Hari Lal Agrawal, J. Both these appeals have been heard together as they arise out of the same judgment and, accordingly, they are being disposed of by this judgment. They have been filed by the eight appellants mentioned above against the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah, convicting them variously. Each of the eight appellants has been convicted under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Mahanth Vijayanand Parbat and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for removing his dead body with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment. No separate sentence, however, has been awarded for this offence. The three appellants of criminal appeal No. 211 of 1971 and appellant Nos. 1 and 4 of Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 1971 have further been convicted under section 148 and the remaining three appellants, namely, appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence has been awarded under either of these two sections. 2. All the eight appellants were put on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the charge that in the night of 25th August 1968, they being variously armed, formed an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly, they caused the murder of the aforesaid Mahanth Vijayanand Parbat at about 11 P.M. at Nauratan Garh near Naya Bhojpur, under Dumraon Police Station. 5. The first information report of the aforesaid incident was lodged by Bihar Ahir (P.W.1) at about 6 A.M. on 26.8.1968 with the Dumraon police, which was at a distance of about three miles from the place of occurrence. 4. The deceased was the Mahanth of a Mathia situated in village Rampur Mathia, within Semri Police station. This village is about two miles away from Dumraon Railway station and about 600 yards from the place of occurrence. According to the prosecution case, the deceased, who was a member of the Jana Sangh, had gone to Arrah on 25th August 1968 to attend a meeting of the District Jana Sangh where election of the office bearers was to take place. According to the prosecution case, the deceased, who was a member of the Jana Sangh, had gone to Arrah on 25th August 1968 to attend a meeting of the District Jana Sangh where election of the office bearers was to take place. Along with him had gone Billar Ahir (P.W. 1), Kedar Nath Ahir (P.W. 3), Basdeo Ahir (P.W. 4) and Lalbachan Ahir (P.W. 6), who also were members of the said party. They had reached Arrah sometime in the day and after the conclusion of the meeting at about 5. P.M., they all along with one Sheodan Pandey left for their village home. It is said that the deceased was elected as one of the Vice President of the District Jana Sangh and Shri Narayan Dwivedi (P.W. 14), an Advocate of Arrah, was elected as its President. All the above named six persons boarded the train at Arrah at about 8 P.M. and reached Dumraon Railway station at about 10 P.M. from there they proceeded on foot for village Rampur Mathia. They reached Naoratan Garh at about 10.30 P.M., but inasmuch as on account of rains, the lands and the passage thereafter had got over flooded with water, the deceased and one of his companions. Basdeo Ahir (P.W. 4), went out to call a Mallah. One Kolahal Mallah agreed to take them on his boat. As there was shallow water for some distance, the Mallah asked the Mahanth and his party to cover the said distance up to the boat on foot. The prosecution party, accordingly, took off their shoes, and holding them in their hands, proceeded towards the place where the boat was kept. The deceased had also a three shell torch and he held it in his other hand. It is said that when they had proceeded for about fifty steps towards the north, they heard some sound of movement coming from the close by maize field on the eastern side. On hearing the said sound, the deceased flashed his torch towards that side, and in that light they saw 15 or 16 persons, coming out of the said field, variously armed. Out of them, they identified eight persons, namely, the appellants. Appellant Lahnohar Rai was armed with a sword and appellants Parmeshwar Rai and Bikarma Rai each withbhala. Appellant Amire band Ahir was armed with a gun and appellant Ramchandra Rai with a Dav. Out of them, they identified eight persons, namely, the appellants. Appellant Lahnohar Rai was armed with a sword and appellants Parmeshwar Rai and Bikarma Rai each withbhala. Appellant Amire band Ahir was armed with a gun and appellant Ramchandra Rai with a Dav. The remaining three appellants, namely, Radha Krishna Ahir, Ambika Ahir and Chandrika Ahir as well as the other members of the assembly, who could not be identified, were armed with lathis. According to the allegations made in the F.I.R., all the above mentioned 15-16 persons, all on a sudden, pounced up on the Mahanth and started assaulting him with different weapons which they had in their hands at that time. According to the allegations, appellants Parmeshwar Rai and Bikaram Rai assaulted the Mahanth with Bhalas and appellant Lalmohar Raiwith the sword. The remaining assailants assaulted him with lathis. Appellant Amirchand Rai, who was carrying a double barrel gun, opened fire twice, but it could not be seen as to whether it hit anybody or not. It may be mentioned that none of the prosecution witnesses accompanying the Mahanth received any injury. Admittedly no attempt was made by any member of the said assembly to assault any of the prosecution witnesses. The Mahanth was killed and thereafter the members of the unlawful assembly carried away his dead body. It was alleged in the said report it self as well as the prosecution also led evidence during the trial that a long standing enmity of various kinds was coming on between the deceased, on the one hand, and the appellants, on the other. An explanation was also furnished in the said report that out of fear for his life, P.W. 1 did not report the matter earlier in the night itself. 