Judgment Narinder Singh Rao, J. 1. Yamuna Prasad, Chirai Mahato, Balram Singh, and Bhekhraj Mahato (etc.), appellants Nos. 1 to 8 respectively, stand convicted under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and each of them has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Appellants Nos. 1,2, 3, 5 and 6 have also been convicted under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Appellant Nos. 1,2,3,4, 7 and 8 have also been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years each under Sec. 148 of Indian Penal Code and appellants Nos. 5 and 6 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years each under Sec. 147 of Indian Penal Code. Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 stand further convicted under Sec. 324 of Indian Penal Code, and each of them sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years each under that charge. Appellants Nos. 5 and 6 have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each under Sec. 323 of Indian Penal Code. However, the sentences of all these appellants have been ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved, they preferred this appeal. 2. The prosecution version, in brief, is that on 11-11-1978 from 9-00 a.m. onward, the informant Md. Latif P.W. 23 along with his family members and near relations Subhan Mian P. W. 22, Zakir Mian P.W. 6, Shahadat P.W. 4, Noor Md. P.W. 10, Qudir Mian P.W. 12, Mahendra Donda P.W. 21, Sharifan Khatoon P.W. 17, Kisuma KluitotmP.W.18, Mumtaz Begum P.W.20, Zaibun Khatodn P.W. 161 Saibu Nishat P.W. 14, Jamila Khatoon P.W. 15, and Zubeda Khatoon P.W. 19, all P. Ws., Mansoor Mian and Kale, both deceased, as also Rafique Mian, Jirwa, Fatwah Khatoon, Shakila Khatoon and others were cutting and taking away paddy from Belwa Dohar within the revenue estate of village Zilonga when the eight appellants along with their eighteen companions namely Jang Bahadnr, Hamlal, Nattdtti, Rebu Mahato, Jagat, Vijay Bahadur, Udho Yada:v, Loknath, Fateh Bahadur, Yugal Kishore, Nageswar, Jira alias Girwar, Mahabir Pandey, Mahabir Mahato. Kale, Mahato, Ramnandan and Sohan Mistry, since acquitted, and Ayodhya prasad Singh, since dead, had arrived there at 2-00 p.m. armed with guns, swords, Gandasa and lathis. Ramnandan, Mahabir Mahato and Rebu Mahato as also the appellant Nos. 2 and 7 were then armed with guns. Ayodhya Pd. Singh, Jagat Mahato, Vi jay. Kale, Mahato, Ramnandan and Sohan Mistry, since acquitted, and Ayodhya prasad Singh, since dead, had arrived there at 2-00 p.m. armed with guns, swords, Gandasa and lathis. Ramnandan, Mahabir Mahato and Rebu Mahato as also the appellant Nos. 2 and 7 were then armed with guns. Ayodhya Pd. Singh, Jagat Mahato, Vi jay. Bahadur and Udho Mahato as also the appellant Nos. 1,3, 4 and 8 were armed with swords and Gandasas and their remaining companions with lathis. After reaching the spot, Ramnandan and appellant No.7 had fired shots at Mansoor Mian resulting in his death. Kale, the other deceased, had received injuries at the hands of appellant Nos. 7 and 8. P.W. 22 was caused injuries by appellant Nos. 1 and 3. P.W. 6 had been injured because of the shot fired by appellant No.2. P. W. 21 had received injuries because of the short fired at him by appellant No.8. P.W. 10 was injured by appellant No.6 and P. W. 9 by appellant No.5. On hulla raised by the above named members of the informant party, Ramzan Mian, Yusuf Mian, Abbas Mian, Bandhu, Giru, Ramu, Prahma etc. had arrived and they had also seen the occurrence. The reason for opening assault on the members of the informant party was that they were in possession of the land, which they had previously purchased through registered deed. Regarding that crime, P.W. 23 had made a fardbeyan Ext. 5 before A.S.1. Ram Kumar Singh P.W.24 on the same day at 3-30 p.m. On the basis of that statement, formal F.I.R. Ext. 4 ws registered in Police Station Balumath on the same day at 9 a.m. Investigations were carried out and after completion of the same, the appellants along with their above named companions were chargesheeted. Ayodhya Prasad Singh, one of the named accused, had subsequently died, and the rest of the co-accused of the appellants have since been acquitted. Therefore, only the appellants have convicted and sentenced in the manner stated above. 