This appeal was filed by Sulochan against his conviction under Section 302 IPC and consequent sentence for imprisonment for life. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Ram Nihore alias Saadhu and Baijnath, acquitted accused, were cousins. The appellant is son of abovesaid Baijnath. Ram Nihore was not a married person. According to the prosecution story some litigation was contested between Ram Nihore and the father of this appellant Baijnath before the Consolidation Court. Baijnath lost the case and Ram Nihore won it. Ram Nihore mortgaged his land in favour of Hari Lal for a sum of Rs. 700. He was trying to sell it. The accused persons did not like the act of Ram Nihore. 3. On the night between 17/18-4-1980 when Ram Nihore was sleeping at the door of his house, he was belaboured with a Gandasa, according to the FIR by Sulochan alone but according to the evidence adduced in the trial Court by Baijnath and the appellant. At that time the informant Chhedi was sleeping allegedly at the door of his house. The distance was only 15 steps between the deceased Ram Nihore and Chhedi Lal. Only a passage intervened between two places. Around midnight Chhedi Lal was awakened by the alarm "maar Dala Maar Dala". Hearing the alarm he ran flashing his torch towards the place of occurrence. He saw that 4 persons were present near the cot of Ram Nihore. Out of whom Baijnath and Sulochan were causing injuries to Ram Nihore with Gandasa. The others were pressing him with the aid of Lathis. On the alarm raised by Chhedi Lal several persons including Ram Bishal, Ram Bahadur and Ganga Prasad arrived at the scene of occurrence. The assailants seeing the witnesses approaching took to their heels towards North. It is also alleged that while retreating from the spot they extended threat to these witnesses as well. When the witnesses examined the deceased they found him dead. After an hour or the occurrence Chedi Lal prepared a report and proceeded for the police station at about 5. 00 a. m. The report was handed over to the head constable on reaching there by Chhedi Lal at about 7. 15 a. m. on 18-4-1980. Police Station Manjhanpur was at a distance of about 4 miles from the spot of occurrence. 00 a. m. The report was handed over to the head constable on reaching there by Chhedi Lal at about 7. 15 a. m. on 18-4-1980. Police Station Manjhanpur was at a distance of about 4 miles from the spot of occurrence. A case was registered and the investigation was entrusted to S. I. Hanuman Prasad Mishra, PW 4. He arrived at the post at about 8. 00 a. m. He prepared the inquest memo and despatched the dead body by 11. 00 a. m. for the mortuary for post-mortem. He continued to remain in the village in connection with the investigation. In the morning on 20-4-1980 he received an information from the informer that Baijnath and Sulochan, accused, are present at Samda Bus Stand to catch a bus. He proceeded on his jeep alongwith two constables and a Sub-Inspector to apprehend the appellant and his father. They were apprehended. After their arrest Sulochan told the Sub- Inspector that the Gandasa which was used in the murder was concealed in a Pokhar under the Bargad plant. He was taken to that Bargad plant from where he had taken out the Gandasa stained with blood and handed it over to the Sub- Inspector PW 4, Hanuman Prasad Mishra. It was sealed and its memo was prepared. The accused persons were brought to the police station and lodged there. After completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and his father Baijnath. Baijnath was acquitted by the trial Court. 4. The appellant pleaded not guilty. His case was that they were falsely implicated in the case on account of pre-existing enmity with Chhedi. Appellant further stated that Chhedi Lal PW 1, the informant, had stealthily procured a sale-deed of the house of deceased Ram Nihore during his life time. When they learnt about it they had quarreled with Chhedi Lal. Chhedi Lal threatened them with dire consequences. The witness Ram Bishal is a close friend of Chhedi. He also alleged that there was a litigation contested between witness Badlu and his brother Jagroop on the one hand the deceased on the other hand. This litigation is still pending. They were arrested from their house. They were detained at the police station for about 4 days. Chhedi Lal, Jagroop and Badlu were also taken to the police station by the Sub- Inspector. They were also kept there for 4 days. This litigation is still pending. They were arrested from their house. They were detained at the police station for about 4 days. Chhedi Lal, Jagroop and Badlu were also taken to the police station by the Sub- Inspector. They were also kept there for 4 days. After the settlement with the police Chhedi Lal, Jagroop and Badlu were released. He and his father were involved in this case falsely because they failed to grease the palm of the Sub-Inspector, Ram Bishal, according to this appellant, tried to take forcible possession of his Chak No. 107. