Judgment O. N. Asthana, J. 1. These three criminal Appeals have been filed by the accused-appellants against the judgment and order of Ist Additional Sessions judge, Darbhanga dated 22nd June, 1993 in Sessions trial Nos.8 of 1992 and 44 of 1992, where the Additional Sessions Judge held the accused-appellants of Criminal Appeal Nos.361 and 364 of 1993, namely, Prabhu Nath Jha, Laxmi yadav and Badri Yadav guilty for the offence under Sec.302,i. P. C. , and held the other five accused-appellants of criminal Appeal No.365 of 1993, namely, Ramashish Yadav, Yadu Nath yadav, Bhutkun Yadav, Ram Chandra yadav and Ram Prakash Yadav guilty for the offence under Sec.302 read with Sec.149, I. P. C. Further the additional Sessions Judge held the accused-appellants Prabhu Nath Jha, ramashish Yadav and Yadu Nath Yadav guilty for the offence under Sections 25-A and 27 of the Arms Act and held the accused-appellants Laxmi Yadav and badri Yadav guilty for the offence under section 3 of the Explosive Substance act. 2. The Trial Judge held that the offence of criminal conspiracy under Sec.120-B, I. P. C. , has not been substantiated by any prosecution evidence. 3. As the accused-appellant Prabhu Nath jha was absconding, his committal was separated and thus his trial was numbered Sessions Trial No.44 of 1992. Finally the trial judge trial the two sessions trial of these eight accused-appellants together. 4. 3. As the accused-appellant Prabhu Nath jha was absconding, his committal was separated and thus his trial was numbered Sessions Trial No.44 of 1992. Finally the trial judge trial the two sessions trial of these eight accused-appellants together. 4. The prosecution case is that on 16th June, 1991 (Sunday) at 7 a. m. in the morning the informant Ramanand yadav (who leads the life of a Sadhu)came along with his elder brother Tak-kan Yadav (school teacher in other nearby district and coming to village-home on Saturday and Sunday) to chanaur Chowk (of the village) to take tea on tea-shop; this Chanaur Chowk is a market place in village Aabadi, where there are several small tea-shops, hair-cutting saloon, grocery shop, cloth shop etc; while Thakkan Yadav was chatting with one Lambodar Jha (a Press-reporter) in front of the shop of Krishna purbey (a grocery shop), the accused prabhu Nath Jha holding a revolver in small bag tied around his waist and the accused Laxmi Yadav and his brother badri Yadav having bags on their shoulder arrived near Thakkan Yadav; accused Prabhu Nath Jha fired his revolver/pistol on the right side panjra (lower side chest) of Thakkan Yadav, and being hurt from this fire-arm shot of Prabhu Nath Jha Thakkan Yadav fell down on the ground, and the other two accused Laxmi Yadav and Badri Yadav took out bombs from their bags and they started hurling bombs on the body of fallen Thakkan Yadav, and these two accused persons hurled seven bombs and the smoke of the bombs engulfed the surroundings Thakkan Yadav was severely injured; that the other accused ramashish and Yadu Nath who were standing near the house of Prabhu Nath jha at a distance of about hundred feet from the Chowk started firing in the air to scare the villagers to run away, and the accused Bhutkun, Ram Chandra and ram Prakash started throwing brickbats to make the villagers run away as the firing had started. 5. According to the prosecution case all these eight accused-appellants belong to one camp led by the accused prabhu Nath Jhan, and all these eight accused-appellants were sympathisers of congress party. After this occurrence all these eight accused persons ran away towards the house of Prabhu Nath Jha, and the Informant Ramanand Yadav went to the house of Prabhu Nath Jha and found that all these accused-appellants were running away towards north. 6. After this occurrence all these eight accused persons ran away towards the house of Prabhu Nath Jha, and the Informant Ramanand Yadav went to the house of Prabhu Nath Jha and found that all these accused-appellants were running away towards north. 6. With the help of Jagannath yadav, Shyam Yadav and others the seriously injured Thakkan Yadav was carried on a rickshaw to the clinic of Dr. Manoj Kumar in Manigachhi for treatment, and they stayed there for ten minutes or about so and there Dr. Manoj Kumar declared that Thakkan yadav was dead, not being satisfied with the opinion of the Doctor Manoj kumar and hoping that the expert doctors might help in revival of life of thakkan Yadav, brother Ramanand yadav (P. W.12) finding the jeep of Janta dal with Janta Dal workers in it by the side of the clinic of Dr. Manoj Kumar placed the injured Thakkan Yadav in that jeep and brought him to Darbhan-ga Medical College Hospital, where the doctors of emergency wing too declared that Thakkan Yadav was dead. 7. It appears from the evidence on record that the Superintendent of police,darbhanga telephoned the local area Police Inspector, Janardan Prasad singh (P. W.15), where the Medical College Hospital is situate; that the should reach the Medical College Hospital, where some injured resident of Police station, Manigachhi had arrived, and he should go and record their statements. 