ORDER : 1. By the judgment impugned dated 21st March, 1983 in Sessions Trial No. 185 of 1982, learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad convicted the accused-appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence to undergo imprisonment for life term. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is before us. 2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded in the judgment impugned is that on 22nd December, 1980, a criminal case was registered at Police Station Colonelganj, District Allahabad at the instance of Sri Devendera Nautiyal (PW1) son of the deceased. The contents of the first information report submitted by Sri Devendra Nautiyal are as follows:- "This is humbly requested that my father was posted as Chief Personnel (P.T.) in B.P.C.L. Naini who use to travel to factory (P.T.) from house no. 420 Mumfordganj. Shri Ram Chandra Saroj, who was Casual Labour of B.P.C.L., came to my house on 21.12.1980 at 9 am and said my father "Sir, my family is starving now. Please get me reinstated in my job revoking my termination". On this, my father said "Look! I cannot do anything now". On this, Ramchandra Saroj left saying "Fine, now if you cannot do anything, I will". Today at 6.30 o'clock, I my brother Brijendra Nautiyal had come to meet me. Shri Arvind Hatwal and Mukesh were talking to each other facing the road sitting in verandah in front of main entrance. Street light and light of verandah were on. Then only, just as my father lifted latch of the gate coming there, Ramchandra Saroj and another person, whom I do not know but I can identify on face to face, came there and Ramchandra Saroj exhorted "Nautiyal Saab, you didn't do my work, today I will kill you" and he shot fire at my father's neck and back. Having seen my father fallen on ground, when we and many others of mohalla rushed to catch Ramchandra Saroj and his men, companion of Ramchandra Saroj threw two bombs on us in front of Kamal Bhandar. Taking advantage of its smoke and the fear of the sound of the bomb, both of them fled. On being asked by Shri Surendra Kumar Srivastava r/o house no. 339 Mumfordganj, my father told to Surendra Kumar Srivastava along with Shri Surya Kumar Sarvaiya r/o 338 Mumfordganj and Dr. Taking advantage of its smoke and the fear of the sound of the bomb, both of them fled. On being asked by Shri Surendra Kumar Srivastava r/o house no. 339 Mumfordganj, my father told to Surendra Kumar Srivastava along with Shri Surya Kumar Sarvaiya r/o 338 Mumfordganj and Dr. S.N. Gupta and Shri R.P.S. Seth that Ramchandra Saroj attacked him on not revoking his termination. After this, Shri Surendra Kumar Srivastava took my father to hospital in car. 20 days earlier also, Shri Ramchandra Saroj had come to father with a request to revoke his termination. Here, I inform you. Please take proper action on it." ..(Authorized translation) 3. On basis of the facts informed, the investigating agency initiated investigation against accused Ram Chandra Saroj for commission of an offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. During course of the investigation, the corpus of deceased Naresh Chandra Nautiyal was subjected to an autopsy. The autopsy was conducted by Dr. B.B. Sahai (PW4). As per the prosecution, on having disclosure from the accused, a pistol was recovered and that was sent for its examination to the ballistic expert. The empty cartridges lying at the spot of occurrence too were recovered and the same were also forwarded for their examination to the ballistic expert. Suffice to state while making recovery of the pistol, certain live cartridges too were found and those were also sent to the ballistic expert. 4. After completing the investigation, a police report was filed before the court competent and the case being triable by sessions court was committed to it. Learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad transferred the matter to learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad to proceed further. On 31st August, 1982, learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad framed a charge against the accused-appellant for commission of an offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and on pleading not guilty the trial commenced, as desired. 