J. C. GUPTA, J. All the above named appellants, who are real brothers have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 22-12-1980 passed by Shri S. B. Singh, the then III Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 103 of 1978 convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 I. P. C. and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution story, as revealed in the F. I. R. in brief, is that on 5-2-1978 at about 7. 30 p. m. deceased Anwar alongwith Jahid and Shakar were returning from Simbhaoli Mill after supplying milk to a shop keeper and when they were near Sharafats grove in village Phulri, the three accused persons emerged from the grove and started assaulting Anwar with Lathi and Burri (a sharp pointed weapon ). As a result of assault Anwar fell down and died an instant death. Mohd. Hassan and Wahid on hearing hue and cries also rushed from their fields. Seeing the witnesses arriving, the accused persons ran away. The motive for committing the murder of Anwar is said to be that Anwar had got Jawal son of accused Iqbal arrested, hence lqbal and his family members became inimical to him. 3. The written F. I. R. was lodged by Bunda, father of deceased Anwar who himself had not witnessed the incident and had reached the place of occurrence after when the assailants had run away. 4. The F. I. R. was registered at police station Garhmukteshwar in the same night at 9. 30 p. m. The investigation of the case was conducted by S. I. Raghubir Singh, P. W. 8. He reached the scene of occurrence at about 10. 30 p. m. in the night and completed inquest in the light of petromax and sent the dead body for post-mortem under seal. 5. Autopsy on the dead body of deceased Anwar was held by Dr. O. P. Sharma, P. W. 3 on 6-2-1978 at 3. 45 p. m. Following ante- mortem injuries were found on the person of deceased Anwar: (1) Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 1 cm. x bone, on the right side back of head 11 cm. above and behind right ear. (2) Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 1. 5 cm. x bone, on the back of head in middle. (3) Lacerated wound 2. 5 cm. x 1 cm. x 1 cm. x bone, on the right side back of head 11 cm. above and behind right ear. (2) Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 1. 5 cm. x bone, on the back of head in middle. (3) Lacerated wound 2. 5 cm. x 1 cm. x bone on the right side head on the top. (4) Abrasion 5 cm. x 1. 5 cm. On the outer side of left side neck just below angle of mandible. (5) Abrasion 2 cm. x 2 cm. On the front of right knee and abrasion of same dimension on the left knee. (6) Multiple abrasion in an area of 10 cm. x 1. 5 cm. On the inner aspect of left fore-arm middle part. (7) Abrasion 1. 5 cm. x 1 cm. On the upper part of Pinna of left ear. 6. The internal examination revealed fracture of left parietal bone. Base of skull was also fractured. In the opinion of doctor death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. Post-mortem report is Ex. Ka-2. 7. In support of its case prosecution produced 9 witnesses before the trial Court. They were Jahid, P. W. 1, Shakar, P. W. 2, Dr. O. P. Sharma, P. W. 3, Bunda, P. W. 4, Mohd. Hassan, P. W. 5, Mohd. Yunus, P. W. 6, Constable Chandra Pal Singh, P. W. 7, S. I. , Raghubir Singh, P. W. 8 and Head Constable Khairati Lal, P. W. 9. Out of the witnesses examined P. W. 1 Jahid, Shakar, P. W. 2 and P. W. 5 Mohd. Hassan were witnesses of fact. 8. Case of accused persons was of total denial and they stated of their false implication due to enmity. They produced no witness in defence. 9. On perusal of evidence, learned Sessions Judge has found the appellants guilty for committing the murder of Anwar and they have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 I. P. C. 10. We have heard Shri I. N. Mulla, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri M. C. Joshi, learned A. G. A. for the State. 11. Before we start discussion it may be relevant to point out that as far as appellants Maqsood and Iqbal are concerned they both are reported to have died during the pendency of their appeal hence their appeal abate. 11. Before we start discussion it may be relevant to point out that as far as appellants Maqsood and Iqbal are concerned they both are reported to have died during the pendency of their appeal hence their appeal abate. We are now left only with the appeal of appellant Anwar son of Iqbal. As per the prosecution evidence deceased appellant Maqsood was armed with Lathi while accused Iqbal was armed with Burri (sharp pointed weapon like Barchi ). The surviving appellant Anwar is also alleged to be armed with Lathi. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not challenged the factum of homicidal death of deceased Anwar son of Bunda. From the statement of Dr. O. P. Sharma it is evident that the deceased had sustained three lacerated wounds, three abrasions and one multiple abrasion. All the three lacerated wounds were on head and extensive damage was done to the skull which resulted in his death. Learned Counsel for the appellants has also not seriously challenged the place where the incident had occurred. As per prosecution case deceased was murdered at an isolated place. It was committed in the month of February during night hours. Learned Counsel for the appellants has seriously challenged the presence of witnesses and has further argued that source of light is doubtful and that the F. I. R. is ante timed and that the alleged motive has not been established. According to his submission the conviction of the surviving appellant is not sustainable. 