JUDGMENT : 1. From the perusal of the order sheet of this appeal, it transpires that Bachchi Lal Singh-A1, Suraja Singh-A5 and Raj Kishore Singh-A6, died during the pendency of this appeal and this appeal qua Bacchi Lal Singh-A1, Suraja Singh-A5 and Raj Kishore Singh-A6 was dismissed as abated on 13.3.2018. 2. The challenge to the impugned judgment and order in this appeal is now only on behalf of the surviving appellants Suraj Pal Singh-A2, Aqbal Singh-A3, Maiya Din-A4, Raj Karan Singh-A7 only. 3. Heard Sri Mukhtar Alam and Sri Prabhakar Dubey, learned counsel for Suraj Pal Singh-A2, Aqbal Singh-A3 and Maiya Din-A4, Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for Raj Karan Singh-A7, Ms. Manju Thakur, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record. 4. This appeal has been preferred by Bachchi Lal Singh-A1, Suraj Pal Singh-A2, Aqbal Singh-A3, Maiya Din-A4, Suraja Singh-A5, Raj Kishore Singh-A6 and Raj Karan Singh-A7 against the judgment and order dated 18.11.1986 passed by Special Additional Sessions Judge, Banda in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 1986, arising out of Case Crime No. 60 of 1985, P.S. Baberu, District-Banda under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/201 I.P.C. by which all the appellants were convicted and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C. imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. four years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 read with Section 149 I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 5. The brief facts of this case as alleged by the prosecution are that Kamal Singh son of Adhar Singh, resident of village-Jalalpur, P.S. Baberu, District-Banda, had lodged a written report of the occurrence (Ex. Ka-1) at P.S. Baberu on 19.3.1985 at 7 a.m. and thereby he had informed the Station Officer, Police Station, Baberu that accused Suraj Pal Singh-A2, Maiyadin-A4, Akbal Singh-A3, Raj Kishore Singh-A6, Raj Karan Singh-A7, Suraja Singh-A5 and Bachchi Lal-A1 were known to him from before. Visheshwar Singh had been murdered and in that case Gulab Singh, Raj Bahadur and Shiv Adhar Singh were the accused. Gulab Singh and Raj Bahadur Singh are the brothers of Kamal Singh, informant and Shiv Adhar Singh is his father. Visheshwar, deceased was the father-in-law of Bachchi Lal-A1. The informant and his father had been acquitted in that case. The accused are alleged to have committed the murder of Shiv Adhar Singh, father of informant Kamal Singh out of that animosity. 6. Visheshwar, deceased was the father-in-law of Bachchi Lal-A1. The informant and his father had been acquitted in that case. The accused are alleged to have committed the murder of Shiv Adhar Singh, father of informant Kamal Singh out of that animosity. 6. Accused Raj Karan Singh-A7 and Raj Kishore Singh-A6 are the sons of Chandrabhan. All the accused are co-laterals and are members of the same group and party. 7. On the 18th day of March, 1985 at about 5 p.m. the informant's father Shiv Adhar was coming from the Gaura Har. He was followed by the informant Kamal Singh, Indrajit, Chhatrapal, Ram Sharan and Buddhraj. Ram Sharan and Buddhraj were returning after harvesting. No sooner had his father Shiv Adhar Singh was at a distance of six paces from the drain on the road all the accused suddenly came out of the drain. Accused Suraj Pal Singh-A2, Raj Kishore Singh-A6 and Bachchi Lal-A1 were armed with guns, accused Akbal Singh-A3 and Suraja Singh-A5 were armed with pistols. Accused Maiyadin-A4 was armed with a spear (barchhi) and accused Raj Karan Singh-A7 was armed with a gandasa. On the exhortation of accused Raj Karan Singh-A7 and Maiyadin-A4 to kill Shiv Adhar Singh, all the accused fired at his father Shiv Adhar Singh, as a result of which he sustained fire arm injuries on his person and fell on the ground. They had raised an alarm. But the accused had dragged his father Shiv Adhar towards south and had taken him to the field of Dhola Chamar where Raj Karan Singh-A7 had chopped off the head of Shiv Adhar Singh with the gandasa with which he was armed. Thereafter, the accused fled. Since he could not make arrangements at night and, therefore, he could not go to the Police Station, Baberu for lodging a first information report of the occurrence. In the morning, he had scribed a written report of the occurrence (Ex. Ka-1) and had lodged it at Police Station, Baberu on 19.3.1985 at 7 a.m. Thereupon, a check report (Ex. Ka-16) was prepared by clerk constable Ganga Charan, then posted at Police Station, Baberu. He had noted the summary of the report in the general diary at G.D.R. No. 8 on 19.3.1985 at 7 a.m. and had registered a case against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/201 I.P.C. The extract from the general diary is Ex. Ka-17. 