5. The prosecution supported its case with the aid of 11 witnesses out of whom Sri Devendra Nautiyal (PW1) and Sri Bijendra Nautiyal (PW2) were cited as eye-witnesses. With the aid of the evidence of Sri Surendra Kumar Srivastava (PW3), Dr. B.B. Sahai (PW4), Sri B. Rai (PW5), Sri Ram Babu (PW9) and Sri Jagdish Singh (PW10), Investigating Officer. The prosecution supported its case to strengthen version of the facts narrated by the eye-witnesses. With the aid of the evidence of Sri Surendra Kumar Srivastava (PW3), Dr. B.B. Sahai (PW4), Sri B. Rai (PW5), Sri Ram Babu (PW9) and Sri Jagdish Singh (PW10), Investigating Officer. The prosecution supported its case to strengthen version of the facts narrated by the eye-witnesses. Opportunity was given to the accused-appellant Ram Chandra Saroj to explain all the adverse and incriminating circumstances existing in the prosecution evidence against him. In general, the accused termed the entire evidence false, concocted and intentional to implicate him in a criminal case of serious nature. The accused tendered an explanation in the terms that he was terminated from service of the BPCL on 7th August, 1979. An application was submitted by him in the Department of Labour but no agreement arrived therein despite conciliation proceedings. A reference of the dispute was accordingly made by the appropriate government to the Labour Court, Allahabad. Sri Naresh Chandra Nautiyal supplied him an order of appointment but that was only for appointment on temporary basis. He desired for permanent appointment as he was working on permanent basis at the time of termination. When he went to join services, it was conveyed to him that in a petition for writ preferred by the Company (employer) an interim order has been passed by the High Court. Naresh Chandra Nautiyal and other Officers of BPCL implicated him in a case for no reason. Before arresting him for the same offence one Hari Shankar Rai was brought to the police station but was subsequently released. 6. The testimony of Sri Shiv Ram Verma, Dr. Vikas Sharma and Sri Lalit Kumar Singh was examined by the trial court in defence advanced by the accused. 7. After completing the evidence, trial court heard the arguments and after considering the entire material available on record held the accused-appellant guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentence him accordingly. 8. In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the eye-witness Devendra Nautiyal (PW1) and Bijendra Nautiyal (PW2) are not the eye-witnesses and they have been planted by the investigating agency to provide strength to the prosecution case but several contradictions existing in the evidence adduced by them, hence their testimony deserves to be disbelieved two eye-witnesses. It is further submitted that the circumstantial evidence on which learned trial court has relied upon too does not indicate only one conclusion about involvement of the accused in the crime in question and as such a reasonable doubt exists to believe the prosecution story in entirety. 9. Per contra, as per learned Additional Government Advocate, the evidence adduced by the eye-witnesses is cogent and that does not suffer from any such contradiction that may sufficient to throw that in entirety. The evidence adduced by the eye-witnesses is sufficiently corroborated by other evidence available on record. During course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State urged that even if the evidence adduced by the eyewitnesses be ignored, the circumstantial evidence is enough to held the accused-appellant guilty. 10. Heard learned counsels, scanned the entire record and considered the arguments advanced. 11. The case of the prosecution is that on 22nd December, 1980 at about 6.30 pm when one Sri Naresh Chandra Nautiyal was opening latch of the gate of his house, accused Ram Chandra Saroj along with an unknown person came there and fired at the back of deceased Naresh Chandra Nautiyal. At that time, eyewitnesses Devendra Nautiyal (PW1) and Bijendra Nautiyal (PW2) were sitting along with their two friends, namely, Arvind Hatwal and Mukesh Sharma in verandah of the house. All the four persons chased the accused Ram Chandra Saroj and his companion but due to the smoke existing on account of a bomb blast thrown by the accused, they failed to fetch them. In the meanwhile, Sri Surendra Kumar Srivastava (PW3), Surya Kumar Sarvariya, Dr. S.N. Gupta and Sri R.P.S. Seth arrived at the spot of occurrence and injured Naresh Chandra Nautiyal was taken to the hospital. At the hospital, Sri Naresh Chandra Nautiyal died at about 10.00 pm. The autopsy on the corpus of the deceased was conducted at 1.00 pm on 23rd December, 1980. As per the post mortem report, the deceased had nine entry points of pellets and the cause of death was internal haemorrhage and shock as a result of gun shot injury. Prior to that, the Investigating Officer prepared an inquest at the spot of occurrence. During course of the investigation, a coat said to be worn by deceased Sri Naresh Chandra Nautiyal was shown to the Investigating Officer by Devendra Nautiyal. Prior to that, the Investigating Officer prepared an inquest at the spot of occurrence. During course of the investigation, a coat said to be worn by deceased Sri Naresh Chandra Nautiyal was shown to the Investigating Officer by Devendra Nautiyal. The coat was having nine holes at its back which occurred due to the firearm shot given by accused Ram Chandra Saroj. The coat was not seized and was handed over to Sri Devendra Nautiyal. 12. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to state that as per the prosecution case, in addition to Devendra Nautiyal (PW1) and Bijendra Nautiyal (PW2), two other persons, namely, Arvind Hatwal and Mukesh Sharma also witnessed the entire incident but those were not produced in evidence. Similarly, in addition to Sri Surendra Kumar Srivastava (PW3), Surya Kumar Sarvariya, Dr. S.N. Gupta and R.P.S. Seth came to the spot of occurrence and were said to be present when Sri Surendra Kumar Srivastava carried Sri Naresh Chandra Nautiyal in injured condition to the hospital but, these three persons were also not produced in evidence. Similarly, wife of deceased and his two daughters, who too were present at the house where the entire incident took place but they too were not brought to witness box. Be that as it may, precisely the question before us is that whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to held the accused-appellant guilty for an offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 13. Quite minutely, we looked into the evidence adduced by the eye-witnesses, who happens to be sons of deceased Naresh Chandra Nautiyal. 14. As per Sri Devendra Nautiyal (PW1) on 22nd December, 1980 at about 6.30 pm his father Sri Naresh Chandra Nautiyal, who was working as a Chief of the Personnel in Bharat Pump and Compressors Limited, Naini was killed by accused Ram Chandra Saroj. A day before the ill happening, at about 9.00 am Ram Chandra Saroj came at the home of Naresh Chandra Nautiyal and requested to revoke his termination from service. On showing helplessness by Sri Naresh Chandra Nautiyal, the accused-appellant threatened that if nothing can be done then he will do at his own. A day before the ill happening, at about 9.00 am Ram Chandra Saroj came at the home of Naresh Chandra Nautiyal and requested to revoke his termination from service. On showing helplessness by Sri Naresh Chandra Nautiyal, the accused-appellant threatened that if nothing can be done then he will do at his own. On 22nd December, 1980 at about 6.15 pm when Sri Naresh Chandra Nautiyal returned from office and was entering into house by opening the latch of the gate, accused-appellant Ram Chandra Saroj caused a gun shot injury, as a result of which, he fall down. This witness along with his two friends Arvind Hatwal and Mukesh Sharma was sitting in the verandah. His younger brother Bijendra (PW2) was also there. At that time it was dark but the verandah was illuminated being having an electric bulb. It would be appropriate to quote relevant part of the statement given by this witness and that is as follows:- " ....... At that time, it was dark. Electric light of the lit bulb was there in our veranda. The gate of our house is right in front of the veranda. Our house is in Mumfordganj. Across the road in front of my house is an electricity pole on which the electricity bulb was illuminating at the time of the incident. The bus of B.P.C.L. Naini arrived there at Nigam road-intersection at 6-1/2. My father alighted from that bus and came towards my house. My house is situated on the road which leads towards Chand Mari from the Nigam road-intersection. On moving from the Nigam road-intersection towards Chanadmari, my house comes on the right hand side, and from that road-intersection it is the second house. As my father had arrived at the gate of my house and was lifting the latch, in the meantime the accused Ram Chandra came from behind and saying - you have not taken back my termination, I would not leave you alive - he opened fire by the country made pistol. One accomplice was also there behind Ram Chandra. I can recognize him on seeing but do not know his name. The gunshot hit my father on the upper portion of his back and he fell down. All of us who were sitting in the veranda gave a chase to the accused. One accomplice was also there behind Ram Chandra. I can recognize him on seeing but do not know his name. The gunshot hit my father on the upper portion of his back and he fell down. All of us who were sitting in the veranda gave a chase to the accused. The accused had run towards Chand Mari and from there he had hurled two bombs at the place where the road turns towards the right. That place was engulfed