JUDGMENT By the Court.—The present appeal arises out of judgment of conviction dated 30.4.1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Session Trial No. 523 of 1982 by which the three appellants were held guilty of committing offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and after hearing them under Section 235 Cr.P.C. the learned Judge directed each of them to suffer R.I. for life. 2. The prosecution case is contained in the report lodged by PW-1 Vikram, who happened to be the full brother of the deceased Lallu. It was stated that the deceased was under the employment of one Ram Naresh, resident of village Kuinya, and was residing in the very house of Ram Naresh. The mother of the informant and deceased was also residing with the deceased at village Kuinya. It was stated that the sister of Pt. Ram Naresh was married to appellant Brahmesh, who was the brother of the remaining two appellants Satish and Keshav. The three brothers were also residing at village Kuinya where they had purchased 60 - 70 bighas of land and were carrying on agricultural operations. 3. It was stated that some 10 - 12 days prior to 16.5.1982, Brahmesh had assaulted his wife and when the mother of Pt. Ram Naresh intervened in the incident, the lady was also assaulted by appellant Brahmesh. The deceased Lallu intervened. His intervention angered the appellants who retorted by telling the deceased that how could he, a servant, poke his nose in their personal affairs. It was alleged that the appellants were carrying grudge from that very day in their hearts against the deceased. However, they mended with the deceased and things were going on normally. 4. It was stated that his brother, who was living under the naivete of the feigned compromise between him and the appellant, on the day of occurrence, was asked to accompany the appellants Satish and Keshav to a particular sugarcane field for finding out whether water was there or not. The deceased accompanied the appellants Satish and Keshav in the evening of 16.5.1982 just about sun set. The deceased accompanied the appellants Satish and Keshav in the evening of 16.5.1982 just about sun set. It was stated that an hour after the departure of the deceased with the two appellants, Deep Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Bharosey (P.W. 3) came to the informant and informed him that his brother had been assaulted and killed by the three appellants near a pond which was situated at village Bareda in the vicinity of the jungle and the dead body was lying in a field. The informant, accompanied by many villagers and the two witnesses abovenamed, went to the field to find out the dead body of Lallu lying there which was bearing injuries on neck, stomach and hands. The informant stated that the time being of night and on account of the fright of the appellants, the informant did not muster sufficient courage to go to the police station for lodging the report in the night and, as such, he approached the police station at 8.15 a.m. on 17.5.1982 to lodge his report. 5. As may appear from the evidence of P.W. 5, Deg Pal Singh, who was a constable in Police Station, Kanth that he drew up the F.I.R. on the basis of Ext. Ka 2 and sent the copies of the special report to different authorities. However, P.W. 5 has admitted that he did not send the copy of the report to the nearest Magistrate as was required under law. It may further appear from the evidence of P.W. 8, Karam Singh, that he was ordered to investigate the case and in that light he came to the place of occurrence for investigating it. He recorded the statements of the informant and his witnesses very much at the police station and thereafter, came to the place where the dead body was lying, with relevant papers and constables and he found the dead body lying there. He held inquest upon it in presence of the witnesses and prepared the inquest report, Ext Ka. 2. He sealed the dead body and prepared the challan for transmitting it to the hospital for post-mortem examination. Challan for carrying the dead body was handed over to constables A.K. Pandey and Chandan Lal (P.W. 6). Challan has been marked as Ext. Ka. 6. He prepared the site plan, Ext. Ka. 2. He sealed the dead body and prepared the challan for transmitting it to the hospital for post-mortem examination. Challan for carrying the dead body was handed over to constables A.K. Pandey and Chandan Lal (P.W. 6). Challan has been marked as Ext. Ka. 6. He prepared the site plan, Ext. Ka. 8, and also seized the blood stained earth from the place of occurrence by preparing the seizure memo, Ext. Ka. 9. After finding sufficient materials against the accused persons he sent up the appellants for their trial by the competent Court. 6. As may appear from the cross-examination of P.W. 1 and especially of P.W. 2 Deep Singh, the defence of the appellant was that no body indeed saw the deceased being killed, who was a history-sheeter and on account of enmity due to election in which appellant Satish had worked as the polling agent on behalf of one of the candidates who had contested P.W. 2 Deep Singh in the elections for electing the Gram Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, the appellants were roped in on account of anguish which was very much in the heart of P.W. 2 who had lost the elections. 7. The learned trial judge after considering the evidence of prosecution and that of D.W. 1, namely, Ram Pal who had produced the election related documents before the trial Court passed the impugned judgment. 