ORDER : Vivek Varma, J. 1. These appeals are preferred to question correctness of judgment and order dated 08.12.1983 passed by Sessions Judge, Banda in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 1983. The trial court has convicted the accused appellants Chunnu, Shyam and Ramraj under Section 302 IPC and; accused Badri under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. All accused have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. By the same judgment and order, the accused appellant Shyam has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and accused appellant Chunnu, Ramraj and Badri convicted under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment. Accused Shyam is also convicted under Section 429 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and accused appellant Badri further convicted under Section 404 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Briefly, the prosecution case, as set out in the first information report is that, Basudeo Prasad (P.W.-1) submitted a written report (Ext Ka-1) at Kotwali Banda on 01.06.1982 at 11.30 A.M. disclosing, he returned to his native village Chahatarain from Banda, that morning. At that time he had been carrying his licenced rifle and certain household items. His brother Ram Kripal (since deceased) and Satya Narain (P.W.-6) son of Churaman of his village, met him at the cattle-shed (maveshi khana). They relieved him. While Ram Kripal carried the rifle and cartridges bag, Satya Narain carried the bag containing household items. They then headed to the informant's home. At about 09.30 AM, just as they reached the front of the house of one Ranjeet, the accused Shyam and Ramraj armed with rifles and Chunnu armed with a country made gun, came out along with Badri from Bhagirath's house. At the exhortation of Badri, Shyam and Ramraj fired at Ram Kripal who fell down. He (informant) and Satya Narain ran towards their houses. Shyam and Chunnu both fired at them. Those shots missed them (informant and Satya Narain). However, one shot hit a bull tied at the door of Sipahi Lal. The bull died. He further asserted that his brother Ram Kripal succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Upon raising of alarm, Rudra Pratap (PW-2) and Babu Lal (PW-3) and other people from neighbourhood came and witnessed the incident. Those shots missed them (informant and Satya Narain). However, one shot hit a bull tied at the door of Sipahi Lal. The bull died. He further asserted that his brother Ram Kripal succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Upon raising of alarm, Rudra Pratap (PW-2) and Babu Lal (PW-3) and other people from neighbourhood came and witnessed the incident. On being challenged, accused persons ran away with the informant's rifle and bag containing cartridges, that was being carried by Ram Kripal. The dead body of Ram Kripal was then carried to and kept at the informant's house. 3. The first information report was lodged at police station Kotwali, Banda on 01.06.1982 at 11.30 AM registered as case crime no. 382 of 1982 under Sections 302, 307, 404, 429 IPC. 4. Upon registration of the case, investigation was undertaken by the Station Officer S.C. Vidhyarthi (PW-8). He reached the house of informant (P.W.-1) at 12.30 p.m. and found the body of deceased lying on a cot in the verandah. During the course of investigation, an inquest was prepared, and the corpus of the deceased was subjected to an autopsy. The blood stained Kurta and Tahmat of the deceased were taken into possession through memo (Ext. Ka-16). The watch of deceased was given to Basudev Prasad (PW-1). The investigating officer, then also made a spot inspection. The site plan (Ext. Ka-17) was prepared. He took in his possession blood-stained and plain earth through memo (Ext. Ka-18). He also recovered eight ticklies and one bullet (Ext. Ka-19). 5. The statement of relevant witnesses were recorded as per provisions of section 161 Code of Criminal procedure Code and other relevant papers were prepared. After completion of investigation the charge-sheet was submitted. The Sessions Judge, Banda, after hearing the accused-appellants, framed charges on 16.05.1983 relating to commission of offence under sections 302, 307, 404, 429 IPC against appellant Shyam and under sections 302, 307, 404, 429 IPC against the appellant Chunnu. Charges were framed under sections302/34, 307/34, 404, 429 IPC against appellant Badri and under Sections 302, 307/34, 404, 429 against the appellant Ram Raj. On denial of charges, the trial commenced. 