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined PW 1, the eye-witness and the informant of the case. PW 2 is Ram Bishal who reached the spot after hearing the alarm from Chhedi Lal. He came from his Khalihan. He also claimed that he saw the occurrence from near the Rasta between the houses of Ram Nihore and Jagroop. He had also signed the inquest memo Ex. Ka-3. PW 3 is Badloo. He is a witness of recovery of Gandasa Ex. Ka-5. He has proved the recovery memo Ex. Ka-4. As earlier stated PW 4 Hanuman Prasad Misra was the investigating officer and he has proved all the formalities pertaining to the investigation including inquest memo, site map and other evidence. Dr. Vijay Pal, PW 5, conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Ram Nihore. He has proved post-mortem examination report. It is Ex. Ka-18. PW 6 is Nanhaku Singh. He has proved the deposit of articles at the Maalkhana. Constable Raja Ram, PW 7 escorted the dead body to the mortuary. Constables Liyakat Ali, PW 8 carried the bundles of recovered articles to the chemical examiner. Constable Laxmi Kant Shukla is PW 9. Faujdar Singh, Head Moharrir, is PW 10. He has proved chick FIR and written report etc. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant challenged the presence of Chhedi Lal on the spot very vociferously. Apart from it he has also challenged the authenticity of the FIR. According to him it was ante-timed, therefore, it is not reliable. He has also challenged the recovery of the weapon of assault at the pointing out of this accused. 7. We have examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses PW 1 and PW 2, the two eye-witnesses, very closely. Apart from it he has also challenged the authenticity of the FIR. According to him it was ante-timed, therefore, it is not reliable. He has also challenged the recovery of the weapon of assault at the pointing out of this accused. 7. We have examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses PW 1 and PW 2, the two eye-witnesses, very closely. So far as PW 1 is concerned, we have serious doubt in his presence at the spot. According to him, initially as alleged in the FIR also, that he returned at about mid night from his khalihan and then lay himself on his cot. He immediately heard the alarm of Ram Nihore "bachao, Maar Daal Rahe Hain". He claimed that he went up to the door of Ram Nihore and flashed his torch. There he found 2 persons pressing the deceased. They were outsiders and unknown to him. Baijnath and Sulochan were assaulting the deceased with Gandasa. He raised alarm which attracted Ram Vishal, Raj Bahadur, Ganga Prasad and Hardas. As the witnesses arrived, the assailants left the spot and threatened them. For fear of reprisal the witnesses did not go the police station immediately after the occurrence. He has also disclosed the motive in the FIR as the litigation with the appellant. He also claimed that little before the occurrence the deceased had mortgaged his field to Hari Lal for a sum of Rs. 700. He was also trying to sell out his field. On this account also appellant and his father were nursing grouse and they committed the offence is collusion with two unknown persons. The appellants were identified in the torch light. In the trial Court he stated that he heard the alarm of "maar Dala, Maar Dala". He was awakended and he raised was not stated by him. He was immediately attracted to the house of Baijnath. On the contrary his claim during trial is that he walked for only 2-3 steps and from there flashed his torch and identified the miscreants. PW 2 has categorically admitted that it was a dark night. In the trial he denied having made this statement in the FIR that he had just a little before returned from his Khalihan after Darbari and was lying on his bed. PW 2 has categorically admitted that it was a dark night. In the trial he denied having made this statement in the FIR that he had just a little before returned from his Khalihan after Darbari and was lying on his bed. In what light the report was prepared by him it was also not revealed by him in his statement in the trial Court. According to him his Khalihan is about 100 yards from the house of deceased. Some 3-4 houses intervened in between. The village abadi and the house of Sadhu is 