JUDGMENT 1. - These two criminal appeals have been filed by the accused appellants Keshav @ Keshav Dev and Sribhan both of whom have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hindaun City, District Karauli for offence under Sections 302 I.P.C. and 302/34 I.P.C. respectively and sentenced to life imprisonment. 2. The facts of the case are that a written report was submitted by the complainant Roshan S/o Nawal to the Police Station Mansalpur on 9.6.2000 stating therein that he alongwith his two brothers Gopal and Sugriv had gone to Mansalpur at about 11.30 AM. When they were sitting in front of wood stall under a "Chappar" on a stone bench, Sribhan, Koki and Keshav suddenly came there. Sribhan embraced Sugriv and asked Keshav to fire at him. Keshav thereupon fired at Sugriv with the gun that he was carrying. He and his brother Gopal raised hue and cry. The accused, however, ran away from the place of the occurrence. Keshav was caught soon thereafter by policemen from nearby field as the Police Station Mansalpur was situated near the place of occurrence. On receipt of aforesaid written report, a regular F.I.R. No. 86/2000 under Sections 302, 34 I.P.C. was chalked out and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 3/25 Arms Act against the appellant Keshav @ Keshav Dev. However, investigation was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. against co-accused Sribhan, Koki @ Kok Singh and Hansram. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Karauli 'where cognizance was taken against accused appellants Keshav and Sribhan. On 20.7.2005 while allowing application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., learned trial Court also took cognizance against co-accused Koki @ Kok Singh and Hansraj. During trial, co-accused Hansraj died and proceedings were dropped against him on 8.12.2005. Co-accused Koki @ Kok Singh was declared absconder on 10.3.2006 as he absented from trial. As per report furnished by the learned Public Prosecutor, he also died subsequently. 3. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court framed charges under Section 302 I.P.C. simplicitor and Section 3/25 of Arms Act against accused appellant Keshav and under Section 302 I.P.C. and alternatively, under Section 302/34 I.P.C. against accused appellant Sribhan. As per report furnished by the learned Public Prosecutor, he also died subsequently. 3. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court framed charges under Section 302 I.P.C. simplicitor and Section 3/25 of Arms Act against accused appellant Keshav and under Section 302 I.P.C. and alternatively, under Section 302/34 I.P.C. against accused appellant Sribhan. The prosecution examined as many as 27 witnesses and got exhibited 23 documents. The defence did not produce any witness but, got exhibited seven documents. Although, the accused appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied all the charges and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the case due to political rivalry. Accused appellant Keshav in his statement additionally stated that on the fateful day, he was standing at the Bus Stand Mansalpur waiting for Bus to go to the office of District collector, Karauli for getting permission to repair his. licenced gun which was broken, at Dholpur. Some unknown person murdered Sugriv by firearm and the police wrongly caught him because he was having gun in his hand. Another person by the name of Dasharath who was having country -made gun was also caught, but he was let off. He is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case. Therefore, he demanded trial. 4. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments of the parties convicted the accused appellant Keshav @ Keshav Dev under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment whereof, he was required to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of six months. Accused-appellant Sribhan was convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and was also sentenced to Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment whereof, he was required to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of six months. The accused-appellant Keshav was, however, acquitted of the charge under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Hence, these two appeals. 5. We have heard Shri S.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused appellant Sribhan and Shri Rajesh Goswami, learned counsel for the accused - appellant Keshav @ Keshav Dev and Shri J.R. Bijarnia, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants have argued that the true genesis of the incident has been suppressed by the prosecution. 5. We have heard Shri S.