( 1 ) UNSUCCESSFUL appellants approached this court against judgment dated 30/04/1996 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions trial No. 147/94, thereby convicting them for the offence punishable under Ss. 302, 302/34, I. P. C. and sentencing them (to) imprisonment for life.

( 2 ) GRAVAMEN of the prosecution case is that on 19/01/1994 at about 9. 15 p. m. accused/appellants went to the house of Ramawatar to call him out. At that time, kaushalya (P. W. 5) sister of Ramawatar and anita (P. W, 7) her sister-in-law were in the house, They told the appellants that ramawatar had gone to market. On this accused/appellants threatened them to finish Ramawatar and also abused filthily. Thereafter, Ramawatar was seen standing at the square, the accused/appellants surrounded him and was assaulted by lethal weapons, Anita (P. W. 7) wife of Ramawatar, ranibai, mother of Ramawatar, Santosh and harlnarayan reached the spot. Seeing them accused/appellants ran away. Ramawatar was died on the spot. The incident had taken place due to enmity between accused /appellant No. 1 and deceased-Ramawatar. The offence was registered on the basis of First Information Report, Ex. P/11 lodged by Kaushalya (P. W. 5), post-mortem report is Exhibit P/6. After usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused/appellants. Accused/appellants abjured their guilt. Their defence was that deceased was bully of that area and facing number of criminal cases along with Dinesh (P. W. 6 ). He was extorting money from inhabitants of that area and he died in suspicious condition. Later on the police was concocted false case on the basis of interested and partisan witnesses against the applicants though the witnesses have not seen the incident. They put on trial and convicted as indicated above.

( 3 ) WE have heard Mr. S. K. Vyas learned counsel for appellants and Mr. Girish Desai. learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent/state and also perused entire record of the case.

( 4 ) CONVICTION of appellants is based on the statements of Santosh (P. W. 4); kaushalya (P. W. 5); Dinesh (P. W. 6) and anita (P. W. 7), they are brother of brother-in-law, sister, friend and widow of the deceased respectively.

( 5 ) IN this case, Investigating Officer was not examined during the course of trial. This court while invoking power under S. 391, cr. P. C. directed for his examination vide order dated 22-11-1999. In pursuance thereof, trial Court has examined Investigating Officer Mr. J. S. Ahluwalia (P. W. 13 ).

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has urged that FIR was brought into existence in ante-date and time, therefore, the very basis and foundation of the prosecution case is doubtful, Culling the evidence of author of the First Information Report, Kaushalya (P. W. 5), we glean that In her cross-examination, In paragraph 13 has stated that on the date of the Incident. Mr. J, S. Ahluwalla was the Station House Officer of Police Station, Chandan Nagar. Her say in paragraph 14 Is that when she lodged report in the police Station, Mr. Ahluwalia was not present. She was not able to disclose the name of Police Officer, who had written the first Information Report. She has further deposed that the date on which she reached police Station for lodging report, Sardarjl means Station House Officer, Mr. Ahluwalla did not meet her. Mr. J. S. Ahluwalia (P. W. 13) in examinatlon-in-chief in paragraph 1 has deposed that he had written First Information Report as disclosed by Kaushalya (P. W. 5 ). He has also deposed that First Information Report, Ex. P/11 was written and signed by him. In cross-examination in paragraph 17 he has stated that except Post-mortem Requisition Form Ex. P/20 all other documents were not written by him but the same were written by his junior as per his direction but such note is not mentioned on the documents. In paragraph 23, he has specifically stated that First Information report, Ex. P/11 was not written by him and he was als