Judgment Ram Naresh Thakur, J. 1. All these criminal appeals and Government appeals arise out of the judgment. Therefore, for the convenience of the parties and with their consent, they have been heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Government appeals No.6 to 9 have been filed for enhancement of the sentence and Government appeal No.33 to 36 have been filed for setting aside the order of acquittal, passed against the respondents, named in the indivi-dual appeals. 3. Appellants Pradcep Kumar Singh, Jaideo Singh, Sudhir Kumar Singh, sitaram Singh, Surendra Singh alias Suro Singh, Ramdhari Singh, Raghubans prasad Singh alias Raghu Singh, Chaturanand Singh alias Charo Singh, Arbind prasad Singh, Jadu Mandal alias Jadu Singh, Han Singh alias Harbans Singh, chandra Shekhar Singh alias Lal Babu and Amrendra Kumar Singh have been found guilty for offences under Sections 302/149, 436/149, and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Sec.302/149, six years rigorous imprisonment under section 4?6/l49 and two years rigorous imprisonment under Sec.148 of the code. Appellants Pradeep Kumar Singh, Hari Singh alias Harbans Singh and amarendra Kumar Singh have further been found guilty under Sections 25-A and 27 of the Arms Act but no separate sentence has been awarded under these two counts. Appellants Jaideo Singh, Sudhir Kumar Singh, Ramdhari, singh, Raghubansh Prasad Singh alias Raghu Singh, Arbind Prasad Singh, chandra Shekhar Singh alias Lai Babu have been found guilty under Sec.27 of the Arms Act but no separate sentence has been awarded to them under this count. Appellant Sitaram Singh has been found guilty under Sec.25-A of the Arms Act but no separate sentence under this count has been awarded. Appellant Surendra Singh alias Suro Singh has also been found guilty for an offence under Sec.326 of the Indian Penal Code for causing grievous hurt to Hari Lai Mistri and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under this count. Appellant Surendra Singh alias Suro Singh has also been found guilty for an offence under Sec.326 of the Indian Penal Code for causing grievous hurt to Hari Lai Mistri and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under this count. Appellant Surendra Singh alias Suro Singh has been found guilty of an offence under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally causing the death of Munshi Mistri and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life He has further been found guilty for offences under Sections 436/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years and two years respectively under these counts. Appellants Priyabrat Narain Shing alias Laloo singh, Jhankar Kumar Singh, Bhaisu Singh alias Bhuneswar Singh, Karu singh, fiidan Mahto, Prashant Kumar alias Bachchu Singh, Chando Singh alias Chand Mauleshwar Singh, Sheo Singh, Bit Narain Singh alias ledhan Singh, Thakur Sab, Sarjujj Mishra, Ram Krishna Mahto, Sukho Rai, nirpal Siogh alias Man bingh, panna Singh alias Pan Singh, Shyamal Kishore shrivastava alias Shyamal, Paro Singh alias parmananand Singh, Ram Mauohar singh alias Manohar Singh and Ujjal Narain 3nigh alias Munoa Singh have bixn found guilty offences under Sections 430/149 aod 14 / of the Indian Penal coce and each of them has been seutenced to undergo rigorous imprisoment for six years under Sec.436/149 and for one year under Sec.147 of the indian Penal Code. The sentences awarded to the appellants under different counts have been directed to run concurrently. 4. The prosecution story, as narrated by Tala Hembrum (P. W.13) in court is as follows : "kandan Murmu (P. W.72) has his field, measuring about one and a half bighas, in the west of the canal. This field is in two sub-plots and Kaudan has been cultivating this land since long". 5. On 22nd November, 1971 at about 3.30 p. m. , accused Ramadhar singh alongwith his labourers and Sipahis (mobsters) came and started harvesting paddy from the aforesaid field of Kandan. Seeing this Tala Hembrum (P. W.13), ratanlal Hembrum (P. W.18), Fuchu Tudu (P. W.22 ). and Naiki Tudu (P. W.70) went near the canal and protested. They found that the mobsters were armed with lathi, bhala garasa and arrows. Ramadhar Singh was armed with a gun. Tala Hembrum and his companions were empty handed. Seeing this Tala Hembrum (P. W.13), ratanlal Hembrum (P. W.18), Fuchu Tudu (P. W.22 ). and Naiki Tudu (P. W.70) went near the canal and protested. They found that the mobsters were armed with lathi, bhala garasa and arrows. Ramadhar Singh was armed with a gun. Tala Hembrum and his companions were empty handed. On their protest the mobsters started abusing them and asked them to go away otherwise they would be killed. Due to fear Tala Hembrum and his companions came back to their village. 6. After getting the paddy of ten Kathas of land harvested, Ramadhar singh took away the harvested paddy. When Tala Hembrum was at his house, he saw a mob, variously armed, coming from the west. Seeing the mob coming, he went to the bouse of Rupan which is in the east of his house and at the house of Rupan he found a mob corning from south on a jeep and two tractors, who were also variously armed. This mob, according to the informant tala Hembrum, consisted of about 100 to 150 persons. As soon as the mobsters came they started firing. Seeing the firing, he (P. W.13) and his companions went inside a house and thereafter the mobsters started setting the house on fire. P. W.13 and his companions any how came out of the house and fled away towards east of the Nahar. He received gun shot injuries which was fired by accused Ramdhari Singh (who is already dead ). He (P. W.13) also saw that Sanjhla, Harilal, Barka Murmu and Mahijas Murmu were assaulted by the mobsters and they were also dragged and kept in the tractor belonging to one sudhir. Out of the mobsters, seven to eight persons went and set fire to the eastern tola as well. Thereafter he (P. W.13) went to village Pakaria and remained there in the night On the next morning Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police N. N. Singh (P. W.34) came there and recorded his (P. W.13)statement in presence of Raian Lai Hembrum (P. W.18) and Chote Lai Baski (P. W.61 ). This fardbeyan is Exhibit 8. After his fardbeyan was recorded, p. W.13 was sent to Dhamdaha hospital for examination. His brother and brothers wife were also illed in this occurrence. 7. This fardbeyan is Exhibit 8. After his fardbeyan was recorded, p. W.13 was sent to Dhamdaha hospital for examination. His brother and brothers wife were also illed in this occurrence. 7. P. W.73 S. N. Akhtar was the officer-incharge of Dhamdaha police station under whose jurisdiction the place of occurrence situated on the date occurrence. At about midday he returned to his police station and perused the sanha entry No.353 dated 23rd November, 1971, which is Exhibit 13. He also perused the fardbeyan (Ex.8) and after instituting a regular case, he took up investigation- He left for the place of occurrence on the same day at about 1 p. m. alongwith constables and otheis and reached there at about 2 p. m. At the place of occurrence he could out meet Tala Hembrum. He met Chote Lai basfci (P. W.31) there and recorded his statement. Chota Lai Baski was present when P. W.73 inspected the place of occurrence. He (P. W.73) found two Tolas of Santhals ; one is called Purbari Tola (Eastern Tola) and the other is called Pachhiari Tola (Western Tola ). The western Tola consisted of about 20 to 21 houses, and is mainly inhabited by Santhals. He found all the houses of eastern and western Tola completely burnt. Heaps of ashes were found inside the rooms. He also found door planks burnt Signs of many pellets were also found on the walls of the houses. Four dead bodies, completely burnt, were found iu the house of Kailu Tudu. Many articles like cycles and other things were found burm. In the n.