S.S. BYAS, J.—Since both these appeals are directed against one and the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shri Ganganagar dated September 29, 1984, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. By the impugned judgement, the four appellants Sukhasingh alias Sukhpalsingh, Jaskaran Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Satpal Singh were convicted under sections 302/34 and 364/34. I. P. C. and each was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 400/- on the first count and five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- on the second count. Accused Sukhasingh alias Sukhpalsingh was also convicted, by the same judgment, under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-. The accused have come-up in appeals and challenge their convictions. 2. The prosecution case is short and simple and may be summarised as under. PW 1 Balbirsingh and PW 2 Jogendra Singh Jat-Sikha are real brothers. The deceased-victim Sarvajeetsingh, aged about 22 years at the time of his murder, was the son of PW 2 Jogendra Singh. They all resided in village Moha-llah P. S. Kesharsinghpura district Sri Ganganagar. Nearly ten/twelve days before the incident, a quarrel took place between the deceased Sarvajeetsingh and the accused Sukhasingh. It is alleged, that on account of this quarrel, accused Sukhasingh harboured an ill-will against Sarvajeetsingh. Accused Jaskaransingh, Satpalsingh and Gurucharansingh are the close relatives of accused Sukhasingh. At about 9.30 p. m. on March 8, 1984, Sarvajeetsingh was going to his house from the house of PW 1 Balbirsingh. The four accused persons were standing on the main gate of the house of accused Sukhasingh, shown by mark 2 in site plan Ex. P 3. When Sarvajeetsingh happened to pass out-side this gate, the four accused persons forcibly caught hold of him and took him in the house of accused Sukha Singh. They closed the shutters of the main gate. PW 1 Balbirsingh, who was standing a few feet away at the end of the street, immediately rushed to the house of Jogendra Singh (PW 2) and informed him as to what he had seen. Balbirsingh (PW 1) and Jogendra Singh (PW 2) came running to the house of accused Sukhasingh and raised cries to open the gate. The gate was not opened. Balbirsingh (PW 1) and Jogendra Singh (PW 2) came running to the house of accused Sukhasingh and raised cries to open the gate. The gate was not opened. Both the brothers thereafter rushed to the house of Balbir Singh (PW 1), where they found their another brother Gurudeosingh. The three brothers went on the roof of their Kotha, The roof of this Kotha is contiguous to the house of accused Sukhpalsingh. They saw that accused Sukhasingh had a D. B.B.L. 12-bore gun, Gurucharansingh had a Gandasa while Satpalsingh and Jaskaransingh had lathis. They were inflicting blows with their weapons to Sarvajeet Singh at the place shown as Darwaja by digit 4 in site plan Ex. P 3. There was electric light there. The three brothers implored the accused persons not to beat Sarvajeetsingh, but their request fell on the deaf ears. The accused persons continued to strike blows to Sarvajeetsingh. Sarvajeetsingh fell down. Accused Sukhasingh fired his gun at Sarvajeetsingh which hit him on his head. Sarvajeetsingh passed away instantaneously on the spot. The culprits threat-ended the three brothers that in the case they tried to come down from the roof, they would also be shot dead. The three brothers came down and went to their 4th brother Rajendra Singh (PW 6). They narrated the incident to him. Rajendra Singh wrote report Ex. P I containing the facts stated to him by Balbirsingh. Jogendrasingh (PW2) and Rajendra Singh (PW 6) went to police Station, Kesarsinghpura and presented report Ex. P 3 at about 11.45 p.m. on the same day. The police registered a case under sections 302/34, I.P.C. and under section 27 of the Arms Act. The investigation was taken up. The S. H. O. Mohan Lal (PW 10) arrived on the scene of the occurrence in the morning on March 9, 1984. He inspected the site and prepared the site plan. He also prepared the inquest report of the victims dead-body. The post-mortem examination on the victims dead-body was conducted at about 11.30 A. M by PW 5 Dr. Jaswant Singh—the then Medical Officer Incharge, Government Hospital, Kesarsinghpura. The doctor noticed the following ante-mortem injuries on the victims dead-body:— (1). Incised wound 4" x 1/2" bone deep just above the right over brew. (2), Lacerated wound 4" x \" x bone deep 2" above the injury No. 1. (3). Jaswant Singh—the then Medical Officer Incharge, Government Hospital, Kesarsinghpura. The doctor noticed the following ante-mortem injuries on the victims dead-body:— (1). Incised wound 4" x 1/2" bone deep just above the right over brew. (2), Lacerated wound 4" x \" x bone deep 2" above the injury No. 1. (3). Lacerated