6. During the course of trial, the prosecution supported its case with the aid of evidence adduced by 12 witnesses and by exhibiting several documents. One medico legal expert (C.W.-1) was also examined, as a Court Witness. On denial of charges, the trial commenced. 6. During the course of trial, the prosecution supported its case with the aid of evidence adduced by 12 witnesses and by exhibiting several documents. One medico legal expert (C.W.-1) was also examined, as a Court Witness. Out of 12 witnesses, 4 witnesses namely Basudeo (P.W.-1), Rudra Pratap (P.W.-2), Babu Lal (P.W.-5) and Satya Narain (P.W.-6) were cited as eye witness. Dr. Om Vir Singh (P.W.-3) had conducted the postmortem examination of bull. 7. Dr. A.K. Bhardwaj (P.W.-7) who conducted postmortem on the body of Ram Kripal noted the following injures on the body: 1. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm over forehead left side 3 cm above eye brow. 2. Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm left side chest 3 cm below left nipple at 6 O' clock position with tattooing and charring present over 7 cm x 5 cm area around. Directed posteriorly and towards right. Margins inverted with abraded collar chest cavity deep. On section 40 metallic pellets recovered from muscles of chest left side and right side. One WAD piece recovered from right lung with 10 metallic pellets. 3. Gun shot wound entry 1.25 cm x 1.25 cm x leg contents deep over lateral aspect of left thigh 5 cm above to knee. Margins inverted. No tattooing or burning present. Directed towards right and upwards. 4. Gun shot wound of exit 8 cm x 8 cm over front and medial aspect of left thigh 2 cm above. Margins everted. On Section injury no. 3 communicates to injury no. 4. Femur lower end found fractured. 5. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm right side chest 8 cm above nipple at 10 O' clock position and 3 cm below axillary fold x cavity deep. Directed downwards and backwards. Margins inverted. No tattooing or charring present with abraded collar. 6. Gun shot wound of exit 5 cm x 4 cm right side back x chest cavity deep. Margins everted and lacerated below inferior angle of right scapula and 6 cm lateral to vertebral column. Injury no. 5 communicates with injury no. 6. Internal examination 3rd and 4th ribs of left side fractured. Pleura ruptured and lacerated. Right and left lungs ruptured and lacerated. Pericardium ruptured and perforated. Chest cavity contained about 1.5 litres of free and clotted blood. Injury no. 5 communicates with injury no. 6. Internal examination 3rd and 4th ribs of left side fractured. Pleura ruptured and lacerated. Right and left lungs ruptured and lacerated. Pericardium ruptured and perforated. Chest cavity contained about 1.5 litres of free and clotted blood. Stomach contained about 150 grams of semi digested food material. Cause of death due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries." 8. Sri S.C. Vidhyarthi (PW-8) I.O. in his testimony narrated all steps taken by him during the course of investigation. The ocular witnesses proved the occurrence. 9. Opportunity was accorded to the accused-appellants as per provisions of Section 313, Cr.P.C. to explain the adverse and incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. The accused appellants denied the allegations and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. In defense no witness was examined. Certain documents were produced. 10. The trial court, after analysing the entire evidence, found that the prosecution had proved the charges framed against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted them for the offences, as charged. 11. We have heard rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.-1 (Basudev) and Satyanarain (P.W.-2) who were accompanying the deceased and Rudra Pratap (P.W. 2) and Babu Lal (P.W.-5) were at the shop of Ram Pal when the incident occurred. The said witnesses claimed to have seen the incident. 13. P.W.