JUDGMENT (ORAL) Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.:- Criminal Appeal on behalf of Umesh Singh and Bhola Singh is against the judgment and order of sentence dated 28th of August, 1989 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Case No. 473 of 1983 whereby both the appellants were held guilty under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life but they were acquitted for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case as per the written report (Ext.1) submitted to officer-in-charge of Lakhisarai police station on 03.12.1982 at 09.30 p.m. was that while the informant together with Balmiki Prasad Singh P.W.3 and Ramdeo Singh (the deceased) were returning from fish depot (Machhali Arhat), Lakhisarai on foot, on the same date at about 08.45 p.m. then these appellants and Sanjay Singh along with three unknown masked persons surrounded Ramdeo Singh at Purani Bazar, Lakhisarai in the way back upon the road in front of Dharmshala and they started scuffling with Ramdeo Singh. In the meanwhile, Girija Singh P.W.1 who was also coming raised alarm and at that very time the two appellants as well as Sanjay Singh opened fire from their revolvers aiming at Ramdeo Singh which led to his instantaneous death on account of impact of firearm injuries. All the accused persons fled away towards Kiul river. Ramdeo Singh breathes his last but prior to that he named all the three persons including Sanjay Singh and the appellants as his assailants. The deceased Ramdeo Singh had quarrel with the two appellants and Sanjay Singh prior to alleged occurrence in relation to fishery right and in that dispute a complaint was filed earlier. The written report resulted into formal First Information Report (Ext.4) vide Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 414/1982 dated 03.12.1982 against Sanjay Singh, both the appellants and three unknown persons. In course of investigation, the inquest report (Ext.5) of the dead body was prepared. The seizure list (Ext.3) was also prepared. The post-mortem report of Ramdeo Singh (Ext.2) was obtained and after investigation chargesheet was submitted against these appellants and Sanjay Singh. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions where the charges were explained to them, they pleaded their innocence and have preferred to face the trial. 3. The seizure list (Ext.3) was also prepared. The post-mortem report of Ramdeo Singh (Ext.2) was obtained and after investigation chargesheet was submitted against these appellants and Sanjay Singh. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions where the charges were explained to them, they pleaded their innocence and have preferred to face the trial. 3. The defence of the appellants of false implication on account of long standing enmity and grudge. Further defence was that Ramdeo Singh himself was a notorious criminal of the locality having a number of enemies and he might have been killed over the question of division of stolen property. Their further defence was that in fact First Information Report was initially registered against unknown but subsequently fardbeyan of that case was substituted by Baikunth Prasad Singh in collusion with the officer-in-charge of Lakhisarai police station. The injury of Ramdeo Singh was such that he could not have uttered the name of his assailants. 4. In order to prove its charge, the prosecution has examined six witnesses namely Girija Singh P.W.1, Baikunth Prasad Singh P.W.2 –informant, Balmiki Prasad Singh P.W.3, Dr. Rana Pratap Singh P.W.4, Rajkumar Singh P.W.5 and Dinanath Sah P.W.6. One court witness Tarni Prasad who was examined and has submitted that the investigating officer was dead. P.W.6 has proved the case diary written by the investigating officer and P.W.5 is witness of the seizure. 5. P.W.4 has conducted the post-mortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased on 04.12.1982 at 11.30 a.m. at Sadar Hospital, Munger and found the following injuries: (I). One circular lacerated wound, ½” diameter x thorasic cavity deep with inverted margin and charring around the wound over infra auxiliary region left side at the level of left nipple (wound of entry). (II). Almost circular lacerated wound with inverted margin, ½” x thorasic cavity deep with charring around the wound, just by the side of infra-scapular region, adjacent to posterior region, adjacent to posterior auxiliary line of left side at the level of the seventh rib (wound of entry). (III). Almost circular or oval lacerated wound, 1½” in diameter with E-marked margin at the level of the fifth rib of the right side x thorasic cavity deep, (wound of exit) in the middle chest of the anterior auxiliary line. (IV). (III). Almost circular or oval lacerated wound, 1½” in diameter with E-marked margin at the level of the fifth rib of the right side x thorasic cavity deep, (wound of exit) in the middle chest of the anterior auxiliary line. (IV). One oval lacerated wound, 1½” in diameter with E-verted margin x thorasic cavity deep at infra-auxiliary region in the middle of the chest right side at the level of the sixth rib. On further dissection of chest cavity, the doctor has found fractures of the fifth and the seventh ribs of the left side laterally and of the fifth and the sixth ribs of the right side. Blood and blood clots present. Inter costal mussels lacerated and perforated. On further opening of the chest, he found the chest cavity full of blood and lower lobe of the left lung perforated through and through at two points; oval in diameter. Both the auricles? (left and right) of the heart were found completely smashed together within ascending aorta. Right lobe of the lung had also been found to be perforated through and through at two points; oval in diameter. Death has occurred due to shock and haemorrhage due to the aforesaid injuries caused within 12-24 hours. 