-rth east corner of the house of Naika hembrum he found a heap of straw of unripe paddy and on that heap of straw there were some dried straw which were burnt. The house of Kandan murmu is at a distance of about fifteen feet from the house of Naika Hembrum and at a distance of about eleven feet is the house of Tala Hembrum from the bouse of Kandan Murom. He also found foot prints in the fields near the house of Kandan Murmu to a distance of 297 feet. Some blood was also found near hese foot prints. He found blood-stains at two places in a paddy field at some distance from the house of Kandan Murmu. The paddy of the field where blood stains were found was found trampled. Some blood was also found near hese foot prints. He found blood-stains at two places in a paddy field at some distance from the house of Kandan Murmu. The paddy of the field where blood stains were found was found trampled. He also found foot prints from the place where blood was found to the fields where paddy crops were standing. All these foot prints and trampling marks were fresh. This is a nahar at a distance of 551 feet from the western Tola. This Nahar runs from north to south. He found a paddy field at a distance of 251 feet towards west from this Nahar. The paddy of this was found harvested. From this field where he found paddy harvested up to Santhali Tola he found trail of straw. He also found one burnt bamboo under straw. The house of late shri lakshmi Narain Sudhanshu is at a distance of about 100 feet from Pachhiari tola and the house of accused Ramadhar Singh is at a distahce of 96 feet towards south from the house of Shri Sudhanshu. Marba Tola is one kilometer towards north from the scene of occurrence and Village Rmgpura is at a distance of one mile across the river. Pahartola is at a distance of one mile towards west. Village Pakaria is half a mile towards north west. Village Chandwa is about one kilometre towards south. 8. In all 45 houses were burnt. He also seized one station wagon of green colour while inspecting the place of occurrence. The accused persons were not found and, therefore, a requisition (Exhibit 4/1) was sent to the subdivisional Executive Magistrate for issue of warrant of arrest-While p. W.73 was at the place of occurrence, superior officers came and supervised the case. He examined witnesses. He went to Dhamdaha hospital on 24th november, 1971, and examined injured Munshi Suren, Naika Hembrum, Kaidi murmu, Lukhi Murmu, Churki Hansda, Hopenma Hembrum, Manjhli Soren, popenmai Hembrum, Barki alias Marangmai wife of Fugi, Marangmai Hembrum, munur Murmu Kailu Tudu, Phuchu Talamai Baski and Thakur Tudu. On 24th november, 1971, he sent another requisition (Exhibit 4/2) for processes etc. He arrested some of the accused persons on 25th November, 1971. He examined Ratan lal on 26th November, 1971. On 24th november, 1971, he sent another requisition (Exhibit 4/2) for processes etc. He arrested some of the accused persons on 25th November, 1971. He examined Ratan lal on 26th November, 1971. On 28th November 1971, under order of the superintendent of Police, he handed over charge of this case to Inspector d. P. Sharma (P. W.76 ). 9. On 23rd November, 1971, on the basis of station diary entry No.336 dated 22nd November, 1971, he (P. W.73) instituted a case being Dhamdaha p. S. Case No.10 (ll) 73 against Naika Hembrum and others and he also investigated this case. He handed over charge of case also to P. W.76 on the same day. 10. P. W.76, after completing investigation, submitted charge-sheet on 15th January, 1972, in the case. He also investigated Dhamdaha P. S. case no.10 (11)/71 and after completing the investigation, submitted final report in that case and prayed for prosecution of the informant Ramadhar Singh. 11. After submission of charge-sheet these appellants and respondents of the Government appeals were put on trial. In all b8 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The appellants and respondents of the Government appeals denied the allegation and pleaded their innocence. Some of them also pleaded alibi.21 witnesses were also examined on behalf of the appellants. From the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and the arguments advanced on their behalf further case of the appellants appears to be that on the day of occurrence the Santhals were forcibly harvesting the paddy crop of the field of Ramadhar Singh and when Ramadhar Singh and his men went and protested, it led to a marpit between the parties. The appellants have denied, their participation in the occurrence. 12. Learned Counsels appearing for the convicted appellants have strenuously argued that the prosecution case suffers from several infirmities. According to them, in course of investigation and also during trial some evidence were manipulated and fabricated to secure the conviction of the appellants. It has also been argued on their behalf that the fardbeyan (Exhibit 8) was not recorded at the time as alleged by the prosecution. The field from which paddy is alleged to have been- harvested has also been seriously challenged on behalf of the appellants. According to the convicted appellants the police investigation was partial. It has also been argued on their behalf that the fardbeyan (Exhibit 8) was not recorded at the time as alleged by the prosecution. The field from which paddy is alleged to have been- harvested has also been seriously challenged on behalf of the appellants. According to the convicted appellants the police investigation was partial. It has also been argued that some documents favourable to the appellants were supressed by the prosecution and were not produced in the court. According to them, the prosecution has failed to prove the very genesis of the case and the story of the second mob as put forward by the prosecution is a myth. 13. Learned Counsels appearing for the State have supported the judgment and denied the allegation that any evidence was fabricated or manipulated either in course of investigation or during the trial. According to their argument the appellants formed the mob of Ramadhar Singh and, therefore, they have been rightly convicted. 14. The occurrence, according to the prosecution evidence, took place in two parts. At the first instance, Ramadhar Singh (already dead) with a mob and labourers came to the paddy field of Kundan Murmu (P. W.72) and forcibly harvested paddy crop from his field and took away the same to his house. Thereafter, these appellants, forming unlawful assembly and variously armed, came to Santhal Tola of Rupaspur village and commited arson, loot, marpit and also killed several persons 15. The is overwhelming evidence coupled with the objective findings of p. W.73, the first investigating officer, to come to the conclusion that paddy crop of a field was harvested on the day of occurrence. Similarly, there is abundance of evidence coupled with the objective findings of the investigating officers and the medical evidence to come to the conclusion that all the houses of eastern and western Tolas of Santhals were burnt to ashes, properties were looted, several persons received injuries and several persons lost their lives. 16. The factum of paddy harvesting and occurrence of arson, loot and marpit have not been disputed even before this Court. Controversies centre round the fact as to who and from whose field paddy was harvested and who committed arson, loot and marpit. According to the defence version, the entire occurrence including the paddy loot took place in the same transaction. 