JUDGMENT 1. All the appellants were put on trial in Sessions Case No. 20/93 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur for committing murder of Sumer Singh and Dinesh Singh. The learned trial Court convicted all the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 15 days was awarded vide judgment dated May 27, 1994. All the four appellants have filed separate appeals noted above, as such, all the appeals are being decided together. 2. As per the prosecution case, occurrence had taken place at 8.30 or 9 p.m. on April 9, 1993 in village Dhankya in a Chowk infront of temple Ramdeo Ji. The report of the incident (Ex.D.7) was lodged by RW. 14, Roop Singh, father of Dinesh Singh deceased at Police Station, Bagru at 1.15 a.m. on 10.4.93. On this report, Crime No. 166/93 was registered under section 302 and 307 I.P.C. by the S.H.O., Shri Shishpal Singh (RW.12). The prosecution case as unfolded in the report Ex.D. 7 was that informant's son Dinesh Singh, had gone to a flour mill (Atta Chakki) at 7 p.m. for grinding grains but he did not return home. Then, at 11.30 in night, Sumer Singh's mother came to him and informed that Sumer Singh and Dinesh Singh were murdered. Thereupon, Roop Singh went to the place of occurrence alongwith Sumer Singh's mother and found Sumer Singh and Dinesh Singh lying there. Sumer Singh had died, while Dinesh Singh was unconscious at that time. Witnesses Fateh Singh and Shyam Singh were standing there and on inquiry they informed that Trilok Singh, his father's sister's son Babu Lai, Natwar Singh and one outsider had killed both Sumer Singh and Dinesh Singh with stones and by cutting their necks. Injured Dinesh Singh was sent to S.M.S. Hospital in a State Roadways Bus, but he too died there. His inquest report (Ex.P 2) was prepared and autopsy of his dead body was conducted by Dr. Y.N. Verma, Medical Jurist, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. The post mortem of dead body of Sumer Singh was conducted by the Medical Officer at Bagru. The statement of one Ramu alias Ram Prakash Daroga was recorded during investigation as an eye witness of the incident. Y.N. Verma, Medical Jurist, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. The post mortem of dead body of Sumer Singh was conducted by the Medical Officer at Bagru. The statement of one Ramu alias Ram Prakash Daroga was recorded during investigation as an eye witness of the incident. Site inspection of the place of occurrence was also made by the Investigating Officer at 6.15 a.m. on 10.4.93 and site plan (Ex.P 12) was prepared by him. After completion of the investigation, the Police submitted a charge sheet against all the four accused persons in the Court of the concerned Magistrate and after committal of the case they were tried, convicted and sentenced by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur as stated above. It may be stated herein that the appellants were also charged under section 302 and 120-B I.PC., but they were found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.PC. 3. As per post mortem report (Ex.R6) of Dinesh Singh, the following injuries were found on his person which were ante-mortem.(A) Ante-mortem injuries: 1. Abrasion of size 1 cm. x ⅛cm. with dried dark clotted blood over dorsum of (Lt.) middle finger. Proximal part placed obliquely vertical. 2. Lacerated wound of size 1 x 1/2 cm. x Muscle deep over lateral aspect of (Rt.) pelvis near Iliac, crest having clotted blood placed transversely. 3. Multiple Abrasions (12) of varying size 6 x 1/2 cm. to 1/4 x1/4 cm. over antero lateral aspect of (Rt.) side hip, buttock and upper part of lateral surface of thigh having clotted blood placed irregularly in varying directions. 4. Abrasion of -cm. x 6 cm. over (Rt.) clavicular area middle part c Bruise with Abrasion of size 8 cm. x 7 cm. over (Rt.) clavicle outer part front of chest upper pait and (Rt.) shoulder with dried clotted blood. 5. Multiple bruises with abrasions of size 2x2 cm. area to 12 x 4 cm. Intermittent uncountable crossing each over at places over (Rt.) side cheek (Rt.) ear pinna. (Rt.) side forehead (Rt.) upper eyelid eyebrow, nose at places left upper eye lid and left cheek reddish in colour with diffuse swelling at places. 6. Bruise with Abrasion of size 6x2 cm. over (Rt.) supra clavicular and (Rt.) side neck reddish. 7. Bruise c Abrasion of size 3 x 1 cm. over (Rt.) side sub mandibular region reddish. 8. (Rt.) side forehead (Rt.) upper eyelid eyebrow, nose at places left upper eye lid and left cheek reddish in colour with diffuse swelling at places. 6. Bruise with Abrasion of size 6x2 cm. over (Rt.) supra clavicular and (Rt.) side neck reddish. 7. Bruise c Abrasion of size 3 x 1 cm. over (Rt.) side sub mandibular region reddish. 