JUDGMENT : Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ex-cadre), Court No.20, Allahabad, dated 31.7.2012, in Sessions Trial No.99 of 2006, arising out of Case Crime No.152 of 2005 under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Khuldabad, District Allahabad as well as in Sessions Trial No. 100 of 2006, arising out of Case Crime No.169 of 2005, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Khuldabad, District Allahabad, convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC read with Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life and Rs.5,000/- fine under Section 302 IPC and on failure to deposit the fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a year; five years imprisonment under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and Rs.2,000/- fine and on failure to deposit the fine to undergo additional imprisonment for six months. All punishments are to run concurrently. 2. First informant in the present case is one Sudhir Kumar Dwivedi (PW-1) who has lost his brother Suresh Kumar Dwivedi in the incident in question. Prosecution case is that the deceased was going on his motorcycle on 18.7.2005, at about 8.45 pm, from Rajrooppur to Beniganj in Allahabad. When he reached Chak Niratul Badi Maszid two persons fired on him due to which he died. The assailants fled towards Karbala. The incident is alleged to have been seen by Sushil Kumar Tripathi (PW-3), who happens to be the first cousin of the deceased and; Nagendra Kumar Dwivedi (PW-2), the nephew of the deceased; alongwith others and that they can recognize the assailants on seeing them, since there was sufficient light at the place of occurrence. On account of the incident members of public started running helter-skelter and an atmosphere of terror was created in the locality. The shutters of shops were pulled down and there was complete chaos. 3. The prosecution case further is that informant's other brother namely, Surendra Kumar Dwivedi was earlier killed on 14.5.2004. Accused Rakesh Kumar Pandey @ Daddu Pandey and Munna Pandey were accused of murdering him. The deceased Suresh Kumar Dwivedi was the informant in respect of murder of his brother Surendra Kumar Dwivedi. The bail application of accused Rakesh Kumar Pandey was allowed and he was enlarged on bail while that of Munna Pandey was rejected by the High Court. Accused Rakesh Kumar Pandey @ Daddu Pandey and Munna Pandey were accused of murdering him. The deceased Suresh Kumar Dwivedi was the informant in respect of murder of his brother Surendra Kumar Dwivedi. The bail application of accused Rakesh Kumar Pandey was allowed and he was enlarged on bail while that of Munna Pandey was rejected by the High Court. The deceased Suresh Kumar Dwivedi was to appear as the prosecution witness in that case and he has been eliminated so that he may not survive to support the prosecution case and accused Munna Pandey be released on bail. The Court is further informed that the prosecution in the murder case of Surendra Kumar Dwivedi ended in acquittal of accused as the main witness, namely Suresh Kumar Dwivedi, could not depose and other witnesses turned hostile. 4. The informant's family was allegedly on inimical terms with Awadh Narain Pandey and his two sons Rakesh Kumar Pandey @ Daddu Pandey i.e. accused appellant and Munna Pandey. This enmity is the alleged reason for commissioning of crime in this case. 5. The two eye-witnesses, who have come forward to support the prosecution version namely PW-2 and PW-3, are close relatives and the primary issue to be examined in this appeal is the credibility and reliability of these eye-witnesses. PW-1 is the first informant, who got the written report in respect of the above incident scribed from PW-3, on the basis of which the first information report was lodged and registered as Case Crime No. 152 of 2005, under Section 302 IPC. Two unknown persons were shown as accused in the FIR. 6. Pursuant to the FIR registered in this case the Investigating Officer collected bloodstained and plain earth from the place of occurrence vide Ex. Ka-4. The motorcycle of deceased was also recovered and was given in custody of the first informant. The inquest proceedings commenced at 6.30 am and ultimately concluded at 8.00 am on 19.7.2005. The delay apparently was explained stating that sufficient light was not available at the place of occurrence. 7. Various injuries were noticed on the deceased in the inquest and the inquest witnesses opined that the deceased had died on account of gunshot injuries sustained by him. The body was sealed and sent for postmortem. The postmortem has been conducted on 19.7.2005 and following ante-mortem injuries have been found on the body of the deceased:- "1. 7. Various injuries were noticed on the deceased in the inquest and the inquest witnesses opined that the deceased had died on account of gunshot injuries sustained by him. The body was sealed and sent for postmortem. The postmortem has been conducted on 19.7.2005 and following ante-mortem injuries have been found on the body of the deceased:- "1. Firearm wound of entry 5cm x 3cm in front of right ear adjacent to labula. Blackening and tattooing present. Depth of wound brain cavity deep. Blood present in brain cavity. Right temporo-parital and left temporal base fracture. Four piece of pallet and wedding piece recovered from brain cavity direction to wound front to backward region obliquely left side. Right mandible fracture. 2. Firearm wound of entry 2cm x 2cm thoracic region deep on the right side of the chest 5cm below the mid point of right clavicle. Blackening and tattooing present directed from front to back slightly oblique. Bullet recovery from heart. 3. Abraded contusion 6cm x 4cm on the left shoulder." 8. The two eye-witnesses to the incident, namely PW-2 and PW-3, did not know the assailants from before, although it was claimed that they could recognize the assailants. PW-2 claims that he visited a relative at Village Imli and there he saw one of the two assailants, namely the accused appellant. On enquiry the assailant was identified as Rakesh Kumar Pandey i.e. the accused appellant. PW-2 claims to have returned and informed the Investigating Officer about the identity of one of the accused who had fired at the deceased. On the basis of aforesaid disclosure made by PW-2, with regard to identity of assailant, the police arrested the accused appellant on 2.8.2005. From his possession a .315 bore Tamancha was recovered and accused confessed that this is the same firearm with which he shot the deceased. Recovery of country-made pistol, live cartridges and memo of arrest of accused was consequently prepared vide memo of recovery marked as Ex. Ka-16. A first information report was also lodged under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act being Case Crime No.169 of 2005. 