JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—Appellants have assailed the judgment and order dated 23.4.1983 passed in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 1982 (State v. Rakesh Singh and others) arising out of Crime No. 533 of 1981 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) Police Station (P.S.) Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur whereby all four appellants, namely, Rakesh Singh, Karan Singh, Satypal Singh and Udhan Singh have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the then Special Judge, Shahjahanpur. 2. Appellant No. 4 Udhan Singh has died, therefore, his appeal stands abated vide order dated 3.3.2016 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. This Court is now concerned only with the appeals of appellant Rakesh Singh, Karan Singh and Satypal Singh. 3. Prosecution story in brief is that on 30.12.1981 deceased Narbir Singh was busy in digging his boring to the west of village Mahiyyapur. Deceased had invited his nephew Saran Pal Singh (P.W.1) from nearby village Behta Pathak, P.S. Kanth, District Shahjahanpur for help. On the date of occurrence i.e. on 30.12.1981. Saran Pal Singh (P.W.1) came to village Mahiyyapur for this purpose. Deceased Narbir Singh, his fourteen years old son Virendra Singh (P.W. 3) and Jai Chand, (cousin) were involved in digging on this day. Janki Devi (P.W. 2) widow of deceased Narbir Singh and her son-in-law Mahendra Singh came to the place of boring with their noon meals. All of them took meals together. P.W. 2 Janki Devi and her son-in-law Mahendra Singh also stayed back. 4. All the above persons of complainant side were returning back after finishing digging work in the evening. Deceased Narbir Singh was carrying his lathi, Phawda (spade), basket (Tokri), rope and Tawa etc. and was moving 10-12 paces ahead of remaining persons. Rest of the persons including informant Saranpal Singh (P.W. 1) were following him. Suddenly at about 5 pm. accused persons, namely, Rakesh Singh, Karan Singh, Satypal Singh and late Udhan Singh emerged from the wheat and Arhar field of Ompal. Appellant No. 1 Rakesh Singh and appellant No. 2 Karan Singh were holding guns while appellant No. 3 Satypal Singh and late Udhan Singh were wielding lathies. Appellant No. 4 Udhan Singh shouted and instigated others to assassinate Narbir Singh. Appellant No. 1 Rakesh Singh and appellant No. 2 Karan Singh were holding guns while appellant No. 3 Satypal Singh and late Udhan Singh were wielding lathies. Appellant No. 4 Udhan Singh shouted and instigated others to assassinate Narbir Singh. Appellant No. 3 Satypal Singh claimed that accused persons in the murder case of one Dhanpal Singh got acquitted because of refusal of deceased Narbir Singh to testify. Therefore, Narbir Singh should also be sent to join late Dhanpal Singh whereupon both appellants Rakesh Singh and Karan Singh discharged one shot each upon the deceased Narbir Singh from their guns. Narbir Singh fell down and died instantaneously. Accused appellants also extended threat to other persons saying that none of them should go to police station otherwise they will be finished as well. Thereafter the accused persons went away towards village while dead body of deceased Narbir Singh remained on the spot. This incident reportedly occurred on 30.12.1981 at about 5 pm. Prosecution case is that the informant and other persons remained rooted to the place of occurrence throughout the night because of fear of accused persons and that the informant left for police station Tilhar early in the morning which was located almost four miles away from the place of occurrence. The report was lodged on 31.12.1981 at about 6:45 am. The case was entered into General Diary (G.D.) at P.S. Tilhar. 5. On the basis of oral F.I.R. a chik report Ext. Ka-1 was prepared at P.S. Tilhar under Section 302 I.P.C. on 31.12.1981. Investigation was entrusted to P.W. 6 R.B. Singh who was in-charge of police chauki Madnapur P.S. Tilhar. He received papers at about 8 am. regarding this case from S.H.O. P.S. Tilhar. He reached the place of occurrence somewhere around 10:30 am. where he recorded the statement of informant Saran Pal Singh P.W. 1, prepared site plan, took samples of blood stained and plain earth, recovered Tikli, empty cartridge, the cloths of deceased and the implements said to have been held on by deceased Narbir Singh at the time of his murder. Inquest report Ext. Ka-6 was prepared. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of other witnesses. The postmortem of cadaver was conducted by P.W.4, Dr. K.K. Srivastava. Inquest report Ext. Ka-6 was prepared. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of other witnesses. The postmortem of cadaver was conducted by P.W.4, Dr. K.K. Srivastava. After completing investigation, Investigating Officer (I.O.), P.W.6 Raj Bahadur Singh submitted charge-sheet against four persons under Section 302 I.P.C. The Trial Judge framed charges against accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. on 29.3.1982. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and desired to be tried. 6. During course of trial the deposition of Saran Pal Singh (informant) was recorded as P.W. 1, wife of deceased Janki Devi as P.W. 2, Virendra Singh, son of deceased as P.W.3, Dr. K.K. Srivastava (conducted autopsy) as P.W. 4, Shiv Ram Shukla (recorded the F.I.R.) as P.W.5, Raj Bahadur Singh (I.O.) as P.W. 6 and Constable Nisar Ahmad (took the cadaver of deceased alongwith village Chaukidar for postmortem) as P.W.7. 7. The statements of accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have completely denied their presence and involvement in the stated crime. However, they have admitted the relationship between all the accused persons. Apparently, appellant No. 4 late Udhan Singh was the father of appellant No. 2 Karan Singh and appellant No. 3 Satypal Singh while appellant No. 1 Rakesh Singh was nephew of appellant No. 4 late Udhan Singh. Accused persons also produced one witness, namely, Bhagwati Prasad Lekhpal as D.W. 1. This revenue official was produced to establish the point that no tube well or boring existed on the agriculture field of deceased Narbir Singh. 8. After completion of trial, Trial Judge concluded that there was sufficient evidence to hold all the appellants guilty of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., therefore, convicted all of them for aforesaid offence and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 23.4.1983 which is under challenge before this Court. 9. As stated earlier appeal of appellant No. 4 Udhan Singh has abated on account of his death, therefore, this Court is concerned with appeal of remaining appellants, namely, Rakesh Singh, Karan Singh and Satypal Singh. 10. Sri Manish Tiwary Advocate has argued on behalf of surviving appellants while Dr. Abida Syyed, Advocate has represented the State. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the involvement of appellants in the murder of deceased Narbir Singh. Motive has not been established. 10. Sri Manish Tiwary Advocate has argued on behalf of surviving appellants while Dr. Abida Syyed, Advocate has represented the State. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the involvement of appellants in the murder of deceased Narbir Singh. Motive has not been established. Submission is that F.I.R. was lodged after almost 15 hours. The whole prosecution case is result of concoction, confabulations and legal advise. The presence of witnesses on the spot is said to be doubtful. 12. Learned counsel for appellants has also argued that informant P.W. 1 Saran Pal Singh is a chance witness as he does not reside with the deceased Narbir Singh and has been introduced merely to implicate appellants. The presence of 15 years old Virendra Singh, P.W.3 (son of deceased) was disputed. It is argued that Janki Devi P.W.2 was not present at the place of occurrence because she was tending her minor children and that; she had been deliberately roped in order to buttress the prosecution story. Absence of independent witness has also been pointed out by counsel for appellants. He has also drawn the attention of the Court towards the evidence of D.W. 1 Bhagwati Prasad Lekhpal who has specifically disputed the existence of any boring in the agriculture field of deceased Narbir Singh. Submission is that this story has been invented in order to demonstrate and justify the presence of entire family on the place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that medical evidence is not in consonance with the sworn testimony of prosecution. 13. Per contra, learned state counsel Dr. Abida Sayed has argued that the evidence of independent witnesses is neither required nor possible in every case. The presence of all prosecution witnesses in this case is natural and trust worthy. She has further argued that the fear of accused persons and night-fall prevented the informant to contact the police immediately. Family member wanted to secure the corpse of deceased Narbir Singh as well. 14. Before embarking to analyze the rival arguments, it would be appropriate to refer the gist of prosecution evidence in brief. P.W. 1 Saran Pal Singh (informant) was resident of a different village. He has stated that he was invited by deceased Narbir Singh to render help in digging the boring. 