JUDGMENT S.K. Agarwal, J.
1. These two criminal appeals (No. 182 of 1980 and No. 472 of 1980) were preferred by Sheo Lal, Suresh and Surendra, arising out of judgment and order dated 25-1-1980 passed by Sri U. S. Trlpathi, the then IX Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, in S. T. Nos. 190 of 1979 and 212 of 1979, against their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302/34, T. P. C. Appellants Sheo Lal & Suresh (in Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1980) are also convicted under Section 323/34,1.P.C. and sentenced to six months' R. I. Appellant Surendra (in criminal Appeal No. 472 of 1980) is also convicted under Section 354,1. P. C. and sentenced to one year's R. I.
2. The prosecution story, in short, is that in the evening of 20-3-1979 at about 6.00 P. M. Km. Sharmi was going to attend the call of nature. P. W. 4 Km. Sharmi was moving few steps ahead of Km. Munni. It is alleged that at the relevant moment Surendra and Suresh accosted Km. Sharmi. They told her to accompany them into Arhar field and with that intent they also held her hands. On the alarm raised by her, Km. Munni rushed to her rescue At this, both the accused persons took to their heels. On her return to the house, P. W. 4 Km. Sharni narrated the incident to her maternal uncles, Krishnapal, the deceased in the incident, and P. W. 3 Vijaypai. Both the brothers, went to the house of Sheo Lal, appellant, and made a complaint about the shameful behaviour of his son and nephew. Having made the complaint they came back to their house.
3. The deceased, Krishnapal, along with his brother Vijaypai were relaxing and smoking Bidis on the Chabutara, which abuts their house. A burning lantern was also hanging near the grass-cutting machine. A lamp was also burning at the main door of the house.
4. At about 8.00 P.M., Sheo Lal accompanied by Suresh and Surendra came to the house of Krishnapal, deceased. Sheo Lal and Suresh were armed with Lathis and Surendra was armed with a knife. Immediately on their arrival near the deceased, they started hurling abuses and said that since they are maligning family they should be killed. On this Sheo Lal exhorted other accused persons and after exhortation Sheo Lal and Suresh started inflicting Lathi injuries upon the deceased and Surendra attacked him with knife. The hue and cry raised by the deceased attracted P. W. 1 Ratipal, P. W. 2 Chandrapal, P.W. 4 Km. Sharmi and some other family members to the spot. Ratipal was also possessing a torch in his hand. Chandrapal was also attacked with Lathis when he tried to intercede. He had sustained Lathi injuries. As a result of the injuries sustained, Krishnapal fell down and died instantaneously. The accused persons withdrew thereafter.
5. The F. I. R. of the incident was lodged by P. W. 3 Vijaypai. The written report is Ext.Ka-1. It was scribed by Rampal and was lodged at P. S. Bidhnoo at 11.15 P.M. He was accompanied to the police station by Ratipal, Chandrapal, and Rampal. The chick is Ext. Ka-2. It was prepared by P.W. 5 Lallan Singh, Head Moharir.
6. P. W. 2 Chandrapal was sent from the police station to the primary Health Centre, Bidhnoo, for medical examination of his injuries. He was escorted by P. W. 6 Mahipal, Constable, for that purpose.
7. The autopsy on the body of the victim, Krishnapal, was conducted by P. W. 7 Dr. Prem Chandra Chaurasia at 12.30 P. M. on 22-3-1979. The following injuries were found by the Doctor on his person :
1. Incised punctured wound 3.2cm. x 1.2cm. chest cavity deep on right side of front of chest, lcm to the right from mid line and 1 lcm. below to the inner front right nipple. Margin of wound clean cut and well defined.
2. Incised wound 4.2cm. x 1.5cm. on the back of right elbow 2cm. above the tip of right elbow.
3. An abrasion 2cm. x lcm. of left knee joint at front surface.
Underneath the injuries heart was found punctured. The death, in the opinion of the doctor, was the result of shock and haemorrhage due to injury No.l. The postmortem examination report is Ext.Ka-5.
8. The deceased and the accused persons are inter se related. Accused Suresh is son of accused Sheo Lal and accused Surendra is his nephew. Krishnapal, deceased, was a cousin of Sheo Lal. P. W. 2 Chandrapal and P. W. 3 Vijaypal are the brothers of the deceased. Out of them Krishnapal and Vijaypal were living together in the same house. Ratipal is a resident of the same village. P. W. 4Km. Sharmi is the sisters daughter of Krishnapal, deceased. She was resident of village Chalha, P. S. Sheoli of the same district. She was living with her maternal uncle since last two or three months from the incident.