8. Incised looking lacerated wound of size 31/2 x 1 cm. x muscle deep on the outer part of left eye brow and eye placed obliquely and covered with thick blood dry clotted, the edges of the wound are cleanly cut and margins are clean cut but irregular. 9. Lacerated wound of sixe 3/4 x 1/4 x skin deep over outer canthus of left eye covered with dry clotted blood. 10. Lacerated wound of size | x 1 x skin deep over upper part of root of left ear pinna with dry clotted blood. 11. Lacerated wound 6 x 1/2 cm, x skin deep covered with thick dry blood (see diag.) placed transversally curved as in diagram on lower ⅓ part of neck. 12. Lacerated 12x2 cm. x muscle deep with dry clotted blood (see dig.) on front of neck with central width 1/2 cm. 13. Lacerated wound of size 12 cm. x 5 cm. placed on front of neck upper part exposing soft tissue, muscle and upper part. Thyroid cartilage and larynx upper part showing bruising, swelling of Epiglottis exposed parts are soaked with thick blood on dissection trachea contains blood mixed with mucous upto bifurcation of tracheae. The brounchus on both sides are seen containing semi solid thick blood in their lumens (plugging it) up to 5 cm. on each side. Branching Bronchioles distal to this region also contain thick blood. Lungs are swollen, ordematus and expanded on dissection congested. Further dissection of oesophagus bruish streaks of blood over inner mucous membrane about 40 ml. blood mixed with gastric secretion is found in stomach cavity. The major vesseles of neck are intact but minor vessels are found torn, depth of wound from skin to deeper tissue in cm. just below the hyoid bone. The hyoid bone is intact. The muscles between hyoid and thyroid are torn with tissue staining. The sternum is found fractured in middle part and under surface shower exhavanton(?) blood and tissues stain around fract site. 14. just below the hyoid bone. The hyoid bone is intact. The muscles between hyoid and thyroid are torn with tissue staining. The sternum is found fractured in middle part and under surface shower exhavanton(?) blood and tissues stain around fract site. 14. Dissection of cranium : On dissection there is sub scalp haemotoma beneath injury No. 5 & 8 and on (Rt.) pariental region, further dissection shows congestion of mentreium which are tense and bluish shaded. On dissection there is sub dural haemorrhage on both cerebral hemispheres. There are two areas of contusion over lower surface of frontal parts of cerebral hemispheres measuring 1) x 1 cm. over inferior surface with tissue stain and dark red coloured. On further examination Medulla Oblongata is seen oedamatus and congested cut surface shown minute patechial haemorrhages. 4. As per post mortem report of Sumer Singh he had following injuries : 1. Lacerated wound 3 x 0.3 cm x muscle deep with blood clots present on the chin. 2. Lacerated wound 3 x 0.3 cm on the middle of the lower lip. 3. Bruise 5 x 30 cm on the (L) side face. 4. Abrasion 4 x 2.0 cm on the (R) side face just lateral to outer canthus of eye. 5. Abrasion 5 x 1.0 cm on the (R) side forehead. 6. Abrasion 1.0 x 0.3 cm on the (L) side forehead. 7. An incised wound of 18 x 5.8 cms. bone deep with well defined margins & blood clots were present horizontally in front part of the neck between chin & thyroid cartilage. The sebbon muscles were `cut'. The hythyroid membrane was cut. Great vessels of the neck were cut. There were blood clots present in the wound side as well as on the rest of the neck, face & scalp and outer part of the chest. The body of the 3rd cervical vertabra was partially cut anteriorly. 5. During trial, prosecution examined 14 witnesses. Eye witness Ramu alias Ram Prakash was examined as PW. 3, but he did not support the prosecution case. The learned trial Court recorded conviction of the appellants relying mainly on the testimony of P.W.1 Shyam Singh and P.W. 2 Fateh Singh who were also examined as eye witnesses. 6. Before dealing with the evidence of Shyam Singh and Fateh Singh, we would like to refer to the evidence of P.W. 4 Prem Singh and RW. The learned trial Court recorded conviction of the appellants relying mainly on the testimony of P.W.1 Shyam Singh and P.W. 2 Fateh Singh who were also examined as eye witnesses. 