9. The investigation proceeded and ultimately two chargesheets came to be filed before the concerned magistrate in Case Crime No. 152 of 2006 on 26.8.2005 and in Case Crime No.169 of 2005 on 29.10.2005 (Ex. Ka-18 and Ex. Ka-15 respectively). A first information report was also lodged under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act being Case Crime No.169 of 2005. 9. The investigation proceeded and ultimately two chargesheets came to be filed before the concerned magistrate in Case Crime No. 152 of 2006 on 26.8.2005 and in Case Crime No.169 of 2005 on 29.10.2005 (Ex. Ka-18 and Ex. Ka-15 respectively). The District Magistrate also sanctioned prosecution under Section 39 of the Arms Act vide his order dated 18.8.2005. Session Trial No. 99 of 2006 was registered in respect of Crime No.152 of 2005, under Section 302 IPC and Sessions Trial No. 100 of 2006 was registered in respect of Case Crime No. 169 of 2005, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The charges were read out to the accused on 22.3.2006, who denied the charges and demanded trial. 10. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused adduced documentary evidence in the form of written report (Ex.Ka-1), FIR dated 18.7.2005 (Ex.Ka-20), FIR dated 3.8.2005 (Ex.Ka-22), postmortem report (Ex.Ka-2), site plan with index dated 19.7.2005 (Ex.Ka-3), recovery memo of country-made pistol, live cartridges and memo of arrest (Ex.Ka-16), recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth (Ex.Ka-4), recovery memo of Chappal (Ex.Ka-5), recovery memo & supurdaginama of motorcycle (Ex.Ka-6), Panchayatnama (Ex.Ka-7), chargesheet dated 26.8.2005 (Ex.Ka-18), chargesheet dated 29.10.2005 (Ex.Ka-15), order of District Magistrate (Ex.Ka-19), site plan with index dated 29.10.2005 (Ex. Ka-14) and site plan with index dated 4.8.2005 (Ex.Ka-17). 11. Prosecution has also adduced oral evidence of Sudhir Kumar Dwivedi (first informant) (PW-1), Nagendra Kumar Dwivedi (PW-2) and Sushil Kumar Tripathi (PW-3). Dr. A.P. Tripathi, who had conducted the autopsy, has been produced as PW-4. Mahmood Alam (PW-5), Krishna Kant Tiwari (PW-6), Praduman Kumar Singh (PW-7), Mahabali (PW-8), Shavimuddin (PW-9), Rajaram (PW-10) and Dhanush Dhari Pandey (PW-11) are formal witnesses. 12. PW-1 has supported the prosecution case and has stated that the deceased was coming from Rajrooppur to Beniganj by a motorcycle and was followed by two assailants, who shot him dead. The accused fled towards Karbala. PW-1 and PW-2 alongwith others have seen the incident in the street light and the assailants can be identified by them. 12. PW-1 has supported the prosecution case and has stated that the deceased was coming from Rajrooppur to Beniganj by a motorcycle and was followed by two assailants, who shot him dead. The accused fled towards Karbala. PW-1 and PW-2 alongwith others have seen the incident in the street light and the assailants can be identified by them. He has implicated the appellant on the ground that deceased was a witness in the trial in the murder case of his brother Surendra Kumar Dwivedi and the deceased allegedly has been done to death so that the accused Munna Pandey could be enlarged on bail. In the cross-examination PW-1 has stated that there was a dispute relating to land between father of the accused appellant and the informant. 13. The witness PW-1 has also denied the suggestion that on account of enmity the accused appellant has been falsely implicated. PW-1 in the cross-examination has stated that he reached the place of occurrence at 9.00 pm and only 10 minutes thereafter the Investigating Officer arrived. When the Investigating Officer arrived PW-3 also came to the place of occurrence. On the enquiry by Investigating Officer PW-3 informed that he is literate person and on the asking of PW-1 the FIR was scribed by PW-3. 14. PW-2 has also supported the prosecution case. He has stated that the deceased was coming from Beniganj to Rajrooppur. His motorcycle was got stopped by two persons. PW-2 and PW-3 claims to have been present and seen the incident. Initially the two assailants talked to deceased, which turned into a hot talk and abuses were hurled on deceased, whereafter the assailants fired one gunshot each at the deceased. PW-2, however, claims that he was not aware of the identity of the accused. PW-2 has recognized and identified the accused appellant, in the Dock, as being one of the two assailants, who fired on the deceased. PW-2 has claimed that by the time he reached the deceased, he had already died. Leaving the dead body at the place of occurrence PW-2 left for Beniganj and informed PW-1 of the incident. PW-1 and PW-3 thereafter came on the spot. PW-2, however, remained at Beniganj. 15. On the next day PW-2 left for his village and informed the family members about the incident. After 2-3 days he visited Village Imli where he saw the accused appellant. PW-1 and PW-3 thereafter came on the spot. PW-2, however, remained at Beniganj. 15. On the next day PW-2 left for his village and informed the family members about the incident. After 2-3 days he visited Village Imli where he saw the accused appellant. On inquiry from the villagers he could ascertain the identity of the accused appellant. In the cross-examination he, however, admitted that he had not informed the Investigating Officer that he was coming from Rajrooppur or that he had gone to meet the deceased at Rajrooppur. No reasons for meeting the deceased was disclosed either. 16. The deceased was although the uncle of PW-2, yet he did not return to enquire about the condition of the deceased. He further admitted that his statement was not recorded on the day of incident or the day thereafter, as he had gone to his native village and thereafter to Village Imli and only thereafter his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He claims that he did not know the accused from before and was also not aware as to whether the identification of other accused was undertaken in jail or not. He, however, admitted later that he visited the jail for identification of Rajesh Kumar Mishra but he was not identified as one of the assailants. 