JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amar Saran, J.—This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgement of the IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi, dated 9.10.1985 convicting and sentencing the appellant Sita Ram Seth to imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and to 8 years R.I. under Section 307 I.P.C. and convicting the appellant Bharat Prasad alias Bharat to imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. and to 8 years R.I. under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. and the appellants Sudama and Deo Saran to imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and imprisonment to 8 years R.I. under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. The sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in a nutshell was that the appellant Dr. Sita Ram, who was carrying out his medical practice in village Kamalpur, had given some medicines to Km. Neelam Devi, grand niece of the informant Bhagwat Singh 15 days prior to the incident in question. A balance amount of Rs. 45/- was required to be paid for the medical treatment, but the deceased Brijnath Singh, was refusing to pay the said amount, which was being demanded by Dr. Sita Ram Seth and his son the appellant Bharat Prasad, as they were saying that Neelam had got no relief from the treatment. On the date in question, when the informant Bhagwat Singh, grand nephew of the deceased Brij Nath Singh was passing alongwith Brij Nath and his younger brother Pradeep in front of the house of Dr. Sita Ram, he again demanded the money. On this demand, there was verbal altercation between the parties. Sita Ram and his son threatened that they would take the money on that date, Then Brij Nath and his two companions left the place challenging Sita Ram and Bharat to realize the money if they could. When they arrived in front of the college where Brij Nath used to teach, then Brij Nath said that he would like to drink some water. As soon as the deceased and his two companions left the verandah at about 4.30 p.m. on 3.1.1983 after drinking water, they saw the appellant Sita Ram armed with a rifle coming on the bicycle of the appellant Sudama and Sita Ram’s son Bharat, who was armed with a gun arriving on the bicycle of the appellant Deo Saran. Sita Ram exhorted his son to fire. Sita Ram exhorted his son to fire. Then the appellant Bharat fired on the deceased Brij Nath, who fell down at the spot. Sita Ram made another fire on the witnesses, who hid behind a shelter. The incident was also witnessed by Khedu and others. Bhagwat Singh, then proceeded to Police Station Dheena, 8 Km. away, where he lodged the First Information Report as above. (Ext. Ka-7) at 5.30 p.m. After registration of the case, S.I. K.N. Pandey, In-charge of the Police Station proceeded to the spot (i.e. the Rashtriya Inter College, Kamalpur) alongwith Khedan Singh and Awadhesh Singh and conducted the inquest and sent the body for post-mortem. 3. Dr. C.P. Tripathi conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased on 4.11.1983 at about 12.30 p.m. About 20 hours had elapsed since the death. The following ante-mortem injuries were seen : 1. Multiple gun shot wounds (total 7) over the front of the right side abdomen in an area of 7 cm x 6 cm, 12 cm right to the mid line and 104 cm. above the right heel and 22 cm below the right nipple. Individually six wounds were circular 1 cm in diameter and one central bigger wound of size 1 ½ cm x 1 ¼ cm. Margins were abraded and contused and inverted. Abrasion collar was more marked on the right border of the wounds. Direction front to back and right to left. Missiles passed through abdominal wall, perforated peritoneum on right side, perforated omentum, small and large intestines fractured and perforated lumber vertebrae and one of them perforated left ilium bone. Metallic balls were found lodged in the lumber vertebrae (posteriorly). Missiles of abdominal wall posteriorly on the sides of vertebrae and over behind left ilium in the muscles and also wad was found in the abdominal cavity; and two missiles made exit wounds on posterior aspect of left side back of abdomen making two gun-shot exit wound each circular ¾ cm. in diameter over back of left side abdomen 9 cm and 15 cm from mid line horizontally placed one outer to the other 5 cm apart each other and 103 cm. above left heel with margin everted. 4. The prosecution has examined four witnesses of fact, viz. in diameter over back of left side abdomen 9 cm and 15 cm from mid line horizontally placed one outer to the other 5 cm apart each other and 103 cm. above left heel with margin everted. 