The incident is said to have taken place on 18- 1-2005 at 5. 00 p. m. at village Sahara, police out post Bidhakur at the door of the complainant Ranvir Singh P. W. 1. Its report was lodged on 18-1-2005 at Police Station Malpur, which is at a distance of 10 kms. away from the place of occurrence, after getting from Sri Yatendra Singh son of complainant Ranvir Singh. It was registered as Case Crime No. 18 of 2005 under Sections 302/34, I. P. C. 2. The motive behind the incident is said to be that Smt. Anita wife of Mukesh, who happens to be the Bhabi of accused-appellant Raj Pal Singh had developed illicit relation with Sri Kewal Singh, brother of the deceased Sri Pushpendra Singh. Sri Mukesh, because of such unbridled conduct of his wife, which brought bad name to him and his family committed suicide. This was the cause of annoyance of the accused and his other family members with the deceased and his family members. 3. On the fateful evening, at about 5. 00 p. m. when the deceased alongwith his father P. W. 1 Ranvir Singh and sister P. W. 2 Km. Richa were standing at the door of their house, accused-appellant alongwith his father Sri Man Singh and cousin Sri Surendra son of Kharag Singh reached at that place and entered into an altercation. They started abusing to the complainant and his other family members saying that they became the cause of suicide of Sri Mukesh and so deceased and other family members may not be spared. 4. In the meantime, Sri Tashmiri Devi, mother of the accused appellant came at the place of occurrence, concealing country made pistol in her shawl and handed over the same to the accused appellant, mitigated him to kill the deceased, who shot fire inflicting serious injuries to Pushpendra. He was taken to hospital for the medical aid. The incident is said to have been witnessed by P. W. 1 Ranvir Singh, P. W. 2 Km. Richa and P. W. 3 Vijay alias Pappu. 5. The report of this incident was lodged on 18-1-2005 at 8. 30 p. m. at the police station Malpura. He was taken to hospital for the medical aid. The incident is said to have been witnessed by P. W. 1 Ranvir Singh, P. W. 2 Km. Richa and P. W. 3 Vijay alias Pappu. 5. The report of this incident was lodged on 18-1-2005 at 8. 30 p. m. at the police station Malpura. The investigation of this case was conducted by P. W. 7 S. I. Anil Kumar Sharma, who after collecting the copy of the First Information Report, recorded the statement of the complainant and the persons accompanying him at the time of lodging the report and further of 19-1-2005. The inquest report of the deceased body of the deceased was also got prepared by him at S. N. Medical College, Agra. Further, on the pointing out of Sri Raj Pal Singh, the accused-appellant was also arrested and on his disclosure statement, search of the pistol, was made. However, the same was not traceable because it was not clear that was thrown by him. He further collected blood stained clothes and other incriminating materials and they were sent to chemical examiner. He also visited the place of occurrence and prepared site plan. After making extensive investigation, charge- sheet Ex. Ka-14 was submitted by him. 6. An autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased Pushpendra was conducted by P. W. 6 Dr. V. K. Agrawal, who noticed following ante- mortem injuries sustained by the deceased : " (1) Gun shot Injury Wound of entry 1 cm diameter at 10 Oclock position on Lt. Side chest 8 cm from nipple rounded with 1 cm x 5 cm tattooing. (2) Wound of exit 1. 5 cm in diameter 2 cm below inf. Angle of Rt. Scapula" It was also opined by the doctor that the cause of death was due to shock and Haemorrhage, as a result of ante-mortem injuries. He also noticed that there was semi solid food in the stomach. The post- mortem examination report Ex. Ka-10 was also proved by him. 7. Prosecution has also examined other witnesses namely P. W. 4 S. I. Laxmi Chand Rai, who had prepared the Panchnama and P. W. 5 H. C. Vir Raj Singh, who prepared the chick report and the G. D. Entry Exs. Ka-8 and Ka-10. 8. Prosecution further examined three eye-witnesses namely Ranvir Singh, Km. Richa and Vijay alias Pappu. 7. Prosecution has also examined other witnesses namely P. W. 4 S. I. Laxmi Chand Rai, who had prepared the Panchnama and P. W. 5 H. C. Vir Raj Singh, who prepared the chick report and the G. D. Entry Exs. Ka-8 and Ka-10. 8. Prosecution further examined three eye-witnesses namely Ranvir Singh, Km. Richa and Vijay alias Pappu. P. W. 1 Ranvir Singh in his statement has Reiterated the entire F. I. R. version. 