JUDGMENT Uday Sinha, J. These two appeals were placed for hearing before me on difference of opinion between P.S. Sahay, J. and S.H.S. Abidi, J. They arise out of a common judgment. Both of them will be disposed of by this common judgment. 2. All the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 1977 have been convicted under Section 302 read with section 34 as well as under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called 'the Code') and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in both counts. They have also been convicted under section 148 of the Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. All the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 270 of 1977 were convicted under section 302/149 and 148 of the Code. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under the former count and two years rigorous imprisonment under the latter. Besides these conviction, appellants Baleshwar Prasad Thakur and Shiva Shankar Jha of Criminal Appeal No. 270 of 1977 and Kedar Thakur, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 1977 were further convicted under section 302 read with section 109 of the Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under this count as well. The sentences in each case were directed to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the convictions and sentences imposed upon them by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, the appellants filed two separate appeals which have now fallen for consideration before me. 3. The occurrence which gave rise to these appeals arises out of the murder of one Anandi Thakur on 4.8.1974 at 12.30 noon time in village Rasulpur within Kanti police Station in the district of Muzaffarpur. In this regard the prosecution case is that at the aforesaid time on the said date the deceased Anandi Thakur was going on a Pagdandi through a maize field. His brother Jwala Prasad Thakur followed him. Sita Ram, a servant of the family was also going with Jwala Prasad Thakur the first informant. Regrettably Sita Ram has not been examined. It is said that while the deceased was proceeding on the Pagdandi in village Rasulpur itself, he was suddenly ambushed by the appellants. They were said to be all armed with lethal, sharp cutting and point weapons. Only appellants Anirudh Mishra and Kameshwar Mishra were said to be armed with Lathi. Regrettably Sita Ram has not been examined. It is said that while the deceased was proceeding on the Pagdandi in village Rasulpur itself, he was suddenly ambushed by the appellants. They were said to be all armed with lethal, sharp cutting and point weapons. Only appellants Anirudh Mishra and Kameshwar Mishra were said to be armed with Lathi. Coming out of the maize filed, Kedar Thakur, Shiva Shankar Jha and Baleshwar Prasad Thakur called for assault saying that the enemy had come. According to the prosecution, the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 1977 assaulted the deceased with daggers. The daggers of appellants Kedar and Umesh Thakur struck the deceased in the stomach. Anandi Thakur then fell down. Thereafter, appellants Radha Krishna Mishra assaulted him with a dagger which hit him on the back and the assault of Mahadeo Thakur caught him near his eyes and of Anirudh Mishra on the leg with Lathi. Thereafter, there was hulla and the appellants fled away. Anandi Thakur was then brought to the house of one Ram Lakhan Thakur. From there he was taken to a cold storage and from there on a truck to Muzaffarpur Sadar Hospital. Soon after reaching Muzaffarpur Sadar Hospital, Anandi Thakur succumbed to his injuries and died. 4. The hospital authorities informed the police by O.D. Slip (Ext.9). P.W. 8 Shyam Nandan Sharma, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Kazi Mohammadpur Police Station came to the hospital and recorded the fardbeyan (Ext.2) of Jwala Prasad Thakur. That was converted into a first information report (Ext.8). The Assistant Sub-Inspector then prepared an inquest report (Ext.3) on the cadaver of Anandi Thakur. The body was thereafter sent for post-mortem examination. The evidence shows that the Deputy Superitendent of Police. Muzaffarpur directed Inspector Paras Nath Tiwary (P.W.16) to take up investigation. The latter then took charge of the case and proceeded to the hospital for investigating into the case. 5. The investigating officer (P.W. 16) then proceeded to the place of occurrence along with the Deputy Superitendent of Police. Ram Lakhan Thakur (P.W. 1) showed the place of occurrence to them. He saw a Pagdandi running north to south of village Rasulpur. It was 250 yards south west from the houses in the village. The place where Anandi Thakur was assaulted lay between two maize fields of Brijnandan Thakur. The Pagdandi was about 2 feet wide. Ram Lakhan