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused appellant Sribhan and Shri Rajesh Goswami, learned counsel for the accused - appellant Keshav @ Keshav Dev and Shri J.R. Bijarnia, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants have argued that the true genesis of the incident has been suppressed by the prosecution. The F.I.R. (Exhibit P-18) indicates that the time of the incident was 11.30 AM on 9.6.2000 and the F.I.R. was registered at 11.40 AM on that very day, i.e. within ten minutes. Whereas, PW-7 Gopal in his statement has narrated entirely different story about lodging of the F.I.R. He states that the report was got written at Karauli by his brother Roshan although, he was not aware from whom it was got drafted. When they reached the Hospital with dead body, Roshan submitted the report. He stayed at Mansalpur Police Station for 10 minutes. In next breath he states that the dead body of Sugriv was lying at the scene of occurrence for about one hour. It was lifted only when the S.P. came there. He was not there when the accused appellant Keshav was caught by the police. Learned counsel has also referred to the statement of PW-2 Santosh Pathak in this behalf and argued that this witness has stated that he caught accused Keshav and another person by name of Dashrath. Both were having firearms and brought them to Police Station Mansalpur. The SHO, Police Station Mansalpur told him that he would register the F.I.R. after the relatives of the deceased come. He sent someone with a Marshal Jeep to fetch them who came after about two hours and then the written report was obtained. Learned counsel argued that if the F.I.R. was registered on 11.40 AM, then there was no reason to submit it before the Magistrate on the following day on 10.6.2000. In those days, the Court used to work during morning hours. The F.I.R. was received by the Magistrate at his residence much after the Court hours at 4.45 PM and that was even after the remand of the accused had been obtained from the Magistrate at 1.00 PM. In those days, the Court used to work during morning hours. The F.I.R. was received by the Magistrate at his residence much after the Court hours at 4.45 PM and that was even after the remand of the accused had been obtained from the Magistrate at 1.00 PM. All these facts raise serious doubt about the manner in which the incident took place and show that the complainant had enough time to deliberate upon the matter and then got a written report to falsely implicate the accused-appellants. It was argued that Roshan, another brother of deceased, could have been important witness but, unfortunately, he died during trial and could not be subjected to cross-examination. Yet, whatever has been stated by PW-2 Santosh Pathak who claims to have caught hold of the accused, has also not been fully owned up by the prosecution. PW-2 Santosh Pathak has narrated a different story. He states that when he was getting petrol in his motorcycle from the petrol pump, he saw two persons running from the wooden tea stall in front of that petrol pump, one was having a 12 bore Katta and another person had a broken gun. He ran after them and caught them. The person having 12 bore gun disclosed his name to be Dashrath whereas, another person told his name as Keshav. He brought them to the Police Station. No other witness has mentioned about presence of Keshav which raises serious doubts about the incident. PW-3 Shaitan Singh, who was posted as Constable at Police Station Mansalpur at the time of incident, has given different version that he, Ramsingh, Constable and PW-2 Santosh, Head Constable, were taking meal in the mess, when they heard noise of gunshot, they rushed out towards the place of occurrence and saw one person running from there with a gun in his hand. They caught him and that person told his name to be Keshav. It was a single barrel 12 bore gun. He also had a cartridge belt with few live cartridges. 7. They caught him and that person told his name to be Keshav. It was a single barrel 12 bore gun. He also had a cartridge belt with few live cartridges. 7. Shri S.K. Gupta, learned counsel for appellant Sribhan, argued that contradictions between these two statements when analyzed alongwith the story disclosed by PW-7 Gopal, brother of the deceased, the picture that emerges is so suspicious as to probablise false implication of the accused appellant Sribhan and reason is political rivalry between two groups in that area, one led by the deceased accused Hansram and another by Shivcharan Singh Dhabai. Learned counsel in this connection also referred to the statement of PW-7 Gopal and submitted that Gopal in his statement admitted that when father of Keshav was murdered, deceased Sugriv and Pooran were named as accused in the F.I.R. although, they were acquitted in trial. When the matter went to Panchayat for compromise, Hansram and Koki @ Kok Singh objected to such compromise. It was also stated in his cross- examination that Pooran, who is relative of deceased Sugriv, was in the political group of Shivcharan Singh Dhabai who had rivalry with Hansram. Kok Singh happened to be real brother-in-law of Hansram. Accused appellant Sribhan is son of Kok