JUDGMENT I. P. Singh, J. As these two appeals arise out of the same judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellant Chandar Mandal was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and RI for three years respectively whereas appellants Naresh Mandal and Chamak Lal Mandal were convicted under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each. Further, appellant - Naresh Mandal was also convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.10.80 at about 11.30 P.M. the informant Ambika Prasad Mandal along with his uncle Lilla Mandal, his younger brother Rajpati Mandal and his cousin, Mahesh Mandal and Narain Mandal was sleeping in his bungalow, situated at village Katoria, P.S. Colgong (Kahal Gaon) District Bhagalpur. The father of the informant, namely, Jageshwar Mandal was sleeping in the Janana apartment in the estern room facing south. The informant woke up when his hands were being tied up with his own Gamachhi and saw 8-10 persons on his bungalow. The other persons sleeping along with the informant on his bungalow, were also being tied up and all those persons were asked to keep quite otherwise they were threatened to be killed. A lantern was buring on the bungalow and the miscreants were flashing their torches. In the light of the lantern as well as in the flash of torch the informant could identify appellants Chandar Mandal, Naresh Mandal and Chamak Lal Mandal among the miscreants. Accused Chandar Mandal and Naresh Mandal were armed with guns and they were searching for the father of the informant. The other miscreants had Lathies in their hands. Accused Naresh Mandal and Chandar Mandal remained at the Bungalow to keep guard on the informant and others and remaining miscreants went in the courtyard of the Janana apartment after scaling the thatched roof and opened the main door of the house. The other miscreants had Lathies in their hands. Accused Naresh Mandal and Chandar Mandal remained at the Bungalow to keep guard on the informant and others and remaining miscreants went in the courtyard of the Janana apartment after scaling the thatched roof and opened the main door of the house. Soon thereafter, the miscreants dragged the father of the informant, namely, Jageshwar Mandal from the house and brought him at the bungalow, took him to the Sahan (open land) south of the bungalow and accused Chandar Mandal fired his gun from a close range on Jageshwar Mandal which hit Jageshwar on his head as a result of which Jageshwar Mandal died instantaneously. The accused persons also fired second shot and thereafter the miscreants fled away towards west. After the miscreants fled away the informant and other persons untied their hands and raised alarm. On alarm being raised by them Shyam La] Mandal (P.W. 1), Ganesh Mandal (P.W. 4), Mahabir Mandal and others of village Katoraia reached there. The informant and other members of his family narrated about the occurrence and also about the identification of the accused persons to them (villagers). The informant also learnt from his uncle, his brother, cousins and mother that they had also identified the accused, Chandar Mandal, Naresh Mandal and Chamak Lal Mandal among the miscreants in the light of the lantern and also in the flash of torch light. 4. The motive of the occurrence stated to be that about 10-11 years prior to this occurrence one Madhu Mandal father of the accused, Naresh Mandal was murdered and in that murder case Jageshwar Mandal was accused and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment against which Jageshwar Mandal preferred an appeal in the High Court and he was on bail in the said case. Since the murder of Madhu Mandal there was enmity between his family and the deceased, Jageshwar Mandal. 5. Since the murder of Madhu Mandal there was enmity between his family and the deceased, Jageshwar Mandal. 5. It has been further stated that on the next morning i.e. on 16.10.80 at about 9 A.M. the informant Ambika Prasad Mandal went to Colgong Police Station along with his uncle Lila Mandal, Chaukidar-Bhushan and Dafadar-Sri Prasad Singh and lodged the AIR against accused Chandar Mandal, Naresh Mandal, Chamak Lal and 7 unknown persons under sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, which case was numbered as Colgong P. S. Case No. 10 dated 16.10.80. The police after making investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellants under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. 6. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur on 31.8.81 took cognizance of the case and Shri Subodh Paswan, the then S.D.J.M. by his order dated 18.2.82 committed the case to the court of sessions for trial. 7. The defence case is that the appellants are innocent they have committed no offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case. 8. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants examined altogether 9 witnesses, out of them, P.W.7, Ambika Prasad Mandal is the informant. He is son of the deceased, Jageshwar Mandal and he is eye witness. P.W. 1 Shyam lal Mandal is not an eye witness of the occurrence. P.W. 2 is Lila Mandal, brother of the deceased. He claims to be the eye witness of the occurrence P. W. 3. Tilia Devi is the wife of the deceased. She claims to be the eye witness of the occurrence. P. W. 4, Ganesh Mandal is not an eye witness. P. W. 5, Dukhani-Devi is the second wife of the deceased. She claims to be the eye witness of the occurrence. P.W. 6 is the doctor who held postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. P. W. 8, Thakur Prasad Singh is the Police Officer who submitted charge sheet against the appellants and P. W. 9, Parmeshwar Jha is a formal witness. 9. The Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined because he was by then dead . 10. P. W. 8, Thakur Prasad Singh is the Police Officer who submitted charge sheet against the appellants and P. W. 9, Parmeshwar Jha is a formal witness. 9. The Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined because he was by then dead . 10. The trial court on consideration of the evidence of the witnesses and materials placed on the record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against the aforesaid appellants and as such convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. Hence these appeals. 11. Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution has failed to examine all the witnesses who were sleeping on the bungalow without giving any logical explanation. He has further submitted that even though the accused persons were co villagers, the name of the appellants were not disclosed by the informant or even by the family members of the informant just after the occurrence in the night. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased, Jageshwar Mandal had criminal antecedents and was keeping Dukhani Devi as his concubine who was the wife of Khantar Mandal, against his wishes. He has vehemently contended that the deceased might have been killed by Khantar Mandal because he was nursing grudge against this deceased on account of his wife being forcibly taken away by the deceased, Jageshwar Mandal. 12. In support of his contention learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has drawn our attention to the evidence available on the record. It has been further contended that all the witnesses are family members of the prosecution party and are interested witnesses, therefore, conviction should not be based on such evidence. 13. P. W. 7, who is the informant, has stated that he was sleeping on his bungalow in the night, at 11.30 p.m. and Lila Mandal (P. W. 2), Mahesh Mandal, Rajpati Mandal (since deceased) and Narayan Mandal were also sleeping there. The father of the informant was sleeping in the eastern room facing south on the north side of the courtyard. The informant woke up when his hands were being tied up with his own Gamchi. He saw 8-10 persons at his bungalow. He was threatened by the accused to keep quite otherwise he would be shot dead. The father of the informant was sleeping in the eastern room facing south on the north side of the courtyard. The informant woke up when his hands were being tied up with his own Gamchi. He saw 8-10 persons at his bungalow. He was threatened by the accused to keep quite otherwise he would be shot dead. He has further stated that they were searching for his father. A lantern was burning at the bungalow and the accused persons were also flashing torches occasionally. The informant recognised accused Chandar Mandal, Naresh Mandal and Chamak Lal Mandal in the light of torch and lantern. Accused Chandar and Naresh were having guns in their hands and others were having lathies and torches. Accused Chandar and Naresh Mandal stayed at the bungalow near the informant whereas other accused entered the house of the informant by scaling the thatched roof. After some time those miscreants brought his father at bungalow by dragging him from the house to the open land adjacent to the Bungalow at the southern side. Accused Chandar Mandal then fired the gun from close range on the head of his father, as a result of which he died and at the time of firing two accused, namely, Naresh Mandal and Chamak Mandal were standing near Chandar Mandal. Thereafter the accused fled away towards east. It has been further stated that after they left the place, informant and others raised Hullah. On their Hullah Shayam Lal Mandal (P.W. 1) Ganesh Mandal (P.W. 4) and Mahabir Mandal (not examined) came to the place of Occurrence. The informant has also stated that those members of his family who were sleeping at the Bungalow that night, also confirmed the identification of the aforesaid three accused. He also stated that they also narrated the incident to the villagers who were assembled there On Hullah and informed