17. PW-3 has stated in his sworn testimony that he was at a distance of about 10-15 paces when he heard the gunshot injury and by the time he reached the spot the accused had fled on their motorcycle. PW-3 claims to have accompanied PW-2 for going to Rajrooppur from Beniganj. PW-3, unlike PW-2, claims to have signalled the deceased to stop when they crossed each other, but the deceased had moved ahead. By the time he returned to the deceased he found that the two assailants were abusing the deceased and shot him dead. By the time PW-3 reached the place of occurrence, the deceased had already died and the accused had fled. 18. PW-3 has also identified the accused appellant in the dock as being the accused who fired at the deceased. PW-3 has, however, identified a different place as being the place of occurrence from the one informed by PW-2. As per PW-3 the place of occurrence was at G.T. Road, whereas the place of occurrence as per the prosecution is on Rajrooppur-Beniganj Road. PW-3 has, however, identified a different place as being the place of occurrence from the one informed by PW-2. As per PW-3 the place of occurrence was at G.T. Road, whereas the place of occurrence as per the prosecution is on Rajrooppur-Beniganj Road. The two eye-witnesses are therefore not consistent with each other in their testimony with regard to the place of incident. There is a distance of nearly 600 metres between the locations identified by them. 19. PW-3 claims that he had gone to meet the deceased but he left for Rajrooppur after getting to know that deceased had left for Rajrooppur. This disclosure, however, was not made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This witness has denied the suggestion that he has not seen the incident and that the incident had already occurred by when he reached the place of occurrence. 20. The doctor and other formal witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. The incriminating material collected against the accused has been put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused has stated that though he was an accused in the murder of Surendra Kumar Dwivedi but he was falsely implicated and the proceedings have resulted in his acquittal. About the FIR he claims that its registration was after consultation with police. He has also denied the recovery of firearm from him and has alleged that he was arrested from his house. He specifically asserted that due to enmity he has been falsely implicated in the matter. 21. Trial court on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution during trial has found the charges to be proved against the accused under Section 302 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Life sentence under Section 302 IPC alongwith lesser sentence under the Arms Act and fine etc. has been awarded to the accused appellant. Thus aggrieved, the accused appellant is before this Court. 22. Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri D.M. Tripathi for the appellant submits that the accused appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of old enmity, and that the two eye-witnesses are not trustworthy. Various contradictions in the statement of witnesses have been pointed out in order to allege that the witnesses are not reliable. Various contradictions in the statement of witnesses have been pointed out in order to allege that the witnesses are not reliable. He further submitted that the conduct of witnesses in leaving the dead body at the place of occurrence; not taking the deceased to the hospital for medical aid; not being a witness of inquest proceedings etc. clearly go to show that the alleged eye-witnesses were actually not present at the spot when the incident occurred. Argument is that this is a case of blind murder on account of involvement of deceased in property dealing and merely because there was an old enmity with the accused appellant, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the matter. 23. Sri Tiwari also argued that there was no source of light available at the place of occurrence for the assailants to have been recognized. He further submitted that though various shops etc. were in existence in the vicinity but no independent witness has come forward to testify and merely on the strength of suspicion, due to old enmity, the accused appellant has been implicated. Submission is that the judgment of conviction and sentence is contrary to the weight of evidence and material available on record. 24. Per contra, learned AGA and Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sheshadri Trivedi for the informant submits that this is a case of murder of an eye-witness only to ensure that the deceased may not testify against Munna Pandey, so that he may be enlarged on bail. He further submits that there was sufficient light on the spot. It is also urged that eye-witnesses account is wholly natural and believable and the judgment of conviction and sentence is well reasoned and requires no interference. 25. In the facts of this case we are therefore required to examine whether the incident occurred in the manner stated by the prosecution; the two eye-witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 are reliable and trustworthy; whether there was sufficient light on the spot in which the assailants could be recognized; the conduct of witnesses are natural and inspiring and whether the court below has rightly returned the finding of guilt against the accused and the sentence is just, fair and proper? 26. We have carefully examined the testimony of the two eye-witnesses PW-2 and PW-3. 26. We have carefully examined the testimony of the two eye-witnesses PW-2 and PW-3. As per prosecution the incident occurred when the deceased was going on a motorcycle from Rajrooppur to Beniganj. He was all alone on his bike. The two accused allegedly stopped the deceased; hurled abuses at him and fired one shot each causing his death. The place of incident is Rajrooppur-Beniganj Road near Chak Niratul Badi Maszid falling within the limits of Khuldabad Police Station. The time of incident is around 8.45 pm on 18th July, 2005. 