-1 in his examination-in-chief stated that accused appellants Badri and Shyam were relatives and residents of village Chahatara. Appellants Chunnu and Ramraj, are both sons of Nanhu and their two sisters were married to Bhagirath and Gore Lal, who were brothers. Badri was son of Bhagirath. He deposed-at the time of the incident he was posted as the Lekhpal at Gureh, P.S. Kotwali. He had taken leave for 1st and 2nd June, from the Tehsildar, on 31.05.1982 to visit his village. On 01.06.1982 at 07.30 AM he had left for Chahatara with his licensed rifle along with its licence and 18 cartridges in a bag and he was also carrying some sugar and vegetables in another bundle. At around 9:30 AM he reached his cattle shed where he met his younger brother Ram Kripal and one Satya Narayan. On 01.06.1982 at 07.30 AM he had left for Chahatara with his licensed rifle along with its licence and 18 cartridges in a bag and he was also carrying some sugar and vegetables in another bundle. At around 9:30 AM he reached his cattle shed where he met his younger brother Ram Kripal and one Satya Narayan. Ram Kripal took his rifle and bag while Satya Narayan took the bundle containing household items. All the three headed towards their house. As they reached near the front door of Ranjeet's house, Shyam and Ram Raj, both armed with rifles, and Chunnu armed with a 12 bore gun and accused Badri unarmed, came out from Badri's house. Badri exhorted Shyam and Ram Raj to kill Ram Kripal as he was responsible for the murder of his uncle Gorey Lal. The witness further asserted that, as they looked back, Shyam and Ram Raj fired at Ram Kripal, who fell to the ground. He and Satya Narayan ran towards their houses in north. Two shots were fired at them as they ran. One shot thus fired hit the bull tied at the door of Sipahi Lal and the bull died. Accused Badri, snatched the rifle and bag from Ram Kripal and then all the accused ran to the west. This incident was witnessed by Babu Lal and Rudra Pratap, who were both at the shop of Ram Pal Baniya. The said shop had been later demolished (4-5 months before the evidence came to be recorded). He further deposed that the shop of Ram Pal Baniya was at a distance of 20-25 steps towards south from the place of occurrence. After the accused ran away, the witness reached the place of occurrence. Ram Kripal succumbed to his injuries. Blood was oozing from the injuries. His clothes were stained with blood which was spilled on the ground also. He got the dead-body lifted on a cot and carried it to the house. After keeping the body in the verandah, he wrote the report of the incident and reached the police station Kotwali at 11 a.m. and lodged the F.I.R. 14. Basudev (P.W.-1) was subjected to a detailed cross-examination. He got the dead-body lifted on a cot and carried it to the house. After keeping the body in the verandah, he wrote the report of the incident and reached the police station Kotwali at 11 a.m. and lodged the F.I.R. 14. Basudev (P.W.-1) was subjected to a detailed cross-examination. In brief, he stated that P.W.-2 (eye witness) is a resident of gram Triveni which is about 8-10 miles from village Chahatara and 5 P.W.-5 (eye witness) is a resident of gram Gudhakala which is about 30-32 miles from village Chahatara. He (Basudeo) had contested cases against Girja Devi (mother of Badri) in consolidation courts and had lost in each court. A case was pending between Ram Kripal and Shyam. He also deposed that in the murder of Gore Lal, Ram Kripal was not named. Accused Badri had not submitted any application against Ram Kripal in the murder of Gore Lal nor the police had arrested Ram Kripal. He further deposed (in paragraph no. 19 and 20) that the gate of Bhagirath's house is at the west and the gate of Ranjeet's house is at the east. There are two gates at Bhagirath's house. One is 'sadar darwaja' which is 3 foot wide and 6 foot high and other door was smaller, towards its north side. The gap between the two gates is 10-12 steps. The passage between the house of Ranjeet and Bhagirath is 10-12 steps wide. At the time of occurrence, he was at the passage in front of Ranjeet's house, Ram Kripal was towards his right side in the middle of the passage. He saw all the accused coming out together from the 'darwaja" of Bhagirath's house. He was not scared, however, upon exhortion of Badri, he and Ram Kripal turned back to see, and at that time they had proceeded slightly towards the north of the 'darwaja'. Along with exhortion, firing ensued. Ram Kripal fell down. He and Satya Narain ran towards the north. Ram Kripal was shot at from a distance of 4-5 steps. He thereafter deposed that he had not mentioned in the report, that he had looked back upon the exhortion of Badri as he had not considered it necessary, nor the IO asked him while recording his statement nor he informed him. He further deposed that Ram Kripal was shot at twice, with rifle. He thereafter deposed that he had not mentioned in the report, that he had looked back upon the exhortion of Badri as he had not considered it necessary, nor the IO asked him while recording his statement nor he informed him. He further deposed that Ram Kripal was shot at twice, with rifle. When the shots were fired Ram Kripal was facing east. Two accused stood in the front at the north east corner and two at the back at south east corner. Shyam and Ramraj were 3-4 steps south east to Ram Kripal when they fired. The relevant extract is quoted as follows. ^^vkt [kqn dgk fd Qk;j djrs le; nks eqfYteku muds vkxs o nks ihNs Fks nks eqfYteku mŸkj iwjc ds dksus vkSj nks nfD[ku iwjc ds dksus ij Fks ';ke vkSj jkejkt jkbQys fy, gq, Qk;j djrs le; jked`iky ls rhu pkj dne nf{k.k iwjc FksA^^ He further stated that when shots were fired, he had raised an alarm, but no one came out. He started running and came close to his house and at that time when he looked back, he saw 4-6-8 persons towards south. P.W. 2 and P.W.