17. Controversies centre round the fact as to who and from whose field paddy was harvested and who committed arson, loot and marpit. According to the defence version, the entire occurrence including the paddy loot took place in the same transaction. 17. In In the present case following questions arise for consideration :- (i) Whether the fardbeyan (Exhibit 8) was recorded at the time as alleged by the prosecution (ii) Whether there has been any manipulation and farbrication of evidence (iii) If so, whether any prejudice has been caused to any party (iv) Whether paddy was harvested from the field of Kundan Murmu (P. W.72) (v) Who committed arson, loot, rioting and murder (vi) Whether the manner of occurrence, as given by the prosecution, has been well proved ? 18. First of all learned Counsel appearing for the convicted appellants have strenuously argued that the prosecution party is guilty of manipulating evidence from the very beginning and in that connection it has been argued that the fardbeyan was never recorded at the time as alleged by the prosecution. In this connection, they have pointed out that there are over writings on the date on which Exhibits and and 8/1 (the fardbeyan and the formal first information report) are alleged to have been received by the Subdivisional Executive magistrate. It is very doubtful, according to "them, as to how the first information report was sent to Purnea court on 23-11-71 from Dhamdaha police station. It has also been argued that under the Police Act and Police manual as also the Code of Criminal Procedure, substance of the first information report has to be entered into the general diary which is called station diary but in the present case, though an entry has been made about the first information report, no substance of accusation has been recorded in that station diary entry. 19. Exhibits 8 and 8/1 contain initial with date of the Subdivisional executive Magistrate and apparently there is overwriting in the date on both these documents. The figure 23 is clearly overwritten. It has come in the evidence of P. W.34 N. N. Singh that he sent the fardbeyan to Dhamdaha police station for instituting a case through Dafadar Jagdish Sah. Exhibits 8 and 8/1 contain initial with date of the Subdivisional executive Magistrate and apparently there is overwriting in the date on both these documents. The figure 23 is clearly overwritten. It has come in the evidence of P. W.34 N. N. Singh that he sent the fardbeyan to Dhamdaha police station for instituting a case through Dafadar Jagdish Sah. Sec.154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence shall be reduced into writing and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. In this connection, Sec.44 of the Police Act is also relevant to be considered which also requires that substance of such information should be reduced into writing in the book. To make doubly sure that there is no manipulation or fabrication in the earliest version of the occurrence, the legislators have introduced two provisions to ensure its correctness ; firstly, the first information report should be sent to the court as soon as possible and secondly, substance thereof should also be entered into the station diary entry of the thana, copy of which is sent to the superior police officers just on the next day. Therefore, importance of compliance of these provisions cannot be overlooked or minimised. 20. Exhibit 8/1, the first information report, shows that it was sent to the court of the Subdivisional Officer by special messenger. But P. W.74 has said in paragraph 49 that on 23rd November, 1971, he did hot send any special messenger from his police station to Purnea where the court of Subdivisional officer situates. He has further admitted that there is no mention in the case diary as to when and by whom the first information report was sent to the court. According to him, there is an entry in the station diary dated 24th november, 1971, that one constable was sent to Purnea with Daks at 9 a. m. Therefore, how the first information report was sent to the court on 2jrd november, 1971, has remained unexplained. 21. The time of occurrence and report is not mentioned in the first information report and the columns meant to mention these particulars are quite blank. 21. The time of occurrence and report is not mentioned in the first information report and the columns meant to mention these particulars are quite blank. A certified copy of the first information report was also produced in course of argument in which alsa the columns meant for these items were blank. 22. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the State that a requisition (Exhibit 4/1) was sent to the court on 23rd November, 19/1, for issue of warrants against the accused persons, and unless and until the fardbeyan was recorded in time as alleged by the prosecution and it was sent to the court, how the requisition (Exhibit 4/1) was received by the court and an order was passed on 23rd November, 1971. It has also been argued that the order sheet dated 23rd November, 1971, shows that the first information report was received on 23rd November, 1971. True it is that the order-sheet, dated 23rd November, 1971, shows that the first information report was received on that date but the investigating officer (P. W.74) has hin self said that no special messenger was sent to Purnea from his police station on 23rd November, 1971, nor is there any mention in the case diary as to whom and how the first information report was sent to the court. 23. So far as Exhibit 4/1 is concerned, P. W.73 has admitted that on the day when he was examined in court, no carbon copy of Exhib t 4/1 was in the case diary though it was attached in the case diary. He further says that he had handed over the carbon copy of Exhibit 4/1 to P. W.76, Shri d. P. Sharma along with the case diary at the time when he handed over charge of this case to him, But P. W.76 says otherwise. He (P. W.76) says in paragraph 30 that in the case diary which was handed over to him at the time of taking charge, there was no carbon copy of any icquisition. P. W.73 further admits that there is no mention in the case diary about the messenger through when he sent exhibit 4/1 to the court. P. W.73 reached the place of occurrence on 23rd november, 1971, at 2 p. m. First of all, after reaching place of occurrence, he searched for Tala Hembrum, but he did not meet him. P. W.73 further admits that there is no mention in the case diary about the messenger through when he sent exhibit 4/1 to the court. P. W.73 reached the place of occurrence on 23rd november, 1971, at 2 p. m. First of all, after reaching place of occurrence, he searched for Tala Hembrum, but he did not meet him. He met Chhotey lai Basuki whom he examined and thereafter he inspected the place of occurrence. From the description of the place of occurrence, it is apparent that it must have taken sufficient time in inspecting the scene of occurrence. He has himself said that he took ten hours time in inspecting the place of occurrence, in measuring them, in preparing the inqusst reports and seizure lists. Therefore, it is not clear as to whom Exhibit 4/1 was sent to the court on 23rd November, 1971. 