JUDGMENT S. D. Khare, J. - This is an appeal from an order dated July 11, 1963, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Faizabad, convicting all the four appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to death. There is also before us the usual reference for the confirmation of the sentences of death passed on the appellants. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that there was good deal of enmity between Satruhan Singh, father of appellants Ram Adhar Singh and Ram Sahai Singh on the one hand, and Sat Narain (deceased) on the other. Ram I, Naresh Singh, cousin of Sat Narain Singh died about four years ago. He had about 40 bighas of land. Satruhan Singh had got a will executed by Ram Naresh in favour of his grandson, Sharda Prasad. The allegation of Sat Narain Singh (deceased) and other members of his family was that the will had been obtained by practising fraud. They, therefore, filed objections in the mutation proceedings. Jai Prakash, a nephew of Sat Narain Singh, also filed an objection that he was an adopted son of Ram Naresh Singh. While this litigation was going on Satruhan Singh at, was murdered in the year 1960, and Sat Narain Singh (deceased), his brother Ram Narain Singh, and his cousin Lahuri Singh (father of Jai Prakash) were accused for the murder of Satruhan Singh. The trial, however, ended in acquittal. Ram Adhar Singh and Ram Sahai Singh appellants, sons of Satruhan Singh, were, however, convinced that Sat Narain Singh (deceased) was the murderer of their father Satruhan Singh. They, therefore, did not perform the last rites of their father and openly said that they would perform the last rites of their father only after his murder had been avenged. Proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. were, therefore, started by the police against members of both the parties. In the year 1961 Ram Adhar Singh lodged a report against Fateh Bahadur Singh (son of Sat Narain Singh deceased), Ram Narain Singh (brother of Sat Narain Singh deceased) Anandi Prasad and Lahuri Singh, cousins of Sat Narain Singh (deceased). The police, after investigation, however, arrived at the conclusion that the report was false and a case under Section 182 I.P.C. was, therefore, started against Ram Adhar Singh. The police, after investigation, however, arrived at the conclusion that the report was false and a case under Section 182 I.P.C. was, therefore, started against Ram Adhar Singh. In view of what has been stated above, the relations between Sat Narain Singh (deceased) on the one hand, and Ram Adhar Singh and Ram Sahai Singh (appellants) on the other hand become very much strained. The prosecution case is that it was on that account that the murder of Sat Narain Singh was committed on August 16, 1962, about three hours before sunset, while he was passing through a sugarcane field of village Itwa, near Nauwa Ka Bagh on his way to Akbarpur. The August 18, 1962, was fixed for arguments in the mutation case, and Sat Narain Singh was going there after having taken his meals in order to instruct his lawyer. He had also to receive rehabilitation grant in the Tahsil. He had left his house all alone on a cycle but was armed with a gun and had a few cartridges with him. Ram Rup Singh (P. W. 1), who was also on a cycle, met him on the way, and both of them, after getting down from their cycles began to walk on the mend in between the two sugarcane field on their way to Akbarpur. They had been going on a kuchcha road leading to Akbarpur, but water had collected on the kuchcha road from near the sugarcane filed up to a certain distance beyond it, and, therefore, people going on that road had to walk on the mend lying in between the two sugarcane fields in order to avoid the inundated portion of the road (known Bhitt-Maharua Road). All the four appellants had concealed themselves in the sugarcane field. Ram Adhar Singh was armed with a gandasa, while the remaining three appellants were armed with pharsas. After Sat Narain Singh had walked up to a distance of 30 paces on the mend in between the two sugarcane fields all the four appellants pounched upon him and began to cause injuries to him with the respective weapons which they held. Sat Narain Singh threw his cycle and tried to run away. He also tried to unsling his gun, but Ram Adhar Singh snatched that gun and hit Sat Narain Singh with his gandasa. The remaining three accused persons indicted injuries on him with their pharsas. Sat Narain Singh threw his cycle and tried to run away. He also tried to unsling his gun, but Ram Adhar Singh snatched that gun and hit Sat Narain Singh with his gandasa. The remaining three accused persons indicted injuries on him with their pharsas. The appellants are said to I have fired two cartridges, and thereafter left the place after severing the head of It Sat Narain Singh from the trunk and took it away after wrapping it in a gunny bag. Kesho Singh (P.W. 3), a resident of Village Reona, which is at a distance of about two miles from the place of occurrence, also happened to reach there as he was returning from Ajudhia after having attended the Jhoola fair. Another witness who reached the place of occurrence, while Sat Narain Singh was being injured, was Hasula Prasad Singh (P.W. 4). He is a resident of village Arhanpur which is at a distance of five or six furlongs from the place of occurrence. He was also going to Akbarpur for making enquiries about the rehabilitation grant and compensation which he was to receive and was a little behind Sat Narain Singh and Ram Rup Singh on the same road. Both these witnesses reached near Ram Rup Singh (P.W. 1) and witnessed the later part of the occurrence. 