Judgment M.L.Visa, J. 1. Both these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment because they arise out of the same judgment and order dated 31st January, 1986 passed in Sessions Trial No. 384 of 1979/13 of 1983 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, convicting and sentencing appellants Peyare Mohammad Khan @ Zahir Khan to undergo R.I. for 10 years under section 436 IPC, R.I. for 2 years under section 427 IPC and R.I. for 2 years under section 147 IPC, Dhanuk Mahton to undergo R.I. for 10 years under section 436 IPC, R.I. for 7 years under section 380 IPC, R.I. for 2 years under section 427 IPC and R.I. for 2 years under section 147 IPC, Etwari Manjhi to undergo R.I. for 7 years under Section 380 IPC, R.I. for two years under section 427 and R.I. for two years under section 147 IPC, Kuldip Manjhi to undergo R.I. for 7 years under section 380 IPC, R.I. for 3 years under section 148 IPC; R.I. for 3 years under section 324 IPC and R.I. for 2 years under section 427 IPC, Lala Mahto to undergo R.I. for seven years under section 380 IPC, R.I. for 2 years under section 427 IPC and R.I. for 2 years under section 147 IPC, Abdul Khan @ Abdul Ghani Khan to undergo R.I. for 3 years under section 324 IPC, R.I. for 3 years under section 148 IPC, R.I. for 2 years under section 427 IPC and R.I. for 7 years under section 27 of the Arms Act, Mundrika Pandey to undergo R.I. for 3 years under section 148 IPC, R.I. for 3 years under section 324 IPC and R.I. for 2 years under section 427 IPC, Baratu Khan @ Anis Ahmad Khan to undergo R.I. for 2 years under section 147 IPC, R.I. for 2 years under section 427 IPC and R.I. for 1 year under Section 323 IPC and appellants namely, Kishun Mahton, Israeel Khan, Abdul Hamid Khan, Raees Khan @ Abdul Raees Khan, Sonu Manjhi, Ganauri Mahto, Sitaram Mahton, Ali Khan, Ram Briksh Manjhi and Bhaddan Manjhi to undergo R.I. for 2 years each under section 427 IPC and R.I. for 1 year each under section 147 IPC. The different sentences passed in respect of each appellant have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The different sentences passed in respect of each appellant have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 23.7.78 at about 6 pm. informant Shiv Shankar Mahto (PW 9) along with his injured mother Sardhan Devi (PW 5) and injured brothers Bhagwan Prasad (PW 3) & Kishori Mahto (PW 4) went to Wazirganj Police Station and lodged FIR (Ext. 1) stating therein that about 7-8 years ago there had been partition between his grandfather Aklu Mahto and his brother Bandhu Mahto. Bandhu Mahto had two wives. Appellant Dhanuk Mahto was the Sadhu (husband of sister of wife) of Bandhu Mahto by his relation to the first wife of Bandhu Mahto. Bandhu Mahto gifted the entire property which was about 6 bighas of land with a house in favour of appellant Dhanuk Mahto. Aklu Mahto, the grandfather of the informant had filed a civil suit against Bandhu Mahto, appellant Dhanuk Mahto and others in respect of aforesaid gift and the matter was pending in the Civil Court. Two months prior, Bandhu Mahto died and after his death appellant Dhanuk Mahto sold his entire property which he had received from Bandhu Mahto in gift in favour of appellants Peyare Mohammad Khan, Abdul Khan, Jauhar Ali Khan (sole appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 72/86 who died during the pendency of appeal) and others by a registered sale deed. The father of informant had constructed a Gobar Gas Plant (Cow Dung Gas Plant) near his house. But Jauhar Ali Khan and others used to tell that they had purchased that land from Dhanuk Mahto. After the death of Bandhu Mahto his both wives started living with the family of informant and house of Bandhu Mahto was amalgamated with the house of informant. On 30.07.78 in the afternoon Jilebi Devi, second wife of Bandhu Mahto had gone for cutting grass in a field where Jauhar Ali Khan (since dead) had given her threatening that she should not depose against him in court and he further told on the same day that he will capture the house of Bandhu Mahto. Jilebi Devi returned to her house and told about this to the informant and others. Jilebi Devi returned to her house and told about this to the informant and others. On the same day i.e. on 23.7.78 at about 4 P.M. all the appellants along with Abdul Ghaful Khan @ Ghafur Khan, Jauhar Ali Khan and Komal Mahto (all the three died during the pendency of the appeal) and with Jagdish Dusadh, Kameshwar Manjhi and Krishna Deo Mahto (all three not sent up for trial) and 15-20 others forming an unlawful assembly variously armed with lathis, bhala, gun, bomb etc. came to the house of informant in order to forcibly capture the house of Bandhu Mahto and damage the Gobar Gas Plant. The appellants and their companions started dismantling the bricks of Gobar Gas Plant and when the informant and his family members protested they started assaulting them. The appellant Abdul Khan opened fire from his gun causing injuries to Bhagwan Prasad (PW 3). Ghafur Khan threw a bomb causing injury on the right hand of the informant. Appellant Baratu Khan assaulted Shambhu Mahto (PW 1) brother of informant with a lathi. The informant and other injured after receiving injuries went inside their house but the appellants Ganauri Mahto and Mundrika Pandey assaulted Sardhan Devi (P.W.3) the mother of the informant who at that time was standing in the verandah of house, with lathis. When Jilebi Devi second wife of Bandhu Mahto, tried