5. On the basis of the above report, Baleshwar Singh (P.W. 13), the officer in charge of Dumraon Police station, took up the investigation and submitted chargesheet against all the appellants who have been convicted and sentenced, as noticed above, by the trial court. 6. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses in support of its case. Out of them only four persons, namely P. Ws. 1, 3, 4 and 6 who claimed to be accompanying the deceased are eye witnesses and claimed to have seen the occurrence. P.Ws. 7, 9 and 10 are the witnesses who had come to the place of occurrence later on. P.Ws. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses in support of its case. Out of them only four persons, namely P. Ws. 1, 3, 4 and 6 who claimed to be accompanying the deceased are eye witnesses and claimed to have seen the occurrence. P.Ws. 7, 9 and 10 are the witnesses who had come to the place of occurrence later on. P.Ws. 5, 8 and 11 were tendered by the prosecution. P.W. 2 is the doctor who held the postmortem examination on the dead body of the Mahanth which was discovered by the constable (P.W. 12) boating at some distance from the place of occurrence at about mid day on 26th August 1968 and P.W. 14 is the Advocate who was elected as the President in the meeting of the Jan Sangh held on 25th August 1968 and was examined to prove the presence of the deceased at Arrah on the said date. As stated above, P.W. 13 is the investigating officer, who investigated the case and submitted charge sheet. 7. The appellants pleaded, 'not guilty' to the charges and that they have been falsely Implicated on account of enmity with the prosecution witnesses. It has been said that the deceased was a man of loose morals and had several enemies who might be responsible for his murder. 8. The investigating officer (P.W. 13) after recording the F.I.R. deputed a constable (P.W. 12) to Naya Bhojpur for searching out the dead body and himself also reached there at about 8.30 A.M. on 26th August 1968. The place of occurrence is a temporary Ghat, and rather a lonely place. He found the entire pathway between Rampur Mathia and the Ghat flooded with rain water. The depth of water for about 100 yards from the ghat was about 1½ feet. The place of occurrence was pointed out to P.W. 13 by the first informant (P.W. 1) five yards east of that place lay the maize field where dense maize plants about 7 feet in height was standing over an area of about 2 kathas. That field was similarly water logged, the depth of water being about 11 feet. He, however, did not state that he noticed any sign of violence or disturbance in the maize field. According to the prosecution witnesses, the culprits were hiding and had appeared at the scene and assaulted the deceased in the manner stated above. That field was similarly water logged, the depth of water being about 11 feet. He, however, did not state that he noticed any sign of violence or disturbance in the maize field. According to the prosecution witnesses, the culprits were hiding and had appeared at the scene and assaulted the deceased in the manner stated above. P.W. 13 recovered one pair of shoes with rubber sole 'Exts, 1 and 1/ 1 from a ditch adjacent west of the maize field and to the east of the pathway in question and also a torch (ext. 11) from a place one cubit south of the same, which was there in working order. He was informed at that very place of the recovery of the dead body from a place known as Kaziji Ka Tilha, where It was found floating. That was a place about 250 yards east from the place where he had found the pair of shoes. After holding Inquest over the dead body, he forwarded it to Buxar for postmortem examination. Thereafter he proceeded to village Rampur Mathia and searched for the accused, but none was found. 9. The doctor (P.W.2) held the post-mortem examination on 20th August 1968 at 5.15 P.M. at Buxar Sub Divisional Hospital and found the following ante mortem Injuries on his person. 1. One incised wound 4” x ½” x scalp deep on the left parietal eminence. 2. Incised wound 5” x l” both temples of the skull bone cut through above the left ear in transverse axis. 3. Incised wound 4” x 3/4” x bone cut extending from 1” lateral to the outer angle of the left eye to the bridge of the nose which was cut through. 