wound with blackening and charring and singing of the hair of size 4" x. 4" wound containing brain matter which was badly injured and was coming out from the wound on the right side of face, in front and behind and above right ear, with multiple fractures of the skull bones were shattered into small pieces. Multiple pellets and cork pieces were removed from various parts of the skull cavity and brain metier pellets and all pieces were sealed and handed over to the police, (4). Contusion 3" x 1" right mid axillary line. (5). Contusion 5" x 1/2" on the right thigh. (6). Contusion 1-1/2" x 1/2" on the right leg 5" from the right knee joint. (7). Contusion \" x 1/2" on the knee joint. (8). Contusion 1" x 1/2" on the right leg 5" thigh, middle mallodus. (9). Contusion 4" x 1" on the lateral side of the right thigh. (10). Contusion 4" x 1/2" on the left leg in front. (11). Contusion 2" x 1/2" on the left tibia tuberosity. (12). Lacerated wound with fracture of the shin of left libiar of 1 x 1/2" x bone deep 3" below from the injury No. 11. (13). Contusion 2" x 1/2" on the left thigh. (14). Contusion 5" x 1" on the back of chest left side. (15). Lacerated wound of the left pinna. (16). Contusion 1" x 1/2" on the left fore-arm. (17). Contusion 1/2" x 1/2" on the back of left elbow joint. (18). Abrasion 1" x 1/2" on the left arm. 3. In the opinion of Dr. Jaswant Singh, the cause of death was gun-shot causing injury to brain matter and multiple fractures of the skull alongwith multiple injuries sustained all over the body, leading to haemorrhage and shock and death. Injury No. 3, which was a gun-shot one, was stated to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The post-mortem report prepared by Dr. Jaswant Singh in EX. P.7. Injury No. 3, which was a gun-shot one, was stated to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The post-mortem report prepared by Dr. Jaswant Singh in EX. P.7. The doctor detected six pieces of cardboard and ten pellets lodged in the brain and skull of the deceased Sarvajeet Singh. He took them out, seized them and sent the sealed packet to the investigating officer. The blood-stained clothes of the deceased were seized and sealed. Blood - stained soil was also lifted and sealed. Accused Sukhasingh and Gurucharan Singh were arrested on March 11, 1984, accused Satpalsingh and Jaskaran Singh were arrested on March 18, 1984. In consequence of the informations furnished by them, one D.B.B. L. gun (Article 1) with a spent cartridge in one of its barrels and some live cartridges and lathis were recovered. The gun, the cartridges, card-board pieces, pellets etc. were sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. The report received from there is EX. P. 39. As per report EX.P.39 gun (Article 1) was found in working order; the cartridge found in its barrel was found to have been fired through the left barrel and the card-board pieces and the pellets were opined to have been fired through the gun (Article 1). On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a crime report against the four accused, viz., Sukhasingh alias Sukhpalsingh, Jaskaran Singh, Gurucharan Singh and Satpalsingh in the Court of the Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Karanpur, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The case came for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who framed charges under sections 364/34 and 302/34, I.P.C. against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, no witness was examined. All of them pleaded alibi. A suggestion was, however, thrown to the eye witnesses PW 1 Balbir Singh and PW 2 Jogendra Singh that accused Sukhasingh has a sister Simarjeet Kaur by name. She was an unmarried girl of 18/19 years of age at the time of the incident, her father Hazoorsingh and brothers Dharampalsingh and Sukhasingh had gone to Kesar-singhpura to sell their cotton crop. Taking advantage of their absence, Sarvajeet Singh surreptitiously entered their house to lay hands on Simarjeet Kaur. She was an unmarried girl of 18/19 years of age at the time of the incident, her father Hazoorsingh and brothers Dharampalsingh and Sukhasingh had gone to Kesar-singhpura to sell their cotton crop. Taking advantage of their absence, Sarvajeet Singh surreptitiously entered their house to lay hands on Simarjeet Kaur. He confined himself in the garage, shown by digit 6" in site plan EX. P. 3. After some-time, he was detected by their servant Jarnailsingh. It was Jarnail-Singh, who inflicted injuries to Sarvajeet Singh with lathi and Gandasa and thereafter fired his gun at him. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the testimony of PW 1 Balbirsingh and PW 2 Jogendra Singh and treated them as witnesses of truth. On the strength of what they testified, the learned Sessions Judge found the charges duly brought home to the accused. The accused were convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 5. Mr. Mulla did not challenge the opinion of Dr. Jaswant Singh (PW 5) about the number and nature of the injuries found on the victims dead-body and the cause of his death. We, therefore, need not touch the testimony of Dr. Jaswant Singh. Suffice it to say that the death of Sarvajeet Singh was homicidal and not natural. His death was caused by gun-shot. 6. In order to properly appreciate the contentions raised by Mr. Mulla, it would be useful first to have a look at the location where the incident took place as depicted in site plan EX. P 3 and site inspection note EX. P. 3A. The site plan EX. P 3 shows that there is a garage shown by digit 6. It had no doors. The turban and the shoes of the victim Sarvajeet Singh were shown glyin outside this garage. Blood was also found out side the garage. The incident had taken place at the place shown by Darwaja and digit 4 in site plan EX.P 3. The deadbody of the victim was found at place B in this Darwaja. Contiguous in the North of the accuseds house is situate the house of PW 1 Balbirsingh. The roof of the house of Balbirsingh has been shown in it by digit 15. The deadbody of the victim was found at place B in this Darwaja. Contiguous in the North of the accuseds house is situate the house of PW 1 Balbirsingh. The roof of the house of Balbirsingh has been shown in it by digit 15. Balbirsingh (PW 1) claimed that when Sarvajeet Singh was over-powered and forcibly taken in the house of accused Sukhasing, he (witness) was standing at the end of the street at the place shown by mark I. EX. P 3 shows that the main gate of the house of accused Sukhasingh faces East. It has been shown by digit 2 in EX.P3. 7. We may reiterate that the fate of the case looms largely, rather completely, on the testimony of PW 1 Balbirsingh and PW 2 Jogendra Singh. Their testimony was found reliable and dependable by the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the appellants. 8. In impeaching the conviction, it was strenuously contended by Mr. Mulla that the Court below was in error in treating PW 1 Balbirsingh and PW 2 Jogendra Singh as witnesses of truth He has taken us through the evidence of these two witnesses and subscribed a multitude of reasons to show that the claim of these two witnesses to have seen the incident is a blatant lie. 9. Now, the incident has two parts, namely, (1) the deceased victim, while he was going to his house and happened to pass out-side the main gate of the house of accused Sukhasingh, was pounced over, over-powered and forcibly taken in the house and (2) the appellants thereafter struck blows to him and one of them fired his gun at him. The first part of the incident is closely knitted with the second. In other words, the first part is the integral part of the second. 10. The sole witness speaking about the first part of the incident is PW 1 Balbirsingh, who is the real uncle of the deceased-victim and the real brother of PW 2 Jogendra Singh. He deposed that the marriage of the deceased Sarvajeet Singh was to take place on March 17, 1984. The ladies of his family went to the house of PW 2 Jogendra Singh (father of the deceased-victim) to participate in the songs and music which were being conducted on account of the coming of the deceaseds marriage. He deposed that the marriage of the deceased Sarvajeet Singh was to take place on March 17, 1984. The ladies of his family went to the house of PW 2 Jogendra Singh (father of the deceased-victim) to participate in the songs and music which were being conducted on account of the coming of the deceaseds marriage. The witness stated that at about 9.00 p.m. on the day of the incident, he was standing at the crossing of the ways (shown by digit 1 in site plan Ex. P 3) out-side his house and was waiting for the arrival of the women folk of his family. The deceased Sarvajeetsingh came out of his (witness) house and moved towards the way to go to his house. When Sarvajeetsingh happened to pass out-side the main gate of the house of Hazoorsingh (father of accused Sukhasingh), the four appellants, who were standing at the main gate of Hazoorsinghs house, pounced over Sarvajeet Singh, over-powered him and forcibly dragged him into the house. The appellants thereafter closed the shutters of the main gate and started beating Sarvajeet Singh. He heard the out-cries of Sarvajeet Singh. He rushed to the house of Jogendra Singh (PW 2) and apprised him of what he had seen. He and Jogendra Singh came to the main gate of the house of Hazoorsingh and raised cries to open the gate, but the gate was not opened. Sarvajeet Singh was crying from inside "Maar Diya" "Maar Diya". Thereafter he and Jogendra Singh went to his (witness) house where they found their another brother Gurudeo Singh. 