13. As far as motive part is concerned it is alleged that son of deceased-accused Iqbal was arrested about one year before the present occurrence at the instance of deceased Anwar. In the F. I. R. it was alleged that deceased had got Jawal son of Iqbal accused arrested as he used to commit theft and murder. In relation to the motive Jahid P. W. 1 stated before the trial Court that there was enmity between deceased and Jawal son of accused Iqbal because Jawal was got arrested with country made pistol by deceased Anwar and Kalwa. He further stated that accused persons had also assaulted Jawal before the present occurrence. According to this witness accused persons used to caused damage in the Saroorpur fields and deceased used to accost the accused persons. Accused persons had even extended threat to Anwar deceased. He further stated that accused persons had also assaulted Jawal before the present occurrence. According to this witness accused persons used to caused damage in the Saroorpur fields and deceased used to accost the accused persons. Accused persons had even extended threat to Anwar deceased. In cross-examination this witness admitted that deceased Anwar was his Khandani brother. P. W. 2 Shakar stated that there was enmity between deceased and the accused persons because the deceased had Iqbals son arrested with country made pistol. To the same effect is the statement of P. W. 4, Bunda, father of deceased Anwar. 14. The investigating officer has stated that he did not make any investigation into the motive aspect. He had also come to know during investigation that Iqbals son was not so arrested as has been alleged by the prosecution witnesses. No documentary evidence has also been brought on record in support of the prosecution allegation that Iqbals son was got arrested by deceased Anwar one year before the present occurrence. The prosecution thus failed to prove the alleged motive. 15. However, on the mere fact that the motive alleged by the prosecution has not been substantiated, the direct evidence of occurrence given by the prosecution witness cannot be discarded over board merely on this ground nor the evidence of two eye- witnesses can be brushed aside merely for the reason that they happened to be closely associated and related with the deceased. Undoubtedly both these witnesses were chance witnesses. In these circumstances their evidence requires a close scrutiny with care and caution to find out if the same could be accepted as truthful and reliable. 16. P. W. 1 Jahid has stated before the trial Court that he had gone to Simbhaoli Mill for supplying milk. When he was coming back Shakar, P. W. 2 also met him. He sat on the carrier of his cycle. In the way deceased Anwar also met him. He was also coming on cycle after supplying milk. He was all alone on his cycle. Deceased was little ahead of him. When he reached near western corner of mango grove of Sharafat all the three accused persons came out of the grove. Iqbal accused asked Anwar to stop and abused him. Jahid witness further stated that he flashed his torch and saw that all the appellants were present there. Deceased was little ahead of him. When he reached near western corner of mango grove of Sharafat all the three accused persons came out of the grove. Iqbal accused asked Anwar to stop and abused him. Jahid witness further stated that he flashed his torch and saw that all the appellants were present there. Anwar appellant struck first blow on Anwar deceased. Thereafter Maqsood assaulted him with Lathi and then Iqbal also assaulted him with Burri. Wahid who was working in nearby field also rushed towards the scene of occurrence on hearing cries. He was also having a torch which he flashed on the assailants. Similarly Mohd. Hassan also rushed to the scene of occurrence carrying a torch with him. Despite the witnesses asking accused persons not to assault Iqbal deceased, they continued to assault him until Anwar fell down. Even when he fell down he was not spared and all the three accused persons assaulted him with their respective weapons. 17. P. W. 2, Shakar, is the other witness who is alleged to be accompanying P. W. 1 Jahid. He was on the same cycle. He also stated same facts as were deposed by P. W. 1 Jahid. As per his statement also deceased was assaulted by all the three accused persons with their respective weapons. P. W. 5 Mohd. Hassan stated that at the time of incident he was present in his field which was about 4-5 Kms. away from the scene of occurrence. He stated that on hearing cries he rushed to the scene of occurrence through chak road and when he was on Kharanja he saw that all the three accused persons were assaulting deceased Anwar. Iqbal accused was having Burri and other accused persons were assaulting with Lathi. We have minutely examined the evidence of these three witnesses, the medical evidence and have considered the circumstances appearing in the case. In our opinion implicit reliance cannot be placed on their evidence for a number of reasons which we now propose to assign. 