JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.—These three connected appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 9.9.2008 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Etah in Session Trial No. 785 of 1998, State v. Wajir Singh and others. 2. All the accused in three connected appeals have been convicted under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment of three months and conviction under Section 148, I.P.C. to one year R.I. and Rs. 1000/- fine. In default, a further imprisonment of one month. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Six accused were tried. One of the accused who was not named in the F.I.R. namely Vijitendra alias Bagga died during pendency of the trial and the case against the said accused stood abated on account of his death. 3. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 15.6.1998 at 5.15 p.m. on Sahawar Road near Sarvodaya Ashram. The F.I.R. which is Ex. Ka-1, was lodged on the same day at 6.05 p.m. There is some controversy regarding time of lodging of the F.I.R. According to inquest, the time mentioned is 6.25 p.m. The report was lodged by Vinod Kumar, brother of the deceased, who was examined as PW-1, at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Etah situated at a distance of three kilometres from the place of occurrence. 4. The deceased Todi Singh died in the incident. The prosecution has examined two witnesses of fact namely Vinod Kumar PW-1 and Achal Singh PW-2 brother-in-law (Sala) of the deceased, PW-3 Dr. A.K. Saxena who performed post mortem, PW-4 Indraraj Verma Head Moharrir who proved the chik report, PW-5 Devi Sharan Singh second Investigating Officer, PW-6 S.H.O. Rajvir Singh first Investigating Officer, PW-7 S.I. Tilak Chand who performed the inquest and PW-8 Constable Sallauddin who took the body for autopsy. The appellant Sunil Kumar in Criminal Appeal No. 6439 of 2008 is not named in the F.I.R. 5. According to narration in the F.I.R., the deceased Todi Singh and accused Wajir Singh son of Risal Singh nurtured grudge on account of election of pradhan as well as accused Hansraj son of Kishan Lal and others had enmity on account of a dispute regarding a passage which was interrupted by the deceased and a number of litigations were continuing. According to narration in the F.I.R., the deceased Todi Singh and accused Wajir Singh son of Risal Singh nurtured grudge on account of election of pradhan as well as accused Hansraj son of Kishan Lal and others had enmity on account of a dispute regarding a passage which was interrupted by the deceased and a number of litigations were continuing. On the date and time of occurrence, PW-1 was going to his village on his bicycle alongwith PW-2 Achal Singh. The deceased was following them on his cycle and his younger brother Niranjan Lal was also with the deceased on his cycle. As soon as they reached near Puliya of Sarvodaya Ashram, a white Maruti Car No. R.J.23-4150 overtook them and immediately after taking U turn, the accused Wajir Singh armed with licensed rifle, Kitab Singh armed with revolver, Hansraj Singh and Ram Naresh armed with their Tamanchas alongwith two unknown persons also armed with country made pistol, got down and on instigation of Wajir Singh to kill Todi Singh, all of them resorted to indiscriminate firing which hit the deceased and resulted in his instantaneous death. The witnesses ran for their safety while the accused were able to make good their escape towards Etah. According to report, a number of passers by on the road had witnessed the occurrence. 6. Post-mortem was performed on the body of the deceased on 16.6.1998 at 10.00 a.m. by Dr. A.K. Saxena and the doctor recorded under noted ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. (1) Lacerated wound 7 cm. x 1 cm. just below (Rt) ear, muscle deep. (2) Firearm wound of entry 0.8 cm. x 0.6 cm. on left iliac fossa of abdomen. (3) Firearm wound of exit 1 cm. x 1 cm. on left side back just above iliac crest on lateral side, in continuation with injury No. 1 direction backwards. (4) Firearm wound of entry 0.6 cm. x 0.6 cm., 17 cm. below left nipple at 6 O clock. (5) Firearm wound of exit 1 cm. x 1 cm. on left side back, 2 cm. away from mid line at L-1 level, direction being backward, onwards, in continuation with injury No. 4. (6) Firearm wound of entry 0.8 cm. x 0.8 cm., 12 cm. below left nipple at 8 O clock. (7) Firearm wound of exit 1 cm. x 1 cm., 1 cm. x 1 cm. on left side back, 2 cm. away from mid line at L-1 level, direction being backward, onwards, in continuation with injury No. 4. (6) Firearm wound of entry 0.8 cm. x 0.8 cm., 12 cm. below left nipple at 8 O clock. (7) Firearm wound of exit 1 cm. x 1 cm., 1 cm. away from mid line at L-2 level in continuation with injury No. 6, direction being backwards and downwards slightly. (8) Firearm wound of entry 0.8 cm. x 0.8 cm., 2 cm. above left nipple at 10 O clock. (9) Firearm wound of exit 1 cm. x 1 cm. left side of back of chest at D-1 level 1 cm. from mid line. (10) Firearm wound of entry 0.6 cm. x 0.6 cm. on chin. (11) Firearm wound of exit in continuation with injury No. 10 direction being backwards and downwards on middle and upper part of neck. (12) firearm wound of entry 0.6 cm. x 0.6 cm. on left side of skull, 3 cm. back from left ear. Around the wound blackening was present in an area of 1 cm. x 1 cm. (13) Firearm wound of exit 1 cm. x 1 cm. on right side of skull, 1 cm. just behind right ear. (14) Firearm wound of entry 0.8 cm. x 0 on front of shoulder. (15) Firearm wound of exit 1 cm. x 1 cm. on back of shoulder in continuation with injury No. 14, direction backwards and downwards. 7. Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey Advocate appear for the appellant Sunil Kumar in Criminal Appeal No. 6439 of 2008. Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar Advocate appears on behalf of the appellants Sugadra Singh and Hansraj in Criminal Appeal No. 6509 of 2008 and Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Lav Srivastava and Sri Jag Narayan Advocates appear on behalf of the appellants Wajir Singh, Kitab Singh and Ram Naresh in Criminal Appeal No. 6555 of 2008. Sri Dileep Kumar Advocate appears on behalf of the first informant in all the three connected Criminal Appeals. 8. Before we embark to adjudicate Criminal Appeal Nos. 6509 of 2008 and 6555 of 2008, we proceed to decide the appeal of accused Sunil Kumar. Sri Dileep Kumar Advocate appears on behalf of the first informant in all the three connected Criminal Appeals. 8. Before we embark to adjudicate Criminal Appeal Nos. 6509 of 2008 and 6555 of 2008, we proceed to decide the appeal of accused Sunil Kumar. The Criminal Appeal No. 6439, Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. stands altogether on a different footing, though Sunil Kumar was tried and convicted alongwith other accused appellants but according to the prosecution he was not named in the F.I.R. He was put up for identification and both the witnesses of fact were unable to identify him and, therefore, there is no evidence to connect him with the crime. 9. Learned A.G.A. and Sri Dileep Kumar Advocate on behalf of the first informant have fairly conceded that there is no evidence against the accused Sunil Kumar and his conviction cannot be upheld. At the very outset, we are of the opinion that the appeal of Sunil Kumar should be allowed. Learned Sessions Judge has agreed and recorded a finding that his name was disclosed during investigation. His identification was conducted in jail but none of the witnesses could identity him. Yet the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that evidence of identification is a weak evidence and that alone cannot exempt an accused from the offence of murder. It is true that the evidence of identification is a weak evidence and in a case of murder, an accused cannot be acquitted simply because he was not identified but in absence of any corroborative evidence to connect him with the crime but for the bald statement by the witness that two unknown persons had joined other accused in commission of the offence is not sufficient. There has to be other evidence to substantiate by the prosecution as well as some material to arrive at a conclusion that the unknown accused was none other but the one charge sheeted by the I.O., consequent thereon charge was framed. His participation in the crime requires valid and substantive evidence. In absence of any conclusive proof, we have no option but to hold that the case against appellant Sunil Kumar is not established by the prosecution and his conviction is liable to be set aside. We accordingly allow Criminal Appeal No. 6439 of 2008, Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. 10. In absence of any conclusive proof, we have no option but to hold that the case against appellant Sunil Kumar is not established by the prosecution and his conviction is liable to be set aside. We accordingly allow Criminal Appeal No. 6439 of 2008, Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. 10. Now we proceed to decide the two other appeals against appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 6509 and 6555 of 2008. The first argument of the learned counsel Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar and Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellants is in respect of Motive. The argument is that the motive suggested by the prosecution is a far-fetched one. The accused Wajir Singh is the sitting pradhan. He is a successful candidate in the election of Pradhan defeating Nathu Ram, the candidate supported by the deceased Todi Singh and his family. Thus the motive suggested by prosecution as election dispute cannot be sufficient reason to vindicate the grudge, if any, it was for the deceased to eliminate the winning pradhan and not the other way around. It is also submitted that the accused Hans Raj Singh who was the Sub Inspector in the Police Department, had dispute with the deceased and first informant on account of opening of a passage which was causing hinderance to the deceased. There was a Panchayat and some civil litigation for opening of the Rasta but in all the litigations the complainant and the deceased were not successful, therefore, the argument is that the motive suggested by the prosecution stands falsified. On the other hand it can very well be a good ground for his false implication. 