Judgment S.H.S.ABIDI, J. 1. The appellants have come to this Court against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against them by which appellant Nityanand Giri has been convicted for the offence u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, appellants Jagarnath Giri, Surendra Giri, Dinesh Giri and Awadhesh Giri have been found guilty and convicted for the offence u/s. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R. I. for life. Further appellant Nityanand Giri and Dinesh Giri have been convicted for the offence under Sec. 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years. Appellants Surendra Giri and Awadhesh Giri have been convicted for the offence u/s. 27 Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, All the sentences have been ordered to be run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution appears to be that on 13-3-1986, there was a Bidagri (second marraige) ceremony of the sister of the informant Shambhunath Giri (PW. 6) and daughter of the deceased (Paraspati Giri Alias Sujan Giri) of village Shahpur Dumaria, P. S. Gopalpur, District Gopalganj. In that connection, guests had come on 12-3-1986 and they were staying in the bathan of the informant in village Mafi Guriaon within the jurisdiction of P. S. Kateya, district Gopalganj. In between the house of the informant and his bathan, alies river Jharahi. In the night on 12-3-1986 at about 10 P.M. the guests went to take their meal in the house of the informant across the river towards north-east direction. In the meantime, at about 10 P. M., the informant, his father Paraspati Giri (deceased), his brother-in-law Om Prakash Bharti, Ambikak Bharti, the uncle of Om Prakash Bharti, both resident of village Pakhan, P.S. Baghauch-ghat, district Deoria (U.P.), Rajesh Giri (P.W. 3) Rajdeo Parwat (P.W. 5) of village Mafit Guriaon went to the bathan to arrange for the beds of the guests. Paraspati Giri was lying on a cot and others were making arrangement of the beds. One patromax was burning within the bathan and two patromaxes were burning in the Sehan of the bathan itself. In the meantime, appellant Jagarnath Giri, Surendra Giri, Dinesh Giri, Awadhesh Giri and Nityanand Giri along with 10-12 unknown persons came to the bathan being armed with bombs and guns. One patromax was burning within the bathan and two patromaxes were burning in the Sehan of the bathan itself. In the meantime, appellant Jagarnath Giri, Surendra Giri, Dinesh Giri, Awadhesh Giri and Nityanand Giri along with 10-12 unknown persons came to the bathan being armed with bombs and guns. On reaching bathan, on the orders of Jagarnath Giri appellant Nityanand Giri threw bomb on the head of the deceased with the result that on its explosion, the head of Paraspati Giri was blown off. Then appellant Dinesh Giri threw a bomb causing injuries on both the knees of the deceased. The informant and others kept silence on account of fear because all the criminals were armed with bombs and guns. At the time of running away from the spot, appellants, Awadhesh Giri and Surendra Giri fired from their guns. On account of the sound of explosion of bombs and guns and also on hearing the alarm raised by the informant party, the villagers and guests rushed to the spot. The victim Paraspati Giri had already died. The occurrence was seen by the persons who had gone to arrange for the beds. On account of fear of the criminals, the informant did not go to the police station to lodge the first information report. Motive for the offence is said to be that earlier than the occurrence, a case had been lodged against the appellants for attempting to kill the deceased by bombs. In the morning at about 8.45 A.M.S.I., Q. H. Khan (P.W. 11), the Investigating Officer of Kateya Police Station went to the spot and found the dead body in the bathan and then prepared inquest report. He then recorded fardbeyan at about 9 a.m. which became basis of the F.I.R. against the appellants and unknown persons, being Kateya P. S. Case No. 32(3) of 1986. The Investigating Officer sent the dead body for Post Mortem Examination, examined the witnesses and also completed the investigation but on his being transferred, the investigation was given over to P.W. 15 Nagendra Prasad Singh who submitted the charge sheet against the appellants. 3. All the appellants, in their defence, denied the prosecution case and alleged that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity and litigation between the parties. They have examined seven witnesses in their defence. Plea of alibi was taken by appellant Nityanand Giri. 3. All the appellants, in their defence, denied the prosecution case and alleged that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity and litigation between the parties. They have examined seven witnesses in their defence. Plea of alibi was taken by appellant Nityanand Giri. For that D.W. 1 Bindeshwari Kant Missir Advocates clerk has been examined, D.W. 2 Shashi Shekhar Pandey, advocate has said that his marriage was performed in which appellant Nityanand Giri had also gone. So is also similar statement of Chandreshwar Prasad Sing (D.W.3) D.W.4 Jai Mangal Prasad is formal witness who has proved the informatory petition dated l-7-1983 (Ext. C) filed by the villagers against the deceased to the S.D.O. Gopalganj for various attrocities committed by him upon the villagers. D.W. 5 Ramakant Choudhary, being a formal witness, has proved the signatures (Ext. C/ 1) of the lawyer on Ext. C.D.W. 6 Radha Krishna Singh is one of the signatories of Ext. C.D.W. 7 is Raiv Ranjan Verma, the then S. P. Gopalganj who had supervised the case. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined 15 witnesses out of whom P.Ws. 1 and 2, Nagendra Giri and Shambhu Sharan Giri had reached the spot after the occurrence. P.Ws. 3, 5 and 6 namely, Rajesh Giri, Rajdeo Parwat and Shambhunath Giri (informant) are the eye-witnesses. P.W. 4 R. B. Choudhary had conducted Post Mortem Examination. P.W. 7 Ram Kumari, wife of P.W. 1 Rajendra Giri has been tendered. P.Ws. 8 and 9 namely, Bageshwari Devi (wife of the deceased) and Brajesh Giri are the other two hearsay witnesses. P.W. 10 Bikrama Parwat has been tendered. P. W. 11 is S.I.Q.H. Khan and P.W. 15 Nagendra Prasad Singh are the two investigating officers. P.Ws. 12 and 13 Rajendra Missir, advocates clerk and Mohammed Suleman are two formal witnesses. P.W. 14 Ram Chandra Prasad Singh has proved the sanction for prosecution under the Explosive Substances Act. 5. The learned trial Court, after considering the entire material on record, has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as said above. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the order of conviction is bad and is liable to be set aside. He has taken the plea that there was deep-rooted enmity between the deceased and the appellants and litigation was also pending between them. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the order of conviction is bad and is liable to be set aside. He has taken the plea that there was deep-rooted enmity between the deceased and the appellants and litigation was also pending between them. Not only that, even the witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution, are interested and inimical. No independent witness has been examined specially Om Prakash Bharti is uncle of Ambika Bharti resident of Deoria district. Further, it was contended that it is difficult to believe that when the dead body of the father of the girl was lying his daughter be given bidai. Next, it was contended that the objective finding of the Investigating Officer does not show anything about the Barat-Party having come. Further, even after the bidai of the daughter, no attempt had been made by the informant to send information to the police station of Kateya or even to Gopalpur Police Station, when these stations were only 2 miles and 5 miles from the place of occurrence and when in the night, car and tractor were also there. Even after the departure of the barat, no attempt was made by the informant to inform the police and the Investigating Officer reached the spot on the basis of a rumour. To appreciate these contentions, the evidence will have to be scrutinized with care and caution. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the deceased, the appellants and the witnesses are very closely interrelated which is apparent from the pedigree given here : 8. Shambhunath Giri, P.W. 6 is the informant in this case who has given his fardbeyan on 13-3-1986 at about 9 a.m. at his bathan to Qamrul Hoda Khan (P.W. 11), the first Investigating Officer of Kateya Police Station who reached the spot on getting an information about the occurrence at about 8 a.m. in village Panchdevi Chatthi. The informant, in his statement in Court, has given the same version as given in the fardbeyan, about the guests coming. arrangement for their beds made along with other witnesses including the deceased and then their having seen the appellants coming with bombs and guns. On the order of Jagarnath Giri, Nityanand Giri threw bomb on the victim hitting his head and second bomb being thrown by accused Dinesh Giri hitting the knee of the victim. arrangement for their beds made along with other witnesses including the deceased and then their having seen the appellants coming with bombs and guns. On the order of Jagarnath Giri, Nityanand Giri threw bomb on the victim hitting his head and second bomb being thrown by accused Dinesh Giri hitting the knee of the victim. Accused Surendra Giri and Awadesh Giri fled away from the scene firing their guns in the air. The head of the victim is said to have been blown off. The villagers then came on the alarm to whom the names of the accused persons were given out. He has said that they did not go to the police station as they were far off and on the next day, the Investigating Officer came at about 8 a.m. He has deposed about the earlier occurrence being a criminal case in which the charge sheet against the accused persons was also submitted. There was also a dispute for the house and the victim was demanding the money of his share. He has said that he filed a protest petition (Ext. 5) against the police. He has been subjected to a lengthy cross-examination but nothing has been taken out from his statement to discard his evidence. 