JUDGMENT : ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. 1. Heard Sri S.D. Singh Jadaun, Sri Bhavesh Singh Jadaun, Sri Dipansh, Sri Subham Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Archana Singh, Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.12.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Kanpur Nagar, in Session Trial No. 208 of 2004 (State Vs. Kishan Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 135 of 2003; Sessions Trial No. 209 of 2004 (State vs. Neelu), Arising Out of Case Crime No. 137 of 2003; Sessions Trial No. 251 of 2004 (State vs. Rakesh @ Chuhiya), arising out of Case Crime No. 139 of 2003, Police Station Badshahi Naka, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby the accused appellants Neelu and Rakesh @ Chuhiya have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.15,000/- each under Section 302 IPC and on failure to deposit fine to undergo imprisonment for six months; accused appellant Neelu has been convicted and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 25 Arms Act and on failure to deposit fine to undergo imprisonment for one month; accused appellant Rakesh @ Chuhiya has been convicted and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 25 Arms Act; and on failure to deposit fine to undergo imprisonment for one month. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 3. Mother of the deceased is the informant, who has lodged a report at 12.25 AM on 7.10.2003 in respect of an incident which occurred about half an hour before at 12.00 PM on 6.10.2003. The written report is scribed by PW-7 Vijay Kumar Gupta as per which the deceased was sitting on a cot outside Kanpur Kuli Bazar near Sabzi Mandi. The informant was sitting on a cot alongwith her son and two others, namely Dharmendra and Vinod. Visibility existed due to street light. Lighting was also available because of the Bharat Milap organized in the area on that evening. It is alleged that at about 12.00 in the night four accused came from the front lane with firearms in their hands and on the exhortation of accused Dileep all four accused indiscriminately fired on account of which the informant’s son sustained firearm injury and he fell. It is alleged that at about 12.00 in the night four accused came from the front lane with firearms in their hands and on the exhortation of accused Dileep all four accused indiscriminately fired on account of which the informant’s son sustained firearm injury and he fell. The informant alongwith others present screamed whereafter the accused persons fled from the spot. Crowd had otherwise gathered to see Bharat Milap. People started running helter-skelter and the public order was destroyed. Informant alleged that the accused persons had enmity with the deceased on account of running of a vegetable shop (Aadhat). There was a dispute relating to possession of the street side land on which the shop was situated. The injured son of the informant was rushed on the cot to Ursula Hospital. With these allegations the FIR came to be registered as Case Crime No. 135 of 2003. The Investigating Officer proceeded to investigate the case and from the site where the incident occurred two empty cartridges were recovered. The Investigating Officer also recovered blood stained garbage etc. from the place of occurrence vide Ex.Ka.12. The Investigating Officer also recovered blood stained ‘baan’ of cot vide Ex.Ka.13. Inquest thereafter was conducted on 7.10.2003 at the mortuary between 9.00 AM to 10.00 AM. The inquest witnesses were Radhey Sonkar, Kalicharan, Sagar Sonkar, Smt. Rajkumari and Shivkishore. The inquest witnesses opined that the postmortem be conducted whereafter the body was sealed and sent to mortuary where postmortem was conducted on 7.10.2003 at about 12.00 Noon. The deceased was found to be around twenty years of age and the approximate time of death was half a day. The cause of death was found to be shock and haemorrhage on account of following ante-mortem injuries: “(i) Firearm wound of entry 3 cm x 2 cm deep on rt. side upper chest just below clavicle bone, wound margin inverted scorching and tattooing present in an area of 30 cm x 11 cm on rt. side face, front and rt. side of top of shoulder and rt. side front of upper chest. (ii) Firearm would of exit 2 cm x 2 cm x deep rt. Side of back 10cm below scapula & 2 cm away from mid line margin of wound everted and communicating to injury no. 1. (iii) abraded contusion 1 cm x 1/2 cm left side 6cm below umbilicus. side front of upper chest. (ii) Firearm would of exit 2 cm x 2 cm x deep rt. Side of back 10cm below scapula & 2 cm away from mid line margin of wound everted and communicating to injury no. 1. (iii) abraded contusion 1 cm x 1/2 cm left side 6cm below umbilicus. (iv) abraded contusion 11 cm x 8 cm left side of upper back and top of shoulder.” 