24. The prosecution has led evidence that Chhotey Lai Basuki (P. W.31)and Ratan Lai Hembrum (P. W.18) were present when the fardbyan (Exhit 8) was recorded iu token of which thej signed the fardbeyan. But there are circumstances which create serious doubt about their presence at the time when the fardbeyan was recorded. P. W.34, a police officer who recorded the fardbeyan, says that at about 6.30 a. m. in the morning of 23rd November, 1971, he met Chhotey Lai basuki (P. W.31), Pandu Hembrum (P. W.30) and Bishwanath Murmu (P. W.17) in village Mirganj and they informed him that several injured persons of village Rupaspur were lying in Pakariya. They requested him to go there at once. P. W.34 asked Chhotey Lai Basuki (P, W.31) and Pandu Hembrum (P. W.30) to go to the police station and he himself left for Pakaria with bishwanath Murmu (P. W.17 ). Thus, according to his evidence, Chhotey Lai basuki was sent to the police station. Chhotey Lai Basuki (P. W.31) says that in the latter portion of the night of 22nd and 23rd November, 1971, he along with Pandu Hembrum (P. W.30) and Bishwanath Murmu (P. W.17) left pakaria for the police station to give information. On the way near Panchayat bhawan at Mirganj, they met a constable who told them that Daroga was there. Then he met the Daroga and he (P. W.3i) told everything to Darogaji. Thereafter the Daroga and Bishwanath Murmu (P. W.17) went to Pakaria. On the way near Panchayat bhawan at Mirganj, they met a constable who told them that Daroga was there. Then he met the Daroga and he (P. W.3i) told everything to Darogaji. Thereafter the Daroga and Bishwanath Murmu (P. W.17) went to Pakaria. Thereafter, when he was examined on the next day, (See) : "darogaji hamlogo i ki baton ko puri taur nahi suna Ham se Pandu hembrum thaua khabar karne chale par kuchh door jakar uiai laut aya. " On return, he found P. W.34 recording the statement of the informant. He (P. W.31) does not say a word as to why he returned from ths way. It has the ba remembered that according to his o. vn evidence he had left Pakaria for police station to give information there. From Mirgauj he started with Pandu hernbrum for the police station for lodging information, but, for the reasons bsst known to him, he returned soon thereafter. It will not be out of place to mention here that Panku Hembrum, who is alleged to have gone to ths police station, docs not claim to be a full-fledged eye-witness. No reasonable explaaa-tion has been offered by the prosecution even before this Court as to why chhotey Lai Basuki returned from (he way. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that this story that Chhotey Lai Basuki returned from the way has been introduced purposely by the prosecution to meet the criticism that the fardbeyan was not recorded at the time as alleged. 25. Pandu Hembrum (P. W.30) does not also say as to why P. W.31 returned from the way and did not go to the police station. According to him (P. W.30) when Chhotey Lai Basuki returned from the way he himself went to meet shri Kalika Prasad Singh, M. L. A. but he was not found at his house. Then he went to village Gariya to meet the Mukhya Ajab Narayan, who asked him to go to the police station. Shri Kalika Prasad Singh is a resident of village hathia Diara, which is at a distance of three to four miles from Dhamdaha and village Gariya is at a distance of one mile from Hathia Diara. Then he went to village Gariya to meet the Mukhya Ajab Narayan, who asked him to go to the police station. Shri Kalika Prasad Singh is a resident of village hathia Diara, which is at a distance of three to four miles from Dhamdaha and village Gariya is at a distance of one mile from Hathia Diara. This witness (P. W.30) denied to have stated before the Investigating Officer that Cnhotey lai Basuki (P. W.31) had gone with him to the house of Mukhiya Ajab Narain and from there they returned after sun-rise. But P. W.77, the Investigating officer who had recorded the statement of P. W.30, has stated in paragraph 21 that P. W, 30 stated before him that Chhotey Lai Basuki had gone with him to the house of Mukhiya Ajab Narain and from there they returned after sun-rise. Thus, the presence of Chhotey ual Basuki at the time of recording the fardbeyan at 5.30 a. m. becomes very doubtful. 26. P. Ws.17 and 31 claim to be full-fledged eye-witnesses of the occurrence. They were going to lodge information at the police station on the way they met P. W.34 at Mirganj. But curiously enough, no fardbeyan was recorded there on the statement of either of these two witnesses. P. W.34 says : - "un logo ne kaha ki Rupaspur ke bahut se jakhmi log Pakaria Tola me bai aur un logon ki halat kharab hai. Wey name kaha ki jaldi chaliye tab main unme ke do adami ko thana per kane ko kaha aur ek adami ko apne sath liya Pakaria Jane ke liye. Wan adami bishwanath Murmu tha. Bishwanath Murmu ne hame dusra kuchh nahi kaha. " Bishwanath Murmu (P. W.17) says ;- "maine unse sara hal kah sunaya. " Similary, P. W.31 Chhotey La! Basuki has stated on the first day of his examination that he said everything to the Sub-Inspector of Police. Thus, all these witnesses, namely, P. Ws.17, 31 and 34, have their own story to say about it. But the fact remains that no fardbeyan was recorded at Mirganj on the statement of these two eye-witnesses. Basuki has stated on the first day of his examination that he said everything to the Sub-Inspector of Police. Thus, all these witnesses, namely, P. Ws.17, 31 and 34, have their own story to say about it. But the fact remains that no fardbeyan was recorded at Mirganj on the statement of these two eye-witnesses. Learned Counsels appearing for the convicted appellants have submitted that this clearly indicates that either none of these two witnesses were eye-witnesses of the occurrence or by that time it was not decided as to what should be the manner of occurrence and who should be mads accused and, therefore, no fardbeyan was recorded at Mirganj. 27. It also does not stand to reason as to why P. W.31 Chhotey Lai basuki and Pandu Hembrum (P. W.30) were sent to the police station by p. W.34. There was armed force with him. He might have sent any of the constables at the police station for information, but that he did not do. 28. P. W.34 was at Mirganj on the 22nd November, 1971. At about 5 p. m. on that day he learnt that there had been a case of arson at village rupaspur. Hearing this, he went to village Rupaspur along with armed fores and one Kedar Choudhary. He found both the Santhal Tolas (Purwari and pachhiyari) completely burnt. He met one old lady in Pachhiyari Tola but he could not understand her language. Then he went to the bungalow of lakshmi Narain Sudhansu and enquired from him, but he did not give any reply. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Block Development Officer, dhamdaha, along with the Sub-Registrar and armed force also arrived there. In spite of his best efforts, he could not know anything about the occurrence. The Deputy Superintendent of PC lice and the Block Development Officer asked him (P. W.34) to enquire into the matter and to take proper action, and saying this they left Rupaspur. But, in spite of their order, P. W.34 returned to Mirganj along with the armed force. Why he returned to Mirganj he does not say anything. It is also surprising that though he remained at the scene of occurrence for about three hours, no one appeared before him to say anything. 29. Even at village Pakaria, Bishwanath Murmu and Chhotey Lai Basuki did not make any statement before P. W.34. Why he returned to Mirganj he does not say anything. It is also surprising that though he remained at the scene of occurrence for about three hours, no one appeared before him to say anything. 29. Even at village Pakaria, Bishwanath Murmu and Chhotey Lai Basuki did not make any statement before P. W.34. P. W.34 says that except tala Hembrum, the informant, he did not examine any other person as they were restless. P. Ws.17 and 31 had no injury on their person. From the medical evidence, it will appear that except a few injured witnesses, others had sample injuries. It may be mentioned here that Bishwanath Murmu (P. W.17) is nobody else than the son of Kandan Murmu who is the main figure of the entire occurrence. 