Judgment S.B.SINHA, J. 1. Both these criminal appalls arising out of the same judgment were taken up for hearing together with the consent of the parties and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The appellants, who are husband and wife, are charged under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code for commission of murder of Narayan Mahto, cousin of the informant Lokan Mahto PW 7. The occurrence is said to have taken place at village Karihari at 6-00 p. m. on 30-8-1984 in relation whereof the fard-beyan of the informant was recorded at 9-00 p. m. by Shiv Prasad Ram, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (PW 8) of Hirodih PS at the aforementioned village. In his fard-beyan Lokan Mahto PW 7 stated that on the fateful day, he was going to purchase flour from the shop of one Bandhan Ram. When he reached in front of the house of one Lakshman Mahato, he noticed the appellant Govind Mishra assaulting the deceased by means of bhala. According to the informant, the appellant Savitri Devi caught hold of the waist of the deceased while the other appellant had been assaulting the deceased causing injuries on his head and back. Seeing this, the informant raised alarm whereupon Parraeshwar Yadav (PW 2) and Jagdish (PW 3) reached there and seeing them, the appellants fled away. It is further alleged that when the informant and the witnesses came at the place of the occurrence, they found Narayan Mahto dead. The aforementioned witnesses namely Parmeshwar Yadav (PW 2.) and Jagdish Yadav (PW 3) had seen the deceased being assaulted with bhala. It is further alleged that the appellant Savitri Devi had been dragging the deceased towards the bari. It appears that the investigating officer S. P. Ram (PW 8) got an information of the occurrence at 8-00 p. m. of the same day and he reached the place of the occurrence at about 9-00 p. m. situated in village Karihari which is at distance of 4 kms. from Hirodih Police Station. From the statements of ASI S. P. Ram (PW 8) it appears that he handed over the invetigation to the offier-incharge of the aforesaid Police Station. A charge-sheet was submitted against both the appellants by G. P. Singh, Officer Incharge of Hirodih P. S. under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code. 4. from Hirodih Police Station. From the statements of ASI S. P. Ram (PW 8) it appears that he handed over the invetigation to the offier-incharge of the aforesaid Police Station. A charge-sheet was submitted against both the appellants by G. P. Singh, Officer Incharge of Hirodih P. S. under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined nine witnesses. PW 1 is Dr. S. N. Prasad who conducted autopsy on the deadbody of the deceased. Parmeshwar Yadav (PW 2) Jagdish (PW 3) and Laukush Kumar Yadav (PW 4) are formal witnesses who had proved the inquest report and the seizure-list. They also, however, stated that they had Been part of the occurrence, as they had seen the appellants fleeing away. PW 5 is Kamdeo Yadav who had stated about the arrest of the appellant from a cane-field and had also proved the seizure of gamcha. PW 6 Bihari Mahato has been tendered by the prosecution for cross-examination. PW 7 is the informant of the case. PW 8 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector Police of Hirodih P. S. who recorded fard-beyan of PW 7 and had made investigations in part. PW 9 is Dr. Rajendra Prasad Bhagat who had examined the appellant Savitri who slso sustained injuries in course of commission of the offence. 5. The learned Trial Court relied upon the prosecution case and convicted both the appellants for commission of an offence under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. 6. Mr. Ramavatar Sharma, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants has raised a number of contentions in support of these appeals. He firstly submitted that the entire prosecution case hinges on the testimony of the sole witness viz, the informant, who cannot be relied upon in view of the fact that he being the cousin of the deceased was a highly interested witness and admittedly had enmity with the appellants. Learned Counsel further submitted the that the prosecution story to the effect that the informant had gone out even on a rainy day only to buy flour is improbable. Mr. Sharma further contended that from the evidence of the informant coupled with the evidence of other witnesses, it would appear that the prosecution case stands in material particulars contradicted. Learned Counsel further submitted the that the prosecution story to the effect that the informant had gone out even on a rainy day only to buy flour is improbable. Mr. Sharma further contended that from the evidence of the informant coupled with the evidence of other witnesses, it would appear that the prosecution case stands in material particulars contradicted. He further submitted that PW 7 appears to be a mere Chance witness and on that ground alone his evidence should not be relied upon. Learned Counsel took us through the evidence of PW 1 to show that as many as 14 injuries were found on the person of the deceased and they were categorised as stab, fracture and incised wounds, all of which are unlikely to be inflicted by one and the same weapon, particularly in view of the fact that the informant PW 7 did not state about the use of the weapon indifferent manner at different point of time. It was further pointed out though PW 7 merely stated that the assaults were made on the back and head of the deceased by Govind Mishra, but from a perusal of the post-mortem report, it would appear that the deceased received injuries on other parts of his body, including his legs learned Counsel further submitted that the independent witnesses who have been named by PWs 2, 3, 4 and 7 as also those who have been named in the charge-sheet have not been examined and the prosecution had not offered any cogent explanation therefor. 