9. P. W. 2 Km. Richa, who is also an adopted daughter of Sri Ranvir Singh also supported the prosecution version and stated that she was also standing at the gate of her house alongwith Ranvir Singh, then some scuffle had taken place between the accused-appellant and the Deceased and she also saw the accused Tashmiri, coming from her house and handed over the pistol to Rajpal Singh alias Kishan Singh and exhorted that the agony which was caused to her family by the complainants son should be settled now by eliminating the entire family of the complainant. 10. P. W. 3 Vijay alias Pappu, brother-in-law of P. W. 1 Sri Ranvir Singh (here brother-in-law of his brother Sri Bal Mukund) stated about his presence at the place of occurrence. It was mentioned by him that his mother was not keeping well and so he went to visit his mother at Garhi Dharampal and from there he thought proper to visit his sister, married with Sri Bal Mukund. This witness was staying at the house of Sri Bal Mukund where he was talking with Nawal Kishsore and after hearing abuses, he alongwith Nawal Kishore came out from the house and saw the incident. He also supported to the F. I. R. Version. 11. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, did not find the complicity of the co-accused namely Man Singh, Surendra and Smt. Tashmiri in the aforesaid incident and benefit of doubt was given to them. However, so far as the accused-appellant Raj Pal Singh is concerned, it was held that there was sufficient motive to him to have opened fire at the deceased. Further, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are the interested witnesses. Their testimony was also worth credence for establishing the guilt against him. 13. However, so far as the accused-appellant Raj Pal Singh is concerned, it was held that there was sufficient motive to him to have opened fire at the deceased. Further, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are the interested witnesses. Their testimony was also worth credence for establishing the guilt against him. 13. Sri Dilip Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has erred in arriving to the conclusion while holding the complicity of the appellant. He raised the following points : (i) Motive as has been assigned by the prosecution, has not been established against the accused- appellant. (ii) The manner as disclosed by the prosecution having been pre- variated from stage to stage, should not be relied upon. (iii) Investigation was purfunctory as no blood was found at the spot. No gun/ country made pistol was recovered and so there is nothing of such recovery, which constitute an offence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. No sign of firing was noticed. (iv) It is improbable that when the intention was there to kill all the family members of the complainant, there is no valid explanation as to why the single shot was made causing the death of deceased Pushpendra. (v) The prosecution version, on the basis where of, a judgment of conviction and sentence has been arrived at, is improbable. (vi) No independent witness was examined by the prosecution. (vii) The evidence of the eye-witnesses was rejected by the trial Court as regards the acquittal of the co- accused is concerned, that evidence could not be valid to fasten the criminal liability on the accused appellant. 14. From the side of the State, it is submitted that the prosecution version has been proved with all credible evidence. The trial Court by a well reasoned judgment has placed reliance on the prosecution evidence and this Court should not interfere with the finding of the trial Court and further it has been held that they would not materially affect the merits of the case. 15. All the points, raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, are taken point wise. MOTIVE : The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to establish motive against the deceased. 15. All the points, raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, are taken point wise. MOTIVE : The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to establish motive against the deceased. If at all, there was grievances, it was against Sri Kewal Singh, who is said to have developed illicit relation with Smt. Anita, Bhabhi of the accused-appellant. There could be no reason for the accused to kill deceased Pushpendra by opening fire by country made pistol. There is specific defence in the case that in the matter of illicit relation of Kewal Singh with Smt. Anita, a Panchayat had taken place In the village, wherein, the conduct of their family was criticised and even deceased Pushpendra was one of the participant in getting the resolution passed in the Panchayat. There could be no motive on the part of the accused- appellant to have killed the deceased Pushpendra. 16. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, particularly from the statement of P. W. 1, this is fully established that there was a village Panchayat with regard to such misconduct on the part if Sri Kewal Singh, son of informant P. W. 1 Sri Ranvir Singh. Sri Ranvir Singh, who was pursuing his studies of Chartered Accountant was also one of the witnesses of that Panchayat decision. From such materials on record, no motive so far as the killing of Sri Pushpendra is appearing. If there could be a motive that should be against Sri Kewal Singh and his father. 17. It was also held by the Apex Court in the case of Nagarjit Ahir v. State of Bihar, 2005 (2) JIC 113 (SC) : AIR 2005 SC 722 , that in view of the direct evidence available on record, it is not necessary to search for the motive which motivated the appellant to commit an offence. Since the motive has not been established, now the direct evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution is to be considered. 18. P. W. 1 Complainant Ranvir Singh has stated that it was around 5. 00 p. m. When he was standing at the door of his house alongwith his son deceased Pushpendra and his daughter Richa. At that time, accused-appellant with his father Man Singh and also one Sri Surendra came at the place of occurrence and started hurling filthy abuses to them. 00 p. m. When he was standing at the door of his house alongwith his son deceased Pushpendra and his daughter Richa. At that time, accused-appellant with his father Man Singh and also one Sri Surendra came at the place of occurrence and started hurling filthy abuses to them. In the meantime, Smt. Tashmiri Devi, mother of the accused- appellant came and exhorted her son accused-appellant that since all the family members of the informant home caused much agony to her and her family members and instigated her son to commit murder and, on hearing the same, shot was fired. The testimony of the witness was challenged on the ground that it was not worthy of credence so far as the involvement of Man Singh, Tashmiri Devi and Surendra is concerned. They have been given benefit of doubt by the trial Court. It has also been made clear that the house of Tashmiri Devi was not shown in the site place but it has come in the statement of Sri Ranvir Singh that her house was at a distance of 200 metres and she being the disabled lady, could not reach at the place of occurrence. Even, this fact has been established in the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer of Smt. Tashmiri Devi as she was found sitting and was not able to walk. In such circumstances, the handing over of the pistol to the accused-appellant is doubtful. It is clear that the accused- appellant was not armed with pistol and the basis of this incident was enmity. This part of that statement of PW-1 Smt. Tashmiri Devi was found to be reliable by the trial Court that cannot be accepted now at this stage for showing the complicity of the accused-appellant in the aforesaid incident. However, at this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellant has stated that if the witness is found to be unreliable, it is not necessary that his testimony should be rejected out right. However, at this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellant has stated that if the witness is found to be unreliable, it is not necessary that his testimony should be rejected out right. As the facts of this case are that the entire case rests on the handing over of country made pistol by Smt. Tashmiri Devi and that part evidence having been found to be unworthy of credence and that would not show the complicity of the accused-appellant and in effect the testimony of P. W. 1 does not support the substratum of the prosecution case with regard to the use of country made pistol, alleged to have been given by Smt. Tashmiri Devi. 19. Further other material discrepancies have also been shown in the statement of P. W. 1 Ranvir Singh. It was stated by him that seeing her son injured after sustaining fire arm injury, he arranged jeep for taking him to the hospital for medical aid. He has also mentioned that Sri Yatendra Singh, who is the subscribe of the First Information Report was not present there, but in his statement it has also come that his clothes were not stained with blood. Such statement of the witness is said to be unusual. However, it has been contradicted by Km. Richa, P. W. 2, who is also said to be an eye-witness of the incident. She, in her statement, has stated that P. W. 1 Ranvir got blood stained clothes of the deceased but he had not handed over the same to the Investigating Officer, which creates doubt about his presence. 