11. The clinching question before us is whether the testimony of this witness relating to the first part of the incident can be safely relied upon? We have carefully scrutinized the testimony of this witness Balbirsingh on the first part of the incident and find that it is wholly unreliable. There are several reasons for discounting his testimony. 12. Balbirsingh (PW l) stated that after seeing the incident, he and his brothers Jogendrasingh and Gurdeosingh went to their brother Rajendrasingh (PW 6) and narrated him to entire incident. Rajendrasingh thereafter started writing the first information report. The same facts were stated by PW 2 Jogendra Singh-PW6 Rajendra Singh also admitted that his brothers Jogendrasingh, Balbirsingh and Gurdeosingh came to his house and narrated the incident to him, He thereafter wrote F.l.R. Ex. P 1. Rajendrasingh thereafter started writing the first information report. The same facts were stated by PW 2 Jogendra Singh-PW6 Rajendra Singh also admitted that his brothers Jogendrasingh, Balbirsingh and Gurdeosingh came to his house and narrated the incident to him, He thereafter wrote F.l.R. Ex. P 1. Unfortunately, in F.I.R. Ex. P 1, it has not been mentioned that the marriage of the deceased was to take place after a few days, the women folk of PW 1 Balbirsingh had gone to the house of Jogendrasingh to participate in the songs and music programme and that he was standing at point 1 in Ex. P 3 and waiting for the arrival of the women folk. In his statement Ex. D 1, recorded during investigation by the police, all these facts were, again, not stated by this witness Balbir Singh (PW 1). It was 9.00 or 9.30 p.m. when the witness was standing at the junction of the ways. There must be some reason for his standing there at the unusual time. The prosecution realised the difficulty and therefore the whole story of the forth-coming marriage of the deceased-victim, women folk of the family of PW 1 Balbirsingh going to the house of PW 2 Jogendrasingh to participate in the songs and music programme, his (witness) standing at the junction of the ways waiting for the arrival of his women folk, was invented to show the reasons for the standing of this witness at point 1 in site plan Ex. P 3. Balbirsingh (PW 1) must have shown reasons for his standing at point 1 and unless he could do so, his testimony, in the normal course, would not have been accepted as true. To meet this possible criticism, this whole part was invented. 13. The marriage card EX. P 14 must have been printed before the incident because there was no sense in getting it printed after the victims death. Now, Ex. P 14 was not produced during investigation. It was produced for the first time during trail on July 13, 1984 by PW 6 Rajendrasingh the real uncle of the deceased. 13. The marriage card EX. P 14 must have been printed before the incident because there was no sense in getting it printed after the victims death. Now, Ex. P 14 was not produced during investigation. It was produced for the first time during trail on July 13, 1984 by PW 6 Rajendrasingh the real uncle of the deceased. That shows that the invitation cards were not printed before the incident and they were printed only to create evidence to show that the marriage of the deceased was to take place on April 17, 1984 and the women folk or PW 1 Balbirsingh had gone to the house of Jogendrasingh and the witness was standing waiting for their return. 14. The motive alleged is that ten/twelve days before the incident, a quarrel took place between the deceased Sarvajeetsingh and the accused Sukha Singh, as stated by PW 2 Jogendrasingh. What was the quarrel had not been stated by him. It is again unfortunate that in F. I. R. EX. P 1, dictated by PW 2 Jogendrasingh, no mention of any quarrel between the deceased and accused Sukhasingh has been made. Apart from that, we are unable to conceive that on account of some petty quarrel and that too ten/twelve days before the incident, the accused would pounce over the deceased-victim and would forcibly take him incide his house to kill him. If they wanted to kill the deceased, he could have been easily shoutted when he happend to pass out-side their main gate. 15. PW 1 Balbirsingh, on seeing the deceased being forcibly taken in the house of accused Sukhasingh, remained inactive and raised no cries to attract the people of the locality to rescue the deceased. The witness stated that he heard the cries of Sarvajeet Singh "Maar Diya, Maar Diya" and yet he did nothing to rescue him. Instead, he went to the house of his brother Jogendrasingh to narrate the incident to him. After-all, the witness is the real uncle of the deceased victim Had he seen the appellants forcibly taking the deceased in the house of accused Sukhasingh and had he heard the deceaseds cries "Maar Diya, Maar Diya", it was expected that he must have raised cries and collected persons. After all, the place where he was standing is only a few feet away from the main gate of the house of accused Sukhasingh. After all, the place where he was standing is only a few feet away from the main gate of the house of accused Sukhasingh. Had he seen the incident, his immediate re action would have been to rush to the gate and to prevent the deceased being forcibly dragged. 