8. We have heard Sri P.N. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri K.N. Bajpae, learned A.G.A.-I on behalf of the State. 9. It was submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that the motive, which was the assault administered by appellant Brahmesh to his wife as also to the mother of Pt. Ram Naresh and the intervention of the deceased causing annoyance to and grudge in the hearts of the appellants appears not established, firstly, because the evidence of P.W. 1 is too shaky to be accepted and, secondly, because the most competent person, mother of P.W. 2 was neither produced nor examined by the prosecution. Ram Naresh and the intervention of the deceased causing annoyance to and grudge in the hearts of the appellants appears not established, firstly, because the evidence of P.W. 1 is too shaky to be accepted and, secondly, because the most competent person, mother of P.W. 2 was neither produced nor examined by the prosecution. It was further contended that the very presence of P.W. 1 on the date of occurrence in the house where the deceased was residing and the purpose for which he had come there, appears also doubtful and the whole evidence of P.W. 1 in that regard makes it unacceptable that he could have received the information from P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 as was claimed by him. The contention further was that two witnesses P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were chance witnesses and they were motivated to make false statement and they also appeared not to have seen the occurrence and due to their own blood relationship with the informant, they had probably made false statement. 10. Sri K.N. Bajpai, learned A.G.A. submitted that the facts regarding the presence of P.W. 1 in the house where the deceased was residing appears probablized by his own evidence and the evidence of other witnesses also supports the charges. The learned A.G.A. was submitting that charges appeared established. 11. We may recall that in a case of direct evidence motive does not play that important a role, but when it is alleged as a fact which had impelled the accused persons to commit the offence, then the prosecution is required to prove that fact also as any other fact. The motive which was alleged by the prosecution was that appellant Brahmesh, married to the sister of Pt. Ram Naresh, had assaulted his wife some 10 - 12 days prior to the incident and when the mother of Pt. Ram Naresh intervened, she was also assaulted which prompted the deceased to intervene who was retorted by being told that being a servant, he was not enjoying the status of intervening into the personal matters of the appellants. We may note that such a matter in our society does have some sort of importance when it comes to nursing grudge or penalizing a person on that account. We are known to suffer from a false pince of pride of our caste, status and sometime of our position in society. We may note that such a matter in our society does have some sort of importance when it comes to nursing grudge or penalizing a person on that account. We are known to suffer from a false pince of pride of our caste, status and sometime of our position in society. We are also known to act on very trivial matters, like, our personal dislike for another on account of the person belonging to a caste which could be recognised as a low caste but was still attempting to interfere in our personal matters. We are never ready to accord parity to any of our servants with us and look down upon them as inferior souls. Accepting these social norms of conduct of ours, it might not have been acceptable to the appellants on any particular day and, especially, on that particular day on which Brahmesh had assaulted his wife and her mother, that the deceased, their servant, should intervene in their personal matters. The informant stated that he had come to see his mother who was living with his brother. We, as such, may assume that the mother of the deceased and the informant was very much present on that particular day also when Brahmesh had indulged in some misbehaviour with his wife and the mother of Pt. Ram Naresh. But, she was not coming forward to state that fact. Not only that there could have been some other persons of the neighbourhood, because the incident had occurred in a village, who could have very well stated to those facts but the prosecution neither produced them nor even took care to take their statements. Moreover, P.W. 1 has very much admitted in his evidence which appeared at page 10 of the paper book that the incident had not occurred in his presence and as such we could assume that he had heard it from some other sources and that particular source was not disclosed by him. As such, the material evidence on motive of the occurrence appears either not produced or, if produced, not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. On these reasons we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution had miserably failed in establishing the motive which was alleged for the commission of the offence. 12. As such, the material evidence on motive of the occurrence appears either not produced or, if produced, not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. On these reasons we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution had miserably failed in establishing the motive which was alleged for the commission of the offence. 