4. The prosecution has examined four witnesses of fact, viz. the informant P.W. 1 Bhagwat Singh, who is a cousin grand nephew of the deceased, P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar Singh, who is the brother of the deceased, P.W. 3 Khedu, who is an independent person, who was declared hostile. The aforesaid three eye-witnesses were residents of village Ikbalpur, P.W. 4 Mewa, resident of village Hetampur, P.S. Dhanapur, is the fourth eye-witness of fact. Five formal witnesses, P.W. 9 K.N. Pandey, the first I.O., P.W. 5 S.I. Ram Bahadur Singh, the second I.O., P.W. 7 Dr. C.P. Tripathi, who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased as mentioned above, P.W. 6, who prepared the check F.I.R. and made G.D. entries and P.W. 8 Khedan Singh, who carried the dead body to the mortuary, have also been examined. 5. P.W. 1 Bhagwat Singh, the informant, who was a grand nephew of the deceased has reiterated the version mentioned in the F.I.R. He has described the topography of the place of incident and has mentioned that the main gate of the Rashtriya Inter College, is on the southern side, which opens on to the road running east west between Sakaldiha and Kamalpur. One cobbled road leads from the main gate into the college and joins the college verandah. About 7-8 paces from this verandah, there is a cement blackboard. Brij Nath was a teacher in this college. The house of the appellant Dr. Sita Ram and his son Bharat falls on the Sakaldiha Kamalpur road in the bazaar. Sudama and Deo Saran were associates of Sita Ram. Sita Ram had a licensed rifle and a licensed gun. He further described how the treatment by the appellant of his niece Km. Neelam was unfruitful, and how the dispute had arisen over the refusal of the deceased to pay the balance amount of Rs. 45/-, on account of the unsuccessful treatment. He claims to have gone to the bazaar alongwith the deceased and the deceased’s brother Pradeep for marketing. He further described how the treatment by the appellant of his niece Km. Neelam was unfruitful, and how the dispute had arisen over the refusal of the deceased to pay the balance amount of Rs. 45/-, on account of the unsuccessful treatment. He claims to have gone to the bazaar alongwith the deceased and the deceased’s brother Pradeep for marketing. When they were returning from the bazaar and crossing the appellant Sita Ram’s house, then Sita Ram and Bharat stopped them and demanded his money, which Brij Nath refused to pay. Then Sita Ram and Bharat told him that they would realise the amount on that date itself. Sita Ram challenged them to realize the amount and there was exchange of hot words. Then they left for the school where they stopped by for drinking water as Brij Nath was thirsty. After drinking water, when they were leaving the school verandah, at about 4.30 p.m. Brij Nath was walking ahead followed by Bhagwat and Pradeep Kumar. At that time Sita Ram carrying a rifle arrived on the bicycle of Sudama and Bharat carrying a gun arrived on the bicycle of Deo Saran. On the exhortation of Sita Ram, his son Bharat fired on Brij Nath, who fell down and died at the spot. Then Sita Ram trained his rifle on the witnesses, who hid behind the blackboard. This incident was witnessed by Khedu and Narendra Pratap and others and after the deceased had died, then Bhagwat proceeded to the bazaar, where he wrote the report and lodged it at the Police Station. 6. P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar has deposed that the four accused persons were residents of Kamalpur bazaar. On the date of incident, the deceased Brij Nath, had gone to the bazaar alongwith Bhagwat Singh and Pradeep Kumar for purchasing prayer material. Neelam, who was the niece of Bhagwat Singh, used to call Pradeep her grand father, as he was one by way of a distant relationship. Neelam had become unwell 15-16 days earlier. She was being treated by Sita Ram Seth, but the treatment had not benefited her. An amount of Rs. 45/- for the treatment was due. On the date of incident, this witness Brij Nath and Bhagwat had gone to the market. Neelam had become unwell 15-16 days earlier. She was being treated by Sita Ram Seth, but the treatment had not benefited her. An amount of Rs. 45/- for the treatment was due. On the date of incident, this witness Brij Nath and Bhagwat had gone to the market. After shopping when they were passing by the door of Sita Ram, then Sita Ram and Bharat demanded payment of the pending amount of Rs. 45/-. Brij Nath responded by pointing out that as the medicines had not helped Neelam, the demand for money was unjustified and he would not pay the amount. As Sita Ram and Bharat threatened to realize the amount, Brij Nath challenged them to do so, resulting in an exchange of hot words between the parties. When they reached near the gate of Rashtriya Inter College, Kamalpur, then Brij Nath said that he was thirsty. They then entered the school verandah, where they drank water which had been drawn from a well with a bucket. After drinking water, they left the verandah at about 4.30 p.m. At that time Sita Ram Seth carrying a rifle arrived on Sudama’s bicycle and Bharat arrived on Deo Saran’s bicycle carrying a single barrel