3. Dr. S.N. Sanyal P.W. had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Kale on 12-11- 1978 at 1-00 p.m. and had found the ante-mortem injuries on the same as follows: A nearly oval incised wound of about 2.5" x 1" was found in the right hypochondria with inverted edge, coils of small intestine was protruding out of the wound. Dr. S.N. Sanyal P.W. had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Kale on 12-11- 1978 at 1-00 p.m. and had found the ante-mortem injuries on the same as follows: A nearly oval incised wound of about 2.5" x 1" was found in the right hypochondria with inverted edge, coils of small intestine was protruding out of the wound. A linear incised wound in from of left shoulder 3" x 1/8" x subcutaneous tissue deep with tailing from above downwards. He had further opined that the death was caused by shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries which were caused by sharp cutting weapons and pointed weapons and homicidal in nature. He also proved the post-mortem examination report (Ext. 6) written and signed by him. Dr. S.N. Sanyal P.W. had also stated that on that clay at 1 p.m. he had conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of Mansoor Mian and had found the following ante-mortem injuries: (i) Perforated wound on right chest wall in front of the 4th fib, about 1/5" from the lateral border sternum-1/3" in 1 diametre circular with inverted edge. The surrounding skin showed blackening and searching. (ii) Punctured wound on left shoulder infront nearly circular-1/3% in diameter with lackening for the surrounding skin." (iii) Punctured wound about 2" lateral to wound No. (ii) about 1/4" in diameter with blackening of skin wound. He also opined that the injuries were caused by gun shots and they were homicidal in nature. The gun shots were fired from a very close range. He had also proved the post-mortem examination report of the deceased Mansoor Mian. The postmortem examination report is Ext 6/1. 4. The prosecution, for proving its case, had examined Musafir Mian P.W. 1, Md. Nehal Mian P.W. 2, A.K, Vishwakarma P.W. 3 Shahadat P.W. 4, Sharif Mian P.W. 5, Zakir Miari P.W. 6, Md. Saddique P.W. 7, Md. Raquib P.W. 9, Noor Md. P.W. 10, Md. Jamal P.W. 11, Md. Quadir P.W. 12, Dr. AN. Sanyal P.W. 13, Saibu Nishat P.W. 14, Jamila P.W. 15, Zaibu Nishat P.W. 16, Sharifan Khatoon P.W. 17, Kisuma Khatoon P.W. 18,ZubedaKhatoonP.W. 19, Mumtaz Begam P.W. 20, Mahendra Donda P.W. 21, Md. Subhan P.W. 22, Md. Latif P.W. 23, S.I. Ram Kumar P.W. 24, and inspector Mahendra Ram P.W. 25. Cut of these witnesses, the evidence of P.Ws. 1,2,3, and 5 was formal in character. Subhan P.W. 22, Md. Latif P.W. 23, S.I. Ram Kumar P.W. 24, and inspector Mahendra Ram P.W. 25. Cut of these witnesses, the evidence of P.Ws. 1,2,3, and 5 was formal in character. P.W. 2 and 5 had attested the inquest report and P.W. 3 had proved the signatures of the scribe on the F.I.R. P.W. 1 had attested the seizure memo Ext. 1 wide which blood stained earth etc. were collected from the place of occurrence. P.W. 8 had turned hostile to the prosecution. P.Ws. 12, 14, 16, 18 and 19 were only tendered for cross-examination: 5. The appellants in their examination, like their co-accused, had denied the prosecution allegation, and Slated that they were innocent. They had alleged their false implication in the case due to serious enmity. They had examined Gobind Lal, Dr. R.L. Prasad, Gobind Mahato, Dr. R.K. Prasad, Ganesh Mochi, Vinset Lakra, Basant Pandey, Sukra Draon, Doman Thakur and Srikant Sahai D.Ws. 1 to 10 respectively, as their witnesses. Out of them, the evidence of Dws, 1, 3, 5, and 6 was with respect to the pleas of alibi as put forward by Jang Bahadur and Hemlal, whose names were alleged as culprits mentioned in the F.I.R. The evidence of these D.Ws. has been accepted by the Trial Court holding that Jang Bahadur and Hemlal, both teachers, were actually on their duties on the day of the occurrence, and had not participated in the crime. Appellant No. 8 had also examined D.Ws. 2 and 4, both doctors, and D.W. 8 in support of his plea of alibi, but the same has not been found sufficient by the Trial Court for holding that the appellant No.8 had not participated in the occurrence. The remaining D.Ws. had proved various documents exhibited by the defence at trial. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, and the learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the Slate, as also going through the record, I am of the considered view that there is merit in this appeal, and the same deserves to succeed. 7. It has remained undisputed that Mansoor Mian had received fatal gun shot injuries, and Kale fatel sharp pointed weapon injuries at or near Belwa Dohar land situated within the revenue estate of village Jilonga some-times after 12-00 noon on 11-11-1978. 7. It has remained undisputed that Mansoor Mian had received fatal gun shot injuries, and Kale fatel sharp pointed weapon injuries at or near Belwa Dohar land situated within the revenue estate of village Jilonga some-times after 12-00 noon on 11-11-1978. There is also no denying that they along with their named companions were then busy in harvesting and taking away the paddy crop from those fields. Now the prosecution case is that the appellants had committed their murders, apart from causing injuries to quite a few others of their companions. From the side of the defence, a case of denial simpliciter was put forward. Like Jang Bahadur and Hemlal appellant No. 8 had also put forward his plea of alibi, although it is a different matter that the same, with regard to Jang Bahadur and Hemlal, was accepted and not with respect to this appellant. The material question for determination is to see as to if satisfactory evidence is available on the record to bring home the guilt against the appellants. 