4. The investigation proceeded further and the accused persons were arrested. From the possession of accused Neelu a 315 bore country made pistol alongwith an empty cartridge was recovered vide Ex.Ka.25 on 1.11.2003. From the accused Rakesh @ Chuhiya a 12 bore country made pistol alongwith one cartridge was recovered on 7.11.2003. From the possession of accused Dileep Kana a country made pistol of 315 bore alongwith an empty cartridge was recovered on 4.1.2004. From the fourth accused, namely Kishan Kumar also a 12 bore country made pistol alongwith a cartridge was recovered on 1.11.2003. 5. On the basis of recovery of aforesaid firearms separate First Information Reports came to be registered under Arms Act as Case Crime Nos. 137 of 2003, 138 of 2003, 139 of 2003 and 2 of 2004. A country made pistol was also recovered from accused Naresh @ Bhootnath but the same was not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for forensic examination. 6. After recording the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. charge-sheet no. 62 of 2003 dated 16.11.2003 under Section 302 IPC was filed against accused persons, namely Kishan Kumar Sonkar (since deceased), Neelu, Rakesh @ Chuhiya, Dileep Kana and charge-sheet nos. 62A of 2003 dated 22.12.2003 and 62B of 2003 dated 24.12.2003 under Section 302/120B IPC against accused persons, namely Kori, Ranu @ Neeraj, Bishnu Langda, Pappu, Sonu and Naresh. 7. District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar accorded permission under Section 25 of Arms Act for proceeding against all the accused. Cognizance was taken on all the charge-sheets and the matter was thereafter committed to the Court of Session where it got registered as Sessions Trial Nos.208 of 2004, 400 of 2004, 457 of 2004, 209 of 2004, 210 of 2004, 251 of 2004 and 252 of 2004. Cognizance was taken on all the charge-sheets and the matter was thereafter committed to the Court of Session where it got registered as Sessions Trial Nos.208 of 2004, 400 of 2004, 457 of 2004, 209 of 2004, 210 of 2004, 251 of 2004 and 252 of 2004. The Court of Sessions framed charges for the offence under Section 302/120B read with Section 34 IPC against the all four accused persons Kishan Kumar Sonkar, Neelu, Rajesh @ Chuhiya and Dileep Kana on 3.2.2005. Charges were also framed against the accused persons under Section 25 Arms Act and all the accused denied the charges and demanded trial. It is thereafter that the proceeding of trial commenced in which following documents have been filed by the prosecution: “(i) FIR dated 7.10.03 Ex.Ka.1 (ii) FIR dated 1.11.03 Ex.Ka.23 (iii) FIR dated 7.11.03 Ex.Ka.25 (iv) FIR dated 4.1.04 Ex.Ka.27 (v) FIR dated 1.11.03 Ex.Ka.29 (vi) Written Report dated 6/7.10.03 Ex.Ka.3 (vii) Recovery memo of country made pistol 315 bore & empty cartridge dated 1.11.03 Ex.Ka.25 (viii) Recovery memo of country made pistol 12 bore & empty cartridge dated 7.11.03 Ex.Ka.27 (ix) Recovery memo of country made pistol 315 bore & empty cartridge dated 4.1.04 Ex.Ka.28 (x) Recovery memo of country made pistol 12 bore & empty cartridge dated 1.11.03 Ex.Ka.26 (xi) Recovery memo of blood stained garbage dated 7.10.03 Ex.Ka.12 (xii) Recovery memo of blood stained ‘baan’ of cot dated 7.10.03 Ex.Ka.13 (xiii) Recovery memo of bullets dated 7.10.03 Ex.Ka.14 (xiv) P.M. Report dated 7.10.03 Ex.Ka.6 (xv) Report of Forensic Science Laboratory dated 24.1.04 Ex.Ka.20 (xvi) Report of Forensic Science Laboratory dated 12.1.04 Ex.Ka.21 (xvii) Report of Forensic Science Laboratory dated 15.5.04 Ex.Ka.22 (xviii) Panchayatnama dated 7.10.03 Ex.Ka.4.” 8. Fourteen witnesses have been produced on behalf of the prosecution in the matter. PW-1 is HC Vijay Bahadur Singh. He has proved the police papers including the GD and chik FIR in respect of Case Crime No. 135 of 2003. PW-2 is Vinod Kumar, who was sitting on the same cot alongwith the deceased and the informant. PW-3 Smt. Rajrani is the informant and mother of the deceased. PW-4 Shiv Kumar is also an eye-witness, who claims to be an independent person and had observed the entire incident. He is also a witness of inquest. PW-5 is Dr. Pramod Kumar, who is the autopsy surgeon. PW-6 Ramendra Kumar Singh is a police personnel. PW-3 Smt. Rajrani is the informant and mother of the deceased. PW-4 Shiv Kumar is also an eye-witness, who claims to be an independent person and had observed the entire incident. He is also a witness of inquest. PW-5 is Dr. Pramod Kumar, who is the autopsy surgeon. PW-6 Ramendra Kumar Singh is a police personnel. PW-7 is Vijay Kumar Gupta, who is the scribe of the FIR. PW-8 to PW-14 are all police personnels, who are formal witnesses connected with the above referred five FIRs pursuant to which the charge-sheets have been submitted against the accused persons. Harish Kumar has been produced as court witness, who has certified death of accused Dileep Kana. It is also admitted that apart from accused Dileep Kana another accused, namely Kishan Kumar has also died. The Court of Session relying upon the prosecution evidence on record has ultimately convicted and sentenced the accused appellants Rakesh @ Chuhiya and Neelu both of whom are appellants before us in the present appeal. 