3. After the appellants had run away from the place of occurrence, Ram Rup Singh (P.W. 1) rushed to the village of the deceased and conveyed the information to his son, Fateh Bahadur Singh (P.W. 5). The latter at once proceeded towards the place of occurrence and on reaching there saw that the dead body of his father was lying inside the sugarcane fields of Prag, to the east of the mend. The head and neck were missing. Six live cartridges, (two discharge cartridges) one broken gun, a pair of shoes, jhola, bicycle and an umbrella belonging to the deceased, were also found lying near the mend quite close to the dead body. Fateh Bahadur Singh picked up these articles and also the dead body of his father and proceeded to Police Station Haiderganj, and lodged a report there at 6:30 p.m. The dead body of the deceased Sat Narain Singh and all other articles which had been picked up by Fateh Bahadur Singh from the place of occurrence were handed over to the police. 4. 4. All the facts the facts stated above and the names of the eye-witnesses were mentioned in the first information report. It was also mentioned in the t report that the witnesses had seen the appellants firing the gun. It was not, however, mentioned in it as to who had fired the gun and with what results. 5. Immediately after the recovery, the gun and the discharged cartridges were sealed. Later on the sealed packages were sent to the ballistic expert for examination and report. The report of the ballastic expert was that the two fired catridges had not been fired from the single-barrelled breech loading gun (broken) in its present state. 6. The dead body of Sat Narain Singh was sent to the mortuary for examination and report. Dr. K. Kumar, Civil Surgeon (P.W. 2), performed the postmortem examination on the dead body of Sat Narain Singh at 5-30 p.m. on August 18, 1962. He was of the opinion that the deceased was about 45 years of age and the probable time since death at the time of the post-mortem examination was 2 to 3 days. He noted the following ante-mortem injuries as a result of the external examination :- (1) Incised wound 3" x x 1" deep transverse direction at the right shoulder just above the outer half of right collar bone. (2) Incised wound 3" x " x " transverse, at, the left side of abdomen above the highest point of left iliac crest. (3) Linear abrasion, transverse 8" long, 2" above the injury no. 2. (4) Incised wound 1" x 1" x ?" x " deep transverse at the hypothe-nar eminence of the left hand. 7. The neck had been cut at the level of sixth cervical vertebra. The head and the vertebra above the sixth cervical were missing. The death was in the opinion of the doctor, caused by shock and haemorrhage due to injuries and also probably due to decapitation. The doctor could not be certain whether the decapitation had been done before or after the death, and the possibility that it had been done soon after the death of Sat Narain Singh could not be ruled out, although it was also probable that the death could have been caused by a direct result of decapitation during the life-time of the deceased. 8. 8. The prosecution relied on the evidence of motive as given by Fateh Bahadur Singh (P.W. 5) and the statement of eye-witnesses, namely, Ram Rup Singh (P.W. 1), Kesho Singh (P. W. 3) and Hausla Prasad Singh (P.W. 4). 9. All the accused persons (appellants) had pleaded not guilty and stated that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity. Sat Narain Singly and Kailash Singh explained that their father Narsingh Narain Singh had appeared as a prosecution witness against Sat Narain Singh (deceased) in Satruhan Singh murder case, and it was on account of that enmity that they had been falsely implicated. Prem Prakash Srivastava. (D.W. 1), Progress Assistant, Stage II, Development Block, Bhiti, was examined to file a trace copy of the original map of Bhiti Block, while Mewa Lal Srivastava, Advocate, Faizabad, (D.W. 2) was examined to prove a map which he had prepared as a Commissioner at the pointing out of Rampal Singh, a pairokar for some of the accused persons. These two maps were filed by the defence to show that it was possible for Sat Narain Singh (deceased) and other prosecution witnesses to have gone on routes other than the one on which the occurrence took place, and it was therefore, not at all necessary for the deceased and the prosecution witnesses to have converged at the place of occurrence when the occurrence took place. 