Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. – This Government Appeal No. 1226 of 1982 has been filed by the appellant State challenging the verdict of acquittal passed on 10.2.1982 by the District and Sessions Judge, Agra in favour of the respondent-accused Raghuveer Singh in Sessions Trial No. 425 of 1981 under section 302 IPC, police station Achhnera District Agra. 2. The case emanates from a some­what freak incident which took place on 3.5.1981 at about 8.00 p.m. in village Raibha at the house of the first infor­mant in which one Mahaveer, who was not the intended target, got killed. It is said that the accused-respondent Raghuveer Singh had actually fired upon the first informant's son Virendra but he missed his aim and the fire hit deceased Mahaveer who while being carried to the hospital succumbed to his injuries. The reason of shooting at Virendra, as shown in the FIR, seems to be his alleged intervention in a village quarrel to the chagrin and displeasure of accused Raghuveer Singh who re­sented the same. The first information report of the incident was lodged by Jagan Singh at whose house deceased Mahaveer had come to take some money which was due, and at whose house the fatal incident took place. The initial FIR was lodged at the police sta­tion Achhnera District Agra under sec­tion 307 IPC same day at 9.00 p.m. but subsequently when the information about the demise of Mahaveer was fur­nished to the police station next day, the case was converted into 302 IPC. 3. The autopsy of the deceased was performed on 6.5.1981. 4. During investigation that com­menced the inquest proceedings took place, the site plan was prepared, sam­ples of blood stained and plain earth were collected from the spot. The lan­tern said to be the source of light at the time of the incident was also duly seen and handed over to the first informant. The recovery memos of all these items were duly prepared by the Investigating Officer. The licensee gun of accused Raghuveer Singh along with some live and empty cartridges were also taken into possession from his house. State­ments of witnesses were also recorded by the I.O. 5. The investigation of the case culminated in submission of charge-sheet against the accused whose case, after due compliance of the legal proce­dure, was committed to the Court of Sessions. State­ments of witnesses were also recorded by the I.O. 5. The investigation of the case culminated in submission of charge-sheet against the accused whose case, after due compliance of the legal proce­dure, was committed to the Court of Sessions. The Trial Court arraigned him for charges under section 302 read with 301 IPC 6. The accused pleaded denial arid claimed to be tried. 7. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced P.W.I Jagan Singh, P.W.2 Jaswant, P.W.3 Virendra, and P.W.5 Bedaria as witnesses of fact while P.W.4 Constable Ram Bahadur, P.W.6 Dr. S.C. Srivastava, P.W.7 Head Constable Amichand and P.W.8 S.I. Deokaran investigating officer were formal witnesses produced to prove the autopsy report and various police pa­pers prepared during investigation. 8. All the material evidence pro­duced by the prosecution was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C, but the same was denied by the accused who pleaded his false implication due to enmity. 9. After hearing both the sides and discussing various aspects of prosecu­tion evidence, the learned Sessions Judge held the accused not guilty and gave several reasons in support of his views. 10. We have heard learned AGA at length and also the amicus curiae Shri Vinay Saran for the respondent who was appointed by us to defend the ac­cused. We had to adopt such a course because no private Counsel was appear­ing on behalf of the respondent and when the accused himself appeared be­fore us on summoning, he expressed his consent for being provided an amicus-curiae at State expenses. We have also perused the judgment of the lower Court and have gone through the entire evidence on record. 11. Before we discuss various grounds which found favour with the learned Judge and proceed to evaluate correctness or validity of the impugned judgment it shall be necessary to give in brief the gist of the prosecution case and the evidence produced by it. 12. P.W.I Jagan Singh is the first in­formant who has been produced to de­pose that before the incident in question had taken place there existed some bad blood between him and accused Raghu­veer Singh. According to him a false case under section 324 IPC was foisted upon him and his son by the accused but the sarfle resulted in their acquittal. P.W.I Jagan Singh is the first in­formant who has been produced to de­pose that before the incident in question had taken place there existed some bad blood between him and accused Raghu­veer Singh. According to him a false case under section 324 IPC was foisted upon him and his son by the accused but the sarfle resulted in their acquittal. According to him at about 8.00 p.m. de­ceased Mahaveer and his cousin brother Jaswant, both residents of Nagla Purna, were sitting with him at the door of his house. They were there at his house in order to take ? 30/- which was due on him in connection with the ploughing of the field. At that time his son Virendra came back to the house after having mediated or intervened in a quarrel be­tween Vedaria Dhobi and the daughter of one Nabba of the village. It was at this time that accused Raghuveer Singh armed with a gun came over at the Gher of another Mahaveer who is a different co-villager. The respondent Raghuveer Singh hurled abuses and threatened his son Virendra with life. On hearing the abuses the first informant as well as wit­ness Jaswant also walked up to the door and tried to dissuade Raghuveer Singh from abusing. It was on this that re­spondent Raghuveer Singh fired at first informant's son Virendra. The fire com­pletely missed the aim and hit Ma­haveer, who fell down wounded at the door. Thereafter the accused took to his heels. He has also deposed about the presence of light at the spot, the source of which is claimed to be a lantern. Apart from the aforesaid Jaswant, Virendra and the first informant him­self, the incident is said to have been witnessed by one Daroga and Jagram also. Mahaveer in injured condition was carried towards hospital by his brother while the first informant after getting the report scribed by one Ram Swaroop went to lodge the FIR. The same was registered at the police station and duly proved by him as Ext. Ka-1. It appears that Mahaveer's battle for life could not last long and he succumbed to his inju­ries even before he could reach the hos­pital. His corpse was carried to his na­tive village Purna. It has also been de­posed by P.W.I that respondent Raghu­veer Singh though had absconded from the spot but he kept coming to the vil­lage off and on still. His corpse was carried to his na­tive village Purna. It has also been de­posed by P.W.I that respondent Raghu­veer Singh though had absconded from the spot but he kept coming to the vil­lage off and on still. 13. Second witness of fact produced by the prosecution is P.W.2 Jaswant who is cousin brother of the deceased. He has also deposed about his presence on the spot as he claims to have gone to Jagan Singh's house along with Mahaveer when the incident took place. According to his statement also soon before the incident P.W.3 Virendra, who is son of first informant Jagan Singh, had come to his house and had reported that there was some scuffle going on between Dhobis and the Manihars of the village in which he had interceded. What has been added by this witness is that at that time Virendra had also told that accused Raghuveer Singh had abused him. The significance of this im­provement shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment. He further states that soon thereafter Raghuveer Singh came out of his house abusing and protesting as to why Virendra had taken the side of Manihars in the quar­rel. At that time Virendra and deceased Mahaveer were standing near the door of Jagan Singh. According to him ac­cused Raghuveer Singh fired soon thereafter. Being hit by the fire Ma­haveer fell down who was carried to­wards hospital but succumbed to his injuries on the way. This witness has also deposed about the presence of lan­tern at the time of the incident. 14. P.W.3 is Virendra Singh himself who in a sense may be said to be the root cause of this bizarre incident. Ac­cording to him, while he was returning from his field the village feud between Dhobis and Manihars was going on in which he interfered or tried to mediate. It was in this duration that he saw ac­cused Raghuveer Singh coming over. According to him, he left the spot and came back to his house because he ap­prehended, lest accused Raghuveer Singh might shoot at him. After coming to Ms house he reported the fact of bick­ering between the two groups to his fa­ther in the presence of deceased Ma­haveer and his cousin Jaswant. At that point of time he heard accused Raghu­veer Singh abusing. He along with de­ceased Mahaveer went out side the door and desisted accused from abusing. After coming to Ms house he reported the fact of bick­ering between the two groups to his fa­ther in the presence of deceased Ma­haveer and his cousin Jaswant. At that point of time he heard accused Raghu­veer Singh abusing. He along with de­ceased Mahaveer went out side the door and desisted accused from abusing. Ac­cording to him, his father and Jaswant also had gone out along with him. Thereupon accused Raghuveer Singh fired at him, but instead of him the fire hit Mahaveer who fell down wounded. After the incident Raghuveer Singh fled back into his house while the deceased was taken on a cot by him with the help of Jaswant, Mahendra Singh, Daroga and Jagram. Later on the aid of a tractor was taken from village Laldas but by the time they reached village Shahi, Ma-haveer breathed his last. 15. P.W.4 is constable Ram Bahadur who along with another constable Jimi-pal are said to have carried the dead body for the purposes of getting the post-mortem done. According to him after the inquest proceedings the Station Officer of police station, Achhenera had handed over to them the sealed dead body along with connected police pa­pers on 4.5.1981 at about 10.00 a.m. He along with constable Jimipal brought the dead body to Agra police lines where the concerned police officials made the relevant entry in the general diary (G.D.) regarding the same in his presence. He has also deposed to have signed on the aforesaid general diary which is G.D. No. 64, Ext. Ka-2. According to him, next day on 5.5.1981 the dead body was taken to the mortuary of S.N. Hospital, Agra for post-mortem. He claims to have gone to the Chief Medical Officer next day on 5.5.1981, from where he was directed to contact the Superin­tendent. He contacted the Superinten­dent at about 1.30 p.m. But he was again redirected to contact another doctor. By the time he returned to the mortuary the said Doctor had left. According to him, the sweeper of the mortuary further in­formed him that the desired post­mortem shall take place next day. On the next day i.e. on 6.5.1981. The Doctor came and the post-mortem was performed. 16. P.W.5 is one Bedaria son of Murli who has been declared hostile. According to him, the sweeper of the mortuary further in­formed him that the desired post­mortem shall take place next day. On the next day i.e. on 6.5.1981. The Doctor came and the post-mortem was performed. 16. P.W.5 is one Bedaria son of Murli who has been declared hostile. His deposition is to the effect that a quarrel between Dhobis and Manihars had taken place while several other people of the village were standing at their respective houses. According to him, P.W.I Jagan Singh and deceased Mahaveer also had come over there. He has completely denied the story of Virendra Singh's intervention in the quarrel and has also denied accused Raghuveer Singh's arrival on the spot armed with the gun at that time. He was confronted with his 161 Cr.P.C. State­ment but he denied the same also. Ac­cording to him, it was he who after the death of Mahaveer had gone to his vil­lage Purna in order to call his cousin Jaswant. 17. P.W.6 is Dr. S.C. Srivastava who has performed the post-mortem of de­ceased Mahaveer on 6.5.1981 at ab^ut 1.00 p.m. and prepared the post-mortem report. The same has been proved by the prosecution as Ext. Ka- 3. The perusal of the post-mortem report and the state­ment given by the Doctor reveal that at the time of the autopsy deceased Ma-haveer's body was showing full features of decomposition. The rigour mortis had passed off from all the limbs. Blisters of decomposition were present. Hair of skull had become easily detachable and the eyes as well as tongue, both were protruding put. 18. The following anti-mortem injuries were found on the cadaver of Mahaveer deceased: 1. Gun shot wound of entry 1-1/2" x 1-1/2" abdominal cavity deep on front of left side abdomen, 6-1/2" away from umbilicus at 2.0 O clock position. The intestines were coming out. Blackening, charring and tattoo­ing present. 2. Six gun shot wounds of exit in an area of 4" x 3" each measuring 2/10" x 2/10" x abdominal cavity deep on back of left side lumber re­gion lower region connected with injury No. 1. 19. Internal examination of the de­ceased revealed that the left kidney and spleen were ruptured. Small intestine and large intestine were perforated and lacerated. Peritoneum was also lacer­ated and the stomach was found empty. 19. Internal examination of the de­ceased revealed that the left kidney and spleen were ruptured. Small intestine and large intestine were perforated and lacerated. Peritoneum was also lacer­ated and the stomach was found empty. According to Doctor, deceased Ma­haveer had died about two and naif days back due to shock and haemor­rhage caused by the anti-mortem inju­ries. 20. P.W.7 is Head Constable Amichand who had prepared the chik report Ext. Ka-4 on the basis of the Jagan Singh's report which is marked as Ext. Ka 1. He had also made the relevant entry of registration of the FIR in G.D No. 33 on 3.5.1981 at 9.00 p.m. and has proved this G.D as Ext. ka-5. He has fur­ther deposed about the information of Mahayeer's death having been given by one Mahendra Singh on 4.5.1981 at about 7.00 a.m. at the police station and has also proved the relevant G.D entry regarding his demise as Ext. Ka-6 which was prepared in his own hand. The case thereafter was converted into 302 IPC. He has further stated to have sent the relevant police papers along with the inquest register to the Investigating Of­ficer who had already left the police sta­tion for the purposes of investigation. According to him, on 4.5.1981 the I.O had returned to the police station at about 9.30 p.m. vide GD No. 40 (Ex. Ka-8) and had also deposited the three sealed bundles in the police station which were brought by him. 21. P.W.8 is Sub-Inspector Deo Karan Singh who has investigated this case. According to him, the case was registered at the police station in his presence and he took over the investigation immediately thereafter. During in­vestigation he claims to have recorded the statement of first informant Jagan Singh at the police station and further states to have reached the spot at about 11.00 p.m. same night. He prepared the site plan Ext. Ka-9 and collected the plain as well as blood stained earth from the spot and also prepared its memo of recovery which is Ext. Ka-10. He also recovered from the spot two pellets and prepared its memo Ext. Ka-11. The lan­tern which was allegedly hanging at the door of the first informant was also seen and its memo Ext. Ka- 12 prepared. The lantern was handed down to the first informant. Ka-10. He also recovered from the spot two pellets and prepared its memo Ext. Ka-11. The lan­tern which was allegedly hanging at the door of the first informant was also seen and its memo Ext. Ka- 12 prepared. The lantern was handed down to the first informant. Then the search for the ac­cused commenced and the house of the accused was searched. From this search a bandolier containing five live and six empty cartridges were recovered. The memo of recovery of the same was also prepared which has been proved as Ext. Ka-13. The perusal of Ext. Ka-3 reveals the recovery of the 12 bore licensed gun of Raghuveer Singh also though it seems to have been omitted inadver­tently in the deposition of. this witness. On 4.5.1981 this witness got the infor­mation of Mahaveer's demise at about 8.00 a.m. whereupon he went to Nagla Purna, the native village of the de­ceased, and performed the inquest. Connected inquest papers were pre­pared in his hand which have been proved & exhibited as Ext. Ka-14 to Ka-19. The sealed dead body was handed over to constable Jimi Pal and constable Ram Bahadur. Thereafter the statement of witness Jaswant and Virendra and also that of witness Bedaria were re­corded. The Investigating Officer has also proved the extracts of witness Be-daria's 161 Cr.P.C. statement with which he was confronted during his cross-examination done by the State Counsel after being declared hostile. The same has been proved as Ext. Ka-20. On 6.5.1981 he recorded the statements of witnesses Daroga and Jagram. After completing the investigation he submit­ted the charge-sheet Ext. Ka-21 against accused Raghuveer Singh. 22. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed and analysed the whole evidence and has weighed the ocular tes­timony of witnesses on the anvil of ac­cepted norms of probability and natural conduct. Various facets of oral as well as the documentary evidence have been gone into with great care and circum­spection but after marshalling and ap­preciating the produced prosecution evidence the lower Court by a reasoned judgment came to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused could not be satisfactorily proved beyond all reason­able doubts. The Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the FIR of the case seems to be an anti dated or anti-timed document. It was a dark night and even the alleged source of light lantern has been a deliberate dishonest introduction by the police. The Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the FIR of the case seems to be an anti dated or anti-timed document. It was a dark night and even the alleged source of light lantern has been a deliberate dishonest introduction by the police. The testimony of the eye­witnesses has been found suspect and the medical evidence has been found in conflict with the oral version of the oc­currence. The non-production of independent witnesses has also been viewed adversely by the Trial Court. Witnesses have been found guilty of making significant improvements in the Court with ulterior purpose while the alleged motive to commit the crime has been ad­judged to be too feeble to prop up the prosecution case. The over all view of the evidence did not inspire confidence and after discussing many other apper­taining relevant aspects of the case the Trial Judge absolved the accused of the charges for which he was indicted & faced the trial. 23. After a thorough critical vetting of the impugned judgment we have gone through the record and have reap­praised the whole evidence afresh. The rival submissions made by learned AGA and Amicus Curiae Mr. Saran were heard at length. But we are constrained to observe that our independent conclu­sion too is no very different from that of the Trial Judge. 24. One of the most disturbing fea­tures against the prosecution is the un­explained inordinately late done post­mortem of the deceased and the enor­mously delayed arrival of the dead body in the police lines for the same purpose. It may be noted that the incident in question had taken place on 3.5.1981 at about 8.00 p.m. Thereafter the inquest proceedings were completed next day on 4.5.1981 by 10.00 a.m. This is appar­ent from a bare perusal of the first leaf or the front page of the inquest memo Ext. Ka- 14. But as per the statement of the Doctor P.W.6 the autopsy was done on 6.5.1981 at about 1.00 p.m. The tim­ing is also apparent from the perusal of the post-mortem report Ext. Ka- 3 which clearly mentions the time and date on it. It is also apparent from the deposition of Dr. S.C. Srivastava P.W.6 as well as from the perusal of the post-mortem report that at the time of the performance of autopsy, the cadaver was in an ad­vanced stage of decomposition. The hair of skull could easily be detached. Ka- 3 which clearly mentions the time and date on it. It is also apparent from the deposition of Dr. S.C. Srivastava P.W.6 as well as from the perusal of the post-mortem report that at the time of the performance of autopsy, the cadaver was in an ad­vanced stage of decomposition. The hair of skull could easily be detached. Eyes and tongue were protruding out. Rigour mortis had completely passed off from all the limbs and there were blisters all over due to decomposition of the deadbody. The argument of the defence side as has been placed before us in this re­gard is the same which was raised at the stage of the trial and which was also put in the form of defence suggestion to the relevant prosecution witnesses that ac­tually either the incident was not wit­nessed by any one or due to dark night and absence of light on the spot, the as­sailant could not be identified. The con­tention raised before us is that as the deceased got killed in a different village other than his own, at the first infor­mant's house, the family members of the deceased could come to know about the murder much thereafter. The first in­formant must have been tormented with the fusillade of searching quarries both by the members of the deceased's family and also by the police seeking explana­tion of Mahavir's murder at his house. It has been argued and suggested by the defence that it took enormous time be­fore the present FIR could be concocted and all the while confabulations, con­certs and deliberations went on to cook up the present version of the FIR. It has been emphasized that because of the absence of the FIR the dead body had to be detained by the police for a long time because it could be dispatched only af­ter the preparation of the FIR and other relevant police papers. According to the defence argument the dead body, con­trary to the prosecutions claim, did not reach the police lines before the evening of 5.5.1981 and the principal reason for such a belated arrival of the dead body in police head quarter on 5.5.1981 and consequently further delayed post­mortem examination taking place as late as on 6.5.1981 has been the non exis­tence of the FIR for a very long period of time. 25. 25. We have carefully considered this argument and also scanned all the evidence produced by the prosecution in this regard. 26. It appears that the prosecuting agency did not, as it could not, remain oblivious to this yawning gap between the alleged completion of inquest pro­ceedings on 4.5.1981 at 10.00 A.M and the much belated post-mortem examination taking place on 6.5.1981 afternoon. But what we are disturbed to see is that just in order to bridge up this gap and display its bona fides, the prosecution side came up in the Court with entirely false stories and depositions. The state­ment of P.W.-4 Constable Ram Bahadur in this regard is worth taking note of. He has deposed in the Court that on 4.5.1981 the cadaver of deceased Ma-haveer was handed over to him at about 10.00 a.m. in order to take the same for the purposes of post-mortem. He had gone on oath to state that he, along with another constable Zimi Pal, had taken the dead body and brought it to the Po­lice Lines Agra same day. He has fur­ther stated in his examination-in-chief on page 24 of the paper book that in the general diary (hereinafter referred as G.D.) of the Police Lines Agra also, where the dead body was brought by them, the arrival of the dead body was duly entered into by the concerned Di-wan of the Police Lines and he himself had affixed his signature on that G.D. which was prepared in his presence. This G.D. has been exhibited and marked as Exhibit Ka-2. Thereafter in para 2 of his deposition P.W.-4 further states that next day i.e. on date 5.5.1981 the dead body was taken to mortuary of S.N. Hospital Agra to get the autopsy done. He categorically stated that on 5.5.1981 he went to the Chief Medical Officer from where he was directed to go to the Superintendent. After contact­ing the Superintendent that day on 5.5.1981 at about 1.30 p.m., the Superin­tendent further redirected him to con­tact yet another doctor. But thereafter he learnt that the aforesaid another doctor had already gone to do the post­mortem. Being apprised thus he came back to the mortuary but only to find that the aforesaid doctor has already left that place. Then the sweeper, employed in the mortuary informed him that Ma-haveer's post-mortem will be done next day as the concerned doctor has already left. Being apprised thus he came back to the mortuary but only to find that the aforesaid doctor has already left that place. Then the sweeper, employed in the mortuary informed him that Ma-haveer's post-mortem will be done next day as the concerned doctor has already left. According to the deposition of P.W.4 it was then on the further next day i.e. on 6.5.1981, that the concerned doctor himself came and performed the post-mortem of the deceased after re­ceiving the relevant police papers from him. It is manifestly clear that this wit­ness has attempted to prove and make the Court believe that on 4.5.1981 itself he had brought the dead body to the Police Lines Agra and then on the next day i.e. on 5.5.1981 the whole day got in vain consumed in the process of contact­ing the Chief Medical Officer and differ­ent other doctors. He therefore had to cool his heels for a day more till 6.5.1981 when the concerned doctor himself came and received police papers from him to do the post-mortem. But in order to check the correctness of his statement when we delved into the original Trial Court record we hit across the docu­ment police form No. 13 which is Ex­hibit Ka-16, and found therein that it contained a clear and categorical entry in the relevant column regarding the date and time of the dead body's arrival in the Police Lines Agra. It also men­tions the G.D. number through which the dead body was brought in the police lines. The perusal of Exhibit Ka-16 re­veals that the arrival of the dead body was entered in G.D, No. 64 the time was 4.00 p.m. while the date of its arrival was 5.5.1981 and not 4.5.1981 as claimed by P.W.4. This document conclusively proves that the dead body was brought to the Police Lines Agra on 5.5.1981 at 4.00 p.m. and not earlier. 27. There is yet another document Form No. 33 which lends clinching cor-roboration to the belated arrival of the dead body in police lines on 5.5.1981 and not on 4.5.1981. This is the letter written on behalf of Superintendent of Police to Civil Surgeon and has also been proved by the prosecution as Ext. Ka-17. 27. There is yet another document Form No. 33 which lends clinching cor-roboration to the belated arrival of the dead body in police lines on 5.5.1981 and not on 4.5.1981. This is the letter written on behalf of Superintendent of Police to Civil Surgeon and has also been proved by the prosecution as Ext. Ka-17. As we know that this is the estab­lished practice that as soon as the dead body is received in police lines, the aforesaid letter of request is sent to the Chief Medical Officer to arrange and get the post-mortem done. The date of this letter is again 5.5.1981 and not 4.5.1981. In fact after receiving the dead body and duly making its entry in prescribed Form No. 13, the first act done by the police official on duty in the police lines is to prepare the prescribed letter of re­quest Form No. 33 and hand it over to the accompanying constables who then bring the dead body to mortuary and proceed to contact the C.M.O in order to get necessary orders or instructions is­sued for the purposes of post-mortem. 28. The combined reading of Ext. Ka-16 and Ka -17 indubitably prove that deceased Mahavir's cadaver was brought to the police lines Agra on 5.5.1981 and never on 4.5.1981. It is manifest that all that statement given by P.W.4 about bringing the dead body to the Police Lines Agra on 4.5.1981 at 4.00 p.m. and then all the story in which he claims to have oscillated to & fro in be­tween the Chief Medical Officer and Superintendent and other doctors is nothing except a vicious tissues of lies. We were rather surprised to see how the prosecuting Agency and this Constable Ram Bahadur P.W.4 could misadven­ture to bluff the Court so brazenly even though they themselves have proved the G.D. entry No. 64 of the Police Lines Agra marked as Exhibit Ka-2 which con­tains the details of dead body's arrival in the Police Lines. Our judicial curiosity got quenched soon when we cast a scanning glance on this document ex­hibit Ka-2. The perusal of this G.D. No. 64 Ext.Ka-2 proved by P.W.2 reveals that it contains the entry of the arrival of the deceased's cadaver in Police Lines at 4.00 p.m. It also reveals that the dead body had been brought there by Con­stable Ram Bahadur. The perusal of this G.D. No. 64 Ext.Ka-2 proved by P.W.2 reveals that it contains the entry of the arrival of the deceased's cadaver in Police Lines at 4.00 p.m. It also reveals that the dead body had been brought there by Con­stable Ram Bahadur. But the relevant date of this G.D. No. 64 is conspicuous by its absence in Ext. ka-2. It appears that the Prosecuting Agency grossly under-estimated the judicial experience of the Court and thought that by prov­ing and supplying an incomplete copy of the Police Lines G.D. or by deliber­ately omitting to mention its date in it they could successfully dupe the Court to believe the deceitful statement of P.W.4 wherein he claimed to have brought the dead body and got it en­tered in the G.D. of the Police Lines on 4.5.1981, itself. Perhaps it was their bliss­ful, though woeful, ignorance and they never knew that there is yet another document, police form No. 13, in which too there is a column where the date, time and G.D. number through which the dead body is brought in the Police Lines Headquarters are all duly men­tioned and the perusal of the same would expose the mendacity of the ruse projected by P.W.4. 29. Now the issue boils down to this as to where had remained the dead body of the deceased all this while in between 10.00 a.m. on 4.5.1981, when the inquest got over, and 4.00 p.m. on 5.5.1981, when it reached the Police Lines. There is complete dearth of ex­planation and the explanation furnished by the prosecution has crumbled into pieces under the staggering weight on its own falsity. The irresistible conclu­sion is that if the dead body reached Police Lines Agra on 5.5.1981 at 4.00 p.m. it must have been dispatched by the police on 5.5.1981 a few hours before its arrival in police lines either from the Police Station or from wherever it had been kept by the police. The distance of the police Headquarters from the village is not even 40kms. The distance of the police Headquarters from the village is not even 40kms. and admittedly even according to the statement of P.W.4 it did not take more than 5 hours in bring­ing the dead body from the village to the Police Lines same day on 4.5.1981 at 4.00 P.M. This demonstrable but inex­plicable obvious delay in the arrival of the dead body must not have been without reason and to us, the reason appears to be sinister. The only hy­pothesis consistent with this undue de­tention of the dead body, which in our view is disproportionately prolix in the context, seems to be the non-existence of F.I.R. and that the dispatch of the dead body kept awaiting the formulation of the F.I.R. and other relevant police pa­pers. The inference is inevitable and ir­resistible both. There is no earthly rea­son to imagine that in case the present F.I.R. had already been in place on 3.5.1981 and the inquest proceedings got over on 4.3.1981 by 10.00 a.m. why the dead body shall not be sent the same day or shall not reach the Police Lines same day for post-mortem. The docu­mentary proof of dead body's much belated arrival in the Police Lines on 5.5.1981 at 4.00 p.m. is already on record staring in the face of prosecution with­out any explanation. 30. It also appears that as the prose­cution witnesses were perjuring them­selves all the way in order to show that the dead body was dispatched on the same day on 4.5.1981 and were straining all their nerves to conceal the fact of its enormously late dispatch and the con­sequent inordinately belated arrival in the Police Lines, they have given hope­lessly conflicting statements regarding the dispatch of the dead body from the village after inquest. We may briefly refer to their statements given in the Court in this regard. According to the deposition of Investigating Officer S.I. Devkaran Singh-P.W.-S, the two consta­bles namely Ram Bahadur-P.W.-4 and one Jimi Pal had arrived in the village of the deceased, where the inquest pro­ceedings were taking place, as early as 8.00 a.m. in the morning and stayed there all along with him till the dead body was dispatched to Agra at about 10.30 a.m. on 4.5.81. He has further gone to state that the inquest paper (Pancha-yatnama) also contained the signatures of both of them. He has further gone to state that the inquest paper (Pancha-yatnama) also contained the signatures of both of them. The dead body was handed over to the aforesaid two con­stables at 10.00 a.m. and it proceeded for Agra at 10.30 a.m. This statement com­pletely flies in the face of statement given by P.W.-4-Constable, Ram Bahadur who has totally denied his pres­ence in the village of the deceased in the duration when the inquest proceedings were performed by the Investigating Officer. His denial is clear and categori­cal when he states that he could reach there only when the inquest proceed­ings had all got over. According to him he was in the police station itself and left the police station after 9.00 a.m. on 4.5.1981. Again when we cast our glance on the statement of another witness Ja-gan Singh-P.W.-l at Page-16 of the pa­per book we find him stating that the dead body was sealed in his presence but the inquest proceedings continued till as late as 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon. Thereafter, he came back to his house and again went to the village of the de­ceased at about 4.00 p.m. But by that time the dead body had been dis­patched. So, according to his statement the dead body was taken from the vil­lage sometime after 2.00 p.m. on 4.5.1981 and not at 10 or 10.30 a.m. in the morning as stated by P.W4 or P.W.8. 31. We might not have attributed much significance to the above men­tioned varying statements and could have ignored them in the name of mem­ory lapses of an unsteady human mind but in the murky background of the proven skulduggery of prosecution re­garding the date of dead body's arrival in the Police Lines and its corresponding entry in the G.D. the aforesaid contra­dictions assume significance and we do not feel inclined to soft-pedal them. At any rate the aforesaid mutual incom­patibilities in the depositions regarding the timing of inquest and the dead body's dispatch certainly do not do any credit to the prosecution specially when the timing of dispatch and arrival of the dead body in the Police Lines them­selves have become the facts in issue to be adjudicated upon. At any rate the aforesaid mutual incom­patibilities in the depositions regarding the timing of inquest and the dead body's dispatch certainly do not do any credit to the prosecution specially when the timing of dispatch and arrival of the dead body in the Police Lines them­selves have become the facts in issue to be adjudicated upon. If the FIR and other police papers could have been prepared and the dead body sent along with them at the alleged time 10 or 10.30 a.m. there could never have been so much conflict in the depositions as has been discussed above. Inconsistency in the evidence of the different witnesses in this regard has rightly been reckoned as an additional circumstance indicating the undue detention of the dead body which again in the absence of any ex­planation is a pointer towards the non-existence of FIR and other police papers at the time alleged by the prosecution. 