8. Record speak that one Dilbasia Bibi, w/o Hauri Miana brother of the informants ancestor Jhari Mian, was the recorded tenant Khata No. 24 of village Jilonga. She had sold 5.45.25 acres of land out of the said khata to Fatima Bibi w/o Sheikh Naibu Mian by means of registered sale deed Ext. NC on 5-1-1961. Fatima Bibi had, thereafter, relinquished that land in favour of her husband Nabu Mian by executing a registered sale deed Ext. H. on 9-6-1961. Subsequently, she had sold major portion of that land to appellant No.7, his co-accused Ramnandan, and to Devnandan and Bandhu Mahato wide registered sale deed Ext. NB dated 7 -6-1976. The remaining land was sold by Nabu Mian to Kale Charan and Vinay Bahadur, also named as accused wide registered sale dead Ext. A and NB on 20-8- 1973. After purchasing the land in that manner, the appellants had taken merits possession. Even in the F.I.R. Ext. 5, it was stated by the informant that the appellants were claiming that land tohave been purchased by them. The informant had admitted in cross-examination that the appellants case was that they had purchased that land from Nabu Mian. P.W s. 11 and 22 had also testified regarding the claim of the appellants in their evidence. 5, it was stated by the informant that the appellants were claiming that land tohave been purchased by them. The informant had admitted in cross-examination that the appellants case was that they had purchased that land from Nabu Mian. P.W s. 11 and 22 had also testified regarding the claim of the appellants in their evidence. Now no prosecution witness had maintained that he, or for that matter any member of the informant party, had sown the paddy which was still not ripe, but was being harvested in a quick and haphazard manner on the day of the occurrence. Even in the F.I.R. Ext. 5, the fact was not specifically mentioned that the informant party had sown that crop. On the other hand, P.W.8 the village chaukidar had admitted that the land was in possession of the appellants and that they had sown the paddy in the same, in the year of the occurrence as well. P.W. 2, the informant, was duly confronted with his previous Police Station, wherein he had not stated that he, or any other members of his party, had sown the paddy. They, there is no mariner of doubt that the fields from which, not fully ripe paddy was being out stealthily as quickly as possible, in a haphazard manner, had belonged to the appellants and that crop was also theirs. 9. The appellants party sensing danger to the harvesting of their paddy-crop at the hands of the informant party and their musclemen, had apprised the matter to Madan Mohan, the Mukhiya, on 10- 11-1978 vide their complaint Ext. 8. That complaint was made by Kalicharan and Vijay Bahadur, Since acquitted. The mukhiva had made his endorsement thereon certifying that its containts were correct and had presented the same in the Police Station on 11-11-1978, the day of the occurrence, at 11-30 p.m. P.W. 24, the investigating officer, had thereupon made Entry regarding Ext. 8 in the station diary and then left the Police Station at 1-30 p.m. for the land in the question in his jeep. He had arrived there shortly after 3-00 p.m., but prior to that, the occurrence had already taken place. 10. P.W. 23 is an areh enemy of the appellants. He was described as the main trouble-maker by Kalicharan and Vijay Bahadur, since acquitte, in their report Ext. 8 duly endorsed by the village mukhiya. He had arrived there shortly after 3-00 p.m., but prior to that, the occurrence had already taken place. 10. P.W. 23 is an areh enemy of the appellants. He was described as the main trouble-maker by Kalicharan and Vijay Bahadur, since acquitte, in their report Ext. 8 duly endorsed by the village mukhiya. Had he been at the spot at the time of the occurrence, he would not have been spared. Like many of his coleagues, he would have also sustained injuries. It is not the prosecution case that because of receipt of their injuries, all the injured P.Ws. had become incapable of making their statements. Therefore, one out of them could have become an informant in the case before the police, but instead of P.W. 23, to whom not even a scratch was caused, had come forward to become the informant. He appears to have taken full advantage by falsily implicating his all possible enemies. He had named amongst the culprits those innocent persons, like Jang Bhadur and Hemlal, who have been proved to be not at the place of occurrence, then, but attending to their duties in their respective schools. It having been found that the informant (P.W. 23) had falsely implicated eyen innocent persons as culprits in the case, his entire version contained in the F.I.R. Ext. 5 deserves to be rejected on that score alone. Now although Ext. 5 was stated to have been made at the spot at 3-30 p.m. on the day of the occurrence, but I have serious doubts if it was taken down at that time. The special report had reached the hands of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate as late as on 14-11-1978. No explanation was put forward by the prosecution for explaining the delay, which appears to have been fully utilized by the informant and the police in giving shape to the prosecution case by implicating innocent persons and introducing the names of false eye-witnesses. 