250-300 yards from the house of the deceased. Ram Vishals Khalihan is further 25-30 steps from the village Abadi. Raj Bahadurs tube-well is some 200 yards in the West. From the village Abadi. The house of Ganga, a named witness in the FIR, is about 150 yards from the village Abadi in the South. His Khalihan is near his house and his tube-well is 150 yards further. Hardas has his tube-well 500-600 yards in South from the house of the deceased. Khalihan of Hardas was about 150 yards from the house of the deceased in the South. Thus all the witnesses except Chhedi Lal, PW 1, who have been nominated in the FIR were living at a considerable distance and not less than 150 to 300 yards from the house of the deceased in different directions. It is also a fact available from his evidence that there are houses of Badloo and Ram Avatar in the vicinity of the house of the deceased. Holi had just gone and people had started sleeping outside their doors. The village has an Abadi of 1000-1500. He claimed that the Darbari in the Khalihan was started as soon as the darkness supervened. He denied that he was in his Khalihan during the night. He claimed that he was present at the door of his house. He further stated that an hour after the darkness supervened, he returned to his house. No light in doing the Dabari was required. He further stated that it is not required in this process. He continued to operation the Dabari till the total darkness supervened. On his return he tied his bullocks at his house and provided them fodder. Thereafter, he took his food. He took about an hour and half in doing all this. No light in doing the Dabari was required. He further stated that it is not required in this process. He continued to operation the Dabari till the total darkness supervened. On his return he tied his bullocks at his house and provided them fodder. Thereafter, he took his food. He took about an hour and half in doing all this. He denied that he has seen the deceased being assaulted immediately on his return from the Khalihan to his house. He denied that he had written in the report "khalihan Se Aate Hi Maine Ghatana Dekhi". He admitted that he had no evidence about litigation between the deceased and Baijnath, father of this appellant. He further stated he can file the evidence after making enquiries about the same. Then he stated that litigation between them was started 6 months before the occurrence. I have never done any Pairvi in that case. When Consolidation Officer and Nayab started proceedings in the village only then he learnt about the litigation between the two brothers. He denied that any litigation between the deceased and Badloo was ever contested conjointly by the deceased and father of this appellant Baijnath. He specifically admitted in paragraph 12 that the house in which Sadhu Ram Nihore had been murdered is now in his possession and he tied his cattles. The house was initially locked by the police but now the possession of the same was given to him by the police after withdrawing its locks. He further stated that he had obtained a sale-deed of this from deceased Sadhu 7-8 years ago. Sundar son of Banshi was a witness of this sale-deed. He further stated that he had been in possession of the house from the life time of the deceased but he permitted the deceased to live therein. This shows that this witness had obtained the house after the death of the deceased when the accused persons were in jail. He admitted that the information of mortgage was learnt by him after 1-2 days of the occurrence, therefore, he did not state about it in his report. Then he stated that he had said so in the report. He further stated that he prepared his report only disclosing as motive the information about the mortgage by the deceased in favour of Hari Lal. Then he stated that he had said so in the report. He further stated that he prepared his report only disclosing as motive the information about the mortgage by the deceased in favour of Hari Lal. He further stated that on the date of occurrence he did not sleep immediately after taking his food. He continued to look after his ailing son for and half hour then laid on his bed outside the house. He further admitted that he heard the alarm of Sadhu after 2 hours of attending his ailing son. He again stated that he returned from the Khalihan immediately on the commencement of the darkness and then 15-20 minutes after attending his ailing son he heard the alarm. These statement, therefore, are wholly irreconcilable. If we test it in the light of what he stated in his FIR that "main Khalihan Se Dabri Khatm Karke Aadhi Raat Ke Karib Ghar Aakar Darvaje