8. Ka-16) was prepared by clerk constable Ganga Charan, then posted at Police Station, Baberu. He had noted the summary of the report in the general diary at G.D.R. No. 8 on 19.3.1985 at 7 a.m. and had registered a case against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/201 I.P.C. The extract from the general diary is Ex. Ka-17. 8. The case was investigated by S.S.I. Sri Chandra Sen Mishra, then posted at Police Station, Baberu. The written report of the occurrence (Ex. Ka-1) was lodged at the Police Station, Baberu in his presence. He was entrusted with the investigation of this case on 19.3.1985 in the morning. He had started the investigation on 19.3.1985 at 8 a.m. He recorded the statement of informant Kamal Singh at the Police Station, Baberu. Thereafter, he had proceeded for the place of occurrence alongwith S.H.O. Sri Rama Shankar Singh and other members of the police force and had reached village, Jalalpur where the occurrence had taken place. He recorded the statements of PWs. Indrajit Singh, Chhatrapal Singh and Ram Sharan Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. at the place of occurrence. He then inspected the dead body of Shiv Adhar Singh, appointed panches, conducted the inquest on the dead body of Shiv Adhar Singh and had prepared the inquest report (Ex. Ka-3) and other related documents namely photo lash, challan lash, letter to C.M.O. and letter to R.I. (Exs. Ka-4 to Ka-7). He then got the dead body of the Shiv Adhar Singh wrapped and sealed in a cloth and prepared the specimen seal (Ex. Ka-8). He delivered the sealed dead body of Shiv Adhar Singh alongwith the specimen seal to constable No. 519, Ram Sewak, then posted at Police Station, Baberu and Home Guard No. 1801, Raspal Singh for autopsy who took the dead body of Shiv Adhar Singh, deceased alongwith the connected papers to Police Lines, Banda and after taking a letter from R.I. he took the dead body to Dr. Keshav Gupta, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Banda for autopsy. Dr. Keshav Gupta had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Shiv Adhar Singh on 20.3.1985 at 2.45 p.m. He had prepared the post-mortem examination report (Ex. Ka-2). 9. S.S.I. Sri Chandra Sen Mishra made a local inspection of the places of occurrence and had prepared site plan (Ex. Ka-9 and Ex. Ka-10). Dr. Keshav Gupta had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Shiv Adhar Singh on 20.3.1985 at 2.45 p.m. He had prepared the post-mortem examination report (Ex. Ka-2). 9. S.S.I. Sri Chandra Sen Mishra made a local inspection of the places of occurrence and had prepared site plan (Ex. Ka-9 and Ex. Ka-10). He took the plastic shoe of the deceased from the place of occurrence in the presence of PWs, Kunwar Singh and Manroop Singh, sealed it to on the spot and prepared its memo (Ex. Ka-11). He also collected blood stained and simple earth from the two places of occurrence in the presence of PWs, Kunwar Singh and Manroop Singh, kept it in two separate containers, sealed them on the spot and prepared memos (Exs. Ka-12 and Ka-13). He had also recovered four empty cartridges of 12 bore from the spot in the presence of PWs, Kunwar Singh and Manroop Singh, had sealed the same and had prepared its memo (Ex. Ka-14). He had searched the houses of accused Chandrapal and Suraj Pal but the accused could not be traced. On 20.3.1985, he had searched the houses of Shiv Baran Singh and Hori Lal Singh but the accused were neither traceable nor any incriminating articles were recovered from their house. On 22.3.1985 he had arrested accused Suraja Singh-A5 at the tri-junction of the roads in Mohalla Kazi Tola, while he was coming from Augasi Ghat side. The remaining accused had surrendered in Court. He had recorded their statements on 10.4.1985 in District Jail, Banda. After completing the investigation he had submitted a charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-15) against the accused on 26.4.1985. 10. The accused upon being charge-sheeted were committed for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Banda, where the case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 32 of 1986, State vs. Surajpal Singh and Others and made over from there for trial to the Court of Special and Additional Sessions Judge, Banda who charged the accused-appellants under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/149 and 201 I.P.C. The accused abjured the charge and claimed the trial. 11. 11. The prosecution in order to prove the charges framed against the accused examined as many as six witnesses out of whom, PW-1, Kamal Singh, informant and son of the deceased, PW-2, Chhatrapal Singh, nephew of the deceased, PW-3, Indrajit Singh, brother of the deceased were examined as eye-witnesses of the occurrence while PW-4, Dr. Keshav Gupta, who had conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased, Shiv Adhar Singh and prepared his postmortem report (Ex. Ka-2), PW-5, Chandra Sen Mishra, the investigating officer of the case and PW-6, Home Guard No. 1801, Raspal who was given the custody of the dead body of Shiv Adhar Singh by the Investigating Officer after the inquest proceeding was over for delivering it to the mortuary for post-mortem examination, were produced as formal witnesses. 