Judgment S.N. Jha, J. The appellant no. 1 is the son of appellant no. 2. 2. Appellant no. 1 has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "the Penal Code") and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has further been convicted under section 201 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand) and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for nine months. Appellant no. 2 has been convicted under Section 302/304 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under Section 201 of the Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (one thousand) and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for nine months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The informant, Ashok Kumar Singh, (P.W. 1) lodged a first information report (Ext. 4) on 9.12.1977 at about 1.00 P.M. alleging, inter alia, that on the same day at about 11.30 A.M. he had gone to see his field for bundling the harvested paddy crops situated in Barah Khanda in village Kalyan Bigha within the Harnaut Police Station in the district of Nalanda, which he has given to deceased Dharambir Singh, son of Shankar Singh of Village-Barah on Bataidari on the basis of 1/3 share. It is alleged that Appellant no. 1. Dharambir Singh, son of Rajo Singh (Appellant no. 2) came there and told the deceased Dharambir Singh, who had also gone with the informant (P.W. 1), to carry the harvested paddy crops to his (Appellant no. 1) house, as he has filed a Title Suit in respect of the said land. On this it is said that the information P.W. 1 replied that as the land belongs to him, why the paddy bundles will be carried to his (Appellant no. 1) house. The deceased also told the appellant that since he has taken the land from the informant on 1/3 share on Batai, he would carry the bundles at his (informant) Darwaja. It is alleged that there was some altercation between them and thereafter appellant no. 1. Dharambir Singh went to his village. 4. 1) house. The deceased also told the appellant that since he has taken the land from the informant on 1/3 share on Batai, he would carry the bundles at his (informant) Darwaja. It is alleged that there was some altercation between them and thereafter appellant no. 1. Dharambir Singh went to his village. 4. The further case of the prosecution is that the informant (P.W. 1) along with deceased Dharambir Singh proceeded towards the village of the deceased for taking lunch and when they reached on the ALANG of Kalyan Bigha west of his field he heard the sound of gun firing and saw the deceased Dharambir Singh who was coming behind sustaining gun shot injuries on his back and he fell down. It was further alleged that Appellant no. 1. Dharambir Singh, and his father Appellant no. 2. Rajo Singh were armed with gun and Bhala respectively. The informant again heard the sound of another firing and he came down the ALANO by roling himself in order to save his life. He further heard the sound of 2-3 firings and fled towards his house. When the informant turned behind, he noticed that both the appellants alongwith two unknown persons were carrying the dead body of Dharambir Singh towards north. The informant has named Surendra Singh (P.W. 2) another Ashok Kumar Singh (P.W. 3). Mallu Singh (P.W. 4) and Chhote Singh @ Nalin Singh (P.W. 5) to have witnessed the occurrence; Out of fear none of them chased the appellants, but in the way he learnt that the family members of the deceased alongwith some other persons had gone to trace out the dead body. He proceeded towards the police station and learnt that Dharambir died on the spot. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid first information report a case was registered against the appellants alongwith two unknown persons. 6. After registering the case the Investigating Officer went to the place of occurrence on the same day at about 4.00 p.m. and took the possession of the dead body minus head from a place about 800 yard west of village Birju Milki and about a mile north of AHRA of Kalyan Bigha. The headless body was identified as the dead body of Dharambir Singh, son of Shankar Singh of village-Barah. 7. The Investigating Officer, who has not been examined in this case, prepared the Inquest Report (Ext. The headless body was identified as the dead body of Dharambir Singh, son of Shankar Singh of village-Barah. 7. The Investigating Officer, who has not been examined in this case, prepared the Inquest Report (Ext. 3) before the witnesses, namely. Ram Pravesh Singh (P.W. 6) and Ram Jatan Singh (not examined). The headless body was sent to the Sadar Hospital, Bihar-sharif, for post mortem examination, Dr. Neelamber Singh (P.W. 7) held the post mortem examination on 10.12.1977, the following day of the occurrence. The Police after completing the investigation Submitted the charge sheet against the appellants on the basis of which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 8. The learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Bihar-sharif on consideration of the entire evidence available on the record held that the prosecution was able to prove the charges against the appellants and accordingly he convicted and sentenced them, as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 9. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants has examined as many as 8 witnesses. Out of them P.W. 1 is the informant himself and P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are said to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 6 is a witness on the inquest report. P.W. 7 is the doctor who held post mortem examination. P.W. 8, a lawyer's clerk, is a formal witness who has proved the first information report. Curiously enough, the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case for the reasons best known to the prosecution. 10. Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants cannot be sustained in law as the evidences of the prosecution witnesses have been disapproved by the circumstances appearing on the record and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer is a serion lacuna and has caused great prejudice to the appellants. It was further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the manner of occurrence alleged by it. 11. In support of his contention he has drawn my attention to the evidences of the informant as well as other prosecution witnesses, who have claimed to have seen the occurrence. It was further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the manner of occurrence alleged by it. 11. In support of his contention he has drawn my attention to the evidences of the informant as well as other prosecution witnesses, who have claimed to have seen the occurrence. According to the prosecution Case, as alleged in the first information report, the informant had gone to see his field alongwith his Bataidar deceased Dharambir on the date of occurrence, where the bundling of the harvested paddy crop was going on. At that time appellant no. 1, Dharambir Singh, came empty handed and asked the deceased to carry the bundles at his (appellant no. 1) darwaja. This was followed by some altercation and then appellant no. 1 Dharambir Singh, went to his house. The informant (P.W. 1) alongwith deceased proceeded towards the village of the deceased for taking their lunch and when they reached on an ALANG and proceeded towards his village, he heard the sound of gun firing and when the informant turned behind, he saw the deceased Dharambir who was coming behind, sustaining gun shot injuries on his back who fell down there. The informant also heard another sound of gun fire and in order to save his life he rolled down himself from the ALANG. He further heard 2-3 firing sounds and fled towards his house. While fleeing away he turned behind and saw the appellants alongwith two unknown persons carrying the dead body towards north. 12. P.W. 1 has deposed in the court that on the date of occurrence he along with Bataidar deceased Dharambir had gone to the field at about 9-30 a.m for bundling the harvested paddy to bring at his (informant) darwaja. At that time appellant no. 1, Dharambir Singh, Ion of Rajo Singh of Kalyan Bigha come there and asked that since a Title Suit is pending in the court in respect of the said land, he will take the bundles to his (appellant no. 1) house. The informant alongwith the deceased Bataidar did not agree and then there was some altercation and appellant no. 1 went towards his village. The informant alongwith the deceased proceeded to take lunch at the house of the deceased and when they reached near a BANDH he heard the sound of gun firing at about 11.00 A.M. and as he turned behind he saw appellant no. 1 went towards his village. The informant alongwith the deceased proceeded to take lunch at the house of the deceased and when they reached near a BANDH he heard the sound of gun firing at about 11.00 A.M. and as he turned behind he saw appellant no. 1 and 2 armed with gun and Bhala respectively alongwith two other persons whom he did not identify. According to him, the firing hit the deceased and he fell down. He immediately fled away after rolling himself. While he was fleeing, he saw appellants alongwith two unknown persons carrying the dead body. He has further stated in the court that P.Ws. 2, 3. 4 and 5 also came there on the sound of gun firing. None of them followed the appellants who were carrying the dead body as they were dangerous men. 13. The informant came to his house and thereafter went to the police station and gave the fard beyan. According to his statement, the Investigating Officer proceeded with him towards the place of occurrence. In the way they found the dead body at a place which was one mile north to Kalyan Bigha and 800 yards to village Birjumilki. The dead body was identified by Awadh Singh, Anil Singh and Babin, who were not examined. The Investigating Officer prepared the Inquest Report and P.W. 6 and one Ram Jeevan Singh (not examined) put their signature on the same. The dead body was headless. 