Thakur (P.W. 1) showed the place of occurrence to them. He saw a Pagdandi running north to south of village Rasulpur. It was 250 yards south west from the houses in the village. The place where Anandi Thakur was assaulted lay between two maize fields of Brijnandan Thakur. The Pagdandi was about 2 feet wide. The maize plants at that time were about neck high of the investigating officer. The investigating officer found trampling marks at a spot 9 feet in length and 6 feet in width. At that place he found blood stains. It had got mixed up with rain water. He seized the blood stained earth in presence of witnesses. Adjacent east also of the Pagdandi he found some maize plants broken. He then recorded the statements of Gorakh Thakur (P.W. 3). On the 5th August, 1974 he examined Daya Nand Thakur (P.W. 4), Bindeshwar Thakur (P.W. 6) and Ram Nandan Rai alias Ram Nandan Sharma (P.W. 11). On the same day he also examined Sita Ram Mahto, Hari Sindhu Thakur (P.W. 7) and Gajendra Thakur (P.W. 10). After completing investigation, P.W. 16 Paras Nath Tiwary submitted charge sheet against the accused. The case was then committed to Court of Sessions which convicted and sentenced them, as stated above. 6. The defence of the accused, in short, was that they had been falsely implicated out of enmity and that none of the so-called eye witnesses had seen the occurrence. 7. At the trial eighteen witnesses were examined for the prosecution and three for the defence. Out of the prosecution witnesses, P.W. 1 Ram Lakhan Thakur, P.W. 4 Daya nand Thakur, P.W. 7, Hari Sindhu Thakur and P.W. 12 Jwala Prasad Thakur were examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 5 Gorakh Thakur, P.W. 6 Bindeshwar Thakur, P.W. 9 Sudan Sharma, P.W. 10 Gajendra Thakur and P.W. 11 Ram Nandan Rai were tendered at the trial. P.W. 2 Giribar Thakur, P.W. 3 Ram Rekha Thakur. P.W. 14 Murli Singh, P.W. 15 Raghunath Sharma, P.W. 17 Vishwanath Prasad and P.W. 18 Kapildeo Prasad were examined as formal witnesses at the trial. P.W. 8 proved having recorded the Fardbeyan in the capacity of assistant Sub-Inspector of Kazi Mohammadpur Police Station. P.W. 13 Dr. Anant Mohan Das, Deputy Superintendent of Sadar Hospital Muzaffarpur proved having performed the autopsy on the cadaver of deceased Anandi Thakur. P.W. 8 proved having recorded the Fardbeyan in the capacity of assistant Sub-Inspector of Kazi Mohammadpur Police Station. P.W. 13 Dr. Anant Mohan Das, Deputy Superintendent of Sadar Hospital Muzaffarpur proved having performed the autopsy on the cadaver of deceased Anandi Thakur. P.W. 16 Paras Nath Tiwary was the investigating officer. That in short is the analysis of the witnesses examined at the trial. 8. As I said earlier, three defence witnesses were examined. D.W. 1 Raghu Nandan Kumar Singh proved that appellant Kedar Thakur was with him at village Sograhan on the date of occurrence. P.W. 2 Mukteshwar Singh deposed that on 2.1.1974 accused Kedar Thakur had gone to village Singhpur to meet his Samdhin, wife of Jagdish Singh. He could not meet her because she had gone away to Sograhan where her Bahnoi Raghu Nandan Kumar Singh (D.W. 1) was residing. D.W. 3 Rajo Singh of village Singhpur deposed that Jagdish Singh of village Singhpur was Samdhi of accused Kedar Thakur. They deposed that about three years earlier accused Kedar Thakur had gone to village Singhpur to meet her Samdhin, but the latter had gone away to village Songrahan. D.W. 3 had a talk with Kedar Thakur. Kedar Thakur thereafter also left for Songrahan. While leaving he had talked with D.W. 3 Rajo Singh. That, in short, is the resume of the evidence of the witnesses at the trial. 9. It admits of no doubt that Anandi Thakur was murdered on 4.8.1974. The doctor (P.W. 13) found large number of incised wounds on his person. The following injuries were found on his person. “(1) Incised wounds on the left side of abdomen anterially. (a) Transverse incised wound left of midline in left hypocondrium 3”X ½” going deep into abdominal cavity. On dissection it led to left lobe of the liver where interior surface had a cut 1”X ½” through and through. On further dissection this led to the dome of the diaphragm which had a dent ¾” X ½” going into the chest – which on dissection showed a dent in the pericardium posterially with a dent in the left vennicle posterially ½” X ½” x abdominal cavity deep. (b) Incised wound 6” x 1” x abdominal cavity deep oblique into the left of the lambalicus going upwards. (b) Incised wound 6” x 1” x abdominal cavity deep oblique into the left of the lambalicus going upwards. On dissection the posterior aspect of the abdomen was cut making a hole into the stomach 1” x 1” and spilling semi digested food in the abdominal cavity. (c) Transverse incised wound 3” x ½” omentum protruding through the hole. On dissection