11. Almost all the P.Ws. examined are closely related inter se. Father of P.W. 12 (the-husband of P.W. 14), was a brother of the father of P.W. 6 as also that of P.Ws. 9, 22 and 23. P.W. 16 is the wife of P.W. 22 and P.W. 17 that of P.W. 23. P.W. 18 is the wife of P.W. 6. P.W. 20s husband is the brother of P.W. 6, and Mansoor Mian deceased her son. 9, 22 and 23. P.W. 16 is the wife of P.W. 22 and P.W. 17 that of P.W. 23. P.W. 18 is the wife of P.W. 6. P.W. 20s husband is the brother of P.W. 6, and Mansoor Mian deceased her son. Kale, the deceased was the maternal uncle of Mansoor Mian deceased and P.W. 21 is the first cousin. P.W. 7 had admitted that the informant is his brother in relationship. In the given circumstances, the evidence bf all these P.Ws. did require independent corroboration, but the same, although available is lacking. In the F.I.R., it was stated that Ramzan Yusuf, Abbas, Bandhu, Giru, Ramu, Brahma, etc. had seen the occurrence but none out of them, had been examined by the prosecution. 12. Even otherwise the evidence of the P.W. 2, examined does not inspire any confidence. P.W. 20 was ot amongst those, who were mentioned as having received the injuries in the F.I.R. Still the informant would say so at trial. The medical officer, who is stated to have conducted the examination of the injured P.Ws. was not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, it is anybodys guess as to if these witnesses had actually received injuries. They, in the given circumstances, cannot be described as stamped witnesses. These so-called injured P.Ws. and for that matter other eye witnesses also, had not stated at trial that Ramnandan and fired any shot at Mansoor Mian. This was inspite of the fact that Ramnandan was described as the first person to have fired shot during the course of the occurrence at Mansoor Main. The prosecution was required to explain as to why they had not stated about that part played by Ramnandan, but it was not explained. The matter cannot be left at the whims of the interested P. Ws. to name or not to name any person as culprit as per their choise. P.W. 6 had stated that Ramnandan had taken no part in the occurrence. He (P.W. 6) had fled away when the crime was still being committed but he would depose about his returning after about ten to fifteen minutes. The other injured witness P.W. 9 had given a gun in the hands of one Suraj, who was not name as culprit in case. He had admitted that excepting appellant No.7, he was not in a position to identity anybody else. The other injured witness P.W. 9 had given a gun in the hands of one Suraj, who was not name as culprit in case. He had admitted that excepting appellant No.7, he was not in a position to identity anybody else. He (P.W. 9) had made an astounding statement by deposing that Kalicharan, Jang Bahad of and Ramnandan were no where to be seen during the course of the crime and they were as such not the culprits in the case. That was inspite of the fact that they were named culprits in the F.I.R., where in it was clearly stated that Ramnandan had fired the first shot causing injuries to Mansoor Mian. P.W.9 had admitted that he had made statement before the police after quite a few days. P.W. 9 was duly confronted with his previous police statement, where he had not described appellant No.7 as the assailant of Mansoor Mian and P.W. 21 and appellant Nos. 4 and 8 as those of Kale. Similarly, P.W. 1 0, yet another so called injured witness had admitted that he had pot appeared before the police on the date of the occurrence for making his statement. He had also stated at trial that excepting for appellant No.7, he could not identify any other accused persons. He rather had stated that the remaining persons, then in the dock, had not participated in the occurrence. He had admitted that he had made statement before the police after a few days and earlier thereto had not told anybody about the occurrence. P.W. 21 hails from a different place situate at far-off distance. He personally had not known any of the culprits. No test parade was got arrange for his identifying them. He had admitted that he had not stated before the police that P.Ws. 6, 20 and 22 had received injuries during the course of the occurrence. P. W. 22 had not named appellant Nos. 5 and 6 at the trial, nor had he identified them. His version stands contradicted by other P.Ws, to the effect that in addition to appellant Nos. 1 and 3, he had been caused injuries by many of their companions. He had not described the assailants of his other colleagues. He had claimed that he was the first to receive the injuries, when the prosecution version is otherwise. His version stands contradicted by other P.Ws, to the effect that in addition to appellant Nos. 1 and 3, he had been caused injuries by many of their companions. He had not described the assailants of his other colleagues. He had claimed that he was the first to receive the injuries, when the prosecution version is otherwise. He had at last admitted that he could not name even his own assailant. He was confronted with his police statement where he had not mentioned the name of appellant No. 2 and further had not stated about receiving any injury by P.W. 20. 