M. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE State has lodged this appeal against the aqquittal of accused-respondents-Dalel Singh, ravendra Singh and Moti Singh recorded on 30. 7. 1981 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, shahjahanpur in S. T. No. 128 of 1981 in connection with murder of one Sonpal Singh on 13. 1. 1981 at about 10. 00 A. M. in village Gargaiya, Police Station Sindhauli, District shahjahanpur, situate at a distance of six miles from the concern police station. The F. I. R. was lodged the same day at 12. 20 P. M. by Chhatar Singh PW 1 (eyewitness ). ( 2 ) WE begin with the broad features of the case as per the F. I. R. and evidence. The background was that Indar Singh had lodged a report with police of Police Station Sindhauli against Sonpal deceased ( younger brother of Chhatar Singh complainant) and his brother Chhotey Singh of offences under Sections 363 and 366 I. P. C. for abducting his daughter Batasho. Dalel Singh accused-respondent is the nephew of Indar Singh. He lived in village Bilandpur Gaddipur where the complainant and the deceased Sonpal resided. Ravendra Singh accused-respondent is the brother of the wife of Indar Singh and he used to live in village Gahlatpur. Moti Singh accused-respondent is the Pityota Sarhu of Indar Singh and he lived in village Naugawan. Due to the abduction of daughter of Indar Singh, the accused-persons were annoyed with Sonpal Singh, deceased. ( 3 ) ON the fateful day, the deceased, Sakte and the complainant Chhatar Singh PW 1 were going from their village to Shahjahanpur for purchasing an oil engine. At about 9-10 A. M. , they reached near the field of Sadulla on the Kutcha road running north-south; Sonpal and Sakte were a little ahead of the complainant. The three accused emerged from the eastern Arhar field with knives and attacked Sonpal therewith. The complainant and others raised alarm attracting Roop singh, Khan Singh and Subedar Singh. As a result of knife injuries, the deceased fell down in the field of Sadulla and died. The accused persons fled towards west but were chased by the complainant and witnesses and arrested in a sugarcane field and brought back to the spot where two bloodstained knives were also found lying. As a result of knife injuries, the deceased fell down in the field of Sadulla and died. The accused persons fled towards west but were chased by the complainant and witnesses and arrested in a sugarcane field and brought back to the spot where two bloodstained knives were also found lying. The complainant and others handed over the custody of all the three accused to the village Chaukidar at spot and then the complainant himself went to police station Sindhauli where he lodged the F. I. R. by oral narration. Chik F. I. R. was prepared and registered. The investigation was taken up by Murari Lal Sharmaj S. O. He reached the spot along with other police personnel and prepared the if inquest report of the deceased as also other necessary papers. He busied himself with other activities related to the investigation. The dead body was sent for post mortem after being sealed. ( 4 ) THE autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. S. C. Gupta PW 2 on 14. 1. 1981 at 3. 00 P. M. The deceased was aged about 28 years and about 11/2 day had passed since he died. Eight incised wounds were found on his body including on neck, skull and right side of face. The trachea, oesophagus, big vessels and nerves of left side were divided. There were other four abrasions sustained by him. Death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to vital parts. ( 5 ) AT the trial, the prosecution in all examined six witnesses. Out of them, Chhatar Singh PW 1, sakte PW 3 and Roop Singh PW 5 were eyewitnesses. Dr. A. B. Misra Assistant Medical Officer ( Jail) and Anant Ram Judicial Assistant of Collectorate Shahjahanpur were summoned and examined as court witnesses at the request of defence. Dr. Misra examined aforesaid three accused in jail after their admission there. He examined Moti accused on 15. 1. 1981 at 8. 45 A. M. Certain contusions were found on his person. Dalel Singh was examined on 15. 1. 1981 at 9. 00 a. M. and two contusions were found on his person. Ravendra Singh was examined the same day at 9. 15 A. M. Two incised wounds, were found on his person. 1. 1981 at 8. 45 A. M. Certain contusions were found on his person. Dalel Singh was examined on 15. 1. 1981 at 9. 00 a. M. and two contusions were found on his person. Ravendra Singh was examined the same day at 9. 15 A. M. Two incised wounds, were found on his person. The evidence of Anant Ram was to the effect that endorsement of District Magistrate on the special report relating to this case was dated 14. 1. 