10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after having considered the entire evidence on the record, arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution evidence was reliable. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced all the four appellants as aforesaid. 11. There is sufficient material on the record to establish that Sat Narain Singh is dead and that he died as a result of injuries received by him inside the sugarcane filed in village. It was near Nauwa Ki Bagh. The place of occurrence is established from the statements made by Fateh Bahadur Singh (P.W. 5) and Sri Amjad Ali, the investigating officer, (P.W. 9). It has already been stated above that Fateh Bahadur Singh (P.W. 5), on arrival, found the dead body lying inside the sugarcane field. The investigating officer also reached the place of occurrence the same night and covered the place where blood had fallen on the ground by a dauri (a sort of big basket without hanale). It has already been stated above that Fateh Bahadur Singh (P.W. 5), on arrival, found the dead body lying inside the sugarcane field. The investigating officer also reached the place of occurrence the same night and covered the place where blood had fallen on the ground by a dauri (a sort of big basket without hanale). The next morning he inspected the site and recovered some gunshots tikli, one dot, blood-stained earth, plain earth and some particles of brain from the place of occurrence. He took the blood-stained and unstained earth in his possession, sealed them and sent them to the Chemical Examiner and Serologist for examination and report. The Chemical Examiner found that the earth was blood-stained. However, by the time the blood-stained earth reached the Serologist he found that the bloodstains on it had disintegrated and their origin could not be determined. However, the various recoveries, coupled with the fact that the Chemical Examiner had found the earth to be bloodstained, fully corroborate the prosecution case regards the place of occurrence. 12. The time of occurrence is disputed on two grounds. In the first place, the post-mortem examination report revealed that the stomach was ampty and that both the small and large intestines were full of gases and feeces. It is urged that the condition of the stomach could not have been like that if Sat Narain Singh (deceased) had left his village at about 2 p.m. after having taken his meals and had died shortly thereafter. In the second place it is contended that the doctor who performed the post-mortem examination at 5-30 p.m. on August 18, 1962, was of the opinion that the probable time since death could be from two to three days. The rigour morti had passed off and the entire portion of the body covered up with maggots. Thus according to the post-mortem examination report the occurrence could have taken place easily up to 12 hours before the alleged time of the occurrence. 13. The main point to be considered in this appeal is whether the appellants were responsible for having caused all those injuries to Sat Narain Singh (deceased) and severed his head. 14. So far as Ram Adhar Singh and Ram Sahai Singh appellants who are the sons of Satruhan Singh, are concerned. there can be no doubt that there was ample motive for the crime. 14. So far as Ram Adhar Singh and Ram Sahai Singh appellants who are the sons of Satruhan Singh, are concerned. there can be no doubt that there was ample motive for the crime. It is proved from the statement of Fateh Bahadur Singh (P.W. 5), and has not been disputed by the appellants Ram Adhar Singh and Ram Sahai Singh, that there was dispute about property between Satruhan Singh and his sons on the one hand, and Sat Narain Singh on the other, that after the murder of Satruhan Singh, Sat Narain Singh (deceased) was one of the accused persons in that murder case, and that there had been a case under Section 107 Cr.P.C. in which the members of the two parties were arrayed as opposite parties and a report regarding dacoity had been lodged by Ram Adhar Singh appellant against Fateh Bahadur Singh and others. It was also alleged by Fateh Bahadur Singh that the sons of Satruhan Singh had not, performed the last rites of their father and had been saying openly that they shall perform the last rites only after they had taken revenge from the murderer. However when cross-examined the witness had to admit that he had no personal knowledge about the non-performance of the last rites of Satruhan Singh. The first two appellants, who are the sons of Satruhan Singh, have explained that they have already performed the last rites of their father on due dates. 