30. P. W.35 Sikar Tuddu has stated that on 23rd November, 1971 he was at his house. He met Akchtar Hussain, Sub Inspector of Police (P. W.73 ). Thereafter, he along with Bishwanath Murmu and the said Sub-Inspector of police (P. W.73) went to Purwari Tola and articles were seized by P. W.73 in his presence. In Paragraph 7 of the cross-examination, he clearly states :- "sabse pahle hamlog dono tola me ghum ghum kar defcha. Qaon me bishwanath mil gaya. Dusra koi adami gaon me nahi mila. Hamlog sham tak ghumte rahe andhera bhi ho chala tha. Is beech koi bhi choutha adami ham tino ke sath nahi aye. " Thus the presence of other witnesses on 23rd November, 1971, at the scene of occurrence becomes very doubtful. 31 P. W.13 has stated that he had no talk either with Chhotey Lai basuki (P. W.31) or Rajan Lai Hembram (P. W.18) in the morning before giving the fardbeyan. He has further stated that before he gave the fardbeyan he was knowing that two persons were killed but still in the fardbeyan it is mentioned that four persons were killed. 32. P. W.17 says that on 23rd November, 1971, he went to Dhamdaha hospital along with injured persons from village Pakaria and he again came back to Rupaspur at 3 to 4 p. m. and then certain articles were seized in his presence in token of which exhibits where prepared and Exhibits 6/23 to 6/54 are his signatures on those seizure lists. According to him, he again went to Dhamdaha hospital on the same day and stayed there till next day and from Dhamdaha hospital he went to Purnea from where he came to rupaspur on Friday when he was examined by the police. According to him, he came to Rupaspur from Dhamdaha hospital on 23rd November, 1971, at 3 to 4 p. m. to be witness of the seizure lists, as stated above and then again went away to Dhamdaha hospital. 33. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants have said that P. W.17 has introduced this story of return to Rupaspur on 23rd November, 1971, to explain his signatures (Exhibits 6/23 to 6/54) but actually he was not at rupaspur and his aforesaid signatures were obtained subsequently. It has been argued that had P. W.17 been present at Rupaspur on 23rd November, 1971, his statement must have been recorded by the Investigating Officer on that very day. But he was examined on 26th November, 1971. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution as to why P. W.17 was not examined by the investigating Officer on 23rd November, 1971, itself when he was present with p. W.73, specially when he was an eye-witness of the occurrence. 34. Similarly, the presence of P. W.18 on 23rd November, 1971, at rupaspur is doubtful. Exhibits 14 to 11/3 are the inquest reports, which are alleged to have been prepared in presence of Ratan Lai Hembrum (P. W.18 ). This witness (P. W. I 8) was also examined by P. W.77 for the first time on 26th November, 1971, though he is an eye-witness of the occurrence. and is alleged to have been present when fardbeyan was recorded and inquest reports were prepared. There is no explanation on behalf of the prosecution as to why he was not examined by the Investigating Officer on 23rd November, 1971. This witness has stated that after putting his signatures on Exts.14 series he went to village Chhapra where his sister is married, from where he returned on friday when he was examined by the police for the first time. He was also examined before the committing court. This witness has stated that after putting his signatures on Exts.14 series he went to village Chhapra where his sister is married, from where he returned on friday when he was examined by the police for the first time. He was also examined before the committing court. He did not remember to have stated before committing court that on the day of occurrence he went to village pakaria in search of his villagers and returned to his village two to three days after the occurrence P. W.35 also falsifies him that he (P. W.18) was in rupaspur on 23rd November, 1971. 35. Carbon copies of inquest reports were called for by the defence in the trying court, but they were not produced on the ground that they were lost when they were sent for preparing copies thereof to be supplied to the accused persons and in this connection P. W.87 has been examined. This witness (P. W.87) has stated that the case diary is supplied by the court office for preparation of copies to be given to the accused persons. Therefore, it does not stand to reason as to why in the present case the carbon copies of the post-mortem report and the inquest reports were sent from the office of the Superintendent of Police for preparing copies to be made over to the accused persons. In murder cases four copies of the case diary are prepared under the Police Manual Rules by carbon process. The first copy of the case diary is sent to the courts office. Normally, copies are prepared from the first copy of the case diary, which is sent to the courts office by the Investigating officer and this has also been stated by P. W. a7. Therefore, if one carbon copy was lost other carbon copies must have been available and one such copy should have been produced. 36. All the aforesaid facts and circumstances appearing in the case create strong suspicion against the prosecution version that Exhibit 8 was recorded on 23rd November, 1971, at 3.30 a. m. and P. W.31 Chhotey Lai Basuki and p. W. Is Ratan Lai Hembrum were present when it was written. 37. Exhibit 10 is the map of the place of occurrences including the paddy field. It was prepraed by P. W.67, Kailash Mandal. 37. Exhibit 10 is the map of the place of occurrences including the paddy field. It was prepraed by P. W.67, Kailash Mandal. Much has been argued on behalf of the convicted appellants that this Exhibit 10 has beencreated subsequently to help the prosecution case and in this connection, our attention has been drawn towards the statement of P. W.71, who has proved bxhibits a to A/2. 38. P. W.67 has stated that Exhibit 10 was handed over to him by the public Prosecutor at the time of his evidence. P. W.71, who is an asssistant sub-Inspector of Police, has admitted in cross-examination that he had supplied the copies of police papers as required under the law to the accused persons before commitment as it was his duty then to prepare the copies and to supply them to the accused persons before commitment. During his cross-examination some papers and three maps were shown to him by the defence counsel. After seeing those papers and the maps (Exhibits A to A/2) he (P. W.71) said that those papers were handed over to the accused persons by him before commitment. He further said that all those papers were prepared in his office from original papers in his presence. Exhibits A to A/2, the three maps, had been traced by him from original map and they contain his writings. This P. W.71 was not declared hostile nor cross-examined by the public prosecutor. Nothing has been shown to us to disbelieve this witness (P. W.71) on this point. It has to be remembered that P. W.71 was examined by the prosecution and he made the aforesaid statement. P. W.76, the Investigating Officer, who got Exhibit 10 prepared, has admitted : "pradarsh 10/2; ka duplicate copy taiyar hua tha Iska jikra hamare diary me nahi hai. Hamne diary me nahi likha hai ki duplicate copy pane ka receipt is par bana diya hai" Under these circumstances, Exhibits 10 appears to be a suspicious document. Nothing has been said about Exhibits A to A/2 on behalf of the prosecution. In view of the admission of P. W.67 it is clear that at least before commitment, the original of Exhibits A to A/2 was in the case diary. 