Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. Rampur Kutchery is a small village in the district of Begusarai which lies within the jurisdiction of Khodabandpur Police Station. It is a thickly-populated village. This village was a witness to a demoniacal, ferocious, mysterious crime which happened in the night of 3.6.1991 in which six persons were hacked to death in their sleep. The prime reasons for the gruesome multiple murder was the result of a deep-rooted malice against Ramashray Singh, the head of the family, inasmuch as his entire family barring his one son who lived at Calcutta were eliminated. The manner in which these persons were hacked to death in cold-blood indicated that it was the handy-work of professional killer or killers and as a matter of fact the investigation proceeded in that direction. One of the suspects was notorious killer of the area and the pattern of the present crime tallied with that criminals method of killing by sharp-cutting weapon. Unfortunately that suspects was let off for lack of evidence. 2. Ramashray Singh, the head of the family, was an influential person of the village. He was said to be member of Congress party. As it happens with such person, he had incurred wrath of some of his co-villages. He was complainant in two or three criminal cases. He was also a party to a Partition Suit which was decided in his favour but appeal is pending in this Court. 3. There was no witness to these murders. The crime was detected in the early hours of morning of 4.6.1991 by Laxmi Narain Singh, cousin of the deceased, and Janardan Singh, the son of Laxmi Narain Singh. They lived close to the house of Ramashray Singh.On the fateful night at about 1 to 1.30 a.m., they left their house to attend wedding in the house of Jugeshwar Chourasia. His daughters marriage was performed that night. When they approached the house of Ramashray Singh, they heard the cry of a child. Probably this child was grandson or grand daughter of Ramashray Singh. The identity of this child was not revealed during the trial Laxmi Narain Singh and Janardan Singh went to the house of Ramashray Singh. According to their version they saw 10 to 25 persons emerging from the house of Ramashray Singh in fast pace. Probably this child was grandson or grand daughter of Ramashray Singh. The identity of this child was not revealed during the trial Laxmi Narain Singh and Janardan Singh went to the house of Ramashray Singh. According to their version they saw 10 to 25 persons emerging from the house of Ramashray Singh in fast pace. They claimed to have identified Ganesh Singh, son of Suresh Singh, Suresh Singh, son of Suryanandan Singh, Ram Vinay Singh, son of Tarni Singh, Tarni Singh, son of Rambadan Singh, Gita Singh, son of Tarni Singh, son of Suryanandan Singh, Ram Vinay Singh, son of Rambadan Singh, Arun Singh, Ram Ajay Singh and Ajit Singh, sons of Gita Singh, Ramlagan Singh, son of Rambadan Singh, Umesh Chourasia, son of Shivandan Chourasia, Ramnaresh Singh, son of Banarsi Singh and Birendra Singh, son of Ramudit Singh. 4. All the accused persons are co-villager of the deceased. According to the evidence in moonlit night as well as in the torch light seven persons were seen outside of the road by the witnesses. All the accused persons were carrying blood-stained Jatta and Fasuli. They fled away towards East and West. Laxmi Narain Singh is the cousin of the deceased Ramashray and Janardan Singh is his nephew. Laxmi Narain Singh and Janardan Singh went inside the premises of Ramashray Singh. They got shocks of their life to find Ramashray Singh lying dead on a machine with multiple injuries. By his side Toofani Singh was lying dead on a chowki. Two dead-bodies were found inside the house under construction. In the eastern side there was a thatched house in which female inmates lived. In the angan Ramrati Devi was lying dead. Ramrati Devi was the wife of Ramutar Singh, the mother of Ramashray Singh. They saw Sindhi Devi daughter-in-law of Ramsahray Singh lying dead on a cot. Ramashrays one son was lucky to escape assassination as he had settled at Calcutta. He came to village on reading the names murders of his family members in the newspaper at Calcutta. Immediately, according to the protection, the information was give to chaukidar and dafadar and a massage was sent to police station. Kailash Singh (PW 3) was a close neighbour of the deceased. He also arrived on hulla of Janardan. 5. He came to village on reading the names murders of his family members in the newspaper at Calcutta. Immediately, according to the protection, the information was give to chaukidar and dafadar and a massage was sent to police station. Kailash Singh (PW 3) was a close neighbour of the deceased. He also arrived on hulla of Janardan. 5. The Officer Incharge of Khodabandpur Police Station which is at distance of 20 kilometres from the place of occurrence, reached in the morning. No chaukidar or any person had given message to the Police Station.Officer Incharge reached the village on rumour that Ramashray Singh and his family members have been murdered. He recorded the fardbeyan of Janardan Singh at 8 a.m. i.e. after seven hours of the discovery of the crime. He prepared inquest report. He inspected the place of occurrence and found blood on a chowki. He prepared a seizure list of blood stained (Exts. 14 and 14/5). He prepared a sketch map of the place of occurrence (Ext. 15). He seized three torches and nine batteries. They are material Exts. 1 and 1/2. 6. xxx xxx xxx 7. The residential house of Ramashray Singh is constructed on a plot having four kathas of land. Three rooms had been constructed recently. Towards west of pucca house there was a small hut. The house was adjacent to Rosra Bathan Road. 8. The motive for the murder was said to be a pre-existing land dispute. It is alleged that Ramashray Singh had gone to Begusarai Civil Court in a complaint case on 1.4.1991. He was threatened by accused Ganesh Singh and Rambinay Singh to withdraw the case otherwise he will finish his entire family. Ramashray Singh told this fact to Janardan Singh. 9. As stated earlier the village age is a thickly-populated village. The house of Ramashray Singh was located in a thickly-populated area or the village. There were several houses around the house of Ramashray Singh. No neighbour heard cry of the deceased persons. According to the Laxmi Narain Singh, the house of Jogeshar Chourasia was 100 yards away form his house towards east and south. There were two ways for going to the house of Jogeshar Chourasia. None of these two witnesses raised any hulla. The villagers assembled in the house of Ramashray Singh in the early morning. 10. According to the Laxmi Narain Singh, the house of Jogeshar Chourasia was 100 yards away form his house towards east and south. There were two ways for going to the house of Jogeshar Chourasia. None of these two witnesses raised any hulla. The villagers assembled in the house of Ramashray Singh in the early morning. 10. Laxmi Narain Singh was kept walking near the place of occurrence till the arrival of the police. He saw Suryanarain Singh, Sudhanshu Singh, Phool Babu, Ramnandan Singh and Jogeshwar Chourasia. They arrived at 5 a.m. According to Laxmi Narain Singh he sent defadar and chaukidar to police station. There is no such evidence. 