Par Charpai Par Leta Hi Tha Ki Ram Nihore Ki Awaaj bachao Maar Dal Rahe Hain,"was heard". The somersault becomes easy to discern. He has also denied that he had gone to the house of Ram Nihore. Now his statement in the trial is that from his door he had moved only 2-3 steps. He denied that in his statement to the IO and in his FIR he had made any such statement. It exists so. He denied that he had seen the occurrence from in front of the land of Jagroop. Amongst the witnesses he stated that torch was only with Ram Vishal. According to him witnesses had seen the occurrence from the land in front of the house of Jagroop. The witnesses arrived little after the alarm was raised. He did not state in the FIR that two unknown had Lathis. He also did not specifically state tha he had seen Gandasa in the hands of Baijnath. He admitted that in his FIR he did not specify that Baijnath and Sulochan had Gandasa and other two had Lathis because he did not deem it necessary. There was no lantern or any other source of light at the place. He returned alongwith the IO to the spot of occurrence at about 8. 00 a. m. He further claimed that the report was written by him and kept in his pocket. There was no lantern or any other source of light at the place. He returned alongwith the IO to the spot of occurrence at about 8. 00 a. m. He further claimed that the report was written by him and kept in his pocket. He tired to explain the anomaly by saying that abovesaid statement was made by him regarding chick FIR. Written report was carried to the police station by him unfolded. He kept it in his hands. He denied that he had any litigation on account of his harvesting the crops of Baijnath and Parvati. He also denied that he had any quarrel with Baijnath on his taking sale-deed of the house from the deceased. He stated that he had gone to the police station alone. Some people arrived at the scene of occurrence during night though other villagers did not come to the spot. He claimed that he had told the IO in his 161 Cr. P. C. statement that Ram Nihore was lying in from of his house on a cot when he was assaulted, he could not explain the omission of this fact. He also did not tell the IO that the report was written by him after an hour of the occurrence. He failed to explain the omission. Thus the contradictory statement of this witness from the FIR version regarding his coming from the Khalihan at about mid night hour after completing Dabari and hearing alarm soon thereafter, in our opinion, is made with a purpose because now this witness has tried and alleged many activities before he lay himself on the cot to sleep just before his hearing the alarm and this part of his statement could not be accepted by this Court. Therefore, all these modulations in his testimony were made in order to make his presence plausible and reliable. In his FIR he stated that Baijnath was also plying Gandasa and in his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. he stated a different story. It further renders his presence doubtful at the spot. His failure to mention that two unknown persons were also having Lathis makes his presence at the spot highly doubtful. He was not having any source of light with him admittedly. Witnesses came little afterwards. Therefore, we find it highly improbable that he identified the assailants especially when this incident took only 1-2 minutes. His failure to mention that two unknown persons were also having Lathis makes his presence at the spot highly doubtful. He was not having any source of light with him admittedly. Witnesses came little afterwards. Therefore, we find it highly improbable that he identified the assailants especially when this incident took only 1-2 minutes. If two unknown persons were employed it is unbelievable that the appellant and his father would have participated in the offence. This witness was Pradhan of the village in the past and had good relations with the police as admitted by PW 2 Ram Vishal. Thus, we are not prepared to accept the evidence of this witness. We find his presence wholly doubtful. He remained at his Khalihan till mid night, as per FIR. During trial he had propound his return to his house by 4 to 5 hours to see the occurrence. Night was dark. He did not possess any source of light. He disclaimed to have come close to the deceased during assault, country to the averment made in his FIR. 8. Coming to testimony of Ram Vishal, PW 2, we have reasons to disbelieve him. From the testimony of PW 1 his Khalihan is about 100-150 yards from the village Abadi. The village Abadi was about 200-250 yards from the house of the deceased. Thus, in all likelihood if this witness was present in his Khalihan at a distance of about 300-400 yards at the time when the occurrence took place he will take sufficient time in covering this distance to be able to see the assault on Ram Nihore alias Sadhoo. The assault by two accused would not take so long as to allow this witness to be present at the spot on hearing alarm of the witness PW 1. PW 1 stated that the assault took only 1-2 minute. He has tried to shorten his roat to reach the spot. He had also changed the place of his seeing after his arrival to the spot from the house of Chhedi Lal to the lane of Jagroop. He also a signatory of the Panchyatnama which was started at about 11. 