4. Incised wound 10” x 2 ½” going into the oral cavity cutting through the left lower jaw and dislocating the teeth, lower half of the left ear chopped off. 5. Incised wound 8” x 1½” x going into the oral cavity cutting through both mandible beginning from the left side of the neck to the right lower jaw; 6. Incised wound 2½ ” x ¼” x skin deep right front chest: 7. Bruise 4” x ¾” on the right anti cubical fossa 8. Incised wound 6” x 3” going into the left elbow joint with the cutting of the lower end of the left humbrus bone 9. Incised wound 2½ ” x ¼” x skin deep right front chest: 7. Bruise 4” x ¾” on the right anti cubical fossa 8. Incised wound 6” x 3” going into the left elbow joint with the cutting of the lower end of the left humbrus bone 9. Whole neck cut through, head and neck severed at the level just above the thyriod cartilage. All the structures cut through at this level. The head was hanging with 3” of skin and subcutaneous tissue. Tissues at the injured site were infiltrated with blood and blood clots. All the injuries except injury Nos. 1, 6 and 7 were grievous in nature and except No.7 caused by a sharp-cutting weapon such as sword and Dav, and were sufficient, in the opinion of the doctor, to cause death. In his opinion, each of the injuries Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 9 was by itself sufficient to cause death. He, however, stated that injury No.9 must have been caused after the man had fallen on the ground. Only one injury namely injury No.7, was such which could have been caused by blunt portion of a Garasa or Pharsa. None of the injuries found on the deceased was penetrating and piercing and according to the opinion of P.W.2, were not inflicted by Bhala. 10. I shall now discuss the evidence of the eye witnesses mentioned above. They are P.Ws. 1, 3, 4 and 6. All the aforesaid P.Ws. except P.W. 6, are residents of the same village, namely, Rampur Mathia, to which village the deceased belonged. They had all gone to attend the meeting of the Jana Sangh held at Arrah on the day of the occurrence and they were admittedly members of the said party. Their evidence regarding the manner of the occurrence is practically similar. It may also be stated that all the eight appellants are also residents of the aforesaid village Rampur Mathia and were known to the prosecution witnesses. Basdeo Ahir (P.W. 4) has admitted in his evidence that none of the appellants had made any attempt to disguise or mask their faces. Kedar Nath Ahir (P.W. 3) further admitted that the night in question was a dark night. 11. Basdeo Ahir (P.W. 4) has admitted in his evidence that none of the appellants had made any attempt to disguise or mask their faces. Kedar Nath Ahir (P.W. 3) further admitted that the night in question was a dark night. 11. The informant (P.W. 1) stated that the Mahanth after having heard sound of movements coming from the maize field flashed his torch and in that light he saw 15-16 persons coming out of that field, variously armed, with gun, bhala, sword, Dav, lathi who immediately started assaulting the Mahanth. Out of them he identified an the eight appellants, who were variously armed, as has already been stated earlier. According to him, the Mahanth fell down as a result of the assault and all his companions were completely terrorised. He for himself wanted to run away, but fell down in the water. The assailants thereafter forcibly dragged the Mahanth northeast to the maize field. All the prosecution witnesses then went to Naoratan Garh which, according to the evidence of the I.O. (P.W. 13), was only at a distance of 50 yards north-west from there, practically adjacent to Naya Bhojpur. On reaching there, he raised hulla whereupon some people came, including Jagdish Pd. Gupta (P.W.7), Hussaini (P.W. 8), Khalil Khan (P.W.9) and Kanhaya Pd. Sah (P.W. 11), to whom the details of the occurrence were narrated. A petromax was brought by Hussaini (P.W. 8) to search for the Mahanth, but in spite of the efforts of the prosecution witnesses his body could not be found. The prosecution witnesses, however, are definite that the Mahanth had already died as a result of the assault before his body was dragged by the assailants into the maize field. The prosecution witnesses then went to the house of Khalil Khan (P.W.9) and changed their wet cloths and from that place P.W. 1 went to Dumraon Police Station to lodge the F.I.R. in the early morning as already stated. 12. The prosecution also suggested a motive for the appellants to commit the murder of the Mahanth. P.W.1 stated that about 8 or 9 months before the occurrence, a tube-well was sunk in the village. Its water was logging on the village path way making it muddy. The deceased had taken exception to the above and got the handle of the tube-well removed, for which the appellants were bearing grudge. P.W.1 stated that about 8 or 9 months before the occurrence, a tube-well was sunk in the village. Its water was logging on the village path way making it muddy. The deceased had taken exception to the above and got the handle of the tube-well removed, for which the appellants were bearing grudge. Further seven to eight months before the occurrence, some unlicensed cartridges were recovered from the house of appellant Amirchand by the Police and he entertained an impression that it was the deceased who was responsible for the search. Then appellant Amirchand had filed a dacoity case against the deceased and some of the prosecution witnesses in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Buxar, sometime in the year 1968 before the date of the occurrence. They got a proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure started against appellant Amirchand. The Mahanth had also filed a title suit against appellant Amirchand only about two months before the occurrence. P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that