11. Kailash Singh (PW 3) lived close to the house of Ramashray Singh. He was also invited by Jogeshwar Chourasia in the marriage. When he was preparing to leave he heard alarm of Janardan Singh. He rushed to the house of Ramashray Singh and found six persons, namely, Tarni Singh, Rambinay Singh, Suresh Singh, Ganesh Singh, Umesh Chourasia and Birendra Singh, descending from the verandah of the house of Ramashray Singh. He also saw six persons, namely, Gita Singh, Ram Ajay Singh, Arun Singh, Ramnaresh Singh, Ajit Singh and Ramlagan Singh coming from the thatched house. He went inside the house and saw the dead-bodies. Laxmi Narain Singh admitted that he did not raise any alarm nor Janardan Singh, Kailash Singh had no enmity with Umesh Chourasia but Umesh did pairvi in the Court for the accused persons. Kailash returned to house. He did not talk to any person about the occurrence. According to that witness Birendra Singh along with his family members had gone to his sasural. This witness claimed that he saw some of the accused persons descending from the verandah of the house under construction and some accused emerging from thatched house. This could not be true because Laxmi Narain Singh and Janardan Singh went inside the house only after the accused persons had fled. Sudhansu Singh lived in his house which is adjacent north of Rosra Bithan Road. In front of his house, across the road, the house of Ramashray Singh is situated. He reached there 5 a.m. He was examined on 15.8.1991 and till that date he had no knowledge about the culprits. Sachidanand Singh (PW 8), the own brother of Janardan Singh came to about the occurrence from his mother and bhabhi. In front of his house, across the road, the house of Ramashray Singh is situated. He reached there 5 a.m. He was examined on 15.8.1991 and till that date he had no knowledge about the culprits. Sachidanand Singh (PW 8), the own brother of Janardan Singh came to about the occurrence from his mother and bhabhi. He was at the place of occurrence but he did not talk to any one. Evidence of this witness indicates that his father and brother told him about the occurrence and claimed that they had seen the accused persons. 12. Janardan Singh stated in his evidence that he went near the machan after the accused persons fled away. Then Kailash Singh could not have seen the accused persons. Kailash Singh must have told the co-villagers about the participation of the accused persons. No co-villagers was examined to support the version of Janardan, Laxmi and Kailash. Janardan Singh stated that Gita Singh (since deceased) and others had cut his jamun tree. He filed a criminal case bearing Khodabandpur P.S. case No. 46/90. The cut trees was handed over to Umesh Chourasia by the police. The Court released the logs to Janardan but Umesh did not carry out the direction. Umesh Chourasia was a close friend of Ganesh Singh and Rambinay Singh. They were members of the Communist Party. There was a Title Partition Suit No. 70/70 between the deceased Ramashray Singh and Suresh Singh. He informed about the occurrence to chaukidar and defadar. Prosecution has not examined chaukidar and defadar. He went to the house of chaukidar and defadar in the morning but they left for police station. Chaukidar- Shivnandan Mahto and Dafadar Umaluddin had arrived at 2 a.m. At that time about 100-150 persons had assembled near the house of Ramashray Singh. Chaukidar and defadar left the place after 10-15 minutes. Another chaukidar of village Sayedpur was informed by this witness. He was at the place of occurrence till arrival of police. 13. It is significant that this crucial fact do not find mention in the fardbeyan. Janardan did not notice as to who were the persons present at the place of occurrence. According to Janardan Singh, the Sub-Inspector came first following by dafadar and chaukidar. They had gone to police station after knowing the facts from Janardan Singh. If it was so, chaukidar must have stated about the occurrence. 14. Janardan did not notice as to who were the persons present at the place of occurrence. According to Janardan Singh, the Sub-Inspector came first following by dafadar and chaukidar. They had gone to police station after knowing the facts from Janardan Singh. If it was so, chaukidar must have stated about the occurrence. 14. The statement of chaukidar and dafadar was taken by the Investigating Officer according to Janardan Ganesh Singh and filed a criminal case against this witness and Ramashray Singh bearing Khodabandpur P.S. case No. 44/85. 15. Rambahadur Singh is an important witness. He was a friend of Ramashray Singh. Sometime he accompanied him to Court. He has deposed. On 1.6.1991 he had gone to Begusarai Civil Court. Case of this witness was fixed on that date in the Curt of Sri K. Mishra. Ramashray Singh deposed in the Court. He came out from the Court room. Umesh Chourasia, Ganesh Singh and Umesh Singh were standing outside the Court. They told him to withdraw the case otherwise they will finish his entire family by 12th June. Rambahadur caught the arm of Ramashray Singh and left the place. On 3rd June, 1991, also he gone with Ramashray Singh and Toofani Singh. Ramashray Singh and Toofani Singh deposed in the Court of K.N. Gupta. When they came out Umesh, Ganesh and Rambinay Singh threatened him. 16. On 4.6.1991 at 4 a.m. he saw Gita Singh, Tarni Singh, Ramlagan Singh, Ajay Singh, Rambinay Singh going towards East. They had covered their bodies. Suspicion arose in the mind of Rambahadur Singh and he proceeded towards the house of Ramashray Singh. He saw the dead-bodies of Ramashray Singh, his mother, his daughter-in-law and grandson. This witness had deposed for Janardan in Khodabandpur P.S. case No. 46/90. In that case Rambinay, Ajay, Tarni, Arun Singh, Gita Singh and others were accused. He contested that election of sarpanch against Umesh Chourasia and lost. 17. It is significant to note that Janardan, Laxmi and Kailash had not stated that Rambahadur told them that he had seen some of the accused persons in the morning on 4.6.1991. 18. The learned Sessions Judge considered the defence of the accused persons in para 8 of his judgment. 19. The learned Sessions Judge has considered altogether the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the defence in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 of the judgment. 20. 18. The learned Sessions Judge considered the defence of the accused persons in para 8 of his judgment. 19. The learned Sessions Judge has considered altogether the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the defence in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 of the judgment. 20. The learned Sessions Judge at the first instance outlined the infirmities in the evidence as highlighted by the defence in para 16 of the judgment as follows : "It may be mentioned that this is a case of ghastly and dastardly murder of six persons of one family in the night so no the one hand, six innocent persons were killed and on the other hand eleven persons are facing trial of a serious offence. The gravity of the offence cannot in any way, be a consideration in deciding a case by the Court. But, it has to be borne in my mind that it is not only that an innocent man is punished as the order. I shall mention that common submission made on behalf of the accused that inimical and interested witnesses have been examined and no other independent witness or any villager has been examined. It was also stated that the village chaukidar and dafadar and Sathi Devi who were stated to have arrived immediately after the occurrence, have not been examined in this case. It was then stated that the motive of the occurrence and the identity of the accused have also not been proved. It has been lastly urged that PWs 1, 3 and 12 are chance witnesses. It was, therefore, urged that much reliance cannot be placed upon the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. In my opinion, the above argument is not well founded. It is true that PWs. 1, 2 and 3 are inimical to the accused and interested with the prosecution. But their evidence cannot be rejected on this account only. Their evidence has to be scrutinised with great care and caution if it stand that test, it can be acted upon in spite of the animosity with the accused and interestedess with the prosecution. In my opinion, PWs 1, 3 and 14 cannot be said to be chance witness. The murder was committed inside the house during the mid night and there was no