14. Before embarking to analyze the rival arguments, it would be appropriate to refer the gist of prosecution evidence in brief. P.W. 1 Saran Pal Singh (informant) was resident of a different village. He has stated that he was invited by deceased Narbir Singh to render help in digging the boring. He has specifically asserted that he went to village Mahiyyapur for this purpose somewhere around 7-8 am in the morning and helped his uncle deceased Narbir Singh in digging the boring. Noon meals were provided by P.W. 2 Janki Devi. She came on the spot with her son-in-law Mahendra Singh. After consuming lunch both of them stayed back. When they were returning back from their agriculture field, after completing the work accused persons surfaced from the wheat and Arhar field of Ompal. Appellant No. 4 Udhan Singh instigated other appellants while appellant No. 3 Satypal Singh also reminded them of the stated role of deceased Narbir Singh in the acquittal of accused persons in murder case of one Dhanpal. Appellants Rakesh Singh and Karan Singh opened one fire each from their guns upon the deceased Narbir Singh who fell down and died instantaneously. Accused persons went back to the village after threatening them. The report was lodged in next morning i.e 31.12.1981 at 6:45 am. Similar story has been given by P.W. 2 (Janki Devi) widow of deceased Narbir Singh and P.W. 3 Virendra Singh a 15 years old son of deceased Narbir Singh. 15. P.W. 4 Dr. K.K. Srivastava conducted the autopsy of deceased and found following injuries on the person of deceased Narbir Singh : “One gunshot wound of entrance 4 cm x 3.5cm x abdominal cavity deep over front of left side of chest 14 cm. below the nipple, surrounded by multiple (9) wounds in the diameter of 18 cm Size of other wounds 1 cm x 8 cm x margins irregular and inverted of the central wound, singing and blackening present, direction anteriomedially and backward. below the nipple, surrounded by multiple (9) wounds in the diameter of 18 cm Size of other wounds 1 cm x 8 cm x margins irregular and inverted of the central wound, singing and blackening present, direction anteriomedially and backward. Wound of exit of gunshot three wounds of exit on the right side of back of chest, 13cm Below inferior angle of scapula four cm lateral to spine margins are averted in the area of 4 cm x 3 cm Five wounds of exit on left side of back of abdomen, 14 cm above the upper border of sacrum margins averted, diameter 0.5 cm each in the area of 6 cm x 4 cm.” 16. P.W. 5 S.B. Shukla Head Constable, P.S.Tilhar recorded the F.I.R., carved out the check report and entered the case in G.D. of concerned police station. The investigation was handed over to P.W. 6 Raj Bahadur Singh who has testified that he reached the place of occurrence on next day i.e. on 31.12.1981 on 10:30 am., recorded the statements of Saran Pal Singh(P.W.1), Janki Devi(P.W.2), Virendra Singh(P.W.3), Mahendra Singh and others, prepared inquest report and site plan. Recovered articles were sealed. Samples of blood stained and plain earth were taken. P.W. 7 Constable Nisar Ahmad, who has given link evidence, took the corpse of deceased Narbir Singh to the mortuary for autopsy. 17. We have carefully examined all available materials on record and heard counsel for rival parties. Prosecution claims that incident occurred on the peak of winter i.e. 30.12.1981 at about 5 pm. But the report was lodged on the next day i.e. 31.12.1981 at about 6:45 am. The only explanation given by prosecution is that fear of accused persons prevented them to lodge the F.I.R. immediately. The learned Trial Judge accepted this explanation. But the careful examination of prosecution evidence would reveal that there are significant discrepancies in the explanation of prosecution. There is no doubt that F.I.R. was lodged almost after 14 hours. To that extent there is no dispute about lodging the F.I.R. with considerable delay. The only question is whether there is a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for this delay or not. There is no explanation for this delay in the F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 itself. The F.I.R. simply says that informant stealthily went to police station in the night. To that extent there is no dispute about lodging the F.I.R. with considerable delay. The only question is whether there is a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for this delay or not. There is no explanation for this delay in the F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 itself. The F.I.R. simply says that informant stealthily went to police station in the night. Now this one line reference does not explain the reason for the fourteen hours delay in lodging the F.I.R. The F.I.R. as well as the prosecution evidence claim that as many as six persons were returning after performing their task of digging the well when they were accosted by appellants Karan Singh and Satypal Singh, their father Udhan Singh and appellant Rakesh Singh. They surfaced suddenly without any previous warning. Accused persons were armed with weapons, so it can be accepted that these six persons could not defend deceased Narbir Singh