18. P. W. 1 Jahid and P. W. 2 Shakar were closely related to and associated with the deceased and his family members. They were chance witnesses as place of occurrence was undisputedly removed far away from their houses or fields. 18. P. W. 1 Jahid and P. W. 2 Shakar were closely related to and associated with the deceased and his family members. They were chance witnesses as place of occurrence was undisputedly removed far away from their houses or fields. P. W. 1 Jahid has admitted in his statement before the trial Court that when he had left the dairy, darkness had prevailed and when they were on the road Anwar deceased came back on the road from behind. By that time they had covered a distance of 150 yards. The place of occurrence was about three furlongs away from the Hapur Garh Road. Only he was carrying a torch in the pocket of his coat. According to him when Iqbal had stopped Anwar the cycle of this witness was only 2 to 4 paces away from the deceased. It does not sound to reason that when this witness flashed his torch on the accused persons they would have still allowed him to do so and would not have uttered anything to this witness. The witness further stated that when Anwar started running Maqsood assaulted him with his Lathi while Iqbal gave Burri blows. The deceased ran to a distance of about 100 and 150 yards and then fell down. While he was running he was continuously assaulted by the accused persons with Lathi and Burri. Anwar fell down near the well in the grave yard. He was given one or two more lathi blows on the skull when he had fallen down. During post-mortem examination, only three lacerated lathi injuries were found on the head of the deceased. Had he been assaulted by as many as three persons in the manner as alleged by this witness, number of injuries should have been much more. Further if deceased was also assaulted with Burri and had been given a number of Burri blows, some injuries of that kind of weapon should have been also found during post-mortem examination, but no such injury was noticed by the medical officer who conducted autopsy. Faced with this difficulty the prosecution made a development in the statement of P. W. 2 Shakar. In the examination in chief, P. W. 2 struck to the prosecution case that all the accused persons assaulted the deceased with their respective weapons. Faced with this difficulty the prosecution made a development in the statement of P. W. 2 Shakar. In the examination in chief, P. W. 2 struck to the prosecution case that all the accused persons assaulted the deceased with their respective weapons. In the cross-examination he specifically stated that Maqsood and Anwar possessed Lathi while Iqbal was having Burri which was a weapon like Barchi. He specifically admitted that he had seen Iqbal accused assaulting the deceased with Barchi. However, he could not say as to how many blows of Burri were given on the deceased. It was only in the re-examination that he was made to state that accused Iqbal used Burri like a Lathi. In the further cross-examination made on behalf of defence he had to admit that the blade of Burri was about one and half cubit long. He admitted that he had told Bunda father of deceased that Burri was used like a Lathi. However, a perusal of the F. I. R. which was lodged by Bunda would show that no such fact is alleged therein. The witness has also stated that he had told to the investigating officer that Burri was used like a Lathi but could not give any reason as to why such a fact is not found mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. The investigating officer has stated that Shakar has not given any such statement to him. We therefore, discard this part of the prosecution evidence that Burri was used as lathi, as in our opinion this embellishment and development has been made for the first time during trial in the re-examination P. W. 2 Shakar simply with a view to bring his evidence in consonance with the medical evidence. Complete absence of any incised or punctured injury belies the claim of the prosecution witnesses that deceased was given a number of Burri blows by accused Iqbal. This medical conflict cannot be ignored as insignificant because the witnesses examined in the trial were not only interested but their presence was also by chance and the incident had occurred in night hours. 19. The conduct of the witnesses is also highly unnatural which also creates a doubt in their presence. The witnesses have stated that they did not inform the family members of the deceased or his father. 