1981. ( 6 ) THE defence was of denial and false implication. According to the accused, they had not been apprehended at the spot as alleged by the prosecution. Instead, they were picked up, thrashed by the police and implicated in this case falsely. ( 7 ) THE evidence adduced by the prosecution did not find favour with the judge and he recorded acquittal mainly on these grounds: There was no sufficient motive on the part of the accused to commit this crime; so-called eyewitnesses were unreliable and theory of the alleged spot arrest of the accused respondents was pure concoction. ( 8 ) WE have heard Sri Amar Jeet Singh, learned A. G. A. from the side of the State and Sri P. N. Misra, learned senior Advocate for the accused-respondents. It has been urged for the State that it was a case of spot arrest of the accused-respondents and the evidence against them was clinching which has unjustifiably been rejected by the trial judge. The judgement impugned, according to A. G. A. , is perverse and illegal. On the other hand, the counsel for the accused-respondents has supported the reasoning adopted by the trial judge to back the acquittal recorded by him. We have pondered over the matter carefully and find ourselves to be in agreement with the trial judge for 5, reasons set forth in the discussion that follows. ( 9 ) SINCE the prosecution came with a motive, we have examined it on the anvil of probability. It does not impress us, as it did not evoke the approval of the trial judge. As per the prosecution, batasho-daughter of Indar Singh was abducted about two months before the present incident and its F. I. R. was lodged against Sonpal ( present deceased) and his elder brother Chhotey singh. It does not impress us, as it did not evoke the approval of the trial judge. As per the prosecution, batasho-daughter of Indar Singh was abducted about two months before the present incident and its F. I. R. was lodged against Sonpal ( present deceased) and his elder brother Chhotey singh. It came down from the testimony of the complainant-Chhatar Singh PW 1 that out of his brothers chhotey Singh and Sonpal deceased, Chhotey Singh did not live in the village but ran away with the said girl while Sonpal was living in the village itself. He also stated that in the days of this murder it was not known as to where Chhotey Singh was living but later on the girl was arrested with Chhotey Singh at Tilhar. Obviously, Chhotey Singh was the person with whom Indar Singh would have primary enmity and not Sonpal to be targeted on the score of the abduction of batasho. Further, Sonpal continued to live in the village and no incident took place with him before the present occurrence. Chhatar Singh admitted in para 8 of his evidence that neither he nor his brother Sonpal deceased was touched or said anything by any of the accused in the period intervening between the abduction of Batasho and this murder. Thus, there was no immediate cause which could have actuated the accused to murder Sonpal in the alleged manner. ( 10 ) SECONDLY, the prosecution story on the date of the incident started with the departure of the deceased with his brother Chhatar Singh and mechanic Sakte PW 3 for purchasing an oil engine. Sakte PW 3 stated in para 3 of his evidence that the trip was decided the previous evening at the house of the deceased and no outsider was present there at that time. On the date of the incident, the complainant Chhatar Singh called him and they proceeded for the purpose. Since the trip was not a publicised affair, it was difficult for any assailant to make arrangement in time to waylay the deceased at or about the place where the alleged murder took place. On the date of the incident, the complainant Chhatar Singh called him and they proceeded for the purpose. Since the trip was not a publicised affair, it was difficult for any assailant to make arrangement in time to waylay the deceased at or about the place where the alleged murder took place. ( 11 ) THIRDLY, the scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the prosecution indicated that the story of going for the purpose of purchase of oil engine was a crude concoction to show the presence of the complainant Chhatar Singh PW 1 and Sakte PW 3 with the deceased at the time of his alleged murder. The complainant Chhatar Singh PW 1 stated in para 9 of his evidence that 18-20 days before the murder of Sonpal, he ( Sonpal) had given Rs. 1,000/- as advance to the dealer. He could not give the name of the dealer. He also admitted in para 10 of his evidence that he did not see any receipt. It was also there in his evidence that the dealer had said that on the availability of the oil Engine, he would be given intimation. He further stated that he did not receive any information about the arrival of oil engine and he could not say whether his brother sonpal had received any such information. He also stated that the price of oil engine was Rs. 4200/ -. However, Sakte PW 3 deposed that he had gone with the deceased on the earlier occasion and at that time the oil engine was available at the shop of the dealer who was some sardar. He could not give the name or address of the dealer. In support of his claim that he had seen the oil engine at the shop, he insisted that it was of the model named Gangadhar and it was of 10 horse power. He also stated that this trip was made by him with the deceased 5 or 6 days before the murder and at that time the bargain was struck at Rs. 42,00/ -. He contradicted the complainant even on the question of advance by saying that on the date of this agreement, the complainant had not carried with him more than Rs. 100/- or Rs. 50/- and the shopkeeper had said that he could come with money whenever he liked to take delivery of the engine after making payment. 