Short Note : Briefly stated the facts alleged by the prosecution and giving rise to the aforesaid two appeals are these: On 25-2-1973, the residents of village Ghongsa had assembled for a Panchayat to settle the dispute regarding the daughter-in-law of one Najru. In connection with this Panchayat, Fulbai (PW-6) had also come and was staying at the house of Methu. At about 3 A.M. Fulbai raised an alarm that some one has removed the silver Tagli, which she was putting on her neck. In response to this alarm, the deceased Jhinju, his son Raghosingh (PW1), Safi (PW2) and few others rushed to the help of Fulbai. After these persons went to the house of Methu, the deceased Jhinju expressed a suspicion that Mansingh, the brother of the appellant must be the thief. Sardar, father of the accused (the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 1974) objected to the name of his son being mentioned as a thief by the deceased. Accused Sardar thereafter caught hold of the deceased Jhinju and instigated his son, the appellant Nanka to shoot an arrow at Jhinju. In pursuance of this situation, the accused Nanka shot two arrows on the deceased one of which struck him in the chest because of which he fell down and died. 2. On trial both the appellants were found guilty u/s 302 and 302/109 IPC and were accordingly convicted for L.I. Hence appeal. Held : From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is more than evident that the incident took place at about 3 AM. It was a dark night (See Raghosingh's statement para 7). In the Police statement (Ex.D-1), Raghosingh's version was that the incident took place at the house of Najru. It is in the evidence of Fulbai (PW6) that the incident took place at a time when it was pitch dark to such an extent that even a person standing very close could not be seen or identified. Not a single witness has stated that there was any lamp or other means of light which could enable anyone to identify those persons, who were present at that place. The prosecution story is that the accused Sardar initially caught hold of the deceased and then instigated his son to shoot an arrow at him. Not a single witness has stated that there was any lamp or other means of light which could enable anyone to identify those persons, who were present at that place. The prosecution story is that the accused Sardar initially caught hold of the deceased and then instigated his son to shoot an arrow at him. The story further proceeds to say that while the accused Sardar had caught hold of the deceased Jhinju, he instigated his son to shoot an arrow at the deceased because he had implicated his son Mansingh with the theft alleged by Fulbai (PW6). It does not either appeal to reason or common sense that in the circumstances deposed to by the prosecution witnesses the accused Sardar, while catching hold the deceased, would instigate his son to shoot an arrow at the deceased when the visibility on the spot was nil and even a person standing very close could neither be seen nor identified. The accused Sardar could not ask his son to shoot an arrow without running the risk of being himself shot by his son. Accordingly we cannot believe the prosecution witnesses to hold that the deceased was shot at with an arrow by the accused Nanka at the instigation of the accused Sardar. 3. In the light of the view that we have taken above, we are of opinion that in this case the guilt of the accused has not been established beyond any reasonable doubt and consequently the conviction of the appellant Nanka under section 302 IPC and of the accused Sardar u/s 302/109 IPC cannot be maintained. Appeals allowed.