one Shakoor of his village had filed a criminal case against appellant Lalmohar Rai and brother of appellant Ramchandra Rai, and Shankar Dayal Singh, first cousin of father of appellant Parmeshwar Rai, in which he and Kapildeo Ahir. the uncle of P.W. Basdeo Ahir, had deposed on behalf of Shakoor before this occurrence had taken place. He, however, admitted that there was proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the deceased, P.W. Basdeo Ahir his brother, father and uncle of P.W. Kedar Nath Ahir, etc. to which he was also a party. He was also a party in another 107 proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure between the Mahanth and Amirchand Ahir and others. On the above admission learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that no reliance should be placed upon the evidence of P.W. 1, who was not an independent witness and was highly interested, being inimically disposed of towards the appellants. It may be mentioned at this very place on other aspect of the prosecution story on which some argument was also advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants. According to the evidence of P.W. 1 as also of the other prosecution witnesses, the gun was fired by appellant Amirchand before the assault on the Mahanth had started. It may be mentioned at this very place on other aspect of the prosecution story on which some argument was also advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants. According to the evidence of P.W. 1 as also of the other prosecution witnesses, the gun was fired by appellant Amirchand before the assault on the Mahanth had started. But in their evidence in the committing Court, as well as in their statement before the police, the prosecution witnesses had said that the gun-fire was opened after the assault had already started. P.W. 1 had said in the committing court that he implored the assailant not to kill the Mahanth and on that appellant Amirchand fired two rounds from his gun. 13. Similarly, Kedar Nath Ahir (P.W. 3) also claimed to have identified the appellants along with their weapons in the flash of the torch light lighted by the Mahanth. According to him also, all the appellants with the weapons which they had in their hands, attacked the Mahanth and as they assaulted him severely with their weapons, the Mahanth fell down on the ground and they assaulted him even thereafter. As a result of the assaults, the Mahanth died and thereafter on the orders of appellant Amirchand, the dead body of the Mahanth was dragged away. This witness had fled away to village Naya Bhojpur to the house of the P.W. Khalil Khan and had raised hulla there, on which several persons had arrived to whom he had narrated the occurrence. This witness is definite that all the eight appellants were assaulting the Mahanth, but he did not raise any hulla at that time out of Fear. He, however, contradicted him self from his earlier statement made before the Police where he had stated that when he saw the assault on the Mahanth, all the prosecution witnesses started raising hulla. Just like P.W. 1 he also stated that as the appellants came out of the maize field, appellant Amirchand opened fire twice, but before the Police his statement was that when they had raised hulla, fire was opened with the gun. In the committing Court also he made a similar statement. He admitted that a criminal case was filed against him and his father and uncle by the sister-in-law of appellant Bikarma Rai soon after the occurrence, which was still pending. In the committing Court also he made a similar statement. He admitted that a criminal case was filed against him and his father and uncle by the sister-in-law of appellant Bikarma Rai soon after the occurrence, which was still pending. He was also a search witness to the recovery of cartridges by the Police from the house of appellant Amirchand Ahir. We have already seen that this witness was also made an accused in the dacoity case instituted by appellant Amirchand Ahir. This witness admitted that lands had been settled by the Mahanth in favour of his father. Learned counsel for the appellants challenged the credibility of this witness also on same and similar grounds on which the testimony of P.W. 1 was challenged. 14. The next eye witness Basdeo Ahir (P.W. 4) another companion of the Mahanth, also identified the appellants in the fash of the torch light. He waited to see the entire occurrence until the dead body of the Mahanth was removed by the culprits, and then he ran away and went to village Rampur Mathia and informed the people of the village about the occurrence. He says that the wife of the deceased was at her house, but surprisingly enough, he did not inform her of the occurrence. No body else of village Rampur Mathia, except the prosecution witnesses mentioned above, has been examined by the prosecution to corroborate. P.W.4 that he had gone to the village in the night of the occurrence and had given out the names of the assailants, a circumstance very much material in this case. This witness was also a member of the Jana Sangh like the other eye-witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. Regarding the raising of hulla and the point at which gun-fire was opened, his statement before the Police as also in Court was in line with the other prosecution witnesses noticed earlier. 