the whole abdominal wall was cut anterially. (d) Oblique incised wound left iliac region 2” x ½” x coils of dissection all the layer of the anterior abdominal walls were cut. The abdominal cavity contained semi digested food and blood about the print. (2) Back – three incised wounds in the upper half of the back between the two scapulas – Upper 2” x ½” x 1” Middle 2½” x ½” x 1” Lower 1½” x ½” x 1”. The directions of all these wounds were upwards, forward and to the left. (3) Left fore arm – 3 incised wounds on the front of the fore arm. (a) Upper and lateral – 4½” x 1” x 1”. (b) Middle – a little medical to (a) – 4” x 1” and (c) the third the most medical 2½” x 1” x 1”. There was one more incised wound on the back fore-arm 2½” x ½” x ½” deep. (4) Right shoulder – One incised wound anterially 2½” x ½” x 1½” deep. (5) Left should – two incised wounds each 1½” x ½” x ½”. (6) A stitched wound on the right lateral wall of the nose. On cutting the stitch there was lacerated wound ½” x ¼” x ¼” bruise on the bridge of the nose and peri – orbital ecchymosis i.e. black eye on the left side.” The injuries leave no manner of doubt that they were the cause of death. The large number of injuries coupled with the oral evidence adduced at the trial prove affirmatively that Anandi Thakur was murdered on the alleged date of occurrence. 10. At the outset it would be apt to dispose of the plea of alibi set up by appellant Kedar Thakur. The large number of injuries coupled with the oral evidence adduced at the trial prove affirmatively that Anandi Thakur was murdered on the alleged date of occurrence. 10. At the outset it would be apt to dispose of the plea of alibi set up by appellant Kedar Thakur. The trial court did not attach much credence to the plea of alibi and the evidence of the defence witnesses nor did it find favour with Sahay, J. Having looked into the evidence of the defence witnesses, I am also of the same view as Sahay, J. The evidence of the defence witnesses to prove the alibi have left large gaping holes. The plea of alibi must, therefore, be rejected. 11. The rejection of alibi, however, does not conclude matters. The prosecution must prove its case on its own and the accused is entitled to set up a plea which does not find favour with the Court. I would even go to the extent of stating that the failure to establish alibi or falsity of the defence does not establish the prosecution case. The prosecution will have to establish its case on its own unimpeachable evidence. I shall, therefore, consider the prosecution evidence. 12. The description of the alleged place of occurrence given by the investigating officer fully established that the occurrence took place on the Pagdandi passing through maize plants and by the side of it. The blood stained earth and trampled maize field amply establish that that was the place where Anandi Thakur was ambushed. There is nothing to doubt the place of occurrence. Even the time of occurrence may be held to be reasonably established as alleged by the prosecution. The real question is whether the alleged manner of occurrence is true and whether any of the eye witnesses had been the occurrence. 13. I gave stated earlier that the eye witnesses to the occurrence were P.W. 1 Ram Lakhan Thakur, P.W. 4 Daya Nand Thakur and P.W. 12 Jwala Prasad Thakur. The evidence of P.W. 7 Hari Sindhu Thakur impressed neither the trial court nor the Hon'ble judges of the Division Bench. Learned counsel for the State neither before the Division Bench nor before me made any effort to rehabilitate P.W. 7. I shall, therefore, leave his testimony out of consideration. 14. The evidence of P.W. 7 Hari Sindhu Thakur impressed neither the trial court nor the Hon'ble judges of the Division Bench. Learned counsel for the State neither before the Division Bench nor before me made any effort to rehabilitate P.W. 7. I shall, therefore, leave his testimony out of consideration. 14. P.W. 1 Ram Lakhan Thakur deposed that between half past twelve and one, at noon time, he was going from his own house to that of Ganesh Thakur of his village. At that time he heard hulla. Having heard hulla, he went near the field of Brij Nandan Thakur. He saw that the accused had surrounded deceased Anandi Thakur. He also saw Sita Ram Rai (not examined) and Jwala Prasad Thakur, first informant about 20 to 21 steps from that spot. He deposed about the weapons held by each accused. He stated that Shiv Shankar Jha, Baleshwar Thakur and Kedar Thakur called laying that there would not be a better opportunity and, therefore, Anandi Thakur should be murdered. Thereupon the accused assaulted the deceased promiscuously. In cross-examination he deposed that some accused were of village Rasulpur, some of Rupbara and some others were of village Amda. 15. P.W. 4 Daya Nand Thakur deposed that on the date of occurrence at noon time he was at his Darwaza. At that time he heard hulla and call for help. He ran and reached the Pagdandi in the field of Brij Nandan. There he saw all the weapons held by each of the accused. He also stated that Shiv Shankar Jha, Baleshwar Thakur and Kedar Thakur incited the accused to finish off Anandi Thakur. He deposed that Anandi Thakur was stabbed in the stomach by Kedar Thakur and Ganesh Thakur. Others also assaulted with their respective weapons. He deposed that Brij Nandan Thakur was a member of Socialist Unity Centre. 