Judgment R.N.Sahay and Daljit Singh Dhaliwal JJ. 1. By judgment pronounced on 26th July, 1985, the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea convicted four appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced each of them imprisonment for life. One accused Sonai Mandal, who was tried along with the appellants was acquitted. 2. The appellants were tried for the murder of Raghunath Chand, who was inhabitant of village Bishunpur P.S. Dhamdaha in the district of Purnea. Raghunath Chand was an affluent farmer. He had a farm house at the place called Kabaiya Kamat at a distance of four miles from his village home. He lived there with servant, who looked after the cultivation. The deceased was in hostile terms with the appellants Kashi Mandal and Mahendra Mandal, who are own rothers. 3. It appears that the deceased had got settled certain Gair Mazarua Aam Land by surreptitious means in the name of his servant. The settlement was challenged by Kashi Mandal, Mahendra Mandal and Bindeshwari Mandal before the Additional Collector, Purnea, who set aside the settlement. An appeal was preferred by the deceased against the order of the Additional Collector before the Commissioner. The Commissioner affirmed the order of the Additional Collector holding that the settlement was obtained by dubious means. It appears that notwithstanding the annulment of the earlier settlement, the deceased got the same land settled by the Bhudan Yagna Committee. This was the main cause of enmity between the appellant Nos. 1 to 3 and the deceased. 4. On the fateful day i.e. on 3.6.1977 at about sunset time the deceased Raghunath Chand was sitting on his chuki in the verandah of his farm house. He was cutting onion. His servant Ashok Singh also of village Bishunpur was in the kitchen room of the farm house which was at some distance from the room in which the deceased lived. Malhu Paswan, another servant was cutting Kutti in the compound of the farm house and cowherd Harilal Rishideo was tying buffalo. Pramod Narain Chand, son of the deceased had come in the morning on bullock-cart from his village. He had gone in the nearby or chard. Malhu Paswan, another servant was cutting Kutti in the compound of the farm house and cowherd Harilal Rishideo was tying buffalo. Pramod Narain Chand, son of the deceased had come in the morning on bullock-cart from his village. He had gone in the nearby or chard. He heard his father crying "DAURO BIRANCHI JAAN SE MAAR RAHA HAI" Pramod Narain Chand threw lota and came north of his farm near a bush and saw that 4-5 persons armed with gun were standing near the Mahabir Asthan within the compound of the farm which was enclosed from all sides by tatti. There was only one entrance gate. He also saw eight persons standing at different places. He next saw 6-7 persons armed with rifle, chhura coming out of the farm house and dragging his father. His father was brought below the varandah. He saw two persons, whom he did not identify. All of them threw his father on the ground. Mahendra Mandal sat on the chest of his father and one man who was armed with gun put the barrel of the gun on the chest of his father. Appellant Kashi Mandal, brother of appellant Mahendra Mandal caught the hands of his father rendering him helpless. Appellant Biranchi Mandal cut neck of his father with a big chhura. Jabbar Mian @ Kalim, watchman of the deceased, had also seen the occurrence and he started shooting arrows on the accused persons from the south eastern side of the farm house. The occurrence was also witnessed by two other servants of the deceased, namely, Malhu Paswan and Harilal Rishideo. Thereafter large number of villagers arrived. The culprits fired 10-15 rounds but none was injured. The appellants left the place riding on the horse back and some on foot towards north and thereafter towards west. 5. There was no information of the occurrence to the Police Station till 9.00 p.m. Krishna Narain Chand (PW 1), nephew of the deceased was at Dhamaha Chowk. At 9.30 p.m. he heard rumour about the murder of Raghunath Chand. He immediately rushed to the Police Station and told the officer-in-charge what he had heard. 6. Md. Yasin, Officer-in-charge, Dhamdaha Police Station made Station Diary on the information of Krishna Narain Chand and proceeded towards Kabiya Kamat. He also informed to the Police Inspector and the DSP. At 9.30 p.m. he heard rumour about the murder of Raghunath Chand. He immediately rushed to the Police Station and told the officer-in-charge what he had heard. 