Judgment B.P.Singh and P.K.Sarkar JJ. 1. The appellants herein have appealed against their conviction and sentence in S.T. No. 501/90/26/90 by the 4th Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, by the judgment and order dated 29th February, 1992, Appellants 1 to 3 are the brothers and appellant No.4 is their father. Appellant No.1 Subh Narayan Pandey has been found guilty of offence under Sec. 302. I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellants 2 and 3 have been found guilty of the offence under Sections 302/34. I.P.C. and have also been sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant No.4, having been found guilty of the offence under Secs. 302/114, has also been sentence to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The sessions trial arose out of an occurrence said to have taken place at 5.25 A.M. on 25-7-1990, at Sharma Road, near Dhurwa Bus Stand, in which one Akshywat Kumar Singh, brother of the informant, P.W. 2, lost his life, on account of the injuries caused to him by a sharp cutting weapon. The F.I.R. was lodged by P.W. 2, Sunil Kumar Singh at 7.45 A.M. on the same day, when the police reached the Plant Hospital of the Heavy Engineering Corporation, where the deceased had been removed for medical aid. In his report to the police. P.W. 2, Sunil Kumar stated that on the date of occurrence, he along with his elder brother, Akshywat Singh was sleeping in his flour mill shop situated at Sharma Road. At about 5.15 A.M., Ashok Pandey, appellant No. 3, knocked at the door of the shop and woke them up. Akshaywat Singh, the deceased, opened the door and asked appellant Ashok Pandey as to what was the matter. On which, Ashok told him that he had to talk to him and so saying he took Akshaywat to a place about 10 steps way. The brothers of Ashok Pandey namely, Shubh Pandey, appellant No. 1 and Vijay Pandey, appellant No. 2 also came there. The informant kept standing as he was under the impression that they were discussing some matter about the shop. He then saw that Vijay Pandey, appellant No. 2, caught his brother by his waist and Ashok Pandey appellant No. 3, took out a pistol. Appellant No. 1, Shubh Pandey pulled out a Gupti and thereafter their father, Shivnath Pandey, appellant No.4 exhorted them to kill Akshaywat Singh. He then saw that Vijay Pandey, appellant No. 2, caught his brother by his waist and Ashok Pandey appellant No. 3, took out a pistol. Appellant No. 1, Shubh Pandey pulled out a Gupti and thereafter their father, Shivnath Pandey, appellant No.4 exhorted them to kill Akshaywat Singh. He was seen running to the place of occurrence from his house. Appellant No.1, Shubh Narayan Pandey, stabbed Akshaywat with his Gupti on the left side of his chest, as a result of which he fell down. The informant raised alarm, but the assailants ran away. Vinay Kumar Shahi and Ram Kumar Singh came to the place of occurrence and arranged for a Tempo in which. Akshaywat was taken to the Plant Hospital, where the Doctor declared him dead. The main cause for the occurrence, mentioned in the report was that the accused person had also a shop near the shop of the informant and for some time they had been pressurising the informant to give his shop to them. His brother, Akshaywat Singh, the deceased, had opposed this proposal. 3. The prosecution has examined 5 witnesses to prove its case. The defence has also examined one witness to establish the plea of alibi of Vijay Pandey, appellant No. 2. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, claimed to be the eye witnesses, whereas P.W. 4 is the Medical Officer of Ranchi Medical College Hospital, who performed the post-mortem examination on the deadbody of the deceased. P.W. 5 is the Investigating Officer of the case. 4. P.W. 1 Ram Kumar Singh, deposed that at about 5.30 A.M. on 25th July, 1990, he was going to Dhurwa Bus Stand to receive his family members who were coming by bus from Jahanabad, and when he reached near the shop of Akshaywat Singh, the deceased, he saw that Vijay Pandey, appellant No. 2 had caught hold of Akshaywat Singh. Appellant No. 3 was also there with a pistol in his hand and appellant No. 1, Shubh Narayan Pandey was armed with a Gupti. Their father, Shivnath Pandey was standing at a short distance from there, Shivnath Pandey, appellant No. 4, exhorted them to kill Akshaywat. Thereafter, Shubh Narayan Pandey, appellant No.1 assaulted Akshaywat Singh with his Gupti on his chest and pierced the same in his chest. At that time, Vinay Kumar Shahi, P.W. 3 had also reached there. Their father, Shivnath Pandey was standing at a short distance from there, Shivnath Pandey, appellant No. 4, exhorted them to kill Akshaywat. Thereafter, Shubh Narayan Pandey, appellant No.1 assaulted Akshaywat Singh with his Gupti on his chest and pierced the same in his chest. At that time, Vinay Kumar Shahi, P.W. 3 had also reached there. On alarm being raised the accused persons ran away towards their quarters. Akshaywat Singh fell down, and when the assault was taking place, Sunil Kumar, P.W. 2 had also reached there. After the assault they took Akshaywat Singh to HEC Plant Hospital, where the Doctor declared him dead. The police also reach the said hospital and prepared inquest report, upon which the witness put his signature. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was his nephew. He stated that he had no nephew and all the children in the locality addressed him as Mama. When the quarrel started this witness claimed to have intervened, but the appellants threatened him and he was told that if he did anything, he will be shot dead. He stated that there are large number of quarters near the place of occurrence and Sharma Road is a very busy road. He further stated that since workers have to report for duty at 6 A.M., there is considerable movement on the road. He had noticed injury on the left side of the chest of the deceased. According to him, to much blood had fallen at the place of occurrence and one or two drops may have fallen. The clothes of the deceased, were however, soaked with blood. He could not say in whose tempo the deceased had been removed, to hospital. Some blood had fallen in the tempo. A cycle had also been found at the place of occurrence, but he could not say to whom the, cycle belonged. This witness admitted that the wife appellant No. 4 Shivnath Pandey, had lodged a criminal case against him, Sunil Kumar Singh, P.W. 2, and one Ram Bilas. That case related to arson and damaging the house of the complainant. In connection with that case, this witness had gone to jail. 5. P.W. 2, Sunil Kumar Singh, is the informant. This witness admitted that the wife appellant No. 4 Shivnath Pandey, had lodged a criminal case against him, Sunil Kumar Singh, P.W. 2, and one Ram Bilas. That case related to arson and damaging the house of the complainant. In connection with that case, this witness had gone to jail. 5. P.W. 2, Sunil Kumar Singh, is the informant. He supported the case made out in the F.I.R. and stated about the manner in which the appellant No. 3, Ashok Pandey had called him out at about 5,30 A.M. on the date of the occurrence and took him at a distance of 10 steps from his shop to talk to him. This witness claimed that he came out of his shop, but remained standing there. He then stated as to how the other brothers, namely, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 also reached the place of occurrence. Thereafter, according to this witness, Vijay Pandey, appellant No. 2 caught hold of the deceased by his waist, while Ashok Pandey, appellant No.3 took out a pistol and appellant No.1 Shubh Narayan Pandey, pulled out a Gupti In the meantime, their father, Shivnath Pandey exhorted them to kill the deceased, thereupon Shubh Narayan Pandey, appellant No. 1 attacked the deceased with Gupti, which caused injury on the left side of the chest of the deceased. He pierced his Gupti in the chest of the deceased, who fell down. This witness raised alarm whereupon the accused persons ran away. Binay Kumar Shahi, P.W. 3 and Ram Kumar Singh, P.W. 1 had also reached the place of occurrence. After the appellants ran away, the deceased was carried in a tempo to the HEC Plant Hospital, where the doctor declared him dead. According to this witness, by the side of the shop of Ashok Pandey, is his shop, but that shop was not in operation. The accused persons were pressurising to give the shop to them, but they were not willing to give the shop to them and were always opposing it. This witness clarified that they had two shops. The Aatta Chakki shop was in the name of his mother. The other shop which the accused persons were demanding from his brother, the deceased, was also in the name of his mother. Near the Aatta Chakki shop, there were large number of other quarters and Sharma Road was a very busy thoroughfare. The Aatta Chakki shop was in the name of his mother. The other shop which the accused persons were demanding from his brother, the deceased, was also in the name of his mother. Near the Aatta Chakki shop, there were large number of other quarters and Sharma Road was a very busy thoroughfare. This witness admitted that he could not hear as to what talk the accused had with his brother, but after his brother fell down, he reached the place of occurrence and raised alarm. Binay Kumar had also reached there, but he could not give the names of others, who had reached the place of occurrence, as a large number of persons had assembled. This witness for the first time stated that his brother had taken a bicycle with him while going with Ashok Pandey. His brother had told him that he had to give the bicycle to his uncle who was to report for duty at 6 A.M. He had, therefore, gone with the bicycle, so that he could hand over the same to his uncle. This witness also admitted that there were large number of residential quarters near the place of occurrence. At the place where his brother fell down, a little blood had also fallen. This witness further stated that though he took his brother to the hospital, his clothes did not get blood stains, but the clothes of the deceased were having blood stains. He could not say as to whom the tempo belonged in which the deceased was taken to the hospital. 