42,00/ -. He contradicted the complainant even on the question of advance by saying that on the date of this agreement, the complainant had not carried with him more than Rs. 100/- or Rs. 50/- and the shopkeeper had said that he could come with money whenever he liked to take delivery of the engine after making payment. The witnesses also differed about the money that the deceased was allegedly carrying for payment to the dealer. As per the complainant Chhatar Singh PW 1, the deceased was carrying with him Rs. 5500/- but according to Sakte PW 3, he had counted Rs. 5000/- in his very presence and he had taken this amount kept in his pocket. The complainant Chhatar Singh pw 1 further stated that he took but the money from the side pocket of the deceased immediately after the murder in the presence of Sakte PW 3, Roop Singh PW 5 and other witnesses. His evidence on this aspect of the matter was not corroborated by the statement of the other witnesses. These contradictions clearly gave a scent that the theory of the deceased going in the company of the complainant Chhatar Singh PW 1 and Sakte PW 3 for the purchase of the oil engine was cooked up so as to make a show of these witnesses being present at the time of the alleged murder. ( 12 ) THE story of going to purchase oil engine having fallen to the ground, the claim of Chhatar singh and Sakte going with deceased also failed. Roop Singh PW 5 claimed to have reached the spot on hearing the alarm of Chhatar Singh and Sakte. Roop Singh PW 5 did not have his field in the immediate vicinity of the spot. Material on record indicated that if the alarm was to be made by anybody near the seen of the occurrence, it could hardly be heard by Roop Singh in his field and it was practically impossible for him to reach the scene of occurrence to see the murder taking place or even to participate in the chase and arrest of the assailants. The complainant chhatar Singh PW 1 stated that Roop Singh PW 5 and Khan Singh witnesses had come from north and that Roop Singhs field was 100-125 paces therefrom. The complainant chhatar Singh PW 1 stated that Roop Singh PW 5 and Khan Singh witnesses had come from north and that Roop Singhs field was 100-125 paces therefrom. He also stated that it was on the west to the road and that only Banjar land intervened between the field of Roop Singh and that of Sadulla where the dead body of the deceased Sonpal lay. His further cross-examination revealed that there was wheat field to the north of the field of Sadulla. The complainant could not say that there was any other field or Banjar to the north of the said wheat field. He testified that the field of Roop Singh was at 100 paces from, the said field. It also came down from his testimony that to the north of the Banjar was a Nala and from that Nala the field of Roop Singh was 100 or 125 paces towards north. Roop Singh was also questioned about the distance and location of his field in relation to the field of Sadulla. He started with the claim that to the north of Sadullas filed, there was wheat field of Bhagwannu with an area of 3 bighas land therefrom his field was 200 paces towards west. It, however, came down from his testimony that in the west there was a grove of Jwala Prasad and the said grove was one furlong from the field of bhagwannu. The trial judge, in our opinion, rightly concluded that he could not be believed to have heard the alarm, reaching the spot, witnessing the incident and taking part in the chase and arrest of the accused-respondents. ( 13 ) FOURTHLY, the alleged arrest of the accused-respondents at the spot could not be believed as rightly found by the trial judge. In the F. I. R. , there was no mention as to where the three accused were arrested. There was also no mention of its distance and direction from the spot. Even in the statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. of the witnesses, there was no mention of the place of their alleged arrest. In the F. I. R. it was stated that the arrested accused were left with Chaukidar and other persons were left with the dead body. Even in the statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. of the witnesses, there was no mention of the place of their alleged arrest. In the F. I. R. it was stated that the arrested accused were left with Chaukidar and other persons were left with the dead body. In his evidence before the court, the complainant chhatar Singh PW 1 stated that the spot arrest was made inside the sugarcane field of Ram bharosey and that the place of arrest was 1 or 1/2 khooti towards west from the spot. During investigation, the Investigating Officer did not prepare any memo about the arrest by him of the three accused near the dead body from the custody of the chaukidar. He also did not prepare any site plan of the place of the arrest. To say shortly, the place of the alleged arrest of the accused by the witnesses was not at all fixed during investigation. ( 14 ) FIFTHLY, two knives were said to have been found near the dead body. According to the prosecution, they were left by the assailants on the spot. It is beyond comprehension that the assailants, on being challenged by the witnesses accompanying the deceased and running from here and there, would have thrown the knives near the dead body instead of carrying them for threatening the witnesses or injuring them to make their escape good. Indeed, it was matter of arrest or escape for them and they would not have left anything in their power to get away from the clutches of the witnesses. Chhatar Singh PW 1 stated in para 16 of his evidence that when the three accused were arrested, they did not find any knife with any of them. There was no explanation about third knife It could be recalled that |as per the prosecution case, all the three accused had knifed the deceased. No witness stated that the third knife was dropped on the ground by any of the assailants while fleeing. ( 15 ) SIXTHLY, the three accused sustained