9. The prosecution case essentially consists in two parts. The first part relates to the eye-witness account which is in the nature of testimony of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-7, whereas the other evidence is in the nature of recovery of firearms from the accused appellants. We propose to deal with both these evidences separately. 10. PW-2 Vinod Kumar is allegedly the person, who was sitting alongwith the deceased on the cot when the accused persons indiscriminately fired on the deceased. This witness has not supported the prosecution case at the stage of examination-in-chief itself and is declared hostile. 11. PW-3 is Smt. Rajrani. She has supported the prosecution case according to which she was sitting on the cot with the deceased and two others, namely Dharmendra and Vinod. Dharmendra has not been produced in evidence by the prosecution. No reason has been assigned for not producing him. Vinod, moreover, has turned hostile. PW-3 has stated that it was night when the incident occurred but there existed sufficient light due to electricity pole as also the lightening organized to celebrate Bharat Milap. She has stated that all four accused came and indiscriminately fired after accused Dileep Kana exhorted them to kill the deceased Bedi. PW-3 has alleged that all accused fired from their country made pistols in which the deceased sustained a firearm injury on his chest near the shoulder. She has stated that all four accused came and indiscriminately fired after accused Dileep Kana exhorted them to kill the deceased Bedi. PW-3 has alleged that all accused fired from their country made pistols in which the deceased sustained a firearm injury on his chest near the shoulder. The deceased started bleeding profusely and the accused persons fled. Threats were also extended by the accused persons saying that if anyone chased them, they will ensure that such person also suffers the same outcome. PW-3 has stated that crowd had gathered on the spot and the police persons were on duty nearby. The police personnel soon arrived on the spot and the help of persons present there took the injured son of the informant to the hospital. She has further stated that on account of the gunshot injury caused to the deceased bloodstains had surfaced on her clothes including her blouse, petticoat and saree which were produced in the Court. She has further stated that these clothes were not demanded by the IO and, therefore, she had not given them to the police. 12. In the cross-examination PW-3 has admitted that in her report she has not disclosed that bloodstains had surfaced on her clothes. She had not disclosed the IO about such facts either. She claims that for two days she continued to wear the same clothes with bloodstains and despite the police personnel having observed it those clothes were not taken from her. She has claimed ignorance of the fact that her husband was sent to jail under the NDPS Act. She has further claimed ignorance about the fact that her son was involved in multiple criminal cases and that he had shot dead Rajesh Valmiki. She has also feigned ignorance about the suggestion that Lallan Sarvesh was also shot by the deceased in respect of which Case Crime No. 139 of 1998 was registered against the deceased alognwith other cases under the NDPS Act, Arms Act etc. PW-3 has described the location where the deceased was sitting. She has admitted that there were number of vegetable vendors on the roadside and in the area other shops existed. Witness Vinod is her sister’s son while Dharmendra is the son of her cousin Lila. PW-3 has described the location where the deceased was sitting. She has admitted that there were number of vegetable vendors on the roadside and in the area other shops existed. Witness Vinod is her sister’s son while Dharmendra is the son of her cousin Lila. In reply to a question PW-3 has stated that she does not understand what exactly is meant by indiscriminate firing and that she actually understood it as something done in quick succession. On being confronted with her previous statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she stated that she had limited