ORDER : Vivek Varma, J. 1. By the judgment impugned dated 08.12.1983, learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur has convicted the accused-appellant Bachchu for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and awarded sentence to undergo imprisonment for life. Under the same judgment, co-accused Rameshwar, Radhey and Chait have been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 326/34 IPC, and sentenced to undergo four years Rigorous Imprisonment. 2. The appellant no. 2 (Rameshwar) and appellant no. 4 (Chait) died during pendency of this appeal and their appeal abated, vide order dated 24.08.2016. At present, the appeal of appellant no. 1 (Bachchu) and appellant no. 3 (Radhey) survives for hearing. 3. The prosecution case, as set-out in the first information report is, Roop Ram (P.W.-1) submitted a written report (Ext. Ka-1) written by Ram Asre, at Police Station Nigohoi District Shahjahanpur on 29.03.1983 at 15.10 PM. It stated, wheat crop was standing on the agricultural field measuring 1.90 acre, situated towards the west of the village. Ganga Deen, Mewa, Durga, Chotey, Thamman, Kedar and informant's father Lakhan were the co-sharers of the said agricultural holding whose names were recorded in the revenue records. Half the crop was disclosed to have been sown by Chait and the other half by Bachhu. Earlier, on many occasions, the informant's brother Ram Singh and Bhoop Ram had asked Bachhu and Chait not to till their land but, the latter did not agree and had sown the wheat crop. Far from acting lawfully and instead of withdrawing from the agricultural holding of the informant's family, they developed enmity against the informant and his brothers. On account of this enmity, at about 12:00 noon on 29.03.1983 assaulted the informant's brother Ram Singh. At that time Ram Singh (since deceased) was returning to his house after offering 'Aakhat' at Holi festival while the informant and his another brother Bhoop Ram, their uncle Agne and Om Prakash a villager of the same village were offering 'Aakhat at Holi. Bachhu, Rameshwar, Radhey, Chait surrounded Ram Singh near the house of Puttu Lal. Bachhu, who was carrying single barrel gun, upon being exhorted by Chait, fired at Ram Singh. The shot hit his brother in the abdomen, who fell down in the verandah of Puttu Lal and died on the spot. The FIR than narrates, Bachhu had fired at the deceased while Rameshwar, Radhey and Chait surrounded the deceased. Bachhu, who was carrying single barrel gun, upon being exhorted by Chait, fired at Ram Singh. The shot hit his brother in the abdomen, who fell down in the verandah of Puttu Lal and died on the spot. The FIR than narrates, Bachhu had fired at the deceased while Rameshwar, Radhey and Chait surrounded the deceased. Upon alarm being raised by them, the accused persons ran towards their respective houses. 4. On the basis of such information given to the police, a First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Nigohi, District Shahjahanpur at 15:10 P.M. It was registered as Case Crime No. 52 of 1983 under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused appellants. Sub-Inspector M.L. Sharma (PW-4) was entrusted the investigation. He visited the place of incident and prepared an inquest; recorded the statements of inquest witnesses and; prepared necessary papers like photo lash (Ext. Ka 5), challan lash (Ext. Ka 6), letter for post mortem (Ex. Ka 7) and sample seal (Ext. Ka 8). The dead body was sealed and sent to the mortuary for post mortem through Constable Ramesh Singh (PW-3) and Prem Prakash. A site plan (Ext. Ka-11) was also prepared. The sample of plain and blood stained earth was taken into possession through memo (Ext. Ka 10). The I.O. received an empty cartridge and prepared recovery memo (Ext. Ka 9). 5. An autopsy was conducted on the dead body of deceased by Dr. A.P. Mishra (PW-3) on 30.03.1983 at 3:00 P.M. and post mortem report (Ext. Ka 15) was prepared. 6. The accused-appellants were taken into custody from their respective houses at 11:00 P.M. in the night on 29.03.1983. The weapon of assault-single barrel gun of Bachhu along with his gun licence and ammunition belt with 10 live cartridges were taken into custody by the Investigating Officer from Bachhu's house. The statements of eye witnesses Bhoop Ram, Om Prakash and Mahipal were recorded on 08.04.1983. On 16.04.1983 the statement of Agne was recorded. 7. After completing the investigation, a report was filed before the competent Court. The Sessions Court framed charges under Section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant Bachhu. Co-accused Rameshwar, Radhey and Chait were charged under Section 302/34 I.P.C. The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty. At that, the trial commenced. 8. On 16.04.1983 the statement of Agne was recorded. 