11. The second argument is that the incident has taken place sometimes during night or wee hours in the morning and none of the witnesses were present. A number of discrepancies and anomalies have been pointed out by the respective counsels on behalf of the defence to eliminate their testimony. 12. The third argument is that the F.I.R. is anti-timed. The discrepancies regarding time mentioned in the F.I.R. as well as that of the inquest has been demonstrated by the learned counsel in support of their arguments. There is manipulation in the timing only to make the presence of two witnesses of fact feasible. 12. The third argument is that the F.I.R. is anti-timed. The discrepancies regarding time mentioned in the F.I.R. as well as that of the inquest has been demonstrated by the learned counsel in support of their arguments. There is manipulation in the timing only to make the presence of two witnesses of fact feasible. Since there was no occasion for the complainant to be present when the murder took place and the argument regarding the other witness PW-2, it is submitted on behalf of the defence that he is not worthy of reliance as he is a chance witness and closely related to the deceased as well as he resides in a different village. 13. The next submission is regarding place of incident. Certain extract of the statements of the prosecution witnesses have been placed to demonstrate and support their arguments that the village of the deceased is situated only at a distance of one kilometre. Achal Singh PW-2 resides 49 kilometres away from the place of occurrence. It is also argued that the claim of the two witnesses that they ran for their safety and tried to hide themselves behind ‘PATEL’ is not believable. The prosecution claims that the standing PATEL SHRUBS were two feet high in the nearby fields and the same was situated at 20-25 paces. PATEL was not shown in the site plan and there is nothing to indicate the place from where the witnesses claim themselves to have witnessed the occurrence. 14. The next submission of the learned counsels is that the investigation is highly tainted. A number of inconsistency and variance have been pointed out in support of their arguments. It is argued that since the two witnesses are closely related to the deceased and they claim that the murder was witnessed by a number of passers by who have not been examined, Niranjan who was sitting on the cycle with the deceased was also not examined. Besides, he has not received any injury whatsoever, therefore, according to the learned counsels, there is nothing concrete or positive evidence to hold their presence natural. 15. Besides, he has not received any injury whatsoever, therefore, according to the learned counsels, there is nothing concrete or positive evidence to hold their presence natural. 15. The last of all it is asserted that the prosecution has consistently maintained that there are three types of arms used in the incident-rifle, revolver and country made pistol but the nature of injuries in the post mortem report all on the left side with exit injury, almost of the same dimension i.e. 1 cm. x 1 cm. speaks volume that the ocular version is not supported by medical evidence. Lacerated injury on the body of the deceased is also unexplained. In view of all these inconsistency in evidence, it is advocated that the judgment of conviction has no legs to stand. 16. We now proceed to examine the evidence and analyse the testimony of the witnesses as well as examine the case set up by the prosecution. PW-1 Vinod Kumar has proved the F.I.R. which is Ex. Ka-1 and also stated that the police had performed the inquest and recorded the statement and site plan was prepared in his presence. This witness admits that neither the deceased Todi Singh nor any member of his family had ever contested any election. He admits that the deceased Todi Singh and his family members have supported the defeated candidate Nathu Ram who was the sitting pradhan since last 24 years. The appellant Wajir Singh had defeated him. Accused Hans Raj had obstructed the passage which hindered ingress and egress to his house. He admits about the litigations between Hans Raj and his family members as well as Todi Singh. He further admits that in spite of litigation, the passage was not opened and the prosecution witnesses as well as the deceased Todi Singh felt bad about it. He further stated that the accused Hans Raj is