JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.: - This government appeal has been preferred under Section 378 Cr.P.C. on behalf of State of U.P. against the accused-respondents, namely Kartar Singh son of Malkhan Singh, Jai Singh son of Chandra Bhan Singh and Bhagat Singh son of Jai Singh. All the aforesaid three accused persons were tried by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in S.T. No. 134 of 1982 under Sections 147, 148, 342 and 302/149 I.P.C. By the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.1983, accused persons have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 2. Facts culled out from record in brief are that a litigation between Shambhoo Dayal, the complainant and the accused persons Kartar Singh and Jai Singh was pending in the court of Consolidation in which July 10, 1981 was the date fixed for hearing. On this date, Ram Pal son of Shambhoo Dayal (complainant) had gone for pairvi of the case whereas the complainant along with his daughter and Siya Ram, brother-in-law (Sala) of Ram Pal had also gone to Mahoba market for purchase of some article; that Ram Pal while coming back after attending the court case, met the aforesaid persons near the village Chikahara when accused-respondent Kartar Singh and Jai Singh along with two other unknown persons armed with guns are said to have fired upon Ram Pal; that accused-respondent Bhagat Singh is said to have given some blows of lathi to Ram Pal, who died on the spot at about 6.45 P.M. on 10.7.1981 and the accused persons kept Shambhoo Dayal and his two other associates under confinement for whole of the night and released during early hours of the day, after which they went away from the scene of the occurrence. Thereafter, they came back to their village and got a report scribed which was submitted to the police station, Mahova on 11.7.1981 at 1.30 P.M. On lodging of the FIR, investigation was taken up by S.I. Subedar Singh (P.W. 3) posted at police station-Mahova. He reached at the spot for investigation and took the body of the deceased in his possession, prepared inquest and after completing the formalities he dispatched the body to mortuary. Autopsy was performed on the body of the deceased by Dr.G.S. Pandey (P.W. 4) on July 12, 1981. 3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer against the accused persons. Autopsy was performed on the body of the deceased by Dr.G.S. Pandey (P.W. 4) on July 12, 1981. 3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer against the accused persons. The case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Hamirpur and was registered as S. T. No. 134 of 1982: State Vs. Kartar Singh & others. With the view to prove the case, the prosecution produced in all five witnesses including Shambhoo Dayal (P.W. 1) and Siya Ram (P.W. 2) who gave ocular account of the incident. S.I. Subedar Singh (P.W.3) and Dr. G.S. Pandey (P.W. 4) who had conducted the autopsy were produced as formal witnesses. Besides them two affidavits of witnesses namely, Phool Chandra and Ram Bilas Chaturvedi were filed before the court to prove the case for prosecution. After the testimony of prosecution witnesses, statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 3.11.1983, who claimed to have been falsely implicated and also did not produce any witness in defence. 4. The learned Sessions Judge on consideration of evidence and material on record as well as arguments discarded the prosecution case on the grounds that (1) the prosecution failed to prove the motive, (2) the affidavit of Shambhoo Dayal was filed in the court of Consolidation on 10.7.1981 and disbelieved that he had gone to Mahoba along with his daughter on the fateful day for purchase of some article, (3) statements of two witnesses, namely Shambhoo Dayal and Siya Ram are not worthy of belief and (4) the participation of Bhagat Singh is belied as no one stated that he had given any lathi blows either to the deceased or to the witnesses. 5. Learned A.G.A. has assailed the aforesaid impugned judgment and order on the grounds that it is illegal, erroneous and against the provisions of law and weight of evidence on record as such is liable to be quashed. It is urged that the learned Sessions Judge has not weighed and assessed the prosecution evidence properly and in any view of the matter if the entire fact and circumstances of the case and the materials on record, are considered together, the order of acquittal would not be justified in the eyes of law. It is urged that the learned Sessions Judge has not weighed and assessed the prosecution evidence properly and in any view of the matter if the entire fact and circumstances of the case and the materials on record, are considered together, the order of acquittal would not be