12. The accused in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. alleged false implication due to previous enmity and pleaded not guilty. Suraj Pal Singh-A2 further stated that one Visheshwar Singh had been murdered and Raj Bahadur Singh and Gulab Singh who were real brothers of PW-1, Kamal Singh were accused in that case. Raj Kishore Singh-A6 and Akbal Singh-A3 had deposed against them, as a result of which they were convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment. On account of the aforesaid, the accused were falsely implicated in the instant case. 13. Learned Special and Additional Sessions Judge, Banda after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and appraising the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, convicted all the accused-appellants and awarded aforesaid sentences to them. 14. Hence this appeal. 15. 13. Learned Special and Additional Sessions Judge, Banda after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and appraising the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, convicted all the accused-appellants and awarded aforesaid sentences to them. 14. Hence this appeal. 15. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that inordinate delay of about 10 hours in the lodging of the F.I.R. which has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution is in itself an indication of the fact that none of the so called witnesses had seen the incident and after the dead body of Shiv Adhar Singh was found, a false report of the incident containing a concocted and fabricated prosecution story, falsely implicating the appellants due to previous enmity was prepared after due deliberations and consultations with the police and hence no reliance can be placed upon it and the recorded conviction of the appellants on the basis of the prosecution story as spelt out in the F.I.R. credibility whereof itself is under a heavy cloud cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. He next submitted that the failure of the first informant to state in the written report of the occurrence, the extremely material fact that accused after committing the murder of his father and chopping off his head had also removed all his clothes, leaving the body naked, had fled with the clothes as well as the head of his father totally belies the claim of PW-1 of being an eye-witness of the incident. Even the most superficial reading of the evidence of the three so-called witnesses examined by the prosecution during the trial, clearly indicates that they are planted and tutored and hence unworthy of any reliance. Even the most superficial reading of the evidence of the three so-called witnesses examined by the prosecution during the trial, clearly indicates that they are planted and tutored and hence unworthy of any reliance. He also submitted that unexplained and inordinate delay of almost 27 hours in handing over the dead body of the deceased to the doctor by PW-6, Raspal who had been given the dead body by the Investigating Officer after the conclusion of inquest proceedings at 11 a.m. on 19.3.1985 and the failure of PW-5, Sri Chandra Sen Mishra, the Investigating Officer of the case to state the number of the pages into which the F.I.R. of the incident ran in the inquest report and coupled with the fact that the special report was not forwarded to the superior officers within a reasonable time gives rise to a very strong suspicion that at the time of inquest the F.I.R. was not in existence and that F.I.R. in this case is ante timed. He next submitted that there is a material contradiction between the evidence of the eye-witnesses with regard to the place of incident as described by them in their statements vis-a-vis the site plan which puts a big question mark against their claim of being the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that neither the crime weapons nor any other incriminating material was recovered either from the possession of the appellants or at the place of the occurrence. The blood stained and simple earth recovered from the place of incident by PW-5, Chandra Sen Mishra were not sent for forensic examination. He lastly submitted that such being state of evidence neither the recorded conviction of the appellants nor the sentences awarded to them can be sustained as it is apparent that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. 16. Ms. Manju Thakur learned AGA-I, appearing for the State has submitted that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. as well as in the handing over the dead body of the deceased by PW-6, constable Raspal to PW-4, Dr. Keshav Gupta for conducting post-mortem examination has been satisfactorily explained by PW-1 as well as by PW-6, Raspal. 