them about the identification of these accused. The informant has also stated that those members of his family who were sleeping at the Bungalow that night, also confirmed the identification of the aforesaid three accused. He also stated that they also narrated the incident to the villagers who were assembled there On Hullah and informed them about the identification of these accused. The informant has further stated that from the date of this incident about 10-11 years age one Madhu Mandal, father of the accused-Naresh Mandal was murdered and informants father was accused in that case, and was (informant's father) convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and against that judgment his father had preferred an appeal before the High Court and his father was released on bail, as such, there was enmity between the two families the informant has stated that on account of that enmity his father Jageshwar Mandal (deceased) was killed. 14. The informant went to the Police station in the morning and lodged the information. He was accompanied by Lila Mandal (P. W. 2) and Chaukidar Bhushan Paswan. The Statement was recorded and signed by the Sub-Inspector, Ramayan Pd. Singh (since deceased) (Ext. 2). The informant had also filed a protest petition in the Court of the C. J.M. against the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramayan Pd. Singh alleging therein that the said, S. I. was not conducting the investigation properly. Further it had been stated that the witness Mahabir Mandal (not examined), Bhushan Paswan, Chaukidar (not examined), Srisingh, Dafadar and Ram Narain Mandal were also gained over by the accused and they would not depose the truth before the court, as such he did not want them to be prosecution witness in the court. Ramayan Mandal and Mahabir Mandal had signed as witnesses on the seizure list in presence of the informant which is Ext. 3 and Ext. 4. Mahabir Mandal and Ramayan Mandal had also signed on the inquest report as witnesses which is Ext. 5. 14. In his cross examination this witness has said at one place that Dafadar Siri Singh did not accompany him to the police station but in the first information report it is stated that Dafadar Siri Prasad Singh accompanied him to the police station. 5. 14. In his cross examination this witness has said at one place that Dafadar Siri Singh did not accompany him to the police station but in the first information report it is stated that Dafadar Siri Prasad Singh accompanied him to the police station. He has further stated that he met Sri Prasad Singh before going to the police station who also accompanied him to the P. S. so there is contradictory statement so far this question is concerned. He has stated during cross examination that it was not true that he had not stated the name of the accused to the Chaukidar Bhushan Paswan, Ram Narain Mandal, Mahabir Mandal and Uma Kant Mandal (all not examined) rather he stated that they had not visited the place of occurrence in the night. But, later he admitted that Mahabir and Uma Kant visited the place of occurrence with Chaukidar. But Mahabir and Uma Kant were not examined by the prosecution in the court. This witness has also stated that the investigating officer after recording the F.I.R., examined Lila Mandal (P. W. 2.) Bhushan Paswan and Sri Prasad Singh at the police station itself before coming to the village and recorded the statement of Ganesh Mandal(P. W. 4), Ram Narayan Mandal, Mahabir Mandal, Syam Lal, Uma Kant Mandal and Shiv Thakur. This witness has accepted that he could know that Ram Narayan Mandal, Mahabir Mandal, Uma Kant Mandal and Shiv Thakur did not disclose the names of the accused persons to the police officer rather they stated that the names of the accused persons were not disclosed to them either by the informant or any of his family members. He has also accepted in his cross examination that P.W. 5 Dukhani Devi had been married to his father after his father was enlarged on bail in the appeal of Madhu Mandal murder case. He has also stated that previous husband of P. W. 5 Dukhani Devi, Khantar Mandal was alive. From his evidence it transpires that he has not made any consist ant statement, rather it is contradictory on material points. 15. P. W. 1 is Shyam Lal Mandal. He is not an eye witness of the occurrence. He came to the place after the occurrence on hearing the Hullah. He had seen the dead body of the deceased, Jageshwar Mandal which was lying east of his darwaza. 