39. Nothing has been said about Exhibits A to A/2 on behalf of the prosecution. In view of the admission of P. W.67 it is clear that at least before commitment, the original of Exhibits A to A/2 was in the case diary. 39. P. W.73 has admitted in Paragraph 66 that after examining accused parduman Singh at Khajanchi Hat police station, he examined Shri R. K. Singh, officer-in-charge of Khajanchi Hat police station and others. Shri R. K. Singh, showed him two papers; one of them was an application of Parduman Singh in which he had prayed for permission to take out a procession and the other was a licence form. The Superintendent of Police also came to the police station and examined Praduman Singh. P. W.73 took charge of those two papers from the officer-in-charge of Khajanchi Hat police station, but ne admitted: "wah dono kagaj hamare diary me nahi hai. Wah done kagaj hamare diary se gaeb hai. " How those two papers were lost, we do not know. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for the convicted appellants that some of the papers favourable to the accused were not produced in the court, cannot be bruihid aside lightly. 40. Now let us see the evidence on the point of the field from which paddy is alleged to have been harvested. According to the first information report, the field from which paddy was harvested was kaimi land of Kundau murmu and measured about ten kathas. Kundan Murmu has been examined as P. W.72. He has come to say that in the west of his Tola he has his land in two sub-plots, measuring 1 bigha 15 Kathas and they are in the west of the nala. Both the sub-plots are his kaimi land. He has also admitted that in the south of this land, is the land of Ramadhar Singh. According to P. W.73, paddy was found harvested from two sub-plots. From one sub-plot paddy was harvested in regular way and in the other sub-plot paddy was found harvested in irregular way. The fardbeyan does not indicate that paddy of 1 Bigha 15 katbas was looted away nor does it show that paddy was looted from the two sub-plots. No witness has said that paddy was looted from two sub-plots. 41. From one sub-plot paddy was harvested in regular way and in the other sub-plot paddy was found harvested in irregular way. The fardbeyan does not indicate that paddy of 1 Bigha 15 katbas was looted away nor does it show that paddy was looted from the two sub-plots. No witness has said that paddy was looted from two sub-plots. 41. If may be mentioned here that according to Exhibit A/1 paddy was found harvested from survey plot No.1959, but according to Exhibit 10, paddy was harvested from survey plot Nos.1955 and 1956. From Exhibit 10 it also appears that survey plot No.1959 is in south of survey plot Nos.1955 and 1956. P. W.72, on being questioned has said : "yahan jo bhi gbatna ke bare me beyan diya hai usko Darogaji ko kaha tha ya nahi, yad nahi hai. Apne jamin ke bare toe jo yahan gawahi diya hai wah bhi Darogaji ko kaha hai ya nahi, wah bhi yad nahi hai. Harpkp yah bhi Khhyal nahi hai ki hatne Darogaji ko kaha tha ya nahi ki hamne dhan lagaya tha so Ramadhar Singh kat kar le gaya. " P. W.76 is one of the Investigating Officers. He had examined Kundan Murmu. He has said in paragraph 44 thus ; gawah Kundan Murm is ghatna ke bare me hamse kuchh nahi kaha tha. Is gawah ne jamin ke sambandh me kuchh beyan nahi diya. Wah yah bhi nahi kaha tha ke wah jo dhan lagay tha wah ramadhar Singh kat kar le gaya. " . 42 Kundan Murmu (P. W.72) has admitted that on the day of occurrence he was at village Nipania and he same to village Rupaspur after two days of the occurrence. It was suggested to him in cross-examination that he was living in village Nipania to which he denied. P. W.17 is his own son. P. W.17 in the trial court, denied to have stated before the Investigating Officer that his father was living in village Nipania and he was cultivating the land there. P. W.77, the Investigating Officer, who examined P. W.17, has stated in paragraph 19 that Bishwanath Murmu stated before him that his father Kundan murmu lives at village Nipania. P. W.17 in the trial court, denied to have stated before the Investigating Officer that his father was living in village Nipania and he was cultivating the land there. P. W.77, the Investigating Officer, who examined P. W.17, has stated in paragraph 19 that Bishwanath Murmu stated before him that his father Kundan murmu lives at village Nipania. The attention of P. W.17 was also drawn towards bis statement made in the committing court where he had stated that his father was living at village Nipania and he cultivated his land there. P. W.13, the informant, has said that "kaand ko samai Kundan Nipania gaon me rahta tha ya kahin dusre jagab rahta tha, ham nahi kah sakte. " In view of the aforesaid evidence it becomes very doutful whether Kundan murmu was living at Rupaspur during the relevant period and he had grown paddy in village Rupaspur. 43 On the basis of Exhibit 10 it cannot be said with all certainty that paddy was harvested on the day of occurrence from survey plot Nos.1955 and 1956. P. W.67, who prepared Exhibit 10, has said that the place of occurrence (Paddy field) was shown to him by the police officers and then he prepared the map. P. W.76 has said that he showed the place of occurrence to p. W.67 after reading the case diary. It may be noted that P. W.76 took charge of this case on 28th November, 1971. P. W.67 did not measure the paddy field in question and prepared the map (Exhibit 10) as pointed out by some of the village eye-witnesses or by P. Ws.34 and 73, who saw the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence in presence of eye-witnesses. P. W.76 was not a competent person to show the field from which paddy was alleged to have been looted away. 44. P. W.76 has said in paragraph 27 that he did not mention the survey polt number of the paddy field in question in the case diary nor as any paper shown to him. Therefore, the prosecution evidence that paddy was harvested by the mob from survey plot Nos.1955 and 1956 on the day of occurrence cannot be said to have been well-proved. 45. According to the prosecution case itself, Ramadhar Singh, after getting paddy harvested, took away the harvested paddy to bis house without any obstruction. Therefore, the prosecution evidence that paddy was harvested by the mob from survey plot Nos.1955 and 1956 on the day of occurrence cannot be said to have been well-proved. 45. According to the prosecution case itself, Ramadhar Singh, after getting paddy harvested, took away the harvested paddy to bis house without any obstruction. In that circumstance, it does not stand to reason as to why he again came to Santhal Tolas with mob and committed loot, murder and arson. 46. The objective finding of P. W.73 that he did not find any trail of paddy in between the paddy field and the house of Ramadhar Singh does not support the prosecution case. Contrary to this P. W.73 has stated that he found trail of paddy between the paddy field and Santhal Tolas (Is Dhan ke khet se Saathali Tola ki ore kate hue dhan ka lagatar thora powal laga hua dhan ka paudha rasta hokar chheeta hua paya ). P. W.34 had gone to the bungalow of Lakshmi Narain sudhansu on the day of occurrence itself after the occurrence but he has not said that he found any harvested paddy there or any trail thereof. 47. P. W.73 found one green colour station wagon standing near the places of occurrence which he seized. P. W.34, as said earlier, had visited the scene of occurrence soon after the occurrence on the same day. Even the deputy Superintendent of Police and the Block Development Officer had also come. But strangely enough they did not notice any green colour station wagon there. It has to be remembered that a station wagon cannot be overlooked unnoticed. 