12. What we next want to consider is as to whether the informant was present on 16.5.1982 in the house of the deceased for the purpose, as was claimed by him. We have noted on some earlier occasions that the First Information Report could not have the evidenciary value in the scheme of appreciation of evidence, but nonetheless it assumes a very significant position in criminal trial wherein the qualitative analysis of witnesses’ evidence has always to depend upon the very foundation of the prosecution case like the F.I.R. and facts which are alleged by the prosecution in it. We may treat the statements contained in the document as the benchmark so as to testing the reliability or otherwise of the evidence of witnesses who could have been produced by the prosecution. In that connection we could consider the initial statements made in the F.I.R. to find out as to whether there had been any serious and purposeful departure from the earliest version by the prosecution while it was producing the evidence in proof of the charges. The evidence on being considered in the light of the contents of the F.I.R. may also give us a glimpse as to how and why the prosecution had taken turns and with what purposes. Keeping these in our minds, we have proceeded to examine the question of presence of P.W. 1 in the very house where the deceased was allegedly residing with his mother, as per claim of the prosecution. We have already noted that the mother of the deceased was never produced by the prosecution for her evidence. Thus, there is complete absence of evidence of one of the most competent persons whom the informant had gone to meet. It was a very sound purpose for a son to have gone to meet his old mother and we could have never hesitated in accepting it as the real claim for the son desirous of meeting his mother. Thus, there is complete absence of evidence of one of the most competent persons whom the informant had gone to meet. It was a very sound purpose for a son to have gone to meet his old mother and we could have never hesitated in accepting it as the real claim for the son desirous of meeting his mother. But, what appeared from the evidence of P.W. 1 himself was that inspite of having reached the place, he, for unknown reasons, neither met his mother nor even attempted to peep into the section of the house where the old lady was residing so as to even have a glimpse of hers. He was staying there for 4 - 5 hours but had not attempted to meet his mother. We do not find that there was anyone, except the deceased and his mother, with whom he could have been deeply involved in some discussion to get digressed from his purpose of visiting the home, as the informant himself admitted that when he reached at the house of the deceased, where his mother was residing, none else was there. Thus, these lines of evidence which appeared in the deposition sheet of P.W. 1 and is available to us at page 11 of the paper book, raises doubt about the claim of P.W. 1 that he had indeed gone to the house of the deceased for that purpose. That particular claim of P.W. 1 further pails into doubt when he stated that he received an information of his brother being killed from P.Ws. 2 and 3 when he was in his house at village Kataiya. For the sake of clarity, we want to note that the deceased and his mother were residing at village Kuinya which was not far away from village Kataiya and the evidence of P.W. 1, which appeared in his deposition sheet which is available to us at page 8 of the paper book, shows that he had received the information about the incident within an hour of the departure of the deceased and his evidence at page 11 of the paper book indicates that he lived there for some 4 - 5 hours. But his above evidence shows that he received the information at his village home at Kataiya which further makes his presence at village Kuinya at the residence of the deceased improbable. But his above evidence shows that he received the information at his village home at Kataiya which further makes his presence at village Kuinya at the residence of the deceased improbable. Thus, for the above two reasons of not proving the motive and the doubt regarding the claim of the informant of having come to village Kuinya where his presence with the deceased pailed into doubt. 13. Inspite of the above findings recorded by us in the face of the evidence of P.W. 1, we heard the learned counsel at length so as to scanning the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. We must record our appreciation of the effort of the counsel for the parties for taking us through the evidence of the witnesses for placing their own submissions or interpretation of the evidence by stitching the facts some how or the other. We first consider the submission of the defence that witnesses were motivated to make false statement and in fact none of them had seen the occurrence with their own eyes. It was suggested to P.W. 1 during his cross-examination that P.W. 3 Ram Bharosey was his cousin, being son of Lalla, who happened to be the cousin of his father. This suggestion appears given to P.W. 1 in his deposition which appears at page 7 of the paper book. P.W. 1 was denying those facts and, in turn, was telling the learned trial judge that Ram Bharosey was son of another Lalla, who was having his house 4 - 5 houses apart from that of P.W. 1. When we came to consider