because they were not armed and that accused persons were able to slay deceased Narbir Singh because of sudden nature of attack and presence of fire-arm weapon. But evidence also suggests that after the assassination of deceased Narbir Singh all the accused persons left the place of occurrence and went to village. It is pertinent to point out that they did not attack any person other than deceased Narbir Singh. Obviously assailants only intended to finish Narbir Singh. After departure of accused persons, the distraught family members must have been stunned and shell shocked and spent some time in mourning. But even this presumptive shock and climate of fear cannot explain their conduct for next fourteen hours. The prosecution evidence suggests that all five persons sat on a place of occurrence near the dead body of deceased in complete darkness in winter of 30th December by building a bonfire. They did not have any water or food to eat. The Chaukidar of village Mahiyyapur admittedly lived merely ½ km. away from the place of occurrence. He was not contacted. They did not contact their own relative, namely, Jagannath. Police Station was not at a great distance. The distance between the place of occurrence and police station Tilhar was merely four miles which was ultimately traversed by informant early in the morning in complete darkness without any assistance. away from the place of occurrence. He was not contacted. They did not contact their own relative, namely, Jagannath. Police Station was not at a great distance. The distance between the place of occurrence and police station Tilhar was merely four miles which was ultimately traversed by informant early in the morning in complete darkness without any assistance. It is true that the cadaver of deceased had to be protected but there is no logical and satisfactory reason for all five persons to station themselves around the cadaver of Narbir Singh for almost 12-14 hours under the extreme cold night of 30-31.12.1981. 18. A vague explanation has been advanced by witnesses saying that they did not leave the place of occurrence because of fear of accused persons. This could be true but fact of the matter is that it is difficult to conceive that they remained frozen for almost 12-14 hours merely on account of fear of accused persons even after their departure at 5 pm. on 30.12.1981. In fact open place in the dark winter night of 30th December around corpse can be more frightening. 19. It is interesting to note that P.W. 3 Virendra Singh (son of deceased) has admitted that place of occurrence is merely 250 paces away from the village Abadi and the stated boring was merely 150 paces away from the place of occurrence. Meaning thereby that boring was hardly 400 paces away from the village Abadi, though this does not find support from the site plan (Ext. Ka-4) which indicates that place of boring was almost 300 paces away from the place of occurrence. Be that as it may, it is inconceivable that a 15 years old son, a widow and three other adult persons kept rooted to the place of occurrence in the extreme winter night for almost 14 hours without food and water. 20. P.W.2 Janki Devi, widow of deceased has conceded that apart from P.W. 3 Virendra Singh, she also had three more children. One child was three years old, another one was 9 years old and elder one was 12 years old. When she went to the place of boring with noon meals she had left the children at home. Though at one place she has said that her one child was playing with her. One child was three years old, another one was 9 years old and elder one was 12 years old. When she went to the place of boring with noon meals she had left the children at home. Though at one place she has said that her one child was playing with her. If this story is accepted it would mean that a minor child also remained present at the place of occurrence throughout the night in the extreme winter month without any food and water. It is unbelievable. Prosecution has given no details of this child either in F.I.R. or in the sworn testimony of other witnesses. In fact P.W. 3, Virendra Singh (son of deceased) has stated in Para-3 of his statement that he had three small brothers and one sister. Nobody has given any explanation about the whereabouts of these four minor children. It is pertinent to point out that P.W. 3 Virendra Singh himself was minor as he was almost 14 years at the time of incident. His evidence discloses the existence of four other siblings of much more tender age. We do not believe that P.W. 2 Janki Devi left her four minor children of tender ages at home and stayed throughout night just 250 paces away from her village with her elder son Virendra Singh and son-in-law Mahendra Singh. We believe that the presence of P.W.2 Janki Devi at the place of occurrence is highly suspicious. We also believe that the explanation for lodging the F.I.R. after 14 hours is not trustworthy. 