8. This Inspector J. P. Singh of laheriasarai Police Station, Darbhanga (P. W.15) arrived at Medical College-emergency ward at 11.30 A. M. and he recorded the statement of Ramanand yadav (P. W.12) to prepare the first information report. This statement (fardbeyan) of Ramanand Yadav (P. W.12) is Exhibit-2. After recording this fardbeyan, this Inspector J. P. Singh further made inquest report relating the dead-body of the deceased Thakkan yadav and it is Exhibit-6. 9. Hearing the rumor of murder nagendra Mishra, the then Officer In-charge of the Area Police Station, manigachhi (P. W.14) went to Chanaur chowk of the village and coming to know that the injured Thakkan Yadav had been taken by his brother to Medical College, Darbhanga, he rushed to the Medical College, Darbhanga, where the Police Inspector, J. P. Singh (P. W.15)handed him the fardbeyan prepared on the statement of Ramanand Yadav (P. W.12 ). 10. 10. Nagendra Mishra (P. W.14)started the investigation of the case and he recorded the statement of Ramanand yadav - Informant and the statement of jagannath Yadav and Soren Sah in the medical College Hospital, and he came back to his Manigachhi Police Station, where the prepared the formal F. I. R. (Exhibit-4) on the basis of the fardbeyan (Exhibit-2) received from the inspector J. P. Singh at Darbhanga Medical College Hospital. This formal F. I. R. (Exhibit-4) was entered in the records of the Police Station at 3.30 P. M. same day. Thereafter at 4.45 P. M. Nagendra mishra (P. W.14) arrived at the Chowk and inspected the site. He found fresh blood in front of the shop of Krishna purbey in the Chowk and he also found an empty cartridge lying near this blood. Further he found an another empty cartridge at a distance of twenty-five feet from this place where blood was fallen, and he also found at that distance a dibba, thread and glass pieces all bis-meared with blood. The Investigation officer Nagendra Mishra (P. W.14)prepared the seizure list of these recovered articles (Exhibit-5 ). 11. The post-mortem on the dead-body of Thakkan Yadav was performed by Dr. A. R. Kishore (P. W.17) at 2.15 p. M. same day on 16th June, 1991. Dr. Kishore found rigor mortis present in all the four limbs. Dr. Kishore found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased : " (1) Multiple lacerated wound of different shapes and size ranging from 1/2"x1/4" to 3 1/2"x1/2" extending from forehead to chest in following face left eye and trival aspect of both arms and both shoulder areas and left scapular area. The doctor found tatooing and charging in the entire area and the muscle and another soft tissue infiltrated with blood and blood clots. He also found that the muscle were lacerated and bruised. He found that the left eye was lacerated and infiltrated due to blood and the margin of the skin around the wound was found raged and torn. The doctor found several tinny foreign body under skin and subcutaneous tissue. (2) One lacerated wound 8"x4"x bone surface was present over posterior surface of the left forearm. The doctor found the muscle lacerated and infiltrated and the left radious fractured. The doctor found several tinny foreign body under skin and subcutaneous tissue. (2) One lacerated wound 8"x4"x bone surface was present over posterior surface of the left forearm. The doctor found the muscle lacerated and infiltrated and the left radious fractured. (3) One lacerated punctured wound 1"x1/2"x chest cavity were present over right side of chest in mid auxilliary line and at the seventh intestinal stage. On dissection the doctor found the sixth and seventh rib fractured and wound was leading midiary and upward. 12. Dr. A. R. Kishore stated that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, and that all these injuries were caused by explosion of some explosive device like bomb. Dr. A. R. Kishore (P. W 17) stated in his examination-in- chief that any one of the injuries on the person of the deceased were not possible by fire-arm shot. 13. Nagendra Mishra recorded the statement of other witnesses, and gave the charge-sheet against these accused appellants. 14. The defence plea have been : (i) Master Thakkan Yadav was murdered by some unknown persons and that the occurrence was not seen by any one and these accused persons had been im-pleaded falsely due to enmity; and (ii) the accused Prabhu Nath Jha raised the defence of alibi that he was on duty as a Writer Constable in C. I. D. wings at Patna and thus he could not be there in the village on Sunday morning on 16th june, 1991. 15. The prosecution has examined seventeen witnesses. They are Jagan-nath Yadav P. W. I, Shyam Yadav P. W.2, mithun Yadav @ Uttam Yadav P. W.3, ram Autar Jha P. W.4, Suresh Yadav p. W.5. Mahadeo Yadav P. W.6, Mahavir yadav P. W.7, Ganga Yadav P. W.8,batohi Yadav P. W.9, Indra Mohan yadav P. W.10, Prabhu Yadav P. W.11, ramanand Yadav-Informant P. W.12, sanjay Kumar Yadav P. W.13, Nagendra mishra-Police Sub-Inspector, Investigation Officer P. W 14, Janardan Prasad singh, Police Sub-Inspector, who recorded the Statement of the Informant to register fust information report and prepared the inquest report-P. W.15, anand Bihar Verma- constable P. W.16 and Dr. Akhouri Ravindra Kishore p. W.17. 16. Ganga Yadav P. W.8 and Sanjay kumar Yadav P:w.13 were simply tendered for cross-examination. They did not make any statement oh oath in support of the prosecution. Akhouri Ravindra Kishore p. W.17. 