16. P.W. 12 Jwala Thakur was the first informant of the case. He is a constable in the Excise Department and brother of deceased Anandi Thakur. In court he supported the account of occurrence given by him in the first information report. He gave out the names of the accused, the weapons wielded by them and the respective parts played by all of them. The only significant aspect worthy of note in his testimony is that he deposed that even after Anandi Thakur had fallen down several of the accused assaulted him. He gave out the names of the accused, the weapons wielded by them and the respective parts played by all of them. The only significant aspect worthy of note in his testimony is that he deposed that even after Anandi Thakur had fallen down several of the accused assaulted him. This part of the occurrence was not mentioned in the first information report. May be, he may not have considered it necessary to state in the first information report, but P.W. 4 in categorical terms stated in paragraph 10 that after Anandi Thakur had fallen down, no one had assaulted him. 17. The prosecution thus rests its case upon the testimony of P.Ws. 1, 4 and 12. The occurrence took place at noon time. If they had seen the occurrence, they would certainly be able to identify the culprits. On a superficial view of the evidence, it would appear that the eye witnesses were truthful witnesses and that the account of the occurrence given by them was reliable. The conviction thus in that situation would, therefore, be upheld. A court is, however, injuncted from taking a superficial view of matters. It is essential to read between the lines and not to accept the Ipes dixits of witnesses. The evidence has to be sifted and appreciated. Let us, therefore, analyse the evidence and not only categorise it. In that connection, the first aspect which strikes the mind is were the parties on inimical terms ? Anandi Thakur was the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat. The first informant - in the first information report itself stated that there was long standing litigation between the accused and the prosecution party, and that was the reason for killing Anandi Thakur. And yet P.W. 12 in paragraph 7 deposed that he had no grievance prior to this case against the accused. It must, therefore, be accepted that the first informant (P.W.12) Jwala Prasad Thakur was inimically disposed towards the accused. 18. P.W. 1 Ram Lakhan Thakur also seems to be in the thick of the fray. He appears to be a close-associate of the deceased Anandi Thakur being his mate in several cases. He deposed that shortly before the present occurrence he had instituted criminal case against accused Shiv Shankar Jha, Chirtan Thakur, Radha Krishna Mishra, Basant Kumar Thakur, Gouri Mahto, Ram Chandra Mahto and Jagat Narain. He appears to be a close-associate of the deceased Anandi Thakur being his mate in several cases. He deposed that shortly before the present occurrence he had instituted criminal case against accused Shiv Shankar Jha, Chirtan Thakur, Radha Krishna Mishra, Basant Kumar Thakur, Gouri Mahto, Ram Chandra Mahto and Jagat Narain. Prior to that case Dholan Mahto had instituted a criminal case against the witness (i.e. P.W. 1). In that case deceased Anandi Thakur, Daya Nand Thakur besides others were his co-accused. He deposed that there was yet another case which had been instituted by Daya Nand Thakur (P.W. 4) in which he and Narain Thakur were witnesses against all the present accused. That he was hand in gloves with the deceased Anandi Thakur is evident form paragraph 11 of his deposition where he deposed that he along with Anandi Thakur i.e. deceased and others were arrayed as first party in a proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused were the members of the second party in that proceeding. The evidence of P.W. 1 shows that there was yet another proceeding under section 107 Cr. P.C. between these very parties. His evidence admits of no doubt that P.W. 1 was hand in gloves with the deceased and was inimically disposed towards the accused. 19. That P.W. 4 Daya Nand Thakur is in the same camp as P.W. 1 is amply demonstrated by the evidence of P.W. 1. It will thus be seen that all the eye witnesses to the occurrence i.e. P.Ws. 1, 4 and 12 formed one group and were inimically aligned against the accused. 