32. Now if the said F.I.R. was never in existence on the date and time at which it has been claimed by the prose­cution or and if the same could come in existence at a much later point of time, the finding would cut at the very root of the matter. It knocks out the bottom of the prosecution case. The F.I.R. of any case is the chief plank on which the en­tire edifice of the prosecution case is built up. It is the sheet-anchor and the principal pivot around which the whole prosecution case revolves. There are umpteen authorities on this point where the Apex Court has emphasized upon the value and worth of the prompt F.I.R. and the same cannot be overstated. The promptitude with which the F.I.R. is lodged lends implicit assurance to the truthfulness of the version contained therein for the simple reason that the chances of adulterating influence creep­ing into it get minimised. More and more delayed the F.I.R. more and more increase the chances of confabulations and concerts, embellishments and con­coction. That has always been the prime reason why the unexplained delay in lodging of the F.I.R. has always been viewed adversely by the Courts . That also seems to be the same reason per­haps which abets the police at times to ante time the belatedly lodged F.I.R. and show as if it is a prompt one just to bol­ster up the prosecution case. That also seems to be the same reason per­haps which abets the police at times to ante time the belatedly lodged F.I.R. and show as if it is a prompt one just to bol­ster up the prosecution case. If the ver­sion of the F.I.R. claimed to have come in existence promptly is proved to have come in existence not then but long thereafter, it disrobes the prosecution from much of its worth and authentic­ity. In the present case the over zealous prosecution has attempted to conceal and camouflage its potholes in a manner very unbecoming and unworthy of it. The witnesses have been obliged to per­jure themselves and dupe the Court. It does not need much elaboration and we find ourselves in complete agreement with a submission made by the amicus curiae for the respondent that contrary to the prosecution's claim about its promptness the F.I.R. of the case in fact could not see the light of day for long and the nomination or the implication of the accused in the present case is the result of a malicious afterthought. The learned Sessions Judge has also dealt with the aforesaid aspect of a case at length and has drawn the same conclu­sions with which we have reasons not to differ. 33. The learned A.G.A. has been fair enough to concede that he has noth­ing to proffer as a vindication or in de­fence of the diagonal contradiction between oral evidence viz a viz documen­tary evidence with regard to date and time of dead body's arrival in the Police Lines. Learned A.G.A. has also not made any attempt to defend all that false story given out by P.W.-4 of bring­ing the dead body to the Police Lines on 4.5.1981 itself and then spending two days' time in Police Head quarter Agra attempting to get the post-mortem done. But learned A.G.A. has tried to place before us a somewhat different proposi­tion. His submission is that the infirmi­ties of the investigation or its poor qual­ity should not be allowed to cast the negative shadow on the veracity of the prosecution case. The contention is that as there is ocular testimony regarding the occurrence available there is no need to look into the loose ends of the inves­tigation or the wrongs committed by the police officials. Evidence of eye­witnesses ought to be adjudged regard­less of the poor quality of investigation and its shortcomings. The contention is that as there is ocular testimony regarding the occurrence available there is no need to look into the loose ends of the inves­tigation or the wrongs committed by the police officials. Evidence of eye­witnesses ought to be adjudged regard­less of the poor quality of investigation and its shortcomings. According to the learned A.G.A. if the Investigating Offi­cer is not diligent enough or has been remiss in performance of his duties, his dereliction or poor performance should not be allowed to have a deleterious effect upon the oral evidence given by the eye-witnesses. Learned A.G.A. has tried to persuade us that we should wholly ignore the aspects as to when the inquest was performed and when the dead body sent or as to when did it ar­rive in the Headquarter. The registration of the FIR and other allied police pro­ceedings are within the domain of inves­tigating and, therefore, according to learned A.G.A. even if the evidence re­lating to it is found to be completely botched up due to utter negligence of Investigating Officer or other Police Of­ficers it neither entails any serious re­percussions on the prosecution case nor does it deserve any serious attention by the Court. He has also cited some cases in which the laxity of the Investigating Officer has been ignored by different Courts. 34. We have given our serious con­sideration to the submission placed by the State Counsel but find ourselves in complete disagreement with his conten­tions as the same is patently fallacious. The reason is that there is mighty differ­ence between a negligent investigation and a dishonest investigation. The In­vestigating Officer may not be diligent enough to perform his duties well. He may be lackadaisical in his approach and be remiss in the observance of rules and regulations. He might not have acted with requisite alacrity and may be wanting in the ideal virtues of a compe­tent police officer. All the aforesaid negativity would result in the low qual­ity lack-lustre investigation no doubt, but the same shall always remain dis­tinguishable from cases where the police indulges itself in overt acts of foul dis­honesty and deliberately does things with ulterior motives and oblique pur­poses. Then it is entirely a different situation. Omission to do a thing out of neglect is different from the commission of an act with deliberation. The learned A.G.A. has completely confounded the two situations. Then it is entirely a different situation. Omission to do a thing out of neglect is different from the commission of an act with deliberation. The learned A.G.A. has completely confounded the two situations. In none of the authorities cited by him before us the Court arrived at the finding that the FIR was an ante-timed or ante-dated document. In all these cases the facts' disclosed only the callousness or a careless attitude of the Investigating Officer and the Court on the given facts of that case refused to draw the inference that the FIR had been ante-timed. It is obviously a ques­tion of fact and findings shall naturally turn on the peculiar facts and circum­stances of that particular case. But what shall be the impact, implication and ef­fect on the prosecution version where the Court on the given facts of a case does draw the inference about the ante-timing of FIR, is altogether is different question. Learned A.G.A. has not been able to show us any authority where even after finding that the Investigating Officer has been guilty of dishonestly creating false evidence against accused or where even after finding that FIR has been ante-dated or ante-timed the Court did not draw an inference adverse to the prosecution. 35. We find substance in the de­fence argument that if in a given inci­dent the occurrence remains un­witnessed or if in a witnessed incident the assailants remain unidentified it is not an unknown phenomenon that the FIRs get belated. It is also not unknown that in such cases in order to save itself from the mounting pressure of detecting the unknown assailants the police pre­fers to have FIRs'where the assailants are nominated by names. That is the reason why we come across cases where we see that the police has not been loathe to await the formulation of FIR implicating the assailants by name. General psyche of public in Indian con­text to nominate the accused on the ba­sis of its enmity or rancour is also not unknown. All these factors combine to create a vicious league or an unholy al­liance between police and the complain­ant side. General psyche of public in Indian con­text to nominate the accused on the ba­sis of its enmity or rancour is also not unknown. All these factors combine to create a vicious league or an unholy al­liance between police and the complain­ant side. In such situations, argues the amicus curiae, that the FIRs remain in embryonic stage for long and are formu­lated belatedly while the police which is naturally interested in the successful fruition of its investigation, attempts and indulges itself in the insalubrious practice of ante-timing the FIR just to bolster up the prosecution case. Now if the Court in given facts of a case comes to the conclusion that the police has been guilty of deliberate suppression of the actual timing of the FIR for the rea­son of it being belated or if in the pecu­liar facts and circumstances of a particu­lar case the Court arrives at the conclu­sion that the police has deliberately ante-dated or ante-timed the FIR and has dishonestly shown it to be a prompt one and/or if the Court arrives at the finding on the basis of the facts of a given case that in order to show a be­lated FIR to be a prompt one the police has indulged itself in the fabrication of record and forging false G.D. entry showing false time of FIR and then in order to save the exposure of its dishon­est activities it further indulged itself in giving perjured statements on oath in the Court, it is impossible to ignore all this malicious conspiracy by giving it the soft name of "infirmities of investigation". The FIR is ante-timed not by omission but by commission. It is not an act of remissness but a deliberate dis­honest attempt to tighten the rope on the neck of the accused. It is not an act of negligence but a voluntary overdoing with sinister design. As we have dis­cussed above, the two heads under which the investigation of a given case may be criticized are clearly separable and cannot be confused with each other. All the police activities attributable to the laxity, remissness, negligence or in­competence may be ignored and must not be allowed to throw the ocular ver­sion of the eye-witnesses overboard. That is the settled law and we subscribe to the same view but the activities of the police coming under another head of deliberate dishonesties cannot earn our judicial countenance. 36. All the police activities attributable to the laxity, remissness, negligence or in­competence may be ignored and must not be allowed to throw the ocular ver­sion of the eye-witnesses overboard. That is the settled law and we subscribe to the same view but the activities of the police coming under another head of deliberate dishonesties cannot earn our judicial countenance. 36. It is also a point of relevance to consider and find in a given case as to what has been the purpose behind dis­honest activities of the police, whether the dishonesty committed was to dam­age the prosecution or to bolster it up. No doubt, if in a given case the Court comes to the conclusion that the police had been guilty of indulging in some activity which was a calculated sabotage aimed purposely to water down the charge or where the investigation is found to be 'designedly defective' or 'purposely perfunctory' to help the ac­cused or to damage the prosecution then the prosecution shall be given full al­lowance and the accused shall never be allowed to gain any capital out of it. Such cases are also not unknown. But if to the contrary the investigation has been unfair to the accused the prosecu­tion side shall certainly not be the bene­ficiary of such unfairness. Ante-timing of the FIR or indulging in multiple in­terpolations in the case diary to intro­duce the source of light while their ex­isted none, are certainly not acts of fa­vour to the accused. 37. While adverting to the inter-se corresponding relationship between the ante-timing of FIR and the testimonial worth of prosecution's case we feel that in most of the cases like the one at hand, where the factual circumstances impel the Court to hold that the F.I.R. is an ante-timed document, it is very hard to keep the prosecution case, specially the testimony of the first informant, intact or untarnished and the whole prosecu­tion version comes under the dark cloud of suspicion. The very exercise of ante-timing the FIR is done with the sole aim and object of lending credibility and truthfulness to the first informant's ver­sion which in most of the cases is sub­stantially the same as given out by other witnesses. The very exercise of ante-timing the FIR is done with the sole aim and object of lending credibility and truthfulness to the first informant's ver­sion which in most of the cases is sub­stantially the same as given out by other witnesses. It is rare to come across cases where the first informant's version is not identifiable with that of the prosecu­tion version as such, specially in cases where the first informant is also the eye­witness of the occurrence. The dishonest conduct of the Investigating Officer or the police officials, in so far as it relates to their activity of ante-timing the FIR, is inextricably intertwined with the verac­ity of the first informant's testimony and resultantly with the basic prosecution's version as such. The two are often, if not always, inseparable. The deleterious or damaging impact of an unexplained delay in the FIR may sometimes be even fatal to the prosecution in a given case while spontaneity of the FIR by an eye­witness may go a long way to commend itself in the estimate of the Court to reckon it as a document containing un­varnished truth. In fact the entire exer­cise of the ante-timing of the FIR scarcely does any credit to the Investi­gating Officer or the investigation of the case just as the belated FIR is no ground to criticize the I.O. If the FIR gets de­layed because the first informant having not seen the occurrence or having not identified the assailants had been mark­ing and buying time to fabricate a ver­sion, it hardly furnishes any ground to castigate the investigation. The whole exercise of ante-timing the FIR is in­dulged into with the sole aim & object of augmenting the testimonial worth of the prosecution version. Therefore, the con­tention of learned A.G.A seeking to seg­regate the dishonest conduct of the In­vestigating Officer or the police officials from the testimonial veracity of the first informant or the prosecution version as such is inherently paradoxical and con­tradictory in terms specifically in cases, like the one at hand, where the dishon­est conduct of the police relates to its attempt of ante-dating or ante-timing the FIR. 38. 