formal education and she had not stated that all the accused took out their firearms from their waists (anty). She has stated that these facts were not stated by her in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She also did not disclose the IO that any threats were extended to her. She has admitted that she had gone alongwith her daughter-in-law and children to show the Bharat Milap whereafter she returned to call all her children. She has also stated that later she heard that her son had died. She was at the vegetable market at that time. She was not aware about the place where the inquest was conducted. The deceased was wearing white kurta and pyjama which had bloodstains. She also feigned ignorance about any protest at the police station where brickbats were thrown in retaliation to the incident. She has stated that the deceased was taken by police personnel to the hospital and that no member of her family had gone with the injured at that time. 13. PW-3 was cross-examined on multiple days. She has admitted that apart from the deceased nobody else sustained any firearm injury though indiscriminate firing was resorted to by the accused. The IO had not inquired from her about the place from where the deceased was shot at. She has denied the suggestion that unknown persons had shot dead her son and she is making a false statement. She has also denied the suggestion that the deceased was found injured by the police personnel, who took him in their jeep to the hospital. 14. The other witness of fact is PW-4. He was working in the shop of one Rajendra Prasad Sonkar in the same sabzi mandi. She has also denied the suggestion that the deceased was found injured by the police personnel, who took him in their jeep to the hospital. 14. The other witness of fact is PW-4. He was working in the shop of one Rajendra Prasad Sonkar in the same sabzi mandi. He claims that Rajendra Prasad Sonkar and his children had come to see the Bharat Milap and that he had also come to the place of occurrence for such purposes. He claims that in front of the shop of Sahara Beej Bhandar the deceased was sitting on a cot with informant, Vinod and Dharmendra. His version in the examination-in-chief is similar to that of PW-3 according to which the accused persons came from the front and indiscriminately fired causing the death of the deceased. He has stated that there was enmity between the accused and the deceased in respect of possession over the roadside land where vegetable stall had been put up by the deceased. He has stated that on the next day he had gone to the mortuary where the inquest was conducted and he had signed on the inquest papers. 15. In the cross-examination PW-4 has stated that he belongs to a village situated at a distance of about 28-30 Kms. He lived at Kanpur on rent and his house is about 7-8 Kms from the place of occurrence. At the time of incident he was working for Rajendra Prasad Sonkar. He was married. However, he came to see the Bharat Milap alone. He has denied the suggestion that Bharat Milap procession arrived at about 4.00 in the morning. Apart from seeing the procession he had no other work in the market. PW-4 admits that he had neither spoken to the deceased nor had spoken to anybody else from his family including the informant nor he spoke to them even after the incident. He claims that after the incident about 20-25 persons have collected at the spot but he spoke to none of them. He stayed for about five minutes at the spot and had not disclosed his identity to anybody present there. He has specifically stated that four persons had indiscriminately fired on the deceased. No other person, however, got injured. None was assaulted with stick, bottle or iron rod. Accused persons were at a distance of 2-4 steps. He stayed for about five minutes at the spot and had not disclosed his identity to anybody present there. He has specifically stated that four persons had indiscriminately fired on the deceased. No other person, however, got injured. None was assaulted with stick, bottle or iron rod. Accused persons were at a distance of 2-4 steps. Some of them were at a distance of 2-8 steps. All the four accused fired one shot each and except the deceased nobody else got hurt. Certain persons had taken the deceased on a cot to the police station but he was not one of them. He did not remember the persons, who had taken the deceased to the police station. He also admits that he had not gone to the police station alongwith the injured. He only visited the hospital next day where he found that brothers of the deceased were present. He had not spoken to any of the family members of the deceased. His statement was recorded by the IO 5-6 days later at the sabzi mandi. He has