9. Besides the informant P.W.6, there are two other eye-witnesses, namely, Rajesh Giri (P.W. 3) and Rajdeo Parbat (P.W. 5). Rajesh Giri (P.W. 3) has said about the coming of the Barat and his presence at the bathan along with the informant and others who had gone for making arrangement for the guests beds (bichhawan). He has also said about the accused coming with weapons whom he had identified in the light of patromax and also the explosion of bomb, causing of injuries, firing in the air, arrival of the villagers on the spot to whom the version about the occurrence was given out. In the next morning at about 8.45 a.m. The investigating Officer came to the spot and the inquest report (Ext. 2) was prepared. He admits that he was also an accused in a case lodged by appellant Nityanand Giri. Another case was also lodged by Jagarnath Giri in which he was an accused. 10. In the next morning at about 8.45 a.m. The investigating Officer came to the spot and the inquest report (Ext. 2) was prepared. He admits that he was also an accused in a case lodged by appellant Nityanand Giri. Another case was also lodged by Jagarnath Giri in which he was an accused. 10. Rajdeo Parbat (P.W. 5) is the next eye-witness to the occurrence who has also given the same version as the informant and P.W. 3 has said about the witnesses being present, the patromaxes burning there, guests coming, arrangements for them being made, accused persons coming on the scene, about two bombs being hurled, gun firing in the air, arrival of the villagers to the spot and the witnesses coming, to whom immediate disclosure has been made. He too admits about the pendency of the criminal case. He has admitted that Jagarnath Giri had filed a case in the year 1985 in which he was arrested. He has also admitted that in that case, Shambhu Nath Giri, his brother, Santosh, uncle Rajendra were also accused. He too has been subjected to cross-examination. 11. Besides these inimical eye-witnesses, there are four hearsay witnesses, namely, Rajendra Giri. Shambhunath Giri, Bageshwari Devi (wife of the deceased), and Brajesh Giri P.Ws. 1, 2, 8 and 9 respectively) who came after the occurrence and information was given to them about the occurrence. P.W. 1 says that on 12-3-1986 at about 10 p.m. he was serving food to his guests, in the meantime, he heard the explosion of bomb and he started fleeing. After that he heard another sound of explosion of bomb. He went across the river to village Mathia and then reaching there, he was told that Nityanand Giri had hit with bomb Paraspati Giri and the second bomb was hurled by Dinesh Giri on the knee of the victim. The names of the other accused persons were also given out to him. On reaching the victim, he found him injured and dead. He did not see any of the accused running away. He has said that partition had been effected between his brothers and he was with the victim. He deposed about the relationship. Next day, the Investigating Officer came. He has admitted that from Gopalpur Police Station, his village was about 2 kms. and the place of the occurrence is within the Jurisdiction of P. S. Kateya. He has said that partition had been effected between his brothers and he was with the victim. He deposed about the relationship. Next day, the Investigating Officer came. He has admitted that from Gopalpur Police Station, his village was about 2 kms. and the place of the occurrence is within the Jurisdiction of P. S. Kateya. He has also admitted that 15-16 accused had come. Besides them, there were cart-men, drivers and servants. Bidai had taken place in the next morning at 5 a.m. Besides other witnesses, there were Ramchandra Parbat, Raja Ram, Banka Giri (all not examined) and ladies on the spot. He has admitted that his father Sitaram Giri had been killed. He has also admitted about the previous litigations and land disputes between the parties. 12. Shambhu Sharan Giri, P.W. 2 is another hearsay witness who has said that on 12-3-1986, he had gone to the house of Bahnoi of Rajendra Giri of village Shahpur Dumaria. There was gauna of the daughter of Sajawal Giri, he had gone to attend the same. In the night, he heard sound of two gun shots and two explosions. He and another were entertaining the guests. There was hulla that Sajawal Giri had been murdered and then he went to the spot rushing. Next morning, at about 9 a.m. the investigating officer reached on the spot, seizure list was prepared on which he also signed. His house was 1 1/2 miles from Gopalganj Police Station. He has admitted that appellant Jagarnath Giri had filed a criminal case against Santosh in which he was a surety and Santosh is the own brother of Shambhunath Giri. He also signed the seizure list. He has admitted that in the barat party, there was car and his brother-in-law and Sajawal Giri had tractor and the children of the family used to drive the same vehicles. 