14. He has further stated in the court that the aforesaid Title Suit ended in compromise. He has further stated that the aforesaid two witnesses were near the dead body from before and many persons were assembled there, whom he did not identify. No blood was there. From the evidence of P.W. 1 it appears that the appellants belong to village Kalyan Bigha and the informant belongs to village-Brah. This witness has stated that his village Brah is at a distance of 2 k.m. south west from Barah Khanda and village-Kalyan Bigha is at a distance of one k.m. west from there Village Nanda Bigha is at a distance of about 2 k.m. south east, and village Birjumilki is at a distance of about 3 k.m. north east from Barah Khandhs. The dead body was at a distance of about 1½/2 k.m. north cast corner from Bahera Khanda. The dead body was at a distance of about 1½/2 k.m. north cast corner from Bahera Khanda. The disputed field is in Bahcra Khanda where the altercation took place between the deceased and the informant on the one side and the appellant no. 1 on the other, according to the prosecution case. Round about Bahera Khanda there are ALANGS which are at a height of 2½ meters from the field. There are Baba's on the western side of the ALANG which is 1¼ meter in width and ½ meter in depth. 15. From the evidence of this witness, I find that the informant's village at a distance of 2 k.m. south west and appellant's village is at a distance of one k.m. west from the place of occurrence.' After altercation appellant no. 1 proceeded towards his village towards west and informant also started to take his lunch as the house of the deceased towards south west from the place of occurrence. P.W. 1 has stated in his evidence that the firing was shot from behind. It was vehemently argued on behalf of the appellants that when after altercation appellant no. 1 also went to his village, i.e. he proceeded towards west and informant also alongwith the deceased proceeded towards south west i.e. to the same direction, it is not understandable how the firing was shot from behind, by appellant no. 1. The informant's further statement is that he heard the sound of gun firing and saw accused appellants Dharambir armed with gun and his father Rajo Singh armed with Bhala and there were two other unknown persons, whom he did not identify. When appellant Dharambir was there empty handed and proceeded towards west how appellant no. 1 alongwith other persons including appellant no. 2 came there armed. It was argued that the manner of occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution, does not fit in with the evidence of P.W. 1 the informant. 16. In his deposition P.W. 1 has also stated that previously there was no dispute between him and the accused persons regarding growing and harvesting of the crops. There was also no dispute regarding the division of the crops. The disputed field lies in the south west portion of Barah Khanda. 16. In his deposition P.W. 1 has also stated that previously there was no dispute between him and the accused persons regarding growing and harvesting of the crops. There was also no dispute regarding the division of the crops. The disputed field lies in the south west portion of Barah Khanda. The other persons have also got lands in the said Khanda, but this witness could not be able to say the names of the persons whose fields are lying there. He has said that towards east of this Khanda there is a field of one Ramanugrah Singh of Kalyan Bigha. He has further said that in same plots the crops had already been harvested. He has also stated that be had never visited the disputed field where the bundling of the harvested paddy was going on prior to the date of occurrence. He has stated that there were none except the ten labourers, who were lying down the harvested paddy. In paragraph no. 15 of his deposition, he has said that appellant no. 1, came there empty handed just after five minutes of their arrival on the field. The altercation took place for 20-25 minutes. At that time none of village Kalyan came there. He heard the first sound while he was on the western Alang of the Baha. When he turned east he did not find any injured person there. Then again he said, that he saw deceased Dharambir felling down west to him. 17. P.W. 2 has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 11.30 A.M. he was going to his village Barah from village Birjumilki and when he reached on the ALANG of Barah Khandha, he saw informant (P.W. 1) and the deceased Dharambir, going on the same ALANG. He saw that appellant no. 1, Dharambir Singh, son of Rajo Singh fired, which hit the back of the deceased, Dharambir ion of Shankar Singh. The deceased Dharambir fell down. He also claimed to have seen appellant no. 2 Rajo Singh armed with BHALA along with two unknown persons. All the four persons began dragging the deceased Dharambir Singh. Before that he also heard another sound. This witness has admitted that his father's cousin, Subbi Singh was the grand father of the informant Ashok Kumar Singh. He also claimed to have seen appellant no. 2 Rajo Singh armed with BHALA along