15. P. W. 1 is Shyam Lal Mandal. He is not an eye witness of the occurrence. He came to the place after the occurrence on hearing the Hullah. He had seen the dead body of the deceased, Jageshwar Mandal which was lying east of his darwaza. He met the family members of the deceased. He has stated that the mother of the informant (P. W. 7) had told him the names of these accused, Chandar Mandal, Naresh Mandal, Chamak Lal Mandal alleging that they had killed the deceased by gun shot. In cross examination he has stated that the house of Ganeshi Mandal, Bhagirath Mandal and Saudagar Mandal having same courtyard is in between his house and the house of the deceased and when he reached at the place of occurrence none of them were present there. He has stated that he was one of the first person to reach the place of occurrence. During his stay at the place of occurrence about 20-25 persons also reached there. He did not see Ramayan Mandal, Mahabir Mandal and Uma Kant Mandal there neither Chaukidar and Dafadar were present there. He has further stated that the dead body was lying on the northern side of the darwaza while in examination in chief, he has stated that the dead body Was lying in eastern side of the Darwaza of the deceased. He has also stated that the deceased, Jageshwar Mandal was his uncle. This witness has stated that many persons assembled at the place of occurrence, but many of the persons who came there were not examined by the prosecution. His statement is also contradictory to the statement made by the informant P. W. 7. 16. The next eye witness is P.W. 2 Lila Mandal, who is brother of the deceased He has stated that the house where the occurrence took place is a common property. He was also sleeping at the bungalow (place of occurrence). While he was being tied up by the miscreants he woke up and saw about 8 to 10 persons at the bungalow. He has stated that in the light of lantern, which was buring at the bungalow and in the flash of torch light he could recognise the accused, Chandar Mandal, Naresh Mandal and Chamak Lal Mandal. While he was being tied up by the miscreants he woke up and saw about 8 to 10 persons at the bungalow. He has stated that in the light of lantern, which was buring at the bungalow and in the flash of torch light he could recognise the accused, Chandar Mandal, Naresh Mandal and Chamak Lal Mandal. He also stated that Naresh Mandal and Chandar Mandal were having gun in their hands whereas others were armed with Lathi. He further stated that Chandar Mandal and Naresh Mandal stayed in the bungalow and others entered the courtyard after scaling the door planks, He has stated that the miscreants brought Jageshwar Mandal (deceased) dragging him out. He has further stated that Chandar Mandal went near the deceased in theSahan and fired at him with his gun. At that time Naresh Mandal and Chamak Lal Mandal were also present by his side. Jageshwar Mandal just after receiving the gun shot died. He has stated that the Sahan is situated just at the distance of 3 to 4 cubies from his bungalow. After this the miscreants fled away towards west. Thereafter they raised alarm. On alarm Ganesh Mandal, Shyam Lal Mandal (P. W. 1), Mahabir Mandal reached at the place of occurrence. He 'has also stated that he narrated the incident to them and named the aforesaid accused persons. He has further stated that 10 years before this occurrence the father of accused Naresh Mandal, namely, Madhu Mandal was murdered. In that murder case Jageshwar Mandal (deceased of this case) was accused. He was convicted in that case. When this occurrence took place he was on bail in that case. He has further stated that due to this enmity Jageshwar Mandal wag killed by the accused. This witness has also stated that he had gone to the police station with Ambika Mandal (P. W. 7) on the next day. His statements were recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police at 9 a. m. In cross examination he has stated that he had not informed Chaukidar and Dafadar about the incident but they had come to the place of occurrence next morning and also accompanied them to the police station. He has stated that the Chaukidar and Dafadar had asked him about the recognition of the accused. He has stated that the Chaukidar and Dafadar had asked him about the recognition of the accused. He has further stated that Mahabir Mandal, Uma Kant Mandal and Ram Narayan Mandal (not examined) had also visited his house in the morning. He has stated that it was not true that he did not tell the names of the accused to them on inquiry. He has stated that Khantar Mandal is his co villager but he did not know the name of his wife. He has further stated that he did not know whether Dukhani Devi was the name of the wife of Khantar Mandal. He has stated that the name of the mother of the informant is Tiliya Devi (P. W. 3). He has further stated that the name of another wife of Jageshwar Mandal (deceased) was Kari Devi and she is also known as Dukhani Devi (P. W. 5), He could not say as to whether Dukhani Devi had another husband or not. It has been further stated by P. W. 2 that Dukhani Devi (P. W. 5) was in the house in the night of occurrence. He has stated that Jageshwar Mandal (deceased) had first kept Dukhani Devi as his concubine and thereafter the deceased married her. He denied that the deceased Jageshwar Mandal had brought the wife of Khantar Mandal Known as Dukhani Devi (P.W. 5) from his house by force and she was living with him as concubine and there was dispute over this matter in the village. 