20. After hearing about the death of deceased Pushpendra there in the hospital he alongwith other persons went to the police station, wherein report was got written from his son Yatendra. However, from G. D. Entry, Ex. Ka-9 and also from the statement of the Investigating Officer Anil Kumar Sharma, P. W. 7, it is decipherable that the statement of Sri Yatendra Singh was not recorded and suspicion had been raised that the First Information Report came into existence much after the death of the deceased. This would show that Yatendra Singh scribe of the F. I. R. was not there at that time. It was also submitted that since the. . . . . . . . This would show that Yatendra Singh scribe of the F. I. R. was not there at that time. It was also submitted that since the. . . . . . . . was not present at the time of lodging of the report and so, his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer. It has further been mentioned that P. W. 1 Ranvir Singh also stood as the witness of the inquest report. It was prepared in the hospital. He did not describe there at the time of preparation of the inquest report the manner in which the incident had taken place. When he was witness of the incident, he ought to have stated it. Even columns of the Panchnama are blank, which would also lead to the conclusion that at the time when the Panchnama was prepared, the First Information Report was not in existence. In this regard, it has been mentioned that the object by the learned A. G. A. prepared inquest report is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so, what is the apparent cause of death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances, he was assaulted, appears to be pot within the ambit and the scope of the proceedings under Section 174, Cr. P. C. Reliance may be placed in the case of Radha Mohan v. State of U. P. , 2006 (1) JIC 854 (SC) : AIR 2006 SC 951 . It is further said that from the statement of this witness, it is clear that after about 15 days, of this incident, he left his village in pursuance of the Panch decision as no body was there to favour the conduct of that family. There could not be any reason for the witnesses to be present at the place of occurrence. Identical was the statement of his daughter. Emphasis has also been laid on the fact that the deceased Pushpendra, who was pursuing his study as a Chartered Accountant, his presence near the place of occurrence is doubtful as there were no signs or blood stains on the earth and also absence of sign of the bullet on the wall and even no empty cartridges were recovered from the place of occurrence. 21. 21. It is also said that P. W. 1 Ranvir Singh is a teacher in as Government School and as per his statement, he was there from 10. 00 a. m. to 4. 00 p. m. , as such, his presence at the place of occurrence is also doubtful. P. W. 1 has, however, stated that he had gone to hand over some letter for centre and thereafter, he came to the village. That explanation given by the witness does not found corroboration from other evidence and this explanation was not given by him to the Investigating Officer. In such circumstances, his testimony is not worthy of credence. 22. Km. Richa P. W. 2 reiterated the F. I. R. Version. Her presence is also appearing to be doubtful as her father had already shifted from village and so there appears to be no justified and acceptable reason of her being present at the place of occurrence. Her testimony was also found not worthy of credence. 23. The third witness P. W. 3 Sri Vijay alias Pappu is said to be a chance witness and he residing in Delhi. However, whatever explanation he has given is that on the fateful day, he visited his sister staying there at her house. His brother-in-law Bal Mukund and one Nawal Kishore after hearing abuses, came out of the houses and reached to the place of occurrence. His testimony is also said to be not worthy of credence as he has given altogether different statement to the Investigating Officer. At this stage, he has assigned his presence at the house of Bal Mukund but before the Investigating Officer, he stated to have come from village and saw the incident. Further some new facts have been disclosed by this witness that one Sri Chandra Pal, who lifted the deceased for placing him in the Jeep, got blood stain on his cloth, was not examined as a witness. And in such circumstances, his testimony is said to be not worthy of credence. 24. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not worthy of credence. The complicity of the accused in this incident is not proved. 25. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 24. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not worthy of credence. The complicity of the accused in this incident is not proved. 25. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the offence under Sections 302/34, I. P. C. His bail bonds are cancelled and surety bonds are also discharged. Appeal allowed. .