K. K. MISRA, J. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 25-6-1981 passed by Sri K. S. Dubey, the then VI Additional Sessions Judge Metropolitan Area), Kanpur, convicting the appellant Satori alias Dilip Kumar under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment. 2. The facts of the case as stated in the FIR are that the first informant Chhedi Lals sister Raj Kumari alias Nanki was married with Master Banshi. After some time, she left Master Banshi and went with Bharat Kumar. She had also developed illicit relations with Chandshekhar Vajpayee alias Nanhey Jalim. Chandrashekhar Vajpayees sons objected to their relations but to no effect. Few days before the incident Vajpayees son Satori, the present appellant, threatened Nanki to kill her if she failed to change her ways. 3. On 4-9-1980 at about 8. 30 p. m. Nanki was conversing with the Chandrashekhar Vajpayee near his house and as soon as she reached near the house of Jugal Kishore Gupta, Chandrashekhar Vajpayees son Kamlesh Kumar alias Sattoo and his brother Satori, the present appellant and their friends Ravindra and Ashok who were already waiting for her, started hurling abuses on her. Hearing their altercation, Virendra Kumar alias Kaptan, the first informant Chhedi Lal, his son Santosh Kumar and other persons of the Mohalla assembled there and tried to pacify them. As soon as Nanki started for her house, Ravindra, Ashok and Kamlesh Kumar alias Sattoo exhorted to kill her as she had not mended her ways. On their exhortation, Satori took out a country made pistol and fired a shot which hit her. She ran towards her house but could not do so and fell on the ground at the corner of the shop of Sri Ram. The shot had hit her in her back. All the four accused fled to northern side. The first informant took Nanki in a Rickshaw to the Parade Hospital where she was admitted. He then went to the police station and lodged the FIR at 10. 30 p. m. Originally, the case was registered under Section 307 IPC. Injured Nanki succumbed to her injuries at 1. 05 a. m. The informant informed the Police Station about the death of Nanki and the case was converted into Section 302 IPC. 4. He then went to the police station and lodged the FIR at 10. 30 p. m. Originally, the case was registered under Section 307 IPC. Injured Nanki succumbed to her injuries at 1. 05 a. m. The informant informed the Police Station about the death of Nanki and the case was converted into Section 302 IPC. 4. The investigation of the case was conducted by PW 7 Ram Lal Verma S. I. He recorded the statement of informant Chhedi PW 3 at the Police Station and then proceeded to the Hospital. He recorded the statement Nanki in the Hospital. He visited the place of the occurrence the same night, prepared the site plan, collected blood stained and simple earth from the spot. A tube light was found glowing at the place of occurrence. He recorded the statement of Virendra Kumar alias Kaptan the same night. Next morning at about 8. 30 a. m. he prepared inquest report of the dead body of the deceased in Hospital and prepared other necessary documents. The dead body was sent for post-mortem. After completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet on 10-9-1980 against Kamlesh Kumar alias Sattoo Ravindra Singh, Ashok Kumar and Satori. 5. Dr. J. N. Mehrotra, PW 1 treated Nanki deceased when she was first admitted in the Hospital. On her medical examination, he found the following injuries on her person on 4-9-1980 at 9. 20 p. m. : (1) One gun-shot wound of 1/3" diameter. Margins inverted. Tattooing present but no charging. Fresh blood present. The injury was on the back of the lower third part of left side chest 1-1/2" left to the spine. (2) A gun-shot wound 1/3" in diameter, everted margins, without charring and tattooing, fresh bleeding present on 2" left to the epigastrium in the abdominal part. 6. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by the Dr. M. K. Awasthi, PW 2 on 9-5-1980 at 12. 45 p. m. She was aged about 33 years. He found the following ante- mortem injuries on her body: (1) Fire-arm wound of entry 1 cm x. 5 cm, 4 cm below lower margin of left scapula 4-1/2 cm away from vertebral column. Margins were contused and inverted and surrounding area of 6 to 7 cm. was partially blackended due to gunpowder. (2) Fire-arm wound of exit 1. He found the following ante- mortem injuries on her body: (1) Fire-arm wound of entry 1 cm x. 5 cm, 4 cm below lower margin of left scapula 4-1/2 cm away from vertebral column. Margins were contused and inverted and surrounding area of 6 to 7 cm. was partially blackended due to gunpowder. (2) Fire-arm wound of exit 1. 5 cm x 1 cm on the left costal margin 18 cm below mid clavicular point with nipple line. 7. The doctor opined that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from injury No. 1 and that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 8. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the four accused persons examined seven witnesses in all. PW 1 Dr. J. N. Mehrotra was the Medical Officer who examined the injuries of Nanki deceased when she was admitted in the Hospital. PW 2 Dr. M. K. Awasthi conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. PW 3 Chhedi, first informant and his son. PW 4 Santosh are eye- witnesses. PW 5 Sone Lal is also the brother of the deceased who had reached the spot on hearing the shrieks of Nanki. She allegedly made dying declaration to him that Satori had shot her on the exhortation of Kamlesh, Ravindra and Ashok. PW 6 Shiv Narain Singh, constable is a formal witness and PW 7 is the Investigating Officer of the case. 9. Besides the evidence of alleged two eye-witnesses, namely, PW 3 Chhedi Lal and his son PW 4 Santosh Kumar, the prosecution also relied upon two dying declarations of the deceased one made to Sri Sone Lal PW 5 as mentioned above and the other made to the investigating officer. 