other person present in or near the house. In my opinion, PWs 1, 3 and 14 cannot be said to be chance witness. The murder was committed inside the house during the mid night and there was no other person present in or near the house. The very manner of the occurrence could have been only witnesses by the person passing through that road. It has been stated by the witnesses that they were going to witness the marriage in the house or Jugeshwar Chourasia, and therefore, it was not improbable that they had not seen the accused persons going after committing the offence. Besides it, the fact that the witnesses were chance witness by itself would not be enough to discredit their testimony. So far, the question of identity of the accused is concerned, it had been stated by the prosecution eye-witnesses, they have identified them in the torch light and moonlight. It is common experience that even in the darkness, known person can be identified, so it cannot be said that the accused could not have been identified by the witnesses in the night while going away after committing the offence. The learned lawyer for the accused could not show me as to why the prosecution eye-witnesses should falsely mention the name of the accused leaving the real assailants. As regard the motive of the occurrence is concerned, it is not controverted that there was outstanding enmity between the parties. The evidence of the witnesses is unanimous on the point that the accused persons and the deceased were members of two factions in the village. According to fardbeyan, Ganesh Singh and Ram Binoy Singh have earlier threatened the deceased Ramashray Singh in the Court on 3.6.1991 that his whole family shall be wiped out, if he will not compromise the case. Now coming to the submission that no independent witness has been examined. It is important to mention that there is nothing to show that any person other than the PWs saw the occurrence. It is common experience that in the villages, where every one is some way or the other is related either to the accused or the victim, the villagers are generally reluctant to give the evidence because they are afraid that it might cause annoyance and enmity between him and the accused. In this back ground, I shall scrutinise the evidence of the prosecution witnesses." 21. In this back ground, I shall scrutinise the evidence of the prosecution witnesses." 21. The learned Sessions Judge has carefully summarised the evidence of three material witness, Laxmi Narain Singh PW 3 Kailash Singh and PW 12 Janardan Singh in para 17 of the Judgment under appeal, as extracted hereunder : "The prosecution case revolved around the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 12. I shall first refer to the evidence of PW 12 Janardan Singh. He stated that in the night between 3rd June and 4th June, 1991 at about 1.30 when he was going to see the marriage ceremony of the daughter of Jugeshwar Chourasia and had reached near the house of Ramashrai Singh, he heard the crying of a baby child coming from his house. Then he (PW 12) turned towards the house of Ram Ashray Singh and saw some miscreants there. Thereupon, he raised hulla on which, his father Laxmi Narain Singh (PW 1) and Kailash Singh (PW 3) came running. He saw Ganesh Singh Ram Binoy Singh, Ram Ajai Singh, Ram Naresh Singh Umesh Chourasia, Arun Kumar Singh, Ajit Kumar Singh, Ram Lagan Singh, Tarni Singh, Suresh Singh, Geeta Singh and Birendra Singh at the exist door of Ramashray Singh. He identified them in the torchlight and moon-light. He also saw 8-10 persons on the road to whom he could not identify. The miscreants were holding blood-stained katta, fasuli and garasa. They all went towards the road and thereafter fled away towards east and west. When the accused persons fled away, he went near the machan of Ramashrai and found Ramashrai and Tufani dead with sharp cut injuries. Thereafter, he went to the hut of Ramashrai Singh, where Sindhi Devi and Ramrati Devi were lying with cut injuries places. Then, he proceeded towards the varandah of newly constructed house of Ramashray Singh, where he found Ram Pukar Singh and Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary lying dead with several injuries. He further stated that his father Kailash Singh and the villagers reached there. They themselves saw the occurrence and he also narrated the occurrence of them. His evidence has been criticised on the point that in the fardbeyan, he has stated that he saw 12 accused persons and 8-10 unknown persons at the exit door of Ramashray Singh. Thereafter he raised alarm on which, his father and Kailash Singh and villagers came there running. His evidence has been criticised on the point that in the fardbeyan, he has stated that he saw 12 accused persons and 8-10 unknown persons at the exit door of Ramashray Singh. Thereafter he raised alarm on which, his father and Kailash Singh and villagers came there running. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away towards east and west. The accused persons were chased but they ran away towards east and west. It has, therefore, been argued that there has embellishment and inconsistency in the evidence of this witness at the different stage of the case. I do not find that there was any contradiction or exaggeration in the evidence of PW 12 made before, the police and in the Court. It may be first mentioned that fardbeyan is the precised statement of the fact. He stated in the Court that the first went inside the house of Ramashray Singh and saw six persons stained and then raised alarm and in the fardbeyan he has stated that he raised alarm immediately after seeing the miscreants does not make such difference. If the statement is read as a whole, it would appear that it is only the sequence of narration of the story but the main act remained the same. In my opinion, some discrepancy here and there is natural and it rather re-en- force the truthfulness of the statement of the witness that he is not a tutored witness. The witness has been examined at length and, I do not find any infirmity or inconsistency in his statement." 22. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the father and the son are chance witnesses. Their explanation for their presence near the house of Ramashray Singh is unacceptable. The claim of the witness that they were going to attend marriage ceremony at the house of Chourasia is highly improbable. According to the evidence, Laxmi Singh and his son Janardan were going to attend the marriage of the daughter of Jugeshwar Chourasia (PW 4). The marriage of Jogeshwar Chourasias daughter was to be performed that night. Jogeshwar who was examined as defence witness deposed that there was no marriage of his daughter on the alleged date of occurrence. He has further stated that he had not invited Laxmi, Janardan or Kailash Singh. The marriage of Jogeshwar Chourasias daughter was to be performed that night. Jogeshwar who was examined as defence witness deposed that there was no marriage of his daughter on the alleged date of occurrence. He has further stated that he had not invited Laxmi, Janardan or Kailash Singh. The learned Sessions Judge held that it is improbable that the prosecution would hatch out a cock and bull story of going to the house of Jogeshwar Chourasia to witness burnt when in fact, no barat had come to his house. It is further unnatural that the acqused would not agitate the matter either before the police or in the bail petition earlier that, in fact, no barat party had come in the house of Jogeshwar Chourasia on the alleged date of occurrence. 23. This is very logical the learned Sessions Judge forgot to notice that I.O. failed to ascertain whether there was marriage in the house of Jogeshwar Chourasia on the fateful night. Jogeshwar Chourasia stated that he is not related to accused Umesh Chourasia. 