13. P.W. 8 Bageshwari Devi, the wife of the deceased, is another hearsay witness who has said that on 12-3-1986 at about 10 p.m. She was at her house. She has said that on the occasion of her daughters gauna, some persons had come and were staying at the bathan. At that time, her husband went to the bathan along with Shambhu, Rajesh, Rajdeo Parbat etc. She has said that on the occasion of her daughters gauna, some persons had come and were staying at the bathan. At that time, her husband went to the bathan along with Shambhu, Rajesh, Rajdeo Parbat etc. She heard sound of bomb explosion, so, she went to the bathan where she saw her husband dead whose head was blown off and knee was injured. She was told about the occurrence. She has further said that she was a teacher. She also admitted that 15-20 members of barat party had come by a mini-bus. She was not examined by the Investigating Officer though she was examined by the Superintendent of Police after 3-4 days of the occurrence. She also admits that she remained at the place of occurrence for the whole night. P.W. 9 Brajesh Giri is the last hearsay witness who has said that there was gauna of his sister. He has said that for the purpose of gauna, 25 baratis had come and they were staying at the bathan. He too had gone to the bathan along with other witnesses. He had come back from the bathan to bring more chadars and when he and his servant Santosh were going back with the chadars after getting them from her aunt, he heard the explosion from the side of the bathan and so reached the bathan where Shambhunath Giri told him about the occurrence. He has admitted in his cross-examination that there was one car, one tyre cart along with barat. On the next morning, one barat party went away. The girl and her husband were on the car, the boxes and the sweets which were given to the daughter, were kept in the car and the palang was kept on the tyre-cart. He has also admitted that before his arrival at the spot, 10-15 villagers had come. 14. This is the entire ocular evidence consisting of the eye-witnesses and the hearsay witnesses. P.W. 7 Ram Kumari and P.W. 10 Vikram Parbat have been tendered. No doubt, from this evidence, it appears that the eye-witneses were there on the spot and the immediate disclosure was given to the hearsay witnesses who had reached the spot. Besides these eye and hearsay witnesses, there were other witnesses of the village who have not been examined. P.W. 7 Ram Kumari and P.W. 10 Vikram Parbat have been tendered. No doubt, from this evidence, it appears that the eye-witneses were there on the spot and the immediate disclosure was given to the hearsay witnesses who had reached the spot. Besides these eye and hearsay witnesses, there were other witnesses of the village who have not been examined. These eye witnesses and hearsay witnesses have themselves admitted about the enmity, litigation and bad blood between the parties. The pedigree itself shows that they are related inter se. No doubt, the evidence of relation and inimical witnesses, is not to be discarded on that score but it has to be examined with care and caution. The witnesses have admitted that the other persons of the village have not been examined. No doubt, when there is friction in the village and litigation between the members of the same family the other villagers will not come out to give evidence as the villagers became reluctant to get themselves involved in such occurrences. But the fact remains that in this case, the villagers were also there, but their names have not been given in the F.I.R. nor they have been examined. Only the relation witnesses have been given out. No doubt, there is general reluctance of the villagers to get themselves involved. Yet the investigating Agency is expected to make effort to examine the witnesses whose presence have been given out on the spot. The informant has also admitted that there was a large number of persons who had come on the spot. So, P.W. 9 has also said that 10-15 persons came at the spot. P.W. 1 has said that Ramchandra Parbat, Rajaram Giri and Banka Giri besides some ladies had also come. But none of these persons has been examined by the prosecution. Non-examination of independent witnesses assumes importance in view of the fact when the presence of these witnesses has been admitted by the prosecution are interested, partisan and highly inimical and specially when the prosecution does not make any effort for examination of such independent witnesses. The witnesses of the village were not stranger witnesses. Non-examination of independent witnesses assumes importance in view of the fact when the presence of these witnesses has been admitted by the prosecution are interested, partisan and highly inimical and specially when the prosecution does not make any effort for examination of such independent witnesses. The witnesses of the village were not stranger witnesses. They could have given out a version, may be for or against the prosecution, but their non-examination in these circumstances, assumes importance when only partisan and relation and inimical witnesses have been examined, then their evidence will have to be tested and scrutinised in the light of the other circumstances of the case. 15. The occurrence is of 10 p.m. No other person is said to have been sent to the police station in the night to lodge the report. It