10. At the trial, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. they denied the case of the prosecution and stated that they had been implicated in the case fasley due to enmity. They also produced six witnesses in defence, namely, DW 1 Pardeep Kumar, DW 2 Suresh Chandra Misra, DW 3 Wazir Uddin, DW 4 Mikube, DW 5 Satya Pal Singh and DW 6 Chandrashekar Vajpayee. 11. P. C. they denied the case of the prosecution and stated that they had been implicated in the case fasley due to enmity. They also produced six witnesses in defence, namely, DW 1 Pardeep Kumar, DW 2 Suresh Chandra Misra, DW 3 Wazir Uddin, DW 4 Mikube, DW 5 Satya Pal Singh and DW 6 Chandrashekar Vajpayee. 11. The trial Court found that the case set up by the prosecution against Satori alias Dilip Kumar was proved whereas that against Ravindra Singh, Kamlesh Kumar alias Sattoo and Ashok Kumar was not free from doubt. Hence, these three were acquitted while the present accused appellant Satori alias Dilip Kumar was convicted and sentenced as stated in the earlier part of the judgment. 12. We have heard Sri S. S. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Sudhir Agarwal learned AGA. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that all the three witnesses of the fact examined by the prosecution at the trial are highly interested witnesses. PW 3 Chhedi Lal and PW 5 Sone Lal are the real brothers of the deceased Nanki. PW 4 Santosh Kumar is the son of PW 3 Chhedi Lal. All the three witnesses were inter related and the prosecution has not cared to examine any independent witness. It is argued that a close scrutiny of the statements of witnesses indicates that they did not witness the incident. Another argument is that the so-called dying declaration of the deceased could also not be believed. The submission is also to this effect that the accused were nominated in the FIR on suspicion and the FIR was lodged the next day. 14. Let us examine all these arguments, scrutinizing the evidence on record. PW 3 Chhedi Lal real brother of the deceased stated that she was married with Banshi Master. She left him after some time and started living with one Bharat Kumar Balia. She also developed illicit relations with Chandrashekhar Bajpayee, neighbours of this witness. Sons of Chandrashekhar Bajpayee used to object their relationship, but no heed was paid to such objections. Earlier to this incident, the present appellant (son of Chandrashekhar Bajpayee) had commanded the deceased to mend her ways. As regards the actual incident, the gist of his testimony is that at about 8. 30 p. m. she was talking with Chandrashekhar Bajpayee in front of his house. Earlier to this incident, the present appellant (son of Chandrashekhar Bajpayee) had commanded the deceased to mend her ways. As regards the actual incident, the gist of his testimony is that at about 8. 30 p. m. she was talking with Chandrashekhar Bajpayee in front of his house. One house intervened between the house of this witness and the place where they were talking. After conversing with Chandrashekhar Bajpayee, she left for her house and when she reached near the house of Rama Shanker Sahu, all the four accused were standing there. They hurled abuses on her. She told them to stop their father. This witness, his son Santosh one Virendra Kumar and others went to the place of such altercation and tried to pacify them. The witnesses asked Nanhaki to proceed to her house. As soon as she turned towards her house, Kamlesh alias Sattu, Ravindra and Ashok exhorted the present accused-appellant Satori to kill her as she would not mend her ways. On their exhortation, Satori took out country- made pistol and fired a shot on her from a distance of 1-1/2 paces which hit in her back. She fled raising shrieks, but fell down near the provision store of Sri Ram. All the four accused took to their heels towards northern side. There was tube-light illuminating the place where she had fallen down. His brother Sone Lal PW 5 and others also reached at that place where she had fallen. He then arranged for rickshaw and took her to the hospital. She was examined there. In the hospital, he got the report scribed from one Pradeep Kumar and lodged the same at the Police Station at 10. 30 p. m. The Investigating Officer also recorded his statement and accompanied him to the hospital where he (Investigating Officer) recorded the statement of Nanhaki victim also. She then succumbed to her injuries. 15. PW 4 Santosh is the son of PW 3 Chhedi Lal and he also spoke in the tenor of his father. It also comes out from his testimony that after hearing the altercation of her Bua with the accused persons, he came out of the house. He then witnessed the entire incident which he related on the line of his father. We find that PW 3 Chhedi Lal admitted that from the lane the place of occurrence was not visible. It also comes out from his testimony that after hearing the altercation of her Bua with the accused persons, he came out of the house. He then witnessed the entire incident which he related on the line of his father. We find that PW 3 Chhedi Lal admitted that from the lane the place of occurrence was not visible. He further stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, his mother was already there and she had not seen the incident. According to him, there was a gathering of 10, 20 or 30 persons and it was not