16. Ganga Yadav P. W.8 and Sanjay kumar Yadav P:w.13 were simply tendered for cross-examination. They did not make any statement oh oath in support of the prosecution. Anand bihari Verma P. W.16 is Constable clerk, and he is a formal witness who proved the station diary entry-Exhibit-8. Prabhu Yadav P. W.11 is a witness of seizure list, and a formal witness. Suresh Yadav P. W.5 is a witness who identified the Informant while the Informant lodged the first information report and his fardbeyan was recorded, and this witness also signed the panchnama Lash (inquest report) as a witness which was prepared in his presence. Thus he is also a formal witness. 17. The witnesses relating facts are jagannath Yadav P. W.1, Mithun Yadav @ Uttam Yadav P. W.3, Mahabir Yadav p. W.7 Batohi Yadav P. W.9, Indra mohan Yadav P. W.10, and Ramanand yadav P. W.12. Further Shyam Yadav p. W.2, Ram Autar Jha P. W.4, and mahadeo Yadav Chaukidar P. W.6 are the witnesses who either saw these accused persons running away from the chowk, or they came to know the name of the culprits as soon they arrived on the chowk coming to know that murder has taken place. 18. Further Shyam Yadav p. W.2, Ram Autar Jha P. W.4, and mahadeo Yadav Chaukidar P. W.6 are the witnesses who either saw these accused persons running away from the chowk, or they came to know the name of the culprits as soon they arrived on the chowk coming to know that murder has taken place. 18. Ramanand Yadav P. W.12 Informant, Younger brother of the deceased stated on oath that he and his elder brother Master Thakkan Yadav were there in the Chowk in the morning on that Sunday-16th June, 1991, and he was talking to Batohi Yadav P. W.9 about his brick-klin, and his cousin brother Jagannath Yadav P. W. I was also there; and His brother Master Thakkan yadav was talking to Lambodar Jha, journalist in front of the shop of Krishna Purbey, and he saw that the accused prabhu Nath Jha, who arrived near thakkan Yadav along with Badri and laxmi, fired two shot from his pistol on master Thakkan Yadav and receiving the injuries Thakkan Yadav fell down, and the other accused Laxmi and Badri threw several bombs on the fallen body of Thakkan Yadavjthat towards the north near the house of Prabhu Nath jha, Ramashish was asking the vil-lagemen to run away otherwise they would be shot and Yadunath hurdled a bomb there near the house of Prabhu nath Jha, and that Ram Prakash, Bhut-kan and Ram Chandra were throwing the brickbats and were abusing, and they, namely, Ram Prakash, Ram chandra, Bhutkan, Yadunath, ramashish, Badri, Laxmi and Prabhu nath went away towards the north and that he came by the side of the injured body of Master Thakkan Yadav and took him on a rickshaw to the residential clinic of Dr. Manoj Kumar, who is also one of the doctors of Government referral Hospital, Manigachhi, four kilometres away from the village, and there Dr. Manoj Kumar declared his brother dead, and with little ray of hope he took his injured brother Master thakkan Yadav to Medical College hospital, Darbhanga on the jeep of janta Dal workers which was available to him at that moment. This witness stated that Prabhu Nath Jha and his familymen and others are supporters of the Congress, and he and his familymen and relations were supporters of Janta dal. This witness stated that Prabhu Nath Jha and his familymen and others are supporters of the Congress, and he and his familymen and relations were supporters of Janta dal. Further this witness stated that this accused Prabhu Nath Jha shot at his uncle two years back,and this witness chestised Prabhu Nath Jha for that misdeed. This witness stated in his cross-ex-mamination that his elder brother master Thakkan Yadav left the house earlier to go to Chowk to take the tea and he left the house after some time and he went to his fields first to see how the labourers were ploughing his fields and he stayed there on the fields for ten minutes or above and later he was coming to Chowk and while he was fifty to seventy feet away from the Chowk batohi Yadav met him who asked him to go to his brick-klin. This witness stated further that he was seventy feet or even eighty feet away from the chowk when he saw his brother Master thakkan Yadav in the Chowk and Lam-bodar Jha had parted the company of his brother, and he saw the accused prabhu Nath fired his pistol on the brother and the other two accused persons started throwing bomb on his fallen body, and he ran away towards north, as he was afraid to see this occurrence. This witness stated that he did not ascertain who was driving that jeep and whom the jeep belonged and who were the persons sitting on the jeep. This witness admitted that he did not give the statement to the Investigation officer that he was talking to Batohi yadav on the Chowk. This witness stated further in his cross-examination that he saw Ramashish and Yadunath at a distance of 250 ft. from the house of prabhu Nath Jha and he saw Bhutkun, ram Chandra and Ram Prakash 150 feet away from Ramashish and yadunath. 19. It has been brought to the notice that Lok Sabha election took place on 12th June, 1991 in the area. 20. from the house of prabhu Nath Jha and he saw Bhutkun, ram Chandra and Ram Prakash 150 feet away from Ramashish and yadunath. 