JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 30.5.1983 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur in S.T. No. 298 of 1982, State v. Khaleel Ahmad alias Chhotey Bhaiya and another, under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “the IPC”), Police Station Colonelganj, District Kanpur whereby the accused appellants have been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment. 2. Since co accused Nasir died during the pendency of the present appeal, the appeal stood dismissed as abated as against him vide order dated 13.10.2014. Therefore, the appeal of Kalil Ahamd alias Chhotey Bhaiya is only being taken up for consideration. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is as follows : 3. On 21.5.82 at 8.30 p.m. accused Khalil alias Chhotey Bhaiya son of Abdul Gharoor and co accused Nasir son of Ghulam Rasul came to the house of the complainant (Om Prakash) and asked his brother Ved Prakash alias Chhotey Munna (deceased) to accompany them for a movie. Ved Prakash insisted on taking Ram Ji Srivastava who was present there at that time. Both the accused were reluctant to take him along but then Sri Ved Prakash said that he would not go without Ram Ji Srivastava, so they agreed to take him alongwith them. All four left the house of the complainant at 8.30 p.m. At about 10 p.m. Ramji Srivastava came running to the informant to inform him that on their way to the theatre, accused Khalil told them that he has to pick one of his friends, whom he had promised to show the movie. At about 9.00 p.m., when they entered a lane which leads to Beconganj through Bazaria Chauraha, both the accused started inflicting injuries on Ved Prakash by their knives and uttered “Saale meri behan par buri nazar rakhne ka maza aaj chakh lo.” Ramji Srivastava raised an alarm, on which Sri Mohan Lal Bhatia and others arrived at the spot and challenged the accused persons. Sri Ved Prakash in an injured condition ran towards a public latrine, where he fell down and was assaulted by the accused. On hearing this, Om Prakash rushed to the spot and saw the dead-body of his brother lying in a pool of blood at the door of the public latrine. Thereupon he scribed the F.I.R (Ext. Sri Ved Prakash in an injured condition ran towards a public latrine, where he fell down and was assaulted by the accused. On hearing this, Om Prakash rushed to the spot and saw the dead-body of his brother lying in a pool of blood at the door of the public latrine. Thereupon he scribed the F.I.R (Ext. Ka.1) at the spot and went to the police station to lodge the report at 22.45 p.m. The original F.I.R is Ext. Ka 1. The chick report prepared on the basis of the said F.I.R is Ext. Ka-3. A case was registered in the G.D vide report No. 48 at 22.45 p.m. on 21.5.82. The copy of the G.D. is Ext. Ka 4. The I.O. Sri Nagendra Singh, S.H.O Colonelganj took the investigation of this case in his hand and recorded the statement of Om Prakash at the police station. He visited the spot at 12.45 p.m. He also recorded the statement of Ram Ji Srivastava at the spot. On the next morning, he prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka 6, sketch of the dead-body Ext. Ka 7 and Chalan Nash Ext. Ka 8. He inspected the spot and prepared the site plan Ext. Ka 9. He took the blood stained, sample brick and earth and chappal of the deceased and some coins from the spot near the dead-body of the victim and prepared the fard Ext. Ka 10 and Ext. Ka 11. On 24.5.82 he arrested the accused Khalil and on his pointing out recovered the knife, allegedly used in the incident. He prepared the fard Ext. Ka 12. After completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet Ext. Ka.13 in the Court. 4. The post-mortem of the dead-body of Ved Prakash was conducted by Dr. P.S. Misra of U.H.M. Hospital, Kanpur on 23.5.82 at 3.30 p.m. He found 19 incised wounds on different parts of the body of the victim. He also found one contusion on his person. The post-mortem report is Ext. Ka 2. The blood stained clothes, brick, earth and knife were sent for chemical analysis. The report of the Chemical Analyst is Ext. Ka.15. He found human blood on the brick, pant, shirt and the knife. The report of the Chemical Examiner is Ext. Ka. 16. 5. The case was committed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur to the Court of Sessions, vide its committal order dated 15.7.1982. The report of the Chemical Analyst is Ext. Ka.15. He found human blood on the brick, pant, shirt and the knife. The report of the Chemical Examiner is Ext. Ka. 16. 5. The case was committed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur to the Court of Sessions, vide its committal order dated 15.7.1982. Both the accused were charged under Section 302 I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. P.W.1 Sri Om Prakash (brother of the deceased) has narrated the entire prosecution story. He stated that Ved Prakash was his brother. On the date of occurrence Khalil and Nasir came to his house for taking the deceased for a movie. On the insistence of Ved Prakash, Ramji Srivastava was also taken with them. He stated that in his presence all four left the house. He further stated that at about 10 p.m. Ramji Srivastava came running to him and narrated him how Khalil and Nasir had attacked and killed Ved Prakash in the lane. On hearing this, Om Prakash rushed to the spot and found the dead-body lying in a pool of blood at the door of the public latrine. He lodged the FIR at the police station. He has identified the pant (Ext.1), the shirt (Ext.2), Baniyan (Ext.3), underwear (Ext.4) belonging to his brother. He has also identified one pair of chappal (Ext.5) belonging to his brother. 