in smoke and darkness and we had got scared and had not chase the accused. The accused along with his accomplice had fled away. We had returned back to the spot where my father had met. My father was alive that time and was speaking. Immediately after the incident, my neighbors namely Surendra Kumar Srivastav Medical Representative, Sri S.K. Sakhiya, Doctor S.N. Gupta, Ki? R.P.S. Seth had converged there. On being asked by Surendra Kumar as to who had assaulted him, my father had told - Ram Chandra Saroj has assaulted because I have not taken back his termination. Thereafter, Sri Surendra Kumar Srivastav brought his car and my father was taken to the Medical College in it with Doctor S.N. Gupta and other people. I stayed back at home and scribed the complaint of the incident which is before me. It is in my handwriting and it bears my signature. It is marked as exhibit Ka-1. I went to Colonelganj Police Station with the exhibit Ka-1 and got the report lodged there. My father had breathed his last in the night of the incident itself in the hospital. I had shown that coat to Darogha Ji when he had come my home on 23.12.80. Having made entries regarding coat he had returned the coat to me. On seeing the recovery memo of the coat the witness proved his signature. The signature was marked as Ex. Ka-2. I have brought that coat today and submit it. The coat was marked as Ex. Ka-1. The hole of pellets on back of the coat Ex. Ka-1 and the clothe was found torn on which there are spots which was told to be the blood spots by the witness. The witness told the lining of the coat too, to be blood stained. There are dark brown spots on the lining. 15. Ka-1. The hole of pellets on back of the coat Ex. Ka-1 and the clothe was found torn on which there are spots which was told to be the blood spots by the witness. The witness told the lining of the coat too, to be blood stained. There are dark brown spots on the lining. 15. In cross examination, this witness stated as under:- "…....My friends namely Arvind Hatwal and Mukesh Sharma often visit my home. We, often, sit in veranda. It was cold whether yet we were sitting in the veranda and gossiping. We were not sitting in drawing room. We were sitting in the veranda wearing coat etc. We were not feeling much cold. On the day of incident in evening when my father and Sarvyiya Sahib reached near the gate, Sarvyiya Sahib proceeded towards his house while my father moved towards his gate. This I witnessed myself. When my father was unlatching the gate at the bend near gate, accused held some conversation and fired. Accused said something to my father and my father gave no reply. The killer was standing behind my father. My father turned to see the person who was talking from behind. My father turned his neck to see him. He did not turn and was opening the latch, he did not turn his body behind. That individual was at a distance of about 2 feet behind my father. I saw the accused on the evening of incident at the time when he was talking to my father. He uttered only one sentence to my father and it took around one two seconds to utter that sentence. The killer threatened my father but my father continued to open the latch and was not showing any signs of fear. The killer took out a pistol from his pants near his waist and fired at the very instance he ended the conversation. Pistol was tucked in the pants near the waist. About one minute lapsed from the time my father and Sarvyiya Sahib moved towards their respective houses and till shot was fired. There was another person with the killer. The second individual said nothing to my father. The second person was carrying chhola(?). My father collapsed immediately on being shot. My father collapsed flat on his fact, that is his face was on the ground while he back was up. There was another person with the killer. The second individual said nothing to my father. The second person was carrying chhola(?). My father collapsed immediately on being shot. My father collapsed flat on his fact, that is his face was on the ground while he back was up. Head of my father was towards my house while his feet were towards road. Accused and his associates ran on foot till the spot we chased them and I cannot tell whether afterwards they escaped on foot or used some vehicle. I was in their pursuit till Kamal Bhandar. We chased them till 10 steps before the spot in front of Kamal Bhandar when roads bends on the right. My father was lying on floor when we four were chasing accused and his associates. My father had been lifted and taken to the side room till the time we returned near our house after chasing them and doctor as well as other people from locality had arrived. Among people from locality, Surendra Kumar Shrivastava, S.K. Sarvyiya, Dr. S.N. Gupta had arrived there. Shri R.P.S. Seth just reached there when I had returned after chasing. It might have taken three or four minutes when I started chasing accused and his companions and when I alongwith other people returned on the place of occurrence after chasing. Surendra Kumar Srivastav came back over there in his own car after two minutes of my arrival. Surendra Kumar Srivastav left after I had returned and immediately came by vehicle. Only one car had come. Just after this, people had taken my father in car to Swaroop Rani Hospital. 