19. It has been brought to the notice that Lok Sabha election took place on 12th June, 1991 in the area. 20. Learned Advocate for the appellants urged that this witness ramanand Yadav P. W.12 was in all probability away from the place of occurrence (Chowk) and he happened to state on oath that Prabhu Nath Jha fired his pistol twice on Master Thakkan yadav and the accused Yadunath hurled the bomb, while such facts do not find mention in the first information report. 21. Jagannath Yadav P. W. I has stated on oath that he was on Chanaur chowk in the morning hours and he saw the occurrence with his own eyes how prabhu Nath Jha fired twice at his cousin brother Thakkan Yadav who was standing in the company of Lambodar, and how other persons accompanying prabhu Nath Jha, namely, Laxman and badri hurdled bombs on the injured fallen Thakkan Yadav. This witness also stated that he saw Ramashish and yadunath near the house of Prabhu nath Jha and they were holding revolvers and bombs and he also saw Bhutkun, ram Chandra and Ram Prakash about two hundred feet away holding with brick-bats in their hands and asking the village men not to come that way. This witness stated on oath aggravating the charge against Prabhu Nath Jha that he fired twice. Further he stated that accused Yadunath threw bombs, while the first information report in the case has the recitals that Ramashish and yadunath both were firing shots through their revolvers, and that Prabhu nath Jha fired his revolver once injuring thakkan Yadav. This witness stated in his cross- examination on oath that he saw that the fireshot of Prabhu Nath Jha hit on the left eye of master Thakkan yadav. In the first information report it has been mentioned specifically that the fire-shot of Prabhu Nath Jha hit the abdomen of Thakkan Yadav. This witness has stated that these accused-persons simply fired at injured and killed thakkan Yadav and none of them gave any chase or made any effort to fire at the brother Ramanand Yadav and the son sanjay Kumar of the deceased who were there nearby in Chanaur Chowk. This witness has stated that these accused-persons simply fired at injured and killed thakkan Yadav and none of them gave any chase or made any effort to fire at the brother Ramanand Yadav and the son sanjay Kumar of the deceased who were there nearby in Chanaur Chowk. This witness stated that he did not tell the police Officer doing investigation that he saw Lambodar was standing by the side and tailing to Thakkan Yadav. This witness is the first cousin of deceased. 22. Shyam Yadav P. W.2 was at the house of Kuchai Yadav situate about five hundred feet away from Chanaur chowk on that morning, and hearing the sound of the bullets and bombs he came to the Chowk. He stated that he saw Prabhu Nath Jha holding revolver in his hand and Laxmi Yadav and Badri yadav were holding bombs in their hand and he saw Ramashish Yadav with revolver and Yadunath with the bag containing bombs, and Ram Chandra yadav, Ram Prakash Yadav and Butkun yadav holding brick-bats in their hand there and they were running away towards the north. He is the cousin or other of the deceased. This witness stated in cross-examination on oath that he was first person who reached by the side of injured Master Thakkan Yadav. Obviously this statement of Shyam yadav excludes the probability of other prosecution witnesses of seeing the occurrence. Further his deposition in the examination- in-chief that he saw all these eight accused appellants while he arrived at the Chowk too does not inspire confidence as per prosecution case all these eight accused persons were not together at any point of time for the commission of the crime. 23. Uttam Yadav P. W.3 stated on oath that he was at the tea shop of bacha Rai situate in this Chanaur chowk, and lie saw that Prabhu Nath jha fired at Thakkan Master, and Badri and Laxmi hurled bombs on Thakkar master, and he also saw that Ramashish and Yadunath were firing shots with revolvers and throwing bombs at some distance in the north aimlessly, and ram Prakash Yadav and Ram Chandra yadav and others were standing with brick-bats in their hands. This witness stated in cross-examination that he did not remember if the shop of Krishna purbey was opened or not, or the saloon (hair-cutting) shop situate near the tea shop was opened or not. This witness stated in cross-examination that he did not remember if the shop of Krishna purbey was opened or not, or the saloon (hair-cutting) shop situate near the tea shop was opened or not. It appears that smt. Rita Devi, daughter-in-law of khatiar Yadav filed a criminal case against his (this witness) 9 family members relating the torture demanding dowry and these accused-appellants laxmi and Badri are the witnesses for smt. Rita Devi. This witness has aggravated the charge against the accused prabhu Nath Jha stating that he fired twice on Master Thakkan Yadav. Relating his presence at Chanaur Chowk this witness P. W.3 stated that he is a labourer and whenever his landlord gave money to him he came to Chanaur chowk to take tea. He stated further that on that fateful day nobody gave him the money and nobody asked him to go to Chanaur Chowk to take the tea. 24. Ram Autar Jha P. W.4 is the resident of another village, and he stated that he was returning after taking his tea at Chanaur