6. The evidence of the doctor goes to prove that Ramdeo Singh made a violent death on account of use of firearm injuries and two firearm injuries were caused upon on the date and time as alleged. 7. P.W.2 has deposed that at about 08.45 p.m. on 03.12.1982 the informant along with Balmiki Prasad singh P.W.3 and Ramdeo Singh (the deceased) were returning from fish godown and in the way they reached near Dharmshala in Purani Bazar. At that very time Bhola Singh, Sanjay Singh and Umesh Singh and three others were seen there. Bhola Singh, Sanjay Singh and Umesh Singh came near the informant and started scuffling with Ramdeo Singh. At that very time Girija Singh cried and thereafter, Bhola Singh, Sanjay Singh and Umesh Singh fired from their pistols upon Ramdeo Singh as a result thereof Ramdeo Singh fell down on the land. Before death Ramdeo Singh described his assailants as Bhola Singh, Sanjay Singh and Umesh Singh. The motive alleged was that Ramdeo Singh has taken settlement of fisheries of Harohar river and that was litigated. Before death Ramdeo Singh described his assailants as Bhola Singh, Sanjay Singh and Umesh Singh. The motive alleged was that Ramdeo Singh has taken settlement of fisheries of Harohar river and that was litigated. Immediately after the occurrence the informant rushed to the police station and gave a report which was written and signed by him. It appears from deposition of this witness in para-8 that he was one of the accused of killing of professor Rajnandan Singh. About the deceased, he has stated that he was accused in many cases. Whereas accused Bhola Singh was a qualified person and holding degree of M.A., B.A. The informant has denied the suggestion that the original First Information Report/written report has been changed. 8. P.W.1 has described the occurrence in the same manner as that given by the informant. P.W.1 is nephew of the deceased. In para-6, this witness has stated that he has seen firing from 100 yards. He could not describe as to whose firing has struck in which part of the body. He has stated that after two shots Ramdeo Singh fell on the ground and thereafter 3rd shot was given to him. This witness has supported the contention of P.W.2 that all the three named accused namely Umesh Singh, Bhola Singh and Sanjay Singh have fired and this witness has seen the occurrence from a distance of 100 yards. P.W.3 has stated that Bhola Singh, Umesh Singh fired upon Ramdeo Singh and when he was in the position of falling then 3rd firing was given by Sanjay Singh. Therefore, according to him all the three accused persons have fired which have caused injury to Ramdeo Singh. This witness has stated that after the occurrence he went to police station and gave written report. In para-8, he has stated that P.W.2 has written his report in the Baramda of Lakhisarai police station. The written report mentions that due to terror the informant locked himself inside the room and the dead body was lying at the place of occurrence. The impact of written report is that it was not given at police station rather the informant P.W.2 has written his report after the occurrence. The informant has kept confined himself in the police station. The evidence of the informant is that the written report was not in his writing and in his signature. 9. The impact of written report is that it was not given at police station rather the informant P.W.2 has written his report after the occurrence. The informant has kept confined himself in the police station. The evidence of the informant is that the written report was not in his writing and in his signature. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that a bare reading of the written report will show that the handwriting of the written report is of different persons and writing is of another person. Even the name of “Baikunth Prasad Singh” has been written in two different manners. In cross-examination at para-11, attention of the informant was drawn but the informant could not explain. 10. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that the handwriting and signature of the written report (Ext.1) are definitely of two persons and not of one person. 11. We have analyzed the fardbeyan (Ext.1). Signature of informant Baikunth Prasad Singh is on the written report (Ext.1) and his deposition dated 15.04.1989 and 16.04.1989 and these signatures and signatures of three dates are different and the signatures are not of the person who has written the report so, contention of the informant that he has written his report does not appear to be correct. A person cannot write the spelling of his name in two ways. In (Ext.1) the spelling of the name of the informant is different and signature contains different spelling. Both are in Hindi and the ‘name’ has been written in different manner. There are other apparent and visible contradictions in the manner of writing of the written report and the signature so it can be said that written report and signature are not of one person so this contention of the informant that he has written his report and handed over to him cannot be accepted. The written report shows that it was handed over to police but P.W.3 in para-8 states that after the written report was written at police station where it was handed over there. Both these are two contradictory stands and such contradictory stands cannot be read together. 