7. Learned Counsel next contended that PWs 2 and 3 are also related to PW 7 and in this view of the matter, their testimonies should not be believed. It was next contended that the investigation of the case was not conducted fairly, as there are other various legal infirmities therein. The learned Counsel pointed out that PW 8 S. P. Ram ASI having not been conferred any authority by the Superintendent of Police with regard to the investigation of a cognizable offence, could not have investigated the case. In this connection, he drew our attention to Rule 12 of the Bihar Police Manual. The learned Counsel pointed out that PW 8 S. P. Ram ASI having not been conferred any authority by the Superintendent of Police with regard to the investigation of a cognizable offence, could not have investigated the case. In this connection, he drew our attention to Rule 12 of the Bihar Police Manual. It was further submitted that from the original F.I.R. night has been substituted as according to the learned Counsel, although the fard-beyan was allegedly recorded at 9.00 p. m. on 30-8-1984, there was absolutely no reason as to why the formal F. I. R. was drawn up oh 31-8-1984 at 7.30 p.m. He further submitted that even the blood stained earth collected from the Bari of the appellant, which was admittedly seized was not sent to. the serologist nor any chemical examination report in relation thereto was produced. He further submitted that the material Ext. namely, gamcha which was allegedly seized has also not been produced. 8. Learned Counsel further pointed out that although the informant in the F. I. R. disclosed the motive for commission of the offence namely a case between the deceased and the appellants, but proof in relation thereto was produced during the course of trial. It was further submitted that the charges framed against the appellants are also vague inasmuch as although the appellants Govind Mishra is said to have committed the murder of the dsceased, but no separate charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against him. It was further submitted that even the injuries caused to Savitri Devi was not explained by the prosecution. 9. Mr. K. K. Jhunjhunwala, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submitted that there is no discrepancy in the place of occurrence of offence, as alleged in the first information report, nor there is any discrepancy with regard to the genesis and the manner thereof. 10. The leared Counsel pointed out that from a conjoint reading of the first information report as also , the statements made by the informant before the court it would appear that the assault started in the lane but the deceased was dragged to the bari of the appellants. He further pointed out that the investigating officer has found dragging marks and also found blood both on the lane as also in the bari. 11. He further pointed out that the investigating officer has found dragging marks and also found blood both on the lane as also in the bari. 11. The learned Counsel pointed out that prosecution must be held to have explained the injury on the person of the appellant Savitri Devi, inasmuch as in the first information report itself, it was mentioned that she might have received injuries while the deceased was being assaulted by a farsa by the appellant Govind Mishra. It was further submitted that the injury on the person of the appellant Savitri Devi also stands supported by the medical report. 12. It was further pointed out that not only PW 7 has seen the occurrence, but PW 2 Prameshwar Yadav and PW 3 Jagdish supported the prosecution case and thus also stated that they saw the accused persons fleeing away. 13. The question which arises for consideration in these appeals is as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all shadow of doubt. 14. Admittedly, the occurrence took place at about 6-00 p. m. on 30-8-1984. Thereafter, somebody informed Sheo Prasad Raut who was an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Hirodih P. S. who examined himself as PW 8. 15. PW 8 in his dcposition stated that at about 8-00 p. m. he got an information of a commission of an offence. He in paragraph 7 categorically stated that he made a station diary entry being No, 477 of 1984. The said station diary entry has not been produced in Court, The investigating officer has also not disclosed in his evidence as to from whom he got the information. The informant however in his deposition categorically stated that it was Lav Kush Mahto (PW 4) and Budhu Mahto was not examined who had gone to the police station for informing the Officer-Incharge about the commission of an offence. PW 4 although examined in the court did not corroborate PW 7 in this regard. 