Chowk and while he had gone one hundred to two hundred feet away from the Chowk he heard the sound of fire arm shot and the explosion of bombs and on his return to the chowk he saw that Thakkan Yadav was lying injured, and he saw Prabhu Nath jha, Laxmi Yadav and Badri Yadav running away and they were at a distance of twenty to thirty feet from the place where Thakkan Master was lying injured. This witness has not stated if he saw any fire-arm or explosive or bag in the hands and the shoulder of any of these accused-persons whom he saw at a distance of twenty to thirty feet away from the place of occurrence. This witness stated in cross-examination that he was the person first to reach by the side of injured Thakkan Master, and on his cries that murder has taken place other persons happened to arrive there. This witness stated that his statement was recorded by the Investigation officer after two days. 25. Mahadeo Yadav P. W.6 is the village Chowkidar and he came to the place of occurrence hearing the sound of the fire-arm shot and the explosion of bombs, and he inquired from the persons assembled there and they told that the accused persons had murdered thakkan Master. 25. Mahadeo Yadav P. W.6 is the village Chowkidar and he came to the place of occurrence hearing the sound of the fire-arm shot and the explosion of bombs, and he inquired from the persons assembled there and they told that the accused persons had murdered thakkan Master. This witness stated that he saw these accused persons at a distance of seven hundred to eight hundred feet away from the place of occurrence. This witness stated on oath that he went to the Area Police Station, manigachhi and narrated the occurrence to the Police Officer Incharge of the Police Station, and the Police Officer along with police force came to the place of occurrence and left the Police constable at the place of occurrence, and himself went away, and that the police Officer did not make any inquiry from the persons standing there at the place of occurrence, though they stayed there at the place of occurrence for some minutes. This witness told further that he pointed to the Police Officer the place of occurrence, where the blood was lying on the ground and the empty cartridge was lying. 26. Mahavir Yadav P. W.7 has stated on oath that he came to Chanaur chowk that morning and he was taking tea at the shop of Bachan Rai and while he was taking tea he saw that Thakkan master was standing in front of the shop of Kishan Purbey and this witness saw that Prabhu Nath Jha, Laxmi Yadav and badri Yadav arrived there and Prabhu nath Jha fired his pistol at Thakkan yadav, who fell down, and both Laxmi and Badri assaulted lying Thakkan yadav with bombs. This witness did not implead other five accused-appellants (of criminal appeal no.365 of 1993) in any way. This witness stated that his statement was recorded by the Investigation Officer after three days. Further this witness stated that Indra Kant Jha filed a criminal case against these accused prabhu Nath Jha and in that Sessions trial this witness was a prosecution witness for Indra Kant Jha and he deposed against Prabhu Nath Jha. This witness stated further that his son Ram udgar filed a criminal case earlier against accused Ramashish Yadav. This witness has admitted in cross-examination that he was present at Chanaur chowk in the evening when the Police. This witness stated further that his son Ram udgar filed a criminal case earlier against accused Ramashish Yadav. This witness has admitted in cross-examination that he was present at Chanaur chowk in the evening when the Police. Officer arrived there and made the investigation, but he did not prefer to make his statement at that time what he happened to see. This witness admitted the suggestion of the accused-persons in his statement that grand father of the accused Laxmi and Badri and his brother were real brothers and there is no documentary evidence to show the partition, and that the suggestion from the side of the accused persons is that there is bad blood between this witness mahabir Yadav P. W.7 on one side and the accused Laxmi and Badri on the other side due to assertion of possession over the joint family land. 27. Batohi Yadav P. W.9 has stated that he was talking to the Informant-Ramanand Yadav P. W.12 about the bricks. However, in cross-examination he stated that he was talking to ramanand Yadav relating to the brick-klin. This witness Batohi Yadav has stated that Prabhu Nath Jha fired his pistol at Thakkan Master. This witness did not name Laxmi Yadav and Badri yadav if they were accompanying Prabhu Nath Jha or they hurled bombs at thakkan Master. This witness stated that he did not raise any cries for help to call the people. He stated that his statement was recorded by the Investigation officer after three or four days. This witness admitted that he purchased bricks from Ramanand earlier as well. Jagannath P. W.1 has stated on oath in para 9 that he, Batohi Yadav P. W.9 and ramanand informant P. W.12 are the partners in the brick-klin business. 