proved the signatures on the inquest report. In reply to the question posed by the court he admits that his statement was not recorded on the date when the inquest was conducted but his statement was recorded 5-6 days later. PW-4 has admitted that he had never visited any of the accused nor he is aware about their parentage or address. He, however, has admitted that accused persons also had their vegetable stalls in the market. He has admitted that Rajendra Prasad Sonkar is from the same community to which the deceased belonged. He has also admitted that at the time of incident he was staying close to the house of Rajendra Prasad Sonkar. He admitted that he had worked for about one and a half years at the shop of Rajendra Prasad Sonkar. The witness, however, denied that he was deposing on the instructions of Rajendra Prasad Sonkar. 16. In his further cross-examination PW-4 admitted that he does not know from where the Bharat Milap procession started. The shop of Rajendra Prasad Sonkar was at a distance of 50-60 paces from the shop of the accused persons. He started knowing the deceased ever since he started working in the mandi. 16. In his further cross-examination PW-4 admitted that he does not know from where the Bharat Milap procession started. The shop of Rajendra Prasad Sonkar was at a distance of 50-60 paces from the shop of the accused persons. He started knowing the deceased ever since he started working in the mandi. He states that he had not informed the IO about implication of Pappu Sonkar in the offence and he does not know how his name has been included on his statement. 17. PW-5 is Dr. Pramod Kumar, who has proved the postmortem. There is a solitary firearm injury on the deceased with a wound of entry and a wound of exit. Scorching and tattooing was present and, therefore, the fire was shot from a close distance which could be 6-9 inches. PW-5 has also stated that there was an abraded contusion on the body of the deceased. 18. PW-6 has proved the inquest and is a police personnel. 19. PW-7 admits that he has not seen the incident and only on the instructions of PW-3 he has scribed the FIR. 20. PW-8 to PW-14 are all police personnel, who are formal witnesses and not much turn on their testimony. For such reasons we do not propose to deal with the testimony of all police personnels except the IO. 21. The record further show that the material collected from the spot including firearm recovered were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and three reports in that regard has been placed on record. The first report is dated 12.1.2004 while the second report is dated 24.1.2004. The last report is dated 15.5.2004. The forensic report in respect of ‘baan’ recovered from the spot shows existence of human blood. 22. So far as the firearm which had been recovered from the accused person, we find that in respect of recovery of firearm there existed neither any disclosure statement of any of the accused nor any independent person has been produced in respect of recovery of firearm. The firearms allegedly recovered from both the accused appellants, namely Rajesh @ Chuhiya and Neelu have not matched with the empty recovered from the place of occurrence. 23. The firearms allegedly recovered from both the accused appellants, namely Rajesh @ Chuhiya and Neelu have not matched with the empty recovered from the place of occurrence. 23. Considering the fact that there is no disclosure statement of the accused pursuant to which the recovery of firearm has been made nor there are any independent witnesses to the recovery and no panchnama otherwise has not been drawn, in accordance with the procedure established by law and the FSL report otherwise does not come to the aid of prosecution, we find that the recovery of firearms in no way supports the prosecution case. 24. The contrary conclusion drawn by the Court of Sessions cannot be approved of as the manner of recovery required for it to be taken in evidence in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is clearly missing in view of the law settled by the Supreme Court in Boby vs. State of Kerala, 2023 SCC Online SC 50. Therefore, the aspect of recovery has to be necessarily ignored. We cannot approve of the conclusions drawn by the Court of Session in that regard. 25. Once the recovery is kept aside the only other evidence on record to prove the prosecution case is the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4. 