6. Before dealing with the evidence of Shyam Singh and Fateh Singh, we would like to refer to the evidence of P.W. 4 Prem Singh and RW. 11 Prithvi Singh, as in our view, their evidence is very important in the case and has bearing while appreciating evidence of the alleged eye witnesses, Shyam Singh and Fateh Singh. PW. 4 Prem Singh, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for causing murder of Himmat Singh, father of the appellant Trilok Singh, as such, it ca be taken that this witness was highly interested in implicating the appellants in the crime. As per his statement, at 8-9 p.m. on the day of occurrence, he was on his well where Surajpal Singh came and informed that some quarrel had taken place in the village. Thereupon, they came in the village and found Sumer Singh and Dinesh Singh lying there. They also found witnesses, Shyam Singh and Fateh Singh to be there. However, in his Police statement (Ex.D. 4), this material fact was not stated by the witness. We have referred to the statement of this witness to show that in his police statement recorded under section 161 Cr.PC, the presence of Sumersingh and Fateh Singh was not stated by him at the place of incident when he reached there immediately after the occurrence. PW 11 Prithvi Singh is real brother of RW. 4 Prem Singh. He was also convicted for causing murder of Trilok Singh's Father. He is said to have reached at the place of occurrence after 11 in the same night. He has deposed that Sumer Singh and Fateh Singh witnesses were at the place of occurrence when he reached there and they told the names of the appellants and one Babu lal to have murdered Sumer Singh and Dinesh Singh. However, this important fact does not find place in his police statement Ex.D. 8. The police statement of this witness assumes importance as it was recorded at 8 or 9 a.m. on the very next day of the incident and it was prior to recording the statements of Fateh Singh and Shyam Singh by the police. This witness is also the scribe of the report Ex.D. 7. The police statement of this witness assumes importance as it was recorded at 8 or 9 a.m. on the very next day of the incident and it was prior to recording the statements of Fateh Singh and Shyam Singh by the police. This witness is also the scribe of the report Ex.D. 7. When this witness was confronted as to why he did mention the names of all the appellants as assailants of Sumer Singh and Dinesh Singh in report Ex.D. 7, the replied that he wrote the facts in the report as given out by RW. 14 Roop Singh. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of this witness, we are of the opinion that if the alleged eye witnesses, Shyam Singh and Fateh Singh were present at the place of occurrence and had disclosed the names of the appellants, Mahendra Singh, Hanuman Choudhary and Rajendra Grover, as assailants of the deceased, this witness would have stated so in his police statement recorded under section 161 Cr.PC. Not only this, he would have also mentioned their names in the report Ex.D.7. From his statement it transpires that he recorded facts in report Ex.D.7 as dictated by Roop Singh PW. 14 and it also appears at an imaginary story was given in the report that appellant Trilok Singh, his cousin Babu Lal, Natwar Singh and one outsider had assaulted Sumer Singh and Dinesh Singh. The name of Trilok Singh appears to have been given in the report, as he was the strongest enemy and every body was interested in implicating him. it further appears that names of the witnesses, Shyam Singh and Fateh Singh were given in the report as they were close relatives of the deceased. Shyam Singh is the real uncle of the deceased Sumer Singh, while Fateh Singh is first cousin of the deceased Dinesh Singh. 7. in the back ground of the above facts, we now proceed to scrutinise the evidence of Shyam Singh and Fateh Singh, the alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence, which has been relied upon by the trial Court for convicting the appellant. 8. PW. 2 Fateh Singh, has deposed that the incident had taken place at 9 p.m. on 9th April, 1993 and the four appellants and one Babu lal had assaulted the deceased Dinesh Singh and Sumer Singh. 8. PW. 2 Fateh Singh, has deposed that the incident had taken place at 9 p.m. on 9th April, 1993 and the four appellants and one Babu lal had assaulted the deceased Dinesh Singh and Sumer Singh. He also deposed that Trilok Singh assaulted with a `Chhura' which is used for slaughtering animals, while other accused assaulted the deceased with iron rods. Rajendra Singh sat on the chest of Dinesh Singh and inflicted a blow on his neck with a `palta'. That a Roadways bus arrived there and 2-3 passengers had got down from it. That Roop Singh came on the spot after getting information for someone and Dinesh Singh was taken to the Hospital in a bus. In cross examination, he admits that Dinesh Singh was his uncle's son and it was a fact that he did not intimate about the incident to any member of his family or any other person or the police; that he was not present on the spot when police came there and he met with the police next day in the morning at 8-9 a.m., but, his statement was recorded by the police at 4 or 5 p.m. in the house of Roop Singh. The witness was confronted with portion A to B of his police statement, Ex.D.2, Wherein he had stated that