7. After completing the investigation, a report was filed before the competent Court. The Sessions Court framed charges under Section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant Bachhu. Co-accused Rameshwar, Radhey and Chait were charged under Section 302/34 I.P.C. The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty. At that, the trial commenced. 8. At the trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses out of whom, P.W. 1 Roop Ram (Informant-brother of deceased) and P.W. 2 Om Prakash nephew of deceased were cited as eye-witness. P.W. 3 Constable Ramesh Singh, who carried the dead body from the place of incident to mortuary. P.W. 4 I.O. M.L. Sharma, narrated the steps taken during the course of investigation while P.W.-5 Dr. A.P. Mishra adduced medical evidence. 9. An opportunity was accorded to the accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to explain the adverse and incriminating circumstances brought against them by the prosecution. The appellants denied all the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and claimed false implication. However, no defence witness was examined. The trial Court, after considering the arguments and evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellants vide impugned judgment and order as stated herein above, against that present appeal has been filed. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court has committed serious mistake in appreciating the circumstances in the light of evidence adduced by the prosecution. The ocular evidence was of interested witnesses only. They were closely related to the deceased and partisan. There are lot of material discrepancies in the oral evidence of these witnesses. Their evidence is not trustworthy. It cannot be relied upon. The witnesses of fact have contradicted each other on the most crucial aspects of the incident. It shows untrustworthiness of their depositions. The F.I.R. is anti-timed. It creates reasonable doubt about the prosecution version. Elaborating his argument he further pointed out, as per the examination-in-chief of P.W. 1 and site plan (Ext. Ka-11), the accused appellants and the eye-witnesses stated that the accused persons as well as the deceased, had their houses located in close proximity (100 steps as per the site plan). The place of incident was nine steps from the house of accused Chait. The distance from the house of Rameshwar and Radhey is 55 steps. Ka-11), the accused appellants and the eye-witnesses stated that the accused persons as well as the deceased, had their houses located in close proximity (100 steps as per the site plan). The place of incident was nine steps from the house of accused Chait. The distance from the house of Rameshwar and Radhey is 55 steps. Thus it has been submitted, it is highly improbable that all the accused-appellants would have gone back and remained in their respective houses after the incident inspite of them being named in the F.I.R. and that Bachhu would also have retained his S.B.B.L. gun/weapon of assault, in that house. The fact that the accused persons did not surrender but were arrested on 29.03.83 at 11. p.m., from their own house along with the murder weapon, that was so close to the place where the heinous offence of murder had taken place, in broad daylight, itself raises a reasonable doubt about the prosecution story, rendering it unnatural. 11. Per contra, learned A.G.A., submitted that conviction of appellants is in accordance with law. He submits that occurrence took place at broad day light and F.I.R. was lodged promptly within three hours ten minutes of the occurrence. The prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case. The appeal lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. The question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused appellants beyond all reasonable doubt or not. 14. P.W.-1 Roop Ram is the first informant and eye witness of the incident. In his examination-in-chief he detailed the location of his house/deceased's house as well as accused appellants houses with reference to the place of incident. 15. The said testimony shows that the accused-appellants as well as the deceased and the eye witness all have their houses at close proximity. 16. The aforesaid witness narrated the prosecution story with certain improvement. One, that eye witness Om Prakash (P.W.-2) was described as his nephew. Rameshwar, Radhey and Chait were stated to be armed with Lathi's whereas, as per first information report's version they were not armed. He further deposed that he submitted the complaint at police station. Diwanji, after writing the report, gave him a copy. One, that eye witness Om Prakash (P.W.