20. The evidence of the eye witnesses being evidence of hostile and interested witnesses, their evidence requires to be cautiously considered. Their evidence cannot be rejected outright, but circumstances have to be taken in conjunction with other materials on record to ascertain, if the evidence led by the prosecution enthuses confidence towards the goal of ascertaining whether the prosecution case has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 21. The first aspect worthy of note is that the accused belong to three difference villages. Nothing has been brought on record to show what led to the ambush and murder on that particular day. It must be conceded that is not fatal, as the accused may not know what was passing in their mind. 21. The first aspect worthy of note is that the accused belong to three difference villages. Nothing has been brought on record to show what led to the ambush and murder on that particular day. It must be conceded that is not fatal, as the accused may not know what was passing in their mind. The second significant aspect is that the occurrence took places at noon time. Large number of persons assembled and concealed themselves in a maize field. No one saw the accused collecting and concealing in that maize field. Thirdly, the murder is alleged to have taken place on a Pagdandi with maize plants on either side. The investigating officer (P.W. 16) has deposed in paragraph 7 of his evidence that the maize plants were about neck high. He himself gave out his height as 5’ – 8’. The maize plants were thus about 5 feet in height. The assault having taken place at a place where there were maize plants five feet in height, it will be a matter for serious consideration if any of the witnesses could have seen the occurrence. The assertion of the prosecution is and that would be in accordance with natural course of events, that most of the assaults took place after the deceased had fallen. If the assaults took place when the deceased had fallen down on the ground, nothing would be visible there except the maize fields. The testimony of all the eye witnesses, therefore, received a rude shock when they depose about graphic details of assaults. It would be difficult to see which accused assaulted on which part of the body. It would be obvious, therefore, that the witnesses are not witnesses of truth in this behalf. Either they had been imagining things or they were tutored witnesses. The witnesses have glibly stated the weapons held by each of the accused. There were twenty persons involved in the murder, according to the prosecution. It would be well nigh impossible to observe and remember all the eye witnesses let apart weapons held by them and the part played by them. 22. P.W. 12 deposed about the dagger blows given by Radha Krishna Mishra, Mahadeo, Anirudh etc. He further deposed that he was chased away by the appellants. If that be true, he would not have been in a position to see the specific assaults. 22. P.W. 12 deposed about the dagger blows given by Radha Krishna Mishra, Mahadeo, Anirudh etc. He further deposed that he was chased away by the appellants. If that be true, he would not have been in a position to see the specific assaults. There is yet another aspect of the matter. It may be recalled that from the place of occurrence the deceased was taken to the Darwaza of Ram Lakhan Thakur and from there he was taken to the cold storage for being taken to Muzaffarpur on the truck of the proprietor of a cold storage P.W. 12 deposed in cross-examination as follows:- “MAINE US MALIK SE GHATNA KE BARE MEIN KAHA KI LOGON NE MAR DIYA HAI. PRANTU USNE MARNE WALE KA NAAM NAHI KAHA.” Having seen the above evidence, a bout arises, if he had really seen the occurrence. I would not accept P.W. 12 to have given out the names of all the twenty accused, but not to give out any name is rather significant. Several of the accused are from village Rasulpur itself from where the prosecution party hails. The first informant would certainly give names of those accused. There is one significant sentence in the evidence of P.W. 4 Daya Nand Thakur. He deposed in paragraph 6 of his evidence that there is a Socialist Unity Centre in the village of which Brij Nandan Thakur is a member. If I can import my personal knowledge about the thesis of Socialist Unity Centre, it is a party of rabid communistic ideas. The mind is trove to imagine that probably the murder of Anandi Thakur, the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat may have been the Act, of the Socialist Unity Centre. It is elementary that because of the maize plants, no witness could have seen any of the accused assaulting the deceased muchless the weapons with