justified in the eyes of law. Learned A.G.A. further submits that the Sessions court has wrongly discarded the evidence of motive as it is the own case in defence by the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. Moreover, the documents on record as well as oral evidence adduced in the trial show that litigation was pending between the accused Kartar Singh and Jai Singh and the complainant and hence there was ample motive for the accused for committing the murder of deceased Ram Pal. 6. He further argues that two witnesses, namely, Shambhoo Dayal and Siya Ram are the most natural witnesses of the incident who have given detailed narration of their being kept in illegal confinement by the accused persons during the night at the place of occurrence. The accused persons armed with deadly weapons did not allow them to move with an intention to spoil the prosecution case by giving colour that the deceased was done away during the night by some unknown persons and in the aforesaid backdrop, the presence of two witnesses cannot be said to be unworthy of belief or reliable. 7. It is also argued by learned A.G.A. that alleged affidavit filed on 10.7.1981 of complainant Shambhoo Dayal, upon which reliance has been placed by the learned Sessions Judge, neither contains the signatures of P.W. 1 nor it has been got examined by handwriting expert. It is a practice of lawyers to mostly obtain signatures of their clients on blank papers for typing on it and filing the same in court at a later date, but this may not render the entire prosecution case as doubtful on this account. 8. Per contra, the case of the accused-respondents is that they have been falsely implicated in the incident and that the court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the manner in which incident is said to have taken place is not only improbable but also against the medical evidence as well as ocular evidence on record. 8. Per contra, the case of the accused-respondents is that they have been falsely implicated in the incident and that the court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the manner in which incident is said to have taken place is not only improbable but also against the medical evidence as well as ocular evidence on record. According to learned counsel for the accused-respondents, FIR is delayed and in fact the incident had not taken at the place or in the manner at the time alleged narrated by the prosecution and that deceased Ram Pal had been in fact done away by some unknown persons, but the accused persons have been made an escape goat on false implications, by the complainant for taking the revenge. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, and perusal of record, we find that the post mortem gives following ante martem injuries upon the body of the deceased: 1. Gun shot wound of entry 3 1/2 cm x 2 cm. Oval shaped adjacent to outer angle of right eye towards forehead with two wounds of exit 3 cm x 1 1/2 cm & 2 cm x 1 1/2 cm situated above & behind the left ear respectively. One tikli, three pieces of KAG & three pellets recovered from within small box which has got extensive commensurated fracture of bones & laceration of remembrance and brain matter. Plenty of blood clots seen. Braces soft. Margins at entry are blackened and lacerated. Blackening observed inside the skull. 2. Gun shot wound of entry eight in number in an area of 6 cm x 5 cm each measuring 1 cm x 7 cm in inter scapular region with two wounds of exit each 1 cm x 1 cm in left side chest 2 1/2 cm above & below medial end of left collarbone. Pellets pass through & through both pleural pericardial cavity piercing lungs & heart adjacent rib & thoracic vertebrae have got communicated fracture with plenty of blood clots in pleural & pericardial cavity. Margins at cuts blackened, blackening observed throughout pathway. Six pellets recovered from thoracic cage. 3. Perforating injuries of right eyeball 3 1/2 cm x 2 cm x 5 cm, margins irregular. 4. Abrasion 3 cm x 1 1/2 cm in centre of forehead. 5. Abraded contusion- 5 cm x 1 cm in right forearm + wrist joint poster lateral aspect. 6. Six pellets recovered from thoracic cage. 3. Perforating injuries of right eyeball 3 1/2 cm x 2 cm x 5 cm, margins irregular. 4. Abrasion 3 cm x 1 1/2 cm in centre of forehead. 5. Abraded contusion- 5 cm x 1 cm in right forearm + wrist joint poster lateral aspect. 6. Abrasion- 2 cm x 1 cm in centre of sternum at 2nd coastal cartilage level. 7. Abrasion- 2 cm x 2 cm in lateral aspect of left knee joint. 8. Abrasion-1 1/2 cm x 1 cm in left elbow joint. 9. Abraded contusion - 6 cm x 2 1/2 cm in centre of right thigh and collateral aspect. 