injuries on their persons! as pointed out earlier. Most of them were blunt weapon injuries, but ore of them Ravendra Singh sustained two incised wounds. Such injuries could be caused to them if the persons arresting them were armed with blunt weapons like lathis and with some. sharp edged weapon. ( 15 ) SIXTHLY, the three accused sustained injuries on their persons! as pointed out earlier. Most of them were blunt weapon injuries, but ore of them Ravendra Singh sustained two incised wounds. Such injuries could be caused to them if the persons arresting them were armed with blunt weapons like lathis and with some. sharp edged weapon. But the evidence of the complainant chhatar Singh in para 12 was that he and Sakte were empty handed. Roop Singh PW 5 claimed that he was carrying a small danda and Khan Singh ( not examined) was carrying a lathi. It was difficult to believe that with such small danda/ lathi, the witnesses would manage to arrest three assailants armed with knives who had even committed the murder of a person within their sight. Chhatar Singh PW 1 did not say in his examination-in-chief that he or any other person inflicted injuries on the person of three accused. In his cross-examination, he stated that the accused persons were: beaten by fists and kicks while they were arrested. He also did not state that any lathi or danda blow was given to the accused-respondents by any of the witnesses, lathi and danda were seemingly introduced in the prosecution story by Roop Singh PW 5 as an afterthought. There was no explanation whatsoever, even belatedly at the evidence stage, as to the incised wounds found on the person of Ravendra Singh accused. In fact, there was no explanation even for the blunt weapon injuries. Ropp Singh PW 5 did not say anywhere that he or any other person gave any blows to the accused by danda or lathi. ( 16 ) SEVENTHLY, it was unbelievable that three accused could be arrested at the spot in the manner alleged by the prosecution and that they would have meekly surrendered in a docile way. It was highly suspicious that witnesses could apprehend the accused in the manner alleged by them. The assailants, who did not hesitate to give fatal blows to the deceased with knives, would have made every effort to frustrate their arrest and would have used their weapons of offence ( knives)in causing injuries to the witnesses, instead of being fools of such high order as to leave them near the deceased or throw the same while fleeing on the challenge offered by the witnesses with a chase to apprehend them. ( 17 ) THE village Chaukidar allegedly kept the accused in custody near the dead body of the deceased before the arrival of the police. This Chaukidar was never interrogated by the investigating Officer. The complainant Chhatar Singh stated in para 14 that the accused were first tied by san lu rope and then brought near the deceased. In para 16, however, he stated that chaukidar came to the spot only after about half an hour of the assailants having been arrested and brought near the dead body. According to him, the Chaukidar, on being required, brought the rope. His two contradictory statements could not be reconciled. Sakte PW 2, on the other hand, stated in para 4 that all the accused were brought near the dead body in surrounded condition. It is difficult to believe that three accused who had allegedly murdered Sonpal in a ghastly manner with knives could have been so easily arrested and kept near the dead body till the arrival of the police. It is there in the testimony of Sakte PW 3 that Investigating Officer came to the spot at about 3 or 4 P. M. and the three accused were kept rounded up. ( 18 ) THE impression is generated on cumulative consideration of the entire evidence and attending circumstances that F. I. R. was not lodged at the purported time; that no spot arrest was made before the lodging of the F. I. R. ; that in all probability the police came to the spot and then started search for likely culprits whereafter the three accused were rounded up giving it a shape of spot arrest of the accused. ( 19 ) LASTLY, some of the ante mortem injuries found on the person of the deceased could not be caused by the knives (Exts. 1-2) allegedly recovered from the spot as per the testimony of the autopsy Doctor. According to him, they could be caused by long and heavy knife used with force, whereas knives Ext. 1 and 2 were light cutting weapons. According to Chhatar Singh PW 1, some knives were used in a stabbing way, but the Doctor did not find even a single stab wound on the dead body of the deceased. ( 20 ) IT appears that the murder of Sonpal took place when nobody was around. 1 and 2 were light cutting weapons. According to Chhatar Singh PW 1, some knives were used in a stabbing way, but the Doctor did not find even a single stab wound on the dead body of the deceased. ( 20 ) IT appears that the murder of Sonpal took place when nobody was around. The case was woven only on the premise of suspicion and given a shape of spot arrest of the accused. The trial judge, in our opinion, viewed the evidence in proper perspective and came to the right conclusion that the accused-respondents were not proved to be the assailants of the deceased. ( 21 ) IN the wake of above discussion, we see no ground to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the trial judge. The Government appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. ( 22 ) CERTIFY the judgement to the lower court immediately. . .