-5 were also there. After the accused left the spot, they reached near Ram Kripal. He thereafter asserted that before the incident he had not seen P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 either on the way or elsewhere. He saw them for first time, from the place near to his house when he turned back. He reiterated at paragraph no. 24 that people from the neighbourhood had come and had witnessed the incident and had exhorted. The relevant part of the testimony is extracted below. ^^eSus fjiksVZ esa fy[kk Fkk fd ikl iM+ksl d yksx vk x, fTkUgksus ?kVuk ns[kh o yydkjk vkSj lgh fy[kk FkkA^^ 15. Now before adverting to the testimony of P.W. -2, let us have the deposition of P.W. -6 Satya Narain. The said witness in his examination in chief recorded that at the exhortion of Badri, Ramraj and Shyam fired at Ram Kripal, who fell to the ground. He and P.W. 1 ran towards North. At that time Shyam fired at them and Chunnu fired at Ram Kripal. The shot of Shyam missed them and hit the bull tied at the door of Sipahi Lal. Badri took away the rifle and cartridges bag of the informant. He and P.W. 1 ran towards North. At that time Shyam fired at them and Chunnu fired at Ram Kripal. The shot of Shyam missed them and hit the bull tied at the door of Sipahi Lal. Badri took away the rifle and cartridges bag of the informant. However, he did not specify the location of accused-appellants, when they fired at Ram Kripal. He further deposed, after the incident, all the accused ran towards north and then turned towards west and when they reached the site, only P.W.-2 and P.W.-6 were present near the dead body and that no one else except four of them had seen the incident. The said witness during his cross examination (in paragraph no. 5) stated that he on his way from 'maveshi-khana' to the place of incident, he had not seen P.W.-2 and P.W.-6. He saw only two unknown ladies coming towards south who crossed them at Rampal's shop. He deposed that at the time when shots were fired, he ran towards the north and thereafter turned to west and watched the incident from behind a wall. P.W.-1 was with him and they both witnessed the incident from that place 'paschim modh' . Relevant part of the cross examination reads as under. ^^cklqnso ds edku ds mŸkj og if'pe eksM+ gS tgka ls :d dj eSusa ?kVuk ns[kh esjs lkFk cklnso Fks vkSj os Hkh esjs lkFk mlh if'pe eksM+ ls nhoky dh vkM+ ls 'ks"k ?kVuk ns[krs jgsA^^ 16. He further stated that at the time of incident no outsider except the witnesses were present. Even the villagers were not present. He stated that he had not seen P.W. 2 and P.W. 5, while he was running and looking back and even from 'paschim modh' from where he watched the incident. 17. He also deposed that he had contested cases in the consolidation courts against the uncle of appellant Badri and had lost. He also disclosed that he had contested a case against appellant Shyam. 18. Now, coming to the testimony of eye witnesses P.W. 2, we find that he belongs to village Triveni (which is about 8-10 miles from the place of incident). He deposed that he reached the shop of Ram Pal at 9.30., at that time he saw Ram Kripal, Satya Narain and Basudeo going towards north. 18. Now, coming to the testimony of eye witnesses P.W. 2, we find that he belongs to village Triveni (which is about 8-10 miles from the place of incident). He deposed that he reached the shop of Ram Pal at 9.30., at that time he saw Ram Kripal, Satya Narain and Basudeo going towards north. Ram Kripal was carrying a rifle and cartridges bag and Satyanarain was carrying a bag. Upon the exhortion of Badri, as the three persons turned back, Shyam and Ram Raj were towards north east to Ram Kripal at a distance of 5-6 hands, fired. The shots hit Ram Kripal, who fell down. Satya Narain and Basudeo ran towards north. Accused Shyam again fired at Basudeo. The shot missed Basudeo and hit the bull tied at the door of Sipahi Lal. Chunnu fired at Ram Kripal. Seeing this, he