has come in the evidence of witnesses that there were car, tractor and mini bus and also a large number of persons had come to attend the barat. The distance of Kateya police station from the village i.e. 2 miles and Gopalganj police station is 5 miles from the village. Even if, in the night, on account of fear, the information could not be sent to the either of the police stations, yet in the morning, the information could have been sent when the car, mini bus and tractor were available. The informant or any of the witnesses does not say that even after departure of the barat party, any effort was made to inform the police station of Gopalganj what to say of Kateya. It has also not come in evidence. That the barat party was asked to stop at the police station and inform about the said occurrence. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 11) has said that on 13-3-1986 at about 8 a.m. when he was in village Panchadevi Chathi, he got information about the occurrence and from there, he went to the place of occurrence Mafi Gurigaon. Even this Investigating Officer came on the spot on the basis of a rumour. Thus, this attitude of the prosecution not to lodge the report at the police station in spite of so much time having been elapsed and in spite of the means of communications and persons in large number being available, is a factor which goes against the prosecution. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. in these circumstances, assumes importance. Thus, this attitude of the prosecution not to lodge the report at the police station in spite of so much time having been elapsed and in spite of the means of communications and persons in large number being available, is a factor which goes against the prosecution. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. in these circumstances, assumes importance. None of the witnesses have said or nothing has come out to show that there was any atmosphere of fear on account of the occurrence or that the accused had surrounded the area so as to prevent the informant or anyone to go to the police station to lodge the report in the night or even in the morning. There is also nothing to show that there was bad weather or the conditions of the roads were such that access to police station was very difficult. In the case of Apren Joseph alias Current Kunjukunju V/s. The State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1 , the Supreme Court has observed about the F.I.R. and its lodging at page 5 in paragraph 11 as follows 11. "It is very useful if recorded before there is time and opportunity to embelish or before the informants memory fades. Undue or unreasonable delay in lodging the F.I.R., therefore, inevitably gives rise to suspicion which puts the Court on guard to look for the possible motive and the explanation for the delay and consider its effect on the trustworthiness or otherwise of the prosecution version. In our opinion, no duration of time in the abstract can be fixed as reasonable for giving information of a crime to the police, the question of reasonable time being a matter for determination by the Court in each case. Mere delay in lodging the first information report with the police is, therefore, not necessarily, as a matter of law, fatal to the prosecution. The effect of delay in doing so in the light of the plausibility of the explanation forthcoming for such delay accordingly must fall for consideration on all the facts and circumstance of a given case." 12. "In the case in hand the eye-witnesses who had seen the occurrence were afraid of going to the police station during night time. The evidence to this effect seems to us to be trustworthy and has not at all been shaken in cross-examination. "In the case in hand the eye-witnesses who had seen the occurrence were afraid of going to the police station during night time. The evidence to this effect seems to us to be trustworthy and has not at all been shaken in cross-examination. The submission that no reasonable human being in those circumstances as could or should have felt frightened and, therefore, the ground of fear is a mere excuse is unacceptable. Indeed, there is hardly any effective cross-examination on the point eliciting any illuminating information indicative of suspicion with respect to their reluctance to go, during the night or early in the morning, to the police station for making the report. The effect on their mind of having witnessed such a gruesome murder at the hands of a group of persons armed with lethal weapons and extremely inimical to the eye-witnesses cannot be measured by any general yard-stick. It necessarily depends on the mental make up of each individual person. Some may feel so freightened that they would rue their decision which took them to the place of occurrence and would take a long time to be their normal selves, whereas some others would not mind informing the police if they can conveniently do so without going out of their way; still others may be highly public-spirited and may, therefore feel so strongly that they would in their enthusiasm go all out, as though inspired by missionary zeal to contact the police and inform them about the crime. It is difficult as also inadvisable to lay down any uniform general rule in this respect. As such case has to be considered on its own facts and circumstances let us see how the Courts below have dealt with this question." Later, in the case of Thulia Kali V/s. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 501 : (1972 Cri LJ 1296) in which the F.I.R. was lodged after 20 hours in the police station which was only 2 kms. from the place of occurrence, the Supreme Court has held at page 504 in paragraph 12 as follows 12. "First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance, of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. "First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance, of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the Police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained." "Neither of them, nor any other villager, who is stated to have been told about the occurrence by Valenjiaraju and Kopia, made any report at the police station for more than 20 hours after the occurrence, even though the police station is only two miles from the place of occurrence. The said circumstance in our opinion would raise considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of those two witnesses and point to an infirmity in that evidence as would render it unsafe to base the conviction of the accused-appellant upon it." 16. Thus, the object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report is to obtain earliest information regarding the commission of the crime. When there is delay in lodging the report, it quite often results in embellishment, which is a creature of afterthought. Some people may try to foist crime upon persons known or unknown having inimical relations, after consultation with other people. So, a coloured version comes out on account of imagination and influence of opinion of others which is not for a just decision of the case and which creates doubt about the prosecution version. Some people may try to foist crime upon persons known or unknown having inimical relations, after consultation with other people. So, a coloured version comes out on account of imagination and influence of opinion of others which is not for a just decision of the case and which creates doubt about the prosecution version. Specially, when means of communications are there, when opportunity to go to police station is there, when there is no fear or atmosphere of terror, when the parties have calmed down from the effect of horror of the occurrence and when there is no attempt whatsoever to approach the police for any information and when, admittedly, there are inimical relations with the accused, then delay in lodging the first information report and that too, in our opinion, inordinate delay, assumes importance going to the extent of being fatal to the prosecution case, which in this case appears to be as seen above. 17. The other circumstances, in this case, cannot be lost sight of, that the father of the girl has been brutally assaulted, so much so on account of the explosion of the bomb, his head had been blown off and his dead body was lying, it is difficult to believe that that very girl will be given bidai on the same next morning with all rituals and according to customs. Her mother has also said that she was at the place of the occurrence till next morning. The dead body was lying. These are the circumstances which create doubt about the bidai ceremony. It does not stand to reason that the girl herself would become so callous to her father as to leave his dead body and go away with her husband. Similarly, it is also very hard to believe and unreasonable to understand that that the barat party will take away the girl and will go with the bride without even the dead body being sent for post mortem examination and they will even not care to inform the police or authorities concerned about the occurrence when all the facilities of conveyance were available to them. They could go to the extent of taking the sweet and other articles on the car and palang on the tyre cart. These are the circumstances, which go to show that the barat party was not there. They could go to the extent of taking the sweet and other articles on the car and palang on the tyre cart. These are the circumstances, which go to show that the barat party was not there. Even if the barat party was there, then it had been earlier than this occurrence and not on the day of the occurrence. These circumstances, have also got an adverse effect upon the veracity of the prosecuting case. 17A. In these circumstances, when there is delay in the lodging of the first information report when it is difficult to believe that the girl will be given bidai and when the accused are inimical, then plea of alibi of the accused may assume importance. Appellant Nityanand Giri says that at the time of the occurrence, he had gone to attend the marriage of Shri Shashi Shankar Pandey, Advocate D. W. 1, Bindeshwari Kant Mishra, an advocates clerk, has said that Radhakant Mishra is his brother. Radha Kant Mishras daughter has been married to Shri Shashi Shekhar