26. PW-3 is the mother of the informant. She claims that on the date of incident she was sitting on the cot alongwith the deceased and two others namely Dharmendra and Vinod. Dharmendra and Vinod both are her nephews. Vinod has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Only other person Dharmendra has not been produced in evidence. It is, therefore, the sole testimony of PW-3 from those four, who were sitting on the cot which is produced in evidence by the prosecution. PW-3 has clearly stated that all four accused came from the lane and on the exhortation of Dileep all four accused took out their pistols and fired indiscriminately. She has asserted that all four accused fired one shot, each. It was only the deceased who sustained solitary firearm injury. Whose fire had actually hit the deceased is not known. This fact has not been specified by PW-3 or PW-4. According to PW-3, the accused persons fired from some distance. She has not specified the place from where the accused persons had actually fired on the deceased. It was only the deceased who sustained solitary firearm injury. Whose fire had actually hit the deceased is not known. This fact has not been specified by PW-3 or PW-4. According to PW-3, the accused persons fired from some distance. She has not specified the place from where the accused persons had actually fired on the deceased. However, in the site plan prepared on the instructions of informant the distance from where the accused persons fired on the deceased is about 10 paces from the cot where the deceased and the informant were sitting. 27. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that none of the two witnesses of fact were actually present at the site, nor they seen the incident and, therefore, their testimony cannot be relied upon. In order to evaluate this submission, we have carefully perused the records including the site plan and the testimony of PW-3. As per site plan prepared on the instructions of PW-3, it is apparent that the accused persons fired from a distance of 10 paces from the place where the deceased was sitting. Distance of 10 paces would at least mean 15 to 20 ft. 28. When we examine the postmortem report, we find that on the solitary firearm injury sustained by the deceased tattooing and scorching was present. In the opinion of the doctor the distance from which the fire was shot was around 6 to 9 inches. There is thus a clear contradiction in the version of the informant viz-a-viz the medical evidence on record. When we examine the testimony of PW-3, further we find that she has stated that all four accused shot at the deceased. The statement of PW-3 sounds somewhat improbable, inasmuch as, if four persons had fired from a distance of 10 paces on a cot where four persons are actually sitting the existence of solitary firearm injury would not sound logical. None else apart from the deceased sustained any firearm injury. It is also pertinent to note that as per prosecution two accused had used firearm of 12 bore, which usually has pellets. If two shots are fired from a distance of 10 paces, it is quite likely that throw of pellets would cause injury not only to the person to whom it is intended to hit but also to others who are there on the spot. If two shots are fired from a distance of 10 paces, it is quite likely that throw of pellets would cause injury not only to the person to whom it is intended to hit but also to others who are there on the spot. No pellets have been found from the spot. No pellets have been recovered from the body of the deceased, either. Despite presence of three other persons on the spot, none sustained any firearm injury, which creates doubt on the deposition of PW-3. We may also note that only two bullets (metals) have been found on the spot. In the event fires were shot from 12 bore tamancha, at least some pellets ought to have been found in the nearby. The fact that no pellets were found on the deceased or were recovered from the place of occurrence also creates a doubt on the version of PW-3. 29. There is one other important aspect in the testimony of PW-3, which needs narration. PW-3 has stated that bloodstains had surfaced on her clothes including blouse, petticoat and saree which she continued to wear for next two days but Investigating Officer did not notice this aspect of the matter. She has alleged that because the Investigating Officer never asked, as such, those clothes were not given to the Investigating Officer and that such clothes were produced for the first time in the Court at the time of recording of her statement nearly three years after the incident. We do not find this statement of PW-3 to be convincing. In the event bloodstains had surfaced on the clothes of the informant and had been seen by the Investigating Officer it was expected that IO would have noticed it and taken her clothes in possession and sent them to FSL but that is not done. PW-3 moreover has admitted that neither in the FIR, nor in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. did