48. According to the fardbeyan, Chhotey Lal Basuki (P. W.31),l ratan Lai Hembrum (P. W.18), Upan Lai Hembrutn (F. W.23, Fuchu Tudu (P. W.22) and Naika Hembrum (P. W.14) went up to the Nahar to protest harvesting of paddy. In his evidence in court the informant (P. W.13) does not rame Chhote Lai Basuki and Upan Lai Hembrum to have gone to protest the harvesting of paddy. Though he has named Bishwanuh in court, he did not name him in the fardbeyan to have gone to protest. Bishwanath (P. W.17)says that when he saw Ramadhar Singh and his mob harvesting paddy, he went to call the villagers. Though he has named Bishwanuh in court, he did not name him in the fardbeyan to have gone to protest. Bishwanath (P. W.17)says that when he saw Ramadhar Singh and his mob harvesting paddy, he went to call the villagers. He first went to the eastern Tola where he told about it to Ganga Ram Mistri and thereafter he went to protest along with Tala hembrum (P. W.13), Ganga Ram Mistri, Barka Murmu, Ratan Lai, Chhotey lai Basuki and fial Kishan Baski. Thus, on the point as to who went to protest, every witness has his own story. It will also appear from the evidence of Bishwanath that after collecting some persons, they went to protest the harvesting, but they went empty handed. 49. In the first information report, no motive has been alleged for this ghastly occurrence. Of course, P. W.20 has been examined to say that two to three days before ths occurrence he had gone to village Rupaspur to get the crop divided in between the landlord and the labourers. The Block Development Officer and the officer-incharge of the police station were also present there and it was ordered that the crop would be divided in the ratio of 10 : 30 i. e. , out of one maund, ten seers would go to the landlord and thirty seers woulc go to the bataidars. The landlord did not like this decision and, therefore, the present occurence took place. The Block Development Officer has not betn examined to say anything. The officer-incharge of the police station has also not said anything about it. This witness (P. W.20) is a highly interested person which will be apparent from his own evidence. The son of Lakshmi Narain Sudhansu, Praduman Narain Singh, one of the accused, had contested him in the election. Therefore, the prosecution has also failed to prove the immediate cause for this barbarous act and ghastly murders. 50. In a criminal trial the prosecution is not bound to prove the motive in every case. But in a case like the present one, the natural question arises as to why such barbarous and heinous crime was committed against poor santhals. This question remains unanswered in the present case. 51. It ts the prosecution case that all the injured persons, after the occurrence, went to Pakaria and remained there in the night. But in a case like the present one, the natural question arises as to why such barbarous and heinous crime was committed against poor santhals. This question remains unanswered in the present case. 51. It ts the prosecution case that all the injured persons, after the occurrence, went to Pakaria and remained there in the night. P. W.34 has stated that after recording the fardbeyan ho prepared injury reports (Exhibits 3/35 to 3/49) in respect of the injured persons, i. e. , he prepared injury report in respect of only 15 injured persons. But according to the prosecution case, 34 persons had received injuries. There is no explanation as to why injury reports in respect of other injured persois were not prepared at Pakaria by p. W.34. 52. According to the prosecution case itself, the fardbeyan was recorded at Pakaria on the statement of Tala Hembrum at about 5.30 a. m. on 23rd november, 1971. From the prosecution evidence itself, it will appear that three persons, namely, Bishwanath (P. W.17), Chhotey Lai Basuki (P. W.31) and Pandu hembrura (P. W.30) had left Pakaria at about 3 a. m. to lodge a case. This shows that were conscious about lodging of the case. But siill when fardbeyan was recorded at 5jo a. m. at Pakaria itself only Sanjhla Hembrum, Munshi Mistri, mehi Das Murmu, Hari Mistri, Ganga Ram Mistri and Barka Murmu an named to have been assaulted. No other persons have been named in the fardbeyan to have been injured. 53. Out of the injured persons, Bano Sah (P. VV.16), Tala Mai Baski (P. W.40), Sukni Soren (P. W.52), Tala Soren (P. W.51), Nangi Hansda (P. W.54), Munshi Soren (P. W.48) are of village Sukhsena ; Makku Kisku (P. W.32) is of village Chandwa, Barka Hansda (P. W.58) is of village kukrain and Marangmain Tudu (P. W.39j) is also of village Chandwa. The aforesaid injured persons are, therefore, not resident of village Rupaspur. It has come in evidence that village Chandwa is in the district of Katihar ; village sukhsena to which P. W.48 belongs, is at a distance of twelve miles from rupaspur. It has also come in the evidence of P. W.54 that on the day of occurrence, many persons of village Pakaria had come to village Rupaspur. Village Pakaria is at a distance of one and a half kilometre from the scene of occurrence. It has also come in the evidence of P. W.54 that on the day of occurrence, many persons of village Pakaria had come to village Rupaspur. Village Pakaria is at a distance of one and a half kilometre from the scene of occurrence. Now so many injured persons and other witnesses belonging to different village were present at the scene of occurrence This has also not been explained by the prosecution. 54. It has been strenuously argued on behalf of the appellants that it were the Santhals who had collected mob from different villages and while they were looting paddy crop of Ramadhar Singh, the mob of Ramadhar Singh also came and prottsted and this led to the entire occurrence. This argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants gets corroboration from the prosecution evidence itself. As said above, P. W.73 found trail of harvested paddy upto santhal Tola. P. W.36 has said in his examination-in-chief itself that when ramadhar Singh took away paddy after harvesting, at that very time a mob of Dhangars (Oraon) came from west. Similarly, P. W.37 has stated that when men of Sudhansuji came to Pachhiari Tola, at that very time a mob of dhangars came from south and west who were armed with fire-arms, bows and arrows and garasas. No witness has said as to whose mob these Dhanga people constituted. Admittedly, there was no Dhangar in the mob cf the aprellants. Therelore, it was a totally different mob. 55. All the aforesaid facts create a very strong suspicion against the manner of occurrence as given by the prosecution and it appears that the correct versions has not been produced before the court. 56. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the defence has been highly prejudicedaby therefusal of the learned trying court in not treating the statement of Randhan Kisku was recorded in the committing court as substantive evidence under Sec.33 of the Evidence Act. A petition was also filed in this Court to admit the deposition of Randhan Kisku, recorded by the committing court, as additional evidence. From the order-sheet of the trial coun dated 19lh July, 1978, it appears that the prosecution witness randhan Kisku was produced in the court but was not examined on the ground that she had been gained over and, therefore, she was given up. From the order-sheet of the trial coun dated 19lh July, 1978, it appears that the prosecution witness randhan Kisku was produced in the court but was not examined on the ground that she had been gained over and, therefore, she was given up. The learned trying court has mentioned in the order-sheet; "accused do not want to examine her as defence witness. She is thus discharged". Then on 22nd December, 1979, again a petition was filed on behalf of the accused that P. W. Randhan Kishu, who was examined in the committing court as P. W.15, was not being examined in the trial court by the prosecution ; and, therefore, her evidence recorded by the committing court be used as substantive evidence under Sec.33 of the Evidence Act. But that petition was also rejected almost on the same ground. 