38. It may be of relevance to refer to some of the cases where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with somewhat similar issues in which for various other reasons the FIR was found to be unduly delayed or the same was found to have been ante-timed. In the case of Marudanal Augusty v. State of Kerala, (1980) 4 SCC 425 . the Apex Court after discussing various other facts had the occasion to observe as follows: - "............The High Court, how­ever, relied on another aspect of the matter, viz, that as there was no animus between PWs 1 to 6 and the accused, there was no reason to dis­believe them. The High Court seems to have overlooked the fact that the entire fabric of the prosecution case would collapse if the FIR is held to be fabricated or brought into existence long after the occurrence and any number of witnesses could be added without there being anything to check the authenticity of their evidence." (Emphasis supplied) 39. In the case of Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 3 SCC 393 . The Hon'ble Su­preme Court was dealing with the case in .which the FIR was found to have been lodged with delay. After analysing the factual aspect of the case, the Apex Court was pleased to observe as follows: "12..............It seems likely, as has been stated on behalf of the accused, that the villagers came to know of the death of Madhandi deceased on the evening of March 12, 1970. They did not then know about the actual assailant of the deceased, and on the following day, their suspicion fell on the accused and accordingly they involved him in this case. First infor­mation report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corrobo­rating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overesti­mated from the stand-point of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as .well as the names of eye-witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as .well as the names of eye-witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of after-thought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, ex­aggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and con­sultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained. In the pre­sent case, Kopia, daughter-in-law of Madhandi deceased, according to the prosecution case, was present when the accused made murderous assault on the deceased. Valanjiaraju, step­son of the deceased, is also alleged to have arrived near the scene of occur­rence on being told by Kopia. Nei­ther of them, nor any other villager, who is stated to have been told about the occurrence by Valanjiaraju and Kopia, made any report at the police - station for more than 20 hours after the occurrence, even though the po­lice station is only two miles from the place of occurrence. The said circum­stances, in our opinion, would raise considerable doubt regarding the ve­racity of the evidence of those two witnesses and point to an infirmity in that evidence as would render it unsafe to base the conviction of the accused-appellant upon it." 40. In yet another case of Awadhesh and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 1158 . the Apex Court after having found that the first information was not lodged at the alleged time, had the occasion to observe as follows: "5........................... His statement clearly indicates that the first infor­mation report was written after 17.00 hours and it was not recorded at the time it purports to have been lodged. There are material contradictions in the testimony of Rajendra Singh PW 14 and the investigating officer. Since the Sub-Inspector, the District Magis­trate and the Superintendent of Po­lice had reached the place of occur­rence within few minutes of the inci­dent, the delay in lodging the first in­formation report is highly suspi­cious. There are material contradictions in the testimony of Rajendra Singh PW 14 and the investigating officer. Since the Sub-Inspector, the District Magis­trate and the Superintendent of Po­lice had reached the place of occur­rence within few minutes of the inci­dent, the delay in lodging the first in­formation report is highly suspi­cious. Why this delay when all officers were present, and eye-witnesses were present at the spot and the police station was at a distance of two furlongs? The obvious reason appears to be that the names of the assailants were not known as most likely the alleged two eye wit­nesses had not seen the assailants and they were not present at the scene of oc­currence at the time the shooting took place. In all likelihood they like others ar­rived at the scene after the incident. Since names of the assailants were not known the F.I.R. was lodged with delay after deliberation." (Emphasis supplied) 41. The observations of the Su­preme Court in the case of Ganesh Bha-van Patel and another v. State of Maharashtra, (1978) 4 SCC 371 . are also worth taking note of. The relevant part of the judgment may be extracted as follows: -- "29. Thus considered in the light of the surrounding circumstances, this inordinate^ delay in registration of the T.I.R.' and further delay in re­cording the statements of the mate­rial witnesses, casts a cloud of suspi­cion on the credibility of the entire warp and woof of the prosecution story." "47. All the infirmities and flaws pointed out by the Trial Court as­sumed importance, when considered in the light of the all pervading cir­cumstance that there was inordinate delay in recording Ravji's statement (on the bajsis of which the "F.I.R." was registered) and further delay in recording the statements of Welji, Pramila and Kuvarbai. This circum­stance, looming large in the back­ground, inevitably leads to the conclu­sion, that the prosecution story was con­ceived and constructed after a good deal of deliberation and delay in a shady set­ting, highly redolent of doubt and suspi­cion." (Emphasis supplied) 42. In another case of Subhash and another v. State of U.P., 1976 Crl.LJ. 1521. which was also taken note of by the Trial Court the dead body was dispatched belatedly and the Honljle Supreme Court was not satisfied about the explanation for its delay. It was pleased to observe as follows: "8. In another case of Subhash and another v. State of U.P., 1976 Crl.LJ. 1521. which was also taken note of by the Trial Court the dead body was dispatched belatedly and the Honljle Supreme Court was not satisfied about the explanation for its delay. It was pleased to observe as follows: "8. First as to the manner in which S.I. Sharma conducted inves­tigation into the case. The offence took place at about 9 a.m. on June 9 and though the District Hospital at Farrukhabad was just 10 miles away, the dead body was not received at the hospital for nearly 24 hours after the incident had taken place. The ex­cuse offered by the prosecution that the cart man was not willing to take the body at night is utterly flimsy be­cause the Investigating Officer could have easily made some alternate ar­rangement for despatching the dead body for post-mortem examination expeditiously. With the dead body lying at the scene of offence for nearly 12 hours and thereafter at-the police station for another 8 or 9 hours, it was easy enough for the witnesses to mould their statements so as to accord with the nature of in­juries." 43. In the recent case of Sunil Kundu and another v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 427 the Apex Court had the occasion to deal with a case in which the investigating agency was found to be extremely inef­ficient and negligent. Though in this case there was no finding about the ante-timing of the FIR or any deliberate dishonesty done by the investigating agency against the accused yet the in-(ompetence was of such an extreme na­ture that it did not fail to deleteriously affect the prosecution case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was constrained to ob­serve as follows: "2. This case, is a glaring example of how cause of justice can be de­feated by inefficient, lackadaisical and incompetent investigating agency. As we go ahead, the reasons for these observations would be clear." ………………………………… ……………………………….. "29, We began by commenting on the unhappy conduct of the investi­gating agency. We conclude by reaf­firming our view. We are distressed at the way in which the investigation of this case was carried out. As we go ahead, the reasons for these observations would be clear." ………………………………… ……………………………….. "29, We began by commenting on the unhappy conduct of the investi­gating agency. We conclude by reaf­firming our view. We are distressed at the way in which the investigation of this case was carried out. It is true that acquitting the accused merely on the ground of lapses or irregulari­ties in the investigation of a case would amount to putting premium on the depreciable conduct of an in­competent investigating agency at the cost of the victims which may lead to encouraging perpetrators of crimes. This Court has laid down that the lapses or irregularities in the investigation could be ignored sub­ject to a rider. They can be ignored only if despite their existence, the evidence on record bears out the case of the prosecution and the evidence is of sterling quality. If the lapses or ir­regularities do not go to the root of the matter, if they do not dislodge the sub­stratum of the prosecution case, they can be ignored. In this case, the lapses are very serious..........................." (Emphasis supplied) 44. We must not be understood to mean that because of dishonest police investigation or likelihood of the FIR having been anti-timed we shall stop our further judicial evaluation. Certainly the entire evidence, documentary and oral including the testimony of every eye-witness, has to be' thoroughly exam­ined in order to assess its worth no doubt. But the eclipse of doubt shall keep lurking and the prosecution will have to struggle very hard to carve out an exception and show that the testimo­nies of the witnesses are so dispassion­ate and independent, so above board and truthful, having such sterling worth beyond reproach, that they far outweigh the corrosive effects of a foul and dis­honest investigation engineered against the accused and are so trust-inspiring that the overhanging miasma of suspi­cion created by a foul investigation stands completely dispelled. We shall therefore, as we must, proceed with immense circumspection and high judi­cial vigil. 45. Another piece of police chican­ery having a close bearing on prosecu­tion version has been discussed on in­ternal page-11 & 12 of the impugned judgment and it relates to the introduc­tion of lantern as a source of light on the spot by committing gross interpolations in the police record. 45. Another piece of police chican­ery having a close bearing on prosecu­tion version has been discussed on in­ternal page-11 & 12 of the impugned judgment and it relates to the introduc­tion of lantern as a source of light on the spot by committing gross interpolations in the police record. It may be relevant to mention that the incident in question took place much after the sun-set in the night. Admittedly according to the statement of P.W.-1 Jagan Singh, it was a dark night. It was alleged by the de­fence, taken note of by the trial Judge and confirmed by us after consulting the almanac that it was the 14th day of first fortnight of Hindu calendar month of Vaishakh. In the native language it is called "Vaishakh Badi Chaudah". As all of us know that after full moon night the new Hindu Calender month begins. Every month begins with dark fortnight called "Krishnapaksha" or 'Badi' and followed by a bright fortnight called "Shuklapaksha" or 'Sudi'. During the first fortnight of "Krishnapaksha" the size of moon keeps receding every day. This recession process goes on till the first fortnight is over and the 15th day of 'Amavasya' comes which is a no moon night. Apart from the decrease of moon's size, another relevant astro­nomical feature is that in the dark fort­night or Krishnapaksha (Badi) there is a time lag between sunset and the ap­pearance of moon in the sky. This time lag keeps on increasing everyday pro­gressively throughout the dark fortnight and on the 15th day of the Krishnapak­sha the moon does not appear at all when it is called Amavashya or a no moon night. It is everyday knowledge that on the 14th Shudi that is to say 14th day of dark fortnight (Krishnapaksha) there is no moon all the night till it is almost dawn when it appears ephemer-ally with a crescent shape. It is faint and transient both and is often very difficult to .locate. At any rate, at the time of pre­sent occurrence, it being the 14th day of 'Krishnapaksha' i.e. the penultimate day before 'Amavasya', there is no question of any moon being there at 8.00 PM in the night. Admittedly to the prosecution there was no electric light at the time and place of the incident either. 46. At any rate, at the time of pre­sent occurrence, it being the 14th day of 'Krishnapaksha' i.e. the penultimate day before 'Amavasya', there is no question of any moon being there at 8.00 PM in the night. Admittedly to the prosecution there was no electric light at the time and place of the incident either. 46. Now a bare perusal of the FIR shows that it does not mention the pres­ence of any source of light at the time of occurrence. This has also been categori­cally admitted by the Investigating Offi­cer, P.W.-8 on page-32 of the paper book that when he had examined P.W.-1, Ja-gan Singh he had not mentioned about the presence of lantern as a source of light even in his statement recorded under section-161 Cr.P.C. But again what we are shocked to observe that the Investigating Officer has made a rank interpolation in the case diary where the statement of P.W.-1, Jagan Singh has been written. We ourselves have pe­rused the case diary which is part of the lower Court record and have seen it for ourselves that at the tail end of the statement of P.W.-1 Jagan Singh, recorded under section-161 Cr.P.C., a line to the effect "the assailant has been seen and identified in the light of the lantern" has been deliberately squeezed into with a different pen and different ink. It is clearly discernible and there is no mistake about it. We have further perused that part of the case diary where the de­tails of the spot examination and site plan have been described by the Inves­tigating Officer. Here too the places shown in the site plan as place 'A', 'B', 'C' are in continuation but in between them again with a different ink, clearly discernible with naked eyes, a line to the effect "the place where the lantern was lighted" has been squeezed into. We have also seen the site plan marked as Exhibit Ka-9, there again between serial No. 'A' and 'B' of the index a similar line showing the place of the lighted lantern has been shown as place 'X' with a different ink. As the Investigating Officer was indulging in such crass inter­polations the same has also resulted in apparent and glaring incongruity in the description of spot examination in the case diary. As the Investigating Officer was indulging in such crass inter­polations the same has also resulted in apparent and glaring incongruity in the description of spot examination in the case diary. There the Investigating Offi­cer has tried to write the interpolated line beneath place 'B' and has tried to make it appear as if sign 'B' is the indi­cator of the lantern while sign 'X' as an indicator of the place where the first informant, the deceased and witness Jaswant Singh were sitting. This de­scription in the case diary regarding the spot examination is a complete mis-­match with the contents of site plan Ext. Ka-9 itself where the place of lantern is clearly shown as 'X' while the place where the deceased and first informant etc. were sitting has been shown as 'B'. These mutually irreconcilable conflict­ing descriptions were bound to occur wherever such gross forgeries are com­mitted. All these aspects have also been meticulously looked into by the trial Judge and he has rightly come to the conclusion that there was no lantern hanging at the alleged place when the occurrence took place and the same has been dishonestly introduced by the In­vestigating Officer just to show the presence of some semblance of light enabling the witnesses to identify the assailants. This dishonest aspect of the investigation is also inseparable from the veracity of the prosecution version or that of the first informant who too has adopted the same line and has in­troduced the presence of lantern in his examination-in-chief even though the same was conspicuous by its absence in the FIR and also in his statement re­corded under section-161 Cr.P.C. In this regard the statement of Investigating Officer, P.W.-8 on Page-32 of the paper book may not be out of place to mention in which he has admitted that neither Jagan Singh nor Jaswant Singh had told him about the presence of lantern as a source of light when they were exam­ined by him. Investigating Officer was also cross-examined about the interpola­tions done by him. Investigating Officer was also cross-examined about the interpola­tions done by him. He had also to admit that the alleged additional lines show­ing the lantern as a source of light were in fact written with a different pen and in a different ink, but he attempted to brazen it out under a lame explanation that he possessed two pens at that time and had examined the prosecution wit­nesses twice and therefore, when in the second examination they told about the fact of lantern he made its mention with a different pen. The explanation apart from being puerile and insipid both, deserves outright rejection also for the reason that there is no mention in the case diary at all about any such alleged second examination of the prosecution witnesses nor does any such alleged second statement of any prosecution witness finds any place in the case di­ary. We have no doubt in our mind to hold that actually there was no lantern at the time of incident at the relevant place where the same has been shown and if at all there was^any at some dif­ferent place, it was of no avail or help to identify the assailant. 47. Here it may not be out of place to refer to the topographical situation of the place of occurrence in order to fur­ther elucidate the significance of the lan­tern's presence or absence at the alleged place. 48. Site plan Ext. Ka-9 shows that the main construction of Jagan Singh's house containing two rooms and one Baithak (where normally visitors are received and sit) along with a veranda etc. are situated on the southern side while on the northern side in front of this construction lies an open place be­longing to the first informant. Similarly on the eastern side of this construction also there lies an bpen place which ex­tends on the northern side further till some distance. Thereafter, still further on the northern side there is the place belonging to one Jagvir son of Chhattar which is used for the purposes of cattle. The open land on the eastern side of the first informant's house which meets the land of Jagveer on the northern side ap­pears demarcated by a boundary wall having some kind of opening for the purposes of coming and going. The open land on the eastern side of the first informant's house which meets the land of Jagveer on the northern side ap­pears demarcated by a boundary wall having some kind of opening for the purposes of coming and going. The bare perusal of site plan reveals that this boundary wall opening into Jagvir's cattle place is the outer most side situ­ated on the north-east quite away from the main dwelling place of the first in­formant. The site plan shows place 'D' from where accused Raghuveer Singh is said to have fired his gun. It is a place outside the aforesaid demarcating boundary wall or to say a place on the northern side of the boundary wall in the land belonging to Jagveer. Accord­ing to the prosecution story before the occurrence took place the first informant P.W.