at 2 p.m. on the day of incident he had closed his flour mill (Atta Chakki) and went to his house where he slept as he had consumed much liquor and that he did not see the incident, nor he said anything to Roop Singh, the father of the deceased Dinesh Singh. He also admitted that Roop Singh was present when his statement was recorded by the police. He, then, stated that he had no talk with Roop Singh in the night of the occurrence. In cross examination, though the witness tried to conceal his relationship with the deceased Dinesh Singh and his father Roop Singh, but still he had to admit that his real grand father was Khangar Singh who was also father of Roop Singh. The witness was also confronted with his statement Ex.D. 3 recorded by the Magistrate in an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.PC on a subsequent complaint filed by Roop Singh. PW. The witness was also confronted with his statement Ex.D. 3 recorded by the Magistrate in an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.PC on a subsequent complaint filed by Roop Singh. PW. 1 Shyam Singh is another star witness of the prosecution and in fact, conviction of the appellants can be sustained only if his evidence is found trust-worthy and credible. This witness has stated in trial Court that the occurrence had taken place at 9 p.m. on 9.4.93 and he knew all the four appellants. That Dinesh Singh and Sumer Singh had come to his shop at 8 or 8.30 p.m. where they took tea. That his shop is situated near the temple Ramdeo Ji and flour mill (Atta Chakki) of Fateh Singh is situated in front of his shop. That the appellants and one Babu Lal caught Sumer Singh and Dinesh Singh when they had gone 4-5 steps away from his shop after taking tea and they were taken towards the temple of Ramdeo Ji. That Trilok Singh was having a `Chhura', Rajendra Singh was having a Palta and rest of the accused were having iron rods. That both the deceased were assaulted by the accused persons and that the appellant, Trilok Singh inflicted first blow on the neck of Sumer Singh with `Chhura' while other accused assaulted with iron-rods and Palta. That Dinesh Singh tried to rescue Sumer Singh but he too was given a blow with an iron-rod on his head. The witness also gave other details of the assault made on Dinesh Singh by each of the appellants. According to this witness, 4-5 persons of Regar community also came there when he cried for help, but they ran away on being threatened by the accused. He then stated that a bus had arrived there and 2-3 passengers got down from it. That Roop Singh came on the spot and he narrated all the facts to him and that on asking Roop Singh, he took Dinesh Singh to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur in an injured condition alongwith Fateh Singh, Prem Singh, Narpat Singh, Surajpal Singh and 4-5 other persons. That he had narrated the incident to the Police in the evening of next day of the occurrence. That he had narrated the incident to the Police in the evening of next day of the occurrence. This witness was confronted with his police statement (Ex.D.1) on all material facts which he deposed in the trial Court, but, there was only one reply from his side that he had stated all the facts to the Police. In cross examination, he also stated that Roop Singh came on the spot after 1|-2 hours of the incident and he was informed all the facts of the incident except about the part of each accused in causing injuries to the deceased. He denied the arrival of Prithvi Singh at the place of incident. He admitted that he did not go to the Police Station with Roop Singh. Then, the witness was confronted from portion `G to H' of his police statement (Ex.D.1) wherein he has specifically stated that he did not see the appellant Trilok Singh assaulting the deceased. 9. We have given sum and substance of statements of the star witnesses, Shyam Singh and Fateh Singh. A good deal of arguments were made from both sides in relation to their evidence. On behalf of the appellants it was vehemently contended that their evidence is not reliable and in support of their contention, they pointed out a number of circumstances, including the conduct of the witnesses. Contrary to this, learned counsel for the complainant, with equal vehemence contended that their evidence was trust-worthy and it should not be disbelieved on some minor contradictions and inconsistencies in their statements. Mr. Surana also contended that investigation of the case was not fair and proper and evidence of these witnesses should not be discarded o the basis of their contrary statements recorded by the investigating agency under section 161 Cr.PC. 10. After deeply considering the respective submissions made by the learned counsel, we are of the confirmed view that the