9. Following are the arguments advanced before us by the defence in these appeals : The first submission is that the motive suggested by the prosecution is unacceptable as the parties are inter se related and it is not probable that Suresh and Surendra will try to molest their cousin, P.W. 4Km. Sharmi, in the manner, as alleged by the prosecution. The second argument is that the incident has not occurred in the manner, as alleged by the prosecution, and the third submission made before us is that the F.I.R. in the case is clearly ante-timed.
10. In order to evaluate these submissions, we have to examine the evidence of the four eye witnesses, viz. P. W. 1 Ratipal, P. W. 2 Chandrapal, P. W. 3 Vijaypal and P. W. 4Km. Sharmi.
11. So far as the motive is concerned, the only witness, on that point, is P. W. 4Krn. Sharmi. The other witness of that event, Km. Munni, sister of the deceased, was not examined during the trial. A close scrutiny of her testimony shows that she had absolutely no ulterior motive to falsely implicate the two appellants, Surendra and Suresh, and a submission has been made that according to the prosecution now in the statements in the trial Court, Munni was introduced as the person accompanying Km. Sharmi to the fields for easing. But, in the F. I. R. she has not been named as the other girl accompanying Km. Sharmi. The entire F. I. R. shows that she was all alone and was caught hold of by these two persons for dragging her into the field to criminally assault her, but she, some how, managed her escape and returned home. The F. I. R. further shows that Krishnapal and the informant went to the house of Sheo Lal for making a complaint that these two appellants were teasing their niece. Thus, the introduction of Munni Devi during the trial clearly indicates that the prosecution in order to bolster the motive had introduced deliberately Munni Devi. She was not examined.
12. So far as P. W. 3 Vijaypal is concerned he has admitted in para 9 that Sharmi Devi was accompanied by Munni Devi to the fields. He had further admitted that this fact was also disclosed to the Investigating Officer in his Section 161 Cr. P. C. statement. He had further said that he cannot explain as to why this fact is not there in his statement to the I.O. She is the only other witness with regard to the case of teasing of Km. Sharmi by the two appellants, viz. Suresh and Surendra. In his examination-in-chief, he did not state this fact. He had only stated that when the appellants arrived at his house they only said that the deceased was defaming them and, therefore, they shall be killed. Thus, the evidence of motive in the case is not convincing enough to give rise to any occasion for these appellants to assault the victim. From para 6 the admitted position in the case is that all these persons were closely related and P. W. 4Km. Sharmi happens to be the cousin of the appellants, Suresh and Surendra. Bearing this relationship in mind, we are of the opinion that the motive suggested appears to us to be not plausible and reasonable. In our opinion, it is highly doubtful. We are fortified in our opinion from this sentence that Surendra and Suresh said that Sharmi Devi has met at an opportune moment so let them go into the Arhar field. This sentence indicates some kind of prior consent. Secondly, there does not appear to be any planning in the act. It appears to be just a chance coming across of the three. It is a typical situation arising in the evidence of witnesses in this part of the country that the victim always is found moving ahead of the witness or witnesses. The two girls ware almost of the same age group. It does not stand to reason why one moved ahead leaving the other behind considerably, as stated by this witness. If both of them had gone together towards the field for the purpose of evacuation, it does not stand to reason as to why they were not moving closely. This story of catching hold of the hands appears to us an ingenuity. A similar statement is occuring in the F. I. R. also. The statement of P. W. 3 Vijaypal in examination-in-chief is that Sharmi Devi on her return told them that Suresh and Surendra teased her in the field. He did not say in his statement in Court that these persons had also caught hold of her hands. This witness, though claims that Sharmi Devi is the daughter of his own sister, but failed to tell her name. This witness had claimed that he has transcribed the fact that Munni accompanied Sharmi Devi towards the field and also disclosed the same to the IO., but was unable to explain the omission of the fact in the F. I. R. as well as in the statement to the I.O. Thus, this story of teasing Sharmi Devi in the field and her going to ease all alone appears to us highly doubtful.