-1 and Jaswant P.W.2 along with the deceased were sitting and talking among themselves at place 'B' which is a place in front of the constructed room of the first informant. It is from this place that they are said to have walked up on the eastern side after hearing the abuses hurled by the accused. The place where lantern was hanging has been demarcated by the sign 'X'. Strangely enough this place is nowhere near the place where the first informant was sit­ting and chatting with other witnesses before the occurrence took place, it is on the eastern side quite away from place 'B'. What is further very apparent from the perusal of the site plan that on the western side of the construction of the first informant's house is situated the main street or the path which runs north-south. The main Baithak of the first informant (normally used to receive and meet the visitors) is on the western most end of first informant's house. It is again very notable that the direction from where the witnesses are said to have arrived at the first informant's house is also from this north-south street situated on the western side of first informant's house. The directions have been shown and marked by the sign of arrows (->)in the site plan Ext.-Ka-9. By no stretch of imagination the place where the lantern is said to have been placed can be termed as the main door of entrance of the first informant's house. The directions have been shown and marked by the sign of arrows (->)in the site plan Ext.-Ka-9. By no stretch of imagination the place where the lantern is said to have been placed can be termed as the main door of entrance of the first informant's house. Even the witnesses came to his house from the western lane and from the western side of his house and not from the eastern side where the lantern is said to have been hanging. Even the first informant's son Virendra Singh, P.W.-3 had come to his house that day from the western side, as is evident from the paragraph -8 of the first informant's statement on page-17 of the paper book. If at all there would be a lantern it ought to have been placed near place 'B' where the first informant was sitting and talk­ing along with other witnesses or it ought to have been somewhere on the western side which apparently seems to be the main entry place. At any rate the placement of lantern on the eastern most side looks to be quite incongruous and difficult to accept. It is again very doubt­ful that even this light of the lantern al­legedly placed at place 'X' would have any utility to identify the assailant standing outside the boundary wall on the north-east side in the land of Jagvir as has been claimed by the prosecution. In the light of the aforesaid discussion we have compelling reasons to take the view that there was hardly any light available which may be called sufficient to enable the identification of the assail­ant. That also seems to be the same rea­son that so much of .interpolation by the Investigating Officer has been indulged into just to introduce some source of light. We may hasten to add right at this place that it is admittedly a case of sin­gle shot while the assailant is said to have fired and fled away from outside the boundary wall where there was ad­mittedly no light available, and it was a dark night of the village. The Trial Court has also adverted to the aforesaid as­pects and his inference is also somewhat similar to that of ours. 49. Now we proceed to evaluate the Causa Causans, the immediate cause or the instant genesis of occurrence which precipitated the incident in question. The Trial Court has also adverted to the aforesaid as­pects and his inference is also somewhat similar to that of ours. 49. Now we proceed to evaluate the Causa Causans, the immediate cause or the instant genesis of occurrence which precipitated the incident in question. As it is apparent that the death of Mahavir is not a usual kind of intentional murder and he is said to have become an ill-fated victim in an incident that actually took place between two different per­sons i.e. between accused-respondent Raghuveer Singh and P.W.-3 Virendra Singh. Therefore, we will have to exam­ine .and evaluate the initial prosecution story as to how, why and from where the incident erupted morphing itself into this unfortunate end. It may be re­called that the intervention by P W. 3 Virendra Singh in the village feud be­tween Dhobis and Manihars has been alleged to have become the root of dis­cord and from which emanated the whole trouble. The defence side, during the course of argument, has vehemently challenged the truthfulness of the al­leged genesis of the occurrence so far as it relates to any kind of alleged bicker­ing or tiff between accused and witness Virendra Singh during the said village feud. The perusal of prosecution evi­dence in this regard makes it very clear that there are only two witnesses pro­duced by the prosecution in this regard, one is P.W.-5 named Bedaria who is a Dhobi (washerman) by profession and another is P.W.-3 Virendra Singh him­self, who claimed themselves to be pre­sent at the time of the alleged quarrel between Dhobis and Manihars of the village. The statement of P.W.I Jagan Singh on page-17 of the paper book con­tains his admission in no uncertain terms that he had not gone to the place of village quarrel where his son Viren­dra Singh had gone. P.W.-2 Jaswant Singh also does not claim to have ever gone at the place of village quarrel where the Dhobis and Manihars were quibbling. Their evidence in this regard is all hearsay and of no use. Now com­ing to Bedaria P.W.-5 he is the same man with whom the Manihars of the village had locked their horns in the aforesaid village squabble in which P.W.-3 Virendra Singh is said to have intervened. To be more specific this vil­lage quarrel is said to have taken place between Bedaria dhobi and the daugh­ter of one Nabba manihar named Idi. To be more specific this vil­lage quarrel is said to have taken place between Bedaria dhobi and the daugh­ter of one Nabba manihar named Idi. Now, in so far as P.W.-5 Bedaria dhobi is concerned, he has completely denied not only the fact of intervention as claimed" by P.W.-3 Virendra Singh, he has also denied the appearance of ac­cused Raghuveer Singh on the spot dur­ing the course of that quarrel. To the contrary he seems to have deposed about the appearance of P.W.-l Jagan Singh and the deceased Mahavir on the place of quarrel. He has been declared hostile by the prosecution. As is appar­ent from his terse statement that he has not stated anything which may be made use of for the prosecution side. Any­thing or everything stated by him is in favour of accused alone. Even the law which permits the use of a hostile wit­ness for the purposes of corroboration cannot serve the prosecution with re­gard to this witness as he has hardly said anything which may be subjected to any use in favour of prosecution. Thereafter, when we come to the state­ment of P.W.-3 Virendra Singh himself in this context, it is very significant to note that in his statement there is not even a faint murmur regarding any quarrel or even a verbal altercation tak­ing place between him and accused Raghuveer Singh during his alleged in­tervention. If we go by the statement of Virendra Singh P.W.-3, he does not de­pose about any kind of participation done by accused Raghuveer Singh in the alleged quarrel between Dhobis and Manihars, nor has he been alleged to have taken sides in favour or against any faction involved in this village feud. No conversation good, bad or indiffer­ent, acceptable or objectionable, took place between witness Virendra Singh and accused Raghuveer Singh. The only thing stated by Virendra Singh P.W.-3 in the Court is to the following effect: "I was returning from the field. The mutual bickering between dho-bis and manihars was going on. I in­tervened or pacified. Then I saw Raghuveer Singh accused coming. I came back to my house as I appre­hended lest Raghuveer Singh should shoot at me." 50. The only thing stated by Virendra Singh P.W.-3 in the Court is to the following effect: "I was returning from the field. The mutual bickering between dho-bis and manihars was going on. I in­tervened or pacified. Then I saw Raghuveer Singh accused coming. I came back to my house as I appre­hended lest Raghuveer Singh should shoot at me." 50. When P.W.-3 was cross-examined in this regard he further clari­fied and categorically stated that in the duration when he had gone to intervene in the village quarrel he did not have any talk or conversation with accused Raghuveer Singh. He has further stated in his cross-examination that as there was old enmity between him and Raghuveer Singh that is why on seeing Raghuveer Singh with a gun he re­turned back to his house. There is no other witness regarding the happenings at the time of this quarrel and P.W.-3 Virendra Singh's statement is the sole source to throw any light upon that event which is said to have become the prelude to the subsequent macabre inci­dent. As is obvious that whatever has been described to have happened sub­sequently, the wrath of Raghuveer Singh, his abusive onslaught towards the house of Virendra Singh his violent protest against Virendra Singh's inter­vention in favour of manihars, all of these facts remain inexplicable. There does not seem to be any convincing nexus between the outburst of fury al­legedly displayed by accused Raghu­veer Singh and whatever has been told by Virendra Singh to have happened in the village quarrel. As has already been indicated there is no evidence on record that accused Raghuveer Singh was also supporting or taking the side of dhobis or any of the belligerent sides. This rules out even that possibility where the sup­porters of two rival factions themselves come face to face and sometimes the original conflic morphs itself into a mu­tual fight between the supporters. Now if Raghuveer Singh had not even participated or intervened in the aforesaid village spat then the only theoretical possibility which may explain the sub­sequent displeasure displayed by Raghuveer Singh might be this that Virendra Singh and Raghuveer Singh should have been so close and intimate that Raghuveer Singh felt it as a matter of his right to expect Virendra Singh conducting himself only in a manner as was desired by the accused. A father may have such expectation from his son and a brother may expect similarly from his brother. Too proximate intimate friends may also at times have such lofty expectations that a conduct to the contrary may drive them mad. But if, there is no love lost between the two, there is no question of any expectation. The prosecution evidence produced has been to the effect that the relationship between Virendra Singh and Raghuveer Singh has not been friendly, they are even said to be hostile to each other. Therefore, there is no question of Raghuveer Singh taking any exception to the conduct of Virendra Singh's in­tervention even if we, for the sake of argument, presume him to have taken the side of manihars. It is also not of lit­tle importance to note that there is no evidence on the record to prove that Virendra Singh took a favourable atti­tudes towards manihars or any of the side involved in the aforesaid village sparring. 51. We are also not having the ad­vantage of knowing as to what was the nature of village feud, how trivial or how serious were the issues involved and how or in what manner Virendra Singh's intervention could make Raghuveer Singh so volatile. The learned A.G.A. has also not been able to throw any light about. the same obvi­ously because the prosecution has not produced any evidence in that regard. 52. Learned Sessions Judge has also dealt with all these aforesaid aspects at some length and has also rightly pointed out that the statement of P.W.-2 Jaswant in this regard wherein he says that when Virendra Singh had come back to his house before the shooting incident, he had told to the people there that accused Raghuveer Singh had abused him, is a clear deliberate im­provement unsubstantiated and uncor­roborated by the statement of P.W.-1 Jagan Singh who did not say a word about Virendra Singh having ever told him any such thing. It is also contra­dicted by P.W.3 Virendra Singh himself who completely denied any kind of ver­bal duel between him and Raghuveer Singh at the time of his intervention in the quarrel. We approve the reasoning of the Trial Court in this regard and also feel that immediate cause of the incident as projected by the prosecution has many loose ends,and the story does not inspire confidence. We approve the reasoning of the Trial Court in this regard and also feel that immediate cause of the incident as projected by the prosecution has many loose ends,and the story does not inspire confidence. The castigation of this story by the defence side and the suggestion mat the whole story regard­ing the instant genesis of the incident is all false, appears to have substance. As a result thereof the very inception of the prosecution story becomes shaky and fraught with elements of improbability. 53. Now if we traverse back from this immediate precursor of the incident to the older history of the alleged en­mity, the facts appear to be like this. P.W.-1 Jagan Singh has deposed in the Court that there was hostility between him and accused Raghuveer Singh be­fore the present incident in question. He has further deposed that the accused had foisted a case under section-324 I.P.C. against him and his son but the same had resulted in their acquittal. This is the sole enmity alleged. When we look to the statement given by ac­cused Raghuveer Singh at the time of recording of his statement under sec-tion-313 Cr.P.C. he had candidly stated that he had never filed any case against the first informant or his son. He has further stated that report of that case was lodged by his brother Jasveer Singh but nobody was nominated in that FIR by name. According to him, it was the police which prosecuted them in that case. In this connection the copy of re­port lodged by Jasveer Singh dated 9.7.1978 has been furnished by the de­fence and has also been exhibited as Exb. Kha-1. Perusal of this report shows that it contained the allegation to the effect that someone had caused injuries to Raghuveer Singh during the night hours. The assailant has not been named in this report. The argument raised be­fore us by the learned amicus curiae is that in the aforesaid previous incident even after receiving Farsa injuries the accused had not chosen to nominate Virendra Singh or his father. It could have been comparatively a much easier act to falsely implicate a man out of mal­ice or vendetta than to make a murder­ous assault on somebody or to actually murder him. It could have been comparatively a much easier act to falsely implicate a man out of mal­ice or vendetta than to make a murder­ous assault on somebody or to actually murder him. According to the defence Counsel the past history of Raghuveer Singh revealing his unwillingness even to falsely nominate Virendra Singh is incompatible to the prosecution's pre­sent claim whereby it alleges accused Raghuveer Singh to have become so outrageously volatile and so unreasona­bly violent that for no rhyme or reason and for no affront caused to him he would emerge out as a murderous out­law who can kill a man as if for sport. The learned trial Judge has also ana­lysed these aspects and has also taken note of the fact that the statement of ac­cused Raghuveer Singh given in the aforesaid previous case under section 324 IPC allegedly constituting the mo­tive has not been furnished in the Court to give some idea about its contents. Whether Raghuveer Singh had deposed against Virendra Singh and his father or not, is also not known. It has also been admitted by P.W.-l that no other report was ever lodged against each other in any other matter. In this situation the alleged motive does not go very far to help the prosecution. According to de­fence argument the alleged back ground of first informant having faced a false prosecution is more compatible with the defence suggestion that the first infor­mant had a stronger motive to falsely implicate the accused rather than the accused having any animus against the first informant or his son. 54. The learned A.G.A. in this re­gard has submitted that Trial Court has erred in giving the finding that it is a case of weak motive. His contention is that the cases where the eye-witness account is available the motive pales into insignificance and must not be looked into. We have perused the judg­ment in this regard and find that the analysis or the finding of the Court is beyond reproach. The Trial Court has not disbelieved the prosecution version because of a week motive nor has it ig­nored or under estimated the worth of eye-witnesses because of any inade­quacy or insufficiency of motive. He has simply analysed the evidence produced by the prosecution itself regarding the motive and we think it was his duty to do so. The Trial Court has not disbelieved the prosecution version because of a week motive nor has it ig­nored or under estimated the worth of eye-witnesses because of any inade­quacy or insufficiency of motive. He has simply analysed the evidence produced by the prosecution itself regarding the motive and we think it was his duty to do so. There cannot be any quarrel with the legal proposition that if the ocular version inspires confidence even the total absence of motive will not have any deleterious effect upon the prosecu­tion case. But the prosecution has al­ways the right to prove the circum­stances which furnish the motive and can always derive strength by proving that the accused was having sufficient animus against the victim to commit the crime. That always serves as an addi­tional circumstance to lend assurance to the ocular version of the eye-witnesses. The failure to prove the motive cannot be reckoned as a circumstance against the prosecution but the success in prov­ing a sufficient motive is always of good help to the prosecution. The gist of the trial Judge's analysis regarding the mo­tive seems to be only this much that in the present case the alleged motive is a weak one and the prosecution cannot derive much strength out of it. We too concur with his inference in this regard. 