challenged 'Don't you dare kill him'. Then, Badri pulled the rifle and bag from the shoulder of Ram Kripal and thereafter the accused persons fled towards north and thereafter they turned west. The relevant extract of the testimony is extracted as under: ^^jked`iky lR;ukjk;u vkSj oklnso eqM+ dj ns[ks rHkh ';ke vkSj jkejkt tks jked`iky ds iwjo mŸkj ikWp NS gkFk Qklys ij Fks Qk;j dj fn;s vkSj jked`iky dks xksyh yx xbZ jked`iky fxj iM+s lR;ujk;u vkSj oklnso mŸkj dh rjQ Hkkx pys eqfYte ';ke us Qk;j vkSj oklnso dh rjQ fd;k xksyh oklnso dks u yx dj flikgh yky ds njokts ca/ks cSy dks yx xbZ pqUuw us viuh canwd ls jked`iky ds Åij Qk;j fd;k eSus ns[k dj yydkjk fd [kcjnkj ekjuk er cnzh us jked`iky ds da/ks ls jkbZQy o >ksyk mrkj fy;k vkSj mŸkj dh rjQ tkdj if'pe eqM+ dj eqfYteku pys x;sA 19. During cross examination, he stated that on the fateful day, Babu Lal (P.W.-2) was with him, they were going to village Chehroan through village Chahatara and he admitted, they did not have any work at village Chahtara. He thereafter deposed that, while challenging Ram Kripal, accused Shyam and Ram Raj were towards east and Chuunu and Badri too were towards east. He thereafter deposed that, while challenging Ram Kripal, accused Shyam and Ram Raj were towards east and Chuunu and Badri too were towards east. The relevant part of the testimony is extracted below: ^^yydkjrs le; jked`iky eqfYteku ';ke o jkejkt iwjo dh rjQ Fks vkSj pwUuw o cnzh Hkh iwjc dh rjQ Fks Qk;j gksus ds igys yydkj lqu dj jked`iky iwjo dh rjQ eqMs Fks 'kjhj eksM+ dj iwjk ?kwe dj ns[ks ?kVuk ds ckn eSus nwj ls ns[kk Fkk fd jked`iky ds lhus o iSj esa xksyh yxh Fkh ?kVuk esa dqy pkj Qk;j gq, Fks jkbZQy ls rhu Qk;j vkSj canwd ls ,d Qk;j gq,s FksA^^ 20. He thereafter further deposed that: ^^eq>s /;ku ugh gS fd fxjus ij jke d`iky dk lj fd/kj Fkk vkSj iSj fd/kj Fks D;ksfd eS nwj [kM+k Fkk jked`iky tgka fxjs mlds iwjo mŸkj ';ke o jkejkt Fks vkSj iwjo nf{k.k pqUuw o onzh Fks eS ugha crk ldrk fd eqfYteku jked`iky ds lj dh rjQ Fks ;k iSj dh rjQ jked`iky ds fxj tkus ds ckn QkSju gh nks Qk;j oklnso vkfn dh rjQ gq,s ftlesa ,d ';ke us fd;k ,d pqUuw us fd;k ';ke us oklnso dh rjQ Qk;j fd;k tks cSy dks yx x;k pqUuw us Qk;j jked`iky ij fd;k jked`iky tehu ij okbZ djoV fxjs FksA^^ 21. The said witness did not find any empty pellet at the site of incident, however he saw a tickli of paper. 22. Now coming to the testimony of P.W. 5 Babu Lal. We find that this witness is a resident of gram Gudha, which is about 30-32 miles from the place of incident. He deposed that upon the exhortion of Badri, as Basudeo, Ram Kripal and Shyam turned, Shyam and Ramraj fired from their rifles. Ram Kripal after being hit, fell down. Basudeo and Satyanarain ran towards the north. At that time, Shyam fired at Basudeo and Chunnu fired at Ram Kripal. The bullet of Shyam hit the bull tied at the door of Sipahi Lal, the bull died. He along with P.W. 2 exhorted the accused. Then Badri took the rifle and bag and along with other accused ran towards north and then turned towards west. 23. During the cross examination of P.W. -5, he stated that first two shots were fired at Ram kripal from the east-north at a distance of 5-6 steps by Ramraj and Shyam. He along with P.W. 2 exhorted the accused. Then Badri took the rifle and bag and along with other accused ran towards north and then turned towards west. 23. During the cross examination of P.W. -5, he stated that first two shots were fired at Ram kripal from the east-north at a distance of 5-6 steps by Ramraj and Shyam. Ram Kripal fell down on being hit. Thereafter shots were fired from south east. He did not found any tickli or pellets at the site of incident. The relevant extract of the testimony is extracted below. ^^HkkxhjFk ds edku es nks njokts gS ,d lnj njoktk gS vkSj ,d mlds mŸkj NksVk njoktk gS jkeiky dh nwdku ds ikl igqap dj eSus igyh utj es oklnso oxSjg mŸkj tkrs gq, HkkxhjFk ds lnj njokts ds lkeus jkLrs es ns[kk eqfYteku edku ds vUnj ls ugha yydkjs ijarq lnj njoktk ls fudyrs gq, yydkjs pkjks eqfYteku ,d lkFk jkejkt vkSj ';ke us fd;s os fxj iM+s eS ugh crk ldrk fd mudk flj fd/kj Fkk vkSj iSj fd/kj Fks nqckjk jke d`iky ij nfD[ku iwjo dh rjQ ls Qk;j gqvk ,d Msढ ohrk ;k ,d gkFk ds Qklys ls og Qk;j gqvk ?kVuk ds nkSjku 4&6 vkneh vkSj fn[kkbZ iM+s Fks fQj dgk tc xksyh py jgh Fkh rc ge lc xokgku ds vykok dksbZ vkneh ekSds ij ugh vk;k u fn[kkbZ iM+k cSy dks xksyh yxus vkSj fxjus ds ckn flikgh yky ds ?kj ds yksx fudys Fks ?kVuk ds ckn ekSds ij dksbZ ugh vk;k flikgh yky ds ?kj ds yksx ckgj cSy ds ikl vk x;s ijUrq os yksx Hkh ekSds ij ugha vk;s eS cSy ds ikl ugh x;k eSus ?kVuk LFky ij fVdyh NjkZ ugh ns[kkA^^ 24. Upon a comparative evaluation of the testimonies of the four eye witnesses namely P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W.