Singh, which is the reason why he has been falsely implicated in the matter. Keshav is Gusai by caste and Sribhan is Gurjar. They are not relatives. The allegation of opening fire is against Keshav. The, motive at the most can be attributed to accused Keshav and not to accused Sribhan. Learned counsel referred to the statement of PW-4 Pooran and admitted that deceased Sugriv was his close relative. He states that Kok Singh was his political rival because he had contested Panchayat election against him. Koki @ Ko Singh was brother -in-law of Hansram. In election, Pooran was asked not to contest election. against Koki @ Kok Singh. Hansram even asked Sugriv not to support Pooran. This witness has stated that Ramesh Gosai was murdered by dacoits and an F.I.R. was lodged for the death of Ramesh by Keshav against Sugreev and Pooran in which they were acquitted by the Court. It has been stated that Keshav was bodyguard of Hansram and he managed the license gun for accused Keshav. He asked Keshav to murder Sugriv. This witness has stated that Ramesh Gosai was murdered by dacoits and an F.I.R. was lodged for the death of Ramesh by Keshav against Sugreev and Pooran in which they were acquitted by the Court. It has been stated that Keshav was bodyguard of Hansram and he managed the license gun for accused Keshav. He asked Keshav to murder Sugriv. Learned counsel submitted that all the delay that had taken place in lodging of the F.I.R. gave sufficient time to the complainant party to make manipulation and deliberation and result thereof is the false implication of Sribhan and Koko @ Kok Singh, although, entire story narrated by the witnesses from beginning to end is focused only on co-accused Keshav. Even if two persons were seen running from the scene of occurrence, nobody saw accused Sribhan. All witnesses have named only Keshav while PW-3 Shaitan Singh, Head Constable, of Police Station has stated that they saw only one person running from the place of occurrence with a gun. PW-2 Santosh Pathak named two persons but he names second person as Dashrath and not Sribhan. 8. Shri S.K. Gupta, learned counsel further argued that the original story set up by the prosecution was that the accused appellant Sribhan came from behind and caught hold of deceased Sugriv and exorted the accused appellant Keshav to fire at him but, from medical evidence, it was discovered that the gunshot injury was received at his back. On this, the prosecution changed the story and the witnesses stated that Sribhan caught the hands of the deceased Sugriv. Learned counsel has in this connection referred to the statements of PW-6 Vishnu and PW-9 Mahendra Singh and PW-22 Nihal. Learned counsel argued that PW-9 Mahendra Singh and PW-22 Nihal were not the real eye-witnesses. They were implanted by the prosecution. Even though the F.I.R. lodged with delay of several hours contains the names of two brothers of the deceased, informant Gopal and Roshan as accompanying the deceased Sugriv but, PW-7 Gopal did not mention that at that time Mahendra and Nihal were also present there. Testimony of these two witnesses, therefore, cannot be believed. PW-9 Mahendra has stated that Sugriv was his relative through his brother PW-22 Nihal has gone to the extent of suggesting that Koki @ Kok Singh and Hansram dropped the accused Keshav in their Jeep at the Bus Stand, Mansalpur. Testimony of these two witnesses, therefore, cannot be believed. PW-9 Mahendra has stated that Sugriv was his relative through his brother PW-22 Nihal has gone to the extent of suggesting that Koki @ Kok Singh and Hansram dropped the accused Keshav in their Jeep at the Bus Stand, Mansalpur. He has even stated that he made such statement before the Judicial Magistrate (Exhibit - D5) but, this fact was not mentioned therein by the learned Magistrate. These two witnesses were, thus, apparently implanted to falsely rope in the co-accused Hansram, Koki @ Kok Singh, father of Sribhan, and Sribhan. Learned counsel in this connection also referred to the statement of police Constable Rama Singh (PW-8) who has also stated that only one person was seen running with a gun and Sahab Singh, SHO, Santosh Pathak, Shaitan Singh and he, all of them ran behind him and caught him. He has stated that he did not see anyone else with deceased Sugriv. Learned counsel, therefore, argued that lot of improvements have been made upon the original version. All these facts create reasonable doubt about false implication of at least accused-appellant Sribhan and as such, benefit of doubt be extended to him and he be acquitted. 9. Shri Rajesh Goswami, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Bus Stand of Mansalpur is a busy place but, no independent witness has been examined by the police. PW-8 Rama Singh in his statement has stated that the tea stall where murder of Sugriv took, place was of Murari Tamoli and it was only half a furlong away from the Police Station. Murari Tamoli has not been produced as a witness by prosecution. Adverse inference ought to be, therefore, drawn against the prosecution for not producing independent witness and that they deliberately did so not to allow the truth to surface. Benefit of doubt should, therefore, go to both the accused- appellants. 10. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants referred to the statement of PW-26 Sahab Singh, SHO concerned and stated that this witness in his statement has stated that Nihal was not named. Roshan did not name Nihal in the F.I.R. (Exhibit -P17). He has stated that Court at Karauli is 25-30 kms. away from the Police Station Mansalpur and the F.I.R. was chalked out and sent to the Judicial Magistrate at 4.45 PM on the following day on 10.6.2000. Roshan did not name Nihal in the F.I.R. (Exhibit -P17). He has stated that Court at Karauli is 25-30 kms. away from the Police Station Mansalpur and the F.I.R. was chalked out and sent to the Judicial Magistrate at 4.45 PM on the following day on 10.6.2000. On query that when the report was lodged on 9.6.2000 at 11.40 AM, why the report was sent to the Judicial Magistrate at Karauli on 10.6.2000 at 4.45 PM, he merely stated that the report was dispatched to the Judicial Magistrate on 9.6.2000 itself but, he could not produce any copy of the Roznamcha, etc. He could not give any explanation why the statement of petrol pump owner where from PW-2 Santosh Pathak was taking petrol, was not recorded. 11. It was further argued that as per prosecution case accused Keshav was arrested within five minutes of the incident but, the police has shown his arrest in the arrest memo (Exhibit P-5) at 1.50 PM. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the report of the FSL of the gun was not exhibited in the evidence yet, the learned trial Court has relied on the same holding the accused guilty. 12. Shri S. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant Sribhan, cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arjun Marik & Ors. v. State of Bihar, 1994 SCC (Cri.) 1551 wherein the Supreme Court has held that the F.I.R. should be sent to the Magistrate concerned even on Sundays and holidays and the practice in Bihar of not sending the F.I.R. was deprecated. Both the learned counsel, therefore, prayed that accused-appellants be acquitted of the charges and the appeals be allowed. 13. Shri J.R. Bijarnia, learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that in this case, number of eye-witnesses were examined which conclusively proved the guilt of the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Public Prosecutor in support of his arguments referred to the statement of PW-2 Santosh Pathak and argued that this witness named Keshav and he was first one who rushed behind the accused and caught Keshav. His version was corroborated by all other eye-witnesses. PW-3 Shaitan Singh also states that Keshav was caught by the police staff-PW-26 Sahab Singh, PW-2 Santosh Pathak and PW-8 Rama Singh and himself. His version was corroborated by all other eye-witnesses. PW-3 Shaitan Singh also states that Keshav was caught by the police staff-PW-26 Sahab Singh, PW-2 Santosh Pathak and PW-8 Rama Singh and himself. Learned Public Prosecutor also relied upon the statement of PW-7 Gopal and argued that this witness has categorically named both the accused appellants Keshav 0 Keshav Dev and Sribhan with specific roles. He stated that both the accused appellants were seen at the scene of occurrence. Mahendra Singh and Nihal also appeared in the witness box as PW-9 and PW-22 and have supported the prosecution version. All the witnesses have stood the scrutiny of cross examination. PW-8 Ram Singh has also stated that Keshav was caught hold while running from the place of occurrence. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that defence of the accused Keshav that he happened to be present at the Bus stand because he had to go to the office of the District Collector, Karauli for permission to get the gun repaired at Dholpur, has not been proved. No witness was examined, nor any document was exhibited. The order of conviction of the appellant, therefore, cannot be faulted. It was argued that political rivalry between two groups was the precise reason why Sugriv was murdered by the accused appellants and therefore, that cannot be basis to contend that the appellants have been falsely implicated. The F.I.R. was registered immediately after ten minutes of the incident and that is probable also because distance of the place of occurrence and the Police Station is only 200 yds. Merely because the dead body was removed after one hour and taken to the Hospital thereafter does not mean that the F.I.R. contains false version or indicates false implication of any of the appellants. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that minor contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses have to be ignored because the prosecution case cannot be thrown out only because of such infirmities. Benefit of doubt can be claimed-only when it is reasonable doubt whereas in the present case, guilt of the accused appellants has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Public Prosecutor also referred to the statement of PW-26 Sahab Singh, SHO and argued that he has given satisfactory explanation as to why sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate was delayed. Benefit of doubt can be claimed-only when it is reasonable doubt whereas in the present case, guilt of the accused appellants has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Public Prosecutor also referred to the statement of PW-26 Sahab Singh, SHO and argued that he has given satisfactory explanation as to why sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate was delayed. It was argued that death of informant Roshan also cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the accused, because all other witnesses including his brother Gopal have proved the charges against the accused. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeals be dismissed. 15. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the record. 16. We have to first analyze and examine the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants whether the F.I.R. in the present matter has actually not been registered at 11.40 AM on 9.6.2000, as alleged by the prosecution and that it was lodged much thereafter. This has to be considered in the light of the fact that the incident took place in the vicinity of Police Station only about 200 yds. away and it were the police personnel PW-2 Santosh Pathak, PW-3 Shaitan Singh, PW-8'Rama Singh, PW-26 Sahab Singh who on hearing the sound of gunshot rushed behind the accused Keshav and caught him. The investigation then commenced but, the informant Roshan, brother of the deceased Sugriv died during trial. Therefore, it is not possible to get his version in the witness box and allow him to be subjected in the cross-examination by the accused -appellants. But, what has been stated by his brother Gopal who has been examined as PW-7, does really throw serious doubt about the fact that whether he has stated the complete truth or only half truth. He in his cross -examination has stated that he was with the deceased Sugriv and another brother Roshan, the informant. The F.I.R. was lodged by his brother at Karauli. But, he was not aware as to who was the author of the report. The report was given to the police by Roshan when the dead body was brought to the hospital. but, at the same time, he stated that the dead body was lifted only after the Superintendent of Police reached there. But, he was not aware as to who was the author of the report. The report was given to the police by Roshan when the dead body was brought to the hospital. but, at the same time, he stated that the dead body was lifted only after the Superintendent of Police reached there. PW-2 Santosh Pathak was stated that he brought accused Keshav to the Police Station. But, he did not lodge any F.I.R. in the Police Station because the SHO told him that the F.I.R. will be registered by the family member of the deceased who came after two hours and then report was submitted. PW-2 Santosh Pathak is the only witness who mentioned about Dashrath having been caught alongwith accused Keshav and no other witness supported his version. But, all the witnesses have unanimously stated about involvement of accused Keshav @ Keshav Dev. This version appears to have been improved at later stage which is evident from the statement made by PW-7 Gopal, brother of the deceased Sugriv. He submitted that when all the three brothers namely, deceased Sugriv, informant Roshan and Gopal were stating that they were sitting in front of wooden tea stall under a "Chappar" on a stone bench, Sribhan, Koki and Keshav suddenly came there. Sribhan embraced Sugriv and asked Keshav to fire at him. Keshav thereupon fired at Sugriv with the gun that he was carrying. He and his brother Gopal raised hue and cry. The accused thereupon ran away from the place of the occurrence. Keshav was caught soon thereafter by policemen from nearby field because the Police Station Mansalpur was situated near the place of occurrence. In the F.I.R., what was stated was that Sugriv embraced Keshav. However, when eventually it turned out that gunshot hit back of the deceased Sugriv, it was sought to be explained that Sribhan held hand of Sugriv. This witness Gopal has stated that Mahendra and Nihal were also there, who witnessed the incident. Mahendra and Nihal have not been named in the F.I.R. by the Roshan. When we examine the statements of Mahendra (PW-9), Nihal (PW-22), it becomes clear that the prosecution developed a story subsequently that Keshav and Sribhan were dropped by Hansram and Koki in a Jeep at the Bus stand. Mahendra and Nihal have not been named in the F.I.R. by the Roshan. When we examine the statements of Mahendra (PW-9), Nihal (PW-22), it becomes clear that the prosecution developed a story subsequently that Keshav and Sribhan were dropped by Hansram and Koki in a Jeep at the Bus stand. In fact, Mahendra Singh has taken care of stating that Hansram threatened him of dire consequences if he appeared in the witness box. Mahendra Singh stated that police came at the place of occurrence after he had already reached there but, none of the police personnel PW-2 Santosh Pathak, PW-8 Rama Singh and PW-26 Sahab Singh have supported this version. None of them have stated about presence of Sribhan or Hansram or Koki @ Kok Singh. If PW-2 Mahendra was present at the place of occurrence, why he did not inform the police about what he saw. He gave statement to the police on the following day till which time, the complainant had got sufficient time to improve the story which is what has been alleged by the appellants in this case. This witness Mahendra in his statement has also stated that Sugriv was relative of his brother. Nihal (PW-22) repeated the same version. as was stated by PW-2 Mahendra Singh. He states that deceased Sugriv and his brothers Roshan and Gopal could not know about arrival of Sribhan and Keshav whereas PW-7 Gopal has stated that they not only saw them coming towards them but, also Koki @ Kok Singh and Hansram who dropped them in a Jeep at the Bus Stand and pointed out towards Sugriv and then left. PW-22 Nihal states that accused Keshav was caught hold of by police after about 4-5 minutes after the incident and said that Sugriv was his uncle in relation. He narrated all this story after ten days to the police. He even stated that the Judicial Magistrate who recorded statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. did not correctly transcribe his statement (Exhibit -D5) although, he has stated all these facts before him. 17. Facts stated above clearly prove that all the witnesses from beginning to end have consistently stated about culpability of accused appellant Keshav and offence of Section 302 I.P.C. has been proved against accused appellant Keshav beyond reasonable doubt. 17. Facts stated above clearly prove that all the witnesses from beginning to end have consistently stated about culpability of accused appellant Keshav and offence of Section 302 I.P.C. has been proved against accused appellant Keshav beyond reasonable doubt. In the facts of the case, it is evident that four police personnel who appeared as witnesses have consistently stated that accused Keshav was immediately caught from the scene of occurrence rushing from the place of incident. PW-2 Santosh Pathak has stated that when he heard sound of gunshot, he saw two persons rushing from Tea Stall who were armed with gun. He ran behind them and caught hold them. He then brought them to the Police Station. His version in so far as Dasharath is concerned, has not been corroborated either by any of three police personnel namely, PW-2 Shaitan Singh, PW-8 Rama Singh and PW-26 Sahab Singh and has also not been supported by other prosecution witnesses, who claimed to be eye-witnesses, namely PW-6 Vishnu, PW-9 Mahendra Singh and PW-22 Nihal. PW-3 Shaitan Singh, Constable of the Police Station, has stated that while he, Ramsingh, Constable and PW-2 Santosh, Head Constable, were taking meal in the mess, they heard noise of gunshot. They rushed out towards the place of occurrence and saw one person running from there with a gun in his hand. They caught him and that person told his name to be Keshav. He had a single barrel 12 bore gun and a cartridge belt with few live cartridges. PW-8 Rama Singh has also given similar version about immediate action taken by the police personnel in nabbing accused Keshav within few minutes of gunfire. New story that was later introduced for the first name in the statement of PW-7 Gopal and thereafter, in statements of PW-9 Mahendra Singh and Nihal. 18. Argument of Shri S.K. Gupta as to false implication of accused Sribhan, have to be considered in the light evidence that has come on record. Apart from contradictions between the statements of PW-2 Santosh Pathak and PW-3 Shaitan Singh, we find that PW-7 Gopal, brother of deceased, has also not been very candid and clear about the role of accused appellant Shribhan. PW-2 Santosh Pathak, in any case, does not speak about presence of accused-appellant Shribhan at the scene of occurrence. Apart from contradictions between the statements of PW-2 Santosh Pathak and PW-3 Shaitan Singh, we find that PW-7 Gopal, brother of deceased, has also not been very candid and clear about the role of accused appellant Shribhan. PW-2 Santosh Pathak, in any case, does not speak about presence of accused-appellant Shribhan at the scene of occurrence. Evidence that has come on record shows that there were two political groups led by two different political leaders, one was led by deceased Hansram and leader of another group was Shivcharan Dhabhai. PW-7 Gopal in his statement