17. P. W. 3 is Tiliya Devi wife of the deceased. She has stated that Dukhani Devi (P. W. 5) is Chumauna wife of her husband, Jageshwar Mandal (deceased). She has stated that in the night of occurrence she was sleeping in her western room and she woke up on Hullah by the miscreants. As she came out form her room to the courtyard she saw the miscreants dragging her husband to the Sahan. She also followed him. Further she has stated that she recognised Chandar Mandal, Naresh Mandal and Chamak Lal Mandal. The miscreants took Jageshwar Mandal (deceased) to the Sahan at the distance of 2 cubics feets from the enterance. Thereafter accused Chandar Mandal fired at the deceased, Jageshwar Mandal as a result of which he fell down and died. She also followed him. Further she has stated that she recognised Chandar Mandal, Naresh Mandal and Chamak Lal Mandal. The miscreants took Jageshwar Mandal (deceased) to the Sahan at the distance of 2 cubics feets from the enterance. Thereafter accused Chandar Mandal fired at the deceased, Jageshwar Mandal as a result of which he fell down and died. She has also stated that accused Chandar and Naresh were armed with gun and others were having lathies. In her cross examination she said that Dukhani Devi was a widow when her husband, Jageshwer Mandal (deceased) married her. She stated that she did not know the name of her previous husband who was dead. She has further stated that Dukhani Devi (P. W. 5) was not the wife of Khantar Mandal and was not forcibly kept in the house by her husband (Jageshwar Mandal) and there was no dispute or trouble in the village on this issue. She has further stated that she did not see Chaukidar, Dafadar, Ram Narayan Mandal Mahabir Mandal and Uma Kant Mandal in that night of the occurrence and not also on the next morning. This statement is contrary to the statement made by P. W. 7 informant and P. W. 2. These two witnesses; have said that Ram Narain Mandal, Mahabir Mandal and Uma Kant Mandal reached at the place of occurrence in the same night itself. She has said that she had met Ganeshi, Shyam Lal (P. W. 1) and Mahabir at the night of occurrence. She has further stated" that she had mentioned the name of these accused to S. I. Police. 18. P. W. 4 is the cousin of the deceased, Jageshwar Mandal. His house is situated at the distance of 200 cubics away from the house of the deceased, Jageshwar Mandal. He has stated that on the day of occurrence while he was sleeping in his bungalow he woke up on hearing the miscreants uttering "tie them soon. He has further stated that he also heard two firing sound and then he went to village and raised alarm and after half an hour he went to the place of occurrence, there he found dead body of deceased Jageshwar Mandal. He has further stated that he met Lila Mandal. Narain Mandal, Mahesh Mandal. He has further stated that he also heard two firing sound and then he went to village and raised alarm and after half an hour he went to the place of occurrence, there he found dead body of deceased Jageshwar Mandal. He has further stated that he met Lila Mandal. Narain Mandal, Mahesh Mandal. Ambika Mandal and mother of Ambika Mandal at the place of occurrence and they informed him that Chandar Mandal had Killed the deceased. In his cross examination he has stated that in between his house and the deceased, Jageshwar Mandals, house there are houses of Shyam Lal Mandal (P. W. 1), Ganeshi Mandal (P. W. 4) and Chandar Mandal, the accused. The house of Chandar Mandal is situated at the distance of 40 cubics from the house of the deceased, Jageshwar Mandal. He has further stated that he woke up after hearing the Hullah by the accused and he also heard the sound of gun firing. He has stated that he Knows Khantar Mandal but does not know the name of his wife. 19. P. W. 5 is Dukhani Devi, the second wife of the deceased, Jageshwar Mandal. She has stated that she was married to Jageshwar Mandal by a custom known as Chumauna, She has also stated that her first husband was Khantar Mandal and she had left him as he was not providing her food and clothes. At the night of occurrence while she was sleeping in the room with her husband, she woke up when 8-10 persons entered her room. These persons took her husband dragging to the darwaza. She saw accused Chandar Mandal firing gun at her husband, Jageshwar Mandal (deceased). Jageshwar Mandal thereafter fell down and died. In cross examination she has stated that Khantar Mandal is alive and residing in the village. She further stated that she was not the concubine of the decease, Jageshwar Mandal rather she was married to Jageshwar Mandal by Chumauna system, She has stated that she was not forcibly taken away by the deceased but she had left Khantar Mandal, It has been further stated by her that these accused along with their friends entered the house by scaling the roof. She has further stated that they dragged her husband from the room in which she was sleeping and the door planks of the room were open at the time of the occurrence. 