57. Section 33 of the Evidence Act was not applicable because witness randhan Kisku was not withheld, rather she was produced in court but was given up by the prosecution. But the approach of the trying court in rejecting the petition of the defence on the ground that she was not being examined as a defence witness, was not correct. The petition which was filed before the trying court on 22nd December, 19/9, contained some passage from her statement recorded by the committing court, which reads as follows :- "wah khet jisme dhan katne gayee tbi wah nahar ka pachhim hai. Us samai Ramadhar Singh ka sipahi log us khet ke pas aaye. samai tak hamlog kul khet ka dhan kat chuke the. Sipahi logon ke hath me bandook, garasa, teer dhanush aur bandook tha. We log aakar bandcok aur teer dbanush chalane lage. Uske bad hamlog us khet se bhagne lage. Bhagne ke samai mujhe bandook se goli lagee. Anya bhagne walon ka jakhma hua ya nahi mai nahi dekh saki. Bhagte Bhagte Pakaria chali gayee Rachiya mere sath tna. " In view of the aforesaid statement it is quite clear that it was essential to examine her at least as a court witness by the trying court and the petition should not have been rejected when the defence refused to examine her as a defence witness. From the statement, quoted above, it will appear that Randhan kisku was an important witness. From the statement, quoted above, it will appear that Randhan kisku was an important witness. Of course the prosecution is not bound to examine each and every witness but in that situation the court should have examined her as a court witness for the sake of justice. The prayer of the defence cannot be said to be unjustified or vexatious. Therefore the rejection of the petition was not proper. Accordingly, we find that some prejudice has been caused to the defence by rejection of the petition of the appellants. We would have remanded the case back on this ground. But the present occurrence took place in (he year 1971 and we are hearing this appeal in the year 1987. We do not know whether that witness, Randhan, Kisku, is still alive and where she is. Therefore, if we remand the case it will cause much delay in disposal of the case as well as further harassment to the parties. Besides, in view of the conclusion which we are going to arrive at, we do not think it proper to remand the case back to the court below. 58. A petition was also filed before this Court to treat the statement of randhan Kisku, recorded by the committing court, as additional evidence. This prayer does not appeal to be correct. Until and unless she is ex trained, her statement recorded by the comitting court cannot be taken as additional evidence. 59. There are other infirmities also. Except P. Ws.9, 10, 13, 31, 38 and 58 no other witness was examined by the Investigating Officer on 23rd november, 1971. P. Ws, 14, 16, 22, 24, 28, 37, 39, 43, 46 and 53 were examined on 24th November, 1971, and P. Ws.11, 17, 18, 23,25,36,42, 45, 49, 50 and 55 were examined on 26th November, 1971. P. W.12 was examined by the Investigating Officer on 28th November, 1971 and P. Ws.56 and 57 were examined much thereafter. As said above, even important witnesses like P. Ws.17 and 18 were examined on 26th November, 1971. Of couise, some explanation has been offered by the witnesses as to why they were not examined on 23rd November, 1971, but, as stated earlier, the explanation is not reasonable at all. As said above, even important witnesses like P. Ws.17 and 18 were examined on 26th November, 1971. Of couise, some explanation has been offered by the witnesses as to why they were not examined on 23rd November, 1971, but, as stated earlier, the explanation is not reasonable at all. Most of the injured witnesses could have been easily examined on 23rd November, 1971, at Pakaria itself, but surprisingly enough, though the Additional Superintendent of Police and other officers were there, except the informant no body could be examined at Pakaria. As discussed earlier, P. Ws.17 and 18 were present before the Investigating Officer on 23rd novembsr, 1971, but they were not examined on that date. In a case like the present one, examination of witnesses after such delay casts great doubt against their reliability. When the witnesses belong to one group and the area is divided into factions, examination of witnesses by the Investigating Officer after so much delay is a serious factor and cannot be ignored. 60. There is another aspect in the present case. P. W.13 had admitted in his evidence that he is in police service since five years eight months. (He was examined in the trying court on 25th August, 1977 ). Thus, he was appointed as a constables soon after the occurrence. According to his evidence, P. Ws.17, 31, 35, and 69 were also appointed as constables along with him. He never filed any application for his appointment but still he was appointed. In Paragraph 10 he has said : "hamlogon ko gaon me hi duty milgaya. Malmabeshi ko japta karne me hamlog madad karne lage. " 61. Pandu Hembrum (P. W.30) is the brother of P. W.13. From his evidence it appears that most of the witnesses belong to the families of the aforesaid appointed constables. In course of investigation itself they were appointed constables and they were posted in that very village to help in the investigation. How and at whose instance, they were appointed has remained a mystery. 62. From the evidence discussed above, it is clear that the conduct of the prosecution in the present case cannot be said to be above board. As held earlier, it is very doubtful that the fardbeyan was written at the time and at the place as alleged by the prosecution. 62. From the evidence discussed above, it is clear that the conduct of the prosecution in the present case cannot be said to be above board. As held earlier, it is very doubtful that the fardbeyan was written at the time and at the place as alleged by the prosecution. I must say that a very barbarous and heinous crime was committed and whoever committed such act must be enemy of the Society and deserve deterent punishment, but, in the present case, due to bad investegation and faulty prosecution, have been compelled to come to the conclusion, for reasons stated above, that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond all doubts. We can only express our surprise and regret that such a serious case was mishandled in such a bad manner by the investigating agency. It is high time that Government should look into the matter and see that criminal cases, specially such serious cases, are not mishandled in the way it has been done in the instant case by the investigating agency. 63. Taking into consideration the entire evidence and the circumstances appearing in the case, I am constrained to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. All the criminal appeals, namely, Cr. A. Nos.409, 410, 415, 427 and 434 of 1980 are, therefore, allowed and the order of conviction and sentences passed against the individual appellants of the aforesaid appeals is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Consequently, the Government appeals Nos.6 to 9 and 32 to 36 of 1981 stand dismissed. Let appellant lurendra Singh alias Luro Singh (of Cr. A.427 of 1980) be released forthwith, if not wanted in some other case. The other appellants of the aforesaid criminal appeals are discharged from their bail bonds.