55. It is with this background that we now proceed to evaluate the testi­mony of eye-witnesses and the prosecu­tion version as coming out from their depositions. P.W.I Jagan Singh is the first informant of the case. We have to weigh his evidence with extra-judicial vigil also for the reason that this witness belongs to a family of out-laws. He has been cross-examined about his antecedents and his statement on Page-18, of the paper book contain his brusque admission in this regard to1 the following effect: - "I am a history sheeter. It was the vocation or business of my brother to commit dacoities and thefts. I was pairokar of my brother so the Inspec­tor entered my name as a history sheeter." 56. It was the vocation or business of my brother to commit dacoities and thefts. I was pairokar of my brother so the Inspec­tor entered my name as a history sheeter." 56. He has further admitted to have been prosecuted under the Excise Act but denied the prosecution under section-395 I.P.C. We agree with the sub­mission of the learned A.G.A. that the antecedents of a witness can never be the sole ground to rubbish his testimony and in our view they are relevant only to the extent that we shall vet his evi­dence with circumspection not suspi­cion, with caution and not doubt. The learned A.G.A. has not been able to sat­isfy us on any of the matters which ex­pose the testimony of this witness to the frontal attack made by the learned amicus curiae. As has already been dis­cussed before, the case of the defence is that it was pitch-dark night of the vil­lage and the deceased having received a solitary injury it was a hit and run case, therefore, either the incident remained unwitnessed or the assailant remained unidentified. It was only after the inci­dent got over that the information was sent to the family members of the de­ceased and then followed a long drawn out innings of hobnobbing with the po­lice which resulted in the extra-ordinary and unduly protracted detention of the dead body in the police station. The submission before us in this regard is again the same which partakes the dis­cussion done .in the earlier part of our judgment while dealing with the ante timing of the FIR and its corresponding fallouts on the testimonial worth of the prosecution evidence, that the dead body could not be sent to the police lines for post-mortem either on 3.5.1981 or even on 4.5.1981 because P.W.I Jagan Singh had not been able to formulate the . FIR by that time. The first informant in collusion with the police concocted the present FIR but not before 5.5.1981 and it was because of this reason that the dead body could reach the police lines as late as on 5.5.1981 at 4.00 p.m. in the evening. P.W.-l has been cross-examined regarding these aspects of dead body's dispatch and arrival after the inquest proceedings. The first informant in collusion with the police concocted the present FIR but not before 5.5.1981 and it was because of this reason that the dead body could reach the police lines as late as on 5.5.1981 at 4.00 p.m. in the evening. P.W.-l has been cross-examined regarding these aspects of dead body's dispatch and arrival after the inquest proceedings. What we find from his statement is (hat his deposition in this regard is diagonally contradicted by the documents of the police lines Agra as well as the documents prepared during investigation by the police itself. As has already been discussed at some length earlier also that his statement in this regard is to the effect that the in­quest proceedings had taken place in his presence and the dead body was sealed before him. According to him these pro­ceedings concluded at 2.00 p.m., thereaf­ter, he came back to his house to take care of his cattle and again reached back to that place but found that the dead body had already been dispatched. This statement is in sharp conflict with the record of the inquest proceeding Exb.Ka-14 itself which reveals that the proceedings of inquest started at 8.30 a.m. and finished at 10.00 a.m. on 4.5.1981. Even according to the state­ment of Investigating Officer, P.W.-8 the dead body had been dispatched for Agra by 10.30 a.m. The second part of the first informant's statement is to the effect that on the next day he had gone to participate in cremation of the de­ceased and had reached Agra at 10.00 a.m. in the morning. According to him the dead body had reached the mortu­ary by that time but he had to come back and the post-mortem could not take place that day. Now it is so much evident that this statement again gets completely falsified by the G.D. of the police lines and its entry in the Form No. 13 which reveals the arrival of the dead body in the police lines at 4.00 pm. on 5.5.1981. There is no question of the dead body being there in mortuary at 10,00 AM on 5.5.1981. on 5.5.1981. There is no question of the dead body being there in mortuary at 10,00 AM on 5.5.1981. It is so apparent that this witness has given these incon­sistent statements repugnant to the documents proved by the prosecution itself simply because If in fact the dead body was dispatched on 5.5.1981 and reached in police lines on 5.5.1981 at 4.00 p.m. then this witness must have been completely at a loss and wholly unable to explain or describe as to what had been going on for almost two days and what was being done with the dead body for aH this prolonged period of time. Obviously we cannot expect him to admit that the dead body was kept at the police station all this while awaiting the formulation of the FIR or that he was busy during all this period in fabri­cating the version of the FIR. He was perhaps under compulsion to tell all the aforesaid lies if he had to save the expo­sure of the ante-timing of the FIR. The submission of the learned amicus curiae in this regard is that these deliberate lies of this witness are matters of vital im­portance and would go to detract sub­stantially the evidentially value of his statement. He has also drawn our atten­tion to that part of the cross-examination on page-16 of the paper book where he has pleaded his complete ignorance about the fact that the dead body had reached in the police lines at 4.00 p.m. one day after the inquest pro­ceedings. Again we can see this witness making a crucial improvement in the Court, inasmuch as he has introduced the lantern as a source of light on the spot even though the same is conspicu­ous by its absence both in the FIR as well as the statement given to the Inves­tigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. We find substance in the sub­mission of the defence that this witness has unblushingly borrowed the contents of the interpolations committed by the Investigating Officer in this regard and has got no moral qualms in telling lies on any matter and to any extent. His answers regarding the previous litiga­tion were also evasive. His answers regarding the previous litiga­tion were also evasive. As we have dis­cussed above the sole background of enmity with the accused as deposed by this witness is in the form of a criminal case under section 324, I.P.C. which was allegedly foisted upon "him and his son by accused Raghuveer Singh. When he was cross-examined by the defence on this point and asked whether he was nominated by name in the FIR of that case or not, he prevaricated and instead of giving a trutlirul reply pleaded his ignorance. One finds it very hard to be­lieve that this witness will not even know such a crude fact. But as has al­ready been referred to by us before, that the defence has produced the copy of the aforesaid FIR and has got it proved as Exb.Kha-1, demonstrating the fact that nobody was named in that FIR and the FIR was not even lodged by Raghu-veer Singh himself. It is so apparent that just because in the estimate of this wit­ness the admission of the aforesaid fact of the FIR having been lodged against unknown assailants was detrimental to his interest, he felt no moral compunc­tion in suppressing it. His statement also does not throw any light on that subject as to what transpired during the alleged intervention done by his son Virendra in the squabble between dhobis and mani-hars. He was admittedly not present there, and therefore how, why and in what manner accused Raghuveer Singh felt aggrieved to the extent of commit­ting the murder of Virendra remains a mystery. In fact, according to his state­ment when accused Raghuveer Singh came over on the spot and abused it was P.W.-l himself who resisted and dis­suaded him from abusing. He does not depose about anything having been said or done by his son Virendra at that time also. But incongruously enough the ac­cused did not fire at him but fired at Virendra. Virendra himself in his depo­sition does not speak a word about the fact as to what was done by him which enraged and drove Raghuveer Singh in such an insane franzy of violence. 57. Now when we juxtapose the testimony of P.W.-l to the medical as­pect of the case, the most relevant thing to be taken note of is the presence of tattooing, blackening and charring on the fire arm wound of entry received by the deceased. 57. Now when we juxtapose the testimony of P.W.-l to the medical as­pect of the case, the most relevant thing to be taken note of is the presence of tattooing, blackening and charring on the fire arm wound of entry received by the deceased. It is a known fact of medi­cal jurisprudence that the charring or scorching is caused by the heat or flame emitted from the barrel of the gun used. When the victim is in a close proximity with the fire arm his skin gets scorched and charred due to the heat effect. In most of the cases this burning effect is caused not beyond a few inches from the barrel of the gun. In very exceptional cases it may be caused from a longer distance. As per the celebrated treatise of Modi on medical jurisprudence the maximum exceptional distance reported in this regard is three feet and not be­yond. The presence of blackening is also an indicator of a very close range fire and does not exceed the distance of three feet or four feet. 58. But when we look the site plan Exb.Ka-9 we find that the place where accused Raghuveer Singh is said to have been standing at the time when he fired at Virendra has been indicated as place 'D' which is demonstrably a place situ­ated outside the boundary wall on the northern side, while place 'C' has been shown as indicating the place where deceased Mahavir received the gun shot and fell down. The distance between 'C' and 'D' has been shown as 5 -6 steps that is to say 10-15 feet. It is not difficult to see that P.W.-l while deposing in the Court has deliberately tried to lessen the distance from 10-15 feet to 6-7 feet. The presence of charring on the wound is an impossibility if the fce was made from a distance of 15 feet. Even after making a full blooded attempt to lessen the dis­tance P.W.-l could not bring it to lower than 6-7 feet. The scorching or charring can not be caused even from this dis­tance. The presence of charring on the wound is an impossibility if the fce was made from a distance of 15 feet. Even after making a full blooded attempt to lessen the dis­tance P.W.-l could not bring it to lower than 6-7 feet. The scorching or charring can not be caused even from this dis­tance. As is very clear from the perusal of the site plan that place 'C' from where the blood was collected is almost close to the eastern wall of the first informant while place 'D' is in the land belonging to Jagvir on the northern side beyond the northern wall that demarcates Jag-vir's land from that of the first infor­mant. That was perhaps a compelling constraint why the witness could not lessen the distance further as the same would have been much too absurd because of the fixed topographical dis­tance between the northern boundary wall and the place of blood adjacent to the eastern wall of the first informant. In any view of the matter, the medical evidence cannot be said to be in corrobora-tion of the first informant's version. We may make it clear that if the oral testi­mony would have been found otherwise reliable with a ring of truth inspiring confidence, we would have preferred it and might have ignored the medical aspects of the case. We might have then given allowance to the witness in the name of inadequacy of estimate regard­ing the distance and so many other fac­tors which could have resulted into the aforesaid incompatibility between oral and medical evidence. But in the back­drop of all what has been discussed above, the first .informant being a his­tory sheeter, having made significant improvements on vital matters, himself being a necessary party in ante-timing of the FIR, we do not feel inclined to adjudge the contradiction with the medical evidence liberally. 59. The learned A.G.A., though not able to justify or meet out all the afore­said contradictions and infirmities has tried to fall back upon a more general­ized contention that a witness, even if found untruthful in some matters may not be discarded as wholly unreliable as the maxim Falsus. In UNO Falsus in Om­nibus does not hold good in Indian Con­text. We accept the correctness of this legal proposition but express our reser­vations about its application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In UNO Falsus in Om­nibus does not hold good in Indian Con­text. We accept the correctness of this legal proposition but express our reser­vations about its application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There are matters which are of collateral importance, there are matters which are of ancillary significance, there are con­tradictions which are peripheral in nature just as there are incompatibilities which are in the outer areas of an eye­witness's testimony away from the cen­tral hub of the prosecution case. Such contradictions do not go to the root of the matter and the substratum of the prosecution case remain still undis­turbed. Those are the matters where a prosecution can still succeed and per­suade the Court to act upon the testi-•mony of its witnesses despite their un­truthful statements. But if the falsehood of the witness relates to the matters which form the fundamental basis of the prosecution's case or constitute its very foundation, it is very difficult and may be even imprudent to ignore it. The truth and falsehood have got so inextri­cably mixed that they cannot be sepa­rated in the present case. The segrega­tion of grain from the chaff has become impossible and the nugget of truth seems to have been irredeemably lost in the mire of falsehood. The witness did not inspire confidence in the estimate of the learned Sessions Judge. He does not commend himself as a reliable witness in our judicial estimate too. At any rate we cannot dub the findings of the Trial Court in his regard to be wholly without substance or not well borne out from the evidence on record. The learned A.G.A. has not been able to submit anything which may persuade us to take a con­trary view. 60. Then we come over to the state­ment of Jaswant P.W.-2 who is admit­tedly the cousin brother of deceased Mahavir. He claims his presence at first informant's house at the time of occur­rence for the reason that he had gone to take some money from Jagan Singh, the first informant, and while he was sitting in front of Jagan Singh's room along with Jagan Singh and deceased Ma­havir, Virendra Singh came over there and reported about the quarrel between dhobis and manihars and also about his intervention in the same. We have al­ready referred to his evidence in earlier part of the judgment and therefore, do not propose to repeat it again. To be brief, according to his statement soon thereafter Raghuveer Singh came out from his house abusing and shot at Virendra Singh who was standing along with Mahavir at the main door (Sadar Darwaja). The fire hit Mahavir instead of Virendra who fell down and later on died on his way to hospital. According to the learned A.G.A. this witness ought to have been believed by the Trial Court as according to him he should be deemed a natural witness because he had gone to the first informant in the natural course of day to day business and got the occasion to witness the inci­dent which took place soon thereafter. The submission is that his testimony does not suffer from any serious criti­cism and the finding of the Trial Court holding him unreliable is not very sound. To the contrary the amicus curiae has castigated his testimony on many grounds. According to him the very reason of his presence is fraught with the vice of unnaturalness and suf­fer from serious contradictions in that regard. He also contends that there is material on the record to indicate that he could not have seen the assailant from the place where he was sitting. The con­tention further is that as he is admit­tedly related to the deceased being his cousin, he was called, according to the statement of P.W.-5 Bedariya, from his village Purna much after the occurrence when the deceased had passed away. According to learned amicus curiae though P.W.-5 Bedariya has been de­clared hostile but that does not annihi­late his testimony from record and the same can be used not only for the pur­poses of corroboration in favour of prosecution but may also be used to substantiate the case of the defence and there is no reason why some admission or a fact stated by a hostile witness may not be made use of, if in totality of cir­cumstances the same appears to be correct. According to his submission wit­ness Jaswant P.W.-2 has been rightly disbelieved by the Trial Court and in fact there are more reasons on record to disbelieve him than the reasons given by -the Trial Court which of course are sound. 61. According to his submission wit­ness Jaswant P.W.-2 has been rightly disbelieved by the Trial Court and in fact there are more reasons on record to disbelieve him than the reasons given by -the Trial Court which of course are sound. 