6. Md. Yasin, Officer-in-charge, Dhamdaha Police Station made Station Diary on the information of Krishna Narain Chand and proceeded towards Kabiya Kamat. He also informed to the Police Inspector and the DSP. This officer reached the farm house at 10.15 p.m. He got the fardbeyan of Pramod Narain Chand recorded through the Munshi of the Police Station and also got the statement of other witnesses. He raided the house of the appellants but no body was found there. On another day also house of the appellants were raided but no body was found in the houses. He inspected the Farm house which was located on a lonely place. The Investigation Officer after completing investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellants and Sonai Mandal. This was so because the Investigating Officer suspected the involvement of Sonai Mandal also. 7. These appellants along with acquitted accused were placed on trial. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses, out of them four are eye-witnesses of the occurrence, namely, Harilal Rishideo, Malhu Paswan, Sk. Jawar @ Kalin and Pramod Narain Chand. One important witness, Ashok Singh, cook of the deceased, was not produced by the prosecution. 8. The defence of the appellants was that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. They submitted that the settlement in favour of the deceased had been set aside and hence there was no reason for the appellants to murder the deceased. It was stated that the deceased had a large number of enemies including the dacoits, who had been released few days before the occurrence. According to the defence, Kashi Mandal was not involved in the murder of the deceased. 9. Learned Trial Judge impressed by the four witnesses, who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence, found that the case of the appellants was proved beyond reasonable doubt. 10. The conviction of the appellants is challenged mainly on the ground that none of the witnesses, who claimed to have seen the occurrence were present there. Pramod Narain chand son of the deceased had arrived there in the morning. The informant had not stated as to for what purpose he had gone there. The servant Harilal Rishideo did not say the purpose of informants visit on that day. Pramod Narain chand son of the deceased had arrived there in the morning. The informant had not stated as to for what purpose he had gone there. The servant Harilal Rishideo did not say the purpose of informants visit on that day. It is significant that Harilal Rishideo had not stated that the informant had come on that day. Sk. Jawar @ Kalin (PW 4), another servant of the deceased did not speak about the presence of the informant. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the fact that the police arrived at the place of occurrence on rumour. No witness had stated that any messenger was sent to the Police Station. The prosecution has not examined any independent witness though it was alleged that large number of villages had collected at the time of occurrence. The prosecution case is that the miscreants came in a prosecution. There were seven witnesses. None of the witnesses said that they saw them arriving in the village. All of them have stated that they heard the deceased screaming for help. None of the witnesses were near the farm house when the accused persons came otherwise they must have noticed their arrival. It was rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that it is the prosecution case that the appellants had hired the services of dacoits for eliminating the deceased. If that was the case, there was no reason why the appellants themselves participated in the crime. There appears to be force in the submission of the Counsel for the appellants. The prosecution has not been able to prove the motive for the disastrous crime. 12. No doubt, the deceased suffered homicidal death is evident from the evidence of Civil Surgeon (PW 13), namely, Kameshwar Nath Saran, who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. The deceased had suffered as many as ten incised wounds, mostly on chest and abdomen. The witnesses did not anything about the incised injuries. 13. We are not satisfied that the evidence is strong enough for conviction of the appellants. It is doubtful that the informant was at the farm house on that day. It is also doubtful that the other witnesses had seen the occurrence. The most important witness Ashok Singh, who was cook of the deceased, whose presence could not be doubted, could not be examined. 14. It is doubtful that the informant was at the farm house on that day. It is also doubtful that the other witnesses had seen the occurrence. The most important witness Ashok Singh, who was cook of the deceased, whose presence could not be doubted, could not be examined. 14. Giving our anxious consideration to the facts of the case and the evidence, we conclude that it is a fit case in which the appellants should be given benefit of doubt. 15. In the result, this appeal is accordingly allowed, judgment and order of the Trial Court convicting the appellants is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges. The appellants are on bail. They are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.