24. There is no valid explanation as to why all the witnesses started simultaneously after midnight. The whole story is highly artificial and concocted. The learned Sessions Judge did not realise the gravity of the case in which six persons were murdered and eleven persons were put on trial. It would be indeed unsafe to convict the accused persons on the evidence as it stands. The witnesses adopted a circuitous route for going to the house of Jogeshwar Chourasia when there was a shorter route to reach there. The explanation was that the shorter route was not fit to travel in the night as it was dirty. The learned Sessions Judge without scrutinising the evidence accepted the explanation. The I.O. had no occasion no visit the shorter route. The learned Sessions Judge did not find inconsistency in the evidence of material witnesses. He found the corroboration of evidence of Laxmi Narain Singh, PW 1 Kailash Singh (PW 3) and Janardan Singh (PW 12) by PW 2 Rambahadur who deposed that on 4.6.1991 at 4 a.m. when he was going from his house for natural call, he saw accused Geeta Singh, Tarni Singh, Ramalagan Singh, Ajai Singh, Rambinay Singh with wrappers on their head, going towards south. There is no corroboration of the fact that he had seen the accused persons. There is no corroboration of the fact that he had seen the accused persons. None of the three material witnesses have stated that Rambahadur Singh had disclosed to them that he has seen the accused persons. 25. Unfortunately, the learned Sessions Judge, in my opinion, has not been fair in assessing the evidence. The most damage part of the prosecution evidence is that no information was given by anybody to the police station, or to the chaukidar. 26. Counsel for the appellants referred the evidence of Sudhansu Pd. Singh (PW 6), an independent witness. He has gone to the house of Ramashray Singh. This witness had stated that till 15.8.1991 he was totally ignorant about the persons involved in the heinous crime. This is, however, unbelievable. 27. In criminal appeal No. 215/94 appellant Ramalagan Singh is the brother of Tarni Singh appellant in criminal appeal No. 292/94 and son of Rambadan Singh and appellants Ajit Singh, Arun Singh and Ram Ajay Singh are sons of Gita Singh (deceased accused). It is submitted on behalf of these appellants that Rambahadur Singh (PW 2) was a witness in Khodabandpur P.S. case No. 46/90 filed by Ramashray Singh. The informant was on inimical terms with the accused persons much before the present occurrence and encashed the opportunity arising out of unfortunate murder of six persons. It is further submitted that deceased Ramashray Singh was involved in criminal case with other persons of his own village and not with these accused persons. The deceased Ramashray Singh was the informant in Khodabandpur P.S. case No. 38/89 in which Hira Choudhary and others of village Sishna were accused. Similarly, deceased Ramashray Singh was the informant in Khodabandpur P.S. case No. 64/89 in which Ramsewak Paswan was the accused. No motive for the murder of Ramashray Singh was established. The motive suggested was highly absurd. 28. Learned Counsel for the appellants has strongly submitted that Janardan Singh (PW 12) and his father Laxmi Nr. Singh were anxious to oust and dispossess of accused Ramlagan Singh from their ancestral house. This was the main reason that Janardan Singh had falsely implicated Ramlagan Singh, his brother and nephew. PW 1 Laxmi Nr. 28. Learned Counsel for the appellants has strongly submitted that Janardan Singh (PW 12) and his father Laxmi Nr. Singh were anxious to oust and dispossess of accused Ramlagan Singh from their ancestral house. This was the main reason that Janardan Singh had falsely implicated Ramlagan Singh, his brother and nephew. PW 1 Laxmi Nr. Singh in his cross-examination admitted that Ramlagan Singh and living with Gita Singh in the same angan which is against the evidenced of PW 7 and PW 12 Janardan Singh had himself denied that Ramlagan Singh was living in a portion of the ancestral house. It is further submitted that Gita Singh and father of accused Ramashray, Ajit and Arun and brother of Tarni and Ramlagan and uncle of Ram Binoy Singh too, were falsely implicated in this case. Gita Singh was suffering from cancer and died during the pendency of the trial. The discharge reports of Gita Singh (Exts. L. and L/5) of Tata Memorial Hospital, Jamshedpur show that he was suffering from cancer. Gita Singh could never have participated in the crime. There is no cogent evidence that these accused persons threatened Ramashray. 29. PW 2 Rambahadur Singh deposed that some incident had taken place on 3.1.1991 in Begusarai Court campus. Accused persons have no connection with Hira and Ramsewak Paswan. The presence of Rambinay Singh at Begusarai on 1.6.1991 and 4.6.1991 could not be accepted when he had got no case on that date not he was a witness. There is no evidence that on 1.6.1991 and 3.6.1991 deceased Ramashray Singh had gone to Begusarai to depose against any of the accused. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that strong suspicion arise that all the three principal witnesses who arrived at the place of occurrence are inimical to the accused persons and as such interested witnesses and none else. The witnesses deviated from the case as made out in the FIR relating to their arrival at the place of occurrence. Janardan Singh says that he reached near the house of deceased Ramashray Singh and heard weeping should of baby and saw the assailant at the darwaza of Ramashray Singh and he raised hulla and thereafter his father Laxmi Narain Singh and witness Kailash Singh came running. There was no occasion for Kailash to pass through the house of the deceased while going to the house of Jogeshwar Chourasia. There was no occasion for Kailash to pass through the house of the deceased while going to the house of Jogeshwar Chourasia. No independent witness has stated about the marriage of the daughter of Jogeshwar Chourasia. The prosecution did not examine Jogeshwar Chourasia. He was examined as defence witness. 30. According to Laxmi Narain he and his son started together and saw 10-12 persons fleeing away from the house of the deceased. He has at a distance of 4-5 cubits from the assailants towards north and his son was at a distance of 2-3 doubts towards from him. It shows that his son was at a distance of 2-3 cubits away from the assailants cannot be believed. 31. Kailash Singh stated that he arrived on the hulla of Janardan Singh and saw six persons getting down from the verandah of the deceased. According to Janardan version he had seen the accused persons at the darwaza of the deceased. It is contended that the evidence of PW 1 was mutually contradictory. 32. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that PW 1 says that all the 12 persons were seen fleeing away from the house of the deceased which cannot be believed. PW 1 charged his statement in para 29 saying that 2 to 10 persons ran towards west and they were at a considerable distance and hence he could not identify them. He has further stated in the same paragraph that other 12 to 14 persons ran away towards each and he could not identify them as they were at a distance of 10 to 15 laggas. PW 3 in para 17 has stated that he saw accused persons going in ordinary speed which cannot be believed though different version has been given to the police. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that all the three witnesses are highly unreliable witnesses as they were tutored witnesses. 