JUDGMENT : Brij Raj Singh, J. 1. This Government appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 12 June 2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khurja Nagar Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No. 519 of 2015 (State of U.P. vs. Gajju), arising out of Case Crime No. 528 of 2014 for offences under Sections 302/120B I.P.C. Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr, by which the sole accused respondent has been acquitted. 2. Gajju/accused lodged a report on 28.6.2014 being Case Crime No. 528 of 2014 at 5:15 p.m. under Section 307 I.P.C. (altered to Section 302 I.P.C. on 28.6.2014 during investigtion). As per prosecution case, the complainant had gone in pairavi of a case to the District Court, Bulandshahr, and was informed by his Bhabhi Omvati (DW-1) that around 4 p.m. Bachchu, son of Sheeshram, Sukhvir, son of Bachchu Singh, Gaurav, son of Surendra @ Pappu, caused fire-arm injury in the stomach of his mother (Sukhveeri) who had gone to fetch Kanda (cow dung cake). His niece Meenu (DW-2) was with his mother. He further mentioned that the nominated accused had killed four persons in the year 2010, in some other case, in which his mother (Sukhveeri), was a witness. The fire-arm injury was caused with an intention to eliminate the witness. 3. The inquest was done on 29.6.2014 at 8:30 a.m. (Exhibit Ka-6) and post-mortem was also conducted on 29.6.2014 (Exhibit-Ka-3) at 12:30 p.m. The statement of some witnesses was recorded by the Investigating Officer (IO) on 14.8.2014 and the complainant (Gajju) was made an accused and charge-sheet was submitted against him, exonerating all the accused named in the F.I.R. 4. The trial Court summoned the accused respondent to face trial. After going through the records, as well as, the statements of the witnesses, the trial Court acquitted the accused. Hence, the present appeal. 5. We have heard Sri R.P. Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State appellant and perused the record with the assistance of the learned counsel. 6. Prosecution, in order to prove the charge, produced the witnesses PW-1 (Rajkumar), PW-2 (Dileep @ Guddan), PW-3 (Jaipal), PW-4 (Constable Clerk 1021 Ratanpal), PW-5 (Virendra Singh), PW-6 (Dr. Vinod Kumar Nirichetak), PW-7 (S.I. Brajpal Singh), PW-8 (Shatrughna Upadhyay) and PW-9 (Sudhir Kumar Tyagi) (the IInd I.O.). 7. 6. Prosecution, in order to prove the charge, produced the witnesses PW-1 (Rajkumar), PW-2 (Dileep @ Guddan), PW-3 (Jaipal), PW-4 (Constable Clerk 1021 Ratanpal), PW-5 (Virendra Singh), PW-6 (Dr. Vinod Kumar Nirichetak), PW-7 (S.I. Brajpal Singh), PW-8 (Shatrughna Upadhyay) and PW-9 (Sudhir Kumar Tyagi) (the IInd I.O.). 7. The accused was confronted with the prosecution evidence and the circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the charge and stated that he was falsely implicated. 8. The accused produced witnesses, DW-1 (Omvati) (Bhabhi of the accused) and DW-2 (Meenu) (niece of the accused), in defence. 9. PW-1 (Rajkumar), PW-2 (Dileep @ Guddan), PW-3 (Jaipal) and PW-5 (Virendra Singh), are witnesses of fact. They deposed that the accused respondent murdered his mother. There was enmity between respondent accused and the nominated accused in the F.I.R. All the four witnesses stated that the accused (Gajju) wanted to help his elder brother, namely, Kunwarpal, who was in jail in a case for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Gajju (accused) wanted to fabricate a false case under Section 307 I.P.C. by causing injury to his mother, so that his elder brother Kunwarpal could be bailed out. 10. The record reveals that the second I.O. (Sudhir Kumar Tyagi) had recorded the statements of PW-1 (Rajkumar), PW-2 (Dileep @ Guddan), PW-3 (Jaipal) and PW-5 (Virendra Singh), on 14.8.2014 and the entire case was turned topsy turby, the complainant Gajju was made an accused. The I.O. in a casual manner investigated the crime; the theory that the assault was enacted by causing fire-arm injury by the son of his mother to enable enlargement of his brother on bail is an improbable. The record further indicates that there is long standing enmity between the accused respondent and the family of Bachchu Singh nominated in the F.I.R. 11. It is pertinent to note here that Kunwarpal, (the elder brother of the accused) was implicated in a cross case being Case Crime No. 718 of 2010, Police Station Khurja Nagar. PW-3 (Jaipal) and PW-5 (Virendra Singh), are nominated accused in that case at Serial Nos. 6 and 10 respectively, which is admitted by them in cross-examination. PW-1 (Rajkumar) has been convicted with a sentence for five years in a case for offence under Section 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. PW-1 does not belong to the village of the accused and he has a relation with Bachchu Singh. 