Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. There are five appellants in this appeal, which has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21-4-1986 passed by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, in Sessions Trial No. 249 of 1983 whereby all the appellants have been convicted under Sec. 302/34, I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each and in default further R.I. for six months. The appellants have been further convicted under Sec. 364/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and a fine of Rs. 500.00 each and in default further R.I. for three months. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. Appellant No. 4 Raj Kumar Singh is dead and hence his appeal had abated. The appellants were tried and convicted for abduction and murder of Ranjit Singh on 11-8-1983 at 6 p.m. in village Pachhrukhi under Parsa P.S. in the district of Saran. 3. The facts of the case are that Parsa P.S. Case No. 28/83 was instituted against the appellants (except appellant No. 1 Siya Ram Singh) on 12-8-1983 at 10.30 a.m. on the written report of Arvind Kumar Singh brother of Ranjit Singh (deceased) in which it was alleged that on 11-8-1983 about 7.30 p.m. his brother Ranjit Singh while leaving the house said that he was going to the house of Siya Ram Singh and would return after meeting them. When Ranjit Singh did not return till 10 p.m. then the informant sent his brother Shailendra Singh in his search. Shailendra Singh was told by appellant Siya Ram Singh that Ranjit Singh had left the house about an hour ago. Ranjit Singh was searched in the night in the village and around but no trace was found. Informant suspected hands of appellants Raj Kumar Singh, Rama Shanker Singh, Biresh Singh and Amir Das on account of enmity. 4. There is no direct evidence and the conviction of the appellants is based on certain circumstantial evidence, which according to defence was manufactured by some witnesses who appeared before the police and gave statements after several days after the occurrence i.e., 18-8-1983. 5. 4. There is no direct evidence and the conviction of the appellants is based on certain circumstantial evidence, which according to defence was manufactured by some witnesses who appeared before the police and gave statements after several days after the occurrence i.e., 18-8-1983. 5. The first circumstance relied upon by the learned trial Court is the statement of Shanti Devi, Buwa (fathers sister of the informant) who had stated that accused Siya Ram Singh had come to the house in the evening of 11-8-1983 when Ranjit Singh was taking Bhunja in his house and he took him away along with him. This statement was sought to be corroborated by the statement of Arbind Kumar Singh (informant) who had deposed that on 11-8-1983 at about 6 or 6.15 p.m. when he was going to his house from his Baithka on the way he met his brother Ranjit Singh going with accused Siya Ram Singh and on his enquiry, Ranjit Singh told him that he was going to the house of Siya Ram Singh. 6. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that both these statements cannot stand together in view of categorical statement of informant in the First Information Report wherein Informant Arvind Kumar Singh has said that after taking his food he went to his Baithka to sleep. At about 10 p.m. his Buwa Shanti Devi and mother Girija Devi came to Baithka and said that Ranjit Singh had not taken his food as lie had gone with Siya Ram Singh and had not returned. Thereafter his another brother Shailendra Singh, who was sent to the house of Siya Ram Singh, returned saying that Ranjit was not there and Siya Ram Singh said that Ranjit had gone back to his house two hours ago. Informant has also said that Shailendra Singh told him that while he was returning from Bheldi after purchasing medicines from market he had seen accused Raj Kumar Singh, Rama Shankar Singh, Biresh Singh, Amir Ram standing on the road and talking amongst themselves. This fact was not disclosed in the F.I.R. 7. Informant has also said that Shailendra Singh told him that while he was returning from Bheldi after purchasing medicines from market he had seen accused Raj Kumar Singh, Rama Shankar Singh, Biresh Singh, Amir Ram standing on the road and talking amongst themselves. This fact was not disclosed in the F.I.R. 7. The F.I.R. was instituted on the next day at 10.30 a.m. If Shailendra Singh had seen the appellants in suspicious circumstances, he must have told his brother and in that case vital evidence would not have been omitted in the F.I.R. The informant did not mention at all the talks he had with Shanti Devi and his brother Shailendra Singh. The informant also did not mention in the written report the fact that he had seen that Ranjit Singh was going with Siya Ram Singh. On the contrary, he had mentioned in the written report that Ranjit Singh told him he was going to the house of Siya Ram Singh with some purpose. Then, he sent Shailendra to the house of Siya Ram Singh. Siya Ram Singh told him that Ranjit Singh left the house two hours ago. The information has not stated in the F.I.R. that Siya Ram Singh had taken Ranjit Singh from his house or that he had seen Ranjit Singh going in company of Siya Ram Singh or that Shailendra Singh had seen appellant Raj Kumar Singh, Rama Shankar Singh, Brijesh Singh and Amir Ram talking on road at about 7.30 p.m. and this a very important circumstance to discard the evidence of the witnesses. 8. The most important circumstance placed by the prosecution was the evidence of Jogendra Singh that he had seen on 11-8-1983 at about 8.45 p.m. or 9 p.m. accused-persons and deceased Ranjit Singh at Tin Mahua. On being questioned deceased Ranjit Singh told him that he was going to settle the land dispute between Prabhu Nath Singh and Deo Nath Singh. This witness reveals this fact to Investigating Officer on 18-8-1983 i.e. after seven days of the occurrence. This witness admitted that he deposed against appellant Raj Kumar Singh. Learned Counsel for the appellants rightly submitted that the evidence of Jogendra Singh is full of inconsistency, improbable and suffers from other infirmities, 9. Witness Sarju Mahto was examined by the police, for the first time, on 18-8-1983. This witness admitted that he deposed against appellant Raj Kumar Singh. Learned Counsel for the appellants rightly submitted that the evidence of Jogendra Singh is full of inconsistency, improbable and suffers from other infirmities, 9. Witness Sarju Mahto was examined by the police, for the first time, on 18-8-1983. This witness has stated that while he was easing on 11-8-1983 at about 9 p.m. at a place South East of his house he saw 5 to 6 persons at a distance of 40 to 50 yards east of the place of his easing. He heard unusual sound. On query appellant Rama Shankar Singh and Habib Mian came to him and said that they had finished Ranjit Singh and they would do the same thing with him if he disclosed this fact to any body. This witness appears to be highly unreliable and no credence can be attached. This witness appears to be absurd. 10. Jai Narain Singh has deposed that while he was coining from village Subihar on 11-3-1983 at about 10 p.m. he saw in his torchlight the accused-persons and some more persons whom he did not identify at a place near Pachrukhi Health Centre. This witness was also examined on 18-8-1983. 11. On review of the evidence I am clearly of the opinion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is absolutely worthless. The learned trial Judge failed to correctly analyse the evidence. 12. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the conviction of appellants 1 to 3 and 5 is set aside. They are acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. They are discharged from the liabilities of bail-bond. 13. Ashish N. Trivedi, J. I agree.