32-A. So far the evidence of Rambahadur Singh (PW 2) is concerned, it is contended that he claimed to have identified accused Gita Singh, Tarni Singh, Ramlagan Singh, Ajay Singh and Rambinay Singh at 4 a.m. on 4.6.1991 while he was going at ease himself PWs 1, 3 and 12 have claimed to identified the accused persons by means of torches and the torches are said to have been produced before the I.O. The evidence regarding production of torches is of suspicious character. PW 2 Rambahadur Singh and PW 5 Sanjay Kumar are witnesses in all the seizure lists which are really production list. The seizure lists of torches and batteries indicate that they were seized at the Darwaza of the informant Janardan Singh and all the three torches were old. The torches were produced at the Police Station. Learned Counsel submitted that the story of identification is concocted as PWs 1, 2, 3 and 12 had not seen what they claim to have seen. 33. According to PW 1 he raised hulla but no body came. According to the informant he raised hulla and many persons came and the assailants were chased but they fled away PW 1 subsequently realised that if he speaks about the raising of hulla the question of collection of neighbour will be there but he took shelter by saying that he did not remember if he raised hulla. 34. Learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out that Sudhanshu Singh, PW 6, seizure witness, is an important witness. He is neighbour of the deceased. Laxmi Narain has gone to the extent of saying that the house of Sudhanshu Singh is at a distance of 10 laggis from the place of occurrence which is falsified from the evidence of PW 3 who said that the house of Sudhanshu Singh is adjacent north of Rosra Birhan Road. PW 1 has stated that he did not know the house of Most. Shanti Devi but he admitted that he knows Shanti Devi who is mother of Rambilash Paswan. The evidence of PW 3 shows that the house of the mother of Rambilash Paswan is adjacent to the house of deceased Ramashray Singh intervened by a road. PW 1 has tried to suppress the real fact about Shanti Devi who is an important witness in this case. According to PW 3, there are houses adjacent to the house of the deceased but it is most strange that none of the neighbours has come forward to say that these PWs had disclosed the names any of the accused or narrated about the alleged identification. 35. According to PW 3, there are houses adjacent to the house of the deceased but it is most strange that none of the neighbours has come forward to say that these PWs had disclosed the names any of the accused or narrated about the alleged identification. 35. According to the prosecution, there was marriage of the daughter of Jogeshwar Chourasia at that time, hence it would be expected that many persons must have assembled for that function at the house of Jogeshwar Chourasia and had there been and hulla raised at 1.30 a.m., or had been actual knowledge of the occurrence at 1.30 a.m. Many parsons must have rushed to the place of occurrence at that time but none has come forward to implicate the accused person. This indicates two things. Firstly, there was no marriage in the house of Jogeshwar Chourasia and secondly no hue and cry was ever raised by any person including the PWs nor murder was detected at 1.30 a.m. This was gruesome murder of six persons in a thickly-populated area and fardbeyan was recorded at 8 a.m. on 4.6.1991. There is no mention in the FIR that the informant or anybody had tried to send information to the Police Station during the night but the prosecution witness had given a different version on this point. 36. Laxmi Narain Singh had deposed that he had sent dafadar and Janardan Singh to police station. Now Janardan deposed that he informed the chaukidar and dafadar after the occurrence and they came to the place of occurrence and told that they would go to the Police Station in the morning and at a.m. to 5.30 a.m. when he went to their house he learned that they had already left for the Police Station some time earlier. Janardan deposed that he narrated the entire story to chaukidar and dafadar whose names are Shivanandan Mahto and Jalaluddin. He also stated that chaukidar came to the Police Station at 2 a.m. in the night and after their arrival 100 to 150 villagers collected there. He has further stated that chaukidar and dafadar and other villagers must have received information about the identification by these PWs. It is significant to mention here that neither the chaukidar nor the dafadar nor any villager had been examined. He has further stated that chaukidar and dafadar and other villagers must have received information about the identification by these PWs. It is significant to mention here that neither the chaukidar nor the dafadar nor any villager had been examined. It is submitted that non-examination of Shanti Devi and other neighbours, chaukidar and dafadar and non-disclosure by Sudhanshu Singh (PW 6) about the identification indicates that nobody had seen any assailants. 37. The learned trial Judge has accepted the evidence of I.O. that he had seized paijama, kurta of Tericot from the dekchi- stained at some place with blood but from his cross-examination the alleged blood stain is not established rather it is falsified as pointed by out of accused Ram Ajay in presence of two witnesses. It is submitted that no independent witness of the seizure was examined. The evidence is seizure is doubtful and suspicious. It is further submitted that I.O. had, no proper idea of the place from where the alleged dekchi was recovered. I.O. stated that cloths were kept in the dekchi submerged in solution of Surf and so it cannot be possible that any alleged blood stain would have been visible. He has further stated that he had seen stains of Pan Pirki, Nil Polish and Banana fluidson. No cloths were sent for chemical examination. This part of the evidence was not put to accused Ram Ajay Singh while he was being examined under Section 313, Cr PC. 38. Defence of accused Ajit Singh is that he had gone to attend the barat in the night of alleged occurrence in the night or 3.6.1991 at village Manopur and he remained there till 4 p.m. and thereafter he went to village Manopur. This accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr PC had taken such defence of alibi which finds support from the evidence of PW 12 Ram Udagar Singh, Mukhiya of Mokhtiyarpur Gram Panchayat under whose jurisdiction village Manopur lies. DW 12 deposed that he had seen Ajit Singh in the barat and the barat had come from Rampur kutchery. He has further stated that he had seen Ajit Singh at Manopur till the evening of 4.6.1991. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that alibi finds corroboration from the evidence of I.O. PW 14, in para 23. The defence of this accused indicates the entire prosecution version of identification unworthy of reliance. He has further stated that he had seen Ajit Singh at Manopur till the evening of 4.6.1991. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that alibi finds corroboration from the evidence of I.O. PW 14, in para 23. The defence of this accused indicates the entire prosecution version of identification unworthy of reliance. The I.O. has not properly investigated that case and submitted charge-sheet on concocted version. The I.O. had not visited the house of Jogeshwar Chourasia. He had not visited the house of Jogeshwar Chourasia. The I.O. could not say as to which direction the house of Jogeshwar Chourasia is located from the place of occurrence. 39. Learned Counsel contended that it demolished the entire prosecution case. The credibility of the evidence of the prosecution completely shaken. The prosecution witness is completely worthless and unreliable. 40. In criminal appeal No. 244/94 Suresh Singh and Ganesh Singh are the appellants. 41. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the story of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 12 that they were going to see the marriage of the daughter of DW 4 is highly improbable as none of these witnesses was invited. Hence the story that they were going to see the barat is absurd. The evidence of Jogeshwar Chourasia is that he had not related with Umesh Chourasia. Other grounds are similar to that of criminal application No. 215/94. 