16. According to the informant the fard-beyan of PW 7 was recorded at about 9 p. m. at village Karihari which is situated at a distance of about 4 kilometres from the Polio- Station. Admittedly the Investigating Officer PW 8 received the said information about the commission of an offence at 8 p.m. Strangely enough the formal first information report was recorded at about 7-30 a. m. on 31-8-1984. Admittedly the Investigating Officer PW 8 received the said information about the commission of an offence at 8 p.m. Strangely enough the formal first information report was recorded at about 7-30 a. m. on 31-8-1984. The Station Diary Entry in this situation, was an important document. No explanation has been offered as to why the said document had not been produced particularly in view of the fact that the Officer Incharge of the Hirodih Police Station evidently was absent and the Station diary was recorded by the PW 8 himself. 17. In his Fard-beyan Ext. 5, the informant categorically stated that the place of occurrence is the gulley inasmuch as at that place where the appellant Govind Mishra had been assaulting the deceased and the appellant Savitri Devi was catching hold of her waist and was dragging him towards their Ban. In the first information report it is not disclosed that the appellant succeeded in their attempts to take the deceased to the bari and in fact the main assailant took place at in the bari itself. 18. According to the informant that the appellantGovind Mishra was hurling bhalla blows on the back and head of the deceased. PW 7, PW 8 and other witness have admitted that the maize bari of the appellants was fenced. However, PW 7 in his deposition developed the story to the effect that while he reached in front of the house he saw both the appellants coming there and the appellant Govind Mishra started inflicting bhalla blows and Savitri Devi dragged the deceased into her Bari catching hold to her waist. 19. In bis deposition also PW 7 did not state that any assault took place in the Bari itself. The informant PW 7 in his deposition stated that he was only about 10 Kubits away from the deceased but in his statement before the police he was stated that he was 10 yards i.e. 30 feet behind the deceased. 20. PW 7 in his cross-examination also stated that when he reached near the house of the appellant Govind Mishra to other appellant Savitri Devi came there all of a sudden and dragged him into a Bari and there and then Govind Mishra assaulted him as a result whereof the deceased fell down., In paragraph 11 of his deposition he stated that no assault on the deceased took place in the gulley. The Investigating Officer PW 8 admittedly found the dead body of the deceased in the Bari of the appellants. He collected the blood stains from that place but evidently he did not collect the blood stains from the lane although in the seizure list he purported to have stated that blood stains were found both in the gully as also in the Bari., 21. It has to be borne in mind that PW 7 in his deposition categorically stated throughout the day it was raining and while he came out of. his house for the purpose of purchasing Atta, the rains continued. He further admitted that because of the rain became muddy. The blood stains earth was collected by the ASI was not sent to any Chemical Examiner. The explanation given by him was that he handed over the (sic) of the Investigating Officer. 22. PW 8 therefore, only carried out a part of the investigation insofar as he recorded the fard-beyan, collected blood stains earth, seizure, a Gamcha allegedly belonging to the appellants and arrested them. 23. The officer incharge of the Hirodih Police Station who thus carried out a major part of the investigation has not examined, nor any explanation therefor, had been offered. PW 1 Dr. Shiv Narain Prasad in his deposition found the following anti-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased : (i) Stab injury on left leg 1" x 2" x 1" (ii) Stab injury on right side of chest 2" X 2" X 1". (iii) Five stab injuries on the face on left side each measuring about 1" x 2" x 4". (iv) Three stab injuries on the face on right side each measuring about 1" (v) Stab injury on right shoulder (vi) Stab injury on left side of neck 1" x 2" x 1/2" (vii) Stab injury on left cheek 1" x 1/2" X 1/2" (viii) Incised injury on left side of head 3" x 1" X Scalp bone deep." The deceased therefore received as many as 15 injuries out of which 14 were stabed injury and one was an incised one. 24 With regard to the nature of the injury PW 7, who is the only witness so far as the assault is concerned, stated that the appellant Govind Mishra started hurling in discriminating blows on the back and head of the deceased. 25. 24 With regard to the nature of the injury PW 7, who is the only witness so far as the assault is concerned, stated that the appellant Govind Mishra started hurling in discriminating blows on the back and head of the deceased. 25. PW 7 when further questioned as to whether he knows as to what is the Farsa categorically answered the same in affirmative and stated that Farsa are two or three kinds. He, however, did not explain what type of Farsa was in possession of the Appellant Govind Mishra. 26. In his deposition, he however, stated that the Farsa is fitted in a stick and while hurling Farsa blows on the deceased accused Govind Mishra was holding stick side of the weapon in his fist. A Farsa can no doubt cause both stabed injuries as also incised injury but the nature of the injuries inficted on a person by reason of a Farsa would depend the manner in which it was used. The way in which PW 7 narrated the story one can presume that the entire occurrence did not take place for a period of more than few minutei. 