12. P.W.1 in para-10 states that he met the police officer of the occurrence on 04.12.1982 in the morning where his statement was recorded. Informant P.W.2 in para-11 states that Girija Singh P.W.1 had not gone to the police station with him. Both these are two contradictory stands and such contradictory stands cannot be read together. 12. P.W.1 in para-10 states that he met the police officer of the occurrence on 04.12.1982 in the morning where his statement was recorded. Informant P.W.2 in para-11 states that Girija Singh P.W.1 had not gone to the police station with him. Police has gone to the place of occurrence at 10.00 p.m. in the night and that time Girija Singh P.W.1 and Balmiki Prasad Singh P.W.3 were not present there. The written report has no attesting witness. P.W.3 in para-3 has contradicted P.W.2 when he has stated that he went in the company of Baikunth Prasad Singh P.W.2 but P.W.2 in para-11 has contradicted this. Therefore, either P.W.2 is telling truth or P.W.3 is telling the truth. Both are not telling the truth. If the other witnesses accompanied the informant at the police station then the written statement must have signature of the witnesses. 13. Another striking the fact in the case is about identification of the accused. The occurrence is of 08.45 p.m. The written report is completely silent in mentioning the source of light. If an offence is committed in the night then the source of light must be proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. There is no mention at all as to whether the light was available or not and if the light was available then what was the means. It may be electricity, patromax, gas light, lantern, torch or anything but there is no mention at all as to what was the source of light. The inquest report (Ext.5) was prepared at 10.00 p.m. on 03.12.1982 and it has been mentioned in the case diary that though electric light was available but two patromax were arranged for preparing the inquest report. This is after about one hour fifteen minutes of the occurrence. Though the case diary has been exhibited but also there is no mention as to what was the source of light which led to identification of the accused. Absence of the source of light is a circumstance which goes at the root of matter. 14. Though, it has come in evidence that besides these two appellants one Sanjay Singh and three masked men were there but there is no evidence that these appellants have tried to conceal their identity. 15. Absence of the source of light is a circumstance which goes at the root of matter. 14. Though, it has come in evidence that besides these two appellants one Sanjay Singh and three masked men were there but there is no evidence that these appellants have tried to conceal their identity. 15. P.W.1 in para-11 mentions about the antecedent of the deceased. According to his evidence, Ramdeo Singh was accused in fish loot case. He was also a member of one notorious gang. It has come that the witnesses were also accused and the enmity is apparent. The informant himself was accused of a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. P.W.2 in para-11 states that he has not gone to the police station whereas P.W.3 in para-3 and 8 has stated that the informant went to the police station and where written report was written. 16. If the evidence is analyzed properly then it is apparent that no source of light has been disclosed. The witnesses have given contradictory evidence as to where the written report was written – there is contradictory evidence with regard to that. No inquest witness has been examined. The writing and signature on the Ext.1 are of different persons and assertion of the informant that writing and signature of his cannot be accepted. Considering the apparent contradictions in manner of writing and manner of signature upon Ext.1, there is no explanation as to why Ext.1 has not attesting witnesses though defence case of the informant and two other witnesses are that they were present throughout. The doctor who has conducted the post-mortem examination has stated that only two firearm injuries but the prosecution is specific that three persons have fired. 3rd shot was made by Sanjay Singh. Against Sanjay Singh also the allegation and evidence was that he has fired which has caused injury. Not even one witness has given any other role to Sanjay Singh as that of the appellants. Therefore the case of these appellants was exactly on identical footing with Sanjay Singh who was acquitted and the appellants were convicted. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances discussed above, it is apparent that the prosecution case suffers from a number of inconsistencies and identically situated accused have been acquitted by the court below. Therefore the case of these appellants was exactly on identical footing with Sanjay Singh who was acquitted and the appellants were convicted. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances discussed above, it is apparent that the prosecution case suffers from a number of inconsistencies and identically situated accused have been acquitted by the court below. It is also held that the prosecution case cannot be accepted as stated and a grave doubt regarding participation of the appellants has been found in the evidence. 18. In the result, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the charge and they are discharged from the liability of their respective bail bonds. Appeal allowed.