21. We believe that at least village Chaukidar could have been contacted in the night. One person could have gone to inform either village Chaukidar or police or other relatives nearby. Surprisingly prosecution also says that throughout night no one came to the place of occurrence from village. P.W. 1 Saran Pal says that Village Chaukidar was not called in the night then he stated that Chaukidar was called and taken to Police station in the morning but P.W. 1 immediately resiled from this statement and said that he did not take village Chaukidar to the Police Station. P.W. 2 Janki Devi says that Chaukidar was called in the night by his son Virendra Singh (P.W.3) but did not come in the night. We believe that considerable delay and the discordant circumstances surrounding the F.I.R. are highly suspicious. 22. P.W. 2 Janki Devi says that Chaukidar was called in the night by his son Virendra Singh (P.W.3) but did not come in the night. We believe that considerable delay and the discordant circumstances surrounding the F.I.R. are highly suspicious. 22. The prosecution has also advanced specific motive for the crime in the F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) itself. The F.I.R. says that one Dhanpal a cousin brother of appellant Karan Singh was murdered. In that case deceased (Narbir Singh) was nominated as witness but Narbir Singh refused to give evidence and that resulted in the acquittal of accused persons in that case and that is why the appellants were unhappy, angry and bore enmity with deceased Narbir Singh. Now it is difficult to believe that murder case of Dhanpal, accused was acquitted merely because refusal of one witness to testify i.e. deceased Narbir Singh. The Trial Judge has noted the contents of F.I.R. dated 22.1.1981 lodged by appellant No. 1 Rakesh Singh, complainant in the murder case of Dhanpal. In that case one Ram Bharosey, Khushi Ram, Harihar Singh and Haldhar Singh were booked under Section 302/34 I.P.C. The Trial Judge has also noted that name of deceased Narbir Singh was not mentioned in that case as a witness. The F.I.R. of that case discloses that appellant No. 1 Rakesh Singh, one Jagannath Singh Pradhan and Mahesh were cited as prosecution witness in that case. 23. It is also pertinent to point out that accused persons in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. specifically denied that deceased Narbir Singh was cited as a witness in the murder case of Dhanpal. In fact appellant No. 1 Rakesh Singh has specifically asserted that he was complainant in the murder case of Dhanpal and deceased Narbir Singh was neither cited nor nominated as witness. Similar assertion has been made by other accused persons. Copy of F.I.R. in murder case of Dhanpal was brought on record. Name of deceased Narbir Singh is absent as a witness, meaning thereby that the acquittal of accused persons in Dhanpal’s murder case was not the result of refusal of deceased Narbir Singh to testify. Similar assertion has been made by other accused persons. Copy of F.I.R. in murder case of Dhanpal was brought on record. Name of deceased Narbir Singh is absent as a witness, meaning thereby that the acquittal of accused persons in Dhanpal’s murder case was not the result of refusal of deceased Narbir Singh to testify. It is also apparent that several persons, namely, Rakesh Singh, Jagannath Singh Pradhan and Mahesh were cited as witness so even if it is assumed that deceased Narbir Singh refused to testify in that case, it would be far fetched to believe that murder case of Dhanpal resulted in acquittal merely because deceased Narbir Singh refused to testify. If the appellants had no motive to assassinate deceased Narbir Singh, then the major plank of prosecution story would be demolished and absence of any motive coupled with considerable delay in lodging the F.I.R. would knock the bottom out of the prosecution case. 24. It is evident that conduct of complainant Saranpal Singh, widow Smt. Janki Devi and Virendra Singh, minor son of deceased in the wake of murder of deceased Narbir Singh is highly suspicious. P.W. 2 Janki Devi, widow of deceased Narbir Singh has stated that cadaver of deceased left the place of occurrence at about 4 pm. on 31.12.1981. This contention is contrary to the evidence of P.W. 1 complainant Saran Pal Singh. Inquest report itself says that dead body was sent to headquarter on 1 pm. P.W. 1 Saran Pal complainant has stated that Sub Inspector of the Police collected materials on the spot, prepared memo and thereafter complainant Saranpal Singh put his thumb impression on it. This disclosure can be found in para No. 4 of the deposition of the P.W.1 Saranpal Singh. Similarly, he has testified that he signed the inquest report Ext. Ka-6, indicating that