which they assaulted and the parts of the body where the assault took place. The prosecution in its zeal seems to have made things too sweet. When anything is over sweetened it becomes unpalatable. All these factors taken in conjunction make it doubtful, if the witnesses arrived at the scene when the Marpit was taking place and whether they had seen the occurrence. It is true that the assaults took place at about the time alleged by the prosecution. When anything is over sweetened it becomes unpalatable. All these factors taken in conjunction make it doubtful, if the witnesses arrived at the scene when the Marpit was taking place and whether they had seen the occurrence. It is true that the assaults took place at about the time alleged by the prosecution. But it is doubtful, if the witnesses are truthful in deposing the manner in which they arrived at the place or occurrence. It appears that the account of the occurrence given by the witnesses was motivated by the inimical relation with the accused. This goaded them to give the evidence that they had given in Court. The witnesses come running from 250 yard. By the time they would have come the assaults must have been over. At least by the time they came Anandi Thakur must have been called on the ground. It is rather doubtful if they saw any of the assaults. In Baldeo Singh and others versus State of Bihar the Supreme Court observed that, "In a melee where several people give blows to the victim at one and the same time. It is impossible to particularise the blows. If any witness admits to do it, his veracity is doubtful." The same is the situation in the instant case. The evidence of the eye witnesses have failed to pass the test of close and severe scrutiny which is the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Ashrit Ram versus State of Bihar. AIR 1981 Supreme Court 942. 23. Learned counsel for the State contended that the maize plants would be no obstruction in the witnesses seeing the assaults on the deceased. I regret, I am unable to appreciate this submission. The Pagdandi was 2 feet wide. The assaults, according to P.W. 1, took place at a spot 2 to 3 feet west of the Pagdandi. If Anandi Thakur had fallen down west of the Pagdandi, then the maize plants would certainly obstruct the vision of the eye witnesses. 24. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that it had not been suggested to any of the eye witnesses that because of the maize plants it was not possible for them to have seen the assaults. This submission indicates ignorance of the Art. of cross-examination. 24. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that it had not been suggested to any of the eye witnesses that because of the maize plants it was not possible for them to have seen the assaults. This submission indicates ignorance of the Art. of cross-examination. Having established that there were maize plants about 5 feet high, no cross-examiner worth the name would ask a witness, whether he was in a position to see the assaults. With that evidence, the Court has to appreciate facts in the ligbh of probabilities. Courts are not precluded form applying a little of common sense. In my view, therefore, the absence of suggestion to the witnesses regarding the visibility cannot improve the prosecution case. Criminal cases are decided upon appreciation of facts and not on dogmas or slogans. That is why, it has been said time and again that there can be no precedent on facts. 25. Taking a comprehensive view of the matter, I am of the view that none of the witnesses saw the occurrence. It is doubtful if P.W. 12 was accompanying the deceased. The claim of P.Ws. 1 and 4 having seen the occurrence seems to be rather doublful. The murder seems to be a short and swift affair in which there was no occasion to raise hulla. The total impression left in my mind is that P.Ws, 1 and 4 are not witnesses of truth. It is true that the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4 and 12 is consistent, but consistency is not virtue in all cases. On occasions it smacks deliberate marshalling or evidence. A Court has to delve deep and try to read between the lines in the background of the facts that the witnesses were inimical to the accused and interested in prosecution. In my concluded opinion, the murder was detected and not seen. 26. For all the reasons, stated above, in agreement with Sahay, J, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. All the appellants must be given the benefit of doubt. I regret, my inability to agree to the conclusion arrived at by Brother Abidi, J. The appeals are thus allowed and the convictions and sentences imposed upon the appellants are hereby set aside. Since all the appellant are on bail, they are discharged of tile bail bonds executed by them. Appeals Allowed.