13. Now coming to the incident we have to examine the testimony of the above said witnesses. P. W. 3 Vijaypal is the informant. According to him, he and his brother, deceased Krishnapal, after preparing fodder, for providing to the cattle, on the chopper were sitting on their Chabutara. All the appellants came armed to their house and assaulted, on the exhortation of Sheo Lal, Krishnapal, Chandrapal, Ratipal, and Rampal arrived at the scene of occurrence apart from his own mother and the two sisters, one of whom is P. W. 4. He claims that Chandrapal sustained a few Lathi blows in his attempt to intervene. He further admits that he concealed himself due to fear. This fact does not find place in the F. I. R. that he concealed himself due to fear in order to avoid assault. In the F. I. R. this witness has not disclosed any source of light at the spot at the relevant time. In Court he has deposed about the presence of a burning lantern and also a burning lamp at two different places. He has also introduced a torch in the hands of Ratipal. He has admitted in cross-examination that the night of occurrence was a dark night. He has admitted that he did not remember whether he has mentioned the source of light in the F. I. R. or not. He had further admitted that he had not disclosed the fact of Ratipal possessing a torch either in the F. I. R. or to the I.O. in his statement. He was unable to explain this omission. He further failed to explain the omission of the burning lantern and burning lamp in his statement to the I. C. This is an important omission and effect the case materially.
14. He further made an improvement in the case to the effect that apart from the witness, named by him, none else from the village arrived at the scene of occurrence. He has admitted that he did tell the I. O. that large number of villagers arrived at the scene of occurrence and all those persons intervened. He further admitted that this fact was there in the F. I. R. also. He further stated that the statement made by him today in Court that none other than the named witnesses from the village have arrived is his correct statement and whatever was told by him to the I. C. or scribed in the F. I. R. in this regard is false. Surprisingly enough, this witness did not suffer a single scratch on his person. Had he been present on the spot, he would not have been spared by the assailants if the motive for the assault would have been teasing of Sharmi Devi in the field. It is an admitted fact that this witness also went to the house of the appellants for making a complaint along with the deceased, Krishnapal. The improvement made by him in his statement in Court that he concealed himself for fear of the assailants is a falsehood made with a view to explain absence of any injury on his person and to make his presence acceptable. This witness, in our opinion, was not present at all at the place of occurrence; otherwise serious discrepancies that we are going to refer now would not have occurred in his testimony.
15. His case is that the incident occurred in front of the Chabutara where they were sitting and the deceased fell down at the place where he was assaulted, a few steps from the Chabutara. The I. O. reached the scene of occurrence at about 12.00 or 1.00 in the same night. He further stated that his brother was lying at that very place where he fell down. Blood was oozing out of his injuries and the dead body remained lying at that very place until the next morning. The inquest memo was prepared next morning and after the preparation of the inquest memo he stated that the dead body was placed on a cot and was covered with a quilt, He further stated that all the three witnesses, named in the F. I. R., accompanied him to the police station. He called them from their respective houses. He admitted that while going to the police station none of them had any source of light in their possession. The reason for not having any source of light with themselves is, according to the witnesses, fear of the assailants. In our opinion this witness, fear of the assailants. In our opinion this witness is a complete liar. None of them had gone to the police station in the night. They had gone to the police station next morning. He claimed that the witnesses after the incident remained at the place of occurrence for 10/ 15 minutes. He had proceeded for the police station after half an hour of the incident. In his examination-in-chief, this witness has stated that on the next morning the flies started flying over the body and, therefore, the dead body was placed on the cot. In the cross-examination his statement was that after the inquest was completed, the body was placed on the cot. We are unable to reconcile these two typical statements. This clearly indicates that the incident had taken place in some other manner and at some other time and this witness had not seen the same and is only dwelling upon his imagination in order to make his presence plausible. Complete absence of any injury upon his person is also a circumstance corroborating it. His case is that the deceased was assaulted only while standing. No body had assaulted him after he fell down. His statement is that the females of the house started crying and also dinged to the body of the victim. He earlier stated that he had examined Krishnapal while he was lying on the ground by lifting him in his lap, but strangely enough no blood fell or smeared his hands or the clothes and the clothes of the females of the house. We are not going that far as to make out a third case, otherwise it clearly appears that the incident had taken place at some other place and the body may have been brought on a cot to the house. This is the only way in which the presence of the body on a cot can be explained, otherwise normally no person, if he was sure of the death of the victim, as this witness is, will place the dead body on a cot and cover it with a quitt. The parties are Hindus. In our opinion, the testimony of this witness is not reliable.