7. P.W.2 Sri Ram Ji Srivastava is the sole eye-witness who has been examined. He stated how he entered the lane where Khalil and Nasir attacked Ved Prakash upon which he raised an alarm. Some passers-by rushed to the spot and witnessed the incident. Thereafter he ran to the house of Om Prakash to narrate to him the entire incident, who immediately accompanied him to the spot. Thereafter Om Prakash went to the police station to lodge the F.I.R leaving him at the spot. 8. P.W.3, Dr. P.S. Misra is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem of the dead-body of the deceased. He proved the injuries of the victim. 9. P.W.4, Sri Drig Vijai Singh is a constable who took the dead-body of the victim for post-mortem. He has stated that he reached the spot at 00.50 a.m. on 22.5.1982 alongwith the Inspector. 10. P.W.5, Sri Ram Prasad is the Head Constable who prepared the chik report Ext. Ka.3 and made the entry in the G.D. Ext. Ka.4. 9. P.W.4, Sri Drig Vijai Singh is a constable who took the dead-body of the victim for post-mortem. He has stated that he reached the spot at 00.50 a.m. on 22.5.1982 alongwith the Inspector. 10. P.W.5, Sri Ram Prasad is the Head Constable who prepared the chik report Ext. Ka.3 and made the entry in the G.D. Ext. Ka.4. He has also proved the report No. 15 on 9.9.82. The material exhibits of the case were sent for chemical examination. He has proved the G.D entry Ext. Ka.5. 11. P.W.6, Sri Nagendra Singh Inspector Nazirabad is the Investigation Officer of this case. He has proved the inquest report, sketch of the dead-body, chalan nash, site plan and other fards. He has stated that after completing the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet Ext. Ka.13 in the Court. After this the prosecution closed its evidence. 12. The accused persons denied the entire prosecution story in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused Khalil stated that he was falsely implicated in a case under Section 324 I.P.C for causing injury to one Guddu in which he was acquitted. According to him, Guddu’s father was an employee of Ibrahim Ashraf who had an approach in the police department and got him falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that he has been acquitted by the trial Court in the connected case under Section 25 of the Arms Act arising out of the present case. He further stated that Ved Prakash and Om Prakash are the police informers and became friendly with notorious criminals Ratan and Vinod. He further stated that he was not known to the complainant and the witnesses. They got them identified in the Court during the trial. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that non mentioning the name of any of the eye-witnesses in the inquest report itself rules out the possibility of their presence at the time of the alleged occurrence. He further submits that though it is not mandatory, but it is a matter of common practice that the names of some of the eye-witnesses present at the place of the scene are mentioned in the inquest report. He further submits that though it is not mandatory, but it is a matter of common practice that the names of some of the eye-witnesses present at the place of the scene are mentioned in the inquest report. He further submitted that the Inquest report is not accompanied by any relevant papers and there are infirmities in the preparation of the inquest report for the following reasons: (i) The names of the eye-witnesses should have been mentioned in the inquest report. (ii) Reference of the F.I.R. and chik report as well as the entries made in the G.D. should have been given in the inquest report and Non mentioning of such details itself shows that the F.I. R. was not in existence at the time of preparation of inquest report. Thus, the possibility of F.l.R. being ante timed cannot be ruled out. (iii) Normally the columns mentioned in the inquest report ought to have been filled up by simply copying the details from the existing chick F.I.R. and similarly the details from the inquest report and the Chick F.I.R. are copied in the subsequent police forms like from No. 13, and 33 etc. as a measure of checks and balance so as to minimize manipulations and tampering etc, of the investigation. The distance and direction of the place of occurrence from the police station as mentioned in the Chick report as well as the inquest report does not tally with each other because in the Chick F.I.R the distance and direction is mentioned as “1 Km. west-south” whereas in the inquest report it is mentioned as “One Km. South-east.” This variation itself indicates that the chick F.I.R. was not in existence till the inquest was carried out and the distance and direction mentioned was a mere guess. 