it was prepared in his presence. The defence has disputed this contention saying that complainant Saranpal Singh was in fact not present on the date of occurrence. He is resident of a separate village Behta Pathak and he was called by widow of deceased Smt. Janki Deivi subsequent to the murder of Narbir Singh and thereafter a false case was cooked up against the appellants. This assertion finds support from the several discrepancies emerging from the prosecution evidence. He is resident of a separate village Behta Pathak and he was called by widow of deceased Smt. Janki Deivi subsequent to the murder of Narbir Singh and thereafter a false case was cooked up against the appellants. This assertion finds support from the several discrepancies emerging from the prosecution evidence. P.W.1 Saranpal Singh, complainant has made two claims in paras No. 4 and 11 of his testimony saying that he had signed the recovery memo and inquest report. The recovery memo (Ext. Ka-5) is available on record on which thumb impression of complainant Saranpal Singh has been shown but inquest report (Ext. Ka-6) does not indicate presence of complainant Saranpal Singh at all. It does not contain his thumb impression. He was not nominated in the inquest report as Panch. Interestingly, even in recovery memo (Ext. Ka-5) two witnesses, namely, Jagannath Singh Pradhan and Kanhai Singh have been shown as witnesses of alleged recovery. But at the end of the paper one thumb impression indicates that it had been put by complainant Saranpal Singh. This thumb impression does not necessarily indicate or establish that it was put at the time of preparation of the recovery memo for the simple reason that in the content of recovery memo refers only two witnesses, namely, Jagannath Singh Pradhan and Kanhai Lal as witnesses of recovery memo. As far as inquest report (Ext. Ka-6) is concerned it does not show any indication of presence of P.W. 1 Saranpal Singh despite his contrary claim. 25. Interestingly, widow Smt. Janki Devi, Mahendra Singh son-in-law, Virendra Singh, son etc. remained present near the dead body of deceased Narbir Singh for 12-14 hours in the night and yet their cloths were not stained with blood. At least no evidence of this stain has been placed on record. Surprisingly, deceased was not taken to the hospital subsequent to the attack. Once the deceased fell, it would have been the normal reaction of the family to either take the injured to the doctor or to bring some sort of medical assistance at the place of occurrence. No such attempt was made by the son, widow, son-in-law and nephew of deceased Narbir Singh. They calmly sat throughout the night with the cadaver of deceased. No such attempt was made by the son, widow, son-in-law and nephew of deceased Narbir Singh. They calmly sat throughout the night with the cadaver of deceased. The conduct of entire family in the wake of incident sound quite bizarre and unnatural especially of widow Janki Devi (P.W.2) who left her four small children without any support for more than 14-15 hours. The claim of appellants that the F.I.R. had not been registered even next morning of 31.12.1981 finds support from one strange admission of P.W.2 Janki Devi. In para No. 4 of her statement she admitted that she asked police to make Saranpal Singh as complainant as he was the most intelligent among all of them. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that had F.I.R. been in existence before the arrival of the Police, then this admission would not have been made by P.W. 2 Janki Devi. 26. But the most fatal weakness in the prosecution case is the medical report. The medical report and oral evidence are completely contrary to each other and this creates a biggest handicap as far as the credibility of prosecution case is concerned. 27. F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) says that four miscreants accosted deceased Narbir Singh. Appellant No. 3 Satypal Singh and late Udhan Singh were wielding lathies while Appellant No. 1 Rakesh Singh and appellant No. 2 Karan Singh were using fire-arm weapon. Appellant No. 4 Udhan Singh shouted and instigated other miscreants to assassinate Narbir Singh. Appellants Rakesh Singh and Karan Singh fired single shot each upon deceased Narbir Singh. Both fire hit Narbir Singh and thereafter all the four miscreants left the place of occurrence. This story has been reiterated by P.W. 1Saranpal Singh in his testimony. In para No. 2 of his testimony Saranpal Singh has again said that appellants Rakesh Singh and Karan Singh fired one shot each upon deceased Narbir Singh and both shots struck on his person. This story has been reiterated by P.W. 2 Janki Devi, widow of deceased. In para-1 of her evidence similar story has been given which was reiterated more specifically in para No. 4 of her testimony. Third