27. The site plan is on record. The road coming from Rajroopur joins the old G.T. Road. There is a narrower road originating from this road joining G.T. Road, through Karbala, a little further towards east on G.T. Road. On one side of this road is Chakia locality having cluster of houses and shops of Raj Kumar, Satish Kumar, Pappu Verma and Santosh etc., while on the other side of the road is Mohalla Chak Niratul followed with a lane whereafter is the house of Shyam Carpenter and house of Farrukh followed with the mosque of Chak Niratul. The place is surrounded by small shops and houses of various persons and is just in front of the mosque. It transpires that there are shops and houses of various persons around the place of incident and thus existence of public around the place of occurrence is natural and probable. However, none has been produced by the prosecution from the nearby shops or houses nor any endeavour is made to enquire from the local residents about the manner in which the incident occurred. 28. The prosecution has placed reliance upon the three witnesses of fact, namely PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. So far as PW-1 is concerned, he is not an eye-witness to the incident. His testimony is based upon the disclosure of facts made to him by PW-2 and PW-3. His personal knowledge is limited to the aspect of enmity between the parties i.e. the accused family and the informant family. PW-1 came to the police station to lodge the report. PW-3 is the scribe of the written report (Ex.Ka-1). PW-1 has verified the contents of the written report. In his cross-examination PW-1 has stated that he arrived at the place of occurrence at 9.00 pm and the Investigating Officer came ten minutes thereafter. PW-1 came to the police station to lodge the report. PW-3 is the scribe of the written report (Ex.Ka-1). PW-1 has verified the contents of the written report. In his cross-examination PW-1 has stated that he arrived at the place of occurrence at 9.00 pm and the Investigating Officer came ten minutes thereafter. When the Investigating Officer arrived, at about the same time PW-3 also came. 29. PW-2 is the first eye witness produced by the prosecution. He is 19 years of age and is a resident of Pure Bunapurwa, Police Station Sarai Akil, District Allahabad and is a student. He claims that it was around 9.00 or quarter to 9.00 when he was coming alongwith PW-3 from Beniganj to Rajrooppur. The deceased was coming from the opposite direction i.e. Beniganj to Rajrooppur when the two assailants stopped him a little ahead of the mosque. PW-2 is the nephew of the deceased and claims to have seen the incident. 30. The purpose of visit of PW-2 is not disclosed. This witness has not disclosed his place of residence in Allahabad nor any specific reason is disclosed for having gone to meet the deceased or returning from Rajrooppur to meet him. It is not even alleged that this was his daily route. His presence at the spot in connection with any specific purpose is also not established. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-2 has not claimed that he was going to meet the deceased. No reason for meeting the deceased is disclosed either. Thus, from the testimony of PW-2 it can safely be deduced that he is a chance witness. 31. Before proceeding with the matter any further it would be worth examining the circumstances relating to the presence of PW-3 at the place of occurrence, at this juncture. PW-3 is a resident of Karela Bagh Colony and is aged about 48 years. He is doing some job. He claims that he was going alongwith PW-2 from Beniganj to Rajrooppur. The deceased was the son of his father's sister (Bua) and thus PW-3 was the first cousin of the deceased. He has, however, disclosed the place of occurrence to be on the G.T. Road, contrary to the prosecution case of incident occurring on Rajrooppur-Beniganj Road. He claims that he was going alongwith PW-2 from Beniganj to Rajrooppur. The deceased was the son of his father's sister (Bua) and thus PW-3 was the first cousin of the deceased. He has, however, disclosed the place of occurrence to be on the G.T. Road, contrary to the prosecution case of incident occurring on Rajrooppur-Beniganj Road. He too claims that he had gone to meet the deceased at Beniganj where he came to know that he had gone to Rajrooppur and so PW-3 was also going to Rajrooppur. PW-3 also had not disclosed this fact to the Investigating Officer in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor even the purpose of his visit was disclosed to the Investigating Officer. This witness too is thus a chance witness. 32. There is yet another aspect, which has to be borne in mind before evaluating the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3. Both PW-2 and PW-3 are related to the deceased being his nephew and cousin. There is an admitted old enmity between the deceased and the accused. Enmity can be the cause for committing the offence and can also be the cause for false implication. 33. The two witnesses nevertheless are related to the deceased and apparently would be interested in conviction of the accused. They would thus fall in the category of interested witnesses. The Court, therefore, has to be careful in evaluating their testimony upon whom the prosecution case rests. 