(1) THE High court has recorded an order of acquittal reversing the court of Session which had convicted accuser-respondents for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. These two appeals have a common aim, one is by the State of Bihar and the other by the complainant, Ashok Kumar and can be disposed of conveniently by a common order. (2) THE unfortunate deceased was a professoR.It appears that he was a daily morning walkeR.On the fateful day, he went on a road along side a canal. At some distance, he was accosted by the four respondents, two of whom were armed with guns, one with chopper and the fourth one empty- handed. Firstly, one of the assailants fired a shot at him. On receipt of the injury, he wanted to flee away but the second assailant hit him with shot fired from his gun. The empty handed accused caught hold of the running deceased, whereafter the fourth assailant gave chopper injuries on his neck. Thinking that he was dead, the assailants left the scene of occurrence. Public Witness 4, who was known to the deceased took him to the hospital whereat a police officer was called. It is stated that in an injured condition, the deceased made his statement to the police officer which became the First Information Report, Therein the deceased mentioned the manner in which the occurrence took place, naming all the four respondents as the culprits of the crime as also presence of PW 4 who had witnessed the occurrence. Significantly in that statement, he did not mention the presence of any other person much less that of PWs 1 a.nd 2 who later claimed to be eye-witnesses like Public Witness 4. (3) AT the eventual trial, the prosecution, adduced evidence of PWs 1, 2, and 4. The court of Session believed them but the High court reversed that finding and took a different view. According to it, PWs 1 and 2 were chance witnesses who could not be there as morning walkers. Further according to the High court, there were discrepancies in the statements of PWs 1 and 2. Public Witness 4 was disbelieved as he was stated to be having a litigation pending with the wife of one of the accused. According to it, PWs 1 and 2 were chance witnesses who could not be there as morning walkers. Further according to the High court, there were discrepancies in the statements of PWs 1 and 2. Public Witness 4 was disbelieved as he was stated to be having a litigation pending with the wife of one of the accused. No comment was offered by the High court to the manner of recording of the First Information Report and as to whether the foundation of the case was laid properly. (4) IT is not disputed that the deceased reached the hospital and an effort was made to call the police officer thereat. The doctor attending him then found that the deceased was restless, his pulse was not detectable and his blood pressure was not recordable. It is thus difficult to believe that in that condition he could have made any statement to the police officeR.The doctor attending on the deceased did not certify that the deceased was in lit condition to make a statement. The police officer was required to ask the doctor whether the deceased was fit to make a statement whereafter the statement could be recorded. The statement recorded by the police officer, allegedly at the instance of the deceased, has been thumb marked by the deceased even though he was a literate person and could sign. Had he been in senses, we see no reason, why the deceased could not have signed the statement. Besides that there is no mention therein about the presence of PWs 1 and 2 who, as it transpires, were agricultural labourers and would not normally be morning walkers. That is a luxury of the urban few and not of the working classes. We add this reason to uphold "the orders of the High court that the presence of PWs 1 and 2 was doubtful. They seemingly have been inducted to further the prosecution case, knowing that some comment could be offered against the impartiality of Public Witness 4. In the totality of the circumstances, thus we get to the view that the High court was justified in disbelieving these eye-witnesses when viewed from the manner in which the First Information Report was recorded. It inevitably follows that we should dismiss these appeals maintaining the orders of the High court. We order accordingly.