The appellant Sant Ram was tried by Sessions Judge, Kannauj in Sessions Trial No. 191 of 1999 for offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and was convicted for life imprisonment for the said offence vide impugned order dated 28-4-2000, which conviction and sentence has been challenged by him in the instant appeal. 2. According to the prosecution allegation in thumb bail description appellant called the deceased on 19- 1-1999 a false pretext of looking the crop and after proceeding about a kilometre shot dead the deceased Shiv Charan in the wheat field of Mohan Lal in between village Patiyan and Akuran at 4. 00 p. m. On that day. The fire shot attracted informant Ram Narayan father of the deceased, Ram Avtar and other villagers of village Patiyan who saw the incident. The accused made his escape good thereafter. Informant got the F. I. R. scribed through Shiv Narayan and lodged it at police station Kannauj on the same day at 6. 15 p. m. , covering a distance of 9 Kms. as crime No. 41 of 1999. The motive for the murder was stated to be old enmity. 3. P. W. 6 Raj Bahadur Singh on the basis of Tahrir Exhibit Ka-1 prepared chik F. I. R. Exhibit Ka-2 and the G. D. entry Exhibit Ka- 3. S. I. Ramesh Chandra Sharma P. W. 7 started the investigation recorded the statement of informant and Head Constable P. W. 6 Raj Bahadur Singh at the police station. He conducted the inquest on the dead-body (Exhibit Ka-4) next day morning between 8. 00 a. m. to 9. 30 a. m. and handed over the body to Constable Harish Kumar and Ram Gyani for carrying it to mortuary alongwith relevant papers photolass, challanlass etc. etc. which he proved as Exhibit Ka-5 to Ka-8. He also prepared the recovery memo of the slippers of the deceased (Exhibit Ka-9) and the recovery memo of the money found in the pant pocket and the deceased as Exhibit Ka-10. He also proved site plan the Exhibit Ka-11. Rest of the investigation was conducted by officer-in-charge of police station R. P. Shukla who submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant as Exhibit Ka-12. 4. Post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased was conducted on 20-11-1999 at 4. He also proved site plan the Exhibit Ka-11. Rest of the investigation was conducted by officer-in-charge of police station R. P. Shukla who submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant as Exhibit Ka-12. 4. Post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased was conducted on 20-11-1999 at 4. 45 p. m. and following anti-mortem injuries were found on his body : (1) Fire-arm wound of entry 1 cm x 0. 5 cm through and through over right. Shoulder, Upper part margins inverted abraded and echymosed with communicating wound of 2 cm x 1. 5 cm over left Lateral of chest, margins everted and lacerated. (2) Fire-arm wound of entry 1 cm x 0. 5 cm through and through on the left side of chest 10 cm below left Nipple at 7 Oclock position with communicating wound of exit 1. 5 cm x 1 cm over post lateral, aspect right side of chest margins were everted lacerated left to right and backward. In the opinion of the doctor, this death had occurred on account of shock and haemorrhage due to ante- mortem injuries. 5. Prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the appellant examined seven witnesses as P. W. 1 Manni, P. W. 2 Ram Awtar, P. W. 3 Amar Singh, P. W. 4 Ram Naryan, P. W. 5 doctor Sudhanshu (Post-mortem Doctor), P. W. 6 Raj Bahadur Constable (who prepared the chik F. I. R. and G. D.) and P. W. 7 R. C. Sharma (I. O. ). 6. Shiv Nath scribe of the F. I. R. was examined as C. W. 1. 7. Out of four witnesses of fact from P. W. 1 to P. W. 4 three of them P. W. 1 Manni, P. W. 2 Ram Avtar and P. W. 3 Amar Singh turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. They also resiled from their earlier statements given to the Investigating Officer. Only P. W. 4 Ram Naryan, informant supported the prosecution version. 8. Trial Court relying upon the testimony of P. W. 4 convicted the appellant under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced him for life imprisonment which conviction and sentence is questioned in this appeal. 9. We have heard Sri Raghuraj Kishore, learned amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant and Ms. 8. Trial Court relying upon the testimony of P. W. 4 convicted the appellant under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced him for life imprisonment which conviction and sentence is questioned in this appeal. 9. We have heard Sri Raghuraj Kishore, learned amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Usha Kiran, learned A. G. A. in opposition on behalf of the State and have gone thought the impugned judgment, the evidences and other material on the record of this appeal. 10. Sri Raghuraj Kishore, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that three prosecution witnesses of fact Smt. Manni @ P. W. 1, Ram Awtar P. W. 2, Amar Singh P. W. 3 all turned hostile and did no support the prosecution version at all. He further submitted that the evidence of Ram Narayan P. W. 4 who is the informant does not inspire any confidence at all and cannot be believed. He further contended that the said witnesses had clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that his thumb- impressions was obtained on a blank paper when he alone had gone to lodge the F. I. R. at the police station. He had further deposed that he did not know whether anything was written on the said paper or not. He had further stated that he had not uttered anything at the time of the incident because of fear and he had witnessed the murder from a distance of 100 and 125 paces. Learned Counsel submitted that on the basis of such an evidence the appellant cannot be convicted as the aforesaid evidence is not to be relied upon at all. 11. Learned A. G. A. on the other hand contended that the trial Court has believed the prosecution evidence of P. W. 4 and other formal witnesses and has rightly convicted the appellant. 12. We have considered the submissions from the rival sides and have gone through the record of the appeal. So far as statements of P. W. 1, P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 are concerned they have completely denied the prosecution version and their evidence does not farther the case of the prosecution at all. So far as evidence of P. W. 4 is concerned he himself has denied that his F. I. R. was written at his dictation. So far as evidence of P. W. 4 is concerned he himself has denied that his F. I. R. was written at his dictation. In his examination-in-chief as has been mentioned above, only his thumb-impression was taken on a blank paper. This evidence of PW 4 informant of the case, thus makes the FIR concocted, cooked up and manufactured and demolishes the very first version of the prosecution story. FIR therefore looses all its corroborative value and cannot be relied upon. The matter is made more worse when the prosecution came up with a written FIR of PW 4 Ram Narain scribed by Shiv Nath CW 1. First Informant had not supported the lodging of any written FIR and he had clearly stated that his thumb-impression were taken on a blank paper at the police station in his cross-examination. Further CW 1, the scribe of the FIR stated before the Court that he is an illiterate and does not know reading and writing. He had denied scribing the FIR Ext. Ka-1 at the dictation of the first informant. He has also denied knowing village Akauran and had deposed that he had never been to that village. It is recalled here that the occurrence occurred in village Akauran. The scribe of the FIR was not declared hostile by the prosecution and therefore we have to take his evidence to be true and correct. This struck last nail in the coffin of prosecution version. The evidence of PW 4 and CW 1 are so contradictory and untruthful that we cannot coalescenced it to hold that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge levelled by it. Separating grain from the chaff does not mean to collect smithereened pieces of clouted prosecution evidences and to hold accused guilty as that will be travesty of justice. 13. From what we have stated above we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant and he deserves acquittal. 14. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded through impugned judgment and order is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the charged offence. He is stated to be in jail. He is directed to be released forthwith unless he is wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed. .