34. Law with regard to chance witness and interested witness has been summed up, recently, by the Supreme Court in Rajesh Yadav and another Vs. State of U.P., 2022 online SC 150. In paragraph 26 and 27 of the judgment the Court has observed as under:- "26. A chance witness is the one who happens to be at the place of occurrence of an offence by chance, and therefore, not as a matter of course. In other words, he is not expected to be in the said place. A person walking on a street witnessing the commission of an offence can be a chance witness. Merely because a witness happens to see an occurrence by chance, his testimony cannot be eschewed though a little more scrutiny may be required at times. This again is an aspect which is to be looked into in a given case by the court. Merely because a witness happens to see an occurrence by chance, his testimony cannot be eschewed though a little more scrutiny may be required at times. This again is an aspect which is to be looked into in a given case by the court. We do not wish to reiterate the aforesaid position of law which has been clearly laid down by this Court in State of A.P. v. K. Srinivasulu Reddy, (2003) 12 SCC 660: "12. Criticism was levelled against the evidence of PWs 4 and 9 who are independent witnesses by labelling them as chance witnesses. The criticism about PWs 4 and 9 being chance witnesses is also without any foundation. They have clearly explained as to how they happened to be at the spot of occurrence and the trial court and the High Court have accepted the same. 13. Coming to the plea of the accused that PWs 4 and 9 were "chance witnesses" who have not explained how they happened to be at the alleged place of occurrence, it has to be noted that the said witnesses were independent witnesses. There was not even a suggestion to the witnesses that they had any animosity towards any of the accused. In a murder trial by describing the independent witnesses as "chance witnesses" it cannot be implied thereby that their evidence is suspicious and their presence at the scene doubtful. Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passers-by will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere "chance witnesses". The expression "chance witness" is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and everyone must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country where people are less formal and more casual, at any rate in the matter explaining their presence." 27. The principle was reiterated by this Court in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 : "21. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country where people are less formal and more casual, at any rate in the matter explaining their presence." 27. The principle was reiterated by this Court in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 : "21. In Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P. [ (2004) 11 SCC 410 : 2004 Supp SCC (Cri) 105] this Court while considering the evidentiary value of the chance witness in a case of murder which had taken place in a street and a passer-by had deposed that he had witnessed the incident, observed as under: If the offence is committed in a street only a passer-by will be the witness. His evidence cannot be brushed aside lightly or viewed with suspicion on the ground that he was a mere chance witness. However, there must be an explanation for his presence there. The Court further explained that the expression "chance witness" is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and everyone must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country like India where people are less formal and more casual, at any rate in the matter of explaining their presence. 22. The evidence of a chance witness requires a very cautious and close scrutiny and a chance witness must adequately explain his presence at the place of occurrence (Satbir v. Surat Singh [ (1997) 4 SCC 192 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 538], Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2004) 11 SCC 253 : 2004 Supp SCC (Cri) 28], Acharaparambath Pradeepan v. State of Kerala [(2006) 13 SCC 643 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] and Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh [ (2007) 13 SCC 360 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 188]). Deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remains doubtful should be discarded (vide Shankarlal v. State of Rajasthan [ (2004) 10 SCC 632 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 579]). 23. Conduct of the chance witness, subsequent to the incident may also be taken into consideration particularly as to whether he has informed anyone else in the village about the incident (vide Thangaiya v. State of T.N. [ (2005) 9 SCC 650 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1284]). 23. Conduct of the chance witness, subsequent to the incident may also be taken into consideration particularly as to whether he has informed anyone else in the village about the incident (vide Thangaiya v. State of T.N. [ (2005) 9 SCC 650 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1284]). Gurcharan Singh (PW 18) met the informant Darshan Singh (PW 4) before lodging the FIR and the fact of conspiracy was not disclosed by Gurcharan Singh (PW 18) and Darshan Singh (PW 4). The fact of conspiracy has not been mentioned in the FIR. Hakam Singh, the other witness on this issue has not been examined by the prosecution. Thus, the High Court was justified in discarding the part of the prosecution case relating to conspiracy. However, in the fact situation of the present case, acquittal of the said two co-accused has no bearing, so far as the present appeal is concerned."" 35. The Court has also dilated upon the distinction between the related and interested witness in paragraph 28 and 29 of the report, which is reproduced hereinafter for the better understanding of the issue:- "28. A related witness cannot be termed as an interested witness per se. One has to see the place of occurrence along with other circumstances. A related witness can also be a natural witness. If an offence is committed within the precincts of the deceased, the presence of his family members cannot be ruled out, as they assume the position of natural witnesses. When their evidence is clear, cogent and withstood the rigor of cross examination, it becomes sterling, not requiring further corroboration. A related witness would become an interested witness, only when he is desirous of implicating the accused in rendering a conviction, on purpose. 