14. He further submitted that the F.I.R. is ante-timed and incident had not been seen by any of the witness. P.W. 2, Ramji Srivastava has been set up by the prosecution just to work out the case. He further submitted that it is most improbable and unbelievable that the accused persons would have allowed P.W. 2 to accompany them if they had any plans at all to murder the deceased. P.W. 2, Ramji Srivastava has been set up by the prosecution just to work out the case. He further submitted that it is most improbable and unbelievable that the accused persons would have allowed P.W. 2 to accompany them if they had any plans at all to murder the deceased. He further submitted that if the P.W. 2 had been present at the place of the incident, he would not have escaped without even a single injury when the assailants were armed with deadly weapons like knife and P.W. 2 was empty handed. He further submits that as per post-mortem report 20 extensive injuries were found on the person of the deceased, that itself goes to show that the assailants had enough time to commit the alleged offence and were not in a hurry and there was no one around to save the deceased. He further submitted that such extensive number of injuries could not have been caused in such a short span of time especially when the so called witness i.e. P.W. 2 was accompanying them. His submission that as per site plan the final assault was made 53 paces away inside the toilet at place ‘A” also appears to be false as no blood was found at place ‘B’ and also no blood trail was found throughout the lane. He further submits that the so called motive for the murder of the deceased also could not have been established by the prosecution and no witness including the alleged girl upon whom the deceased was supposed to have evil eyes was produced. No other witness of the locality was examined to prove the factum that the appellant was having any grudge against the deceased. 15. It was further submitted that, admittedly, it was a night incident and no source of light was present at the place where the final assault was alleged to have been made on the deceased and P.W. 2 only witnessed a single blow made by co accused Nasir on the person of the deceased. The place ‘A” where the final assault was allegedly made happens to be a toilet with no light inside or outside its entrance. The I.O. (P.W. 6) has also admitted that a jute curtain (Taat Ka Parda) was hanging on the door of the said toilet, as such there was no visibility from outside. The place ‘A” where the final assault was allegedly made happens to be a toilet with no light inside or outside its entrance. The I.O. (P.W. 6) has also admitted that a jute curtain (Taat Ka Parda) was hanging on the door of the said toilet, as such there was no visibility from outside. The I.O. has also admitted in his statement that there was no light on the spot and due to darkness he could not prepare the inquest report promptly on the spot. No recovery memo of alleged bulbs and tube lights were prepared or proved by the prosecution to establish the presence of light on the spot. 16. It was further submitted that the P.W. 1 being the real brother of the deceased was highly partisan and interested witness and, therefore, no reliance is to be placed upon his testimony. The prosecution has completely failed to establish its case beyond doubt by adducing natural and reliable evidence. He further submits that a RT-Set message was transmitted with regard to murder of an unknown person by some unknown persons (Kha-1) at 11.05 p.m. which was proved by DW-1 HC-562 CP Baburam of the police Control Room and this fact itself falsifies the factum of lodging the F.I.R. on 21.5.1982 at 22.45 hours and the entries in GD NO. 48. He further submitted that, as per the defence version, the I.O. (PW-6) proceeded from the police station at 00.35 hours and reached the place of occurrence at 00.50 hours since there was no F.I.R. before 11.00 p.m. Since the identification of the unknown dead-body could not be done till the evening of 22.5.1982, the police papers including the inquest report, form No. 13 etc. were kept in an incomplete condition because till then no FIR was in existence and the dead-body was also detained till implication of the present appellant and after consultation and deliberation the case was cooked up against the accused. This fact also stands substantiated by the statement of the P.W. 5, HC Ram Prasad who has admitted that no other case was registered either before or after the present FIR on 21.5.1982 in the relevant General Diary. This fact also stands substantiated by the statement of the P.W. 5, HC Ram Prasad who has admitted that no other case was registered either before or after the present FIR on 21.5.1982 in the relevant General Diary. The dead-body was sent to the police head quarter through P.W. 4 on 22.5.1982 at about 8.00 a.m. which was received by the Doctor in a sealed cloth on 22.5.1982 at about 9.00 a.m. without any police paper and therefore the dead-body was detained at the mortuary till 23.5.1982 and the autopsy could be conducted only on 23.5.1982 at about 3.30 P.M. This inordinate delay in conducting the post-mortem itself shows that relevant papers including form No. 13, form No. 33 etc. which were necessarily required to be sent alongwith the dead-body, as per Chapter XII rule 139 of U.P. Police Regulations, were not sent alongwith the dead-body.Thus, in the present case serious procedural lapses were deliberately caused to pollute the investigation. These lapses were not merely causal or mere negligent act of the police but were done with dishonest intention to falsely implicate the appellant. 