15. The last eye-witness is Lal Bachan Ahir (P.W. 6) who also claimed to have identified the appellants in the flash of the torch light of the Mahanth as the other witnesses. He was also a member of the Jana Sangh for the last five years. His statement is also on the same line as that of the other three witnesses mentioned above. 16. He was also a member of the Jana Sangh for the last five years. His statement is also on the same line as that of the other three witnesses mentioned above. 16. According to the evidence of the above eye-witnesses it is clear that the night in question was dark and the appellants were lying in ambush in a maize field, the plants of which were more than a man's height at the relevant time. From the evidence of the witnesses, enmity has been established between the Mahanth and appellant Amirchand Ahir alone and not with the other appellants. The defence has succeeded in establishing that the deceased and the eye-witnesses belonged to a particular group and were involved in a series of litigations separately as well as jointly, instituted by some of the appellants, their relations or the like. In such circumstance it would not be desirable to place implicit reliance on the testimonies of these witnesses and their evidence has to be tested with reference to the objective circumstance in the case. Applying this test, we find that the Investigating Officer (P.W. 13) did not find any mark of the disturbance or violence in the maize field. When 15 or 16 persons would lay in wait in a maize field, and that also variously armed and rushed to fall on their prey, it was expected that some kind of disturbance or violence should have been noticed in the maize field. The means of identification, as seen above, is only the flash of the torch light. It does not appear probable that in the flash of the torch light, all the eyewitnesses could be able to identify each of the appellants along with their weapons, unmistakably: particularly when they were coming out of the maize field, the plants of which were sufficient to cover them. It is equally surprising that no body from village Rampur Mathia, to whom P.W. 4 is said to have informed, when he had gone to the village immediately after the occurrence, corroborates the prosecution story that the appellants were responsible for the murder of the Mahanth the said fact having been revealed at the earliest opportunity as expected in the ordinary course of human nature, by P.W. 4. So much so that even the two witnesses coming from village Naya Bhojpur, namely, Jagdish Pd. So much so that even the two witnesses coming from village Naya Bhojpur, namely, Jagdish Pd. Gupta (P.W. 7) and Khalil Khan (P.W. 9), where the prosecution party had gone after the occurrence, did not state in the evidence in Court that these witnesses disclosed the names of the assailants of the Mahanth to them. They simply stated that “they narrated........the details of the occurrence.” Learned lawyer for the State, however contended that the Court should infer and presume that those details must have included the names of the assailants as well. It is difficult to accept this contention. P.W. 9 at whose house the prosecution party had assembled and had also changed their wet cloths was also inimically disposed towards the appellants. He had instituted a S.C.C. suit against appellant Parmeshwar Rai which he had lost. He had purchased some lands from the father of appellant Amirchand. A title suit was instituted in respect of these lands, which also was decided against him. Before the institution of the title suit, proceedings under section 144 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also started in respect of those lands. The Investigating Officer (P.W.13) who visited the house of P.W. 9 the next day did not find any wet cloth there, nor the prosecution has led any evidence as to where from the witnesses brought other clothes for chaning their wet clothes. 17. Ram Bachan Pandey (P.W.10), who was the Sarpanch of Naya Bhojpur at the relevant time and a seizure witness to the recovery of the pair of shoes and a torch light had reached the place of occurrence at about 10 A.M. No one had told even at that time the names of any of the accused to him. The prosecution has not established the identity of the shoes to prove that it belonged to the Mahanth. The investigating Officer, who in his examination-in-chief stated that the torch (Ext.11) was the same torch which was recovered from water, in his cross-examination he surprisingly betrayed himself by stating that......the torch which I had recovered from the water was not produced in Court either yesterday or today'. This state of affairs does not fulfil that standard of care and caution with which the evidence of these interested witnesses, as they are, has to be scrutinised. This state of affairs does not fulfil that standard of care and caution with which the evidence of these interested witnesses, as they are, has to be scrutinised. To crown all, the medical evidence makes the prosecution case still worse and sharply contradicts the manner of occurrence as disclosed by the eye-witnesses. According to the evidence, two of the appellants, namely Parmeshwar Rai and Bikarma Rai were carrying Bhalas and appellant Lalmohar Rai a sword. The remaining appellants and the un-identified 7 or 8 culprits were carrying lathis. The witnesses have consistently