29. When the court is convinced with the quality of the evidence produced, notwithstanding the classification as quoted above, it becomes the best evidence. Such testimony being natural, adding to the degree of probability, the court has to make reliance upon it in proving a fact. The aforesaid position of law has been well laid down in Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 591 : "32. Coming back to the appreciation of the evidence at hand, at the outset, our attention is drawn to the fact that the witnesses were interrelated, and this Court should be cautious in accepting their statements. The aforesaid position of law has been well laid down in Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 591 : "32. Coming back to the appreciation of the evidence at hand, at the outset, our attention is drawn to the fact that the witnesses were interrelated, and this Court should be cautious in accepting their statements. It would be beneficial to recapitulate the law concerning the appreciation of evidence of related witness. In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 145 : AIR 1953 SC 364 : 1953 Cri LJ 1465], Vivian Bose, J. for the Bench observed the law as under : (AIR p. 366, para 26) "26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts." 33. In Masalti v. State of U.P., (1964) 8 SCR 133 : AIR 1965 SC 202 : (1965) 1 Cri LJ 226], a five-Judge Bench of this Court has categorically observed as under : (AIR pp. 209-210, para 14) "14. ... There is no doubt that when a criminal court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such evidence. 209-210, para 14) "14. ... There is no doubt that when a criminal court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such evidence. Whether or not there are discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not the evidence strikes the court as genuine; whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all matters which must be taken into account. But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. Often enough, where factions prevail in villages and murders are committed as a result of enmity between such factions, criminal courts have to deal with evidence of a partisan type. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct." 34. In Darya Singh v. State of Punjab [ (1964) 3 SCR 397 : AIR 1965 SC 328 : (1965) 1 Cri LJ 350], this Court held that evidence of an eyewitness who is a near relative of the victim, should be closely scrutinised but no corroboration is necessary for acceptance of his evidence. In Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana [ (2005) 9 SCC 195 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1213 : 2005 Cri LJ 2199], this Court observed that : (SCC p. 227, para 6) "6. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused." 35. The last case we need to concern ourselves is Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra [ (2007) 14 SCC 150 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 773], wherein this Court after observing previous precedents has summarised the law in the following manner : : (SCC p. 164, para 38) "38. ... it is clear that a close relative cannot be characterised as an "interested" witness. ... it is clear that a close relative cannot be characterised as an "interested" witness. He is a "natural" witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinised carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the "sole" testimony of such witness. Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary, close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one." 36. From the study of the aforesaid precedents of this Court, we may note that whoever has been a witness before the court of law, having a strong interest in result, if allowed to be weighed in the same scales with those who do not have any interest in the result, would be to open the doors of the court for perverted truth. This sound rule which remains the bulwark of this system, and which determines the value of evidence derived from such sources, needs to be cautiously and carefully observed and enforced. There is no dispute about the fact that the interest of the witness must affect his testimony is a universal truth. Moreover, under the influence of bias, a man may not be in a position to judge correctly, even if they earnestly desire to do so. Similarly, he may not be in a position to provide evidence in an impartial manner, when it involves his interest. Under such influences, man will, even though not consciously, suppress some facts, soften or modify others, and provide favourable colour. These are most controlling considerations in respect to the credibility of human testimony, and should never be overlooked in applying the rules of evidence and determining its weight in the scale of truth under the facts and circumstances of each case."" 36. In the context of the above law we are required to carefully scrutinize the testimony of two interested chance witnesses in order to determine their credibility and reliability for ascertaining whether the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. 37. PW-2 claims that while deceased was returning from Rajrooppur to Beniganj two persons stopped him a little ahead after the mosque. They talked initially and then abused the deceased and shot two fires causing the death of deceased. 37. PW-2 claims that while deceased was returning from Rajrooppur to Beniganj two persons stopped him a little ahead after the mosque. They talked initially and then abused the deceased and shot two fires causing the death of deceased. He claims that he was at a distance of 10-15 paces when he heard the gunshot. Hearing the gunshot the witness stopped and the assailants fled towards Karbala on their motorbike, by the time the witnesses reached the place of occurrence. 38. This witness further stated that he was going towards west to south having come from the east and the road where the incident occurred was going from the east to west. 39. We have seen the site plan in which the road where incident occurred is running from north to south with Rajrooppur shown on the south in the site plan. The deceased was thus coming from the south and going towards north while PW-2 was heading in the opposite direction towards west and south. The direction of deceased was thus towards north while that of PW-2 towards south. PW-2 also was on motorbike as was the deceased and the assailants. 40. The statement of PW-2 shows that deceased and PW-2 were both on the motorbike and were travelling in opposite directions. Though PW-2 states that he was present at the spot but it is not clarified by him as to whether he had crossed the deceased who was coming from the other direction or not? 41. PW-2 has, however, admitted that he heard the gunshots from a distance of 10-15 paces and by the time he came near the deceased the assailants had already fled towards Karbala. 