Sub Inspector in the Police Department but admits that he has never tried to cause any harm to them by using police pressure. Therefore, in view of this unequivocal admission, we are constrained to accept the argument of Sri Dileep Kumar that the police was trying to help the accused on this count. Therefore, in view of this unequivocal admission, we are constrained to accept the argument of Sri Dileep Kumar that the police was trying to help the accused on this count. There is not a single report or implication of the prosecution witness or his family including the deceased at the instance of Hans Raj accused or any other appellant or their family members despite a number of persons of the family of the accused Hans Raj working in the Police Department. 17. We have also examined that whether the presence of witnesses of fact is natural. Their presence on the place of occurrence or in the near vicinity can be accepted on the basis of the reasons spelled out in their testimony. We have to examine whether there was any cogent reason for their presence. PW-1 has stated that he had gone to Etah to buy clothes and the deceased had gone to Etah for getting a gold chain made for his daughter Beena who had passed Intermediate examination conducted by the U.P. Board. He wanted to give her this as a gift. He further admits that the deceased Todi Singh has given Rs. 3,000/- to the goldsmith and remaining money was kept in his pocket. The name of goldsmith was Charan Singh whose shop was at Babuganj, Etah. He further states that its receipt must have been kept by the deceased in his pocket in his cross-examination. When specifically questioned he has expressed his ignorance and admits that he did not take out anything from the pocket of deceased and also that police did not recover anything from his pocket at the time of inquest. The other statements pointed out by the learned counsels is regarding his admission and subsequent retraction from the said statement on a number of occasions. He has stated that Niranjan did not accompany them (deceased and PW-1) to Etah but later on admits that Niranjan had gone alongwith them who has admittedly not been examined. Also that the deceased and PW-1 were not involved in any criminal case but when confronted, he admits they were arrayed as an accused in a case under Section 307, I.P.C. and that the case is in the High Court. Their involvement was at the instance of one Tej Singh. Also that the deceased and PW-1 were not involved in any criminal case but when confronted, he admits they were arrayed as an accused in a case under Section 307, I.P.C. and that the case is in the High Court. Their involvement was at the instance of one Tej Singh. Thereafter he has retracted his own statement that the said case ended in an acquittal and he had forgotten about this and that is why he has given a wrong statement. Similarly he had stated in the F.I.R. as well as examination-in-chief that a number of passers by had witnessed the incident but later on stated that but for the two witnesses namely PW-1 and PW-2 none had seen the occurrence. When once again he was confronted with the First Information Report, he hurriedly accepted the version of the F.I.R. and tried to take shelter behind excuse of his not too sharp memory. He has also stated that Niranjan fell down from the cycle and ran towards the witnesses but none of the accused had tried to cause any injury to him. He has also admitted that the cycle of the deceased was not taken by the police and no recovery memo was prepared. The police had not even questioned him regarding cycle on which the deceased was going. Another fact which has been pointed out is the explanation by the witness that he had seen the occurrence from behind the PATEL bushes. Admittedly no PATEL is shown in the site plan. The theory of PATEL was developed only during the trial. Thus we are of the opinion that the evidence of PW-1 is not worthy of acceptance. He has tried to state a fact in one breath and then decline from it in the second breath, therefore, we find it difficult to hold this witness reliable. Besides, we cannot overlook the fact that he is an interested witness, real brother of the deceased and admittedly has enmity with the appellants. The relationship between the accused inter se has already been admitted by PW-1, therefore, the statement of PW-1 requires corroboration and authentication before it is accepted. We do have our reservation in accepting his testimony in totality without any satisfactory corroboration. 18. The next witness PW-2 admittedly resides at a distance of 49 kilometres. The relationship between the accused inter se has already been admitted by PW-1, therefore, the statement of PW-1 requires corroboration and authentication before it is accepted. We do have our reservation in accepting his testimony in totality without any satisfactory corroboration. 