61. In the light of the rival submis­sions when we begin to examine his tes­timony regarding the reasons for his presence on spot we are confronted with a sharp contradiction in that regard at the very outset of his examination-in-chief. At the first instance he took the stand that when deceased Mahavir had gone to Jagan Singh's house in order to take the money in lieu of ploughing his fields, he was accompanied by this wit­ness. His statement in this regard is to the following effect: - "Mahavir had gone to Jagan Singh in order to take the money in lieu of ploughing. I too had gone along with him." 62. At the second instance he seems to have veered away completely from his first stand and went on oath to state that he had gone to first informant's house independently and had found Mahavir there at his house who had also come there. This is apparent from his statement given in para-3 on page 20 of the paper book. In fact this shifting of stand seems to have started from ex-amination-in-chief itself but the way his statement has been recorded it may also be subjected to a different interpreta­tion. But when we examine his testi­mony as a whole along with the afore­said statement made during his cross-examination on this point, the dichot­omy becomes apparent and it leaves no confusion. Going along with somebody to a place is certainly not the same thing as going to that place alone and then to find him there already present. Thereaf­ter, when we further examine his reason for having gone to first informant's house, it also does not look very con­vincing. According to him he had gone to village Raibha in order to take the diesel. He had carried with him two canes or containers, each having the ca­pacity to contain 40 litres. He had to purchase 80 litres of diesel the price of which amounted to Rs. 260/. According to him some money had already been given by Jagan Singh at the time of noon and he had asked him to take the re­maining balance from his house in the evening. He had to purchase 80 litres of diesel the price of which amounted to Rs. 260/. According to him some money had already been given by Jagan Singh at the time of noon and he had asked him to take the re­maining balance from his house in the evening. It was the same balance amount which he had gone to collect from his house. Contrary to this stand on the other hand we find him toeing a parallel but different line in his exami-nation-in-chief and also in the beginning. of his cross-examination that it was Ma­havir who with his own tractor used to plough the field of Jagan Singh and Ja­gan Singh used to pay Mahaveer for the same on the field itself and as Rs. 30/-remained unpaid to him, deceased Mahavir had gone to first informant in or-' der to realize the same Rs. 30/- from him that evening. It is very hard to reconcile the two different stands taken up by P.W.-2 Jaswant in this regard. There is nothing on record to indicate that the deceased and Jaswant P.W.-2 were living together jointly, sharing common business or common vocation. There is also nothing to indicate that the plough­ing of the field was done jointly by both of them or that the income earned through it was shared amongst them. There is nothing on record to the effect that deceased Mahavir used to take the services or assistance or help of Jaswant P.W.-2 in performing the job of plough­ing the field by tractor. In the absence of any evidence to that effect it is not pos­sible for us to presume that fact by our imagination simply to fill up the gap that separates the two stands taken up by P.W.-2. In fact it is not possible to understand as to why this witness shall go from the diesel pump to the first in­formant's house to take the money which Jagan Singh never owed to this witness and which was, to its contrary, due to be paid to deceased Mahavir. The perusal of his statement betrays two parallel lines in this regard and his statement keeps oscillating between the two stands constantly. The perusal of his statement betrays two parallel lines in this regard and his statement keeps oscillating between the two stands constantly. This two fronged stand taken up and pursuecj by this witness is dubious in nature and creates doubt in our mind about the genuine­ness of the pretence which has been taken up by him in order to show him­self present on the place of occurrence at first informant's house. It is also not out of place here to mention that the house of first informant does not fall anywhere on the way to the diesel pump where this witness Jaswant had gone to pur­chase diesel. It also looks improbable to believe that a man going to purchase 80 litres of diesel will not go with the required amount of money to purchase the same specially when we look to the meagerness of the left out balance amount to be paid by Jagan Singh which was only Rs. 30/-. Even if we presume that Jagan Singh owed 30/- not to de­ceased Mahavir but to P.W.-2 Jaswant, though such a presumption shall be wholly contrary to the stand taken up by the prosecution, it is still not very easy to believe that P.W.-2 will carry with him only Rs. 230/- and not Rs. 260/which was needed to purchase the required diesel and shall go all the way from diesel pump to just collect Rs. 30/- and then come back again to purchase the diesel. Improbability and incongru­ity of the evidence in this regard creates further doubt in the truthfulness of the reason projected by this .witness to ex­plain his presence on the spot. Then we come to the description given by him regarding his position from where he claims to have witnessed the occurrence. His statement in this regard is to the following effect: - "At the time when accused Raghuveer Singh came over there I was sitting near the main door (Sa-dar Darwaja). I saw the shooting from that very place." 63. Nowhere in his statement has he deposed that at any point of time he stood up or walked up or left the place where he was sitting before the shooting took place. His statement is categorical in this regard that he saw the incident from that very place where he was sitting. Nowhere in his statement has he deposed that at any point of time he stood up or walked up or left the place where he was sitting before the shooting took place. His statement is categorical in this regard that he saw the incident from that very place where he was sitting. Now a reference to the site plan in this regard would further elucidate and clarify the matter. The site plan Ext. Ka-9 shows this place as place 'B' where this witness was sitting along with others. Place 'C' as has already been referred before, is the place where the de­ceased received the shot. The distance between place 'B' and place 'C' has been measured as 10-12 steps that is to say 20-25 feet. A bare perusal of the site plan would make it manifestly clear that place 'B' and 'C' are east and west to each other with a gap of aforesaid 20-25 feet in between them. But place 'D' from where the accused is said to have fired is situated on the northern side of place 'C' outside the northern boundary wall and the distance between place 'D' from where the accused fired and place 'C' where the deceased received the shot have a distance of 5-6 steps, that is to say 10-15 feet, in between them. Place 'C' and 'D' are diagonally placed to each other. Even a fleeting glance on the site plan would leave no d@ubt to under­stand that the place 'D' from where the accused fired will be completely invisi­ble from place 'B' where P.W.-2 Jaswant was sitting. There are two boundary walls in between them, the first bound­ary wall is the eastern boundary wall of Jagan Singh and the second one is northern boundary wall outside which accused Raghuveer Singh is said to have been standing at the time of shooting. 64. Learned trial Judge has cor­rectly analysed this aspect of the case and has rightly noted that though the other witnesses made a futile attempt to change the place of P.W.-2 Jaswant and tried to depose that at the time of inci­dent he also had gone out to the main door so that the story of accused having been identified by this witness may appear plausible but the categorical ad­mission of this witness himself on page-20 of the paper book completely falsifies and explodes the ingenuity of this crafty attempt. Thus it is very clear that even on the own showing of this witness himself the place where he was sitting and place from where the firing took place is topographically so situated that the assailant could never have been seen by him. It is a physical impossibility. That goes a long way to detract his evi­dentiary value. 65. Another facet casting a deleteri­ous shadow on the veracity of this wit­ness relates to his endeavour attempting to introduce the source of light on spot in keeping with the line adopted by other witnesses. We have already dis­cussed earlier how the presence of lan­tern as a source of light has been dis­honestly introduced, interpolated and squeezed into the statement of the wit­nesses at the tail end of their 161 Cr.P.C. statements with a different pen and ink. It seems that in order to some how ex­plain or justify the interpolation this witness attempted to make a statement that he was examined twice by the In­vestigating Officer, once when the inquest was performed and then again four days thereafter. As we have already referred earlier the case diary does not contain any second examination of this witness. In fact when the Investigating Officer was examined with regard to interpolations on the point of light he took the stand that the very day when he examined the witnesses they were again re-examined by him on the same day and the source of Mght was written at the end of their statement with a dif­ferent ink because he possessed two different pens at that point of time. Evi­dently enough P.W.2 Jaswant does not admit any such re-examination on the same day while the so called second statement taken by the Investigating Officer after 4 days nowhere exists in the case diary. Such kind of cunning disingenuous attempts made by P.W.-2 just to bridge up the gaping holes fur­ther corrode his credibility. In the last remain the same mendacious statement of this witness regarding the reaching of the dead body in the police lines which is no different from the line adopted by the police and falsified by the documen­tary proof. Such kind of cunning disingenuous attempts made by P.W.-2 just to bridge up the gaping holes fur­ther corrode his credibility. In the last remain the same mendacious statement of this witness regarding the reaching of the dead body in the police lines which is no different from the line adopted by the police and falsified by the documen­tary proof. According to his deposition the inquest proceedings were completed by 12.00 in the noon and dead body was taken on a bullock-cart from the village to place Achnera and then from Achnera the dead body was sent to Agra by a Metadoor and he himself had accompanied the dead body all the while up to Agra. He states on oath that he had reached Agra along with the dead body at about 4.00 or 4.30 p.m. It does not need any further elaboration on this point to clarify or emphasize that this statement is completely repugnant to the G.D. of the police lines and its corresponding entry in the Police Form No. 13, which indubitably proves the arrival of the dead body in the police lines on 5.5.1981 that is to say one day after the day of inquest and never on the same day when the inquest proceedings took place. This statement given by P.W.-4 at once reduces him to thj status of an obliging witness who does not mind telling fluent lies just to keep his statement in conformity with the theory adopted by the police. 66. We do not propose to enter into the question of permissibility of use of a hostile witness's evidence in favour of accused and reserve" our opinion in that regard as the circumstances discussed above are sufficient in our estimate which render the testimony of P.W.-4 Jaswant quite unsafe to rely or act upon. In our view he has been rightly disbe­lieved by the trial Judge. 67. In the last comes the testimony of P.W.-3 Virendra Singh itself who was the initial target of the accused but who according to the prosecution emerged safe by chance while the other uncon­cerned man Mahavir became the unfor­tunate victim and lost his life. In our view he has been rightly disbe­lieved by the trial Judge. 67. In the last comes the testimony of P.W.-3 Virendra Singh itself who was the initial target of the accused but who according to the prosecution emerged safe by chance while the other uncon­cerned man Mahavir became the unfor­tunate victim and lost his life. As we have already discussed at some length earlier at the time of analysing the genesis or the immediate cause of occur­rence, the way the incident is said to have cropped up driving the accused to adopt the extreme step of committing Virendra Singh's murder is rife with improbabilities. Entire deposition of P.W.-3 Virendra Singh does not contain even a whisper about any kind of heated exchange or a verbal duel in be­tween him and the accused. He does not depose anything of the kind that ac­cused Raghuveer Singh either partici­pated in the village quarrel or took side of anyone in that squabble between dhobis and manihars. There is complete reticence adopted by this witness re­garding any such thing done by himself which could have given any affront or offence to accused Raghuveer Singh. What was so wrong committed by this witness Virendra that may make us un­derstand or comprehend or explain the murderous attempt made by accused Raghuveer Singh is not known. How and why and for what reason Virendra's intervention in the village spate would make accused Raghuveer Singh ag­grieved is veiled behind a deep haze of mystery. The defence side has chal­lenged the truthfulness of this so called episode which became the precursor to the subsequent incident of shooting. The trial Judge has also discussed the im­probability of the statement given by this witness to the effect that after com­ing back to his house when he heard the accused abusing he went up to him and also desisted him from hurling abuses. It has been rightly noted by the Trial Court that on the one hand this witness wants the Court to believe that at the time of his intervention between dhobis anr1 manihars there was no exchange of words between him and accused Raghuveer Singh and he came back to his house just because he caught a site of Raghuveer having a gun. He claims himself to be so peace loving and craven at that point of time that the very site of Raghuveer Singh prompted him to leave the spot and come back home lest the accused might shoot at him. Then when the same Raghuveer Singh in the same continuation came with his gun to the house of Virendra fuming, fretting and abusing how the same craven hair-hearted Virendra became so bold or fool-hardy that without taking any arm and without having any means to defend himself straight away walked up to Raghuveer Singh and started desisting him, is also a story having a streak of high implausibility difficult to accept. It is again not very easy to understand as to how accused Raghuveer Singh could miss his aim so entirely that this witness remained totally unscathed and the whole burst of the fire caught Mahaveer in his belly. It is all the more incompre­hensible in the light of medical aspect of the case which proves it to be a very close range fire. We have already in ear­lier part of our judgment referred to the presence of charring, blackening and tattooing on the wound. If deceased Mahaveer was within inches from the barrel of the gun or at any rate not be­yond 1 or 2 or 3 feet, how could he be­come a victim in such a weird and bi­zarre manner unless he himself was the target of whosoever was the assailant. Had it been a long distance shot we could understand the deviation of direc­tion but not in a case like the one at hand where the assailant brought the barrel of the gun definitely within inches or within a feet or two at the most when he fired. That creates a glar­ing incongruity in the prosecution story, as such which cannot be ignored. Tak­ing the over all view of the matter we cannot say that the refusal of the Trial Court to act upon his testimony is either perverse or wholly without reason. Our own analysis of facts has also brought us to draw the same conclusion. 68. Learned Sessions Judge has also taken note of the non-production of two other independent witnesses namely Daroga and Jagram and also a number of persons other than these witnesses who according to the FIR were alleged to have reached the place of occurrence at that time. 68. Learned Sessions Judge has also taken note of the non-production of two other independent witnesses namely Daroga and Jagram and also a number of persons other than these witnesses who according to the FIR were alleged to have reached the place of occurrence at that time. The learned A.G.A. submits that as the two witnesses namely Daroga and Jagram had field their affi­davits in support of the accused the prosecution had the right not to produce them because they might have further damaged the prospects of the prosecu­tion case. The learned amicus curiae to the contrary has argued that where the independent witnesses are not being produced for the reason of taking a stand in favour of accused, prosecution should in all fairness produce them be­fore the Court so that the Court may form its own opinion and adjudicate about the truthfulness of their version. If a witness is not supporting the prosecu­tion or is stating something in favour of the accused he should not necessarily be dubbed as a liar. It is for the Court to adjudge about the correctness of his ver­sion which is possible only if he is pro­duced before the Court. He has also cited some cases in which the Courts have insisted on the production of the witnesses even after their unwillingness to support the prosecution had become known to the prosecution. To our mind no straight jacket formula equally suited for all cases in all circumstances and for all times can be prescribed for the desir­ability of production or non production of a particular witness. It all depends upon peculiar facts of that partkular case. The non-production of a witness may not cast any adverse shadow on the prosecution in a given case just as with­holding a witness may be viewed ad­versely by the Court against the prose­cution if in its opinion in that particular case the witness could have thrown light to unfold the prosecution story. In the present case this is not disputed that two other witnesses named Daroga and Jagram did actually file their affidavits in favour of accused and therefore, it cannot be said that there was absolutely no reason for the prosecution for not producing them. In the present case this is not disputed that two other witnesses named Daroga and Jagram did actually file their affidavits in favour of accused and therefore, it cannot be said that there was absolutely no reason for the prosecution for not producing them. It might have been still better if they were brought before the Court and the Court could have had the opportunity to form its opinion but, in the circumstances of the present case, we are not inclined to reckon it as any great circumstance against the prosecu­tion. In fact even the trial Judge has not made much out of it and the case re­sulted in the acquittal because of many other reasons as discussed above. 