with two unknown persons. All the four persons began dragging the deceased Dharambir Singh. Before that he also heard another sound. This witness has admitted that his father's cousin, Subbi Singh was the grand father of the informant Ashok Kumar Singh. In his cross examination he has stated that while he was returning from village Birjumilki, he did not meet any known person. He had stated that about 50 persons were working in their respective fields at Barsh Khandha. While he was proceeding to his village towards south east, he heard the sound of gun firing. He has stated in his cross examination that he did not identify the persons who were there. He stayed there for half an hour, but he did not visit the southern ALANG of BAHA. In the meantime he did not find any known person there. He even did not see any person coming from village Barah. In paragraph 12 of his cross-examination he has said that after one hour he came to his village. There was neither any commotion in the village nor he had any talk with any body. He has stated that in the evening or in the night of the date of occurrence he had not met either with the informant Ashok (P.W. 1) or Ashok (P.W. 3) son of Karu. He has further stated that he had told to the Investigating Officer that he had seen the informant Ashok and deceased Dharambir going on the same ALANG on which he was passing. He has further stated to him that he has seen all the four persons dragging the deceased. P.W.2 is a close relation of P.W. 1, the informant. 18. P.W. 3 has deposed that on the date of occurrence while he was coming to take his meal at house from his field which is in the Barah Khandha of village Kalayan Bigha, he found accused Dharambir firing from his gun, which hit the deceased, Dharambir, and he fell down. He further stated that appellant no. 2 was armed with BHALA alongwith two other persons whom he did not identify. He has also stated that all the accused persons were dragging the dead body of Dharambir Singh. He further stated that appellant no. 2 was armed with BHALA alongwith two other persons whom he did not identify. He has also stated that all the accused persons were dragging the dead body of Dharambir Singh. In his cross-examination he said that when he heard the sound he stopped there and after gun firing he saw none. He stayed there for five minutes but he did not meet any known person there. When this witness reached his house, he did not visit either the house of the informant or the deceased. He straightway came to his house, took his meal and made a• round in the village and talked about the occurrence with the villagers but he did not find any villager going to the place of occurrence. 19. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that from the reading of the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, it seems that they are not truthful witnesses. P.W. 3 does not say about the presence of any other witness except P.W. 1. He has further made certain statement which are not consistent with the statement of other witnesses. I also find that the conduct of both these witnesses are quite unnatural because they did not visit the place of the informant or the deceased when they have claimed to have seen the occurrence. 20. P.W. 4 has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 12.00 noon he was getting his paddy crop harvested in his field. He saw Ashok (P.W. 1) and deceased Dharambir going towards west from east. While they were proceeding on the ALANG there was a firing from eastern side. He saw appellants Dharambir Singh and Rajo Singh armed with Gun and BHALA respectively. He also saw two other persons, but he did not identify them. According to him deceased Dharambir Singh, son of Shankar Singh fell down after sustaining gun shot injury. He also heard two more sounds of gun firing. Thereafter he saw four persons dragging the deceased towards north. In his cross-examination he has said that he was in his field since 8.00 a.m. with his labourers, whose names he did, not know. Prior to the date of occurrence, he had never seen either the informant Ashok or the deceased Dharambir on the field. Thereafter he saw four persons dragging the deceased towards north. In his cross-examination he has said that he was in his field since 8.00 a.m. with his labourers, whose names he did, not know. Prior to the date of occurrence, he had never seen either the informant Ashok or the deceased Dharambir on the field. According to him, the deceased fell in the north east corner of his field He had further stated that he did not see any person except two persons on the ALANG. He has stated that the firing took place from the eastern side. 21. P.W. 5 has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 10-11 A.M. he was going to village Dwarika Bigha when he reached near a PEEPAL tree standing near the Barah Khandha in village-Kalayan Bigha, he saw deceased Dharambir son of Shankar Singh and Ashok (P.W. 1) going on an ALANG which was at a distance of 50-60 yard north of the said PEEPAL tree. He also saw four