18. The next witness PW-2 admittedly resides at a distance of 49 kilometres. His explanation to be present at the scene of occurrence that he had come to Etah where he met the deceased and PW-1 by chance and reason for his coming to Etah was to give information about the result of daughter of the deceased Todi Singh, this is again a flimsy excuse. If at all the witness had come after knowing result of his sister’s daughter of Intermediate Examination then at least he would have brought some sweets to celebrate its occasion. Besides, according to PW-1, the information of result had already reached his village and that was the precise reason for the deceased to come to Etah. He also admits that Niranjan got down from the cycle of the deceased after the Maruti Car had arrived but he did not make any hue and cry and the deceased was not able to either run away or call for help. The cycle fell down on the road but the deceased kept standing only to be killed, which apparently does not confirm normal human behaviour. There was no lathi blows given to him and the witness admits that the deceased fell on Kachcha road which would admittedly not result in the lacerated injury found on the body of the deceased at the time of autopsy. He further admits that there was no blood on the cycle and he was not aware whether cycle was taken into custody by the police or not. PW-2 also confirms the statement of PW-1 that they had hidden themselves behind PATEL SHRUBS standing on the Merh of the field. The two witnesses of fact are very closely related. The reason for their presence at the scene of occurrence does not appear to be a cogent reason and we are not able to accept that their presence was natural. Their testimony is laced with bias and tinged with suspicion. The two witnesses of fact are very closely related. The reason for their presence at the scene of occurrence does not appear to be a cogent reason and we are not able to accept that their presence was natural. Their testimony is laced with bias and tinged with suspicion. Introduction of PATEL during the trial apparently is an after thought and prompted, specially since there were open fields and neither two prosecution witnesses nor the brother Niranjan had received a single injury who were present there and witnessed the entire incident. We cannot overlook the narration of the F.I.R. and statement of the witnesses in chief that a number of persons had seen the incident and that Ajab Singh and Lalta Prasad of village Ambari had arrived at the scene of occurrence. 19. The next witness PW-3 Dr. A.K. Saxena who performed post mortem, has stated that dimension of the injuries, entry and exit wounds is definite pointer that some sophisticated fire arm was used. The story suggested by the prosecution that three types of fire arms were with the accused, completely negates ante-mortem injuries in the autopsy report. All the entry wounds are 0.7 cm., 0.6 cm. and 0.8 cm. whereas exit wounds are 1 cm. x 1 cm. We are of the view that these injuries were not caused by rifle or revolver which is consistent case of the prosecution, besides injury No. 1 remains unexplained. The injuries recorded by doctor do not substantiate the ocular version. Besides, the doctor admits in his cross-examination that injury No. 1 could be caused by use of lathi. Presence of semi digested food in stomach of the deceased also do not support the time of occurrence as propounded by the prosecution. The discrepancy in time evidently speaks volume. 20. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants have also laid considerable emphasis on the evidence of the Investigating Officer viz-a-viz the inquest which is proved by PW-7 S.I. Tilak Chand, besides the evidence of PW-8 constable Salauddin who has taken the body from the place of occurrence to the Mortuary for post mortem. In his cross-examination PW-8 admits, that though he had taken the body of the deceased after completing the inquest i.e. about 7.00 p.m. but reached mortuary only the next morning. There is no G.D. entry of his Vapasi; when questioned during the trial he admits this fact. In his cross-examination PW-8 admits, that though he had taken the body of the deceased after completing the inquest i.e. about 7.00 p.m. but reached mortuary only the next morning. There is no G.D. entry of his Vapasi; when questioned during the trial he admits this fact. For the first time explanation for delay is that the dead body was carried in a Tempo which got stuck in puddle which resulted in a traffic jam. The Tempo could be taken out only at 4.00-4.30 a.m. All the same he states that though the entire traffic was obstructed but the police jeep on which the other officers were going, were able to cross the pulia. There was no mud found on the cloth in which the dead body was wrapped. This statement is specifically highlighted to substantiate the argument that police had manipulated all the evidence including the inquest report. 