evidence of these witnesses cannot be relied upon for more than one reason. Some of the reasons are given as under: (i) P.W. 1 Shyam Singh is real uncle of deceased Sumer Singh, while RW. 2 Fateh Singh is first cousin of deceased Dinesh Singh. Some of the reasons are given as under: (i) P.W. 1 Shyam Singh is real uncle of deceased Sumer Singh, while RW. 2 Fateh Singh is first cousin of deceased Dinesh Singh. It is true that their evidence cannot be discarded on the ground that they happen to be the close relatives of the deceased, but by the very fact of their close relationship with the deceased, the possibility of making them as eye-witness, of the occurrence cannot be ruled out. The abnormal conduct of the witnesses at the time and after the incident creates serious doubt about their being present at the time of the occurrence. The incident had taken place, as per the statements of the witnesses, at 8.30 or 9 p.m. on 9.4.93 and admittedly, non of them made any effort to lodge report at the Police Station. No effort was also made to save life of Dinesh Singh by immediately shifting him to some hospital and he was allowed to remain lying on the ground with profuse bleeding. The very fact that no attempt was made to save the life of Dinesh Singh makes it highly doubtful that the witnesses were present at the time of incident. Looking to the close relationship of the witnesses with the deceased, it is not understandable that they would have remained idle for 2 hours or so without taking some positive steps for informing the police or the parents of the deceased or for saving the life of Dinesh Singh, the abnormal conduct of the witness, in our view, is sufficient to disbelieve their presence at the time of incident. If these witnesses had seen the incident, and narrated names of all the appellants as assailants to Roop Singh or RW. 4 Prem Singh and had given details of the weapons carried on by them and part played by each of them, in that situation the report (Ex.D. 7), would not have been written by RW.4 Prem singh in the manner it has been lodged. In the report, except the name of Trilok Singh, names of other three appellants are not mentioned and some other persons are named as assailants. There is also inconsistency with regard to the weapon used for assaulting the deceased and the manner in which the incident had taken place. RW. In the report, except the name of Trilok Singh, names of other three appellants are not mentioned and some other persons are named as assailants. There is also inconsistency with regard to the weapon used for assaulting the deceased and the manner in which the incident had taken place. RW. 4 Prem Singh and RW.11 Prithvi Singh who had reached at the place of occurrence in the same night on being informed by Surajpal Singh, have not stated the presence of Shyam Singh and Fateh Singh in their statements recorded by the police during investigation. It is note-worthy that their statements were recorded by the Police much prior to recording of the statements of Shyam Singh and Fateh Singh. Fateh Singh in his statement under section 161 Cr.PC has categorically stated that he had not seen the incident and that he had gone after dosing his flour mill at 2 p.m. on the day of incident. Similarly, in his police statement Ex.D. 2, he has categorically stated not to have seen the incident During investigation, RW.3 Ramu was examined as an eye witness of the incident, but he has not supported the prosecution case. Ramu could be an eye witness of the incident as his shop was situated just near the place of occurrence and this fact is borne out from the site-plan (Ex.R 12). The oral testimony of the witnesses, Shyam Singh and Fateh Singh given in Court also does not get corroboration from the medical evidence. As per statement of Sumer Singh, injured Dinesh Singh was bleeding extensively after the incident and he was helped in lifting for taking him to the Hospital in a bus and his clothes were soaked in blood. Seizure of his blood smeared clothes could have been an important piece of evidence to corroborate his statement, but the prosecution has not produced any such evidence. The statement of the witness that he has shown blood smeared clothes to the police, but the police did not seize them, does not appear to be correct as no such question has been put to the Investigating Officer. (ix) In F.I.R. also it has not seen clearly stated that Shyam Singh and Fateh Singh had seen the occurrence. The statement of the witness that he has shown blood smeared clothes to the police, but the police did not seize them, does not appear to be correct as no such question has been put to the Investigating Officer. (ix) In F.I.R. also it has not seen clearly stated that Shyam Singh and Fateh Singh had seen the