other persons on the said' ALANG. Out of them he identified the two accused persons, who were armed with various weapons. He has also made the parrot like statement regarding the firing. He has also said that all these four persons dragged the dead body towards north. This witness was going alone from his village, when he saw the deceased going alongwith P.W. 1. He had denied the suggestion made to this witness that he had not stated to the Investigating Officer that the accused persons were standing on the northern side of the Ahra. Four persons were standing. Out of them three were armed with rifle or gun and one person was armed with BHALA. They were going towards west and when he heard the firing sound, he stopped near the Peepal tree. He has stated that after the occurrence he went to village Dwarika Bigha, which is at a distance of about 3 miles from the said Peepal tree. In the way, he did not meet any known person. Next day he returned to his village. He has stated that he visited the house of the deceased but he did not meet the informant Ashok Kumar. He did not talk about the occurrence with anyone in the village. 22. P.W. 6 has given a complete different story. In the way, he did not meet any known person. Next day he returned to his village. He has stated that he visited the house of the deceased but he did not meet the informant Ashok Kumar. He did not talk about the occurrence with anyone in the village. 22. P.W. 6 has given a complete different story. He has stated that he was knowing deceased Dharambir who was murdered in a dispute. On the date of occurrence he had seen the deceased Dharambir son of Shankar Singh at about 12.00/1.00 p.m. on the north ALANG of Bahra Khandha. They were coming from Bakhtiarpur. He had seen deceased Dharambir armed with gun. He has also seen another group of people variously armed with deadly weapons like pistol and gun. He had seen altercation between the two groups. He did not stay there and went away due to fear. While going to his village, he saw appellant, Dharambir, at his DALAN. When he reached in the village, be beard the sound of gun firing. On HULLAR he went to Barah Khandha and saw the dead body of Dharambir on the north ALANG. In his cross-examination he has said that he was not examined by the Investigating Officer and be had stated that he saw the appellant Dharambir at his Dalan. 23. P.W. 7 is the doctor, who held post mortem examination. He has said in his cross-examination that on 10.12.1977 at about 10.25 A.M. he held post mortem examination on the dead body of one Dharambir Singh son of Shankar Singh, resident of village Barah, P.S. Harnaut. It was a headless body. There were several lacerated cuttings over the skin and body of the deceased. According to the doctor, the clothes were clean after washing. This indicates that the chopping of the head was postmortem. The following postmortem injuries were also found on the dead body :- “1. Irregular abrasion over an area of 10"x7/2" (torn) on sides of chest. 2. One incised wound 2¼"x/¼"x/¼" over left scapala. 3. One horisontal incised wound 113¼"X¼X1/5" over right scapula." The Doctor also found the following ante mortem injury on the dead body :- "An oval penetration wound ¼" diameter into deep to abdominal cavity over right side on the back at the level of 10th rib. Fracturing 9th and 10th ribs at the site of the wound. 3. One horisontal incised wound 113¼"X¼X1/5" over right scapula." The Doctor also found the following ante mortem injury on the dead body :- "An oval penetration wound ¼" diameter into deep to abdominal cavity over right side on the back at the level of 10th rib. Fracturing 9th and 10th ribs at the site of the wound. Three inches away from mid berteran line. The margin inverted. This was wound of entry." On dissection the right lung was found pale. Heart cavity was empty. Two metallic foreign body (pillets) were fund just under the seventh rib on the left side at the level of mid clebicular line. Liver was completely lacerated and torn. Right kidney was also lacerated. Left kidney and spline were also pale. Stomach was also lacerated and containing undigested food and blood clots. As indicated above, the doctor has opined that the chopping of the head was post mortem. 24. It was rightly pointed out on behalf of the appellant that the time of occurrence was 11.30 AM and the doctor found undigested food, therefore, the story that they were going to take their meal become doubtful. The doctor did not find dragging mark on the dead body. There is no evidence of cutting of the head of the deceased. Besides this, even the medical evidence demolishes the prosecution case about the time and manner of occurrence. The doctor has said that the clothes were washed. 25. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case, as noticed above. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that great prejudice has been caused to the accused by the non-examination of the Investigating Officer. It may also be noticed here that the so called eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are residents of village-Barah and not even a single witness of village Kalayan Bigha has been examined. It has also come in the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses that number of people were working in the field, but none of the labourers or independent witnesses have been examined in the case. 26. In appreciating the oral evidences, the question in each case is whether the witnesses are truthful witnesses and whether there is any thing to doubt their veracity in any particular matter about which they deposed. 26. In appreciating the oral evidences, the question in each case is whether the witnesses are truthful witnesses and whether there is any thing to doubt their veracity in any particular matter about which they deposed. Where the witness is found to be truthful and the charge is mathematically proved against the accused the matter ends there and the accused must be convicted but where the evidence falls short of absolute proof or in other words the degree of proof necessary to establish the charge fully is lacking and consequently some scope remains for doubt in such type of cases the principle of benefit of doubt is invoked. 27. From the trend of cross-examination it appears that according to the defence version the deceased was a veteran criminal and he was killed somewhere else in group rivalry and taking the advantage or his death, a false case has been brought against the appellants with a view to put pressure on them so that they will withdraw the case, which they have filed against the informant in respect of the land question. It is well settled that the prosecution must clarify and remove all suspicion and onus is on it to prove the charges levelled against the accused. When an information is within the knowledge of the prosecution, it is not the duty of the defence to lay before the court convincing evidence to support the defence by eliciting information in cross examination. The prosecution cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defence. The onus is on the prosecution to prove its case to the hilt. 28. From the perusal of the entire evidence I find that they are not truthful witnesses. None of the P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 say about the presence of any other witnesses except P.W. 1. The evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, and 5 may also be called as of a chance witness who were either working in their field or going to some other village. None of them has said about the presence of any other witness except himself and they have made certain statements which are not consistent with the statement of other witnesses. Therefore, it is not safe to rely on their testimony. 29. None of them has said about the presence of any other witness except himself and they have made certain statements which are not consistent with the statement of other witnesses. Therefore, it is not safe to rely on their testimony. 29. Quite apart, it was also contended on behalf of the appellants that the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case and, therefore, great prejudice has been caused to the appellants. In this connection the learned counsel has relied upon decisions in the case of Sk. Rashid vs. The State of Bihar ( 1987 BBCJ 151 : 1987 PLJR (NOC) 14) and Hazari Choubey vs. The State of Bihar ( 1988 BBCJ 169 : 1987 PLJR 1166 ). In Hazari Choobey's case (supra) the case of Sk. Rashid and another (supra) has been noticed in paragraph no. 6 as under : "In the case Sk. Rashid and another v. The State of Bihar a Division Bench of this Court of which I was a Member, has taken notice of recalcitrance and recessive tendency of the police personnel and observed that they are taking the processes of the courts most lazily and casually. Commenting upon the existing state of affairs, this court has laid that non-examination of Investigating Officer is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution. A court has to see whether the evidence of the Investigating Officer is essential for the case of the prosecution to succeed or not. If it finds that no genuine complain of denial of fair play or prejudice to the defence can be made in a particular case, it may pronounce its judgment without insisting for the examination of the Investigating Officer. In a case, however, in which there are genuine reasons to think that the defence can legitimately complain of denial of opportunity but demonstrate that the prosecution has not correctly stated its case or that it has otherwise been prejudiced it must insist for the examination of the Investigating Officer. Non-examination of the Investigating Officer in that situation may provide to the defence the benefit of doubt as to the veracity of the prosecution case." 30. In the instant case, I have to find out as to whether any prejudice has been caused to the appellants by non-examination of the Investigating Officer. Non-examination of the Investigating Officer in that situation may provide to the defence the benefit of