16. The next eye witness Bijendra (PW2), who is younger son of deceased and younger brother of PW1. The evidence adduced by this witness is some how the same as of PW1. This witness also did not chose to accompany his father when he was taken to the hospital by Surendra Kumar Srivastava (PW3). He stayed at his house just to take care of his sisters. This witness also came to know about death of his father at about 10.00 pm at his residence. No effort was made by this witness to have any information about condition of his father at hospital. This witness has referred presence of his mother and two sisters at house but neither his mother nor his sisters were brought in witness box. No effort was made by this witness to have any information about condition of his father at hospital. This witness has referred presence of his mother and two sisters at house but neither his mother nor his sisters were brought in witness box. His mother as per this witness left the house after the incident to take care of his father at hospital but the prosecution no where stated that whether mother of these eye-witnesses had any conversation with injured at the hospital. 17. An important witness in the case is Surendra Kumar Srivastava (PW3). This witness was one among the first four persons who arrived at the spot of occurrence after getting Naresh Chandra Nautiyal injured, as a consequence of a gun shot injury. This witness carried deceased Naresh Chandra Nautiyal to the hospital. 18. According to this witness, on 22nd December, 1980 at about 6-6.30 pm Naresh Chandra Nautiyal was murdered. At that time, he was at upper floor of his residence and on hearing sound of gun shot, he came down and rushed to the residence of deceased Naresh Chandra Nautiyal. When he arrived at the residence of Sri Naresh Chandra Nautiyal, Dr. S.N. Gupta, Mr. Seth, Mr. Sarkela, Devendra Nautiyal and Bijendra Nautiyal were already present. Naresh Chandra Nautiyal was lying in his room and he had gun shot injuries on his back. On asking, Naresh Chandra Nautiyal stated that the injuries were caused by "Saroj". This witness then carried Naresh Chandra Nautiyal to hospital. At about 10.00 pm Naresh Chandra Nautiyal died. The coat that was worn by Sri Naresh Chandra Nautiyal at the time of incident was shown to the Station House Officer, but he returned the same to Sri Devendra Nautiyal. 19. The testimony of Sri Jagdish Singh (PW10) was examined by the trial court and he narrated all the steps taken by him during the course of investigation being Investigating Officer. As per this witness, he recovered a tamancha at the instance of accused and prepared a memo of recovery. The recovery memo Ex. Ka. 19. The testimony of Sri Jagdish Singh (PW10) was examined by the trial court and he narrated all the steps taken by him during the course of investigation being Investigating Officer. As per this witness, he recovered a tamancha at the instance of accused and prepared a memo of recovery. The recovery memo Ex. Ka. 22 is available on record that reads as under:- Today on 24.12.80 as per the statement and at the instance of arrested accused Ram Chandar Saroj S/o Sitaram R/o 70-A Sohbatiya Bagh PS-Daraganj Allahabad, "After killing Nautiyal escaped and threw in bush of house on the right side of road, entered the office of tractor trolly godown, threw the pistol on the roof and ran away. Pistol is on the roof, I will get it recovered. I thought I will take it away after the matter cools down" I, Jagdeesh Singh, the S.I. along with accompanying H.C./Devi Dayal Maurya H.C. Brijnath Singh C/Shri Ram Gupta C/Hare Ram Dubey and C/Veerval C/Balram Singh C/Ram Sundar in presence of all witnesses Shri Rambabu S/o Manni Lal R/o 3 Madhavkunj and Lal Singh S/o Thakurdeen R/o Naya Katra PS-Colonelganj Allahabad at 19.00 hrs in the evening aforesaid accused Ram Chandar and Imdaad stepped on the stairs and got a country made pistol of following description downstairs and repeated, "Nautiyal was fired at with this pistol." Pistol was taken in police custody from the hand of accused Ram Chandar on the spot (P.T.), recovery memo is being prepared, sealed and stamped. After preparing memo, reading it over, signatures of witnesses are being obtained on scene of occurrence Government Agriculture Service Centre 398 Mumfordganj. Description of pistol-Iron barrel around 9 fingers long of 12 bore bearing white paper piece in chamber and handle which is attached by curved joint from middle part of barrel along with trigger, hammer and trigger guard around 11 fingers bearing wood on both the sides of criss-cross pattern, knob is affixed below, handle is broken from below and wood is broken near the hammer. 