69. Learned amicus curiae has also drawn our attention to some features relating to the post crime conduct of the accused which according to him are strongly suggestive about his innocence. He has pointed out the statement given by P.W.-1 Jagan Singh in his examina-tion-in-chief at page 16 of the paper book that the accused-respondent, though had fled away from the spot af­ter the incidents yet he kept coming off and on to the village thereafter. The con­tention is that the admitted fact of fre­quent visits of the accused to the village even after being accused of Mahaveer's murder convincingly speaks about his clean conscience and gives a complete rebuff to the mendacious indictment foisted against him. He has also pointed out to the Court the factum of recovery of the licensed gun belonging to the ac­cused from his house when the police made a search. The submission is that both these facts militate against the guilty mind of the accused. In normal course, anyone after committing the murder by his licensed gun is not ex­pected to be so naive that soon after the occurrence he would leave the weapon of offence unconcealed in his own house. It has been submitted that if Raghuveer Singh had committed the crime then while fleeing away from the spot, in order to make his safe exit from the village, he must have kept the weapon with him at least till he could find shelter in some safe place outside the ken of his eneniies. It has been submitted that if Raghuveer Singh had committed the crime then while fleeing away from the spot, in order to make his safe exit from the village, he must have kept the weapon with him at least till he could find shelter in some safe place outside the ken of his eneniies. His gun was the most needed thing at that hour in order to avert being apprehended by the peo­ple of the village or by the members of the first informant's family who were so likely to come after him in hot pursuit. It is incomprehensible, argues the defence counsel, that anyone soon after commit­ting the murder should have abandoned his weapon and make his position all the more vulnerable and defenceless. Even otherwise the normal psychology of an offender is to destroy the weapon of offence or at least to screen it from the gaze of the police, lest, it should furnish any incriminating data connecting him or his weapon to the commission of the crime. Disarming himself on his own volition and leaving the weapon of of­fence along with cartridges unconcealed in his own house soon after the occur­rence, are the features which are repug­nant to his complicity in the crime and go a long way to vouchsafe for his inno­cence. 70. It has also been emphasized by the learned Amicus curiae that as per the prosecution case, the police took the possession of the licensed gun from the house of the accused in the same night after the incident on 3.5.1981. If the gun had actually been used by the accused then the Investigating Officer could never have missed to observe and make a note in the recovery memo to the effect that the barrel of the gun was redolent with the smell of the gun powder which is so conspicuously present in it after firing and does not die out even for a long period of time thereafter. The com­plete absence of evidence indicating any recent use of the gun is, according to the defence, a conclusive proof to absolve the respondent from the charge. 71. Learned A.G.A has tried to re­but the aforesaid submissions on the ground that the realm of human behav­iour and vagaries of human conduct are absolutely unpredictable and it shall be very hazardous and dicey to draw any inference for or against the accused on its basis. 71. Learned A.G.A has tried to re­but the aforesaid submissions on the ground that the realm of human behav­iour and vagaries of human conduct are absolutely unpredictable and it shall be very hazardous and dicey to draw any inference for or against the accused on its basis. According to him it is not un­known that the innocent may behave as if they were guilty while the guilty might successfully feign innocence. Therefore, leaving the gun in the house or having kept coming to the village even after the incident should be treated as innocuous circumstances. On the point of absence of gun powder smell in the barrel, banned AGA once again tried to take cover behind the hackneyed generalized argument that it is all at­tributable to the negligence of the Inves­tigating Officer. 72. Be that as it may, having al­ready given manifold reasons for disbe­lieving the prosecution case, we do not propose to give any finding on the aforesaid counts as we deem it quite unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. :We drop this issue as such, with the only, note that the aforesaid three circumstances mentioned by amicus curiae are certainly not circumstances unfavourable to the accused and the submissions made by the defence in this regard cannot be rubbished either as wholly without substance or entirely without a clue. 73. In the last, as a matter of last re­sort, the learned AGA has tried to con­vince us that it would also have been a reasonable view if the trial judge should have believed the eye-witnesses. As ac­cording to him, the oral testimony should have been acted upon because it is very rare to come across cases where the account rendered by the eye­witnesses may not be castigated on the ground that it contains contradictory depositions or incongruous assertions. The inconsistency found in between the ocular version and that of the medical aspect of evidence could have been ig­nored while the motive ought to have been treated as sufficient to commit the crime. The bleak and foul aspects of the investigation should have been shelved and the accused ought to have been convicted by the Trial Court, The con­tention of Learned AGA is that the judgment of the conviction in this case would also have been maintainable with equal force and the same could have commended itself equally in the higher judicial estimate. 74. 74. To us such an argument betrays a clear mis-application of law which governs the judicial approach to deal with appeals against acquittal of the accused. A judgment of acquittal is never set aside because-a judgment of conviction may also be recorded in that case. To the contrary a judgment of con­viction is often set aside on the ground that in the given facts of a case an ac­quittal could also have been validly re­corded. The law in this regard is trite and pristine both. The accused may be convicted only when his guilt is proved beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. If the view favourable to .the accused is also a reasonably possible view then it can never be said that his guilt has been proved beyond all rea­sonable doubts. That is the.reason why the prosecution cannot succeed to get an accused convicted or get an acquittal set aside unless it can show that the judg­ment of conviction is the only reasonable view that may be taken in the given facts and circumstances of the case or that the verdict of acquittal is either perverse or against the weight of evi­dence or against law. At any rate it shall have to be shown that the view taken in favour of accused is a wrong view which cannot be reasonably taken by any prudent Court. In fact if two views are possible in a given case, and the view .against the accused looks to be a more probable view, then too the appellate Court is not well advised to substi­tute verdict of acquittal by the adverse view of his own unless there are com­pelling reasons to do so. The guiding pronouncements by the Apex Court have consistently illumined the judicial approach that ought to be adopted by the appellate Courts while sitting to adjudicate upon the verdicts of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. If we take a bird's eye view of the law on this point as it evolved over a period of more than half a century we hardly see any marked deviation in it. If we take a bird's eye view of the law on this point as it evolved over a period of more than half a century we hardly see any marked deviation in it. What is deducc-able from the combined reading of all the land mark pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard is that though the powers of the appellate Court while sitting in appeal against acquittal are similar to those which it has while sitting in appeal against con­viction, but while adjudicating upon the verdicts of acquittal it should keep in mind certain time honoured principles of criminal jurisprudence. There is a general presumption of innocence in favour of accused which does not for­sake him till he is pronounced guilty. This presumption gets further buttressed by the acquittal in his favour. The trial Judge holding the accused not guilty also had the advantage to observe the demeanour of the witnesses pro-.duced by the prosecution. Keeping in view the aforesaid features the appellate Court should therefore, be slow to inter­fere with the judgment of acquittal unless it is found that the Trial Court has seriously erred in the application of law or that the findings are against the weight of evidence or that there is per­versity of approach discernible in the judgment or that the verdict has mani­festly resulted in the miscarriage of jus­tice or that there are other compelling reasons which make it incumbent to set aside the verdict of acquittal. 75. If two views are possible, then the view in favour of accused shall not be replaced by the view against him, even if it is comparatively looking a more probable one unless the view in favour of accused can be said to be wholly wrong or unreasonable. 76. We may usefully give reference to the various pronouncements given by the Apex Court on whose basis the aforesaid position of law has been de­rived: 1. Sheo Swaroop v. King Emperor. AIR 1934 PC 227. 2. Chandrappa v. State of Karnatak. 2007 (58) ACC 402 (SC) = 2007 (54) AIC172. 3. State of U.P. v. Eanne @ Bai-jnath. 2009 (65) ACC 261 (SC) = 2009 (76) AIC 103. 4. Brahm Swaroop v. State of IT.P. 2010 (71) ACC 975 (SC) = 2010 (96) AIC 71. 5. Murugesan and 16 others v. State through Inspector of Police 2012 (79) ACC 681 (SC) = 2012 (119) AIC 109. 6. 3. State of U.P. v. Eanne @ Bai-jnath. 2009 (65) ACC 261 (SC) = 2009 (76) AIC 103. 4. Brahm Swaroop v. State of IT.P. 2010 (71) ACC 975 (SC) = 2010 (96) AIC 71. 5. Murugesan and 16 others v. State through Inspector of Police 2012 (79) ACC 681 (SC) = 2012 (119) AIC 109. 6. Pudhu Raja and another v. State. 2012 (79) ACC 642 (SQ = 2012 (119) AIC 242. 7. Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh. 2012 (12) JT 616 = 2012 (12) Scale 506. 8. Mookkiah and another v. State. 2012 (12) JT 616 = 2012 (12) Scale 506. 9. Chinnam Kameswara Rao and others v. State o/A.P. 2013 (81) ACC 330 (SC). 10. Shivasharanappa and others v. State ofKarnataka and others. 2013 (82) ACC 29 (SC). 11. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh and others. 2013 (82) ACC 443 (SC). 12. Bhadragiri Venkata Ravi v. Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. 2013 (82) ACC 335 (SC). 77. We do not think it necessary to quote the extracts from all the above mentioned cases, but as after consider­ing various leading authorities on the point, the MonT^le Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnatak (supra) has very succinctly summarised the position of law in this regard we deem it apt to quote the relevant obser­vations contained therein. It has been summarised by the Apex Court as follows: "40. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Proce­dure, 1973 puts no limitation, restric­tion or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling rea­sons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not in­tended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling rea­sons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not in­tended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to inter­fere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of ac­quittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is avail­able to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having se­cured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evi­dence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of ac­quittal recorded by the Trial Court." 78. Again in a recent case of State of M.P. v. Dal Singh and others (supra) the Apex Court was pleased to observe as follows: "6. It is a settled legal proposition that in exceptional circum­stances, the appellate Court for com­pelling reasons should not hesitate to reverse a judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below, if the findings so recorded by the Court be­low are found to be perverse, i.e. if the conclusions arrived at by the Court below are contrary to the evi­dence on record, or if the Court's en­tire approach with respect to dealing with the evidence is found to be patently illegal, leading to the miscar­riage of justice, or if its judgment is unreasonable and is based on an er­roneous understanding of the law and of the facts of the case. While do­ing so, the appellate Court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and also that an acquittal by the Court below bolsters such presumption of innocence. (Vide: Abrar v. State of U.P., 2011 (72) ACC 245 (SC) = 2011 (97) AIC 1. and Rukia Begum v. State of Karanataka)." 2011 (75) ACC 252 (SC) = 2011 (106) AIC 240. 79. (Vide: Abrar v. State of U.P., 2011 (72) ACC 245 (SC) = 2011 (97) AIC 1. and Rukia Begum v. State of Karanataka)." 2011 (75) ACC 252 (SC) = 2011 (106) AIC 240. 79. Similar views were again reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Bhadragiri Venkata Ravi v. Public Prosecutor High Court ofA.P., Hyderabad, (supra) when it observed thus: "18. This Court has time and again laid down parameters for in­terference by a superior Court against the order of acquittal. In ex­ceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgement under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate Court, should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Inter­ference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference." 80. The aforesaid discussion of law leaves no room to entertain the argu­ment advanced by the learned AGA in this regard which in substance aims and presses forth nothing except the substitution of the lower Courts view by our own and that too, if at all we come to hold a contrary view, which definitely we do not. In fact we are not prepared even to buy his contention that in the present case a judgment of conviction could also have been validly recorded and we have already given our reasons for having a contrary view. At any rate there is nothing in the Trial Court judgement which may be termed as er­roneous much less than calling it per­verse. We ourself do not notice nor it could have been pointed out by the learned AGA that any admissible piece of evidence which ought to have been considered has escaped the, attention of the Trial Court and remained unconsid-ered nor have we been able to find any inadmissible piece of evidence having been entertained or used by the Trial Judge in favour of the accused. The find­ings arrived at by the Sessions Judge are neither against the weight of the evi­dence on record nor do we find any mis­application of law which may vitiate the findings arrived at. We do not perceive any miscarriage of justice either. The find­ings arrived at by the Sessions Judge are neither against the weight of the evi­dence on record nor do we find any mis­application of law which may vitiate the findings arrived at. We do not perceive any miscarriage of justice either. The accused has been acquitted for sound reasons and the prosecution could not procure conviction because of the foliies of its own. The witnesses have been rightly found untrustworthy. The state of investigation leaves much to be de­sired and the general approach of the prosecution in as much as it created and supported false evidence, deserves our judicial discountenance. In fact besides the discussions made by the trial Judge we have found graver reasons to doubt the veracity of the ocular version and the whole of the prosecution case as such bristles with suspicion. 81. As a result of all what has been discussed above, we are constrained to affirm the judgment of acquittal as we find that the present Appeal is sans merit. 82. Government appeal stands dis­missed. 83. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the Trial Court forthwith to dis­charge personal as well as the surety bonds of the accused. Appeal Dismissed. ___________