16. Now we take up the testimony of P. W. 2 Chandrapal, who, according to the prosecution, is an injured witness. He had sustained these injuries while trying to intervene. His injury was examined on 20-3-1979 at 11.30 P. M. His medical examination was conducted by P. W. 8 Dr. A. K. Shukla. This witness has sustained only solitary contusion. The injury is 21cm x 1.5cm. on the left side of back crossing the spine upto the right side at the level of the fourth vertebral column. The injury was simple and was fresh at the time of medical examination. The doctor has not noted the colour of this injury. He stated that by writing 'fresh' he meant that the injury was 2/3 hours old. He has made the entry with regard to this injury in the outdoor patients' register. When this doctor was examined in Court, the injured was not present before him. He has not noted down the depth of the bruise. He had admitted that these bruises could be managed with a chemical. He had stated in Court that the injury sustained by injured Chandrapal was a typical bruise. It was depressed in the middle and the edges were slightly raised, but when probed further, he admitted that these facts, were not noted down by him in the injury report or anywhere else. Thus, the circumstance that despite examining this injured as a medico legal case the doctor has entered his injuries into the outdoor patients' register. It was an assault case and it should have been noted down in the medico-legal register and not in the outdoor patients' register. The poor quality of the testimony of P. W. 8 Dr. A. K. Shukla does not inspire our confidence. This injury appears to us a manufactured one.
16-A. This injured witness is supporting P. W. 3 Vijaypal out and out on every count. Although, according to Vijaypal's own admission, these witnesses P. W. 1 Ratipal, P. W. 2 Chandrapal, and Rampal reached the scene of occurrence after the assault had commenced upon his brother. According to him, the accused persons were saying that "Krishnapal is insulting them. Finish him and Vijaypal both" and Sheo Lal, according to him, asked both Suresh and Surendra (appellants) to kill Vijaypal and Krishnapal, upon which the three started assaulting Krishnapal and Surendra had already struck 1-2 knife blows. Krishnapal fell down after receiving knife and Lathi injuries. Krishnapal, deceased, was his cousin and Km. Munni is his sister. The deceased and Vijaypal were both smoking Bidis. The night was a dark one. There was no moonlight. He claimed that there is a distance of 10-12 hands in between his chopper machine and the chopper machine of Krishnapal. Yet he claims that he was able to see and identify them sitting in front of their house. This we find improbable. He admitted that he did not tell the I.O. that he was cutting fodder on his fodder cutting machine and also did not tell that the lantern was burning. The reason was that he did not enquire from him. He further admitted that the I. O. did not ask him about the light in which he identified the accused persons. He admitted that in the middle of his house and Vijaypal's house there is a well. He admitted that about 5-6 steps from the house of Vijaypal the Marpit took place and at the place of incident Krishnapal fell down. A change in the place of Marpit was introduced during trial to make the presence of this witness acceptable. According to him, Krishnapal sustained the blunt weapon injuries on his hand and back. Both the assailants wielding Lathis gave 3-4 blows each upon the victim. All the Lathi blows were landed from the front and simultaneously knife injuries were also caused. Krishnapal fell down immediately on receiving the knife injuries and after the fell none assaulted him. The assault continued for 8-10 minutes. Contrary to this, P.W.3 has stated that the assault took place only for 2-3 minutes, which appears to be probable looking to the number of injuries sustained by the victim. He further tried to corroborate P. W. 3 by saying that at the time of incident only those witnesses, whom he had named in the statement, reached the spot and none else. He denied his statement made to the I.O. that number of persons from the village arrived and had seen the incident. His explanation is that he did not know as to how the I.O. has taken down this statement of his. He further stated that blood fell at the spot where Krishnapal was lying. He claimed that 5-6 Lathi blows were struck on his person. He further stated that the blows meant for Krishnapal landed on him and he fell down after receiving the Lathi injuries, but did not become unconscious. He remained lying for 5-6 minutes at the spot. This statement is not corroborated by P.W. 3 Vijaypal, who claimed his presence at the spot right from the beginning. According to him, he had sustained injuries on his waist and leg, but he further stated that he had shown these injuries to the doctor and the I.O. He further stated that he had sustained injuries on his hand also, but there is only one injury on his back.