16. Ms. Manju Thakur learned AGA-I, appearing for the State has submitted that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. as well as in the handing over the dead body of the deceased by PW-6, constable Raspal to PW-4, Dr. Keshav Gupta for conducting post-mortem examination has been satisfactorily explained by PW-1 as well as by PW-6, Raspal. She next submitted that it is proved from the evidence of three eye-witnesses of the occurrence, whose evidence has throughout remained consistent, clinching and impeachable that the murder of the Shiv Adhar Singh was committed by the appellants in pursuance of a common object and after killing him they had chopped off his head and fled with the same and that could never be recovered. She also submitted that the F.I.R. is not ante timed. The failure of the first informant, PW-1, Kamal Singh to mention in the F.I.R. that the accused-appellants after committing the murder of his father had striped him off his clothes is not so material omission so as to discard the entire prosecution story as untrustworthy and unreliable. This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 17. We have very carefully considered the submissions advanced before us by the counsel for the parties and perused the entire lower Court record. 18. Record of this appeal shows that incident had taken place on 18.3.1985 at about 5 p.m. near a culvert on a kachha road which bisected the agricultural fields of Dhola Chamar. It is alleged by the prosecution that deceased Shiv Adhar Singh was shot dead by Bachchi Lal-A1, Suraj Pal Singh-A2, Raj Kishore Singh-A6, Akbal Singh-A3 and Suraja Singh-A5 who were carrying fire arms with them. After shooting Shiv Adhar Singh, it is alleged that Raj Karan Singh-A7 who was armed with a gandasa had chopped off the head of Shiv Adhar Singh and thereafter all the accused-appellants had dragged the dead body of Shiv Adhar Singh to the field of Dhola Chamar and fled thereafter leaving the headless dead body behind. The incident is said to have been witnessed by PW-1, Kamal Singh, PW-2, Chhatrapal, PW-3, Indrajit Singh, apart from large number of other persons. 19. Record further shows that all the three eye-witnesses had stayed back at the place of occurrence with the dead body of Shiv Adhar Singh for the whole night. The incident is said to have been witnessed by PW-1, Kamal Singh, PW-2, Chhatrapal, PW-3, Indrajit Singh, apart from large number of other persons. 19. Record further shows that all the three eye-witnesses had stayed back at the place of occurrence with the dead body of Shiv Adhar Singh for the whole night. As deposed by PW-1, informant Kamal Singh in his examination-in-chief the written report of the incident was scribed by him at the place of incident itself, from where in the morning at about 5 a.m. he had gone to the police station on his bicycle. The written report (Ex. Ka-1) was given by him at Police Station, Baberu on 19.3.1985 at about 7 a.m. on the basis of which, Case Crime No. 60 of 1985, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/201 I.P.C. was registered against all the accused-appellants. The Investigating Officer, PW-5, Chandra Sen Mishra reached the place of occurrence at about 9 a.m. on the same day and after holding the inquest proceeding, he got the dead body sealed and dispatched to the mortuary through PW-6, Raspal at about 11 a.m. on the same day but the dead body was received by PW-4, Dr. Keshav Gupta on 20.3.1985 at about 2.45 p.m. The inquest report of the deceased (Ex. Ka- 3) prepared by PW-5, Chandra Sen Mishra shows that the number of pages into which the F.I.R. ran has not been mentioned. 20. As already noted, the prosecution in order to prove its case had examined as many as six witnesses. We first proceed to evaluate the evidence of formal witnesses. 21. PW-4, Dr. Keshav Gupta, who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Shiv Adhar Singh on 20.3.1985 at 2.45 p.m. had prepared his post-mortem report and proved the same as Ex. Ka-2, during the trial deposed that he had found as many as seven ante mortem injuries and three post-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased as follows: "1. Gunshot wound of entry 4 cms. x 4 cms. on the left side front of abdomen 6 cms. below and lateral from umbilicus on left side at 5 o'clock position. Margins are inverted. Loops of the intestines are coming out from the wound. 2. Gunshot wound of exit 5 cms. x 5 cms. on the right side back of the abdomen 1 cm. above from upper border of right side of hip bone. below and lateral from umbilicus on left side at 5 o'clock position. Margins are inverted. Loops of the intestines are coming out from the wound. 