M. C. JAIN, J. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 3-10-1997 passed by Sri Udai Bhanu Singh, the then Addl. Sessions Judge/special Judge, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 307 of 1994. The sole accused respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 302 I. P. C. 2. We have heard Sri M. C. Joshi, learned A. G. A. from the side of the State and Sri G. C. Saxena, learned Counsel for the accused respondent. The record has been summoned which we have carefully perused. 3. The deceased was Rajendra. The incident occurred on 7-11-1992 at about 9 p. m. in village Jokhanpur, P. S. Shishgarh, District Bareilly and the report was lodged the same day at 10. 55 p. m. purportedly by the deceased himself who, as per the prosecution case, was alive till then. He had gone to his paddy field to keep watch on the crop. When he was at a little distance from the field, the accused respondent Bhanu Pratap fired shot on his back. He raised shouts. Om Prakash was attracted but by that time the accused respondent had run away. The accused allegedly was inimically deposed against him, but the details of the enmity were not given in the F. I. R. He disclosed to Om Prakash that the accused respondent had opened shot on him. Om Prakash PW 3 passed on the information at his house. His family members reached the spot and brought him to the house. Harish Babu PW 2 wrote down the F. I. R. at the dictation of the victim who thumb-marked it. He was then taken to the police station on a tractor trolley by his father Roshan Lal and others. The F. I. R. was lodged there and a case was registered under Section 307 I. P. C. The investigation was started by S. I. Moredhwaj PW 5. According to him, the statement of the victim was recorded by him at the police station itself and he was dispatched to P. H. C. Shishgarh for medical treatment and management of his injury. The Doctor being not available at P. H. C. , he was referred at District Hospital, Bareilly. He died on his way to District Hospital. According to him, the statement of the victim was recorded by him at the police station itself and he was dispatched to P. H. C. Shishgarh for medical treatment and management of his injury. The Doctor being not available at P. H. C. , he was referred at District Hospital, Bareilly. He died on his way to District Hospital. The case was then converted under Section 302 I. P. C. From the district hospital a memo was sent to P. S. Kotwali and a Sub- Inspector was deputed for preparation of the inquest report and to complete other formalities. The dead body was sealed and sent for post- mortem which was conducted on 8-11-1992 at 3. 30 p. m. by Dr. D. S. Kanyal PW 1. The following ante-mortem injury was found on his person: A gunshot wound of entry 3 cm. x 2" 1/2 cm x bone and chest cavity deep, on the back upper part in the midline 8 cm. below the root of neck. Margins black and inverted, lacerated underneath. Thorasic 2 and 3 vertebra fractured. 4. On internal examination, 22 pellets and one wad piece were recovered from the dead body. The spinal-cord was lacerated and pleura was also lacerated. The death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage owing to fire-arm injury. 5. After conclusion of the investigation, the accused respondent was challaned. 6. The defence was of denial and false implication due to enmity. 7. The prosecution examined Dr. D. S. Kanyal PW 1 who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, Harish Babu PW 2 - scribe of the F. I. R. , Om Prakash PW 3 who had allegedly reached the spot on hearing the cries of the victim and to whom the victim had allegedly disclosed the name of the accused as his assailant. He had passed on information of the incident at his house. S. I. Moredhwaj PW 5 had started investigation which was concluded by S. I. Rakesh Kumar Pandey PW 4. 8. As the trial resulted in acquittal, the State is aggrieved and the finding is assailed as being against the weight of evidence. 9. On careful consideration, we are of the opinion that the acquittal recorded by the trial Court is justified and it is not possible to reverse the finding. The brief reasons in this behalf are stated. There is no eye witness account. 9. On careful consideration, we are of the opinion that the acquittal recorded by the trial Court is justified and it is not possible to reverse the finding. The brief reasons in this behalf are stated. There is no eye witness account. It was a night incident. The prosecution alleged enmity between the deceased and the accused and we note that in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the accused also pleaded false implication owing to enmity. However, the details of such enmity did not come forth on record. Therefore, it is not possible to dilate on this aspect of the matter as to what, if any, was the gravity of the alleged enmity between the two. 10. The lodging of the F. I. R. by the victim himself is not beyond doubt, having regard to the injury sustained by him. As per the prosecution case, the shot had been fired on the victim from the backside. There is nothing on record that earlier to the opening of shot, the assailant had shouted aloud something which could have prompted the victim to turn back or to identify the assailant by voice. The spinal-cord of the deceased was lacerated and so were lungs. The Doctor conducting the post-mortem stated that the injury sustained by the victim was such that the death could be instantaneous. It is doubtful that the victim had recognised the assailant and was in a position to disclose his name to Om Prakash PW 3. Om Prakash PW 3 insisted that it was a moon-lit night. To explain his presence, he stated that he was also going to keep watch over his paddy field and when he reached near the field of Ramesh, he heard the cries of Rajendra who was lying injured there. According to him, Rajendra told him that Bhanu Pratap ran away after shooting him. He then went to pass on the information at his house. His mother, father and uncle came to the spot and took him to their house where Harish Babu wrote down the F. I. R. on the dictation of the victim and then he was taken on trolley to police station with Harish Babu. He stated that while passing through the way and before reaching Rajendra, he had encountered a man whom he could not recognise. His this statement is indicative of the poor visibility. He stated that while passing through the way and before reaching Rajendra, he had encountered a man whom he could not recognise. His this statement is indicative of the poor visibility. It, therefore, spills beyond comprehension that in that state of poor visibility the deceased could have recognised his assailant who had shot him from behind abruptly without uttering even a word. It is not possible to accept that Harish Babu PW 2 had written the report at the dictation of the victim. No one from the family of the victim had been examined as a witness to say as to who had passed on the information at the house of the deceased and what was that information, though the prosecution case was that from the house the victim had been taken on tractor trolley to the police station by his father. 11. The statement of the first Investigating Officer S. I. Moredhwaj PW 5 is still at variance that the victim had covered the distance from the tractor trolley to the police station on foot. It could not at all be possible, having regard to the fatal injury sustained by him which, in all probabilities, must have rather resulted in instantaneous death. The attempt of the prosecution to project the F. I. R. of the case and the statement of the deceased allegedly recorded by the Investigating Officer at the police station purportedly under Section 161 Cr. P. C. as his dying declaration was futile. It was another queer feature of the case that he was allegedly taken to the house in injured condition and the time was wasted in first getting the F. I. R. written at his dictation by Harish Babu and then taking him to the police station, instead of attending to the foremost urgency of giving medical aid to him by rushing him up to the hospital. 12. On global consideration of the facts and attending circumstances, we veer around the conclusion that the victim had died an instantaneous death on being shot by someone under the cover of darkness from behind. It was a hit and run case. 12. On global consideration of the facts and attending circumstances, we veer around the conclusion that the victim had died an instantaneous death on being shot by someone under the cover of darkness from behind. It was a hit and run case. He was already dead when he was taken to his home and a farce show was enacted showing him to be alive, producing an F. I. R. purportedly to be dictated by him and then of being taken to the police station in injured condition where the Investigating Officer farcically recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. 13. In view of the discussion contained hereinabove, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. 14. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below for incorporating necessary entries in the relevant register and reporting compliance within two months. Appeal dismissed. .