understandable as to who was saying what. PW 4 Santosh also admitted that he had told to the Daroga that when he heard cries of his father and Bua, he was in his house. It is also found that PW 5 Soney Lal, another brother of the deceased, admitted in his statement that when he heard the sound of firing and cries of Nanki, he was inside his house and then ran towards the place of occurrence. It is also there in his testimony that his brother PW 3 Chhedi Lal and PW 4 Santosh nephew reached the spot immediately after him. 16. It would be recalled that as per the prosecution case, Nanki made a dying declaration to this witness (PW 5 Soney Lal) that present accused appellant had shot her at the exhortation of the other three accused. He did not witness the shooting himself. It is not acceptable that PW 3 Chhedi Lal and PW 4 Santosh could have witnessed the incident of shooting who had even arrived at the spot after this witness had reached there. The logical conclusion is that all these witnesses reached the place of occurrence after they heard the sound of firing and the cries of the deceased Nanki. It was case of single shot. It is doubtful that on receiving the fatal shot which resulted in the death of the deceased the same night, she was in a position to make any dying declaration as the cause of her death. In her medical examination report prepared in the hospital the same night at 9. 20 p. m. it was recorded that she was in a very serious condition, gasping, pulseless and BP was not recordable. In her medical examination report prepared in the hospital the same night at 9. 20 p. m. it was recorded that she was in a very serious condition, gasping, pulseless and BP was not recordable. Under such circumstances, making of any dying declaration by her to PW 5 Soney Lal is not digestible. It may also be observed that PW 3 Chhedi Lal and PW 4 Santosh did not say that she spoke anything after receiving the shot. It is also not in their statements that persons around were heard saying something. The result is that the scope of there being any res gestae evidence against the accused appellant is absolutely overruled. 17. The scribe of the FIR namely, Pradeep Kumar was examined as DW 1 and he disturbed the prosecution case in great deal that the report was scribed by him the next day. 18. In addition to being interested witnesses, PW 3 Chhedi Lal, PW 4 Santosh and PW 5 Soney Lal do not appear to have respectable antecedents also. As a matter of fact, the deceased herself was a lady of shady character and unsavoury antecedents. It came down from PW 3 Chhedi Lal that she was involved in a case of illegal possession of a house and theft. She was also involved in another case under Gambling Act and was fined in that case. She was doing business of sale of illicit liquor and once she was arrested alongwith one Tiwari who was earlier involved in many cases of sale of illicit liquor. She was arrested several times due to her business of sale of illicit liquor. He himself was arrested 2-3 times for the sale of illicit liquor and was fined in a gambling case also. His son PW 4 Santosh was also apprehended while sitting at the shop of deceased Nanki. In her absence, his son Santosh used to sit at her liquor shop. PW 5 Soney Lal was also fined in a gambling case. PW 5 Soney Lal was also involved in a case under Section 25 of Indian Arms Act and 60 of Indian Excise Act. PW 3 Chhedi Lal also admitted that 10-12 years before the incident, a servant of Chandrashekhar Vajpayee had lodged report against him under Section 324 IPC. 19. PW 5 Soney Lal was also involved in a case under Section 25 of Indian Arms Act and 60 of Indian Excise Act. PW 3 Chhedi Lal also admitted that 10-12 years before the incident, a servant of Chandrashekhar Vajpayee had lodged report against him under Section 324 IPC. 19. Reliance could also not be placed on the so-called dying declaration of the deceased in the form of statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. allegedly made to the Investigating Officer. Her condition was quite precarious even when she was admitted in the hospital and it rapidly deteriorated resulting in her death at 1. 05 a. m. on 5-9-1980. It is obvious that she was not at all in a position to make any statement to the Investigating Officer which he professed to record under Section 161 Cr. P. C. 20. No doubt, conviction can be based on the testimony of interested and related witnesses, but their evidence has to pass the test of close and severe scrutiny before being safely acted upon. In the present case, the statements of the witnesses are not capable of being believed for the cumulative reasons stated above. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution case. As we pointed out, the so-called dying declaration is also not worthy of belief. It was a hit and run night incident and the possibility of false implication of the accused appellant owing to the earlier background of the deceased carrying an illicit affair with his father could not be ruled out. The possibility was very much there that she paid the price of her misdeeds by losing her life at the hands of someone else because of her illicit liquor sale business. 21. The point of the matter is that the conviction of the accused-appellant on the unsatisfactory evidence adduced at the trial is not sustainable. We allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused appellant Satori alias Dilip Kumar. He is already on bail. 22. Judgment be certified to the lower Court immediately for necessary entries in the relevant register and reporting compliance to this Court within two months from the date of receipt. .