2. Gunshot wound of exit 5 cms. x 5 cms. on the right side back of the abdomen 1 cm. above from upper border of right side of hip bone. Margins are everted. Direction front to backward and upward from left to right side. Small and large intestine perforated. Faecal matter is present in the abdominal cavity. Gall blader is badly damaged and ruptured. Liver right lobe through and through. Right kidney ruptured and damaged descending aorter perforated. 3. Gunshot wound of entry 12 x 5 cms. x muscle deep on the front of left thigh 10 cms. above from left knee joint. 4. Gunshot wound of exit 17 x 7 cms. x muscle deep on the medial side of left thigh 4 cms. above from left peplitual fossa. Direction upward and downward and inward. 5. Abrasion 59 cms. x 30 cms. all over the back of chest abdomen and both the buttock. 6. Abrasion 21 x 8 cms. at back of right upper arm. 7. Abrasion 22 cms. x 6 cms. at the back of left upper arm. Post-mortem Injuries. 1. Incised wound (amputation) 31 cms. in circumference. Margins are clear cut at the level of six cervical vertebrae cut and of content at the root neck are present. Direction from left to right. 2. Incised wound 3 cms. x 3 cms. x muscle deep present at the top of right shoulder. 3. Abrasion 21 cms. x 13 cms. on the anterio lateral aspect of the right side of the chest just below of the right nipple. According to Dr. Keshav Gupta, the death of Shiv Adhar, deceased was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries." He also deposed that when he had started the post-mortem, he had noticed that dead body of Shiv Adhar Singh was speared with barchchi. According to him the deceased had died approximately about two days before the date on which the post-mortem on his dead body was conducted. With regard to the deceased's stomach and its contents, he deposed and also noted the same in the post-mortem report that potato and kacha channa (green pea), approximately 200 grams was present undigested in the stomach. 22. With regard to the deceased's stomach and its contents, he deposed and also noted the same in the post-mortem report that potato and kacha channa (green pea), approximately 200 grams was present undigested in the stomach. 22. PW-5, S.I. Chandra Sen Mishra who had investigated the matter in his evidence tendered before the Trial Court narrated the different steps taken by him during the course of the investigation. He deposed that F.I.R. of the case was registered in his presence on 19.3.1985 at about 8 a.m., at that time the informant, Kamal Singh was present in the police station and he had recorded his statement. Thereafter, he alongwith S.H.O. Ram Shankar Singh and other police men had left for the place of occurrence in village-Jalalpur. After recording the statements of the witnesses present there, he had conducted inquest on the body of deceased, Shiv Adhar Singh and prepared the inquest report (Ex. Ka. 3) and other related documents, letter addressed to C.M.O. letter addressed to R.I. Challan nash and photo nash (Ex. Ka-4 to Ex. Ka-7). Thereafter, he had wrapped the dead body in a cloth, sealed the same, prepared the specimen seal (Ex. Ka-8) and had then dispatched it to the mortuary through Constable No. 519, Ram Sewak and Home Guard No. 1801. Raspal Singh, PW-6. He then inspected the place where the incident had taken place as well as the place from where the headless body of Shiv Adhar Singh was recovered and prepared site plans (Ex. Ka-9 and Ex. Ka-10). He also collected a pair of plastic slippers belonging to the deceased and prepared its recovery memo (Ex. Ka-11). He had also collected blood stained and simple earth from the place of occurrence and after sealing the same separately prepared the recovery memo of the aforesaid articles (Ex. Ka-12 and Ex. Ka-13). He had also recovered four cartridges of 12 bore and prepared their recovery memo (Ex. Ka-14). He had also deposed that the search of the house of the accused-appellants had not led to recovery of any incriminating article. He had arrested Suraja Singh-A5 on 22.3.1985 at about 5 p.m. from kaji tola while he was going somewhere. After completing the investigation, he had submitted charge-sheet against all the accused-appellants (Ex. Ka- 15). He also proved the Check F.I.R. and the relevant G.D. entries as Ex. Ka-16 and Ex. Ka-17. He had arrested Suraja Singh-A5 on 22.3.1985 at about 5 p.m. from kaji tola while he was going somewhere. After completing the investigation, he had submitted charge-sheet against all the accused-appellants (Ex. Ka- 15). He also proved the Check F.I.R. and the relevant G.D. entries as Ex. Ka-16 and Ex. Ka-17. In his cross-examination on page 63 of the paper-book, he deposed that he had failed to mention the number of the pages of the F.I.R. and the G.D. entry in the Panchayatnama due to an inadvertent mistake. On page 65 of the paper-book, on the suggestion given to him by the defence counsel that the special report of the incident was not sent promptly, he stated then that the special report was sent to the CO. on 20.3.1985 and was received back on 23.3.1985, however, he submitted on the same page that the G.D. entries with regard to the dispatching of the special report as well as its return from the CO. were made on the same day i.e. 23.3.1985. 