42. The direction of PW-2 and deceased being opposite two eventualities are possible. Either he had crossed the deceased or he was yet to cross him. If he had crossed the deceased then the witness PW-2 was facing towards south after crossing the deceased while deceased was moving northwards. The incident in that scenario must have occurred on the back of the witness at 10-15 paces and it is difficult to believe that PW-2 would have seen the incident. 43. If we take the alternative scenario then PW-2 was yet to cross the deceased. The incident in that scenario must have occurred on the back of the witness at 10-15 paces and it is difficult to believe that PW-2 would have seen the incident. 43. If we take the alternative scenario then PW-2 was yet to cross the deceased. The deceased was at a distance of 10-15 paces from PW-2 and it is difficult to imagine as to how PW-2 could see the deceased being stopped by the assailants; followed with their talks and hurling of abuses and lastly the firing. The direction of the assailants in that event would be towards the north and their back would be towards PW-2. The assailants eventually fled towards further north on the Karbala Road. The possibility of PW-2 having recognized the assailants in that event would be remote and doubtful. 44. In the either of the two eventualities it is difficult to accept that PW-2 saw the incident. It is also to be kept in mind that this was a night incident and no street light is shown to exist in the site plan. Even if we accept the argument of Mr. Trivedi that light was available in the adjoining shop, yet, we are doubtful whether it was sufficient for the witness to have clearly recognized the accused from the motorbike at a distance of 10-15 paces. The prosecution case, in such circumstances, is rendered doubtful. 45. The testimony of PW-2 is a little amusing from a different aspect also. PW-2 states that he did not know the accused from before. Upon seeing the incident he came straight to PW-1 and informed him about the incident. He did not return to the place of occurrence to ascertain whether his uncle (deceased) was dead or alive or any report was lodged. His statement was not recorded on that day or even on the next date. He (PW-2) claims to have left for his village and on the fifth day he left for Village Imli. Village Imli incidentally is the village where the accused appellant admittedly lived. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that at Village Imli he enquired about the accused. In reply to a specific query PW-2 admitted that after death of deceased he remained engaged in identifying the accused Daddu Pandey. Village Imli incidentally is the village where the accused appellant admittedly lived. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that at Village Imli he enquired about the accused. In reply to a specific query PW-2 admitted that after death of deceased he remained engaged in identifying the accused Daddu Pandey. This clearly shows that PW-2 had already decided that the assailant was accused Daddu Pandey and the purpose of visit to village Imli was only to confirm his identity. 46. PW-2 visited village Imli where the accused Daddu Pandey lived and was informed by a villager about the identity of the accused Daddu Pandey. Name of such villager, however, is not disclosed. The manner in which identity of accused appellant Daddu Pandey is established, as per prosecution, contains too many coincidents and raises a doubt on the prosecution version. 47. Interestingly, statement of PW-2 was recorded by the Investigating Officer only on 23.7.2005 i.e. on the fifth day of the incident, by when he had recognized and identified the accused appellant. The manner in which PW-2 has identified the accused appellant remains questionable. 48. Another accused Rajesh Kumar Mishra was also arrested and test identification parade was conducted on him but PW-2 failed to recognize him. 49. The circumstances and peculiar manner in which PW-2 travelled to Village Imli to identify the accused appellant assumes significance in the background of strong enmity existing between the deceased and the accused. 50. The cross-examination of PW-2 was concluded on 13.7.2007. PW-3 was introduced in evidence thereafter on 25.7.2007. Although PW-3 and PW-2 were together on the motorbike but the version of PW-3 is distinct from that of PW-2. PW-3 has stated that he was going with PW-2 towards Rajrooppur and saw the deceased near the Maszid and signalled him to stop. PW-3 and PW-2, however, went a little ahead and returned towards the deceased and saw the assailants abusing the deceased and firing at him. By the time PW-3 reached the deceased he had already died and the assailants had fled. 51. PW-3 in his cross-examination has stated that the incident occurred on the road from his residence to Rajrooppur on G.T. Road which is at variance with the place of incident disclosed by the prosecution in the site plan. By the time PW-3 reached the deceased he had already died and the assailants had fled. 51. PW-3 in his cross-examination has stated that the incident occurred on the road from his residence to Rajrooppur on G.T. Road which is at variance with the place of incident disclosed by the prosecution in the site plan. An issue is thus raised with regard to the place of occurrence as per the testimony of two eye witnesses, adding to the doubt on the prosecution case. This witness has also admitted that he had not disclosed the Investigating Officer about the purpose of his visit to meet the deceased or that he came to know at Beniganj that deceased had left for Rajrooppur. 52. In his cross-examination PW-3 admitted that the road on which the incident occurred goes from north to south and he was going towards the south. He too has stated that he heard the gunshot from a distance of 10-15 paces. 53. This witness has been confronted with his previous statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he had not disclosed the fact that he had signalled the deceased to stop or that he returned towards the deceased and then saw the incident. His statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded belatedly on 27.7.2005 i.e. almost after 09 days of the incident for which no explanation is furnished. 