16-A. It was further submitted that there was an inordinate delay in sending of the special report to the Magistrate because the bare perusal of the chick F.I.R. goes to show that the same was signed by the concerned C.O. as late as on 24.5.1982 i.e. after delay of three days, while the signatures of the concerned Magistrate are not mentioned at all and such unexplained delay in dispatch of the FIR to Magistrate besides other infirmities would throw serious doubts on prosecution case. In support of his contention he relied upon the law laid down in Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala, (1980)4 SCC 425 . 17. It was further submitted that, admittedly, none of the so called eye-witnesses knew the parentage or the address of the accused Khalil but, surprisingly, in the F. I. R. not only the specific name of the father was mentioned but also his specific address including house number etc. was mentioned. On the other hand, the P.W. 2 in his statement has admitted that he did know the name of the appellant Khalil’s father and he did not even know the residence and address of appellant Khalil and has also admitted that the P.W. 1 had dictated the report to him. was mentioned. On the other hand, the P.W. 2 in his statement has admitted that he did know the name of the appellant Khalil’s father and he did not even know the residence and address of appellant Khalil and has also admitted that the P.W. 1 had dictated the report to him. He further submits that the P.W. 1 straight away went to the police station after scribing the FIR on the dictation of the P.W. 2 and in that eventuality the meticulous details of the accused persons were not possible to have been mentioned in the F.I.R. These are indicative of the fact that the F. I.R. was ante timed and was lodged after concoction and extraneous consultation to falsely implicate the appellant. 18. It was further submitted that the appellant Khalil was also prosecuted under Section 25 Arms Act and was acquitted for want of evidence, as such the recovery of knife at the instance of the appellant Khalil was found false. 19. He further submitted that the prosecution has to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt and no conviction can be recorded on the basis of presumption. 20. Per contra, Mr. Rajeev Gupta, learned A.G.A, appearing on behalf of the State, supported the impugned judgement and order of conviction and submitted that the accused have committed a very brutal murder in a very inhuman manner by causing as many as 20 knife injuries to the deceased. He further submitted that there was no reason for false implication of the accused persons, if they had not committed this crime. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged with respect to the incident, which had taken place in the presence of P.W. 2. 21. It was further submitted that the P.W. 2, Ramji Srivastava was present when the accused persons had gone to the house of the deceased for taking him to a movie. He further submitted that the accused tried their best to prevent the presence of the P.W. 2 so that he might not be a witness of the incident by refusing to take him alongwith them but when the deceased insisted on taking him along, they reluctantly permitted Ramji Srivastava to accompany him. He further submitted that the P.W. 1 in his testimony had given wide description of the incident and is an independent witness and does not have any motive to falsely implicate the accused. He further submitted that the P.W. 1 in his testimony had given wide description of the incident and is an independent witness and does not have any motive to falsely implicate the accused. He further submits that from the testimony of the witnesses, it is clear that the accused had taken P.W. 2 under compelling circumstances because the accused persons knew that if they would not permit him to do so, the entire plan of killing the victim would fizzle. 22. It was further submitted that the accused persons used to come to the house of the deceased and as such his brother was known to them prior to the incident and there is nothing on record to suggest that the P.W. 1 did not know about the parentage and address of the accused prior to the present incident merely because he could not tell the address of the accused during cross-examination. 23. The P.W. 1 is the witness of last seen evidence. The victim suffered as many as 20 knife injuries without any resistance. He further submits that it is possible that there was no blood found on the way because even if a few drops fell, it would have not been noticeable. Where the fatal attack was made, the I.O. had found sufficient blood. Some minor discrepancies might have come in the directions of the lane in the statement of the witnesses such minor discrepancies, as pointed out by the defence, does not make any difference so far as the merit of the case is concerned, particularly when such a fatal attack was made by inflicting intensive injuries by knife mercilessly in an inhuman and brutal manner and there is an eye-witness account of the incident. 