27. If the entire assault on the deceased by the appellant Govind was completed within a few minutes, normally one would think, keeping in view the the nature of injuries that he had used only the side portion of Bhalla and not the front portion but the same is not commensurate with the statements of PW 7. 28. However, as noticed hereinbefore, according to PW 7, all the injuries were inflicted on the back and head of the deceased, but it appears from the evidence of PW 1 that one stab injury was caused on the left one at the right side of the chest, five stab injuries on the face on a left side and three stab injuries on the face at the right side as also on right shoulders, Whereas one stab injury on the left side of the neck, another stab injury on the left cheek and one inside injury on the left side of the head. Most of the injuries, therefore, were inflicted on the front side of the body and not on the back or the head, as alleged by the informant. PW 1 further found that the scalp bone was fractured and the brain looked dark coloured. 29. Mr. Most of the injuries, therefore, were inflicted on the front side of the body and not on the back or the head, as alleged by the informant. PW 1 further found that the scalp bone was fractured and the brain looked dark coloured. 29. Mr. Ramavatar Sharma, the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, therefore, rightly suggested that it may be doubtrul that three different types of injuries could be caused by a Bnalla, as all the injuries were inflicted by one person within few minutes. PW 1 on post-mortem has further found half digested food. 30. Mr. Sharma, submitted that PW I in his evidence stated that he conducted autopsy of the dead body on 1-9-1984 and he having found that the death took place 21 hours before conducting of his examination, the same does not fit in with the prosecution case. However, from the post-mortem report, which has been marked as Ext. 1, it appears that the post-mortem was conducted on 31-8-1984 at about 2-00 p. m. PW 1, therefore, evidently stated by mistake that the post-mortem examination was held on 1-9-1984., Such a step on the part of the witness, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be taken benefit of by the appellants. 31. It further appears that PW 1 Dr. Shiv Narayan Prasad admitted that stab injuries are generally inflicted by knife and dagger, but the same can also be caused by Bhala and other pointed weapons. In paragraph 8 of his cross-examination, he stated that although the name or the weapons used in inflicting the injuries on the person of the deceased was not only biased on his opinion, but also upon suggestion given to him by the Additional Public Prosecutor conducting the prosecution case. It is therefore evident that the doctor did not base only on his own knowledge, but also acted upon the suggestion of the Additional Public Prosecutor, Which was wrolly improper. 32. It is also note-worthy that informant PW 7 also at one stage stated that weapon used for inflicting injuries upon the deceased was a Chura. In this situation, a reasonable doubt may arise with regard to the manner in which the occurrence is alleged to have been taken place. 32. It is also note-worthy that informant PW 7 also at one stage stated that weapon used for inflicting injuries upon the deceased was a Chura. In this situation, a reasonable doubt may arise with regard to the manner in which the occurrence is alleged to have been taken place. It may also be noticed that PW 7 in paragraph 10 of his deposition admitted that at the time of occurrence darkness had started setting in and it . was a rainy day. He admitted to have come out of his house with an umbrella. Further according to the said witness, he stated before the police that he was 30 ft. behind the deceased and thus the probability of his having not witnessing the weapon of assault cannot be ruled out. 33. He further contradicted himself with regard to the place of actual assault, inasmuch as in the F. I. R. he stated that the assault took place in the goli" but in paragraph 11 of his deposition, he stated that no assault took place in the gali rather the deceased was assaulted in the Bari of the accused. 34. However, his attention was drawn to his earlier statements made before the Police to the effect that he had stated that while Narayan was going in the gali Govind gave three Bhalla blows on the back of Narayan whereupon he fell down and thereafter the appellant Sabitri Devi came out of her Bari. 35. It may be noticed at this juncture that PW 7 in paragraphs 1 and 2 stated that the deceased was assaulted in the gali, and not in the Bari of the appellants. 