occurrence. Contrary to this, from the application Ex.P.9, submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur by the Investigating Officer, It transpires that Ramu Daroga was only eye witness of the occurrence. As stated earlier, Ramu Daroga has not supported the prosecution case. 11. The contention of Mr. Surana, learned counsel for the complainant, does not appeal to us that the investigation in the case was not fair or that the I.O. RW. 12 Shishupal Singh has favoured the accused persons. Firstly, there is not material on record to substantiate this contention and by the mere fact that subsequently RW. 14 has filed the complaint Ex.P 33 making allegation against the I.O. Shishupal Singh, presumption can be raised that investigation of the case was not fair or that statements of the witnesses were not properly recorded during investigation. Not a single question has been put to the I.O. Shishupal Singh in this connection when he appeared in the witness box. The complainant also did not make any complaint to higher authority and the case was also investigated by P.W.13-Rajendra Kumar Tyagi and it could have been brought to his notice that statement of the witnesses were not properly recorded by the earlier I.O. Shri Shishupal Singh. A presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a Police Officer as of other persons and he cannot be distrusted without any good ground on the record. 12. We are also not in agreement with the submission of Mr. Surana that correct facts were not narrated in the Report/F.I.R. (Ex.D.7) by RW. 14 Roop Singh as he was mentally perplexed due to serious condition of his son Dinesh Singh. 12. We are also not in agreement with the submission of Mr. Surana that correct facts were not narrated in the Report/F.I.R. (Ex.D.7) by RW. 14 Roop Singh as he was mentally perplexed due to serious condition of his son Dinesh Singh. It is no doubt true that as per prosecution case, Roop Singh had gone to lodge the report after seeing his son Dinesh Singh in seriously injured condition, but, even in that state of mind the report to the Police would not have been in the shape of Ex.D. 7, if Shyam Singh and Fateh Singh witnesses had seen the occurrence and disclosed the names of the assailants and the weapons used by then As stated earlier, in Ex.D. 7, names of the appellants, Rajendra Grover, Mahendra Singh and Hanuman Choudhary do not find place as assailants of the deceased, but names of other persons are mentioned alongwith Trilok Singh appellant. Not only this, the weapon of assault was given as stones. Due to perplexed mental condition, there may be omission in narrating some of the facts, but altogether different facts, names of the assailants and weapon of assault could not be possible as contended by Mr. Surana. Further, the report was scribed by P.W. 11, Prithvi Singh and according to his statement he had come to know the names of the assailants when he reached at the site of incident and the same were disclosed by the witnesses, Shyam singh and Fateh Singh. In that situation, there was hardly any reason that names of different persons as assailants would have been mentioned in the report. It is true that the report was made promptly, but, this fact alone could not be a guarantee that the facts narrated in the report were correct. Even as per prosecution case, the facts narrated in report about names of the assailants and the weapon used for assault were not wholly correct. This is, in our opinion, a serious infirmity which has not been explained by the prosecution and it goes to the root of the case and renders prosecution story as doubtful. 13. Even as per prosecution case, the facts narrated in report about names of the assailants and the weapon used for assault were not wholly correct. This is, in our opinion, a serious infirmity which has not been explained by the prosecution and it goes to the root of the case and renders prosecution story as doubtful. 13. After giving out careful and anxious consideration to the entire facts and circumstances we are of the confirmed view that RW.1, Shyam Singh and RW.2, Fateh Singh were not eye witnesses of the incident and were introduced as such in the report, being in close relation of the deceased. The reasoning of the trial Judge for accepting the evidence of these witnesses is implausible. 14. The result of the above discussions is that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. We are aware that this double murder case would go unpunished, but, in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence we have no option but to acquit the appellants. 15. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentences of the appellants are set aside. They are in jail and shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******