20. In cross-examination, this witness reiterated that recovery of pistol was made from the roof of the house and he did not climb to the roof but it was the accused who went to the roof and bring the pistol therefrom. 20. In cross-examination, this witness reiterated that recovery of pistol was made from the roof of the house and he did not climb to the roof but it was the accused who went to the roof and bring the pistol therefrom. The attesting witness Ram Babu (PW9) also stated that from roof the pistol was brought by the accused himself and he as well as the Investigating Officer were on floor. Dr. B.B. Sahai adduced the medical evidence on basis of that we are having no doubt about homicidal death of Sri Naresh Chandra Nautiyal. 21. On basis of the evidence noticed above, the trial court held the accused-appellant guilty for commission of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The trial court while arriving at a definite conclusion not only relied upon the version of facts stated by the eye-witnesses but also the other chain of circumstances. We too have looked into the evidence minutely. Sri Devendra Nautiyal (PW1) is elder son of deceased Naresh Chandra Nautiyal. This witness was said to be sitting in the verandah when his father came from his office. At that time, as per this witness the accused-appellant Ram Chandra Saroj came from back and fired on back of deceased Naresh Chandra Srivastava. This witness also stated that before causing gun shot injury there had some deliberations between deceased and the accused-appellant. The deceased during deliberation turned only his neck and not the entire body. The gun shot was made from the distance of about 2 feet. This witness along with his two other friends and younger brother Bijendra, instead of taking care of his father decided to chase the accused. After run for some meters, a bomb was thrown by the accused and on its blast, it was impossible to further chase and as such this witness along with two friends and a younger brother returned to the spot of occurrence. On arriving at the spot of occurrence, he noticed presence of four persons including Surendra Kumar Srivastava. Sri Surendra Kumar Srivastava then carried Sri Naresh Chandra Nautiyal to the hospital but this witness did not chose to accompany him. Instead of going to the hospital, this witness chose to approach the police authorities at Police Station Colonelganj. On arriving at the spot of occurrence, he noticed presence of four persons including Surendra Kumar Srivastava. Sri Surendra Kumar Srivastava then carried Sri Naresh Chandra Nautiyal to the hospital but this witness did not chose to accompany him. Instead of going to the hospital, this witness chose to approach the police authorities at Police Station Colonelganj. He remain at police station then came to the place of occurrence along with the Station House Officer and for good about 4 hours he did not chose to have any information about condition of his father. He received information about death of his father at about 10.00 pm. 22. It is also pertinent to notice that this witness was knowing the fact that his younger brother too was at home and was not accompanying his injured father. The conduct of this eye-witness appears to be quite unnatural. It would also be appropriate to state that as per this witness his father in injured condition was first brought inside the house, his coat was opened and that was subsequently, shown to the Investigating Officer. 23. On the other hand, Sri Surendra Kumar Srivastava (PW3) during course of investigation stated that Sri Naresh Chandra Nautiyal was lying down on floor at the gate of his house, where from he was taken to the hospital. Before the court, Sri Surendra Kumar Srivastava (PW3) changed his version of facts with a statement that the injured was taken to the hospital from the room inside the house. This witness utterly failed to explain as to why a contradiction exists in his two versions. It appears that this witness improved his statement in light of the statement given by Devendra Nautiyal (PW1) and Bijendra Nautiyal (PW2). 