Judgment R.N.Thakur, J. 1. These appellants have been convicted under sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellant Shree Ram Singh has been further convicted under sections 302 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under both the counts. Appellant Dular Singh and Ram Kumar Singh have also been convicted under sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appellant Moti Singh has been convicted under sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He has been further convicted under sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 25-A of go rigorous imprisonment for two years for an offence under sec. 148 of the Code and one year for offence under sec. 25-A of the Arms Act. All the sentence have been directed to run concurrently. 2. This is a peculiar case in which the First Information Report was lodged by appellant Shree Ram Singh on 9th September, 1973 at about 10 p.m. at Bhagwanpur Police Station, P.W. 8 was the then Officer-In-charge of Bhagwanpur Police Station and he on the statement of appellant Shree Ram Singh recorded his fard-beyan, which is, Ext. 1, on the basis of which a formal First Information Report was drawn up which is Ext. 2. Formal First Information Report was lodged against Ram Sakal Singh (P.W. 7) and others, He took up the investigation and proceeded for place of occurrence. On the way he met Gariban Mallah and Ram Bachan Mallah (P. Ws. 4 and 5 respectively) and recorded their statement. Thereafter he reached the place of occurrence, examined some witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence and in course of investigation he came to the conclusion that the informant Shree Ram Singh along with these appellants had committed murder of the deceased Budhia, and a wrong information was given at the Police Station. Therefore he submitted charge-sheet after completing investigation against these appellants for murdering Mst. Budhia who was own grand-mother of the appellant Shree Ram Singh. Therefore he submitted charge-sheet after completing investigation against these appellants for murdering Mst. Budhia who was own grand-mother of the appellant Shree Ram Singh. On receipt of charge-sheet cognizance was taken against these appellants and after due commitments as required under the law these appellants were put on trial in the court of Sri Mohan Prasad, Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah, in which nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The appellants denied the allegation and pleaded their innocence. After considering the entire case the trying court convicted the appellants as stated above. 3. It may be mentioned here that the informant filed a protest petition against the investigating officer, which was subsequently treated as a protest petition, but the same was dismissed and thereafter the informant moved the District and Sessions Judge in revision where he also failed. Thereafter he came before this Court and this Court ordered for further enquiry into the matter. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the entire prosecution version is false and concocted. Rather it was the prosecution party which was responsible for the murder of Mst. Budhia and to save themselves they got these appellants implicated in this case. 5. We have perused the entire evidence. No material has been shown to us to show that as to what was the material before the investigating officer in course of investigation to come to a conclusion that the information lodged by the appellant Shree Ram Singh was a false one and it was these appellants who were responsible for the murder of Mst. Budhia. Of course, witnesses have stated in the court that these appellants are responsible for the murder of Mst. Budhia, but fact remains that the present prosecution party did not take any step to inform the police about the crime till the investigation officer reached the place of occurrence. There is nothing on the record to show that at any time the prosecution party filed any written report before investigating officer about this occurrence. P.W. 7, Ram Sakal Singh has himself said that Mst. Budhia was own grandmother of the appellants and formerly she was living with them. When the entire prosecution evidence is judged in the circumstances appearing, in the case, the conduct of the prosecution party does not appear to be above board, A reasonable suspicion arises about the manner given by the prosecution. Budhia was own grandmother of the appellants and formerly she was living with them. When the entire prosecution evidence is judged in the circumstances appearing, in the case, the conduct of the prosecution party does not appear to be above board, A reasonable suspicion arises about the manner given by the prosecution. In such circumstances the appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are set aside. Satyeshwar Roy, J. 6 I agree.