15. However, apart from the allegation (which is not well-established) regarding the threat which is alleged to have been extended by the first two appellants to Sat Narain Singh (deceased) suspecting him to be the murderer of their father, there is ample evidence on the record to prove that there was good deal of enmity between the sons of Satruhan Singh on the one hand and Sat Narain Singh (deceased) on the other. The remaining two appellants, namely, Sat Narain Singh and Kailash Singh, sons of Narsingh Narain Singh, are related to the first two appellants and their father Narsingh Narain Singh had appeared as a prosecution witness in Satruhan Singh murder case against Sat Narain Singh (deceased). The prosecution case is that these two appellants had been joined the sons of Satruhan Singh because of relationship. 16. Enmity is always like a double-edged sword. It cust both ways. The prosecution case is that these two appellants had been joined the sons of Satruhan Singh because of relationship. 16. Enmity is always like a double-edged sword. It cust both ways. If it could be a motive for the appellants to have committed the murder of Sat Narain Singh (deceased), it could also be a cause for the false implication of the appellants on the basis of suspicion in case the murder had not been witnessed by anyone. Everything will, therefore, depend on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses who are said to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. 17. There can be no doubt that all the prosecution witnesses are chance witnesses. They just happened to reach that part of the road near which the occurrence took place while Sat Narain Singh was being attacked by the four appellants. However, their sworn testimony cannot be discarded merely on that ground. The place where the occurrence took place was such where only passers by could be expected to reach. The sugarcane crop in both the fields was of about one mans height, and, therefore all that was happening on the mend in between the two sugarcane fields could not be visible to persons who might be grazing their cattle or doing some other work at some distance from there. The prosecution witnesses although they are chance witnesses can be believed provided they are able to give a satisfactory account of their having reached the place of occurrence at that time and also in case the account given by them is consistent with other facts and circumstances of the case, and has remained consistent throughout. 18. The cross-examination of Ram Rup Singh (P.W. 1) reveals that in mutation case he had appeared as a witness for Jai Prakash son of Lahuri Singh and that Ram Adhar appellant had lodged a report of dacoity against his brothers Ram Milan and Ram Jatan. The witness could therefore, have a motive to falsely implicate Ram Adhar Sirgh and his brother Ram Sahai Singh, and also the other appellants who are related to Ram Adhar Singh. However, there is nothing in the cross-examination of Kesho Singh (P.W. 3) and Hausla Prasad Singh (P.W. 4) to indicate that they were on inimical terms with any of the appellants. 19. However, there is nothing in the cross-examination of Kesho Singh (P.W. 3) and Hausla Prasad Singh (P.W. 4) to indicate that they were on inimical terms with any of the appellants. 19. Ram Rup Singh (P.W. 1) is a resident of village Tejapur, which is a hamlet of village Itwa. Tejapur is at a distance of about four or five furlongs from the place of occurrence. The witness stated that he was going to Akbarpur on that day to attpnd to his work there, but after the occurrence he had no occurage left to proceed towards Akbarpur, which is at a distance of 14 oils miles from his village, and he, therefore, did not proceed further towards his destination. 20. Kesho Singh (P.W. 3) is a resident of village Reona, which is at a distance of two miles from the place of occurrence. He claims to have been returning from Ajudhia after attending the Jhoola fair. Ajudhia is at a distance of about 32 miles from his village. He happened to reach that part of the road just at the time when the deceased and Ram Rup Singh had raised an alarm. 21. Housla Prasad Singh (P.W. 4) is a resident of village Arhanpur, which is at a distance of five or six furlongs from the place of occurrence. He claims to have been going on a cycle to Akbarpur for making enquiries about his rehabilitation grant and compensation. He too reached that particular part of the road near which the sugarcane fields are situate exactly at the time when the alarm had been raised. Both he and Kesho Singh (P.W. 3), claimed to have proceeded towards the place of occurrence in the company of Ram Rup Singh (P.W. 1), who had earlier run away towards the road raising an alarm. 22. The first information report was lodged by Fateh Bahadur Singh on the basis of the information received from the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, particularly Ram Rup Singh (P.W.1) who had gone to call him from his village. 