Thus, his version is directly in conflict with medical evidence.
17. As matter of fact the post-mortem examination of the victim runs contrary to the prosecution case. The straight case of the prosecution is that the victim was assaulted with two Lathis and knife. There are no injuries of a blunt weapon upon the person of the victim. In order to explain the absence of blunt weapon injuries on the victim, the prosecution has made a serious improvement in the testimony of this witness to the effect that he suffered 5-6 Lathi injuries and these were the blows that were meant upon Krishnapal, but they were suffered by him. His injuries do not corroborate his statement. There was no injuries upon his hands, foot or waist. The injury is only on the back (upper part) at the fourth vertebral area. In our opinion, he too is a got-up witness and his injury cannot be accepted to have been suffered in the incident. It was clearly an injury that was whether self suffered or created by the use of some chemical as accepted by the doctor, that chemical were also used for causing bruises. The complete failure of the doctor to notice the colour and the nature of the bruise in the injury report and the noting down of the injury in the outdoor patients' register instead of nothing the same in the medico-legal register or assault cases register further makes it difficult for us to accept that this witness had suffered the injury in the incident at the time, as alleged by the prosecution. A suggestion has been given to the doctor that he has prepared this injury under pressure of the I.O. In the entire testimony of his, P.W. 1 Ratipal did not say that Chandrapal had also sustained any injury or that he had made any attempt to intervene and check the assailants. This is yet another circumstance for us to discard the testimony of Chandrapal as an injured witness.
18. He has admitted that he had not mentioned the presence of any source of light to the I.O. and had neither told the factum about the presence of any light to any person before his deposition in Court. For the first time he had disclosed the presence of so many types of light at the scene of occurrence in Court. Once we have discarded the testimony of Vijaypal and the injured Chandrapal, there remain nothing for us to believe the testimony of Ratipal.
The conflict with the medical evidence and the crude attempt made by the prosecution to reconcile that as earlier discussed is another serious discrepancy occurring in the prosecution case which goes not only to the root of the prosecution story but also to the factum of presence of the witnesses as well as manner of assault. The prosecution is very consistent that the victim was assaulted with Lathis and also with knife. Even number of blows have been detailed. But complete absence of any Lathi injury upon the victim Krishnapal lends support to the defence case that the incident had taken place at some other place and in some other manner and not at the house.
19. So far as P.W. 1 Ratipal is concerned, his presence is highly doubtful. He has residential house in the midst of the village and claims, that on the night of occurrence he had come to his house, which is nearer to the place of occurrence, for taking dry fodder for the cattle. According to his own admission, the place of the incident is not visible from his residential house even. The story of his coming to take dry fodder for his cattle at 8.00 P.M. does not evince any confidence. He had admitted that he had gone along with P.W. 3 Vijaypal for lodging the F.I.R. to the police station. He has stated that from the spot he had gone back to his house and had taken his meals and thereafter he had gone to the police station. He further admitted that he did not carry his torch to the police station. It was a dark night and no one amongst them was possessing any source of light. Their explanation that because of fear of the accused they went stealthily to the police station is a false pretext. The village has a Chaukidar. They could have easily taken the Chaukidar and few more persons. Chaukidar could have been sent for this purpose. There was nothing like fear and this circumstance clearly indicates that none of them had gone to the police station in the night and F.I.R. was got prepared and registered in the morning and that is why the inquest was also prepared during the day after the sunrise. He claimed that the I.O. had recorded his statement at the police station, but none of the other witnesses have stated so. He did not tell the I. O. that he had gone to the place of occurrence with a torch. He had also admitted that he did not tell I.O. about the presence of a burning lantern and his burning torch.