23. PW-6, Home Guard, Raspal Singh who had delivered the body of Shiv Adar Singh to PW-4, Dr. Keshav Gupta for post-mortem examination, stated in his examination-in-chief that he had received the sealed dead body on 19.3.1985 at about 11 a.m. from the Investigating Officer for taking it for post-mortem examination. He had gone to the police line with the dead body and other relevant papers. Thereafter, he went to the mortuary with the letter and handed it over to the doctor. So long as the dead body was in his custody, no one has touched it. After the conclusion of the post-mortem examination, doctor had given to him the post-mortem report and other papers. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion given to him that the F.I.R. of the incident was prepared after the inquest proceedings had concluded. He further deposed in his cross-examination that he had taken the dead body by a bullock cart upto Baberu, from Baberu the dead body was taken to Banda by truck. Since it had become dark when he reached Baberu, he had stayed over night at Baberu but he had not gone to the police station. In the morning, he took the dead body to Banda. Since it had become dark when he reached Baberu, he had stayed over night at Baberu but he had not gone to the police station. In the morning, he took the dead body to Banda. He reached Banda at 10 a.m. He denied the suggestion given to him that he had stayed with the dead body throughout the night in Baberu waiting for the relevant papers to get prepared and handed over to him. 24. Thus, medical evidence on record substantially supports the ocular version vis-a-vis the manner of the assault as described in the F.I.R. But after going through the statements of PW-5, Chandra Sen Mishra and PW-6, Raspal, we do not find that neither of them have been able to give any satisfactory explanation for an inordinate delay of almost 27 hours on their part in delivering the dead body to the doctor for postmortem examination. The explanation given by PW-5, Chandra Sen Mishra for his failure to mention the number of pages of the G.D. entry and the F.I.R. in the inquest report further appears to us to a very unsatisfactory and not at all convincing. As the F.I.R. in this case had come into existence at the time of the inquest then there was no reason why the Investigating Officer would not have mentioned the number of pages of the F.I.R. and the G.D. entry in the inquest report, if the aforesaid papers had come into existence at the time of the incident. 25. Although it is proved from the evidence of PW-4, Dr. Keshav Gupta that the deceased had died as a result of the ante mortem fire arm wounds found on his body and after he had died, his head was chopped off from his body but the question which arises before us is that whether the appellants are actually authors of the ante mortem and the post-mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution had examined PW-1, informant Kamal Singh, PW-2, Chhatrapal, PW-3, Indrajit Singh, son, nephew and real brother of the deceased as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution had examined PW-1, informant Kamal Singh, PW-2, Chhatrapal, PW-3, Indrajit Singh, son, nephew and real brother of the deceased as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. PW-1, informant, Kamal Singh in his examination-in-chief has supported the prosecution case as spelt out in the F.I.R. PW-2, Chhatrapal Singh and PW-3, Indrajit Singh have also corroborated the evidence of PW-1, Kamal Singh in all material particulars pertaining to the incident namely the time, place, manner of assault and the identity of the perpetrators of the crime. At first glance, after going through their testimonies, it appears to us that their evidence is cogent and they have given a correct description of the case but upon taking note of the failure of PW-1, Kamal Singh to mention in the F.I.R. that after committing the murder of his father Shiv Adhar Singh, the accused had stripped him off all his clothes, although, he had deposed that from the time of the incident, which had taken place at 5 p.m. and till the next morning at 5 a.m. when he had left for the police station to lodge the F.I.R. he had remained with dead-body at the place of occurrence with other two witnesses, it appears he had not seen the occurrence. In his cross-examination, he had tried to give an explanation for the aforesaid omission by deposing, on page 32 of the paper-book that at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. he had not noticed that there were no clothes on the dead body of his father, which to us appears to be totally childish and unbelievable. Although, in his cross-examination, he had stated that when he had returned to the place of incident with Manohar, the body of his father was covered with a safi but neither PW-1 nor the other two eye-witnesses of the occurrence have been able to explain how and by whom the dead body of the deceased came to be covered by a safi. The failure of PW-1 to state in the F.I.R. that the accused-appellants had striped off his father of all his clothes and left him stark naked after committing his murder and chopping off his head is a glaring omission which totally belies his claim of being eye-witness of the occurrence. The failure of PW-1 to state in the F.I.R. that the accused-appellants had striped off his father of all his clothes and left him stark naked after committing his murder and chopping off his head is a glaring omission which totally belies his claim of being eye-witness of the occurrence. No son who has witnessed the gruesome murder of his father followed by chopping off his head and striping him of all his clothes would omit to mention in the F.I.R. the fact regarding striping off his father in the F.I.R. and attribute to the aforesaid omission to inadvertent mistake, his failure to notice that the dead body of his father was naked although, he had remained with it throughout the night, an explanation which no prudent person will accept. 26. Now coming to the testimony of PW-2, he in his cross-examination on page 40 of the paper-book has deposed that deceased had gone to his field alone while PW-1, Kamal Singh in his examination on Page 27 of the paper-book stated that his father had left for the field with him and the other witnesses. Moreover, although PW-2, in his examination-in- chief has stated that at the time of the incident Buddhraj and Ram Sharan were behind him but neither PW-1 nor PW-3 have deposed about their presence at the time and place of occurrence. The presence of undigested channa (green pea) and potato in the stomach of the deceased as noted by the PW-4, Dr. Keshav Gupta clearly belies the time of death as stated in the F.I.R. in view of the admitted case of the prosecution that deceased had eaten green pea and aalu at about 11 a.m. In case the deceased had eaten green pea and potato at 11 a.m. then his stomach contents should not have indicated presence of undigested food. Thus, from the perusal of the medical evidence, it appears that the deceased had died much before 5 p.m. and since nobody had seen the occurrence the first informant after the discovery of the dead body had given 5 p.m. as the time of the incident with the sole object of justifying his presence and other witnesses at the time of occurrence. 27. In view of foregoing discussion, we do not find the three witnesses of facts are either reliable or trustworthy. 27. In view of foregoing discussion, we do not find the three witnesses of facts are either reliable or trustworthy. From the facts stated by PW-2, Chhatrapal Singh and PW-3, Indrajit Singh, in their cross-examination, it transpires that none of them hold any field in village-Jalapur where the incident had taken place and they were also not aware of the topography of place of incident and hence, their presence at the place of occurrence at the time of incident is extremely doubtful and it appears they are planted and tutored witnesses who have given false evidence against the appellants on account of their being close relatives of the informant and the deceased to suit the prosecution version. 28. Now coming to the last submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging of the F.I.R. has deprived the F.I.R. of the advantage spontaneity and the possibility of the version set forth in the F.I.R. being colored cannot be ruled out. The explanation which has been given by PW-1 in the F.I.R. as also in his evidence for delay in lodging the F.I.R. is that since it was night and there was no transport available, he could not go to the police station till the morning. The explanation is false on the face of it. The incident had taken place at 5 p.m. on 18.3.1985. By no stretch of imagination, it can be believed that it would be dark at the time of the incident. In fact, the aforesaid piece of testimony of PW-1 suggests that dead body was recovered late in the night and accordingly F.I.R. was lodged in the morning. We find that the explanation given by PW-1 for the inordinate delay of almost 14 hours in lodging the F.I.R. is wholly unsatisfactory and fabricated and hence it would not be safe to maintain the conviction of the appellants on the basis of the prosecution story as spelt out in an F.I.R. credibility whereof stands shattered. 29. As regards the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that F.I.R. is ante timed, the same also appears to have force also. 30. 