16. The witness stated that when the deceased happended to pass out-side the main gate, the appellants were standing there as if waiting for the arrival of the deceased. We are unable to conceive that the appellants had any premonition for the arrival of the deceased so that they may over-power and take him inside the house. It is again strange that at that very time, this witness Balbirsingh (PW 1) was standing a few feet away Co-incidences are there in life, but when they pile-up, they create serious doubts and lead to the inference that they were all made-up and created to put in with the circumstances as the exigencies arose. 17. It is true that the F. I. R. is not the encyclopaedia of the prosecution case and is not the last word for it. But at the same time, the importance of the first information report cannot be overlooked. The omission of the material fact in the F. I R., on which depends the fate of the case, has serious consequences. No doubt, the ordinary presumption is that a witness speaking under an oath is truthful unless and until he is shown to be untruthful or unreliable. There is no presumption of perjury against oral testimony, but before acting upon such testimony, its credibility should be tested both intrinsically and extrin-sically. The testimony of PW 1 Balbirsingh has innumerable disturbing and disquieting features. He is a man of poor moral fibre. His testimony has question marks not one but many and not trivial but big and prominent. We are fully conscious that the testimony of a witness should not be arbitrarily rejected. But before the testimony of an ocular witness is accepted, it should be tested on the anvil of objectivity. The disturbing and disquieting features appearing in the testimony of the witness wash off its credibility. 18. It would be proper at this stage to take the version suggested by the appellants in their defence. The suggestion is that the deceased. Sarvajeetsingh intruded into the house of Hazoorsingh surreptitiously in that night. The disturbing and disquieting features appearing in the testimony of the witness wash off its credibility. 18. It would be proper at this stage to take the version suggested by the appellants in their defence. The suggestion is that the deceased. Sarvajeetsingh intruded into the house of Hazoorsingh surreptitiously in that night. He concealed himself in the garage shown by digit 6 in site plan EX. P 3. Hazoor Singh had young daughter Simarjeet Kaur (real sister of accused Sukhasingh). She was unmarried and 11/19 years in age at that time. The deceased was spotted in the garage by those who were present in the house. He tried to escape. He was assaulted and belaboured there. It was why blood stains were found out-side the garage and the deceaseds shoes and turban were also found there. 19. When the testimony of PW 1 Balbirsingh is not found reliable on the point that the appellants had forcibly dragged the deceased in the house of Hazoorsingh, the version put forward by the defence becomes highly probable. The presence of blood-stains and the turban and shoes of the deceased out-side the garage strongly suggest that the deceased had secretly intruded into the house when he was spotted, he was assaulted and belaboured by those who were present in the house. As we will see, the two eye witnesses Balbirsingh (PW 1) and Jogendra Singh (PW 2) did not state that the deceased was assaulted and belaboured out-side the garage. According to them, the deceased was assaulted, belaboured and killed in the Darwaja of the house shown by digit 4 in site plan EX. P 3. Taking all these factors into consideration, the probability is that the deceased had secretly intruded into the house of Hazoorsingh. The averment of PW 1 Balbirsingh that the deceased was over-powered by the appellants at the main gate of the house of Hazoorsingh and was forcibly taken into the house, does not stand to reason and we have no hesitation in rejecting that version. The first part of the incident, thus, does not stand proved. 20. The averment of PW 1 Balbirsingh that the deceased was over-powered by the appellants at the main gate of the house of Hazoorsingh and was forcibly taken into the house, does not stand to reason and we have no hesitation in rejecting that version. The first part of the incident, thus, does not stand proved. 