10. We find from perusal of judgment impugned that prosecution tried to establish the circumstantial evidence about Ram Pal's return from Hamirpur by producing the roadways bus ticket. It was considered by the court which held that 'ticket of roadways does not clearly go to prove the circumstances that Ram Pal was returning from Hamirpur on the date of occurrence when he was done away at the instance of the assailants'. Apart from it, the court also considered the post mortem report particularly injury nos. 4 to 9 which are reported to be abrasions and abraded contusions on the body of the deceased, but how these injuries were caused on his person could not be explained by the prosecution, particularly when Bhagat Singh had not given any call. This is supported by statement of Shambhoo Dayal and by its' omission in the FIR. It is further supported by evidence of Siya Ram (P.W. 2). Disbelieving the statement of P.W. 2 in the version of FIR that he was the only witness on this point was found to be most improbable by the sessions court which has given cogent reasons in paragraphs 23 to 26 of the judgment for its reaching to the conclusion The sessions court in paragraph 27 has summarised its' discussions thus: "In the aforesaid circumstances it appears that the testimony of Shambhoo Dayal (P.W. 1) and Siya Ram (P.W. 2) becomes doubtful regarding their presence at the time of murder, also regarding fact that Ram Pal was coming from Hamirpur on that day, and also on the fact that Bhagat Singh was present as he did not inflict any lathi blow and lastly that the bullock cart was detained for no useful purpose. All these facts go to show that in fact Ram Pal was killed some where in the night at the hands of the unknown persons. The time factor is also an important event in this case. It was the month of July and the time of murder was 6.45 to 7.00 P.M. when there was sufficient light. In the chain of circumstances it is also not worth believing that these accused persons would have taken to their mind to commit the murder on the high way and at such time when there was every possibility of being identified by any person." 11. The court thus held that story of prosecution is not free from doubt and the accused persons cannot be held liable for murder of Ram Pal (since deceased) and hence each of them is entitled to a clean acquittal by the court. 12. We have tested the reasoning given by the trial court in paragraphs 23 to 26 and its conclusion with the record. We find that the learned sessions judge has not committed any illegality or infirmity in arriving at the conclusion in paragraph 27 consequently acquitting the accused persons. We also concur with the finding of learned Sessions Judge that murder of Ram Pal (since deceased) was committed at some other place by unknown persons but the accused-respondents have been falsely implicated. Our observation is based on the reason that incident is said to have taken place on 10.7.1981, whereas post mortem was conducted on 13.7.1981. The delay in lodging of FIR is not properly and satisfactorily explained. It also appears from the post mortem report that doctor conducting the autopsy found maggot in the body of the deceased which shows that he had been done away much before the time and date of incident stated by the witnesses which also belies the case of the prosecution. 13. Moreover, there is no reason given by any of the witnesses as to how Ram Pal (since deceased) had been done away by the accused persons. If for a moment, we suppose that accused respondents have committed this murder then a natural question arises as to why they had not done away the complainant and his daughter keeping them alive to be an eye- witness of the incident against them ? If they had killed Ram Pal for revenge, they would have certainly removed these witnesses also. If they had killed Ram Pal for revenge, they would have certainly removed these witnesses also. A man cannot be punished twice or more for committing more than one murder. The court below, therefore, rightly found that prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts and the incident did not take place in the manner stated by the prosecution. The possibilities of the incident having taken place in the manner as suggested by the defence can not be completely ruled out as discussed above. 14. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the reasons given by the court below holding accused-respondents to be not guilty of the offence under Sections 147/148/302/149 I.P.C. are cogent and convincing. The view taken by it, appears to be a possible view. As no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned could be shown by learned A.G.A., we concur the reason and findings recorded by the court below and uphold the judgment and order impugned in this appeal. 15. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.