19. The conduct of the witnesses is also highly unnatural which also creates a doubt in their presence. The witnesses have stated that they did not inform the family members of the deceased or his father. If the deceased was assaulted in their presence and accused persons had run away with Lathi and Burri and other witnesses had also arrived, as a natural sequence some attempt would have been made at least to remove Anwar from the place of occurrence for giving him some medical aid. It is difficult to digest that as soon as he was assaulted by Lathi he died within seconds. Further the fact that none of the witnesses made any effort to inform family members of the deceased looks to be highly unnatural particularly when village was not very far removed and this conduct of their is so incongruous with their evidence that it is impossible to believe that what they have said is true. 20. According to P. W. 1 Jahid he was himself carrying a torch but no fard regarding his torch had been brought on record. According to the investigating officer he could not say that the torches which were examined by him were returned to the persons from whom they were taken. As already stated above if the witnesses had seen the assault being made upon the deceased with their own eyes in torch light, their evidence could not have been inconsistent with the medical evidence. Presence of artificial source of light of torch is also thus not established beyond reasonable doubt. 21. F. I. R. was alleged to have been reported at 9. 30 p. m. in the same night chick report was prepared on the basis of written report written by Jafar Ali, Sarpanch of the village. As per the statement of Bunda, P. W. 4, father of deceased, he came at the scene of occurrence on information given to him by a girl. According to him he had started from the scene of occurrence for lodging the report at 9 p. m. He remained at the place of occurrence for about one and half hours. Police station was removed by three miles. If Bunda had remained at the scene of occurrence up to 9 p. m. the time of lodging the F. I. R. becomes suspicious. Police station was removed by three miles. If Bunda had remained at the scene of occurrence up to 9 p. m. the time of lodging the F. I. R. becomes suspicious. The investigating officer has reached the place of occurrence on the same night and according to him inquest report was also prepared in the same night. However, in the said report or in any papers sent with the dead-body, no crime number was mentioned. Title of the case was also not mentioned. Crime number was also not mentioned in the fards (memos) prepared at the place of occurrence. Though the dead body is alleged to have been sent from the scene of occurrence in the same night yet the dead body reached the mortuary at 10. 30 a. m. An explanation was tried to the be given regarding the late arrival of he dead body in the mortuary. It was stated that the tempo by which the dead body was being carried had developed some mechanical defect and, therefore, a mechanic had to be called for its repairs and after the tempo was set right, the constables sent with the dead body again proceeded to mortuary. This explanation was given for the first time in Court. There is no evidence to show that the constable who took the dead body got such a fact mentioned in the general diary on his arrival at police lines or on his return at the police station. No such explanation was also given by the constables to the investigating officer. We, therefore, find it difficult to accept this explanation. Late arrival of dead body coupled with other circumstances which we have mentioned earlier create a doubt that F. I. R. had come into existence prior to the inquest. 22. P. W. 6 Mohd. Yunus is a witness of inquest. In his statement he had categorically stated that so long he remained on the spot he could not know the names of the accused persons. Here we may also mention that as per the statement of P. W. 6 when he reached the place of occurrence at about 10 p. m. P. W. 4 Bunda was still present there and he proceeded to police station in his presence. Here we may also mention that as per the statement of P. W. 6 when he reached the place of occurrence at about 10 p. m. P. W. 4 Bunda was still present there and he proceeded to police station in his presence. Realising that this part of his statement would go against the prosecution and would completely demolish the claim of P. W. 4 having lodged the report at 9. 30 p. m. , the witness was re-examined wherein he stated that when he reached the place of occurrence Bunda had returned from the police station and not that he was proceeding to police station at that time. From all these circumstances and factors appearing in the case a reasonable doubt is created in our mind if F. I. R. had been lodged at the time it purported to be. In this view of the matter the First Information Report has lost its corroborative value. 23. For the reasons assigned above, we find it difficult to place implicit reliance on the testimony of interested and chance witnesses and it would be too risky to base conviction upon their testimony particularly when the same is not found consistent with the medical evidence and there are circumstances which make the F. I. R. a suspicious document. Therefore, conviction of the surviving appellant Anwar cannot be sustained. Appeal of surviving appellant Anwar is therefore, allowed. His conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court are set aside and he is acquitted of the offence charged for. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal of appellants Maqsood and Iqbal is disposed of as having abated. Appeal allowed. .