42. In criminal appeal No. 212/94 Umesh Chourasia is the appellant. It is submitted that no specific has been attributed against this appellant. The appellant had no dispute with the deceased or his family members at the instant of PW 2. It is submitted that this appellant was implicated at the instance of PW 2 at his brother was defeated in the election of sarpanch by this appellant. This fact was admitted by Rambahadur Singh in his evidence. The appellant was an acknowledged leader of the Communist party and he was the sarpanch continuously from 1978. 43. Rameshwar Singh, DW 1, was examined on behalf of the appellant. He was a member of Bihar State Legislative Assembly from 1980 to 1984. He deposed that.........He knew Umesh Chourasia. In February 1990 Umesh Chourasia met with a motor cycle accident and his knee was fractured. He came to CPI office, Begusarai for treatment on 2.6.1991 where he remained for a week. This fact was admitted by PW 1 Dr. He was a member of Bihar State Legislative Assembly from 1980 to 1984. He deposed that.........He knew Umesh Chourasia. In February 1990 Umesh Chourasia met with a motor cycle accident and his knee was fractured. He came to CPI office, Begusarai for treatment on 2.6.1991 where he remained for a week. This fact was admitted by PW 1 Dr. S.P. Pandey, DW 2 stated that Umesh Chourasia visited his clinic on 8.3.1990. There was internal injury on his right joint. He again visited on 28.4.1991, 2.6.1991 and 12.6.1991 Dr. S.P.Verma, DW 7 stated that Umesh Chourasia was limping while in jail. He further stated that Umesh Chourasia was suffering from Osteoarthiritis. He opined that the accused was having restriction in movement. DW 15 Dr. Shaquir Ahmad stated that Umesh Chourasia was unable to extend his right knee joint. 44. In criminal appeal No. 257/94 Ram Naresh Singh is the appellant he has taken the same grounds to that of criminal appeal No. 215/94. It is submitted that PW 2 Rambahadur Singh is highly interested witness. He deposed that he is a friend of deceased Ramashray Singh. The appellants father deposed against the deceased in T.S. No. 70/70 and informant has illegally encroached upon the appellants homestead land. 45. In criminal appeal No. 292/94 Tarini Singh and Ram Lagan Singh are the appellants. They had taken similar grounds to that of criminal appeal No. 215/94. 46. In criminal appeal No. 197/94 Hirendra Singh, son of Ramudit Singh is the appellant. It was the specific case of the appellant that he was not present in his village and he has gone to his sasural at village Sihma, P.S. Matihani. His son was ill at that place and was under treatment of a doctor. Several witnesses were examined including DW 3 Suresh Prasad, DW 5 Mahadeo Shah and DW 6 Dr. Vinay Kumar. It is contended that PW 1 Laxmi Narain Singh admitted that his eyesight was not all right. He required assistance of his son. He was in a light sleep when he heard the second of barat and his son called him at 1.30 a.m. in the night to accompany him to see the barat. The evidence is absurd PW 3 Kailash Singh stated that he saw the accused for the first time in the varandah and after he flashed his torch, he could not with certainly identify Birendra Singh. The evidence is absurd PW 3 Kailash Singh stated that he saw the accused for the first time in the varandah and after he flashed his torch, he could not with certainly identify Birendra Singh. PW 12 in his statement under Section 164, Cr PC had not named Birendra Singh but he named one Ram Prakash Singh. There was no dispute between the deceased and Birendra Singh. In Court, he stuck of his statement in the fardbeyan realising the danger of endangering the prosecution case. The presence of Laxmi Narayan Singh is doubtful PW 3 admitted that Birendra Singh along with his wife and children had gone to his sasural at village Sihma two days prior to the occurrence. 47. All the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant are weighty contentions has to be tested in the light of the recorded evidence. 48. It is undisputed that six persons were murdered on the fateful night. Ramashray Singh might have quarrel with his agnates and co-villagers. He not only lost his life but he was killed along with his mother, daughter-in-law, grand son and brother-in-law of his son (body-guard of Ramashray Singh). The medical evidence to incorporated the judgment of the Trial Court. No doubt victims were murdered in a....(sic) cruel manner. It is also proved that several persons were involved in the multiple murder and may be they were professional killers. It is worthwhile to mention that except Umesh Chourasia all the appellants are agnates of Laxmi and Janardan. Their common ancestor was Naurangi Singh who had three sons, Raghubir, Ayodhya and Yamuna. Raghubir had two sons, Basudeo and Shivnandan. Appellants Tarni Singh, Ramlagan Singh and Gita Singh (since deceased) are grand-sons of Basudeo Singh, son of Ramnanan Singh. Appellants Ram Ajai Singh, Arun Singh and Ajit Singh are sons of deceased Gita Singh. Appellant Ram Binoy Singh is the son of appellant Tarni Singh. Laxmi Singh and his son Janardan are descendant of Jamuna Singh. It is evidence that appellants are blood relations of Laxmi Singh. There were very close to the house of deceased Ramashray Singh and Laxmi Singh. There were other houses close to the house of deceased Ramashray Singh which is evidence from the evidence of Laxmi Singh is also grand son of Jamuna Singh. In partition suit deceased Ramashray Singh, Laxmi Singh and most of the accused persons were parties. There were very close to the house of deceased Ramashray Singh and Laxmi Singh. There were other houses close to the house of deceased Ramashray Singh which is evidence from the evidence of Laxmi Singh is also grand son of Jamuna Singh. In partition suit deceased Ramashray Singh, Laxmi Singh and most of the accused persons were parties. The appeal is now pending in the High Court. Appellant Ganesh Singh and Suresh Singh were living in the same house in which Laxmi Singh is in occupation. Ganesh Singh and Suresh Singh have never been dispossessed from the house. Laxmi Singh has stated that Janardan had filed a criminal case in 1990 against Tarni Singh, Gita Singh, Rambinay Singh, Arun Singh and Ram Ajai Singh which was pending then. It is evident from the entire evidence that he has tried to evade the pertinent question to him in the cross-examination. In his evidence, he has stated that he does not remember whether Gita Singh was defendant in the suit. He does not remember that he has supported the claim of deceased Ramashray Singh. He does not say whether Ramashray Singh was an accused in a murder case. He has admitted that his eye-sight was poor. 49. Laxmi Singh has fairly admitted that since last 20 years he was fighting litigation with the family of Suresh Singh and Ganesh Singh. It was suggested that Banarsi Singh, the father of Ramnaresh Singh was a co-accused in the murder case of Lawhar Mahto. He could not say that Banarsi Singh had deposed against him in the partition suit. Laxmi Singh was not able to say whether Rambaran Singh and his four sons had filed a suit against Ramashray Singh. He has admitted that he has not narrated to any person of his Mohalla and his statement was recorded in the morning. He has admitted that he has not invited by Jogeshwar Chourasia to attend the marriage function of his daughter. Umesh Chourasia was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat since 1978 and he was also a leader of the Communist party. He met with accident in 1990. Laxmi Singh was unable to throw light on this fact. 50. Laxmi Singh has stated in para 30 of his evidence that there was a orchard in Kolhasan Jheel. Some trees of Sisam and Jamun had been cut away by the miscreants. He met with accident in 1990. Laxmi Singh was unable to throw light on this fact. 50. Laxmi Singh has stated in para 30 of his evidence that there was a orchard in Kolhasan Jheel. Some trees of Sisam and Jamun had been cut away by the miscreants. He was unable to say that any case was launched. He was unable to say that on 13.6.1990 Khodabandpur Police had seized 12 pieces of logs of Jamun and three pieces of Sisam which were kept in the custody of Umesh Chourasia. It was suggested that he has not requested Umesh Chourasia to release the seized logs which he refused. This was caused of annoyance against Umesh Chourasia, The statement of this witness was recorded on 6.6.1991. He was unable to say whether in 1978 election of Gram Panchayat Ram Bahadur Singh had contested the election against Umesh Chourasia village Ibrahimpur is away 1-1/2 kilometre from Rampur kutchery. 