36. The investigating officer PW 8 in his deposition stated that the Bari of the accused was fenced with certain type of creepers which was very thick and bushy, sufficient enough to conceal persons in this situation, if the assault had taken place in the Bari he being at the distance of 30 Ft. the possibility of his not seeing the entire occurrence cannot be ruled out. 37. the possibility of his not seeing the entire occurrence cannot be ruled out. 37. It is further significant to note that in paragraph 13 of his deposition, PW 7 stated that no sooner the appellant Govind inflicted injuries on the deceased, he fled back towards his house raising alarm and again returned to the place of occurrence after 20 to 25 minutes, i. e. much after the arrival of PWs 2 and 3. The aforementioned statement of the PW 7 does not fit in with his statements made in the F.I.R. and the statements made in his examination-in-chief. Further, as the distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was only four kilometres, it was expected of PW 5 to give a vivid description about the occurrence to other witnesses before the arrival of the police, But despite the same, no witness has come to depose that he came to learn about the incident in details, including the name of the assailants from the informant. It is important to note that according to the prosecution witness, there are many houses near the gali, but nobody from the neighbourhood except PW 2 and PW 3 was examined. Even none of the family members of the deceased was examined on this point. PW 7 further admitted that the deceased died after 20 to 25 minutes. PW 7 did not make any attempt to save the deceased. He even did not go near the deadbody immediately ; despite he raised alarm, the neighbourers did not come out. The informant did not also go to the Police Station for informing a very near relation of the deceased. The aforemenned conduct of the informant as also the circumstances run counter to the prosecution case. 38. It is also significant to note that despite the fact that he saw the entire occurrence, but immediately thereafter he went back to home and after a great delay i.e. 20 to 25 minutes he allegedly came back. There is nothing to show that he narrated the incident even to the inmates of his house. He appears to have disclosed the names of the assailants only when the police arrived i.e. about three hours after the occurrence took place. The conduct of the appellant, thus, appears to be unnatural and improbable. 39. PWs. 2 and 3 also did not state that they had seen the assault. He appears to have disclosed the names of the assailants only when the police arrived i.e. about three hours after the occurrence took place. The conduct of the appellant, thus, appears to be unnatural and improbable. 39. PWs. 2 and 3 also did not state that they had seen the assault. If PW 7 had screamed at the earlierst possible opportunity, as he is said to have done, and PWs 2 and 3 came out immediately thereafter, it was expected that they would have witnessed at least a part of the occurrence namely dragging of the dead body towards the deceased. But PWs 2 and 3 merely stated that they also saw the accused persons fleeing away with their Bhala although their statements under Section 164, Cr. P. C. they did not say that they had been running away with Bhala. It is, therefore, evident that these witnesses also have tried to improve from their earlier statements, PW 3 in his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also did not say that he saw the accused persons fleeing away. It may also to noticed that at this stage, despite the fact that the accused persons were said to have been arrested from their Bari by the Police, the weapon of assault was not recovered. Even the sari of the appellant was not seized although PW 8 denied the suggestion that the same was not seized as it did not contain any blood stains. 40. It has further come on the records that although a gamcha was seized, the same was also hot produced in court. 41. The submissions of Mr. Ramavtar Sharma to the effect that the story of dragging the deceased has purposely been introduced as the dead body was found in the bari. although according to the F.I.R. the murder took place in the lane, has some substance. Had the deceased died in the manner, as was stated by PW 7 and the deased was dragged from the lane to the Bari after he fell down, some abrasions must have caused and found in the autopsy either by way of ante-mortem or post-mortem injury. 42. Had the deceased died in the manner, as was stated by PW 7 and the deased was dragged from the lane to the Bari after he fell down, some abrasions must have caused and found in the autopsy either by way of ante-mortem or post-mortem injury. 42. It is true that PW 8 in paragraph 15 of his deposition stated that Bari was situated by the side of the lane and dragging marks were found but he also stated that no blood stained earth was seized from the lane. It is, therefore, evident that PW 7 in- his statements before them could not also contradict himself inasmuch as according to him, the entire incidence of assault took place either in the lane or in the Bari, but he did not suggest that a part of the incidence took place in the lane and part thereof in the Bari. Further, presence of blood found in the place of occurrence would depend upon the quantum thereof, inasmuch as if only a small quantum of blood fell on the ground, it could have been difficult to find out trait of blood as it was a rainy day. In such a situation, the dragging mark was not possible to be found as the entire lane according to PW 7 himself became muddy because of , incessant rain. It is also doubtful as to whether it could have been possible for Savitri Devi alone to drag the deceased from lane to the Bari after he fell down in the lane. 43. It also appears strange that PW 7 does not specifically state that the deceased was dragged from the lane to the Bari only after he fell down. Had he been dragged in the standing position, the question of any finding dragging mark would not arise. 