gun. On the exhortation of Sita Ram, Bharat fired on Brij Nath, causing the latter to fall down dead at the spot. Then Sita Ram trained his rifle on the witnesses, who hid behind an “Ota” (obstruction). Khedu, Mewa Lal and others witnessed the incident. PW 2 Pradeep in his cross-examination clarified that there were two routes between Ikbalpur, the residential village of the witness and Kamalpur. There was one short route which led to Kamalpur bazaar and the second longer route, which entered the bazaar from a considerable distance on the north of the residence of Sita Ram. If they came by the short route to the bazaar, then Sita Ram’s house would not fall on the way. But if they took the longer Kamalpur Sakaldeeha Road, then his house would fall on the way. By the Sakaldeeha Kamalpur road the bazaar was 1/2 km. from the school. Sita Ram’s house was about ½ kms from the point where the road from the school turned towards the bazaar. SitaRam’s house was about 1 km from the school. 7. PW-3 Khedu who was another witness named in the FIR, was a teacher in the Rashtriya Inter College, Kamalpur. from the school. Sita Ram’s house was about ½ kms from the point where the road from the school turned towards the bazaar. SitaRam’s house was about 1 km from the school. 7. PW-3 Khedu who was another witness named in the FIR, was a teacher in the Rashtriya Inter College, Kamalpur. He claims to know Sita Ram, Bharat, Sudama and Deo Saran. On the date of incident, he had gone to Kamalpur. He had made purchases and was leaving for his home he heard cries that Brij Nath has been murdered. He ran in that direction and saw Brij Nath lying dead, but he did not see the assailants. This witness was declared hostile. He has denied his 161 Cr.P.C statement to the police. 8. PW-4 Mewa who was a resident of village Hetampur, P.S Dhanapur, stated that on the date in question, he had gone to Kamalpur bazaar alongwith one Bhagwan Dass. When they reached near the middle school in Kamalpur and the High school infront of it at about 4.30 p.m., they saw Sita Ram, Bharat, Deo Saran and Sudama getting down from cycles. Brij Nath was coming out of the Inter College. Then Sita Ram cried out that Brij Nath be fired upon. Thereupon Bharat fired with his gun shooting down Brij Nath. Then Sita Ram Seth fired with his rifle on Bhagwat and Pradeep but they escaped by hiding behind an “Ota.” Thirty or forty persons including Khedu had arrived there. Then he went towards Master Sahab, Brij Nath, who was found lying dead. 9. The formal witness PW-9 S.I. K.N. Pandey who was the first I.O in this case states that the FIR in this case was registered in his presence on the basis of a written report submitted by Bhagwat Singh. After interrogating the informant at the police station, he left for the spot, i.e. the Rashtriya Inter College accompanied by Constable Khedan Singh and Awadhesh. They found the corpse of the deceased Brij Nath lying there in the Court-yard. After conducting the inquest, he prepared photo lash, challan lash and report for post-mortem. During inquest, he took the Pant, Shirt, Belt and Slippers of the deceased in possession and prepared their recovery memos. Then he sent the body for autopsy. He also collected the blood stained and plain earth from the spot. After conducting the inquest, he prepared photo lash, challan lash and report for post-mortem. During inquest, he took the Pant, Shirt, Belt and Slippers of the deceased in possession and prepared their recovery memos. Then he sent the body for autopsy. He also collected the blood stained and plain earth from the spot. Then he sent SI Krishna Yadav for searching out the accused. On the pointing out by the witnesses, he prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-15). He forgot to mention point F in the site plan by which sign the black-board was indicated. However, he did not know whether the blackboard was called an “Ota”. Then SI Krishna Yadav returned and informed him that the accused were at their house, but they were not opening their door. Then he went to the accused’s house and got the door opened. He met Sita Ram Seth and Bharat and took their licensed Rifle and Gun in possession and took them in custody. He also took the cartridges of the weapons and prepared their Fard (Ext. Ka-16) on 3.11.1983. After that he arrested the appellant Sudama near the Panchayat House and thereafter he admitted all the three persons in the police lock up at 11.55 p.m. 10. As already descibed above PW-7 Dr. C.P. Tripathi has conducted autopsy on the deceased. In his cross-examination, the doctor has admitted that the deceased had died as a result of a close fire from a distance of under 6 feet. 11. PW-8 Constable Khedan Singh states that he had taken the dead body of Brij Nath Singh to the mortuary alongwith Constable Kangresi Ram. He left the college campus at 8.45 P.M and handed over the body alongwith the papers to the doctor on 4.11.1983. He further admits that Sri S.K. Yadav and Constable Kangresi Ram had arrived at the Kamalpur Rashtriya Inter College as they were on duty at the Kamalpur bazaar. 