6. P.W. 3. Binay Kumar Shahi, also claimed to have witnessed the occurrence when he was going to his shop at J.P. Market because he expected the arrival of goods from Pandra Market, which had to be kept in the shop. This witness had a retail food grains shop in the J.P. Market. While was going his shop via Sharma Road, he saw the appellants surrounding the deceased. Appellant, Ashok Pandey was armed with a pistol, Vijay Pandey had caught the deceased from behind an appellant Shubh Narayan Pandey had a Gupti in his hand. This witness had a retail food grains shop in the J.P. Market. While was going his shop via Sharma Road, he saw the appellants surrounding the deceased. Appellant, Ashok Pandey was armed with a pistol, Vijay Pandey had caught the deceased from behind an appellant Shubh Narayan Pandey had a Gupti in his hand. In meantime, appellant No. 4, Shivnath Pandey asked them to kill the deceased, whereupon appellant No. 1 Shubh Narayan Pandey thrust the Gupti into his chest on the left side and when this witness protested, appellant No. 3, Ashok Pandey said that if anyone intervened, he will be shot dead. This witness mentioned the presence of P.Ws. l and 2 at the place of occurrence. He admitted that large number of persons had assembled when Sunil Kumar P.W. 2 raised alarm after the occurrence. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that Pandra Market opens at 2 P.M. and closes at 7.30 P.M. The witness did not claim any friendship with the accused persons. but stated that he knew their names, He did not hear the conversation between the deceased and the assailants. This witness stated that he had also raised alarm, but at that time no one came and a large number of persons assembled soon after the occurrence. This witness also claimed to have accompanied the deceased in the tempo to the hospital. He was also holding the deceased in the tempo, but he could not say whether his clothes got stained with blood in the process. He could not say that any blood had fallen in the tempo and to whom the tempo belonged. He had noticed only one injury on the person of the deceased. There was also one other small injury, but he could not say as to how that injury was caused near the left shoulder. 7. Doctor Chandrashekhar Prasad, conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased on 25-7-1990. He found the following injuries: "Stab wound. - (i) 3 cm. X 1 cm. x 5 cm. on the left arm lateral side. The weapon passes from lateral to medial site injuring the soft tissue and blood vessels. (ii) 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. x cavity deep on the left chest front adjoining the outer margin of areola of left nipple situated 10 cm. left to midline. - (i) 3 cm. X 1 cm. x 5 cm. on the left arm lateral side. The weapon passes from lateral to medial site injuring the soft tissue and blood vessels. (ii) 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. x cavity deep on the left chest front adjoining the outer margin of areola of left nipple situated 10 cm. left to midline. The weapon passes through left third intercostal space perforates the left lung, pericardium and oorafie arch. There is presence of blood and blood clot in the left chest cavity. Linear cut. (iii) 4cm. X 1/5 cm. x skin deep on the left cheek starting from left Ala of nose to the angle of mouth." 8. In his opinion, all the injuries were ante-mortem caused by sharp cutting cum-pointed weapon and death was due to shock and haemorrhage. According to his estimate the death had occurred within 6 to 24 hours of the post-mortem examination. Injuries 1 and 2 may have been caused by Gupti. He further opined that injuries 1 and 2 may also be caused by one blow from Gupti, and these injuries were sufficient to cause death. In his opinion all the three injuries could not be caused by one blow. He had conducted the postmortem examination at 12.30 P.M. on 25-7-1990 and according to him it was possible that the death had occurred on 24-7-1990. 9. P.W.5, Shiv Kumar Pathak investigated the case. He had visited the place of occurrence and he found that the place of occurrence was the Sharma Road and it was about 500 yards from the bus stand. On both sides of the road are the quarters constructed by the HEC. He stated that he did not find any blood stain at the place of occurrence. The cycle was handed over to the family members of the deceased on Jimmanama. The place of occurrence was in a densly populated area. He had also noticed only one injury on the deceased. He further stated that Ram Kumar Singh, P.W. 1 bad not stated before him that Sunil Kumar, P.W. 2 was present on the date of occurrence. Similarly, Sunil Kumar Singh, P.W. 2 had not stated about his brother, the deceased taking the cycle to be handed over to his uncle. He had also noticed only one injury on the deceased. He further stated that Ram Kumar Singh, P.W. 1 bad not stated before him that Sunil Kumar, P.W. 2 was present on the date of occurrence. Similarly, Sunil Kumar Singh, P.W. 2 had not stated about his brother, the deceased taking the cycle to be handed over to his uncle. According to him P.W. 3, Binay Kumar had not stated before him that Akshaywat Singh, the deceased was surrounded by all the accused, nor had he stated that Shubh Narayan thrust his Gupti on the left side of the chest of the deceased. 