28. Indra Mohan Yadav P. W.10 has stated on oath that he was coming out from the tea shop at Chanaur chowk and he heard the sound of firearm shot and the explosion of bombs, and he saw that Prabhu Nath Jha was firing his pistol on Thakkan Yadav and laxmi Yadav and Badri Yadav were hurling bombs on Thakkan Yadav. This witness did not narrate if he saw the accused-appellant Ramashish Yadav, yadu Nath, Bhutkun, Ram Chandra, and Ram Prakash or any of them indulging in any violence. This witness did not narrate if he saw the accused-appellant Ramashish Yadav, yadu Nath, Bhutkun, Ram Chandra, and Ram Prakash or any of them indulging in any violence. This witness stated that he was twenty to twenty five feet away from Prabhu Nath Jha who was firing shot on Thakkan Yadav. This witness stated that he was working as Peon in the same School, where Thakkan yadav was a teacher. Elder sister-in-law of this witness Indra Mohan Yadav is married to the Informant Ramanand yadav. This witness stated that seeing the accused attacking Thakkan Yadav with pistol and bombs he ran towards west to his house, and he did not return to the place of occurrence. Soon, and he went to the house of Ramanand in the evening. Advocate for the appellants pointed out that this could not be the natural conduct of this witness. 29. Learned Advocate for the accused-appellants raised contentions: (i) There was no motive to commit the crime; (II) The first information report was prepared late and in all probabilities the establishment is there in the first information report, and tne investigation seems blased; (iii) The other prosecution witnesses reached late, and they are either the relations, or having business link or chance witness and interrogated late by the investigation Officer as well and the independent witnesses has not been examined by the prosecution; and (iv) The medical evidence is inconsistent with the prosecution case and makes the prosecution case materially doubtful. 30. Learned Advocate for the informant urged that the motive is material as ample eye-witness account is there, and the testimony of the prosecution evidence are reliable and if the medical evidence is scrutinised the same is not inconsistent with the prosecution case. 31. Relating motive Ramanand yadav-Informant P. W.12 stated that this accused Prabhu nath Jha shot at his uncle two years back and he was chastised for this wrongful deed by thakkan Master. Further the Advocate for the Informant brought to the notice that votes in Lok Sabha election were polled on 12th June, 1991, four days before this occurrence and the family of the Informant voted for Janta Dal while the accused-appellants voted for congress and both were forming groups on political leanings and that is why the accused-appellants being agitated would have committed murder of Thakkan Yadav. The murder of the uncle of Prabhu Nath Jha took place two years back. No untoward incident or exchange of words had been there between the accused appellants on one side and the Informant and his family men on the other side on the poll day on 12th June or thereafter. Obviously there was no motive for these accused-appellants to commit the murder of thakkan Yadav. 32. The injured Thakkan Yadav was taken to Dr. Manoj Kumar. Dr. Manoj Kumar saw the injured and declared him dead. Jagannath Yadav p. W.1 stated that they along with in jured Thakkan Yadav were there at the clinic of Dr. Manoj Kumar for hardly ten minutes. The brother Ramanand p. W.12 stated that he brought the injured brother to Darbhanga Medical college Hospital. While going to the residential clinic of Dr. Manoj Kumar situate four kilometres away, there was state Hospital of Manigachhi with several beds in the midway, Ramanand yadav and his other relations did not prefer to take the injured to this nearby hospital emergency ward for necessary check up and necessary emergency treatment. In usual course they should have taken the injured Thakkan Yadav to this State Hospital of Manigachhi in the way where the injured could get emergency treatment. They carried thakkan Yadav who was declared dead by Dr. Manoj Kumar (attached to State hospital) to the distant district headquarter Hospital of Darbhanga. The area Police Station, Manigachhi was few steps away from the house of Dr. Manoj Kumar. Ramanand Yadav did not send any of his relations or eye-witnesses to this Area Police Station to get lodged the report of the occurrence. The injured and his brother Ramanand yadav and a couple of relations were taken to Darbhanga Hospital on the jeep of the political party; Ramanand yadav and another prosecution witnesses did not disclose the registration number of the jeep, name of the driver, name of the owner of the jeep and the name of the political workers who were inside the jeep. It is evident that the Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga telephoned the Police Inspector of medical College, Darbhanga Area police Station to go to the Medical College and to take down the report. The prosecution has not disclosed who contacted the Superintendent of Police, darbhanga. It is evident that the Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga telephoned the Police Inspector of medical College, Darbhanga Area police Station to go to the Medical College and to take down the report. The prosecution has not disclosed who contacted the Superintendent of Police, darbhanga. Accordingly it has been rightly suggested from the side of the accused-appellants that the first information report in the case given by ramanand Yadav P. W.12 at Darbhanga medical College is a deliberately delayed first information report and there was every opportunity for ramanand Yadav P. W.12 to consult his sympathisers and mentoy to implicate these accused-appellants who belong to the other political parties. Further the advocate for the appellants pointed out that the Investigation Officer recorded the statements of Mahabir Yadav P. W.6 and Batohi Yadav P. W.9 after three days of the occurrence, and the Investigation officer did not record the statements of lambodar Jha (Press Reporter) and several other shop-keepers of Chanaur chowk. This shows that the investigation in this case was biased. 