44. It is true as has been held by the learned Court below in the impugned judgment that it is possible to pass a judgment of conviction on the basis of the testimony of the sole witness. The learned Court, below has also rightly held that it is also possible to rely upon the testimony of an interested witness; but in this case, the trustworthiness of the witness has to be judged keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of this case, as also his conduct. 45. The learned Court, below has also rightly held that it is also possible to rely upon the testimony of an interested witness; but in this case, the trustworthiness of the witness has to be judged keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of this case, as also his conduct. 45. Admittedly, the informant PW 7 was not only related to the deceased but also was-inimical to the appellants. He admitted that there had been several criminal cases going on between the parties, but before the occurrence the criminal cases come to an end. In this situation, in our opinion, PW 7 cannot be said to be a wholly reliable witness. 46. Further, as indicated hereinbefore, the conduct of the PW 8, the investigating officer is also not beyond suspicion. He did not produce the station diary entry which was a very vital document inasmuch as had the same contained necessary ingredients, it could have been treated as first information report. An adverse inference therefor has to be drawn against the prosecution for non-production of the said station diary entry. Although according to PW 8 the F.I.R. was recorded at 9-00 p. m. there is no reason as to why the formal F.I.R. was drawn up only in the morning. As an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, he could not have taken up the investigation in absence of any authority in this regard conferred upon him by the Superintendent of Police in terms of Rule 12 of the Bihar Police Manual. Admittedly, he handed over the investigation to the officer incharge on the next day. From the charge-sheet, it appears that various other witnesses were also named in the charge-sheet, but no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution, even the investigating officer has not been examined. The Supreme Court in Katki Odhabhai Bhimabhai v. State of Gujarat reported in 1993 Cr LJ 187 has held that before convicting an accused on the testimony of sole witness, he must be wholly reliable. In Bhimappa v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1993 SC 1469 it was held that if the behaviour of eye-witness was unnatural, he may not be relied upon. In Bhimappa v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1993 SC 1469 it was held that if the behaviour of eye-witness was unnatural, he may not be relied upon. Yet recently, the Supreme Court in State of Katnataka v. Babu reported in AIR 1994 SC 31 has inter alia, held that when wife of the deceased did not rush immediately to the place of occurrence upon coming to know about the occurrence from her children, he conduct was unnatural and keeping in view the other circumstances also it was held that testimony of the eye-witnesses could not be relied upon. In Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1994 SC 110 it was inter alia held that when the conduct of the eye-witnesbes was unnatural, recovery of weapon by itself cannot lead to an inference that the accused had committed the offence of murder. However, in that case, the accused was convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. 47. In Thakarde Malaji Ramsangji v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1993 SC 1678 the Supreme Court passed in judgment of acquittal, as in the facts of that case, the story of the appellants fleeing away with Bhala was not stated in the F.I.R. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and further keeping in view the fact that the sole eye-witness was an interested and related witness, his testimony was not relied upon by the Supreme Court. 48. In Satya Narain Bhagat v. State of Bihar reported in 1992 (2) Bih LJ 215 a Division Bench of this Court held that where all the witness were partisan and interested and their testimonies were not corroborated by any independent and reliable witness, the prosecution must fail. 49. Keeping in view the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio laid down in the aforementioned decisions, we are of the view that in this case the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. 50. These appeals are therefore allowed : the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned court below is set aside. 51. The appellant Govind Mishra is in custody. He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless not wanted in connection with any other case. The appellant Sabitri Devi is on bail. She is discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds. 51. The appellant Govind Mishra is in custody. He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless not wanted in connection with any other case. The appellant Sabitri Devi is on bail. She is discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds. AMIR DAS, J. 52 I agree.