she inform the Investigating Officer that bloodstains had surfaced on her clothes. The testimony of the Investigating Officer has been perused by us. Investigating Officer has been produced as PW-12. In our opinion, had such facts been noticed by the Investigating Officer, it was expected that he would take note of such facts and such evidence was taken in possession for the purposes of trial. The testimony of the Investigating Officer has been perused by us. Investigating Officer has been produced as PW-12. In our opinion, had such facts been noticed by the Investigating Officer, it was expected that he would take note of such facts and such evidence was taken in possession for the purposes of trial. When we examine the testimony of PW-3 in its entirety, we find her testimony not to be reliable. PW-3 is an interested witness being the mother of the deceased. Testimony of such interested related witness can always be relied upon, but the law is settled that such testimony has to be carefully analysed with circumspection. In Md. Jabbar Ali and others Vs. State of Assam, 2022 SCC Online SC 1440, the Supreme Court laid down parameters for examining the testimony of interested witness in paragraph nos. 55 to 58 of the report, which are reproduced hereinafter: “55..........This Court in a number of cases has had the opportunity to consider the said aspect of related/interested/partisan witnesses and the credibility of such witnesses. This Court is conscious of the well-settled principle that just because the witnesses are related/interested/partisan witnesses, their testimonies cannot be disregarded, however, it is also true that when the witnesses are related/interested, their testimonies have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection. In the case of Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381 , this Court held that the testimony of such related witnesses should be analysed with caution for its credibility. 56. In Raju alias Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 12 SCC 701 , this Court observed: “29. The sum and substance is that the evidence of a related or interested witness should be meticulously and carefully examined. In a case where the related and interested witness may have some enmity with the assailant, the bar would need to be raised and the evidence of the witness would have to be examined by applying a standard of discerning scrutiny. In a case where the related and interested witness may have some enmity with the assailant, the bar would need to be raised and the evidence of the witness would have to be examined by applying a standard of discerning scrutiny. However, this is only a rule of prudence and not one of law, as held in Dalip Singh AIR 1953 SC 364 and pithily reiterated in Sarwan Singh (1976) 4 SCC 369 in the following words : [Sarwan Singh Case (1976) 4 SCC 369 , p. 376, Para 10] “10..........The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinised with a little care. Once that approach is made and the court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witnesses have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration.” 57. Further delving on the same issue, it is noted that in the case of Ganapathi v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2018) 5 SCC 549 , this Court held that in several cases when only family members are present at the time of the incident and the case of the prosecution is based only on their evidence, Courts have to be cautious and meticulously evaluate the evidence in the process of trial. 58. It is thus settled that the evidence of the related witnesses have to be considered by applying discerning scrutiny........” 30. Prudence requires that the court must look to corroboration and attending circumstances while evaluating the testimony of such interested witnesses. In the facts of the case, when we examine the testimony of PW-3, we find that the medical evidence on record clearly belies her version according to which the deceased was fired upon from a distance of ten paces since scorching and tattooing is present. Her statement that all four persons had fired otherwise does not find corroboration, inasmuch as, neither any pellets nor such empties have been recovered from the place of occurrence to support the version of PW-3 that four persons had fired on the deceased. The statement of PW-3 that only one person sustained firearm injury even when four persons had fired from a distance of 10 paces otherwise does not appear free from doubt. 31. The statement of PW-3 that only one person sustained firearm injury even when four persons had fired from a distance of 10 paces otherwise does not appear free from doubt. 