20. Coming to the second part of the incident, the prosecution case is that when the deceased Sarvajeet Singh was forcibly dragged into the house by the appellants, three of them, viz., accused Jaskaransingh, Satpalsingh and Guru-charan Singh struck blows to him with lathis and Gandasa and accused Sukha Singh fired the gun which hit the deceased on his head and caused his death. The witnesses examined to prove this part of the incident are PW 1 Balbirsingh and PW 2 Jogendra Singh. PW 1 Balbirsingh deposed that when he saw the deceased being forcibly dragged into the house by the appellants, he went to the house of his brother Jogendra Singh (PW 2) and nanated him what he had seen. He and Jogendra Singh came outside the house of Hazoorsingh (wherein the incident had taken place) and raised cries to open the main gate. But the main gate was not opened. They heard the cries of the deceased Maar Diya, Maar Diya," From there, both of them went to the roof of the house of Balbirsingh (PW 1) situated contiguous to the house of Hazoorsingh. There is no permanent stairs-case to go to the roof. There is a wooden ladder which they used to go to the roof. From there they saw the incident. The deceased was in the Darwaja shown by mark 4 in site plan EX. P 3. The three accused Jaskaransingh, Satpalsingh and Gurucharan Singh were landing blows to the deceased with Gandasa and lathis. The victim fell down. Accused Sukha Singh fired a gun shot from a D. B. B. L. gun, which hit the victim, on his head and he died instantaneously on the spot. The same facts were stated by PW 2 Jogersdrasingh more or Jess in the same words. It cannot be gain-said that the victim Sarvajeet Singh was killed in the Darwaja of the house of Hazoorsingh. The pertinent question, however, is, who had killed him and whether these two witnesses has been his killing? 21. The same facts were stated by PW 2 Jogersdrasingh more or Jess in the same words. It cannot be gain-said that the victim Sarvajeet Singh was killed in the Darwaja of the house of Hazoorsingh. The pertinent question, however, is, who had killed him and whether these two witnesses has been his killing? 21. We have disbelieved the prosecution version relating to the first part of the incident that PW 1 Balbirsingh had seen the appellants forcibly taking the victim into the house of Hazoorsingh. We may add that the first part of the incident is the core of the prosecution case. If Balbirsingh (PW 1) had not seen the incident, the second part of the incident that he went to Jogendrasingh (PW 2), brought him out-side the main gate made efforts to get the main gate opened and from there they went to the roof of the house, from where they had seen the incident, becomes highly doubtful. The first part of the incident has been disbelieved and that is sufficient to pull the stone out of arch and therefore the whole fabric of the second part must fall to the ground. 22. Not only so, there are several other reasons to disbelieve the claim of these two eye witnesses to have seen the incident from the roof of the house of PW 1 Balbirsingh. The incident had taken place in the house situated in the inha, bitted locality. These two witnesses raised cries to get the main gate openedbut it attracted none and nobody came to their help. PW 1 Balbirsingh had stated that when the deceased was forcibly taken into the house and the main gate was closed, he heard his cries Maar Diya, Maar Diya. This shows that the infliction of injuries have started seen after the deceased was forcibly dragged into the house. PW 1 Balbirsingh thereafter went to the house of Jogendrasingh (PW 2), from where they again came to the main gate. They again heard the cries of the victim Maar Diya maar diya. It shows that the beating, which started earlier, continued when these two witnesses came to the main gate. From the main gate, both the witnesses went to the roof of the house of PW 1 Balbir Singh. It must have taken atleast some minutes. These two witnesses, after reaching the roof,saw that the appellants were beating the victim. It shows that the beating, which started earlier, continued when these two witnesses came to the main gate. From the main gate, both the witnesses went to the roof of the house of PW 1 Balbir Singh. It must have taken atleast some minutes. These two witnesses, after reaching the roof,saw that the appellants were beating the victim. We are unable to conceive that the beating, which started when the victim was forcibly taken into the house, continued for such a long time. Looking to the injuries of the victim, the infliction of the injuries must not have taken that much time. These two witnesses are the close relatives of the deceased-victim-one being the father and the other being the uncle. Had they seen the incident from the roof, their first reaction would have been to drop down in the house of Hazoorsingh by means of the wooden ladder to rescue the victim. PW 1 Balbirsingh had admitted in his cross-examination that when he, Jogendrasingh and