21. We have scrutinized original inquest report which is Ex. Ka-9. At a number of places, the dates have been changed from 16th to 15th and timing as shown in the inquest at 8.25 of the commencement of the inquest and 8.40 completion of the inquest has been changed by adding a single line (1) before the number 8 so that it appears as 18.25 and 18.40. PW-8 who had performed the inquest has admitted that there is difference of timing in the chik report and the inquest and he also admits that the time of death mentioned in the challan lash also contains overwriting. He has further admitted that he had correctly entered the date as 16th June 1998 but he has expressed his inability to remember the vehicle on which the dead body was sent. The police witnesses have also admitted that it would not take more than 30 minutes to reach mortuary from the place of occurrence and, therefore, we are of the view that these discrepancies cannot be overlooked, specially in the backdrop of arguments and anomalies highlighted on behalf of defence. 22. PW-7 has also admitted in his cross-examination that there was no tyre marks near or around the place where the dead body was lying, though admittedly according to the prosecution case, Rasta was a Kachcha Rasta. 22. PW-7 has also admitted in his cross-examination that there was no tyre marks near or around the place where the dead body was lying, though admittedly according to the prosecution case, Rasta was a Kachcha Rasta. On considering the complete statement of PW-7 that there was no physical evidence to substantiate and support the prosecution case that the deceased was riding a cycle at the time of murder. Driver of the alleged Tempo on which the prosecution claims to have carried the dead body of the deceased, was also not examined, therefore, it is far from convincing that the prosecution witnesses are stating truth since the documentary evidence admittedly prepared by the prosecution are not supporting the story. 23. We have also closely examined the testimony of PW-6 Rajvir Singh who was the first Investigating Officer. At the very outset in cross-examination he has contradicted the statement of the first informant regarding his presence when the Investigating Officer arrived at the place of occurrence. No time of arrival has been mentioned in the G.D. His admission that there are a number of overwriting and cuttings in the inquest. Besides, admission of the Investigating Officer as well as the doctor PW-3 that nothing was recovered from the person of the deceased. No cycle was found near the deceased and also unequivocal admission of the Investigating Officer that the time mentioned in the G.D. No. 54 at 18.20 is wrong. The confirmation of the assertion by PW-7 that the time of death given in Challan Lash was changed from 17.15 to 17.35 and there is no signature or initials on the cuttings. PW-7 states that the dead body was sent on ‘JUGAR’ whereas the other witness states that it was taken in Tempo which got stuck in the wet mud/puddle. The admission of the Investigating Officer regarding the difference in the date and timings of the police documents such as inquest report, Challan Lash etc. is ample proof of the fact that the time of occurrence mentioned in the F.I.R. is not convincing and there is an apparent discrepancy. The suggestion by defence that the incident had taken place at a time other than what is claimed by the prosecution, appears probable and, therefore, the argument that the F.I.R. is ante-timed is not devoid of substance. 24. The suggestion by defence that the incident had taken place at a time other than what is claimed by the prosecution, appears probable and, therefore, the argument that the F.I.R. is ante-timed is not devoid of substance. 24. Taking in to consideration all these facts, circumstances, documents and a close analysis of the statements, we are unable to accept the prosecution case. The only conclusion we arrive at is that : (1) The incident has taken place sometimes during night or in the wee hours of the morning and none of the witnesses were present. (2) The admission of the prosecution witnesses regarding change of time in inquest, difference of time mentioned in the chik report and challan lash as well as time consumed while reaching the dead body of the deceased to the mortuary, we have no other option but to come to a conclusion that there are manipulations and, therefore, their version cannot be totally accepted. (3) The prosecution witnesses of fact being closely related and there being no occasion for the complainant to be present at the scene or PW-2 who is admittedly a chance witness and resident of another village situated at a distance of 49 kilometres, besides withholding the other brother Niranjan who was sitting alongwith the deceased on his cycle, are not worthy reliance to uphold the conviction. (4) The place of incident is also not supported by convincing evidence. The blood was not sent to seriologist and and the case of prosecution that a Maruti Car had overtook the deceased and after U turn, shots were fired. The Investigating Officer admitting that there were no tyre marks of the car in the near vicinity. No cycle was recovered and not a single witness who were commuting on the said road, are ample proof towards falsity of the prosecution case. (5) The standing PATEL mentioned for the first time during the trial only to ward off the argument that the witnesses were neither injured nor any attack was made as they were hidden behind PATEL. No cycle was recovered and not a single witness who were commuting on the said road, are ample proof towards falsity of the prosecution case. (5) The standing PATEL mentioned for the first time during the trial only to ward off the argument that the witnesses were neither injured nor any attack was made as they were hidden behind PATEL. This has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. or the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (6) The injuries on the body of the deceased all the exit wounds are of one size and dimension, are sufficient to disbelieve the theory of use of three kind of weapons; rifle, revolver and country made pistol as well as unexplained lacerated injury which is injury No. 1 in the autopsy report, do not corroborate the prosecution case and the manner in which the prosecution claims the injuries were caused to the deceased. In addition to this, the stomach contents and admission by the doctor that deceased had taken food 5-6 hours before the incident. 25. The Apex Court in the case of Motilal and another v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 7 SCC 454 had allowed appeal and was of the view that ante-dating of the F.I.R. was evident from the fact that it was an admitted case of the prosecution that though the F.I.R. was lodged on 11.11.1993 at 10.50 a.m. but the inquest report shows that it started at 10.30 a.m. Similarly in the present case the inquest report does not inspire any confidence and, therefore, applying the views of the Apex Court in the case of Motilal (supra) we are not able to uphold the judgment of conviction. 26. In another case Radhamohan Singh @ Lal Saheb and others v. State of U.P., (2006) 2 SCC 450 , there was similar discrepancies in the F.I.R. and inquest report and the case propounded by the prosecution and the Apex Court had taken an adverse view against the prosecution and acquitted the accused. 27. In the context of the prosecution case, oral and documentary evidence and on consideration of the reasons detailed herein above, we are not able to accept the argument of Sri Dileep Kumar Advocate appearing on behalf of the first informant that presence of eye-witnesses cannot be doubted since 15th June is the time when the result is published and, therefore, presence of PW-1 and PW-2 is not improbable. Non recovery of the cycle is also not very relevant and sufficient to discard the evidence of eye-witnesses. We are not in agreement with the suggestion of the learned counsel and on behalf of the A.G.A. that since one of the accused Hans Raj was a Sub Inspector and his family members are working in the Police Department, it is sufficient reason to overlook the flaws in the investigation. The various interpolation in the inquest report cannot be brushed aside on the mere suggestion of the prosecution that police was interested in aiding the accused. This assertion should have been substantiated. 28. Learned counsel on behalf of the complainant agrees that the weapons used was of very high velocity, assuming that the accused Wajir Singh has not used rifle even then he has been convicted with the aid of Section 149, I.P.C. and, therefore, this alone is not sufficient to exempt him from his liability. 29. Before we part, we may also observe that the appellants have no reason to commit the crime, on the contrary, the complainant and his family members were supporting Nathu Lal who was pradhan for the last 24 years and was instrumental in giving them all kind of benefits in the capacity of pradhan. The appellant Wajir Singh was successful in defeating the sitting pradhan of almost 2 ½ decades and if at all there was a ground of his false implication, it was the first informant by implicating him falsely in the murder case with an intention to oust him from his office. 30. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case by means of valid and cogent evidence. The texture of documentary evidence as well as oral testimony cannot be accepted free from doubt. The prosecution has utterly failed to establish its case, worthy of upholding the view of the Court below and, therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Etah dated 9.9.2008 in S.T. No. 785 of 1998, State v. Wajir Singh and others, are hereby set at naught. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith lower Court record be sent to the Sessions Judge, Etah for compliance. ————