He further admitted that neither he has shown his torch nor the place where the Lantern was burning. He had not corroborated the other witnesses with regard to the presence of a burning lamp at the door of the deceased's house. He had very categorically admitted that besides his torch and the burning lantern at the door of the victim, there was no other source of light. The other witnesses have stated that the burning lantern was hanging near the fodder chopper, but this witness claims the lantern to be hanging at door. He has admitted that the place of occurrence is not visible from his house. Yet he had the courage to say that Vijaypal and the deceased were cutting fodder on their chopper machine. He did not tell this fact to I.O. He, like other witnesses, had stated that apart from the witnesses named by him no other villager had arrived at the scene of occurrence, although this fact finds place in his statement to the I.O. recorded under .Section 161, Cr. P.C. he now states that these other persons had arrived after the incident. He had also stated that Lathiwalas gave 2-3 blows each. He has further stated that the Lathi blows fell on the upper part of the hands. According to him, Lathi blows were not given while the deceased was standing. According to him, Lathi blows were also given by Suresh and Sheo Lal upon the victim even after his fall. This part of the statement is wholly in contrast to the testimony of P. Ws. 2 &3. It appears that he has some motive against the appellants. He had Zamindari in the village. A suggestion was given to this witness that he had forcibly ploughed the land of the appellants lying in village Phagni. Another suggestion of enmity that there was no passage from the house of this witness. A dispute between him and Krishna Bahadur Singh had occurred about two years ago on the question of the passage. Litigation also ensued between the two. It was suggested to this witness by the defence that the appellant signed the application given for the passage. May be for these reasons he has come out to support the case. In totality, his statement is not worth paper on which it had been printed. He is completely a got up witness.
20. Once these witnesses are discarded, it is impossible for us to accept the testimony of P.W. 4 Km. Sharmi Devi whose evidence is no better than these three witnesses.
21. Besides our finding with regard to the witnesses that their presence is highly doubtful, we also find the place of occurrence is also doubtful for the reasons that it has come in the evidence of the witnesses, specially the informant, that the dead body remained lying at point 'P' for the entire night. Point 'P' has been shown in the site plan to be the place where the dead body was lying. Yet no trace of blood was found at that place by the police on its arrival. The bed on the cot was found heavily soaked with blood. Although, according to the prosecution, the dead body was shifted on the cot in the morning after the completion of the inquest. Thus, we do not find any plausible reason for the bed to be soaked in blood so heavily. Further, the Panchayatnama mentions that the dead body was found on the cot. This goes to indicate that the I.O. had arrived at the scene at a time when the dead body was already placed on the cot. This panchayatnama does not show that the dead body was found at point 'P' after arrival of the I.O. and it was shifted to the cot after the completion of the inquest. As a matter of fact no question of the dead body having been shifted on the cot after the inquest, as admitted by the witness, informant, arise. This further raises serious doubt in our mind with regard to the place of occurrence. We do not find any such mention of this fact either in the site plan, Panchayatnama, or the case diary. These omissions are material and lead us to the only inference that the incident has not taken place in the manner and the place, as alleged by the prosecution.
22. Even the registration of the F.I.R. in this case, at the time alleged by the prosecution, appears to us to be highly doubtful. According to the prosecution, the F. I. R. was registered at P.S. Bidhnoo on the same night at about 11.15 P.M. The F.I.R. contains about the fact of Chandrapal having sustained injuries in the incident. We do not find any plausible reason coming forth from the prosecution side in the evidence why the chick report does not contain Section 323,1.P.C. therein. Panchayatnama at its end does not contain any mention of any papers and copy of the F.I.R. having been enclosed therewith. Over and above all these factum of shifting of the dead body on the cot in the morning after the completion of the inquest and sealing of the body also lends assurance to this inference drawn by us. The I.O. has noted down in the inquest memo that the dead body was found on the cot. This raises an inference in our mind that in all probability the I.O. has reached the spot of occurrence in the morning after the dead body had already been placed on the cot. The informant has stated that it was placed on the cot after the completion of the inquest and sealing of the body and this was done in the morning after sunrise. Contrary to this the I.O's. statement before the trial Court is that he started for the place of occurrence soon after registration of the F.I.R. From This it is unerringly disclosed that the F. I. R. came into existence in the morning and not at the time, as alleged by the prosecution.
23. Thus, from our discussions made above, the following facts emerged out very clearly :
1. The place of occurrence is rendered very doubtful.
2. The presence of witnesses at the spot at the relevant time is also found doubtful.
3. Sources of light are also found doubtful because there is complete absence regarding the same in the F.I.R. and statements under Section 161, Cr. P. C. The site plan also does not mention the presence of any source of light. There is complete failure of the I.O. to examine the alleged source of light and prepare their recovery memos.
4. The F. I. R. also appears to us to be ante-timed and, in all probability, registered in the morning.
24. In the result, these appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentences of all the appellants are set aside. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their personal bonds and surety bonds are hereby discharged.