13. The evidence of the remaining so called eye-witnesses, P.Ws.4, 7,11,15, 16 and 17 none out of whom was stated to have received injuries also deserves to be rejected. P.W. 4 was confronted with the police statement, wherein he had stated that he had fled away from the spot when the occurrence was about to commence. In that statement he had not stated that the guns were With Debu, Mahabir and appellant No. 2. He had not specified the arms carried by the other culprits. In that statement except for causing injuries to Mansoor Mian, he had not stated in that be half with respect to any other person. P.W. 7 had not named appellant Nos. 5 and 6 at trial. He had deposed that after Mansoor Mian and P.W. 22 had received injuries, he had if led away. P.W. 7 was confronted with police statement wherein he had not stated that appellant no. 2 had a gun. Then appellants No. 3 and 4 were armed with swords and appellant Nos. 1 and 8 were carrying Gandasas, P.W. 11 had admitted that he had appeared before the police for making statement after about six to seven days of the occurrence. P.W. 15 had admitted that he had fled away prior to the commencement of the occurrence. He had admitted that as there was a big crowd, he could not see as to who had killed Mansoor Mian; P.W. 17had also admitted that she had fled away before the occurrence had commenced. She had not identified any occurrence in the dock, but had only pointed to appellant no. 7 as one of the culprits. She was confronted with her police statement, wherein she had not stated that the appellant no. She had not identified any occurrence in the dock, but had only pointed to appellant no. 7 as one of the culprits. She was confronted with her police statement, wherein she had not stated that the appellant no. 7 had fired shot with his gun at Mansoor Mian, that appellant Nos. 4 and 8 had caused Gandasa injuries to Kale and that appellant no. 1 had given Gandasa blows to P.W. 22. She had stated in that statement that Rabu and one outsider bad first shot at Mansoor Mian and she had. fled away out of fear. The investigation of the case had remained till 14-11-1978 with P.W. 24, P.W. 15 had not appeared before him for making her statement. Her statement was recorded by P.W. 25 on 18-11-1978. P.W. 25 had denied the charge that investigation, earlier conducted by P.W. 24, was a biased one in favour of the appellants. P. W. 25 had stated that there was no reference regarding that charge and the same was thus not mentioned even in the police diary. 14. Even the medical evidence adduced is in direct contradiction to the so called eye-witnesses. According to these witnesses, appellant No.1 was the only culprit who had fired just one shot at Mansoor Mian. However, P.W.13, Dr. S.N. Sanyal had opined that those injuries of Mansoor Mian were the result of three separate shots. Again P.W. 13 had opined that sharp pointed weapons, like Bhalas, were used in giving penetrated wounds of Kale, but that is not the prosecution case. P.W. 13 had opined that Kales injuries were not the result of blows from Gandasas. Again, P.W. 23, the informant, had stated that Mansoor Mian P.W. was fired at three to four times in quick succession from the front and at the time he was standing behind six to seven women members of his family. Not even one out of these ladies had surprisingly received any fire-arm injury. 15. For reasons stated above, the prosecution having remaining unsuccessful in proving its case beyond all shadow of doubt, to say the least, this appeal succeeds and is hereby accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside, and they are acquitted of the charges. Appellants No. 1,2, 3, 5 and 6 are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled, and they are discharged from the liabilities of the same. The conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside, and they are acquitted of the charges. Appellants No. 1,2, 3, 5 and 6 are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled, and they are discharged from the liabilities of the same. Appellant No. 4 (Krishna Singh) appellant No.7 (Yaswant, Mahato alias Yasoda Yadav) and appellant No.8 Bhekhraj Mahato alias Bhekhraj Yadav are in custody. They are ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with any other case (s).