stated that all the appellants were assaulting the deceased with the respective weapons in their hands. In that event, it was expected in the ordinary course that the deceased should have suffered injuries from those weapons also. The medical evidence, however, completely belies the prosecution witnesses. All the injuries found by the doctor on the person of the deceased, except injury No.7 are incised wounds, having sufficiently long incision. The doctor has categorically stated that all the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon, such as a sword or dav. No piercing or penetrating injury, which was expected to have been caused in case of an assault by Bhala, was found on the deceased, So far as injury caused by lathi, we find only one such injury, namely, injury No.7, which was a bruise. In somewhat similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in the case of Hallu and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh set aside the conviction of the appellant before it, recorded by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In that case, according to the eye-witnesses, two persons were attacked with lathi, spear and axes, but that clearly stood contradicted by the medical evidence. The injuries were only bruises and lacerated wounds which could not be caused by a spear or an axe, Scrutinising the evidence of the partisan witnesses and testing it on the anvil of the objective circumstances, I find that they do not corroborate the prosecution case. There could have been an equally good corroboration of the prosecution case by the examination of Kolahal Mallah, who had come with his boat at the place of occurrence, but he has not been examined. We also find that a large number of persons had assembled when the prosecution party had gone to village Naya Bhojpur where the village Chaukidar had also come. We also find that a large number of persons had assembled when the prosecution party had gone to village Naya Bhojpur where the village Chaukidar had also come. The distance between the place of occurrence and Dumraon Police Station was only three miles. P.W. 7 had said that people were asking the village Chaukidar to go to the Police Station and lodge the information of the occurrence. It does not stand to reason as to why no information was lodged by any of the persons, much less the village Chaukidar, who had no apprehension of any kind, but no body covered the short distance of three miles until 6 O'clock in the morning. The non-production of the only means of identification namely, the torch in question, makes the prosecution case all the more doubtful and the evidence of the witnesses, who are interested in the prosecution, has not been corroborated. In the case of the State of U.P. Vs. Hari Prasad and others, where the occurrence had taken place in a dark night and witnesses claimed to have identified the accused in the light of a lantern, the existence whereof had been found to be doubtful, it was held that the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. 18. In my opinion, it would not be safe to base the conviction of the appellants on the evidence of such witnesses in the absence of any corroboration by any other evidence and material on the record. The corroboration, if at all, is only of the partisan and interested witnesses. As again held by the Supreme Court in the case of Satyanarain Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, such evidence could not be pressed into service as corroborative piece. In Muluwa and others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court has again held that “the evidence of an infirm witness does not become reliable merely because it has been corroborated by a number of witnesses of the same brand.” It is, no doubt, true, as held in the case of Ram Jag and others Vs. The State of U.P., that although prompt filing of the report is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness of the version of the prosecution, the delay in appropriate cases would throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the prosecution case. 19. The State of U.P., that although prompt filing of the report is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness of the version of the prosecution, the delay in appropriate cases would throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the prosecution case. 19. The defence has also brought on record certain documents to show enmity between the prosecution witnesses and the appellants apart from those already referred to earlier. Ext. A/2 is judgment dated 30th November 1965 in a title suit instituted by Khalil Khan (P.W. 9) against appellant Parmeshwar Rai. Ext. 1 is a Station Diary entry dated 2.12.1967 made by appellant Bikarma Rai against Basdeo Ahir (P.W. 4), his father and others. Ext. 1/1 is another Station Diary entry dated 15.7.1967 by appellant Lalmohar Rai against the brother of P.W. 3 and others. 20. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not feel satisfied that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the appellants or any one of them beyond reasonable doubts. I would, accordingly, allow their appeals, set aside their convictions and sentence recorded by the trial Court and give them the benefit of doubt. The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged of their bail bonds. I agree. Appeals allowed.