doubt as to the veracity of the prosecution case." 30. In the instant case, I have to find out as to whether any prejudice has been caused to the appellants by non-examination of the Investigating Officer. The prosecution may not have needed the evidence of the Investigating Officer, but as I have already indicated above, neither the witnesses have come with a clear statement regarding the manner of occurrence nor any evidence has been adduced how the body was dragged from Barah Khanda to the place where the dead body was found by the Investigating Officer. By non-examination of the Investigating Officer the council in dark to find out whether there was bundle of the paddy in the field or not whether the tying of the paddy was going on or not whether blood was found on the Alang or no where the deceased Dharambir fell down. It is a definite case of the prosecution that the dead body was found at a distance of about 2.00 k.m. from the place of falling down. Only the Investigating Officer could have been in a position to say whether there was dragging mark or there was trail of blood or not. Therefore, certain prejudice have been caused by non-examination of the Investigating Officer. The objective evidence had not come forward. The statement made by the witnesses during the course of investigation cannot be, proved though contradictory to the evid6nces given in the court. 31. Taking into consideration all these facts, in my opinion certain prejudice has been caused to the accused by non-examination of the Investigation Officer. The Investigating Officer would have provided the missing link in the evidence of the P.Ws. to bring home the allegation made against the accused. His deposition as a witness particularly on the facts of this case would have removed doubts as to the veracity of the testimony of the witnesses or would have in the event of material contradictions, destroyed their evidence altogether. His non-examination has resulted in denying to the defence opportunity to test the veracity of the prosecution case as well as the veracity of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. 32. His non-examination has resulted in denying to the defence opportunity to test the veracity of the prosecution case as well as the veracity of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. 32. In my considered view, since non-examination of the Investigating Officer has denied the defence the opportunity to test the veracity of the prosecution case and the veracity of the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, their conviction is not sustainable in the eye of law and the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 33. It is also equally settled that the witnesses not disclosing the names or the assailants at the earliest opportunity and the medical evidence is in confilict with the oral evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 34. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the State that the prosecution story can be divided into three parts. First part is the genesis of the occurrence, second part is actual firing and the third part is dragging away of the dead body and chopping of the head. Since there is no evidence so far as the dragging and chopping of the head is concerned, on that score the entire prosecution case cannot be thrown out. It was submitted that the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' can be applicable in the case. But it should always be remembered that after considering the whole evidence, if the court finds that the prosecution has not come with the correct version, it is not possible to separate the grains from chaff. The doctrine of separation of grain no doubt applies when grain is separable from chaff but where it is not separable because of the truth and the falsehood being so inextricably mixed up that in the process of separation the court will have to re-construct an absolutely new case for the prosecution by divorcing the essential details of the prosecution case completely from the context, the principle does not apply. As I have already indicated above, that since the testimony is not acceptable and the witnesses are unreliable it is not possible to apply the aforesaid principle. 35. As I have already indicated above, that since the testimony is not acceptable and the witnesses are unreliable it is not possible to apply the aforesaid principle. 35. Having considered all the aspects of the case in detail, I find substance in the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer is a serious lacuna in this case and has caused great prejudice to the appellants and therefore they are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 36. For the reasons stated above the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentences of the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Appellant no. 1 Dharambir Singh, is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The appellant no. 2, who has been released on bail, is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds.