Judgment A.K.Prasad, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Secs. 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life there under on the charge of committing murder of Nagendra Singh in furtherance of common intention in S.T. No. 340 of 1986/ 166 of 1986 by Sri Lakhan Kumar Sahay, the then IIIrd. Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. 2. Briefly put, the prosecution case as made out in the Ferdbeyan (Exhibit 3) is as under: On 30.5.1985, around 5.30 a.m., the informant Rajendra Singh (P.W. 5), elder brother of the deceased Nagendra Singh was going from his house towards the task in the west situated at village Khukhra, P.S. Bero, within district. Ranchi, and while Nagendra Singh, was returning from the tank after answering the call of nature, in the way in the field of Bireshwar Singh appellants, Brijesh Singh, Haldhar Singh, Ram Chandra Singh, Shiv Charan Singh who were armed with Baluas. Appellant Chakradhari Singh, who wielded Bhala, and appellants Arun Singh and Amar Singh, who possessed lathis all of a sudden surrounded him (the decesaed) and variously assaulted him with their respective weapons, as a result of which the deceased sustained wounds, fell on the spot and died instantaneously. It is stated that apart from the informant Rameshwar Singh (P.W. 1), Gouri Singh (P.W. 2), Sikandar Singh (P.W. 3), Teju Singh (P.W. 4) and some others witnessed the occurrence. The motive assigned for the murder of the deceased by the appellants is that on 20.5.1985 the cow of the deceased had eaten paddy straw of the appellant, Brijesh Singh, which led to altercation between the two families and on return of the appellants Brijesh Singh and Haldhar Singh to the village a couple of days ago, the appellants planned and committed the murder of the deceased. 3. The informant (P.W. 5) gave a Ferdbeyan (Exhibit 3) before J. Tiwary (P.W.6), the then Assistant sub-inspector of Police attached to Bera P.S. on 30.9.1985 at about 9 at village Khukhra. On this basis, the present case was instituted, a formal FIR (Exhibit 4) was drawn up, the Investigating Officer inspected the spot, effected seizure of blood-stained earth (vide exhibit 1) held inquest over the dead body and sent it to the hospital for autopsy and on completion of investigation chargesheet was laid in court against the accused-appellants. 4. On this basis, the present case was instituted, a formal FIR (Exhibit 4) was drawn up, the Investigating Officer inspected the spot, effected seizure of blood-stained earth (vide exhibit 1) held inquest over the dead body and sent it to the hospital for autopsy and on completion of investigation chargesheet was laid in court against the accused-appellants. 4. The case was, ultimately, committed to the Court of Session by Sri Section Kunkal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, on 21.7.1986. 5. The main defence is of innocence and false implication. Further, defence as gathered from the trend of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, is that the deceased was a licentious and he might have been murdered by some unknown villagers, that the deceased and the informant admittedly gave their land in Zarpeshgi to the appellant Shiv Charan Singh and allegedly without redemption they were cultivating the mortgaged land and due to land dispute the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. 6. At the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. Out of them, P.W. 4 is the tendered witness. The other P.Ws. are : P.W. 1 (Rameshwar Singh), P.W. 2 (Gouri Singh), P.W.3 (Sikandar Singh), P.W. 5 (Rajendra Singh) the informant, who claimed themselves to be the eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence P.W 6 (Janardan Tiwary), the I.O. and P.W. 7 (Dr. Brajeshwar Dayal) who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. 7. The defence, on the other hand did not examine any witness. But the defence got three injury reports on appellants Brajeshwar Singh, Haldhar Singh, Chakradhar Singh (Exhibits A, B and C respectively) proved by P.W. 6. 8. The trial Court on consideration of the materials on record and relying mainly on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 5 and the circumstance regarding recovery of blood stained Balua from the house of the accused-appellant Brijesh Singh (under Exhibit 5) came to the conclusion that all the accused appellants in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of the deceased and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them under Secs. 302/34, I.P.C. as stated above. 9. Learned Sr. Advocate for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the trial Court erred in relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 302/34, I.P.C. as stated above. 9. Learned Sr. Advocate for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the trial Court erred in relying on the evidence of P.Ws. which was in conflict of the medical evidence that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is highly improbable that P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 had witnessed the occurrence as alleged by them ; that the mative asceribed to the crime is too trival ; that no significance could be attached to the recovery of Balua from the house of appellant Brijesh Singh, the accused-appellant, and that the appellants Chakradhar Singh, Ram Chandra Singh, and Amar Singh were juvenilens at the time of the alleged occurrence and were jointly tried with the adult accused which is not permissible in law. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment. 10. The point which fall for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Secs. 302/34, I.P.C. against the appellants beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. 11. At the first instance, it has to be seen whether the death of the deceased was homicidal. P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 5 have testified to the effect that there were wounds on the person of the deceased. P.W. 7 (Dr. Dayabrajeshwar Dayal) who held autoposy on the dead body of Nagendra Singh, the deceased, on 31.5.1985 at 11 a.m., has stated that he had found the following ante-mortem wounds on the person of the deceased: (A). Abrasion 6 x 1 cm. on right shoulder to (B). Incised wounds: (i) 12 x 2 x 1 cm. on right knee front. (ii) 8 x 2 x 1 -1/2 cm. on left leg medial side, mid-way between the superior and inferior part of the left leg. (iii) 9 x 4 x 1-3/4 cm. left knee back, cut the vessels underneath, (iv) 4 x 1 x 1 cm. on right neck and adjoining back of chest, (v) 8 x 1-1/2 x 1/2 cm. over ten arm in semicircular fashion. (C). Lacerated wound: (i) lacerated wound 3 x 1 x 1/2 cm. on right forehead just below the hair margin 1/2 cm. lateral to the mid-line. on right neck and adjoining back of chest, (v) 8 x 1-1/2 x 1/2 cm. over ten arm in semicircular fashion. (C). Lacerated wound: (i) lacerated wound 3 x 1 x 1/2 cm. on right forehead just below the hair margin 1/2 cm. lateral to the mid-line. According to the doctor, the incised wounds were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and were caused by sharp cutting weapon such as Balua, whereas the abrasion and the lacerated wound could be caused by Lathi portion of Bhala or lathi. He further states that the time elapsed since death was within 24 to 48 hours of the post-mortem examination and the death was due to resultant shock and haemorrhage due to the ante-mortem wounds. Exhibit E is the post-mortem repair in his pen. During cross-examination, he has clarified that he did not find any punctured wound and the incised wound No. (iii) on the left knee by itself was sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course of nature. The factum of the murder of the deceased is not disputed by the parties. The medical evidence on record establishes beyond doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal. 12. The crucial point which now arises for consideration is whether the appellants were instrumental in the murder of the deceased. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is to be borne in mind that in a criminal case the onus is on the prosecution to prove its case to the hilt. 13. This brings us to the discussions of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, and 5, who claimed themselves to be eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. 14. P.W. 1 (Rameshwar Singh) who has been inadvertently described as Kamwahwar Singh in the heading of his deposition stated in his chief-examination that on 30.5.1985 around 5.30 a.m. he was sleeping in his house and on being awakened by his brothers wife (Bhabi), he rushed to the place of occurrence, which is the field of Bisheswar Singh and 100 yards from his house and saw that the deceased had fallen pursuant to assault by the accused persons. He has further stated that he identified accused appellants Shiv Charan Singh, Ram Chander Singh, Haldar Singh, Brajesh Singh, who were armed with Baluas whereas Chakradhar Singh wielded Bhala and accused Arun alias Arjun Singh and Amar Singh were holding lathis. He has further stated that he identified accused appellants Shiv Charan Singh, Ram Chander Singh, Haldar Singh, Brajesh Singh, who were armed with Baluas whereas Chakradhar Singh wielded Bhala and accused Arun alias Arjun Singh and Amar Singh were holding lathis. He has further deposed that P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, and 5 and other villagers arrived whereupon the accused persons fled away. In cross-examination, he has stated that after he was awakened by his brothers wife (Bhabi), he went to the tank to answer the call of nature, which is about 40 yards off the place of occurrence, and he returned home, ate his breakfast and then he went to the place of occurrence to find that the deceased was dead. He does not claim to have witnessed any part of occurrence on way to the spot. The accused persons would not have stayed for long after the occurrence on the spot to run the risk of identification by witnesses. The evidence of P.W. 1 that he had seen the accused persons armed with weapons on the spot cannot be believed. Hence, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of P.W. 1 on the participation or involvement of accused persons in the occurrence. 15. P.W. 2 (Gouri Singh) has testified to the effect in his chief-examination that on 30.5.1985 around 5.30 a.m. he was at his Darwaja and on hulla he went to the field of Bisheshwar Singh, which is at a distance of about 100 yards, and saw that the accused persons, variously armed and surrounded the deceased and accused Brajesh Singh dealt a blow to the deceased on his neck with Balua and the other accused persons variously assaulted him on head, chest, neck, scapula and leg and fled away, According to him, accused Chakradhar Singh was armed with Ballam and the other four accused wielded Balua whereas the rest of the accused were armed with lathis. He is emphatic in his cross-examination that accused Chakradhar Singh had dealt the Balua blows to the deceased on his chest and head. It has come in his cross-examination that Ballam is a piercing weapon. But he has admitted in his cross-examination that before the police he had stated that accused Chakradhar Singh was armed with Balua. The evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 6) is also to this effect. It has come in his cross-examination that Ballam is a piercing weapon. But he has admitted in his cross-examination that before the police he had stated that accused Chakradhar Singh was armed with Balua. The evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 6) is also to this effect. Thus there is discrepant statement by P.W. 2 regarding the weapon wielded by accused Chakradhar Singh. P.W. 2 could not state the number of blows or part of the body of the deceased on which accused Namchandra Singh dealt blows with Balua. He further admits in his cross-examination that he did not in fact witness the assault made by accused Arun Singh and Amar Singh on the deceased. It has been noticed above that the doctor did not find any injury by piercing weapon (Bhala or Ballam) on the person of the deceased. P.W. 2 admits in his evidence that he did not disclose about the incident to his wife or to the villagers. This is an unnatural conduct on his part. The evidence of P.W. 3 shows that P.W. 2 is relation of the informant as well as the deceased. So he is an interested witness. In the circumstances, it would not be safe to accept his testimony on the participation of the accused in the occurrence. 16. P.W. 3 (Sikandar Singh) has deposed that on the fateful day he was going to get blade of plough sharpened by blacksmith and on the way he saw the accused persons variously armed going while the deceased was coming from the direction of the tank and he witnessed accused-Brajesh Singh assualting the deceased with Balua, whereafter the other accused variously assaulted him. He claims to have witnessed the assault from a distance of about 30 yards. He is unable to say about the parts of the body of the deceased on which the other accused and dealt blows. According to him, the deceased had suffered from 7-8 Balua blows; and he had sustained two Ballam wounds on the forehead and chest. P.W. 3 in his cross-examination admits that he and P.W. 1 are related to the deceased. The medical evidence does not corroborate the testimony of P.W. 3 that the deceased had abstained Ballam blows on his person. 17. P.W. 3 in his cross-examination admits that he and P.W. 1 are related to the deceased. The medical evidence does not corroborate the testimony of P.W. 3 that the deceased had abstained Ballam blows on his person. 17. P.W. 5 (Rajendra Singh), the informant has testified to the effect in his chief-examination that on 30.5.1985 around 5.30 a.m. he was returning home from the tank after easing himself and the deceased Nagendra Singh was about 50 yards ahead and when the deceased reached the field of Bisheswar Singh, the accused persons variously armed surrounded him, and accused brajesh Singh struck with Balua on the neck of the deceased where after the other accused variously assaulted him as a result of which he fell down and died. He has further stated that on alarm raised by him, P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and one Shiv Chandra and other villagers arrived on the spot and the accused persons disappeared from the scene of the occurrence. This statement of P.W. 5 renders it improbable that P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 could have witnessed the actual assault on the deceased. P.W. 5 himself claims to have witnessed the assault on the deceased from the distance of 50 yards approximately. It has been noticed above that in the Ferdbeyan the prosecution case is that, the informant was going from his house towards the tank and the deceased was returning from the tank when the occurrence took place. Thus in his evidence, P.W. 5 has changed the prosecution version. P.W. 5 is emphatic in his evidence that there were two piercing wounds on the middle back and chest of the deceased, which was attributed to the accused Shiv Charan Singh. The doctor has clearly stated in his evidence that he did not find any punctured wound on the person of the deceased. No P.W. has explained in evidence that the wound was inflicted to the deceased by sharp side of Bhala. 18. The trial Court has observed in the judgment that the doctor might have missed to notice the piercing wound on the person of the deceased as there were clothes on the dead body. It is not in evidence that the post-mortem examination was conducted while the dead body was covered with clothes. The evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 is that Ballam/Bhala wound were on the prominent parts of the body of the deceased. It is not in evidence that the post-mortem examination was conducted while the dead body was covered with clothes. The evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 is that Ballam/Bhala wound were on the prominent parts of the body of the deceased. Therefore, the reasoning of the trial Court that the doctor might have missed to notice the piercing wounds cannot be approved. 19. P.Ws. 3 and 5 are related to the deceased. P.W. 5 is the full brother of the deceased. Therefore, they are too interested witnesses. Their evidence is in conflict with medical evidence. P.W. 5 has changed the prosecution version in Court. It has come in evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 that there are houses/Basti at short distance from place of occurrence and many villagers had arrived on the spot but no independent witness has been examined to support the prosecution case. There is background of some dispute between the parties over land mortgaged by the informant as well. The motive attributed to the accused for the murder of the deceased could not be the immediate cause of occurrence and it was not so strong as to impel the accused to murder the deceased. So, under the circumstances, in absence of corroboration by independent witness, it is unsafe to accept the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 5 on the involvement/participation of the accused in the alleged occurrence. 20. Let us come to the circumstance regarding the alleged recovery of blood stained Balua from the house of accused Brajesh Singh. P.W. 6 (the I.O.) has testified to the effect that he had seized a Balua with blood stains with broken bamboo handle on search of the house of accused Brajesh Singh, vide Exhibit 5, But during cross-examination he has stated that there were blood like stains on the seized Balua. He did not send the seized Balua to the expert for chemical examination. There is no report of serologist that the stain was of human blood. It is not established that the seized Balua is the weapon of offence. That apart the circumstances that blood-stained Balua was recovered from the house the accused Brajesh Singh was not even put to him his examination recorded under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C. So it cannot be used against him. It is not established that the seized Balua is the weapon of offence. That apart the circumstances that blood-stained Balua was recovered from the house the accused Brajesh Singh was not even put to him his examination recorded under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C. So it cannot be used against him. In any view of the matter, the factum of mere seizure of a Balua is not by itself sufficient to fasten the accused with the criminal liability. 21. It has come in evidence of P.W. 5 that the deceased was of easy virtue. P.Ws. 3 and 5 have admitted that he was keeping a concubine. It may be that for such reason, he was done to death by some unknown aggrieved person(s). There is also the possibility that the accused might have been implicated in the case and to some dispute over the land mortgaged by the informant as well. 22. In view of the discussions made above, I find and hold that the prosecution has failed to substantiate the charge under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34, I.P.C. beyond shadow of reasonable doubt against the accused-appellants. 23. An argument was advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that appellants, Chakradhar Singh, Ram Chandra Singh and Amar Singh were juveniles at the time of occurrence and their joint trial with adult accused and consequent conviction and punishment is bad in law. This ground has been taken for the first time before this Court. I have already held that prosecution has failed to establish the charge under Sec. 302/34, I.P.C. against the accused-appellants beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. In view of the order which is proposed now to be passed this issue is of academic interest and need not be gone into. 24. In view of the findings recorded above, the appellants are given benefit of doubt and they are acquitted of the charge under Sec. 302/ 34, I.P.C. 25. In the result, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and order or conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the trial Court are set aside, and the appellants who are on bail, are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. R.A.Sharma, J. 26 I agree.