12. PW-5 SI Ram Bahadur Singh, who was the S.O. of P.S. Dheena states that the case was registered in his absence on 3.11.1983. After his return to the police station at 9.25 p.m. He took over the investigation of this case and visited the place of occurrence and met S.K.Yadav and two Chaukidars there. SI K.N. Pandey had taken the arrested accused to the police station and had returned to the spot. After his return to the police station at 9.25 p.m. He took over the investigation of this case and visited the place of occurrence and met S.K.Yadav and two Chaukidars there. SI K.N. Pandey had taken the arrested accused to the police station and had returned to the spot. After that PW 5 SI Ram Bahadur Singh left for Ikbalpur, where he interrogated Khedu. He recorded the statement of the witness Pradeep Kumar on 5.11.1983 and searched for Deo Saran. After recording the statement of the witnesses and completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet in this case. 13. PW-6 C.M. Rampati Ram deposed that a written report had been lodged at the police station by Bhagwat on 3.11.1983. He prepared the check FIR and made the necessary entries in the G.D at 5.30 p.m. 14. We have heard Sri Prashant Kumar Singh learned counsel for the appellants. Sri Satish Trivedi learned counsel for the complainant, assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey and Sunil Kumar Mehta and Sri Anand Tiwari, learned A.G.A for the State. 15. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the presence of the witnesses at the spot is improbable and the evidence is unreliable. The F.I.R. appears to be too prompt and ante timed. The deceased could have been done to death, when he was present at the school, where he used to teach on his own. There was no reason for the witnesses who have been produced to be present there. The witnesses and the deceased resided in village Ikbalpur and there was a short route from village Ikbalpur to Kamalpur bazaar and there was no need for the witnesses and the deceased to have taken the longer route and to have passed the house of the appellants Sitaram Seth and Bharat and then proceeded towards the school merely for the purpose of drinking water, as the same would easily have been available at the Kamalpur market. There was also no reliable evidence of prior demand of money of Rs. 45/- as fee from the deceased by the appellants Sitaram Seth and Bharat 15 days prior to this incident, as the witnesses examined, were not witnesses of the said incident. In any case, the demand of money for such a petty amount would hardly provide any adequate motive for the commission of this crime. 45/- as fee from the deceased by the appellants Sitaram Seth and Bharat 15 days prior to this incident, as the witnesses examined, were not witnesses of the said incident. In any case, the demand of money for such a petty amount would hardly provide any adequate motive for the commission of this crime. The accused Sitaram Seth and Bharat had no criminal antecedents and were not such daredevils that they would have remained present in their house after commission of the crime in the presence of witnesses and not have run away. Their non abscondance was thus a circumstance in their favour. One independent person P.W. 2 Khedu, was also a teacher in the School where the deceased also used to teach and who was murdered at the school, and who was named in the F.I.R., has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 4 Mewa was not named in the F.I.R. He was a resident of village Hetampur and his presence at the place of incident was improbable. There is also inconsistency in the prosecution case regarding the precise point, where the incident had taken place, and it is not clear on the prosecution allegations whether the incident it took place inside the Courtyard of the school as was suggested by P.W. 1 Bhagwat Singh and P.W. 2 Pradeep Kumar in the F.I.R. or whether it took place outside the main gate of the school, where the deceased fell inside a khai. Pradeep Kumar, who a brother of the deceased, was examined for the first time only on 5.11.1983, which also renders his presence improbable. The place from where the witnesses saw the incident or the place from where the firing was done was not indicated in the site plan. 16. Learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A., on the other hand, argued that there was no reason for the false implication of the appellants, if they had not committed this crime. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged with respect to the incident, which had taken place in broad day light. There was no reason for the police or the witnesses who were accompanying the deceased to falsely implicate the appellants. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged with respect to the incident, which had taken place in broad day light. There was no reason for the police or the witnesses who were accompanying the deceased to falsely implicate the appellants. So far as the appellant Bharat was concerned, at least the main role of firing on the deceased was assigned to this accused, who was therefore liable for the crime, even if same benefit could be given to the other accused persons, as no role was assigned to the other accused persons. Analysis of the evidence and contentions 17. So far as the issue that the deceased had died a homicidal death is concerned, it has been established from the post-mortem report that the cause of death of the deceased was due to fire-arm injury and neither the prosecution nor the defence has raised any dispute that the deceased had not died a homicidal death. However, the question that needs to be examined in this case is whether the evidence of witnesses can be implicitly relied upon and whether the witnesses were present when the deceased was done to death or the deceased was present in the school on his own and the witnesses were subsequently summoned and have lodged the FIR in an ante-timed manner for securing the conviction of the appellants in this offence. 18. For the following reasons we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The place where the deceased had died was the school, where he used to teach. The presence of the deceased in his own school may not have been unnatural, but we have reasons to doubt whether the witnesses who have been produced in this case were also actually present at the time when the deceased was fired upon in the school campus, where his body was found lying. 19. One witness, who could have been a natural witness to this incident, as he was also a teacher in the same school alongwith the deceased, was Khedu. 19. One witness, who could have been a natural witness to this incident, as he was also a teacher in the same school alongwith the deceased, was Khedu. But this witness, who is also a resident of the deceased’s village Ikbalpur has deposed that he had gone to the market of Kamalpur on that date and has even turned hostile and has mentioned that he was not present at the time when the deceased was fired upon in the school campus, but arrived there subsequently. The other two accompanying witnesses, the informant Bhagwat Singh the grand nephew of the deceased Brij Nath has claimed that he had gone to the market Kamalpur alongwith the deceased but significantly no money or items purchased from the market were recovered from the deceased by the police. Also this witness Bhagwat Singh has admitted in his cross-examination that he was not the immediate family member of the deceased Brij Nath. His residence, messing and employment was separate from the deceased. He also had no connection with Jagdish, whose daughter Neelam is said to have been treated by Dr. Sita Ram and Jagdish was also not directly related to the deceased Brij Nath. 20. Neither Bhagwat Singh nor Pradeep Kumar have stated any where in their examinations-in-chief or in their cross-examinations that they had carried away all the items which had been purchased from the market by the deceased, for explaining why nothing was found on the person of the deceased. Regarding the absence of money on the deceased, a false and absurd explanation has been given by PW 1 Bhagwat Singh that the police officers had taken away the money, (the rupees 5 or 6 which were present on the person of the deceased). 21. It has also come in the evidence of PW-1 Bhagwat Singh that there was a short route leading from village Ikbalpur where the deceased Brij Nath, Bhagwat Singh and Pradeep Kumar resided to Kamalpur bazaar, where they are said to be headed. There was no good reason to believe why the deceased and the witnesses would have taken a detour and gone by the longer route and why they would have stopped by to drink water from the well in the school premises when they could have drunk water at the market from where they were returning. There was no good reason to believe why the deceased and the witnesses would have taken a detour and gone by the longer route and why they would have stopped by to drink water from the well in the school premises when they could have drunk water at the market from where they were returning. Also significantly in the site plan which was prepared by the I.O on the pointing out by the witnesses, the place where the appellants were standing or from where the appellant Bharat is said to have fired or where the witnesses were present have not been marked or shown. Also it is improbable if the witnesses were present at the spot they would not have been fired upon and belatedly they claim to have concealed themselves behind the Ota. PW-1 has tried to state in his evidence that the blackboard was actually the “Ota.” But this fact is not mentioned in the FIR and even