33. The deposition of Jagannath yadav P. W.1 shows that this witness jagannath Yadav (first cousin of the deceased), Ramanand Yadav-Informant p. W.12 and Batohi Yadav P. W.9 were running brick-klin -business in partnership then. Jagannath Yadav P. W.1, shyam Yadav PW.2, Indra Mohan yadav P. W.10 and Ramanand Yadav-Informant P. W.12 are all relations. The deposition of Uttam Yadav P. W.3 shows that he was a chance witness, a labourer and was annoyed with Laxmi and Badri who were helping the cause of the daughter-in-law of his family. This witness had not been in a position to state if certain shops in the Chowk were open or not that moment. Ram Autar Jha p. W.4 is the resident of another village and his statement was recorded by the investigation Officer after two days. He stated that he saw the three accused at a distance of twenty to thirty feet from the place where Thakkan Master was lying injured and he did not state if he saw any fire-arm or any explosive or bag on the shoulders of any of these accused-persons. Mahabir Yadav P. W.7 did not prefer to make his statement to the police Officer, though he was present at the Chanaur Chowk in the evening when the Police Officer arrived there and carried the investigation. Mahabir Yadav P. W.7 did not prefer to make his statement to the police Officer, though he was present at the Chanaur Chowk in the evening when the Police Officer arrived there and carried the investigation. It appears that he has had blood with Laxmi and badri and he deposed against Prabhu nath Jha in another criminal case earlier. Thus it is found that none of the prosecution witnesses are independent and reliable. 34. The prosecution witnesses shyam Yadav P. W.2 and Ram Autar Jha p. W.4 stated on oath that hearing the sound of the fire-arm shot and the explosion of explosives they were the first to reach the place where the injured thakkan Yadav was lying on the ground, and thus their deposition give positive impression that the other prosecution witnesses including Ramanand Yadav p. W.12 happened to reach the place of occurrence later on. Further the prosecution witness Batohi Yadav P. W.9 named simply the presence of accused prabhu Nath Jha at the place of occurrence. This witness did not state this laxmi and Badri were accompanying prabhu Nath Jha or they hurled bomb at thakkan Yadav. His deposition also creates a doubt in the prosecution case. 35. The Informant Ramanand yadav P. W.12 disclosed in his statement on oath for the first time that S/sri krishna Purbey, his brother Rajendra purbey, Lamboda" Jha, Bacha Jha and shital Ram have Aolluded with the accused persons. In Paragraph 9 of his statement this witness Ramanand stated in the Court that he did not ask Krishna purbey, Rajendra Purbey, Bacha Yadav and Shital Ram either to come to the court to make the statement or they should give their statement to the Police officer; he stated further that he does not know if these shop-keepers of chanaur Chowk were interrogated by the Police Officer during the investigation or not. Mahabir Yadav P. W.7 has stated on oath that ten persons were standing on the tea shop were he was taking tea and he named a couple of persons as well in his statement who have not been examined by the prosecution. Accordingly the Advocate for the accused-appellants are justified in pointing out that the prosecution avoided the examination of independent witnesses who were present at Chanaur chowk and the shopkeepers who opened their shops in the morning at chanaur chowk. Accordingly the Advocate for the accused-appellants are justified in pointing out that the prosecution avoided the examination of independent witnesses who were present at Chanaur chowk and the shopkeepers who opened their shops in the morning at chanaur chowk. This creates a doubt further in the correctness of the prosecution case. 36. Dr. A-R. Kishore P. W.17 stated specifically in the examination-in-chief that no bullet injury was found on the person of the deceased Thakkan Yadav. Advocate for the Informant tried to suggest that the bullet of pistol fire made by prabhu Nath Jha went upwards causing injury No.3 in the chest, and the bullet travelled back along the same course through which it entered inside the body and came out of the body. Such a case is very rare. Further there is nothing to show that Prabhu nath Jha was standing on appreciable lower level than the victim. This injury has been caused by the hexagonal stone splinter l/2"xl/4" which entered inside the body travelled upwards causing fracture of ribs and later travelled downwards and got embedded in the liver tissues of the deceased due to explosion of the explosives. The medical evidence on record is inconsistent to the prosecution case that Prabhu nath Jha fired his pistol/revolver from close range injuring Thakkan Yadav, who fell down due to this injury caused by Prabhu Nath Jha. The medical evidence in the case is contrary to the prosecution case relating the firing of the pistol/revolver by Prabhu Nath Jha on Thakkan Yadav. 