51. It is clear from the evidence of Laxmi Narain Singh that he did not raise hulla after seeing the appellants emerging from the house of deceased Ramashray. It is also clear that he had not invited by Jogeshwar Chourasia in the marriage function. His evidence was recorded after two days. 52. Coming to the evidence of Rambahadur Singh (PW 2), he was resident of Ibrahimpur. He claims to have identified the accused persons at 4 a.m. in the morning. He had admitted that he. was a witness of Janardan Singh in a criminal case filed against Rambinay Singh, Tarni Singh, etc. He contested the election of the office of sarpanch in which Umesh Chourasia was elected. He has stated that he had gone with Ramashray on 1.6.1991 in Begusarai Civil Court. There was a case in which Hira Choudhary was an accused. Appellants were not accused in that case. On 3.6.1991 he had again gone with Ramashray Singh in connection with some other case in which except Ramsewak Paswan none of these appellants were accused in that case. He cannot say whether Ramashray Singh was an accused in a murder case. This witness has inimical term with Umesh Chourasia and he was supporter of Ramashray Singh. He was aged 76 years. He cannot say whether Ramashray Singh was an accused in a murder case. This witness has inimical term with Umesh Chourasia and he was supporter of Ramashray Singh. He was aged 76 years. It is significant to note that he revealed Laxmi Narain Singh and Janardan Singh or any other person that he had been the accused persons in the early morning of 4 a.m. This witness is highly unreliable. 53. Kailash Singh (PW 3), is an important witness on the point of prosecution. The Trial Judge relied on his evidence. He was also ready getting reads to attend the marriage ceremony of the daughter of Jogeshwar Chourasia at 1.30 a.m. He heard the sound of Janardan Singh and started towards the house of Ramashray Singh. This witness claims to have identified Tarni Singh, Rambinay Singh, Suresh Singh, Ganesh Singh, Umesh Chourasia and Birendra Singh when he reached the house of Ramashray Singh. Laxmi Singh has not stated that Janardan has raised hulla. He was also a chance witness. He has stated that Umesh Chourasia was a member of Communist party and Ramashray Singh was a member of Congress party. The house of Birendra Singh is in the eastern corner of the village but he could not say whether Birendra Singh, his wife and children had gone to sasural of treatment of his son. In para 8 he has admitted that he gone to sasural two days prior to the occurrence. This witness cannot say whether deposed in the murder case of Davar Mahto. He has no knowledge whether Banarsi Singh, father of Ramnaresh Singh, was also an accused in the case. This witness say that he does not remember that he, his father, Ramashray and Laxmi were a witnesses for the prosecution in the murder case of Davar Mahto. He cannot say whether deceased Toofani Singh was a notorious criminal of the area. He was not aware whether Toofani was an accused in a bank dacoity case or in the case of Daver Mahto. This witness has admitted that Umesh Chourasia was injured. 54. Sudhanshu Prasad Singh (PW 6) lived in a house adjacent to the house of Ramashray Singh. He went to the house of Ramashray Singh when hulla was raised. He was examined on 15.8.1991. He has not named the assailants. 55. The evidence of Raj Kumar Singh (PW 7) is not important. 54. Sudhanshu Prasad Singh (PW 6) lived in a house adjacent to the house of Ramashray Singh. He went to the house of Ramashray Singh when hulla was raised. He was examined on 15.8.1991. He has not named the assailants. 55. The evidence of Raj Kumar Singh (PW 7) is not important. He was at Calcutta on the fateful night. His wife was murdered in the occurrence. He has reported about enmity with some of the accused persons. He has stated that there was a proceeding under Section 107, Cr PC, between Umesh Chourasia and Ramesh Singh. 56. Janadan Singh (PW 12) is an important witness of the case. He has stated that in his fardbeyan he had not stated about motive for the crime. There was long standing land dispute between Ramashray Singh and accused persons. Umesh Chourasia had no concern with the land. He did pairvi on behalf of the accused persons. It is alleged that deceased Gita Singh and others had cut Jamun Trees in respect of which Khodabandpur P.S. case No. 46/90 was instituted. Logs were in the custody of Umesh Chourasia. The value of logs was Rs. 10,000/-. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai has ordered Chourasia to hand-over the logs to Janardan Singh. Umesh Chourasia did not carry the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Reason was that Umesh Chourasia was close friend of Ganesh Singh and Rambinay Singh. Both were members of the Communist party. Title Suit No. 70/70 was between Ramashray Singh and Suresh Singh. In the partition suit the deed of gift was also challenged. The decision went in favour of Ramashray Singh. It was the main cause for multiple murders. Janardan Singh says that he had given information to chaukidar and dafadar at the place of occurrence but they did not go to police station in the night. He went to the house of chaukidar. He was informed that chaukidar went to the Police Station. About 100-150 villagers were assembled near the house of Ramashray Singh when chaukidar came. Chaukidar and dafadar did not stay at the place of occurrence in the night. There was another chaukidar of village Syedpur. He was also told about the occurrence. 57. The judgment of T.S. No. 70/70 (Ext. 17) shows that Laxmi Singh and Ramashray Singh were defendants in the suit Kailash Singh is a witness in the case. 58. Chaukidar and dafadar did not stay at the place of occurrence in the night. There was another chaukidar of village Syedpur. He was also told about the occurrence. 57. The judgment of T.S. No. 70/70 (Ext. 17) shows that Laxmi Singh and Ramashray Singh were defendants in the suit Kailash Singh is a witness in the case. 58. The order in G.R. case No. 1521/89 shows that Hira Choudhary was an accused in that case. Certified copy of deposition of Ramashray Singh in G.R. No. 1521/89 shows that on 1.6.1989 Ramashray Singh had deposed State v. Hira Choudhary. Ramashray Singh had named the accused persons of that case. None of the appellants figured as accused in that case. The order-sheet of Khodabandpur PS. case No. 46/90 (Ext. 20/3) shows that Janardan Singh was the informant in that case. Tarni Singh and others were accused. The order-sheet dated 24.1.1991 shows that C.J.M., Begusarai had directed for release of logs seized in that case in favour of Janardan Singh. The accused persons filed a petition to release logs to them but the same was rejected by the Magistrate. The order-sheet of G.R. No. 2299/89 shows that Ramashray filed a case against Ramsewak Paswan. None of the accused persons are involved in that case. However, the deposition shows that appellant Umesh Chourasia was present in Court when Ramashray Singh was giving evidence and he was seen with the accused persons. 