the Investigating Officer PW-5 SI Ram Bahadur Singh has admitted that the witnesses had not told him that the blackboard was the Ota. As for the non-production of any other witness of the area, and only the production of witnesses who belonged to different distant villages (Ikbalpur and Hatempur), conveniently the two witnesses have been made to state the the Chaprasi of the school was absent on that date. So far as PW-2 Pradeep Kumar Singh the brother of the deceased is concerned, in addition to the reasons given above for doubting the presence of Bhagwat Singh, the additional reasons for doubting his presence of Pradeep Kumar Singh are the fact that he did not go and lodge the report, though he was the real brother of the deceased (and Bhagwat was only a distant relation. But more importantly his 161 Cr.P.C statement was not recorded by the I.O either on 3.11.1983 (i.e the date of incident) or on 4.11.1983, but it was recorded only on 5.11.1983 and there is no satisfactory explanation for the delayed interrogation of this witness. 22. But more importantly his 161 Cr.P.C statement was not recorded by the I.O either on 3.11.1983 (i.e the date of incident) or on 4.11.1983, but it was recorded only on 5.11.1983 and there is no satisfactory explanation for the delayed interrogation of this witness. 22. Another reason for disbelieving the presence of Bhagwat Singh and Pradeep Kumar Singh on the spot is that although they alleged that Sita Ram fired with his rifle on them, they have sustained no injury nor was there any indication of use of a Rifle by collection of any cartridges or empties from the spot or by the presence of any firing marks on the blackboard or so the called “Ota”. 23. The prosecution has then tried to produce another witness P.W. 4 Mewa, who belongs to another village Hetampur. Significantly, he was not even named as a witness in the F.I.R., but the prosecution has chosen to produce him in Court. From the testimony of this witness it appears that the deceased was fired upon, when he was accosted by the accused when he was coming outside the school gate and he appears to have fallen at some “Khai” on the side of the Sakaldiha-Kamalpur road which ran in an east-west direction. According to the prosecution case as deposed to by the other two witnesses, and as shown in the site plan the deceased was fired upon on the internal route, in the Court yard of the school, between the main gate, and the school verandah at a distance of 32 paces from the school gate, which is shown as point “A” on the site plan (Ext. Ka 15). There was some dispute as to whether there was any “khai,” as the I.O. in his crossexamination mentions that the word “khai” in the case diary was actually “jhari.” But P.W. 2 Pradeep, has also stated that the deceased had fallen in a “Khai”, but the place where the deceased is supposed to have fallen is at point “A” inside the school campus. There is thus a contradiction inter se in the statements of witnesses about the point where the deceased was shot at, and where he fell down, which is another reason to doubt their presence on the spot, and therefore this witness cannot also be said to improve the case of the prosecution, when as already noted above, no witness from the spot, or even from Kamalpur has been produced for supporting the prosecution case. 24. We are also of the view that the prosecution has not been able to establish the motive for this crime in a credible manner. Thus no witness has been examined for proving the treatment of the daughter of Jagdish when the deceased Brij Nath took him for treatment by Dr. Sita Ram and the latter’s demand for the remaining amount of Rs. 45, which remained unpaid, and who was a witness of the treatment, 15 days earlier, when the said demand for the balance amount was raised by Sita Ram, which was not paid. Even otherwise, we think that this demand and non refusal to pay only Rs. 45/- could hardly provide an adequate motive for the appellants Sita Ram and Bharat Prasad in the company of appellants Sudama and Deo Saran to commit the crime in this manner by following the deceased Brij Nath after he had passed in front of Sita Ram’s house, and then to have shot him in the presence of the witnesses who were accompanying him in the school campus in broad day light. 25. What is completely unbelievable, in the back ground that the appellants have no criminal antecedents and cannot be described as dare devils, is that if the appellants had indeed committed this crime, which was allegedly witnessed by Bhagwat Singh and Pradeep Kumar, that they would have returned to their house and remained there to be meekly arrested by the police there on the same day alongwith their licensed gun and rifle. It was even more surprising that, as mentioned by the first I.O., PW 9 K.N. Pandey, S.I. Sri Krisha Yadav had gone to the house of the appellants Sita Ram and Bharat, who are said to have refused to open the door. It was even more surprising that, as mentioned by the first I.O., PW 9 K.N. Pandey, S.I. Sri Krisha Yadav had gone to the house of the appellants Sita Ram and Bharat, who are said to have refused to open the door. Thereafter he came back to the place of incident, and returned thereafter to the house of the appellants alongwith PW 9, the I.O., and arrested the two appellants, who still continued to remain in the house, and who did not even try to flee from the house. This non abscondance of the appellants from their house is the significant crucial circumstance for showing the non involvement of the appellants in this offence. 