00 a. m. Thereafter, his statement was recorded. Nothing was told to IO him at the time of inquest. He admitted that Chhedi Lal was present at the time of inquest. He also a signatory of the Panchyatnama which was started at about 11. 00 a. m. Thereafter, his statement was recorded. Nothing was told to IO him at the time of inquest. He admitted that Chhedi Lal was present at the time of inquest. He further admitted that neither he nor any other witness of the inquest told the investigating officer that Gandasas were used in the occurrence. He denied the knowledge of arrest of Chhedi Lal, Badloo and Ram Avtar by the IO. Apart from him Ganga, Sundar, Raj Bahadur and another witness named in the FIR were also witnesses of the inquest. Thus, so far as this witness is concerned, his presence is highly doubtful at the spot from the facts and circumstances. He had been nominated due to his close proximity with the informant, a former Pradhan of the village. We are not inclined to place any implicit reliance on his evidence. 9. So far as evidence of recovery of Gandasa at the instance of appellant Sulochan is concerned, we have on this point evidence of PW 3 Badlu and the IO PW 4 Hanuman Prasad Mishra. So far as PW 3 Badlu is concerned, he stated that he was waiting at Samada crossing for boarding a bus to go to Bharwari. Hari Lal was also with him at that point of time. They reached this crossing together. The appellant and his father also came there. They were waiting for a bus. In the meantime a police jeep came there. A Sub- Inspector and few constables alighted from their jeep. 10. Sulochan and Baijnath started running away from there. The policemen pursued them and arrested them. On being arrested Sulochan told suo motu the IO that Gandasa he used in the killing of Sadhoo was concealed by him in the cavity of the Bargad tree which is in the north of his house. He can give it to him. The police party, both the accused and the witnesses proceeded for the anointed place. Sulochan was leading the party. It was moving on foot leaving the jeep at Samada crossing. Sulochan took out the Gandasa from the cavity and gave it to the IO. He again told the SI that he had killed Sadhoo from this Gandasa. Gandasa was sealed and its recovery memo was prepared. It bears thumb mark of this witness. 11. Sulochan was leading the party. It was moving on foot leaving the jeep at Samada crossing. Sulochan took out the Gandasa from the cavity and gave it to the IO. He again told the SI that he had killed Sadhoo from this Gandasa. Gandasa was sealed and its recovery memo was prepared. It bears thumb mark of this witness. 11. This witness is a next door neighbour of Chhedi though he denied his affinity with Chhedi, the informant, yet we entertain serious doubt in our mind about its truthfulness. He learnt about the murder of Sadhu (Ram Nihore) on the next morning i. e. 18-4-1980. The occurrence was of the preceding night. On the night of incident he was in his Khalihan. It was at a distance of 5-6 Bigha from the house of informant Chedi. The IO reached the spot before 8. 00 a. m. He must have learnt the nomination of these accused persons in the murder of Sadhoo before this. The accused and the witnesses remained at one place for more than 10 minutes yet they had no dialogue between them is highly distracting our mind. No person other than these four persons came to this crossing. Why was he going to Bharwari was never disclosed by him to the IO or in his deposition in the trial Court. He admitted that he has a cycle and there is another route for Bharwari which is short distancewise. Yet he chose to take the longer route to wait for the bus. He left admittedly his house before eclipse of the sun of the sky. It was middle of April. Sun rises by 5. 