22. The first information report was lodged by Fateh Bahadur Singh on the basis of the information received from the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, particularly Ram Rup Singh (P.W.1) who had gone to call him from his village. The following account -which he gave in the first information report is indicative of the fact that the witnesses had represented to him that they had seen each and every incident narrated in the first information report, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:- "When they had gone for about 30 paces on the mend (ridge), Ram Adhar Singh and Ram Sahai Singh, sons of Satruhan Singh, of mauza Pariayin, and Satya Narain Singh and Kailash Singh, sons of Nar Singh Narain Singh, of mauza Madarbhari Pura Ghusa, P.S. Haiderganj, suddenly emerged from the sugarcane field of Ram Achal, armed with pharsas and gandasas. They caught held of my father and snatched his gun, which he had with him and hacked him with the pharsas and gandasas. On earing the alarm) raised by my father and Ram Roop Singh, Ram Sukh Singh and Dihar Ahir of mauza Madarbhari who were grazing cattle close by, and Hausla Singh of Arhanpur and Kesho Singh of mauza Reona and many other people reached there. The aforesaid accused, persons broke at the spot the gun which was with ; my father and ran away leaving the cycle of my father, six live cartridges, two fired cartridges, the shoes of my fathers feet, papers relating to suit in the jhola and umbrella and taking the head of my father after cutting it. The aforesaid persons have seen them assaulting my father and running away. They have seen them firing also." 23. The statement made by Ram Rup Singh (P.W. 1), however, reveals that he did not witness the occurrence from the beginning to the end. He stated that he did not remain standing near the place of occurrence but had run away towards the road to a place from which the occurrence could not be seen. All that he had seen before running away was that Ham Adhar Singh, who was armed with a gandasa had snatched away the gun from Sat Narain Singh, and had inflicted a gandasa blow on his neck. He had seen the remaining three appellants also inflicting pharsa blows on Sat Narain Singh. All that he had seen before running away was that Ham Adhar Singh, who was armed with a gandasa had snatched away the gun from Sat Narain Singh, and had inflicted a gandasa blow on his neck. He had seen the remaining three appellants also inflicting pharsa blows on Sat Narain Singh. After having reached the road the witness met Kesho Singh (P.W. 3) and Hausla Prasad Singh (P.W. 4) and in their company again proceeded towards the place of occurrence. It was then that all the witnesses saw that Sat Narain Singh (deceased) was lying on the ground and the three appellants who were wielding pharsas were causing injuries to him. As soon as the witnesses reached upto a distance about 15 or 20 paces from the place of occurrence Ham Adhar Singh threatened them by telling them that he would fire at them in case they moved further. All the three witnesses, therefore, ran back to the road from where the occurrence could not be seen. They kept on raising an alarm and in (the meantime they heard two reports of gunfire. They also felt that passers-by were coming from the opposite direction and that gave them occurrage. They, therefore, again went to the place where Sat Narain Singh (deceased) was being injured, and when they were about 15 paces from that place, they saw that Ram Adhar Singh was wraping the head of Sat Narain Singh in a tat. Thereafter all the four appellants 4 ran away in their presence. 24. From the above account given by the eye-witnesses it becomes clear that none of the witnesses saw the firing of the gun or the breaking of the gun or the removal of the head from the trunk of the body of Sat Narain Singh. 25. A definite departure was made from the assertions made in the first information report. A perusal of the first information report reveals that the witnesses had remained standing while the crime was being committed and they had seen everything from the moment of their arrival till the appellants had run away from the place of occurrence. Ram Rup Singh had also stated before the investigating officer that he was an eye-witness of all those incidents. Ram Rup Singh had also stated before the investigating officer that he was an eye-witness of all those incidents. However, when Fateh Bahadur Singh and Ram Rup Singh were confronted with what was there in the first information report and the statement made by Ram Hup Singh before the investigating officer, they explained that at no stage the statement of the eye-witnesses had been that they had seen everything with their own eyes. Fateh Bahadur Singh stated as follows:- "Ram Rup Singh did not tell me that the witnesses had seen the accused beheading my father and firing from a gun. I had told the I.O. that the witnesses had seen the accused firing from a gun. I also told him that the witnesses had seen the accused seen the actual firing from the gun. I had said so to the I.O. because the witnesses had told me about the firing of a gun, and from which I had inferred that they had actually seen the