26. We also find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the F.I.R. in this case may have been ante timed and it was unlikely that the F.I.R. could have been lodged at 5.30 p.m. within one hour of the incident, which took place at 4.30 p.m. on 3.11.1983. In this connection, P.W. 1 Bhagwat Singh has stated that after the incident he proceeded to the bazaar, which was 1 km. After, that he went and sat at the Janauli culvert, where he wrote out the report. This culvert was 2 kms. from the school. The witness also admitted that three Police Officers had already arrived at the spot, when he returned back from the police station. All these circumstances go to suggest that the report was ante timed and a product of consultation and deliberation with the police and others. The Question: Why were the appellants falsely implicated 27. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that no good reason had been given for the false implication of the appellants by the witnesses or by the police, if they have not committed this crime. It is settled law that in the first instance, the prosecution is required to establish its own case on the basis of reliable and probable testimony. This burden on the prosecution never shifts. If the prosecution fails to adduce natural and reliable testimony, on which implicit reliance could be placed, on the mere circumstance that no good reason is being furnished why why certain accused have been falsely implicated cannot provide a basis for holding the accused guilty for a crime. This burden on the prosecution never shifts. If the prosecution fails to adduce natural and reliable testimony, on which implicit reliance could be placed, on the mere circumstance that no good reason is being furnished why why certain accused have been falsely implicated cannot provide a basis for holding the accused guilty for a crime. In this connection it was felicitously observed in paragraph 33 by the Federal Court by a judgment of Spens C.J. in Piare Dusadh and others v. Emperor, AIR 1944 FC 1 : “33. The gist of the learned High Court Judge’s finding on the whole case is contained in the observation that there was really no explanation why anybody should have invented a false case against the appellants. This is not in our opinion a justifiable point of view to adopt in a case like the present where the prosecution evidence was found to be largely false and riddled with defects and contradictions. The prosecution having failed completely to establish the guilt of the appellants by good and reliable evidence, it was not for the appellants to explain why their names had been mentioned by the prosecution witnesses as persons who had participated in the riot.” 28. It may be mentioned that there could be myriad reasons for the false implication of the accused. These reasons are often unknown to an accused, and sometimes when known the accused lacks the resources to bring out the said reasons on record. These could be a degree of suspicion about an unsolved crime, as the mind is loath to accept unsolved mysteries. Sometimes a secret suitor of a woman, seeks to falsely involve his rival in a criminal case, so that he may be successful in winning the woman’s affection, by getting her rival out of the way. “Village barristers,” are known for getting a control over one or the other party, or for grabbing some party’s land, by forcing him to flee the village due to involvement in a criminal case. Sometimes there are secret family jealousies, sometimes close relations coveting family property falsely involve other relations in criminal cases to grab the property. There are innumerable reasons. Sometimes there are secret family jealousies, sometimes close relations coveting family property falsely involve other relations in criminal cases to grab the property. There are innumerable reasons. Just as it becomes difficult on occasion for the prosecution to establish the motive for a particular crime, although good evidence for the involvement of the accused in the crime are present, it is even more difficult sometimes for the accused to fathom the reason for his false involvement. Failure of the defence to point out the reasons for the false implication can be no ground for arriving at the finding of the guilt of a person, in the absence