54. PW-5, the Investigating Officer has deposed that neither PW-2 nor PW-3 had informed him that they were going to meet the deceased or that on reaching Beniganj they came to know that deceased had gone to Rajrooppur. He also stated that PW-3 never informed him that he signalled the deceased to stop or that they had moved ahead and on return saw the incident of firing. He also admitted that electricity poll was not shown in the site plan at the place of occurrence. 55. As per prosecution case both the eye witnesses, namely PW-2 and PW-3 were together on a bike. They have seen the occurrence together as per the prosecution. It would thus be expected that they would be consistent on the factual assertions regarding the manner in which they saw the incident. 56. We have already noticed that PW-2 in his statement had not explained the manner in which he saw the incident. They have seen the occurrence together as per the prosecution. It would thus be expected that they would be consistent on the factual assertions regarding the manner in which they saw the incident. 56. We have already noticed that PW-2 in his statement had not explained the manner in which he saw the incident. It was not clarified as to whether he had crossed the deceased or not and we have already expressed our doubt about the incident being witnessed by PW-2 for such reason. The statement of PW-3 that he signalled the deceased to stop and on return seeing the incident is clearly an improvement in the statement of PW-3 over what was stated by PW-2. Such a disclosure was otherwise not made to the Investigating Officer while recording the statement of PW-3 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This inconsistency in the testimony of PW-3 vis-a-vis PW-2 creates a serious doubt not only upon their presence at the place of occurrence but also on their seeing the incident. 57. We also find substance in the argument of Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate that the conduct of PW-2 and PW-3 in not stopping near the injured, making no efforts to take him to a hospital or provide medical help or failing to be present at the time of inquest etc. and delayed recording of their statement are factors contributing to the doubt in the prosecution case. 58. The argument of Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate that not naming the accused in the FIR discloses the fairness of prosecution although seems attractive at the outset but that itself may not be determinative of credibility of the prosecution case. The prosecution witnesses fall in the category of chance and interested witness and their testimony will have to be shown to be entirely reliable before their testimony could be relied upon. Upon careful evaluation of the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 we find that doubt remains regarding their presence at the place of occurrence as also the manner in which they allegedly saw the incident. 59. Enmity otherwise is admitted between the parties, which acts as a double edged sword and cuts both ways. It can be a cause for committing the offence and can also be a cause for false implication. 59. Enmity otherwise is admitted between the parties, which acts as a double edged sword and cuts both ways. It can be a cause for committing the offence and can also be a cause for false implication. In a matter of this kind the Court will otherwise have to be careful and cautious in analyzing the evidence to determine whether the witnesses are wholly reliable, wholly unreliable or partially reliable and partially unreliable. 60. As observed earlier, PW-2 and PW-3 are chance and interested witnesses and a careful evaluation of their statements shows material contradictions in their testimony which largely remains unexplained. Their presence on the place of occurrence or the manner in which they saw the incident remains doubtful. Their conduct is also not natural. Difference in their version while being together remains unexplained. The subsequent improvement in the statement of PW-3 over and above the version of PW-2, seeking to explain the lacunae in the oral testimony of PW-2, generates sufficient doubt upon the prosecution case so as to render it unfit for reliance. Once that be so, we are not inclined to examine other aspects raised by the defence including the non-holding of test identification parade of accused appellant to determine his identity and the judgments cited at the bar on such aspect. We find that even bereft of the T.I.P. issue the testimony of prosecution witnesses is not found credible and reliable. 61. The trial court after noticing the facts and evidence brought on record has analyzed the evidence in paragraph 38 to 48 of the judgment, which has been carefully examined by us. The court below has accepted the prosecution case relying upon the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 without subjecting it to careful scrutiny and analysis. The fact that PW-2 and PW-3 are chance and interested witnesses and their testimony leaves many unexplained aspects are left totally untouched. We, therefore, do not approve the judgment of conviction and sentence for the reasons contained in our judgment. 62. For the discussions and deliberations held above, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The appellant who has already undergone more than twelve years of actual incarceration is entitled to the benefit of doubt in the matter. 63. Consequently, the present appeal succeeds and is allowed. 62. For the discussions and deliberations held above, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The appellant who has already undergone more than twelve years of actual incarceration is entitled to the benefit of doubt in the matter. 63. Consequently, the present appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order dated 31.7.2012, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ex-cadre), Court No.20, Allahabad, dated 31.07.2012, in Sessions Trial No.99 of 2006, arising out of Case Crime No.152 of 2005 under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Khuldabad, District Allahabad and in Sessions Trial No. 100 of 2006, arising out of Case Crime No.169 of 2005, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Khuldabad, District Allahabad, is set aside. Since the accused appellant is in jail, he shall be set at liberty, forthwith, unless he is wanted in any other case, subject to compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.