-5 and P.W. 6, we find that there are following glaring contradictions in their evidence. (i) P.W. 1 Basudeo stated in his cross examination that he saw 4-6-8 persons along with Babu Lal (P.W. 5) and Rudra Pratap (P.W. 2) when they reached the place of incident after Ram Kripal had been shot. However, P.W. 6 deposed in his examination in chief that only P. W. 2 and P.W. 5 were present at that time. Further, in the cross examination he stated, he had not seen them (PW. However, P.W. 6 deposed in his examination in chief that only P. W. 2 and P.W. 5 were present at that time. Further, in the cross examination he stated, he had not seen them (PW. 2 and P. W. 5) when he looked back. (ii) P.W. 1, the key witness did not state in his entire testimony that the gun shot fired by Chunnu also hit Ram Kripal, whereas P.W.-6 in his testimony did not specify the location of the accused-appellants, when they fired, although P.W.-6 claimed to have watched the incident along with P.W.-1 from 'paschim modh'. (iii) P.W. 1 during his cross examination stated that Shyam and Ram Raj were standing south-east to Ram Kripal when they fired whereas P.W.-2 stated in his examination in chief that Shyam and Ram Raj were standing on the north-east to Ram Kripal when he was shot at. (iv) PW- 1 during his cross examination stated, when he reached the place of incident after Ram Kripal had died, he witnessed P.W.-2 and P.W.-5. However P.W.-2 stated that he had exhorted, when Chunnu fired at Ram Kripal and P. W-5 stated that he along with P. W-2 had exhorted during the incident. (v) P.W. 1 Basudeo stated in his examination in chief that after the incident, all the accused ran towards West. However, P.W.-2, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6 deposed in their examination in chief that the accused-appellants after the incident ran towards north and then to the west. (vi) P.W.-1 stated that he had reached the 'maweshi khana' at 9.30 a.m., where he met Ram Kripal and P. W-6. The said statement is also corroborated by P.W.-6. Thereafter all the three persons are claimed to have headed for their house. As per the evidence on record, the shop of Rampal was on the way to the place of incident. However, as per the deposition of P.W. 2 and P.W. 5, they reached the shop of Rampal at 9.30 a.m., however, P.W.-1 and P.W.-6 admittedly had not seen them, while they were going. This material evidence, in our opinion completely demolishes the prosecution case and creates a reasonable doubt about the presence of the eye witnesses at the place and time of incident. 25. Now, these material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W. -5 and P.W. -6 are not reconcilable. This material evidence, in our opinion completely demolishes the prosecution case and creates a reasonable doubt about the presence of the eye witnesses at the place and time of incident. 25. Now, these material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W. -5 and P.W. -6 are not reconcilable. These contradictions are such that if other witnesses are to be believed then P.W.-1 has to be disbelieved and if PW-1 is disbelieved then the entire prosecution case will have to be disbelieved. 26. Bearing in mind, the glaring and irreconcilable inconsistencies in the statements of the cited eye witness; P.W.-1 is a related and an inimical witness; P.W. 6 is also an inimical witness and; P.W. 2 and P.W.-5 were residents of far off places, they cannot be said to be natural witnesses, as in normal circumstances they could not have been present at the place of occurrence. The explanations that they have given for their presence are full of chance factors. In as much as, it is a very stray chance that both of them would have left Banda at 7 a.m. for village Chehraon, separately, yet they both decided to go through village Chahatara, and reached the place of occurrence exactly at 9.30. a.m., when P.W. 1 and P.W.-6 also reached, though P.W.-1 claimed to have left Banda at 7.30. a.m. 27. Apart from the aforesaid material contradictions, the so called eye witness of the occurrence P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 have made material improvements in their statements recorded before the trial court. In their statement under section 161 Cr.PC, they did not state that, when Badri exhorted, they including the deceased turned and looked back. Upon being confronted by the defence, P.W.