31. Coming to the testimony of PW-4, we find that though he claims to have seen the incident, but his version with regard to firing by the four accused persons is identical to that of PW-3. PW-4 although is presented as an independent witness, but he admits that he was working for Rajendra Kumar, who belongs to the same community. Rajendra Kumar apparently was having a grocery shop in the same mandi at a distance of 50-60 feets from the shop of the deceased. PW-4 claims that he was present at the place of occurrence, but neither he had helped others in carrying the injured to the police station on the cot, nor he had spoken to anyone from the family including PW-3 at the spot. Statement of PW-4 has also been recorded after 5-6 days. The manner in which the incident is described by PW-4 sounds not reliable in view of the reasons specified by us to disbelieve the version of PW-3. When the version of PW-3 and PW-4 are discarded, we find that there remains no material to support the prosecution case. It is noticeable that on the night of incident the procession of Bharat Milap was organized and large number of persons had gathered but no independent witness has otherwise come to support the prosecution case. We may again reiterate that although four persons were also sitting on the cot, but Dharmendra has not been produced though he is the nephew of the informant. The fourth person on the cot namely Vinod has turned hostile. It has otherwise come in evidence that the deceased was a history sheeter which fact is clearly admitted by PW-3 as well as PW-8. There are several criminal cases of serious offence alleged against the deceased. The cases in which implication of deceased was acknowledged by the police personnels includes multiple offences under Section 302 IPC. In such circumstances, the argument of counsel for the appellants that this was a case of blind murder in which the deceased was shot by someone else, having enmity with the deceased, and that nobody had actually seen the incident cannot entirely be disbelieved. In such circumstances, the argument of counsel for the appellants that this was a case of blind murder in which the deceased was shot by someone else, having enmity with the deceased, and that nobody had actually seen the incident cannot entirely be disbelieved. It is admitted that the deceased was taken in the police jeep to the hospital by the police personnels. Prosecution has failed to disclose the name of any independent person or any of the family members or friend who had taken the injured to the hospital. The fact that neither PW-3, nor PW-4 accompanied the injured while he was taken by the police in their jeep to the hospital also raises question with regard to their presence at the place of occurrence. The possibility that on account of enmity with others due to criminal antecedents of the deceased, someone else shot the deceased cannot be ruled out. Law is otherwise settled that the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and if on facts a doubt subsists, which is not fanciful, it would certainly create a dent in the prosecution case. It cannot be then said that prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. 32. From the deliberations and discussions held above, we come to the conclusion that the testimonies of two eye-witnesses are not inspiring and since they are otherwise not corroborated by the other evidence on record, we find that no reliable evidence survives to implicate the accused appellants, particularly when the aspect of recovery is already disbelieved. The finding of guilt attributed to the accused appellants, therefore, cannot be sustained. 33. In that view of the matter, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.12.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Kanpur Nagar, in Session Trial No. 208 of 2004 (State Vs. Kishan Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 135 of 2003; Sessions Trial No. 209 of 2004 (State vs. Neelu), arising out of Case Crime No. 137 of 2003; Sessions Trial No. 251 of 2004 (State vs. Rakesh @ Chuhiya), arising out of Case Crime No. 139 of 2003, Police Station Badshahi Naka, District Kanpur Nagar is reversed. Kishan Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 135 of 2003; Sessions Trial No. 209 of 2004 (State vs. Neelu), arising out of Case Crime No. 137 of 2003; Sessions Trial No. 251 of 2004 (State vs. Rakesh @ Chuhiya), arising out of Case Crime No. 139 of 2003, Police Station Badshahi Naka, District Kanpur Nagar is reversed. The accused appellants Neelu and Rajesh @ Chuhiya, who have undergone incarceration over several years in jail, shall be released, forthwith, unless they are wanted in any other case, subject to compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.