of reliable evidence for connecting an accused with a crime. In a capital sentence case of rape and murder, where the judgment was delivered by one of us (Amar Saran J), Nem Singh @ Mula v. State of U.P., 2013(6) ADJ 41 (DB)(NOC), this issue was earlier considered, and two judgments, Shankarala Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra and “Prem Thakur v. State of Punjab” delivered by Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, who more than any other judge delved into the psychological reasons why a person who may not have been involved in a crime has been implicated, have been profitably cited. The relevant Paragraph 25, 26 and 27 of Nem Singh @ Mula, 2013(6) ADJ 41 (DB)(NOC) are extracted hereinafter: ‘25. The reasons for the false implication of the appellant could be one, the need of the police to show that it had worked out this grave crime, so as to avoid public ire. Two, there is a tendency of the human mind when faced with a brutal crime to resist the feeling that the guilt for the same cannot be foisted on someone, which object is accomplished that someone is held liable for a crime usually on the basis of strong suspicion. It would be appropriate to refer to the observations in two Apex Court judgements for meeting this query as to why the witnesses in such cases depose against the accused if he has no hand in the crime. 26. It would be appropriate to refer to the observations in two Apex Court judgements for meeting this query as to why the witnesses in such cases depose against the accused if he has no hand in the crime. 26. In Shankarala Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765 : 1981 Cri LJ 325, it was observed in paragraph 33: “Our judgment will raise a legitimate query : If the appellant was not present in his house at the material time, why then did so many people conspire to involve him falsely? The answer to such question is not always easy to give in criminal cases. Different motives operate on the minds of different persons in the making of unfounded accusations. Besides, human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions.” 27. Likewise in “Prem Thakur v. State of Punjab”, AIR 1983 SC 61 , it has been noted in paragraph 11. “The High Court could not but be aware of the principle that in a case which depends wholly upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be of such a nature as to be capable of supporting the exclusive hypothesis that the accused is guilty of the crime of which he is charged. That is to say, the circumstances relied upon as establishing the involvement of the accused in the crime must clinch the issue of guilt. Very often, circumstances which establish the commission of an offence in the abstract are identified as circumstances which prove that the prisoner before the Court is guilty of the crime imputed to him. An a priori suspicion that the accused has committed the crime transforms itself into a facile belief that it is he who has committed the crime. Human mind plays that trick on proof of the commission of a crime by resisting the frustrating feeling that no one can be identified as the author of that crime. In the case before us, there is no doubt that five persons were murdered. Unquestionably, every effort had to be made to find out who committed those murders. But the duty is not done by holding someone or the other guilty somehow or other. In the instant case, the circumstances attendant upon the incident militate entirely against the conclusion that the five murders were committed by the appellant. Unquestionably, every effort had to be made to find out who committed those murders. But the duty is not done by holding someone or the other guilty somehow or other. In the instant case, the circumstances attendant upon the incident militate entirely against the conclusion that the five murders were committed by the appellant. The very pattern of the crime belies that conclusion. We are unable to share the High Court’s view that the evidence showing “that the appellant was present with the deceased persons on the evening of Nov. 8, 1980 and he was then missing from there on the next morning proves the offences alleged against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt”. (Emphasis and italics added) For the aforesaid reasons we are of the view that the prosecution has been unable to produce cogent and reliable evidence for establishing the complicity of the appellants in this crime. The result is that this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the trial Court convicting the appellants is set aside and they are acquitted of their charges. The appellants Sita Ram Seth, Sudama, Deo Sharan and Bharat Prasad who are on bail, need not surrender to their bail bonds. The accused and their sureties are discharged of their liabilities and bail bonds. Let a copy of this order and the record be forwarded to the lower Court for compliance. —————