-1 stated, he had not considered it necessary and the I.O. had not asked him, whereas P.W. 6 stated, he had also not considered it necessary. This deliberate improvement during the trial was a thus, a futile attempt to justify, the injuries sustained by the deceased. 28. P.W.-7 adduced medical evidence. Upon being confronted by the defence, P.W.-1 stated, he had not considered it necessary and the I.O. had not asked him, whereas P.W. 6 stated, he had also not considered it necessary. This deliberate improvement during the trial was a thus, a futile attempt to justify, the injuries sustained by the deceased. 28. P.W.-7 adduced medical evidence. Bearing in mind the ante mortem injuries sustained by the deceased, it will be appropriate to quote his statement during cross examination: ^^1- pksV uEcj ,d fxjus ls vk ldrh gS pksV uacj 2 Bhd lkeus ls vkus dh laHkkouk de Fkh D;ksfd ,sls Qk;j esa pksV dk MkbjsD'ku ihNs tkuk pkfg, vxj 'kksV dk fMQysD'ku u gks tk, ;g pksV ck, djoV ysVs gkyr es vkuk laHko ugh Fkk D;ksfd ,slh gkyr es nkfguk vax ,DliksLM gksxkA 2- pksV uEcj rhu dh fn'kk ns[kus ls izrhr gksrk gS fd ;k pksV e`rd dks [kMs gkyr es ugh igaqph gksxh ;g pksV e`Rkd dks ysVs gq, ck, djoV dh fLFkfr esa igqpkbZ tkuk laHko ugha gSA 3- pksV uEcj 5 e`rd dks lkeus ls lh/kk ekjus ij vkus dh laHkkouk de Fkh ;fn 'kksV dk fMQYksD'ku u gks x;k gks ;fn >qdk gqvk gks rc lkeus ls bl ijdkj dh pksV vk ldrh Fkh 4- EkS ugh crk ldrk fd pksV uaEcj 2] 3] 4] 5] 6 e`rd dks fpr ysVh gkyr esa igqpkbZ xbZ Fkh 5- eS jkbQy ;k ckjg vkSj cUnwd dh xksyh dk QdZ ugh tkurk eq>s ugh ekywe fd jkbQy dh xksyh Conical vkSj canqd xh xksyh Spherical gksrh gS eSa ugha crk ldrk dkSu lh Gun Shot pksV jkbQy ls gS vkSj dkSu canwd dh gS vkSj mudh Nature of Injury esa D;k fHkUurk gksxh eSus eksnh dh Medical jurisprudence vkSj Toxicology iqLrd iढ+h gS vkxzs; 'kL= dh pksVksa dk ftØ muesa gS ijUrq O;kogkfjd #i ls eq>s Kku ugha gS eS vkB ls esfMdy vkWfQlj gWw eSa djhc ,d lky ls iksLVekVZe Cases dj jgk gwW ijUrq fuf'pr la[;k ugha crk ldrk ;g dguk xyr gS fd lcwr i{k dks cy nsus ds fy, eS Fire arm injuries ds ckjs esa vufHkKrk crk jgk gwW 6. Duration esa NS ?kaVs dk QdZ nksuksa rjQ gks ldrk gSa^^ 29. C.W.-1 -Dr. K.K. Medico legal Expert was summoned for his expert opinion. Duration esa NS ?kaVs dk QdZ nksuksa rjQ gks ldrk gSa^^ 29. C.W.-1 -Dr. K.K. Medico legal Expert was summoned for his expert opinion. He deposed that the three injuries i.e. 2, 3 and 5 on the body of deceased are wounds of entry and injury no. 4 and 6 are wounds of exit caused by fire arm. He further stated that injury no. 3 which is on the right chest is related to injury no. 6. Injury no. 2 is caused by a 12 -bore gun. Injury nos. 3 and 4 are shots one rifle. Injury no. 5 and 6 are shots of another rifle. Injury no. 2 may be caused by burning by a close range fire. 30. Now, if we closely examine the evidence adduced by the eyewitness and the opinion of P.W.-7, we find that the injuries sustained by the deceased could not possibly be caused in the manner as alleged by the eyewitnesses. The said facts assumes importance in the present case as the ocular evidence is not consistent. 31. At this stage, in order to further ascertain the veracity of the facts deposed, let us have a glance at the evidence of the other formal witnesses. 32. P.W. -3, Dr. Omvir Singh, who is live stock development officer, stated in his cross examination that he had received information from Kotwali at about 10-11 a.m. for conducting postmortem of a bull. Now, this material evidence is enough to suggest, either that there is no link between the killing of bull and murder of Ram Kripal or that the incident had occurred earlier and the FIR was lodged after deliberations and suggestions. This also gives credence to the suggestion given to the P.W.-1 during the trial by the defense that Ram Kripal was murdered in the night at some time and Badri and other accused have been implicated due to enmity. 33. P.W. 8, S.C. Vidyarthi, Investigating Officer, in his examination in chief deposed that after concluding the Inquest proceedings at 2 p.m. (although the time of conclusion had not been mentioned in the inquest report) he inspected the place of incident and had prepared the site plan at the instance of P.W. -1 and P.W.-6 and recovered blood stained earth, tiklies and pellets. It would be worthwhile to state here that it is highly unnatural that the I.O. would prefer to inspect the place of incident after more than four and a half hours of the incident and would also recover the incriminating articles at that place, particularly when the evidence is that lot of people gathered had after the incident, thus the possibility of blood stains and recovery of tiklies and pellets becomes improbable. 