Pandey advocate of Gopalganj and it was performed in 1981. Their second marriage (donga) was fixed on 12-3-1986 and for attending, the same, Shri Nityanand Giri advocate and Shri Chandeshwar Prasad Singh (D.W. 2) had gone with Shri Shashi Shekhar Pandey and they had reached Majhawalia village on 12-3-1986 at 6 p.m. These three persons stayed in the night at his place and next day on 13-3-1986, in the morning, he sent all of them after breakfast and thereafter, Shri Chandeshwar Singh went to Gopalganj to work in the Court. Sarvashri Shashi Shekhar Pandey, Advocate and Nityanand Giri, Advocate went to village Paharpur along with the bride who was given bidai. Paharpur is the village of the witness and his son-in-law. He has also filed an affidavit on 29-5-1986. He has said that he came to know in Gopalganj Court on 13-3-1986 at about 11 noon that Nityanand Giri has been involved in a murder case. He denied to have given any statement to any police officer about this matter. 18. D. W. 2 Shashi Shekhar Pandey who has said about his marriage and appellant Nityanand Giri, Advocate having attended the same along with Shri Chandeshwar Prasad Singh, advocate (D.W. 3). They remained with him for the whole night in the sasural. He denied to have given any statement to any police officer about this matter. 18. D. W. 2 Shashi Shekhar Pandey who has said about his marriage and appellant Nityanand Giri, Advocate having attended the same along with Shri Chandeshwar Prasad Singh, advocate (D.W. 3). They remained with him for the whole night in the sasural. The next morning, there was bidai and they left Majawalia next morning at 7 a.m. for his village. He has also filed an affidavit to the same effect on 29-5-1986 which was prepared by him. The said affidavit dated 29-5-1986 has been marked as Ext. 13. He has said that he is practising for about 8 years. He returned to Gopalganj on 13-3-1986 in the evening along with appellant Nityanand Giri when he came to know about the case but he did not know about the involvement of appellant Nityanand Giri. He got information about his involvement on 14-3-1986. He has not given any statement in the press or to the police party about the case that the appellant had been with him. He did not know of whose police station the occurrence is. As there was question of grant of bail of appellant Nityanand Giri, he went there and filed affidavit. He first submitted that Nityanand Giri was his junior, latter he denied but said that he had been consulting him in professional matters. He denied that Chandeshwar Prasad Singh was his junior. He has admitted that appellant Nityanand Giri was his friend and that is why he had taken him to his village Paharpur. D.W. 3 is Chandeswar Prasad Singh who too has said about marriage attending with appellant Nityanand Giri. He too had filed an affidavit on 29-6-1986. On the basis of the evidence of these three D.Ws. and also their affidavits, the appellant, Nityanand Giri has tried to prove his alibi. 19. The learned trial Court has disbelieved the plea of alibi mainly on three grounds that it was not taken earlier at the time of investigation of the case to enable the Investigating Officer to investigate the case on that line, that none of the D.Ws. went to the Investigating Officer to take their own statements supporting alibi and lastly that the affidavits of D.Ws. 2 and 3 being Exts. went to the Investigating Officer to take their own statements supporting alibi and lastly that the affidavits of D.Ws. 2 and 3 being Exts. B and B/ 1 were not filed soon after his implication in the case or when his application for bail was being considered although the witnesses have come to know of the involvement of the accused on 13-3-1986. Yet the affidavits have been filed on 29-5-1986 and 29-6-1986 after more than 2 months of the occurrence. It has also been said that appellant Nityanand Giri, the D. Ws. and the other accused persons were sitting on the common table in the court and so, they were treating each other friendly. The conduct of the appellant Nityanand Giri was also not to be appreciated that his application for anticipatory bail was rejected on 4-4-1986 by the learned Sessions Judge as all the accused persons were absconding till the submission of the charge sheet. They remained absconding although efforts were made by the Investigating Officer to arrest the accused. It was also said that the distance factor is also important. D.W. 1 has said that his house at Shahpur Dumaria is 14 Kms. away from the west. D.W. 3 Chandeshwar Prasad Singh has said that village Majhawalia is 25-30 kms. away from Gopalganj. The distance of about 52 kms. could not be covered by a motor cycle within one hour. No doubt, these pleas of alibi have not been accepted on these grounds but there does not appear any reason to disbelieve the statement of these two advocates i.e. D.Ws. 2 and 3. In the background of high inimical relationship between informant party and the accused, also non-explained delay in lodging of the First Information Report, no attempt having been made to inform the police and last of all, the case of the bidai of the girl at the time when the dead body of her own father was lying, the plea of alibi can have supporting ground. Three affidavits are there which are sufficient to make out that this appellant was not on the spot. Further the distance between the place of the occurrence and the place of Donga (second marriage) is about 52 kms. there is nothing to show that any of the accused had come on motor cycle to cover the distance. 