-2) was described as his nephew. Rameshwar, Radhey and Chait were stated to be armed with Lathi's whereas, as per first information report's version they were not armed. He further deposed that he submitted the complaint at police station. Diwanji, after writing the report, gave him a copy. Further, he claimed to have recovered an empty cartridge from the place of occurrence. The incident was allegedly witnessed by him as well as Bhoop Ram, Mahipal, Om Prakash and Agne. 17. During cross-examination he deposed that on the fateful day Ram Singh (since deceased) was with him, thereafter, Ram Singh along with Data Ram, Sheo Prasad, Ujagar, Dwarka went to Holi for offering 'Aakhat 'at about 12.00 Noon. Thereafter Data Ram came in search of deceased Ram Singh when he (P.W.-1) was sitting in his lounge along with Bhoop Ram, Om Prakash, Mahipal and Agne. 18. This deposition raises a strong doubt about very basis of the prosecution story. If the deceased Ram Singh had accompanied Data Ram at 12.00 noon, then Data Ram could not have been the person who would have later come in search of the deceased Ram Singh. Then, he further deposed that he reached the Holika site, he saw Dataram and others offering 'Akhat'. Moreover, he then stated, he did not met Ram Singh while leaving for the Holika site but met him when he reached there. 19. He also deposed that his brother Ram Singh (deceased) was at the chabutra of Puttu Lal, when the shot was fired by the appellant Bacchu who was at the chabutra of Thamman. Being shot, the deceased fell down at the chabutra. After registration of FIR, his statement was recorded by the Daroga ji after 8-10 days. At that time also, he had not disclosed that the three accused were armed with Lathi's. He got the FIR registered by Diwan ji. The report was written by Ram Asre, who did not accompany him to the police station. After lodging the report he along with the Daroga ji reached the place of incident at 05.00 PM. Daroga ji stayed there for one hour and then conducted the inquest proceedings and thereafter left for the police station after sealing the body at 7.00. Next morning, this witness claimed to have reached the police station and affixed his thumb impression on some papers. Daroga ji stayed there for one hour and then conducted the inquest proceedings and thereafter left for the police station after sealing the body at 7.00. Next morning, this witness claimed to have reached the police station and affixed his thumb impression on some papers. After staying there for a little over one hour, he received the copy of the first information report. 20. The aforesaid testimony of the informant again creates a doubt as to whether the first information report was actually lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded. 21. Moreover, the prosecution has not furnished any explanation as to on which document the Investigating Officer had obtained thumb impression of P.W.-1 (informant) at the spot and that document has not been produced for scrutiny of the Court. 22. The said witness further clarified at page 12 (original copy) of his Cross examination, when the shot was fired appellant Bacchu was at the Chabutra and deceased Ram Singh was at the Chabutra of Puttu Lal. After the FIR had been lodged he found the empty cartridge lying. The same was not mentioned in the FIR. He however denied the suggestion that the deceased received the fire arm injury in the 'Galiyara' 23. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.-2, who is nephew of the (deceased) of the first informant. During cross-examination he claimed that while he was going to Holi, he did not find any one on the way going to offer 'Akhat' at Holi or was offering 'Akhat' at that time. He stated that when Daroga Ji reached the spot, he was sitting near the dead body. The body was dispatched at 07.00 P.M. He saw Daroga Ji in the village upto 8-9 O'clock in the night. He was interrogated by Daroga Ji after 8-10 days of the incident. 24. During cross examination, he deposed that upon being surrounded by the accused persons Ram Singh (deceased) climbed onto the Chabutra and Bacchu fired at him, 4-5 steps away from the Galiyara. He clarified, the accused appellant Bachchu, never reloaded his gun. 25. At this stage we may also refer to the site plan, made at the instance of P.W-1 (Ext. Ka.-11). The place shown where the deceased is said to have fallen and died is marked as 'A'. The said place is written in the site plan as 'Makaan kaccha Vadi'. He clarified, the accused appellant Bachchu, never reloaded his gun. 25. At this stage we may also refer to the site plan, made at the instance of P.W-1 (Ext. Ka.-11). The place shown where the deceased is said to have fallen and died is marked as 'A'. The said place is written in the site plan as 'Makaan kaccha Vadi'. It is not the Chabutara of Puttu Lal. Further the place 'B' shown in the site plan, where the shot is said to be fired is at 2 steps from place A and is admittedly not a Chabutra as stated by P.W-1, in fact it is Galiyara as stated by P.W-2. Thus, the site plan does not support the prosecution version of events. 26. Thus, the version of P.W-1 and 2 regarding the place from where the shot was fired at the deceased is not consistent and further the recovery of empty cartridge without any evidence of reloading makes it highly doubtful as a SBBL gun would not have expelled the empty cartridge, unless it was reloaded. 27. Apart, from the aforesaid eye-witnesses (P.W.-1 and P.W.-2) produced by the prosecution, who are all close relatives of the deceased, many other villagers were alleged to have witnessed the incident that took place in broad day light, that too around an important festival. By not examining, even a single witness, the prosecution has failed to produce any reliable or independent evidence. 28. Another unusual feature in the present case is, P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 both claimed to be present at the place of the incident when the Investigating Officer came for investigation and prepared the Panchayatnama. However, they were not made witnesses of the Panchayatnama. The five witnesses named in the Panchayatnama were all outsiders i.e. none was a member of the family of the deceased. It appears to be highly unnatural that P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, who were closely related to the deceased and though present at the relevant time would have remained present as mere spectators and not become part of the Panchayatnama proceedings. 29. P.W.-2 is nephew of P.W.-1. Thus, it is evident that these two eye witnesses are close relatives. It has to be borne in mind that the testimonies of related witnesses is required to be evaluated with care and caution. Scrutiny of the testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W-2 shows that they are in contradiction with each other. 30. 29. P.W.-2 is nephew of P.W.-1. Thus, it is evident that these two eye witnesses are close relatives. It has to be borne in mind that the testimonies of related witnesses is required to be evaluated with care and caution. Scrutiny of the testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W-2 shows that they are in contradiction with each other. 30. It has also come in the evidence that the accused and eye witnesses were involved in number of litigations and enmity existed between the parties, prior to this incident. In Darya Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1965 SC 328 : 1964 (7) SCR 397, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that a related or interested witness may not be hostile to the assailant, but if he is, then his evidence must be examined very carefully and all the infirmities must be taken into account. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted below: "There can be no doubt that in a murder case when evidence is given by near relatives of the victim and the murder is alleged to have been committed by the enemy of the family, criminal courts must examine the evidence of the interested witnesses, like the relatives of the victim, very carefully ........ But where the witness is a close relation of the victim and is shown to share the victim's hostility to his assailant, that naturally makes it necessary for the criminal courts examine the evidence given by such witness very carefully and scrutinise all the infirmities in that evidence before deciding to act upon it. In dealing with such evidence, Courts naturally begin with the enquiry as to whether the said witnesses were chance witnesses or whether they were really present on the scene of the offence.…..If the criminal Court is satisfied that the witness who is related to the victim was not a chance-witness, then his evidence has to be examined from the point of view of probabilities and the account given by him as to the assault has to be carefully scrutinised." 31. In view of the above, we come to the conclusion that the ocular evidence is not worthy of credence and it does not inspire the confidence of this Court. In fact, as noted above, it is full of material contradictions, improvements and doubts. It is discarded as wholly unreliable. 32. In view of the above, we come to the conclusion that the ocular evidence is not worthy of credence and it does not inspire the confidence of this Court. In fact, as noted above, it is full of material contradictions, improvements and doubts. It is discarded as wholly unreliable. 32. In the aforesaid background of testimonies of the aforesaid two interested and related eye witnesses, in order to further ascertain the veracity of the prosecution story let us have a glance at the evidence of other three formal witnesses. 33. P.W.-3 Ramesh Singh deposed that he was posted as Constable at Police Station Nigohi. He along with Investigating Officer and another constables reached the place of occurrence at 05.00 PM. The dead body was handed over to him and Constable Prem Prakash at 06.15 P.M. The body was carried by them to the mortuary on a bullock-cart. As per his deposition, he reached the mortuary at 03.00 A.M. on the next day. 34. P.W.-4 Sub-Inspector M.L. Sharma is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that he along with three constables reached the spot at 16.35 hours. He appointed inquest witnesses and conducted the inquest proceedings. The body was sealed and stamped by him. He prepared photo-lash, challan-lash, letters for post-mortem and dead body was sent through Constables Ramesh Singh and Prem Prakash at 18.15 hours along with relevant papers. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the inquest witnesses, inspected the site, recovered an empty cartridge, which was sealed and stamped. He took blood-stained soil and plain soil from the place shown in the site plan as 'A', prepared recovery memo's, recorded the statement of Ram Asrey (scriber of the first information report) and searched for the accused's. In the night at 11.00 P.M. he conducted raid and arrested Bachchu, Rameshwar, Radhey and Chait from their respective houses. The single barrel gun of Bachchu along with an ammunition belt containing ten cartridges were also taken into custody and recovery memo prepared. The statement of witnesses of recovery were recorded in the night of 29/30.03.1983. The Investigating Officer further deposed that statements of the accused persons were taken on 30.03.1983. On 08.04.1983 the statements of the witnesses Bhoop Ram, Om Prakash and Mahipal were recorded and on 16.04.1983 statement of Agney was recorded. During cross-examination, the Investigating Officer stated that on 29.03.1983 he met the eye witnesses in the village. The Investigating Officer further deposed that statements of the accused persons were taken on 30.03.1983. On 08.04.1983 the statements of the witnesses Bhoop Ram, Om Prakash and Mahipal were recorded and on 16.04.1983 statement of Agney was recorded. During cross-examination, the Investigating Officer stated that on 29.03.1983 he met the eye witnesses in the village. He could not record their statements on that day as he was busy. On 30.03.1983 he returned to police station for sending the accused to jail and did not record the statement of the eye witnesses. He got the site inspected by the Superintendent of Police on 31.03.1983 and from 31.03.1983 to 07.04.1983 he was busy in other government works. The relevant portion of the testimony of P.W.-4 is extracted below: ^^eq>s ugha irk fd eqfYteku 29 rk0 dks xaxknhu dh xyh dh gksyh euk jgs Fks vius ?kjksa ijA 29 rk0 dks eq>s p'enhn xokg xkao esa feys FksA To court ml fnu dke dh vf/kdrk dh otg ls p'enhn xokgksa ds c;ku ugha ys ldkA 30 rk0 dks eSa eqfYteku tsy Hkstus ds dkj.k Fkkus ykSV vk;k o p'enhn xokgksa ds o;kukr ugha fy[ks eSus 31 rk0 dks dIrku lkgc }kjk ?kVukLFky dk fujh{k.k djk;kA bl rk0 ls ysdj 7 rk0 rd nwljs dkj ljdkj esa el:Q jgus ds dkj.k xokgku p'enhn ds c;kukr ugha ys ik;kA^^ 35. He further stated that in his cross-examination that he recorded the statement of Mewa Ram and Ganga Din, who were lived close to the place of incident. He also denied the suggestion put to him that the report was written after inordinate delay and has been ante-timed. The relevant part is extracted below: ^^,slk ugha gS fd jiV cgqr ckn esa fy[kh xbZ esjs e'kfojs ls o anti time dh xbZA^^ 36. P.W.-5 Dr. A.P. Misra deposed that he conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased on 30.03.1983 at 03.00 P.M. and noted the following injuries: 1. Gunshot wound of entry 4 cm x 4.5 cm x cavity deep just above the umbilicus. Margins were inverted and lacerated. Direction backwards, very little to left side. 2. 5 small 0.25 cm x cavity deep (many) gunshot wounds on right, left and lower margin of the injury no. 1. Margins were inverted and continued with the margin of bigger wound. 1. 40 small metallic pallets were recovered from stomach, spleen, kidney, left side of post. Margins were inverted and lacerated. Direction backwards, very little to left side. 2. 5 small 0.25 cm x cavity deep (many) gunshot wounds on right, left and lower margin of the injury no. 1. Margins were inverted and continued with the margin of bigger wound. 1. 40 small metallic pallets were recovered from stomach, spleen, kidney, left side of post. wall, the stomach. 2. Wadding pieces were recovered from the abdominal cavity. In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to injuries. 37. P.W.-5 Dr. A.P. Mishra deposed during the cross-examination that the fire was made at the distance of 4 feet or more. He also stated that the deceased has received the injuries from a single shot. The dispersal is in maximum 5 cm. X 5 cm. area. 38. From the evidence of P.W.-5 we have no doubt that the death of Ram Singh was homicidal. 39. As per the deposition of P.W.-3, he reached the place of occurrence at 05.00 PM and the dead body was dispatched for mortuary at 6.15 P.M., it reached the mortuary at 3.00 A.M. on the next date and as per the statement of P.W.-1 he reached the place of occurrence along with Investigating Officer at 05.00 PM and thereafter the Inquest proceedings started after one hour, however, as per the Investigating Officer he reached at 04.35 PM and started the Inquest proceedings. 40. As such, this much becomes evident that the inquest proceedings did not start at the time mentioned. However, to corroborate the said fact further, let us have a look at other evidences. 41. As stated earlier, the Investigating Officer had deposed that he recorded the statement of the eye witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 08.04.1983 and on 16.04.1983. 42. Unusual delay in recording the statement of the eye witnesses creates a serious doubt about they being witness of the occurrence. Although the witnesses P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 were available for examination when the Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence soon thereafter, there statements were not recorded at that time. This fact assumes importance as it suggests that the investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide the shape to be given to the case and the eye witnesses to be introduced. 43. The said fact further becomes relevant when we find contradiction in the testimony of P.W-1 and P.W-2. This fact assumes importance as it suggests that the investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide the shape to be given to the case and the eye witnesses to be introduced. 43. The said fact further becomes relevant when we find contradiction in the testimony of P.W-1 and P.W-2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of U.P. Vs. Bhagwan Singh and others, reported in (1997) 11 SCC 19 , has held that: "Here we find contradiction in testimony of PW 2 and PW 1, Bhopal and Tika Ram-respectively, and such contradiction becomes very relevant when the investigating officer did not record the statement of any of the eye witnesses named in the FIR on the first day although he arrived at the place of occurrence at about 3.30 P.M. Non-recording of such a statement on the day of occurrence despite sufficient opportunity to record it raises doubt about the authentically of the contents of the FIR and also testimony of the eye witnesses. There are many other vital discrepancies in the testimony of the eye witnesses inasmuch as the testimony of the witnesses are at variance with the case set out in the Fist Information Report and as such, the High Court was justified in discarding the testimony of the witnesses. The High Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and at no stretch of imagination it can be said that the findings recorded by the High Court are perverse. For these reasons there is no merit in these appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed." 44. A catena of other circumstances exists in the present case which go to suggest that the first information report in the instant case was ante-timed and was lodged after deliberation and consultation. 45. The first circumstance which raises doubt regarding registering of the first information report at the time claimed by the prosecution is that after the preparation of the inquest report and other papers, the dead body for conducting the post mortem examination was sent through Constable Ramesh Singh and Constable Prem Prakash. No family member accompanied the dead body. During the examination-in-chief the Investigating Officer as well as the P.W.-3 Ramesh Singh stated that the dead body was sent at 6.15 P.M. on 29.03.1983. P.W.-3 further stated that the time of the body reaching the police lines was duly entered and the body reached the mortuary at 03.00 AM. No family member accompanied the dead body. During the examination-in-chief the Investigating Officer as well as the P.W.-3 Ramesh Singh stated that the dead body was sent at 6.15 P.M. on 29.03.1983. P.W.-3 further stated that the time of the body reaching the police lines was duly entered and the body reached the mortuary at 03.00 AM. However, a perusal of the challan-lash (Ext. Ka-6) reveals that it contains an endorsement that the dead body was received by the Reserve Police Inspector on 30.03.1983 at 8.45 A.M. and in the mortuary the police papers were received on 30.03.1983 at 11.00 A.M. The dead body was received on 30.03.1983 at 2.50 P.M. The post-mortem was conducted on 30.03.1983 at 03.00 P.M. In view of the aforesaid discrepancies, we have reasonable doubt about the truthfulness or correctness of the prosecution story and/or in the testimony of P.W-3. 46. The second circumstance which creates reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution case is the presence of accused-appellants at their respective houses when the Investigating Officer raided their houses and arrested them on 29.3.83 at 11 p.m. (the day of incident) and also recovered the alleged SBBL gun no. 4404/76 from the possession of the accused-appellant Bachchu. As per the prosecution case, the incident occurred in the broad day light at 12 noon. The body of the deceased was alleged to be lying at the Chabutara of Puttu Lal's house from 12 noon upto 6.15 p.m. 47. The first information report was allegedly lodged at 3.10 p.m. on the same day. The Investigating Officer visited the site and stayed there for one hour and thereafter started the inquest proceeding. He made no effort to arrest the accused-appellants. Although, the houses of the eye witnesses, accused-appellants and deceased were at closed proximity. Normal human behavior and conduct, does not support such conduct as a named accused would not be expected to stay at his house, close to the site of incident along with the murder weapon, though he had been seen committing the crime by many persons and though he had sufficient time to make good his escape. It appears, the FIR allegations had not arisen at the time as alleged, and therefore the accused persons were found present at their residence, almost 11 hours after the occurrence. 48. It appears, the FIR allegations had not arisen at the time as alleged, and therefore the accused persons were found present at their residence, almost 11 hours after the occurrence. 48. At this stage, if we also look at the testimony of P.W.-4 who was the Investigating Officer. We find, he reached the Police station along with the accused appellants at 5.30 a.m. in the morning on 30.03.1983 and the dead body reached the reserve police lines and mortuary on 30.03.1983. Now again, if we refer to the cross examination of P.W.-1, we find truth in his statement that he reached the police station in the morning on 30.03.83 and affixed his signature on some papers and after staying there for one and more hour, he received a copy of the FIR. This chain of circumstances is also suggestive of the fact that the FIR was ante-timed. At the cost of repetition, it would be worthwhile to state that the absence of eye witnesses, who were also close relatives of the deceased, in the Panchayatnama, also strengthens the argument of the counsel for the appellants, that in fact they were actually not present at the time of incident and they reached afterwards. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged. 49. Non-examination of attesting witnesses Puttu Lal and Shiv Prasad (of recovery memo's Ex. ka-9, 10, 12 and 13) also creates a reasonable doubt about the prosecution story as to alleged recoveries. Even otherwise, as per the prosecution story, the deceased was shot dead at the chabutra of Puttu Lal and the dead body was kept at his chabutra. Puttu Lal was also one of the witness of the Panchayatnama. Yet, the said Puttu Lal was not brought by the prosecution to the witness box. This fact acquires more significance in light of the fact that the dead body was kept at his chabutra for more than six hours and he was the best person to support the prosecution case. Although, we are aware of the legal position that each and every witness is not required to be necessary produced in evidence, but where the evidence of close relatives has been found to be unreliable, it is critical to note the complete absence of any independent witness to substantiate the prosecution case. 50. Although, we are aware of the legal position that each and every witness is not required to be necessary produced in evidence, but where the evidence of close relatives has been found to be unreliable, it is critical to note the complete absence of any independent witness to substantiate the prosecution case. 50. Apart from the contradictions as stated above, other important aspects of the matter for which there is no explanation is available on record are: (a) The investigating agency did not send the blood stained shirt, baniyan and underwear of the deceased (numbered as Ex. Ka-13, as per the examination in chief (pg-5) for chemical examination, to ascertain traces of human blood on it. (b) The SBBL gun recovered from the possession of accused-appellant Bachchu and the empty cartridge were not sent for forensic examination to ascertain whether the empty cartridge recovered, was actually fired from the gun seized from the appellant Bachchu. Mere seizure of the gun and empty cartridge cannot establish the guilt of the accused-appellants. 51. Although, 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. 52. 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 the accused appellants in the crime in question. Neither the eyewitness are reliable nor the circumstances are constituting a chain of circumstance leading to only one conclusion. 53. The learned Trial Judge without considering the aforesaid material discrepancies, placed reliance upon the so called ocular version and recorded his findings. Thus, the judgment passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained. 54. In result, this appeal deserves acceptance. Hence, the same is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 08.12.1983 in Sessions Trial No. 354 of 1983 is set aside. The accused-appellants Bachchu and Radhey shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required any other case.