59. The prosecution case is that Umesh Chourasia and some of the accused persons threatened Ramashray in Court campus on 1.6.1991. It cannot be said that the accused persons had motive for committing the murder of entire family. 60. The entire prosecution is passed on the evidence of three witnesses, namely Laxmi Singh, Rambahadur Singh and Janardan Singh. All these witnesses were hostile. There is no corroboration of the evidence by the witnesses. 61. In this connection it is worthwhile to refer to a recent decision of Hon ble Supra Court of India in Harpal Singh V/s. Devinder Singh, (1998) (1) PLJR (SC) 11. The question for consideration was whether under that circumstances the evidence of partisan witness can be acted upon. There is no doubt, in the present case, that all the witnesses are partisan witnesses is vitally interested the conviction of the appellants. The question for consideration was whether under that circumstances the evidence of partisan witness can be acted upon. There is no doubt, in the present case, that all the witnesses are partisan witnesses is vitally interested the conviction of the appellants. The Supreme Court commented : "....But the drawback of his evidence is that he belonged to the students wing which was admittedly rival to the accused students. Though that by itself is not enough to tarnish his testimony. It is a sound rule in appreciation of evidence that if the testimony of such a witness is to be used as the sole basis of conviction it should be of such a calibre as to be regarded as wholly reliable. The blemish attached to PW 9 as a partisan witness stands in the way of his evidence becoming wholly reliance and hence without adequate reassurance from other circumstances or materials it may not be safe to make the uncorroborated evidence of such a witness the sole basis for reversing the order of acquittal." 62. It is well settled that one partisan witness cannot corroborate the evidence of other partisan. This is exactly point for consideration. 63. The evidence of three witnesses that the had seen the accused coming from the house of Ramashray Singh bristles with improbabilities and inconsistency. According to the evidence Laxmi and his son were on the way of Jogeshwar Churasia which was not the shorter route and they reached the house of Ramashray and heard cry of a child. There is no evidence that who was that child. None of the witness say that they saw the child when they discovered the dead-bodies of six persons. There is no evidence that there was marriage in the house of Jogeshwar Chourasia. The Investigating Officer did not investigate on his point. The investigation was worthless. No superior officer had seriously supervised the case. There is no evidence that any report was sent to police station. The officer incharge came at 8 a.m. in the morning. There is no independent witness to say that persons who had seen the accused persons emerging from the house of the deceased Ramashray Singh and disclosed this fact to any of the co-villager. 64. There is no evidence that any report was sent to police station. The officer incharge came at 8 a.m. in the morning. There is no independent witness to say that persons who had seen the accused persons emerging from the house of the deceased Ramashray Singh and disclosed this fact to any of the co-villager. 64. PW 8 Sachindanand Singh, who is the brother of the informant and son of Laxmi reached the house of Ramashray Singh at 2 a.m. This witness does not say that his father and brother Kailash told him that they had seen. Laxmi Singh has named a few co-villagers who had after the occurrence Jogeshwar Chourasia was one of them. 65. There was inordinate delay of information to the police. Officer Incharge has stated that he heard rumour of the murder of Ramashray Singh and his family members. He says that no information was sent to the Police Station by the informant. The I.O. after recording the statement of the witnesses conducted inquest. He had gone to the house of Jogeshwar Chourasia on 4.6.1991. It is significant to note that he has not recorded this fact in the case diary. It means that he has not gone to the house of Jogeshwar Chourasia. He has not been able to say that the location of the house of Jogeshwar Chourasia. The I.O. does not say that he searched the house of the accused persons on that he searched the house of accused persons on that morning. He recorded the statements of dafadar and chaukidar but they have not examined. 66. The Trial Court should have examined the chaukidar and dafadar. Six persons were murdered in cold-blood and still the learned Sessions Judge did find appropriate to impose capital punishment. The evidence is full of loopholes and tainted as discussed earlier. 67. It has been held by Supreme Court in Dilavar Hussain V/s. State of Gujarat, 1991 Cr LJ 15, that sentiments or emotions, however, strong are neither relevant nor have any place in a Court of law. Acquittal or conviction depends on proof or otherwise of the criminological chain which invalidly comprises of why, where, when, how and who. Each not of the chain has to be proved, beyond shadow of doubt to bring home the guilt. Any crack or loosening in it weakens the prosecution. Acquittal or conviction depends on proof or otherwise of the criminological chain which invalidly comprises of why, where, when, how and who. Each not of the chain has to be proved, beyond shadow of doubt to bring home the guilt. Any crack or loosening in it weakens the prosecution. Each link must be so consistent that the only conclusion which must follow is that the accused so guilty. Although guilty should not escape. But on reliable evidence truthful witness and honest and fair investigation. No free man should be amerced by framing or to assuage feelings as it is a fatal to human dignity and destructive of social, ethical and legal norm. Heinousness of crime or cruelty in its execution however abhorring and hateful cannot reflect in deciding the guilt. 68. The case of the Supreme Court related to communal outburst in which house was set on fire resulting death of inmates. No information was sent to police by the witnesses. The important witnesses were not brought on record. The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution version suffered from serious infirmity. 69. In the present case so far three witnesses are concerned, the very foundation of the evidence is shaky. 70. The learned Sessions Judge was not right in recording the verdict of guilty against the appellants. 71. In view of the discussions made above, I came to the conclusion that there was acute animosity between the informant party are the accused persons. It can be presumed that the appellants were implicated on suspicion- There being no eye-witness of the occurrence. The evidence is not corroborated by any independent witness of the Mohalla. There is no evidence that the witnesses have disclosed the name of the accused persons when they are neighbours. All the witnesses are chance witnesses. There is indication that murders were detected in the early morning. No information was sent to the Police Station. None examination of chaukidar and dafadar is a serious infirmity which cannot be condoned. The investigation of the case was not done by the Superior Officer. It appears that the murder as committed by professional killer. The appellants cannot withhold guilt on suspicion in absence of cogent and material evidence. 72. In the result, the conviction of the appellants is set aside by giving benefit of doubt. All the appeals are allowed. The appellants are in custody. It appears that the murder as committed by professional killer. The appellants cannot withhold guilt on suspicion in absence of cogent and material evidence. 72. In the result, the conviction of the appellants is set aside by giving benefit of doubt. All the appeals are allowed. The appellants are in custody. They are directed to be released forth with if not wanted in any other case.