24. It was further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the F.I.R. was anti dated, anti timed or fabricated. Merely because that the F.I.R. was placed before the Magistrate three days after registration of the F.I.R., it cannot be said that the F.I.R. was anti timed, anti dated and fabricated. In fact, no question was put to the Investigating Officer as to the cause of delay in sending F.I.R. to the Magistrate. 25. Merely because that the F.I.R. was placed before the Magistrate three days after registration of the F.I.R., it cannot be said that the F.I.R. was anti timed, anti dated and fabricated. In fact, no question was put to the Investigating Officer as to the cause of delay in sending F.I.R. to the Magistrate. 25. In support of his contention he relied upon the law laid down in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. S. Mohan Singh and another, (2006)9 SCC 272 , wherein the Apex Court has held that the mere delay in sending the F.I.R. to a Magistrate cannot be a ground to throw out prosecution case if the evidence adduced is otherwise found credible and trustworthy. 26. It was further submitted that the inquest report normally does not contain the manner in which the incident took place or the names of eye-witnesses as well as names of accused persons. The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regrading the cause of death, namely whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental etc. 27. It was further submitted that taking the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution story stands completely corroborated and established and defence has not been able to point out any material discrepancy in the statement of the said witnesses and their testimonies inspire confidence and clearly establishes the fact that P.W. 2 is a trustworthy witness and the trial Court has rightly recorded the finding of conviction against the appellant warranting no interference by this Court. 28. Heard Mr. Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rajeev Gupta, learned A.G.A,. for the State and perused the record. 29. The facts giving rise to the prosecution have been set forth in detail in the earlier part of the judgement. Hence, it is not necessary to repeat the detailed facts. 30. Admittedly, there is only a solitary eye-witness of the factum of murder namely P.W. 2 Ramji Srivastava who claims to be the resident of the same mohalla where the deceased resided at the time of the alleged incident. Hence, it is not necessary to repeat the detailed facts. 30. Admittedly, there is only a solitary eye-witness of the factum of murder namely P.W. 2 Ramji Srivastava who claims to be the resident of the same mohalla where the deceased resided at the time of the alleged incident. The entire prosecution case is basically based upon the testimonies of P.W.2 Ram Ji Srivastava (alleged eye-witness) and P.W. 1, Om Prakash, the real brother of the deceased P.W.1 Om Prakash deposed on the basis of hearsay information regarding the factum of murder and his alleged presence in his house at the time when the deceased left for the movie with the accused persons and P.W. 2. 31. In order to ascertain the truthfulness and credibility of the aforementioned witnesses, we have to closely scrutinise the testimonies of the witnesses namely P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 in the light of the statements made by the said witnesses. 32. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the so called eye-witness P.W. 2 is purely a chance witness and was permanently residing at district Pratapgarh, Tahsil Lalganj and seldom lived at Bhavupur near Panki. On the day of the incident he by chance went to Mohalla ‘Sisamau’ to fetch a cassette from the house of his maternal cousin, who happens to be the next door neighbour of the deceased. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard has no force and cannot be accepted. Definitely, it was a coincidence that at the very nick of time the accused persons too arrived at the house of Ved Prakash (deceased) for taking him for a movie but merely because of this the presence of the PW 2 cannot be doubted. 33. Next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the P.W.2 had been set up by the prosecution for the purpose of the present case and even though P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have shown complete ignorance about the address and the parentage of the accused, the F.I.R. contains the parentage and the exact municipal address i.e. 100/172 colonganj of the appellant Khalil as well as the father’s name of the co-accused Nasir. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the F.I.R. is extracted below: ^^jkr esa esjs ?kj ij NksVs Hkb;k mQZ [kfyy iq= vCnqy ¼dk0Q0½ fuoklh e0 100@172 dusZyxat Fkkuk ctfj;k oks mlds eksgYys dk uklhj iq= xqyke jlwy lkFk vk;s vkSj esjs HkkbZ osn izdk'k flag mQZ NksVs eqUuk flag dks flusek ns[kus ds fy;s dgkA^^ 34. If we make a close scrutiny of the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W. 2, it would be abundantly clear that both of them have categorically denied the factum of knowing the names of the father and address of the accused persons. In this regard, the relevant portions of the testimonies of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 respectively are extracted below: P.W.1 Om Prakash. ^^---eSaus [kyhy ds ckjs esa ;g tkuus dh dksf'k'k ugha dh fd og dgka jgrk gS] D;k djrk gSA P.W. 2 Ramji. ^^ - - -[kyhy D;k dke djrk Fkk eSa ugha crk ldrkA ;g dsoy tkurk Fkk fd duZyxat esa jgrk gS ysfdu edku ugha tkurkA mldk ?kj dHkh ugha ns[kk FkkA mlds cki dk uke ugha tkurkA mlds fdlh HkkbZ dk uke ugha tkurkA - - - ^^ 35. Thus, from the perusal of the aforesaid testimonies, it is abundantly clear that none of the witnesses were aware about the parentage and residential addresses of the accused, what to say of knowing exactly the municipal numbers of their houses, but, still the details in respect thereof have been categorically mentioned in the F.I.R., the F.I.R was lodged at 10.45 p.m. Immediately after the incident so it was not possible for the witnesses to have known the exact address and the parentage of the accused. This fact itself raises suspicion about the F.I.R. that it was not lodged immediately after the incident in the night but on the next day after due consultation and deliberation. 36. Now, we have to further scrutinize the evidence available on record in the light of the attending facts and circumstances, whether the F.I.R. was ante timed or not. The incident is said to have occurred in the night at around 9 O’ clock on 21.5.1982. Panchayatnama was conducted on the next day i.e. 22.5.82 at 6.00 a.m. and the dead-body was sent at 08.00 a.m. on the same day for post-mortem and it was received at 9 Am by the doctor for conducting the post-mortem. The incident is said to have occurred in the night at around 9 O’ clock on 21.5.1982. Panchayatnama was conducted on the next day i.e. 22.5.82 at 6.00 a.m. and the dead-body was sent at 08.00 a.m. on the same day for post-mortem and it was received at 9 Am by the doctor for conducting the post-mortem. The police papers including the inquest report, form No. 13 were sent at 3.15 p.m. On 22.5.1982 i.e. after more than 7 hours of sending the sealed body for post-mortem and 18 hours after the incident. No explanation whatsoever has been given by the prosecution as to why the papers were sent after such inordinate delay and not alongwith the dead-body at 8 o’clock in the morning after the inquest was conducted on 22.5.82. Here, at this juncture it is notable that the I.O. in his examination in chief has incorrectly deposed against the record that the papers were sent through a constable alongwith the sealed body of the deceased on 2.5.82 at 8.00 a.m. The record clearly shows that the papers were received by the doctor on 22.5.82 at 3.15 p.m. and the post-mortem was conducted the next day i.e. 23.5.82 at 3.30 p.m. This further creates a serious doubt upon the credibility of the prosecution story and indicates that FIR was probably ante timed and was not in existence until the papers were sent to the doctor at 3.15 p.m. on 22.5.1982. 37. It is also notable that P. W. 5, Ram Prasad, head constable at the police station admitted that no other case was registered on 21.5.82 in the general diary either before or later on the said night of the occurrence. This further raises suspicion that the entry in G.D might have been stopped to accommodate the ante timed F.I.R. 38. In order to further strengthen the argument with regard to ante timed F.I.R., learned counsel for the appellant has made reference to the R.T.-Set message which was transmitted with regard to a murder of an unknown person at 11.00 p.m. Which was duly proved by defence witness Baburam H.C., Head Control Room, Kotwali, Kanpur in his testimony. In order to further strengthen the argument with regard to ante timed F.I.R., learned counsel for the appellant has made reference to the R.T.-Set message which was transmitted with regard to a murder of an unknown person at 11.00 p.m. Which was duly proved by defence witness Baburam H.C., Head Control Room, Kotwali, Kanpur in his testimony. The relevant portion of his testimony is as follows: ^^eSa dUVªksy :e dk gsM eqgfjZj gwWa eSa Vscy Mk;jh jftLVj tks 18-5-82 ls izkjEHk gksrk gSA 15-7-1982 dks lekIr gksrk gS dks yk;k gwWaA blesa fnukad 21-5-1982 dks le; 23-05 cts vflLVsUV vkijsVj }kjk nh xbZ lwpuk ntZ gS tks bl izdkj gSA 23-05&bl le; ,-vks- us crk;k fd NksVs fe;kWa ds gkrk esa ,d O;fDr dks pkdw ekj fn;k x;k gS tks fd ?kVukLFky ij gh ej x;k gS pkdw ekjus okyk Qjkj gks x;k gS vr% Fkkuk duZyxat dks lwfpr dj fn;k x;k gSA** 39. In the present case, the F.I.R. is alleged to have been lodged on 21.5.82 at 10.45 p.m. at the concerned police station. However, the I.O. proceeded to the place of the incident only after nearly two hours although the place of the occurrence was in close vicinity to the place of the incident. Now arises the crucial question that when the F.I.R. was lodged at 10.45 p.m. then what was the occasion for transmitting RT-Set message to the control room and the concerned police station apprising them about the murder of an unknown person at 11.00 p.m. This further casts doubt on the authenticity of the lodging of the F.I.R. at 10.45 p.m. on 21.5.82. 