34. Further, during the cross examination, the I.O. deposed that the place shown in the site plan as (1) is the place were the deceased was murdered, however the tiklies and pellets were not recovered from that place, it was recovered nearby. The place from where the blood was recovered had not been shown. The site plan also does not specify the place from where the accused fired at the deceased nor it mentions the place from where the eye witnesses witnessed the incident. According to him, P.W. -1 and P.W. -6, did not inform him the direction from where the accused fled after the incident, as such it was not mentioned. This fact in itself is sufficient to create a reasonable doubt about the prosecution story and it also corroborates the testimony of P.W. 2, that he did not find any empty pellet. As per P.W. 5, he did not find any tickli or pellets at the place of incident. It also reinforces the suggestion of the defence given to the I.O. that the mark (1) shown in the site plan is not the place of occurrence and no blood was recovered from that place. 35. Apart from the inconsistencies as noticed above, other important aspects of the matter for which there is no explanation are: (a) No effort at all was made by the investigating agency during the course of investigation to recover the fire arms allegedly used in the incident. (b) The bullet recovered from the carcass of the bull (Ex 8) and the bullet recovered from the place of incident were not sent for ballistic examination so as to ascertain that it was actually fired from the same rifle. (c) One rifle shot hit the bull tied at the door of one Sipahi Lal. The said Sipahi Lal was not brought by the prosecution to the witness box. (c) One rifle shot hit the bull tied at the door of one Sipahi Lal. The said Sipahi Lal was not brought by the prosecution to the witness box. This fact acquires significance in the light of the fact that the carcass of the bull was kept at his door for many hours and he was the best person to support the prosecution case. 36. We may state here that the 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 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. 37. Now, we may also deal with the motive as pleaded by the prosecution. According to the prosecution appellant Badri instigated the appellants Shyam, Ramraj and Chunnu to murder Ram Kripal as he held him responsible for the murder of Gorey Lal. However, we find from the cross examination of P.W. -1 that Ram Kripal was not named in the murder of Gorey Lal. He had deposed that he was not aware that it was case of murder or dacoity accompanied with murder and that no person was apprehended in the said incident nor any person was named therein. Further, Appellant Badri had not given any application against Ram kripal with regard to the murder of Gorey Lal and that the police had not arrested Ram Kripal in the said case. This being the position, the motive as set out for the crime in question is also not borne out from the evidence on record. On the other hand there was strong motive for the P.W. -1 to implicate the appellants as the evidence shows that he lost the litigations in the consolidation courts. Criminal cases were instituted between the parties and there was enmity existing between them. It was for this reason that the defense has given a suggestion at the trial that the Ram Kripal was murdered during the night and Badri and other accused had been implicated due to enmity. 38. Reliance on the testimonies of four witnesses whose testimonies are beset with material contradiction vitiates the judgment of the trial court. 39. It was for this reason that the defense has given a suggestion at the trial that the Ram Kripal was murdered during the night and Badri and other accused had been implicated due to enmity. 38. Reliance on the testimonies of four witnesses whose testimonies are beset with material contradiction vitiates the judgment of the trial court. 39. In entirety, the evidence adduced by the eye witnesses does not inspire requisite confidence. The prosecution story suffers from a reasonable doubt about the definite involvement of the accused appellants in the crime in question. 40. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. The judgment dated 8th December 1983 passed in session trial no. 28 of 1983 is set aside. The accused-appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. The accused appellants have already been released on bail. Hence, the sureties and bail bonds executed by them are hereby discharged.