10. This is all the prosecution evidence led at the trial. The defence also examined one witness, namely, P.W. 1 Pramod Kumar Singh, who claims to be an agent of Chandralok Travels. According to him, he had issued a ticket on 24-7-1990 for travelling from Dhurwa to Patna by a bus leaving Dhurwa at 6 P.M. and reaching Patna at 4-4.30 A.M. The ticket had been issued in favour of Vijay Pandey, appellant No. 2. Another ticket had been issued in favour of Vijay Pandey on 26-7-1990 for Journey by bus reaching Ranchi at 6-6.30 AM. The aforesaid ticket was issued by another agent. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he could not say whether on those tickets the passengers had actually travelled from Ranchi to Patna, nor could he say where the passenger may have got down. On the basis of such evidence, a plea of alibi was set up on behalf of appellant No. 2, Vijay Pandey. In our view, the plea cannot be sustained, because mere issuance of a ticket by an agent is not a guarantee of the fact that the same person had travelled from Ranchi to Patna on the said date. In fact, D.W. 1 himself admitted that he could not say whether the passenger had actually travelled all the way or whether he may have got down at any other point. He admitted that apart from issuing the tickets, he could not depose on the question as to whether the passenger had actually travelled. In these circumstances, not much importance can be attached to the plea of alibi of appellant No. 2. 11. Mr. He admitted that apart from issuing the tickets, he could not depose on the question as to whether the passenger had actually travelled. In these circumstances, not much importance can be attached to the plea of alibi of appellant No. 2. 11. Mr. Jerath, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously urged before us that all the witnesses have consistently deposed that one Gupti blow was inflicted on the deceased by Shubh Narayan Pandey, appellant No. 1. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination found as may as 3 injuries on the body of the deceased. He, therefore, submitted that the witnesses had not seen the occurrence and they had concocted a story so as to implicate the appellants. It was further submitted that though such an injury was caused to the deceased, no blood was found near the place of occurrence. It was, therefore, doubtful whether the occurrence took place at the place and in the manner as alleged. 12. P.W. 4, the Doctor has deposed that injuries 1 and 2 could have been caused by a single blow. It appears to us that apart from his opinion from the location of the injuries as well, it appears that both the injuries could have been caused by one blow. A Gupti is a pointed weapon having a long blade which is usually sharp on both sides. If an injury was sought to be inflicted upon the deceased, the possibility of reflex action in defence cannot be ruled out and in that process injury No. 1 may have been caused on the left arm. The third injury in the nature of linear cut and only skin deep on the left cheek of the deceased could have been caused when the Gupti was plucked out of the chest of the deceased and a tip of the weapon may have touched the cheek of the deceased. From the "evidence on record as also from the nature of the injuries suffered, it does not appear that more than one blow was inflicted on the deceased. The other point that blood had not fallen at the place of occurrence in much quantity has also no force. No question was put to the Medical Officer as to whether having regard to the nature of the injuries, a lot of blood may have oozed out. Some times there is a lot internal bleeding caused by such injuries. The other point that blood had not fallen at the place of occurrence in much quantity has also no force. No question was put to the Medical Officer as to whether having regard to the nature of the injuries, a lot of blood may have oozed out. Some times there is a lot internal bleeding caused by such injuries. Moreover some quantity of blood that may have come out was soaked by the clothes worn by the deceased. According to the prosecution case, a few drops had fallen on the road, but as admitted by the witnesses it was a busy road and as such that evidence may have been wiped out. Having regard to the evidence on record, which is inconsistent, we are not prepared to attach much importance to this discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants. 13. Learned counsel then submitted that P.W. 2 as well as the Investigating Officer have stated that a bicycle was found at the place of occurrence and that the cycle belonged to the deceased. The cycle was not seized and it was returned to the members of the family of the deceased. On the basis of this fact it was submitted that the whole story about appellant No. 3 knocking the door and calling out the deceased for a talk with him appeared to be untrue. The informant. P.W. 2 was cross-examined on this aspect of the matter and he deposed that the cycle belonged to his uncle, which had to be returned to him. The deceased, therefore, had taken the cycle with him since his uncle was to report for duty at 6 A.M. There is nothing on the record to suspect this explanation offered by P.W. 2 and taking of the bicycle with him by the deceased is not inconsistent with the prosecution case. Recovery of the bicycle from the place of occurrence was, therefore, does not have any adverse effect on the prosecution case. 14. It was then urged that the place where the occurrence took place was a densly populated locality and yet no witness from the locality has been examined. The criticism is not justified. P.Ws. 1 and 3 are the persons who lived near the place of occurrence and happened to pass by when the occurrence took place. 