firing of a gun. I had written in my report also that the witnesses had seen the actual firing from the gun. I had done so according to my inferences which I had drawn from the narration of the incident of the witnesses made to me at that time when I was in perplexed state of mind. 26. Ram Rup Singh (P.W. 1) tried to explain the change in his statement as follows :- "I did not see the accused firing from any gun. I did not see any accused beheading Sat Narain Singh deceased. T did not see any accused breaking the gun of Sat Narain Singh. I had stated before the investigating officer that the accused had also fired two rounds from a gun, and thereafter they beheaded the deceased and ran towards the west with that head. The accused had also broken the gun of the deceased into two pieces after firing from it. I did not state before the I.O. that I had seen these things with my eyes. I had told him what I have stated in this Court and the I.O. seems to have understood my statement before him that I had seen those thinks also." 27. I did not state before the I.O. that I had seen these things with my eyes. I had told him what I have stated in this Court and the I.O. seems to have understood my statement before him that I had seen those thinks also." 27. It is difficult to understand how Fateh Bahadur Singh and the Investigating Officer misunderstood the statements made by the eye-witnesses to that extent and recorded something which was contrary to what they had said. The probability, therefore, is that the eyewitnesses account of the occurrence is being changed to fit in with the circumstances of the case. 28. The need for this change became apparent when the investigating officer found that the brain matter was lying scattered near the place of occurrence. That could have taken place if the gun had been fired point blank on the head of Sat Narain Singh blowing off the brain matter. Had the prosecution witnesses seen the firing of the gun they should have been in a position to state on whom the gun was fired and with what results. Further, they could also be expected to see whether the two cartridges had been fired from the gun of Sat Narain Singh (deceased) or whether any other gun had been used. The report of the ballistic expert reveals that the two fired cartridges which were found near the place of occurrence could not have been fired from the gun of the deceased. The report of the ballistic expert might or might not have been reliable, but it would have been taking too much of a risk for the prosecution witnesses to commit that the two cartridges had been fired with that very gun which had been snatched from Sat Narain Singh (deceased). 29. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the eye-witnesses account as given in the first information report has been substantially departed from at the time the evidence was led, and Ram Rup Singh (P.W. 1) (and subsequently other witnesses also) has been made to run from the road to the place of occurrence thrice in order to see only the beginning and the end of the occurrence and not to make him (and other witnesses) commit about the details which might have taken place in between. In our opinion, there is good deal of force in this argument and we think that a satisfactory explanation for making a departure from the case originally taken up in the first information report is not forthcoming. 30. It has come in the cross-examination of the investigating officer Amjad Ali (P.W. 9) that no person of Nauwa Ki Bagh Ka Purwa came to the place of occurrence when hie called them. He himself went to the Purwa and found that the inhabitants of the Purwa had run away from there. There could be no reason for the inhabitants of the nearest habitation to run away from I their houses if it was known from the very beginning as to who the murderers of Sat Narain Singh were. That circumstance also casts a good deal of doubt on the prosecution case that the murder of Sat Narain Singh (deceased) I had been witnessed by P.Ws. 1, 3 and 41 and the murderers had been seen running away from the place of occurrence by other villagers (not examined) who happened to be nearby. 31. In our opinion the case against the appellants is not free from doubt and the probability that the murder of Sat Narain Singh was committed at a time when nobody was near him and the names of the four appellants were mentioned in the first information report as murderers merely on the ground of suspicion cannot be ruled out. The appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt and to acquittal. 32. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences of all the four appellants, namely, Ram Adhar Singh Ram Sahai Singh, Sat Narain Singh and Kailash Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. are set aside. They are in jail. They must be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in some other I connection. The reference for the confirmation of the sentences of death passed on the appellants is rejected,