admitted that accused-appellant Keshav had filed first information report naming deceased Sugriv and Puran as accused for murder of his father Ramesh Dhabhai and they were acquitted in the trial. A meeting of Panchayat was also convened for arriving at a compromise, which was frustrated accused Hansram and Koki @ Kok Singh. Puran, who is closed relative of Sugriv (their son and daughter are married to each other), was member of political group led by Shivcharan Dhabhai, whose political rivalry with accused Hansram was too well known. Evidence has also come on record that Koki @ Koksingh was real brother -in-law of Hansram and father of accused-appellant Shribhan, which explains why both Shribhan, his brother Koki @ Koksingh and Hansram were all named as accused in the present case, although there is no credible evidence on record proving their presence on the scene of occurrence and main allegation of opening fire at deceased Sugriv is against Keshav. PW-4 Puran has also in his statement accepted the fact that Sugriv was his close relative and that Koki @ Koksingh was his political rival because he contested an election against him. In that election, Hansram pressurised him not to contest election against Koki @ Koksingh, who even asked deceased Sugriv not to support him (Puran). In view of all this evidence, the mere fact that Keshav was close relative of Hansram by itself would not be enough to connect him with the murder of deceased Sugriv. Even if Hansram had to do anything with this witness, that would remotely connect accused- appellant Shribhan with the crime through his father Koki @ Koksingh, who is brother-in-law of Hansram. Even if Hansram had to do anything with this witness, that would remotely connect accused- appellant Shribhan with the crime through his father Koki @ Koksingh, who is brother-in-law of Hansram. Possibility of his false implication, in view, of peculiarity attached to this case, is not only not ruled out but, on the contrary, the defence of the accused- appellant Shribhan appears rather probable to believe that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is certainly therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt. 19. So far as accused appellant Keshav @ Keshav Dev is concerned, his involvement in the crime is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The gunshot injury that was caused by him on the person of deceased Sugriv has been found responsible for his death. PW-25 Dr. Nandlal Sharma has proved the post-mortem report (Exhibit -P16) and the fact that both entry wound and exit wound were received by the deceased by firearm. No doubt, a suggestion that has come on record that since deceased Sugriv and his close relative Pooran were accused in a criminal case of murder of Ramesh, father of Keshav and were acquitted, this could be the motive of his false implication. We are, however, on consideration of the motive. alone, not prepared to throw the prosecution case overboard because so far as accused-appellant Keshav Dev is concerned charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against him has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, the same may not be case of accused-appellant Sribhan on whose behalf arguments in detail have been noticed by us earlier that he has been involved fasely due to political rivalry. No independent witness either the tea stall owner or, the petrol pump owner or any independent witness has been produced. The two witnesses who have been introduced by Gopal in his statement given to the police, namely Mahendra Singh (PW-9) and Nihal (PW- 22) have also supported the story developed by the complainant party to involve Hansram Gurjar, his brother -in-law, Koki @ Kok Singh and his son Sribhan for whose presence, no other witness has said except Gopal (PW-7) and two of his relatives Nihal Singh (PW-22) and Mahendra Singh (PW-9) who were subsequently implanted witnesses and do not inspire confidence. We are, therefore, not inclined , to believe that part of the story put forth by the prosecution although, at the same time, our effort has been to find out the truth and in that effort, we have come to the conclusion that charge of offence under Section 302 I.P.C: against accused-appellant Keshav @ Keshav Dev stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, the accused appellant Sribhan is held entitled to benefit of doubt. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by accused-appellant Keshav @ Keshav Dev is dismissed and his conviction and sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. is upheld. However, the appeal of accused -appellant Sribhan deserves to be allowed and accordingly, allowed. His conviction recorded by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 10.5.2007 for offence under Section 302/34 is set aside. He is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.Appeal No. 1598/2007 dismissed and Appeal No. 1145/2007 dismissed. *******