20. Three affidavits are there which are sufficient to make out that this appellant was not on the spot. Further the distance between the place of the occurrence and the place of Donga (second marriage) is about 52 kms. there is nothing to show that any of the accused had come on motor cycle to cover the distance. 20. It is the duty of the accused to prove the plea of alibi to the satisfaction of the Court and to substantiate the plea and to make it reasonably probable. The standard of proof about alibi is same as is on the prosecution to establish its case. Even if, a doubt is raised in the mind of the Court that the accused may have been present or may not have been present at the time of the occurrence, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Supreme Court, in the case of Soma Bhai V/s. The State of Gujarat, AIR 1975 SC 1453 has observed at page 1463 in paragraph 17 : "It is well settled that a plea of alibi has got to be proved to the satisfaction of the Court". The Supreme Court in the case of the State of U.P. V/s. Sughar Singh, AIR, 1978 SC 191: (1978 Cri LJ 141) has further held at page 201 in paragraph 15 : "it is well settled that the burden of substantiating such a plea and make it reasonably probable is upon him." Further, in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Naringrao Gangaram Pimple, 1984 SCC (Cri) 109: 1984 Cri LJ 4 equal to (1984) 1 SCC 446 it was observed at page 118 in paragraph 18 at p. 9 of Cri LJ 1984 : "It is well settled that plea of alibi must be proved with absolute certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the person concerned at the place of occurrence ".............. In the case of Dudh Nath Pandey V/s. State of U. P., AIR 1981 SC 911 : (1981 Cri LJ 618) it has been observed at page 916 in paragraph 19 : "the plea can, therefore, succeed only it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could riot be present at the place where the crime was committed". 21. 21. In the light of these observations of the apex Court, it appears that the appellant Nityanand Giri has tried to establish by the evidence of these two advocates Shashi Shekhar Pandey and Chandeshwar Prasad Singh D.Ws. 2 and 3, and his uncle in-law Bindeshwari Kant Mishra that he had attended the marriage in the night and that he had gone to Gopalganj along with the bridegroom. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these three witnesses specially the two advocates. Further, there is also nothing to show that he could reach the place of the occurrence at a distance of 52 kms. So there is reasonable doubt about the presence of appellant Nityanand Giri at the spot and so, he is entitled to that benefit. As such the plea of alibi is accepted. 22. The defence has also brought on the record certain documents, including Ext. C the information petition filed on 14-7-1983 before the S.D.O. Gopalganj by the villagers against the deceased for his various atrocities committed upon the villagers of Gopalganj. D.W. 4 is Jaimangal Prasad who has proved the same petition. D.W. 5 is Ramakant Choudhary an advocates clerk who has proved Ext. C containing the signature of the lawyer being Ext. C/ 1. One D. W. 6 Radha Kishan Singh has come out to say that he is one of the signatories of Ext. C. By all these evidences, oral and documentary, the defence has tried to prove that the deceased was a person who was committing all sorts of atrocities on the villagers and so, he might have been killed by those persons and the appellants are being involved in this case on account of enmity. This contention of the appellants got strength from the fact that the witnesses examined by the prosecution in this case are coming from the same common stock and inter-related not only with the deceased and informant but with the accused also. No independent witness of the village or persons who had come with Barat party have been examined and so the defence contention that the occurrence might have been committed by some other inimical persons and the accused persons have been falsely implicated, cannot be ruled out. 23. No independent witness of the village or persons who had come with Barat party have been examined and so the defence contention that the occurrence might have been committed by some other inimical persons and the accused persons have been falsely implicated, cannot be ruled out. 23. In these circumstances and on the basis of the evidence carefully scrutinized, it appears that it is doubtful as to whether the appellants had taken part in the gruesome murder of the victim. As such, they are given benefit of doubt. 24. In the result, this appeal is allowed. As the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 25. NAGENDRA RAI, J.:- I agree. Appeal allowed.