20. She has further stated that they dragged her husband from the room in which she was sleeping and the door planks of the room were open at the time of the occurrence. 20. P. W, 6 is Dr. H. I. Ansari who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He found the following injuries:- 1. Fire arm wound of entry with black and inverted margin on behalf side cheek 1 "xl" bone deep, nearly circular in shape and tuttoing around it. 2. Fire arm wound of exit on the right side face and pier with everted and lacerated margin 3"x2" with much destruction of the tissues. 3. Fire arm wound of entry with black and everted margin on frontal bone of head with following and burning of hairs 1"x3/4" brain deep. 4. Fire arm wound of exit with everted and lacerated margin or right side parietal & frontal area 2"x 1½" with much destruction of the tissues. On the dissection of the scalp underlined soft fitness wore wound contusep. Skull bones including left maxila, left mandible, nottal bone, left tempora, frontal and parietal bone found broken into a number of pieces. Brain was found lacerated mixed with blood clot which was coming out from right side cranial cavity. Pellets were found in the brain and in the bone pieces, on opening the chest and abdomen lungs, liver, spleen and kidneys were found pale. Stomach contained partially digested rice etc. about 250 grammes. In the opinion of the doctor the death was due to intrabrainial haemorrhage and laceration of brain. All the injuries were caused by some fire arm which includes gun. In his opinion injury nos. 1 and 3 were singly and also jointly sufficient to cause the death. 21. P. W. 8 is the police officer who had submitted charge sheet. 22. P. W. 9 is the retired Asstt. Sub Inspector of Police. He is a formal witness. He has stated that one Shri Ramayan Prasad Singh was the Investigating Officer of this case. Whether he is alive or not he did not know. He identified the handwriting of the Investigating Officer and proved the first information report. 23. There are lot of contradictions in the deposition of these P. Ws. He is a formal witness. He has stated that one Shri Ramayan Prasad Singh was the Investigating Officer of this case. Whether he is alive or not he did not know. He identified the handwriting of the Investigating Officer and proved the first information report. 23. There are lot of contradictions in the deposition of these P. Ws. It was pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the Informant at one place has denied that he did not go to the police station with Dafadar, Sri Prasad Singh but again he had accepted it as indicated above; 24. It is relevant to note here that there is also vital contradiction in the deposition of P. W. 5, Dukhani Devi from the evidence of informant, Ambika Prasad (P. W. 7) regarding the manner of occurrence. According to the informant accused Chandar Mandal and Naresh Mandal were standing at the bungalow with their gun keeping vigil on the persons on the bungalow whereas P. W. 5 Dukhani Devi has stated that all the three accused scaled the wall and entered into the house and this statement of P. W. 5, Dukhani Devi was supported by the deposition of P. W. 3, Tilia Devi in para 10 of her deposition. She had stated that she could recognise these three accused among those who were dragging her husband. There is also clear contradiction in the deposition of P. W. 5 regarding her first husband. She is stated to be the second wife of the deceased and her previous husband, Khantar Mandal is also stated to be alive. She has confirmed this fact in her deposition. But, P. W. 3, Tiliya Devi, legally married wife of the deceased has stated that Dukhani Devi (P. W. 5) was widow when she got married with her husband Jageshwar Mandal (deceased). She has denied that Dukhani Devi (P.W. 5) was ever the wife of Khantar Mandal. All these contradiction create doubt in the mind of the court which may give benefit of doubt to the accused. 25. Besides this, prosecution has examined only Shyam Lal Mandal (P. W. 1) and Gane3h Mandal (P. W. 4) from amongst those who were reported to have visited the place of occurrence just after the occurrence took place. All these contradiction create doubt in the mind of the court which may give benefit of doubt to the accused. 