29. As regards the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that F.I.R. is ante timed, the same also appears to have force also. 30. In a case under an identical situation, the Apex Court in Jagdish Murav vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2006 (3) ACR 2726 (SC) has in Para 12 observed as hereunder: "............FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. With a view to determine whether the FIR was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the Courts generally look for certain external checks. One of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the local Magistrate. If this report is received by the Magistrate late it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in despatching or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate. Prosecution has led no evidence at all in this behalf. The second external check equally important is the sending of the copy of the FIR alongwith the dead body and its reference in the inquest report. Even though the inquest report, prepared under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the prosecution case, the details of the FIR and the gist of statements recorded during inquest proceedings get reflected in the report. Even though the inquest report, prepared under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the prosecution case, the details of the FIR and the gist of statements recorded during inquest proceedings get reflected in the report. The absence of those details is indicative of the fact that the prosecution story was still in an embryo state and had not been given any shape and that the FIR came to be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and was then ante-timed to give it the colour of a promptly lodged FIR. In our opinion, on account of the infirmities as noticed above, the FIR has lost its value and authenticity and it appears to us that the same has been ante-timed and had not been recorded till the inquest proceedings were over at the spot by PW-8." 31. Testing the evidence on record on the touchstone of the principles enunciated hereinabove for ascertaining whether F.I.R. in this case is ante-timed, we find that neither the special report was sent by the Investigating Officer or the constable/moharir promptly to the CO. nor the original F.I.R. accompanied the dead body when it was dispatched for post-mortem examination. The deposition made by PW-6 that the special report was sent on 20.3.1985 and received back on 23.3.1985 but both the entries regarding the dispatch of the special report and its receipt were made on the same day i.e. on 23.3.1985 creates a doubt about the credibility of the prosecution claim that special report was sent on 20.3.1985. The total inability of the prosecution to furnish any plausible explanation for the inordinate delay of 24 hours in delivering the body of the deceased by PW-6, constable Raspal to PW-4, Dr. Keshav Gupta which was given to him by the Investigating Officer on 19.3.1985 at 11:00 a.m. for postmortem examination gives rise to only inference that is the F.I.R. had not come into existence either at the time of the inquest or till the morning of 20.3.1985. Hence, we hold that the F.I.R. in this is ante-timed. 32. Keshav Gupta which was given to him by the Investigating Officer on 19.3.1985 at 11:00 a.m. for postmortem examination gives rise to only inference that is the F.I.R. had not come into existence either at the time of the inquest or till the morning of 20.3.1985. Hence, we hold that the F.I.R. in this is ante-timed. 32. Thus, upon a wholesome consideration of the facts of the case, the attending circumstances and evidence on record, we have no hesitation in holding that none of the so-called eyewitnesses of the incident had seen the occurrence and the possibility of false implication of the accused-appellants by PW-1, Kamal Singh in the present case cannot be ruled out on account of previous enmity between him and accused-appellant, Bachchi Lal, A-1 emanating from the fact that PW-1, Kamal Singh, his father Shiv Adhar Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh and Gulab Singh were tried for the murder of one Visheshwar Singh, who was the father-in-law of deceased, Bachchi Lal-A 1 who was closely related to other accused-appellants and although PW-1, Kamal Singh and his father were acquitted in the trial but Gulab Singh and Raj Bahadur Singh, his real brothers were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, as deposed by PW-1, Kamal Singh in his examination-in- chief. 33. We find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the surviving appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. 34. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and orders is hereby set aside. The surviving appellants Suraj Pal Singh-A2, Aqbal Singh-A3, Maiya Din-A4, Raj Karan Singh-A7 are acquitted of all the charges. 35. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. However, they shall comply with mandatory requirements of provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. within three weeks from today. 36. There shall be however no order as to costs.