14. It was then urged that the place where the occurrence took place was a densly populated locality and yet no witness from the locality has been examined. The criticism is not justified. P.Ws. 1 and 3 are the persons who lived near the place of occurrence and happened to pass by when the occurrence took place. P.W. 1 has no doubt admitted the fact that the wife of appellant No.4 had filed a criminal case against him and the informant P.W. 2 in which he had gone to jail. It cannot, therefore, be doubted that P.W. 1 was known to P.W. 2 from before. It may be that they were on friendly terms but that by itself would not discredit the testimony of P.W. 1 and the law requires that his evidence must be treated with caution. However, no such criticism can be levelled against the deposition of P.W. 3, as he appears to be independent witness and nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to discredit him. It was submitted that P.W. 3 was a mere chance witness who happened to pass through Sharma Road on the way to his shop at about 5.30 A.M. on the date of occurrence. It was submitted that the reason given by the said witness for his presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful, because if this witness was expecting the goods to arrive from Pandra to his shop he would not have expected the arrival of goods before 2 P.M. because on his own showing the Pandra Market opens at 2 P.M. and closes at about 7- 7.30 P.M. It is not for the court to speculate on such questions because there is no cross-examination on this aspect of the matter. Very often traders who purchase goods from market, makes arrangement for the delivery early in the morning. Much depends upon the availability of vehicle for transportation as also traffic regulation which prohibits entry of heavy vehicles during busy hours. The evidence of P.W. 3, therefore, appears to be truthful and free from any blemish. 15. The question then arises that as to whether the evidence of the witnesses establishes the complicity of all the appellants. The evidence is consistent that it was appellant No. 1 Shubh Narayan Pandey, who had caused the fatal injury. The evidence of P.W. 3, therefore, appears to be truthful and free from any blemish. 15. The question then arises that as to whether the evidence of the witnesses establishes the complicity of all the appellants. The evidence is consistent that it was appellant No. 1 Shubh Narayan Pandey, who had caused the fatal injury. It is not the prosecution case that any of the other appellants caused any injury to the deceased. The commission of the crime by Shubh Narayan Pandey, appellant No. 1 is fully established. So far the other appellants are concerned, we cannot ignore the tendency of witnesses to falsely implicate innocent persons along with real culprits. Very often attempt is made to implicate the entire family and as noticed earlier appellants 1, 2 and 3 are the brothers and appellant No. 4 is their father. So far appellant No. 2 is concerned, it was stated that he caught hold of the deceased by his waist. P.W. 3, it is alleged was armed with pistol, but admittedly he did not fire his pistol or cause any injury to the deceased. Similarly, the prosecution case as against appellant No. 4 is that he came running from his house and exhorted the remaining appellants to kill the deceased. In a case of single injury, implication of as many four persons does create a suspicion about the complicity of the remaining appellants. Without casting any reflection on the veracity of the prosecution case, only by way of abundant caution, we are inclined to extend to appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 the benefit of doubt. The manner in which each one of them has been assigned a role in the crime appears to be deliberate with a view to implicate them. If the appellants had come in a pre-planned manner to kill the deceased, there was no need to enact this drama of them playing his separate role. We are pursuaded to extend the benefit of doubt to them because from the evidence it appears that atleast P.Ws. 1 and 2 were inimically disposed towards the family of the accused inasmuch as they had been sent to jail in connection with a case lodged against them by the wife of appellant No.4. 16. In the result, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant No. 1, Shubh Narayan Pandey is upheld. 1 and 2 were inimically disposed towards the family of the accused inasmuch as they had been sent to jail in connection with a case lodged against them by the wife of appellant No.4. 16. In the result, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant No. 1, Shubh Narayan Pandey is upheld. So far the remaining appellants 2, 3 and 4, namely, Vijay Pandey@ Doctor, Ashok Pandey@ Munna and Shivnath Pandey, are concerned, they are given benefit of doubt and are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Their bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed partly.