24. In cross examination, this witness stated that when he arrived at the residence of Naresh Chandra Nautiyal, Dr. S.N. Gupta, Sri Sariwala and Sri Seth were already present there. His statement during the course of investigation was taken by the Station House Officer on 23rd December, 1980. In the statement aforesaid, it is stated that Naresh Chandra Nautiyal was lying on the floor of his house at the entry gate. On asking, this witness failed to give any reason as to why such version of facts was stated in the statements taken under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the statement aforesaid, it is stated that Naresh Chandra Nautiyal was lying on the floor of his house at the entry gate. On asking, this witness failed to give any reason as to why such version of facts was stated in the statements taken under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This witness also verified that when he took Sri Naresh Chandra Nautiyal to the hospital, Devendra Nautiyal (PW1) and Bijendra Nautiyal (PW2) were not seen there. As already stated, the other persons who were said to be present at the spot of occurrence were not produced in evidence. This witness has also stated that the coat worn by deceased Naresh Chandra Nautiyal at the time of incident was shown to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer noticed the available blood stains and holes on the coat and returned the same to Devendra Nautiyal (PW1). It is interesting to note that this witness as per his own statements proceeded to the hospital along with Naresh Chandra Nautiyal and the Investigating Officer came at the spot of occurrence subsequent thereto. When the Station House Officer came at the residence of Nautiyal family, Devendra Nautiyal was with him but no presence of this witness is shown there. 25. True it is, in cross-examination nothing has been asked from this witness in this regard but in his entire statement nothing is said by the witness as to how he returned to the place of occurrence. Reference of this fact is given only to show breakage in the circumstances of the events on basis of which, conviction has been recorded by the trial court. 26. It would also be relevant to notice that as per Surendra Kumar Srivastava (PW3) neither Devendra Nautiyal (PW1) nor Bijendra Nautiyal (PW2) were seen by him at the place of occurrence when he carried injured Naresh to the hospital. We failed to understand as to why the two young sons were not present close to their father when he was taken to the hospital in seriously injured condition. In normal course all the family members supposed to be near to their father who was struggling with his life. We failed to understand as to why the two young sons were not present close to their father when he was taken to the hospital in seriously injured condition. In normal course all the family members supposed to be near to their father who was struggling with his life. Surprisingly enough, no satisfactory explanation is also given by Devendra Nautiyal (PW1) as well as by Bijendra Nautiyal (PW2) for their conspicuous absence at the place of occurrence when their father was taken to the hospital by Sri Surendra Kumar Srivastava (PW3). The sole explanation given by Devendra Nautiyal (PW1) is that he went to the police station to lodge first information report. However, as per his own statement he proceeded for police station subsequent to the movement of Sri Surendra Kumar Srivastava (PW3) for hospital. 27. It would also be appropriate to state that Sri Devendra Nautiyal (PW1) as well as Bijendra Nautiyal (PW2) though have shown presence of two other persons, namely, Arvind Hatwal and Mukesh Sharma at the spot of occurrence but those two persons were not produced before the court to support prosecution case. Not only this, as per both the witness and Surendra Kumar Srivastava (PW3), Dr. S.N. Gupta, Sri R.P.S. Seth and Surya Kumar Sarvariya were also present at the spot of occurrence when the injured was taken to the hospital. In presence of four persons it was uttered by Sri Naresh Chandra Nautiyal that Ram Chandra Saroj caused injury to him. None of the three persons present at the spot of occurrence and before whom deceased said to have stated a crucial fact except Sri Surendra Kumar Srivastava were brought by the prosecution to the witness box. This fact acquires more significance in light of the fact that one among the other three persons one was a doctor and in natural course he was the person appropriate to accompany the injured person. We are aware of the legal position that each and every person present at the spot of occurrence is not required to be necessarily produced in evidence, but where the close relatives are coming for evidence, it is always desirable to have some independent witness also to substantiate the prosecution case. 28. An important aspect of the matter is that Surendra Kumar Srivastava (PW3) did not disclose complete name of accused before the court. 