40. There is another aspect of the matter which may be noticed that when the F.I.R. was lodged at 10.45 p.m. at the police station on 21.5.1982, then why did the I.O. reached the place of occurrence at 00.50 p.m. on 22.5.82 nearly after 2 hours of the lodging of FIR when place of the incident was well within close vicinity of the police station. No explanation whatsoever was given with regard to delay in reaching the place of incident despite the F.I.R. having been lodged at 10.45 p.m. The aforesaid fact indicates that the F.I.R. probably was not lodged at 10.45 p.m. and the police reached the place of occurrence only when the RT-Set massage was received and probably on the next day i.e. 22.5.1982 the F.I.R. was lodged after the identification of the body and thereafter the parentage as well as the municipal address of the accused were disclosed in the F.I.R. 41. It may further be noted that normally the columns mentioned in the inquest report ought to be filled by copying simply the details from the existing chick F.I.R. Similarly the details from the inquest report and the Chick F.I.R. are copied in the subsequent police forms like Form No. 13, and 33 etc. as a measure of checks and balance so as to minimize manipulations and tampering etc, in the investigation. The distance and direction of the place of occurrence from the police station as mentioned in the Chick report as well as the inquest report are not tallying with each other because in the Chick F.I.R the distance and direction is mentioned as “1 Km. west-south” whereas in the inquest report it is mentioned as “One Km. South-east.” This variation itself indicates that the chick F.I.R. Probably was not in existence till the inquest was carried out and the distance and direction mentioned was just a guess. 42. Here, it is notable that the P.W. 1 wrote a report (on the dictation of P.W. 2) and thereafter immediately proceeded to the police station after the incident therefore in the given circumstances meticulous details of the accused persons ought not have been mentioned in the F.I.R. This fact itself fortifies the defence case that the F.I.R. was ante timed and the entire structure of the prosecution case stands on a murky foundation and no sanctity can be attached to the statement of the prosecution witnesses. 43. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that it was most improbable and unbelievable that the accused would have allowed P.W. 2 to accompany them if they had any plans at all to murder the deceased. 43. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that it was most improbable and unbelievable that the accused would have allowed P.W. 2 to accompany them if they had any plans at all to murder the deceased. The prosecution case is that when the deceased persistently insisted upon the accused, they agreed to accompany P.W. 2 to a movie, therefore, in a given circumstances the accused were forced to take P.W. 2 with them to a movie. The prosecution story on this aspect also does not appeal to us. 44. First of all, if the accused had any plan to murder the deceased, they would not have let P.W. 2 to accompany them. They could have very conveniently postponed their plan of committing the murder of the deceased allegedly in the said night. They would not be so foolish as to create evidence against themselves and take such a risk. Admittedly, the accused were quite friendly with the deceased and used to go out frequently with him, therefore, the accused were not under any compulsion to execute their plan on the date of the incident. Thus, the theory of the prosecution that the accused had no other option but to take P.W. 2 with them on the fateful night does not have any merit. No prudent person would create an evidence in the form of an eye-witness against himself. 45. Had P.W.2 Ramji been present there at the place of the murder, he would not have been spared by the assailants, but the assailants did not cause even a single injury to him especially when they were armed with such deadly weapons like a knife and P.W. 2 was empty handed. Usually, the reaction of the witnesses under such circumstances when the physical assault is made by deadly weapons, is to escape from the spot. Admittedly, no independent witness of the locality including Mohan Lal Bhatia, who is alleged to have reached the spot on the alarm raised by the P.W.2, was examined by the prosecution. 46. As per post-mortem report 20 extensive injuries were found on the person of the deceased, that itself goes to show that the assailants had enough time and were not in a hurry and probably no one was around there to save the deceased. 46. As per post-mortem report 20 extensive injuries were found on the person of the deceased, that itself goes to show that the assailants had enough time and were not in a hurry and probably no one was around there to save the deceased. It is also notable that such extensive number of injuries could not have been caused in such a short span of time especially when the so called witness i.e. P.W. 2 was accompanying them. Thus, the very fact that the P.W. 2 did not sustain a single scratch, the possibility of his being not present on the spot at the relevant time cannot be ruled out and the same is under the cloud of serious doubt. 