15 a. m. normally. He remained at Samada crossing only for ten minutes. He took nearly over 1-1/2 hour in covering about 2 miles (10-12 Bigha ). He is inimical to Baijnath, father of this appellant. His brother Jagroop was prosecuting a suit against Baijnath in the Court of Consolidation Officer. It was still going on. Although he denied altogether any interest of his in this case and claimed that he did not know who instituted that suit. Yet we have reason to believe that he deliberately stood as a witness of recovery. He seems to have affinity with PW 1 Chedi Lal. We are not prepared to accept his testimony. Hira Lal was must independent. He was withheld. 12. Yet we have reason to believe that he deliberately stood as a witness of recovery. He seems to have affinity with PW 1 Chedi Lal. We are not prepared to accept his testimony. Hira Lal was must independent. He was withheld. 12. So far as the IO is concerned, he had claimed that since his arrival to the spot on 18-4-1980 he remained firmly stationed in the village. He did not even sent the recovered case property on 18-4-1980 to the police station for its deposit. It was sent by him on the evening of 19-4-1980 through constable Lakshami Kant Shukla. He continued the search of accused since his arrival. No details of this search were provided by him. He received information about the presence of these two accused at Samada crossing on the morning of 20-4-1980. They were waiting for a bus to come to Allahabad. He immediately rushed for Samada crossing on a jeep. Arrest of the accused persons including the appellant was made. On interrogation Sulochan disclosed that after committing the murder of Sadhu Gandasa was concealed by him in the cavity of the Bargad tree. He can give it. The statement made by this witness materially differs from what was noted by him in the memo of recovery. It is written as follows: "katal Karne Ke Bad Gandasa Gisase Sadhoo @ Ram Nihore Ka Apne Pita Wa Anya Do Vyaktiyon Ke Sath Katal Kiya Tha Us Gandase Ko Apane Ghar Ke Pichawade Talab Ke Kinare Bargad Ke Ped Ke Khodhe Main Chipa Diya Hai Chalkar De Sakta Hoon. " 13. There is no mention of the fact in the statement of these witnesses that formality of mutual search was completed before though it was so said in the recovery memo. From the report of the chemical examiner it was not proved that it was human blood. Moreover, this tree was at the pond. He could have easily washed out blood from the weapon before hiding it. Serologist found the blood disintegrated. He even did not say that it was human blood. 14. Before discarding this above evidence we would like to evaluate the quality of the investigation. The I. O. did not exhibit in the spot map that place from where informant had witnessed the incident of murder. He did not receive the FIR of the case as admitted by him. He even did not say that it was human blood. 14. Before discarding this above evidence we would like to evaluate the quality of the investigation. The I. O. did not exhibit in the spot map that place from where informant had witnessed the incident of murder. He did not receive the FIR of the case as admitted by him. This sounds very unnatural and highly strange in the face of the following facts: (a) He was present at the police station when the FIR was registered. (b) He was entrusted with this investigation. He claimed to have recorded the statement of the informant Chedi Lal and thereafter, he came to spot and prepared the inquest and other related papers besides undertaking many other activities. Thus, it did not stand scrutiny that he proceeded for the spot without a copy of the FIR and its chik. It clearly points towards the fact that Chedi Lal or some other person brought information of lying of the dead body of Ram Nihore @ Sadhoo in front of his house in the early hour of the morning. He rushed to the spot immediately on receiving the information. No FIR actually came into being till the completion of inquest. We are fully supported in our conclusion from his admission as per his own words: "mujhe Laash Dekhkar Yeh Nischaya Nahi Ho Saka Ki Hatya (murder) Gandasa Se Hai Isliya Panchayat Nama Mein Maine Hathiyar (weapon) Ka Naam Nahi Likha". He tried to get over the omission by saying that informant and other witnesses did disclose to him that murder was caused by Gandasa but he was not convinced. Therefore, no FIR was there till inquest was prepared. He further claimed that he did not know that if he learns about the weapon used in the offence during inquest he has to write it in the memo under Section 174 and Regulations 25 and 32 of the U. P. Police Regulations. He also claimed that he has no obligation to contact the Magistrate under whom his police station is on registration of any FIR or at the time of going for the inquest. This is so required