Gurudeosingh went on the roof of his house, they did not raise any cries to attract the people. We again fail to understand their behaviour which is highly abnormal and unusual. They saw the deceased being killed and yet raised no cries to collect the people for help to prevent the incident. PW 1 Balbirsingh, in his cross-examination again admitted that none of them (PW 2 Jogendrasingh and Gurudeosingh) made any effort to enter the house of Hazoorsingh by means of the wooden lodder. They, thus, calmly continued to see the incident with stoic resignation and disenchantment. A normal person placed in their situation would not have reacted so. All these facts and circumstances, when properly evaluated, leave the irresistible impression that these two eye witnesses had not seen the incident of the killing of Sarvajeetsingh. 23. PW 1 Balbirsingh stated, in his cross-examination, that he, Jogendrasingh (PW 2) and their brother Gurdeo Singh went to their another brother PW 6 Rajendrasingh and narrated the incident to him. When the first information report EX. P 1 was being written, he (PW 1 Balbirsingh) went to the Sarpanch and narrated the incident to him. The Sarpanch is PW 7 Harnamsingh. Curiously enough, PW 7 Harnamsingh does not corroborate this fact that PW 1 Balbirsingh went to him and apprised him of the incident. When the first information report EX. P 1 was being written, he (PW 1 Balbirsingh) went to the Sarpanch and narrated the incident to him. The Sarpanch is PW 7 Harnamsingh. Curiously enough, PW 7 Harnamsingh does not corroborate this fact that PW 1 Balbirsingh went to him and apprised him of the incident. That shows that PW 1 Balbirsingh never went to PW 7 Harnamsingh and did not narrate the incident to him. If Balbirsingh (PW 1), had gone to the Sarpanch Harnamsingh (PW 7), it could have afforded the best corroboration to his (Balbirsingh) testimony. After all, the witness is the medium and instrument to ascertain the truth. If that medium or instrument fails, the truth cannot be ascertained. There can be no cut and dried or set formulae for assessing and evaluating the evidence of the eye witnesses. The evidence of an eye witness, as we pointed out earlier, is to be tested on the anvil of objectivity. The objectivity, which should be generally adopted, is the normal human conduct and behaviour. When the close relatives like father and uncle of the deceased-victim, do nothing to rescue him, raise no cries to attract the people for help and remain cool bystanders, the natural inference would be that they had not seen the incident. Had they seen the incident, they would not have acted in the manner like that of PW 1 Balbir Singh, PW 2 Jogendrasingh and their brother Gurudeosingh, who has not been examined by the prosecution. The evidence of the two eye witnesses stands completely eroded, shattered and washed off. They had not seen the killing of Sarvajeet Singh. 24. The incident had, no doubt, took place in the house of Hazoorsingh. What appears is that the deceased Sarvajeet Singh surreptitiously intruded into that house. Hazoorsingh and his elder son Dharampalsingh were not there in the house as they had gone to Kesarsinghpura to sell their cotton. Hazoor Singhs daughter Simarjeet Kaur, aged about 18/19 years, was there in the house. The deceased Sarvajeet Singh was spotted in the house. He was thereafter killed by gun-shot and other weapons. His assailants must be more than one. We are, however, unable to say as to who were those killers. There was no occasion for accused Jaskaransingh, Satpalsingh and Gurcharansingh to be in the house of Hazoorsingh at that unusual time. The deceased Sarvajeet Singh was spotted in the house. He was thereafter killed by gun-shot and other weapons. His assailants must be more than one. We are, however, unable to say as to who were those killers. There was no occasion for accused Jaskaransingh, Satpalsingh and Gurcharansingh to be in the house of Hazoorsingh at that unusual time. Accused Sukhasingh might or might not have been there when the victim was killed. When the question of "may" arises, it does not prove the charge against the culprit. PW 1 Balbir Singh and PW 2 Jogendrasingh had neither seen the first part nor the second part of the incident. We are unable to ascertain from the prosecution evidence that those who killed the deceased Sarvajeetsingh were the appellants. The charges against them do not stand established. They are, therefore, entitled to acquittal. 25. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The convictions of accused Jaskaransingh, Satpalsingh, Gurucharan Singh and Sukhasingh alias Sukhapal Singh under sections 302/34 and 364/34, I. P. C. and the sentences passed thereunder are set-aside. They are acquitted of the said offences. They are in jail and shall 1 be forthwith set at liberty if not wanted in any other case.