37. Thus the presence and assault by Prabhu Nath Jha on Thakkan Yadav is not believable. There is also no evidence from the side of the prosecu-tion to prove if the accused-appellants ramashish Yadav, Yadu Nath Yadav, bhutkun Yadav, Ram Chandra Yadav and Ram Prakash Yadav formed unlawful assembly along with Prabhu Nath jha and Laxmi Yadav and Badri Yadav and they committed this offence of murder of Thakkan Yadav. 38. The deposition of Batohi Yadav p. W.9 shows the presence of the accused prabhu Nath Jha alone at the place of occurrence. The deposition excludes the presence of Laxmi Yadav and Badri yadav at the place of occurrence. As discussed above the prosecution witnesses are not independent and reliable. The involvement of Laxmi Yadav and badri Yadav in the commission of crime is also not established beyond doubt. 39. The deposition excludes the presence of Laxmi Yadav and Badri yadav at the place of occurrence. As discussed above the prosecution witnesses are not independent and reliable. The involvement of Laxmi Yadav and badri Yadav in the commission of crime is also not established beyond doubt. 39. The deposition of Ramananad Yadav-Informant P. W.12 before the trial court makes it abundantly clear that he arrived at Chanaur Chowk later and his elder brother Thakkan Yadav arrived directly to Chanaur Chowk earlier. This witness Ramanand Yadav stated in Paragraph 12 of his statement in the trial court that he did not tell the Investigation Officer in his statement recorded under Sec.161, Cr. P. C. that he was talking to Batohi Yadav at the Chowk when this occurrence took place. Thus it also creates doubt if really Ramanand yadav was there at the Chowk and saw this occurrence. This Informant ramanand Yadav P. W.12 in the first information report mentioned that he went towards the house of Pabhu Nath jha and he saw these accused-appellants running towards the north of the village. This narration of the first information report also gives an impression that ramanand Yadav reached late at the place of occurrence and really he did not see the assaults on his brother with his own eyes and on some information or suspicion he went towards the house of Prabhu Nath Jha. The house of Prabhu Nath Jha is hundred to two hundred feet away from Chanaur Chowk area. The Investigation Officer Nagendra mishra P. W.14 stated that he found the blood in front of the shop of Krishna purbey, and he found the splinters of the bomb soaked in blood at a distance of twenty-five feet in the south of the place where the pool of blood was lying infront of the shop of Sri Krishna Pur-bey. This shows that in all probability the bomb injury was caused by the miscreants on the body of Thakkan yadav in the south (twenty-five feet away) and injured Thakkan Yadav covered the distance of twenty-five feet towards the north in order to save himself from further assaults and he fell down dead in front of the shop of Krishna Purbey. This shows that in all probability the bomb injury was caused by the miscreants on the body of Thakkan yadav in the south (twenty-five feet away) and injured Thakkan Yadav covered the distance of twenty-five feet towards the north in order to save himself from further assaults and he fell down dead in front of the shop of Krishna Purbey. The narration of the prosecution witnesses in the trial court on oath does not specify how the blood soaked splinters of the bomb were found by the Investigation Officer twenty five feet away from the shop of Sri krishna Purbey. 40. Considering the above it is positive that Ramanand Yadav-Inforrn-ant happened to arrive at Chanaur chowk when he heard that his elder brother Thakkan Yadav had been killed by bomb assaults. As discussed earlier the depositions of other prosecution witnesses are not reliable. 41. The prosecution has failed to establish either of the charges against the accused-Appellants Prabhu Nath jha, Laxmi Yadav and Badri Yadav beyond reasonable doubt as well. 42. None of the charges are established against any of these eight accused-appellants of the three appeals. 43. These three Criminal Appeals are hereby allowed. The judgment and order of the trial court regarding the conviction of the accused-appellants in sessions Trial No.8 and 44 of 1992 by judgment dated 22nd of June, 1993 stands set aside. 44. The records of the appeal shows that the accused-appellant Prabhu Nath Jha @ Prabhu Narain Jha, laxmi Yadav and Badri Yadav of criminal Appeal Nos.361 of 1993 and 364 of 1993 are in jail custody, and they are not on bail. The jail authority be communicated immediately to release these accused-Appellants Prabhu Nath jha @ Prabhu Narain Jha, Laxmi Yadav and Badri Yadav forthwith, if not wanted in any other case to remain in jail. 45. The bail bonds of the accused-appellants of Criminal Appeal No.365 of 1993 stands discharged. Appeals Allowed.