eye-witness, namely, P.W. 3 Virendra Singh, minor son of deceased also claimed that his father sustained two fire-arm injuries each caused by appellants Rakesh Singh and Karan Singh separately. In para-1 of her evidence similar story has been given which was reiterated more specifically in para No. 4 of her testimony. Third eye-witness, namely, P.W. 3 Virendra Singh, minor son of deceased also claimed that his father sustained two fire-arm injuries each caused by appellants Rakesh Singh and Karan Singh separately. Now the persecution case and evidence clearly suggest that deceased Narbir Singh sustained two fire-arm injuries, each caused by appellants Rakesh Singh and Karan Singh separately. Unfortunately, this claim does not find support from the medical report (Ext. Ka-2) which only found one gunshot wound of entry and one gun shot wound of exit. This discrepancy was put to P.W.4 Dr. K.K. Srivastava. He wriggled out the problem by saying that only ballistic expert can explain this discrepancy. Unfortunately, no ballistic expert was produced. He later on tried to suggest that kind of injury found on the person of deceased could have been result of one shot or more. But he himself was not convinced of his vague explanation as is evident from his testimony. 28. Now the question is how the story of two shots surfaced. Learned counsel for appellants has drawn the attention of this Court towards para No. 12 of the statement of P.W. 1 Saranpal Singh wherein he has disclosed that when Sub Inspector examined the cadaver of deceased and said that deceased had sustained two fire-arm injuries. Condition of cadaver of deceased was such that the various pellet injuries probably gave impression of more injuries. This is evident from the testimony of P.W.4 Dr. K.K. Srivastava also. One gun shot wound of entry was found in his abdomen cavity on the chest below left nipple while nine small wounds were found in diameter of 18 cm. Their margins were inverted. It perhaps gave impression to the Sub Inspector that deceased had sustained two fire-arm injuries. 29. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that story of two fire-arm shots indicates that till this time F.I.R. was not in existence. Complainant Saranpal Singh (P.W.1) was also not present because he was called by Police from the village Behta Pathak to the village of deceased and thereafter with the help of police a false story was cooked up implicating the present appellants due to perceived enmity. 30. This claim of counsel for the appellants is not farfetched. Complainant Saranpal Singh (P.W.1) was also not present because he was called by Police from the village Behta Pathak to the village of deceased and thereafter with the help of police a false story was cooked up implicating the present appellants due to perceived enmity. 30. This claim of counsel for the appellants is not farfetched. The fact that P.W.1 Saranpal Singh does not belong to village is evident. His signatures were not obtained on inquest report. The discrepancies between his evidence and other witnesses is startling. If they all were present on the spot, there was no reason for existence of these significant discrepancies. The attempt of Police to go to the village and summon other person for inquest proceedings is also strange. Delay in postmortem has not been satisfactorily explained. We have no doubt that medical evidence is not consistent with the ocular evidence and that presence of witnesses on the spot is highly doubtful. Oral evidence of witnesses is inconsistent, contrary and unsatisfactory. We believe that neither P.W.1 Saranpal Singh nor P.W. 2 Janki Devi, widow of deceased and P.W. 3 Virendra, son of deceased were present at the time of incident. They had not witnessed the incident. We have absolutely no hesitation to hold that genesis of the case has certainly not been placed before the Court in the truthful manner. An attempt to concoct and manufacture evidence is palpable. We believe that the testimony of witnesses has to be discarded because of serious discrepancies which create serious doubt about their presence. We accordingly hold that appellants deserve benefit of doubt. 31. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment and order dated 23.4.1983 passed by the Special Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 1982 is hereby, set aside. The appeal is allowed. The surviving appellants, namely, Rakesh Singh, Karan Singh and Satypal Singh are acquitted. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. The appellants be released forthwith, if they are in custody and not wanted in any other case. 32. Let a copy of this order be certified to concerned Court through Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur within a fortnight for compliance. The Court concerned shall report the compliance within a month thereafter.