12. 6 and 10 respectively, which is admitted by them in cross-examination. PW-1 (Rajkumar) has been convicted with a sentence for five years in a case for offence under Section 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. PW-1 does not belong to the village of the accused and he has a relation with Bachchu Singh. 12. The defence produced the bail order (Exhibit 42Kha/2), which indicates that Kunwarpal was bailed out on 20.6.2014 by the order of the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. It is thus clear that eight days prior to the date of incident, bail was granted to Kunwarpal; there was no occasion for the respondent accused to stage a false case by causing fire-arm injury, in the stomach (vital part) of his own mother. 13. Mother of the accused, namely, Sukhveeri, was witness in a triple murder case, wherein the nominated persons, in the F.I.R. were accused. Four Investigating Officers, conducted the investigation from 28.6.2014 to 16.6.2015, but the statement of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5, were recorded on a single day i.e. on 14.8.2014 and the respondent herein was made an accused. 14. The alleged conspiracy hatched by Gajju with the help of Siril @ Sunil, has not been proved, Siril @ Sunil was attributed the role of causing fire-arm injury to the mother of Gajju, but no fire-arm was recovered, thus, the entire prosecution becomes doubtful. 15. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 16. We record our displeasure in the manner investigation was undertaken in the instant case. The I.O. appears, is unaware how investigation is done, which we are not prepared to accept being thana incharge. It is a case of serious dereliction of duty undertaken with ulterior motive, which is writ large from the facts and materials placed on record. 17. The incident is of 28.6.2014, F.I.R. came to be lodged promptly by the accused at 5:15 p.m. on being informed by his bhabhi, Omwati (DW-1) on mobile that his mother was shot by the nominated accused. Meenu (DW-2) daughter of DW-1 was with the deceased at the time of the incident. The first I.O. Brijpal Singh (PW-7) recorded the statement of the complainant/accused and other independent witnesses. They supported the prosecution case. Meenu (DW-2) daughter of DW-1 was with the deceased at the time of the incident. The first I.O. Brijpal Singh (PW-7) recorded the statement of the complainant/accused and other independent witnesses. They supported the prosecution case. The F.I.R. was initially lodged under Section 307 I.P.C. but upon the death of the deceased it was converted to Section 302 I.P.C. The investigation came to be transferred to the thana incharge Sudhir Kumar Tyagi (PW-9) on 29.6.2014. For the next forty five days until 14.8.2014, he did nothing except perusing the panchayatnama, post-mortem report and recorded the statement of the earlier I.O. and the Constables. Thereafter, recording the statements of independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5) implicating the complainant/accused of having committed the crime. In examination the I.O. (PW-9) admitted that he had not paid attention to the statement of the complainant/accused and the two other witnesses recorded by his predecessor. He admitted that he had not recorded the statement of Omwati (DW-1) who informed the complainant/accused of the incident. Nor did he record the statement of the deceased or her grand daughter (DW-2) who claims to be the occular witness. He did not visit the hospital to record the statement of the doctor who examined the injuries of the deceased. The I.O. (PW-9) admits that he was present in the thana at the time of the incident. The I.O. further admitted that he did not enquire whether there was any enmity between the deceased and the nominated accused. He ignored the crime case (718/2010) stated in the complaint. The deceased was a witness in the murder case. PW-3 and PW-5 are accused in the said case, who were set up by Bachchu Singh. 