were sleeping when the incident took place and woke up after the assailants had run away. ( 15 ) TO sum up in our view since both the eye-witnesses are inter-ested and their version is believed by medical evidence and probabilities it would not be safe to accept it. 1 Way back in the year 1955, in the of quoted case of Thakur and others v. State of U. P. , the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court observed thus :- Where there is a conflict between the medical evidence and the oral testimony of witnesses, the evidence can be assessed only in two ways. A Court can either believe the prosecution witnesses unreservedly and explain away the conflict by holding that the witnesses have merely exaggerated the incident or rely upon the medical evidence and approach the oral testimony with caution testing it in the light of the medical evidence. The first method can be applied only in those cases where the oral evidence is above reproach and creates confidence and there is no appreciable reason for the false implication of any accused. Where the evidence is not of that character and the medical evidence is not open to any doubt or suspicion, the only safe and judicial method of assessing evidence is the second method. 15a. We are in respectful agreement with the ratio laid down in the said decision. Where the evidence is not of that character and the medical evidence is not open to any doubt or suspicion, the only safe and judicial method of assessing evidence is the second method. 15a. We are in respectful agreement with the ratio laid down in the said decision. Since in the instant case there was enmity between appellant Raj Bahadur and the deceased, who was the son of the informant-Munni Devi and the real brother of Lilawati, and the other appellants were close relations of appellant Raj Bahadur in our view on account of the aforesaid conflict between the ocular account furnished by Munni Devi and Lilawati and the medical evidence it would be hazardous to accept the ocular account furnished by Munni Devi and Lilawati. Consequently, we do not accept the ocular account furnished by them. ( 16 ) IN the result, we allow the appeal; set-aside the conviction and sentence of appellants Raj Bahadur, Baley and Tahloo on all the counts; and direct that the said appellants, who are on bail, need not surrender and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and sureties discharged. As already mentioned earlier, appellants Ram Asrey and Babadeen died during the pendency of the appeal and their appeal stands abated. Appeal allowed. .