47. The record also reveals that, as per site plan, the assault started at place ‘B’ and final assault was made 53 paces away inside the toilet at place ‘A’. This part of prosecution story also appears to be false as no blood was recovered from place ‘B’ and no blood trail was found throughout the lane. This fact also raises a serious doubt about the veracity and truthfulness of the prosecution with regard to the place where the assault is alleged to have been made by the accused. 48. It may further be noted that the motive assigned by the prosecution was that the deceased was allegedly keeping an evil eye on the sister of the accused Khalil on account of which he was allegedly murdered. But, surprisingly, the prosecution did not make any effort either to produce the alleged girl before the Court for getting her statement recorded or record her statement under Section 161 CrPC. 49. It is a settled law that in the first instance, the prosecution is required to establish its own case beyond doubt on the basis of reliable and probable testimony and if the prosecution fails to adduce natural and reliable testimony, on which implicit reliance could be placed, there can be no basis for holding the accused guilty for a crime merely on the basis of testimony of so called witnesses. 50. It is also notable that the appellant Khalil, who was prosecuted under Section 25 Arms Act in the present case, has already been acquitted by the trial Court for want of evidence. This fact further fortifies the defence case of the appellant. 51. 50. It is also notable that the appellant Khalil, who was prosecuted under Section 25 Arms Act in the present case, has already been acquitted by the trial Court for want of evidence. This fact further fortifies the defence case of the appellant. 51. The record further reveals that the dead-body was sealed in a cloth on 22.5.1982 at 9.00 a.m. and was received by the Dr at 3.15 p.m. on 22.5. and post-mortem was done on 23.5.1982 and 3.30 p.m. The principal reason for such a delay could be because of the non existence of the F.I.R. and other relevant papers, which were necessarily required before conducting the post-mortem. 52. In this connection reference may be made to the law laid down in State of U.P. v. Raghubir Singh, 2014(84) ACC 622. The relevant portions of paras 24, 26 and 27 of the said judgement are quoted below: “24.One of the most disturbing features against the prosecution is the unexplained inordinately late done post-mortem 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. 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 dead-body. 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 dead-body. 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 post-mortem 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. 27. There is yet another document Form No. 33 which lends clinching corroboration 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 corroboration 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.” 53. Thus, after a close scrutiny of the evidence and weighing the testimony of the witnesses we find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the presence of P.W. 2 on the spot of murder was doubtful and the F.I.R. is ante timed. The presence of the P.W. 2 appears to have been set up on the spot just to work out the case against the accused. 54. From the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgement, it is amply clear that there exists no reliable, cogent and credible evidence against the appellant. The findings recorded by the trial Court in this regard suffers from legal infirmity. 55. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Court below while convicting the appellant Khalil is wrong and the findings recorded by the Court below are perverse, erroneous and cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The judgment passed by the trial Court is based on a complete misreading of the case and misconception of the legal position relevant to the matter and has not considered the evidence on record in the right perspective. The prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond doubt. The judgment passed by the trial Court is based on a complete misreading of the case and misconception of the legal position relevant to the matter and has not considered the evidence on record in the right perspective. The prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond doubt. In our considered opinion the reasons given by the Trial Court are not sufficient to convict the appellant. 56. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence led by the parties renders the origin and genesis of the occurrence doubtful and as such the present appellant is also entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal. 57. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. 58. The impugned judgment and order dated 30.5.1983 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur in S.T. No. 298 of 1982, State v. Khaleel Ahmad alias Chhotey Bhaiya and another, under Sections 302 I.P.C. is hereby set aside and the appellant Khalil is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appellant Khalil is on bail. He need not to surrender. His personal and surety bonds are hereby cancelled and sureties are discharged from their liability. 59. Let a copy of this judgement alongwith the trial Court record be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.