25. Besides this, prosecution has examined only Shyam Lal Mandal (P. W. 1) and Gane3h Mandal (P. W. 4) from amongst those who were reported to have visited the place of occurrence just after the occurrence took place. P. W. 1 claims that he was one of the first man to reach the place of occurrence after hearing hullah whereas P. W. 4 has stated that he visited the place only half an hours after he woke up on the shouts of the miscreants. P. W. 4 also has stated that he heard the sound of firing. Though there were houses of others between "the house of P. W. 1, Shyam Lal Mandal and Ambika Mandal (P. W. 7) but only he could reach the place of occurrence after hearing the hullah whereas the house of P. W. 4 is much away from the house of Jageshwar Mandal but he claimed that he woke up immediately after he heard shouting of the miscreants "tie their hands and legs" and then he heard two shots of gun firing. He has also stated that he shouted for the help but no one went with him to the place of occurrence and he went there half an hour after he heard the Hullah. It has come in the evidence that there are number of houses in between the house of the in formant and P. Ws. 1 and 7. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that their evidence should not be accepted because they are related to the informant. 26. It is true that close relationship with the victim is not a ground for disbelieving a witness, but it should always be remembered that when all the witnesses are related, their evidence must be closely scrutinised by the court by other corroborative evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellants has pleaded that all the witnesses were either family members or related to the deceased. He has also submitted that many important witnesses whose examination was essential for fair trial were left over on the ground that they were gained over by• the appellants. In support of his argument he has drawn our attention to a judgments in the case of State of U. P. and another Vrs. He has also submitted that many important witnesses whose examination was essential for fair trial were left over on the ground that they were gained over by• the appellants. In support of his argument he has drawn our attention to a judgments in the case of State of U. P. and another Vrs. Jaggo Alias, Jagdish and others (AIR 1971 S. C. 1586) where it has been said :- "It is true that all the witnesses of the prosecution need not be called but it is important to notice that the witness whose evidence is essential to the "unfolding of the narrative" should be called." In that view, I feel that prosecution has not produced the material witnesses to unfold its case. Mere presentation of an application or an explanation that a certain witness had been won over is not conclusive of the allegation. 27. I have already discussed above that there are number of contradiction in the evidence of witnesses and some of the important and independent witnesses have not been examined which creates great doubt in the prosecution case. In a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case to its hilt and where the evidence falls short of absolute proof necessary to establish the charge fully, in that case benefit of doubt goes to the accused. 28. Quite apart, there is also contradiction between the ocular evidence and the medical report. According to the eye witnesses namely, P. W. 7 informant and P.W. 2 Lila Mandal, appellant Naresh Mandal fired one gun-shot, but the doctor P. W. 6 found four injuries. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a decision in the case of Ram Narain and Jaggar Singh Vrs. The State of Punjab where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the direct evidence is not supported by the expert evidence, then the evidence is wanting in the most material part of the prosecution case and it would be difficult to convict the accused on the basis of such evidence. 29. In the instant case non examination of Mahabir Mandal, Bhushan Paswan, Sri Prasad Singh, Dafadar and Ram Narayan Mandal has vitiated the trial. Mahabir Mandal and Ram Narain Mandal were also witnesses to the seizure list. Even prosecution did not examine all persons sleeping on the bungalow during the occurrence. 30. For the reasons stated above. 29. In the instant case non examination of Mahabir Mandal, Bhushan Paswan, Sri Prasad Singh, Dafadar and Ram Narayan Mandal has vitiated the trial. Mahabir Mandal and Ram Narain Mandal were also witnesses to the seizure list. Even prosecution did not examine all persons sleeping on the bungalow during the occurrence. 30. For the reasons stated above. it is evidently clear that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against the appellants beyond and reasonable doubts. As such, the appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt. 31. Accordingly I allow both these appeals and set aside the convictions and sentences passed on the appellants. The appellants who are on bail are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds in Cr. Appeal No 490 of 1986. Appellant Chandar Mandal in Cr. Appeal No. 509 of 1986 who is in custody, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. I agree. Appeal allowed.