18. The theory set up by the I.O. (PW-9) for commission of the offence by the complainant/accused was that he wanted to stage a crime by causing fire-arm injury on the non-vital part of his mother, to ensure the enlargement of his brother Kunwarpal on bail. The theory fell flat as Kunwarpal was ordered to be enlarged on bail on 20.6.2014 i.e. eight days prior to the incident (28.6.2014). Siril @ Sunil was set up as an accomplice with the complainant to have committed the offence, read with Section 120 I.P.C. The investigation against Siril is probably inconclusive, the weapon employed in the commission of the offence has not been recovered. 19. Siril @ Sunil was set up as an accomplice with the complainant to have committed the offence, read with Section 120 I.P.C. The investigation against Siril is probably inconclusive, the weapon employed in the commission of the offence has not been recovered. 19. The investigation finally came to be transferred to I.O. Shatrughna Upadhyay (PW-8) on 28.4.2015 who upon perusal of the case diary mechanically submitted the charge-sheet against the complainant/accused on 16.6.2015. 20. In the circumstances the trial Court has rightly recorded that the prosecution (I.O.) failed to produce evidence against the accused, rather the witnesses are unbelievable, false and were set up in connivance with the accused in triple murder case, in which the deceased was a witness and pursuing the case. Her son (accused) was falsely implicated by the I.O. to favour the accused in the triple murder case. 21. After going through the entire record of the instant appeal, we are convinced that the I.O. (Sudhir Kumar Tyagi) has committed serious lapse while discharging his duties as an Investigating Officer. The investigation is designedly defective and there was deliberate attempt on the part of the I.O. to misdirect evidence in connivance with the nominated accused by setting up interested witnesses, implicating the complainant as an accused. 22. The Supreme Court in Sahabuddin and Another vs. State of Assam, (2012) 13 SCC 213 , directed disciplinary action against the erring Investigating Officer, as well as, the Medical Expert, relying upon an earlier decision rendered in Gajoo vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 9 SCC 532 . Paragraph 33 is extracted: ''In view of the above settled position of law, we hereby direct the Director General of Police, State of Assam and the Director General of Health Services, State of Assam to take disciplinary action against PW-1 and PW-11, whether they are in service or have since retired. If not in service, action shall be taken against them for deducting/stoppage of pension in accordance with the service rules. However, the plea of limitation, if any under the relevant rules would not operate, as the departmental enquiry shall be conducted in furtherance of the order of this Court.'' 23. Having regard to the conduct of I.O. Sudhir Kumar Tyagi (PW-9) and the I.O. Shatrughna Upadhyay (PW-8), we direct the Director General of Police, U.P. to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the aforenoted officials, if in service. Having regard to the conduct of I.O. Sudhir Kumar Tyagi (PW-9) and the I.O. Shatrughna Upadhyay (PW-8), we direct the Director General of Police, U.P. to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the aforenoted officials, if in service. It is clarified that in the event the officers have retired on attaining the age of superannuation, the embargo of limitation, if any under the rules would not operate and be an impediment. The departmental enquiry shall be conducted in furtherance of the order of this Court for deducting/stoppage of pension. 24. In such peculiar facts and circumstances, as discussed above, we are unable to persuade ourselves in taking a different opinion than that of the trial Court. 25. The prayer for leave to appeal is consequently, refused. The application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. 26. The appeal, in consequence, stands dismissed, however with the above directions. 27. The Registrar General to ensure compliance of the order.