the evidence of P.W. 1 we found from the few lines of his evidence which appears from page 23 that there was no other person, named Lalla, who was the father of Ram Bharosey in village Kuinya. Thus, we conclude that P.W. 1 was making purposeful concealment of the fact regarding his relationship with P.W. 3 and that purpose could be to project P.W. 3 as an independent witness. P.W. 2 had admitted that he had contested the election for the post of Gram Pradhan and he was being contested by Braj Pal and Ratiram. He appears to have denied that appellant Keshav was acting against him and his interest and he had never worked as the polling agent of Ratiram. P.W. 2 had admitted that he had contested the election for the post of Gram Pradhan and he was being contested by Braj Pal and Ratiram. He appears to have denied that appellant Keshav was acting against him and his interest and he had never worked as the polling agent of Ratiram. The learned trial Court had the evidence relevant on the above facts produced before it through D.W. 1, Ram Pal, who was an employee of the Election Office and who had produced the documents at the orders of the Court. From documents, which is material Exts. Kha 1 and 2 and from the deposition sheet of D.W. 1 it stands concluded that the appellant Satish had worked against the interest of P.W. 2 Deep, who had lost the elections. Thus what we further gathered from the totality of the evidence is that the element of animosity or ill-will between the two sides could not be overruled. 14. In the above background we have to scan the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 with care and caution. What we find is that P.W. 2 had inducted the story of going to Shah Mahdoor for purchasing some clothes. P.W. 3 has told the lower Court that he had gone for some shopping purposes. We conclude that the purpose might have been there and we also conclude that the two witnesses might have also gone there, but when we considered the distance and time which was taken by them in travelling back home, we found out that they could have consumed two hours in travelling back from Rampur to Bareda and if they had travelled that much distance within a period of two hours then at the time of the occurrence it could have been quite dark on 16.5.1982 specially when P.Ws. 2 and 3 had claimed travelling together on foot. P.W. 3 has stated that he was picking out the cries of the deceased and he was shouting in response as well. P.W. 7 Dr. A.P. Mishra had pointed out that one of the injuries, which was on the neck, had severed the trachea also. The deceased was having as many as 10 injuries and at least four of them were very serious. P.W. 7 Dr. A.P. Mishra had pointed out that one of the injuries, which was on the neck, had severed the trachea also. The deceased was having as many as 10 injuries and at least four of them were very serious. From the fact which has been narrated by P.W. 2, he was hearing shrieks of the deceased which clearly indicated to us the distance between the two was substantially good and that was intervened by darkness. The witnesses must not have seen from such a distance and in darkness as to by whom and how the deceased was killed. This is one reason appearing from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that we do not have any hesitation in holding that the two witnesses might not have seen the occurrence. 15. The other aspect of the case emerges from the statements of P.Ws. 2 and 3. P.W. 2 had stated that he did not move out of the place of occurrence. P.W. 3 says that both of them had gone to the village to inform the villagers. This has never been the case of the prosecution, especially, if the prosecution was relying upon the evidence of P.W. 2. The other aspects are that villagers were converging at the place of occurrence and they were carrying some source of light, may be lanterns, but inspite of having arrived at the place of occurrence early in the night of 16.5.1982 none of them ventured out of the place of occurrence even to inform the Chowkidar to take this information to the police station. 16. In the month of May, it could have been quite an early sun rise, but inspite of that the informant lodged his report at 8.15 a.m. It has been admitted by P.W. 5 Deg Pal Singh that the report of the case was despatched to several authorities but definitely not to the Magistrate, who was required to be informed, by despatching a copy of the report as per the provisions of Section 157. We assume that withholding of the despatch of the report to the Magistrate was purposeful as the police was still attempting to cook, in collusion with the informant, a story so that it could record the F.I.R.. 17. We assume that withholding of the despatch of the report to the Magistrate was purposeful as the police was still attempting to cook, in collusion with the informant, a story so that it could record the F.I.R.. 17. We while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses with caution, find that the charges had not been proved and the two appellants should be given benefit of doubt. 18. These are some of the reasons upon which we find the appeal meritorious. The appeal is allowed. The judgment impugned and order of conviction passed by the learned trial judge is set aside. The three appellants are acquitted of the charge of which they had been found guilty. All of them are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. ——————