according to Section 174 Cr. P. C. and Regulations 25 and 32 of Police Regulations. Crime number was not mentioned on any paper prepared in connection with inquest and post-mortem. This is so required according to Section 174 Cr. P. C. and Regulations 25 and 32 of Police Regulations. Crime number was not mentioned on any paper prepared in connection with inquest and post-mortem. This is of significant value so far as existence of the FIR is concerned. In memo of recovery of Gandasa contents were written from black dot pen but the thumb of Badlu was taken in the blue pen ink. Badlu stated that his thumb imprint was obtained on the recovery memo from the same pen which was used by the IO in preparing the memo. This assumes significance. The Gandasa was planted on this appellant and the memo was not prepared at the alleged spot of recovery. On receiving information about the appellant and his father he and the SO proceeded for the Samada crossing. They took two constables from the way. The hands of the two accused were tied by an Angocha. It is not corroborated by PW 3. He did not ascertain the distance of Chedis Khalihan from the place of occurrence. According to him Ram Vishal came first. No person other than witnesses named in the FIR came to the spot during his presence. Every one absconded. He did not find any evidence of mortgage of his land by Sadhoo to Hari Lal. 15. He proved that PW 1 Chedi Lal did not tell him that when assailants were killing Ram Nihore he was lying in front of his house. He also did not disclose to him that he dictated the report an hour after this incident. He proved that this witness had told him that it was midnight when just lay at the door after coming back from Khalihan. He also proved that PW 1 Chhedi Lal had not told him that Sulochan and Baijnath were holding Gandasa. He told him about Sulochan alone. 16. Thus, the quality of investigation reveals that the investigation collusive and most unfair. Probably, as alleged by the appellant in his Section 313 Cr. P. C. statement he took into custody Chedi Lal, Badlu, Jagroop, Ram Vishal and Raj Bahadur etc. and these appellants also on 18-4-1980 itself. This is why other villagers abandoned the village. After settling with Chedi Lal and others they were allowed to go and these appellants were nabbed in the offence. P. C. statement he took into custody Chedi Lal, Badlu, Jagroop, Ram Vishal and Raj Bahadur etc. and these appellants also on 18-4-1980 itself. This is why other villagers abandoned the village. After settling with Chedi Lal and others they were allowed to go and these appellants were nabbed in the offence. Non-sending of all the recovered articles to police station till the evening of 19-4-1980 lends full assurance to the assertion of the appellant. 17. The FIR was prepared after the receipt of the post-mortem report and the alleged settlement with the informant and other witnesses. His giving possession of the house to Chedi Lal further proves it beyond all doubt. 18. In view of the entire discussions, we are not inclined to place any implicit reliance upon the evidence of PW 3 Badlu and this witness PW 4 on the recovery of the Gandasa. 19. From the evidence of constable-clerk PW 10 Faujdar Singh it is clear that no report was sent to Judicial Magistrate concerned from police station on 18-4-1980. It was sent on 19-4-1980 but it was not even noted in the G. D. of the police station. No other cognizable offence was registered on 18-4-1980. No case was registered even on 19-4-1980. He admitted some cuttings in light ink in the date of the FIR in the written report. He could offer no explanation. In report, Ext. Ka-20, 23-4-1980 was mentioned under the signature of the Circle Officer. 20. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that FIR was ante- timed and anti-dated. Circumstances discussed above provide clinching evidence in its support. 21. This murder apparently was a blind murder. No one has witnessed it. It was in every likelihood noticed in early hours of the morning. The police seems to have detained most of the neighbours of the deceased including the informant and these accused. Strongest suspicion was likely to fall upon Chedi Lal, the informant, and his associates, the witnesses allegedly arrived at the spot were withhold for no ostensible reasons. 22. In view of the above discussions, we allow this appeal. Conviction and sentence awarded to this appellant is hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the charge of murder. He is on bail. His need not surrender. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are hereby discharged. Appeal allowed. .