28. An important aspect of the matter is that Surendra Kumar Srivastava (PW3) did not disclose complete name of accused before the court. This witness stated that as per deceased Naresh Chandra Nautiyal "Saroj" caused gun shot injury. This witness forgot the complete name of the person that was stated by the deceased Naresh Chandra Nautiyal. This fact creates little doubt about narration of the facts by Surendra Kumar Srivastava (PW3) as the title of the case too before the sessions court was State Vs. Ram Chandra Saroj. A person coming to the court for tendering evidence must be knowing at least title of the case. If Sri Surendra Kumar Srivastava (PW3) was knowing title of the case, then we failed to understand as to why he has not mentioned complete name of the accused despite asking. 29. Beside the evidence above, a circumstance is with regard to recovery of the weapon of offence, empty cartridges and live cartridges. The empty cartridges were recovered from the spot of occurrence but the weapon of offence was recovered from the roof of the house of accused-appellant after having report of disclosure as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. On going through the entire record, it reveals that no report of disclosure was made by the investigating agency. It is only a recovery memo that contains the fact about disclosure by the accused. 30. Sri Jagdish Singh (PW10), the Investigating Officer while narrating all the steps taken by him during the course of investigation stated that on reaching at the house concerned accused-appellant went to the roof of the house and brought the weapon of offence. We failed to understand as to why such recovery was not made by the Investigating Officer himself, who otherwise was present at the same location. The production of the weapon of offence in the circumstances existing, by no stretch of imagination can be treated as a recovery on having disclosure as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The attesting witness too stated before the court that the weapon of offence was handed over to the Investigating Officer by the accused himself and the Investigating Officer as well as the attesting witness did not chose to climb the roof. 31. The attesting witness too stated before the court that the weapon of offence was handed over to the Investigating Officer by the accused himself and the Investigating Officer as well as the attesting witness did not chose to climb the roof. 31. In light of whatever stated above, recovery of weapon of offence too is not reliable and as such the report given by the ballistic expert is also of no consequence. 32. An important aspect of the matter is that no explanation is available on record as to why the investigating agency did not chose to have dying declaration of Naresh Chandra Nautiyal who received gun shot injury at 6.00 pm and died at 10.00 pm. As per the evidence available on record, Sri Naresh Chandra Nautiyal at initial stage was in a position to speak and narrate the facts. 33. We are aware of the legal position that lacunas here and there left by the investigating agency cannot be a reason for vitiating the entire investigation and disbelieving the other evidence available on record but at the same time it should also be kept in mind that beside the lacuna of the investigating agency, the prosecution evidence must be of such a nature that no conclusion except involvement of the accused in the crime in question is possible. 34. In the case in hand looking to the evidence discussed above, in addition to the deficiencies in the investigation, a reasonable doubt exists in arriving only at one conclusion about involvement of accused-appellant Ram Chandra Saroj in the crime in question. Neither the eye-witnesses are reliable nor the other circumstances are constituting a chain of circumstance leading to only one conclusion. 35. In result, this appeal deserves acceptance. Hence, the same is allowed. The judgment passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad dated 21st March, 1983 in Sessions Trial No. 185 of 1982 is set aside. The accused-appellant Ram Chandra Saroj is acquitted from the charge relating to commission of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The accused-appellant has already been released on bail. Hence, the sureties and bail bonds executed by him are hereby discharged.