to close the main door of the house, the appellants and their companions ran to assault her as the resuit of which she without closing the door ran inside her house and when she reached Osara of her house Jauhar Ali Khan assaulted her with a sword. The informant and his family members went running to the roof of the house and thereafter the appellants and their companions threw brick-bats on them. The appellants and their companions set the cattle shed of informant on fire causing a loss of Rs. 500/- and they also took out rice, ornaments etc. from the house and when the villagers assembled there, they fled away. After the appellants and their companions left the place of occurrence, the informant found that Jilebi Devi had died. The occurrence was witnessed by Ramji Mahto, Bishun Manjhi, Muneshwar Manjhi, Agan Mahto (not examined) and Mohan Mahto (PW 6). The informant further stated that his grandfather Aklu Mahto (not examined) had also received injury by brickbats. 3. After the appellants and their companions left the place of occurrence, the informant found that Jilebi Devi had died. The occurrence was witnessed by Ramji Mahto, Bishun Manjhi, Muneshwar Manjhi, Agan Mahto (not examined) and Mohan Mahto (PW 6). The informant further stated that his grandfather Aklu Mahto (not examined) had also received injury by brickbats. 3. On the basis of FIR a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 323, 436, 380 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act was registered and the case was investigated by Krishna Dev Maffick (PW 10) who prepared requisition for examination of injuries found on the injured persons, went to the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report (Ext. 2) of the dead body of the deceased Jilebi Devi and sent it for post mortem examination, recorded statements of witnesses during the course of which he found injuries on the persons of informant and other injured persons and prepared requisition for examination of injuries, prepared a sketch map (Ext. 4) of the place of occurrence and after completing investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellants and Ghafur Khan, Jauhar Ali Khan and Komal Khan who, as stated above, died during the pendency of the appeal under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 324, 325, 360, 436 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. After cognizance the case was committed to the court of Sessions and appellants were put on trial. 4. The case of the appellants before the court below was that the members of the prosecution party themselves committed the murder of Jilebi Devi and thereafter falsely implicated the appellants owing to enmity. After trial the appellants were found guilty of different charges and they were convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Jauhar Ali Khan (since dead) was alone held guilty for committing the murder of Jilebi Devi. 5. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. PW 6 Mohan Mahto has been tendered. P.W. 11 Dr. S.K. Singh has proved post mortem examination report (Ext. 5) in respect of deceased Jilebia Devi. PW 12 Jai Narayan Prasad has proved six injury reports (Ext. 6 to 6/5). PW 13 Brahmadeo Prasad has proved the service report (Ext. 7) in respect of show cause notice issued against Dhanuk Mahto in T.S. No. 78/77 from the court of Subordinate Judge, Gaya. 5) in respect of deceased Jilebia Devi. PW 12 Jai Narayan Prasad has proved six injury reports (Ext. 6 to 6/5). PW 13 Brahmadeo Prasad has proved the service report (Ext. 7) in respect of show cause notice issued against Dhanuk Mahto in T.S. No. 78/77 from the court of Subordinate Judge, Gaya. PW 10 Krishna Dev Mallick is the I.O. of the case. PW 9 Shiv Shankar Mahto, informant, PW 1 Shambhu Mahto, PW 2 Rukmani Devi, PW 3 Bhagwan Prasad, PW 4 Kishori Mahto, PW 5 Sardhan Devi and PW 8 Gauri Devi are the witnesses on the point of occurrence and out of them PWs. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 9 the informant are said to have received injuries. PW 8 Gauri Devi has simply stated that on the day of occurrence she had heard sound of firing and bomb blast and she had seen a mob in which she identified Jauhar Ali Khan and appellants Ali Khan and Raees Khan and then she fled away. She has not stated about any overt act committed by the appellants. PW 7, Mahavir Mahto, in his evidence has simply stated about the relationship of Bandhu Mahto and his brother Akloo Mahto, about partition between them and thereafter again subsequently becoming joint and about title suit filed in respect of the landed property of Bandhu Mahto. He is not a witness to the occurrence. 6. PW 9, Shiv Shankar Mahto, the informant, PW 1 Shambhu Mahto, PW 3 Bhagwan Mahto and PW 4 Kishori Mahto, in their evidence have stated that at the time of occurrence they were uprooting the vegetable plants in a land near the Gobar Gas Plant where all the appellants came and started demolishing the Gobar Gas Plant and on protest the appellants assaulted them. On the point of assault PW 1 has stated that Abdul Khan fired from his gun causing injury to PW 3, Gafoor Khan (since dead) hurled a bomb causing injury to the informant and be himself was assaulted by appellant Baratu Khan by means of lathi causing injuries on his both hands. PW 3 Bhagwan Prasad has stated that appellant Abdul Khan fired from his gun causing injury on his left eyebrow. Gafoor Khan assaulted the informant with bomb and appellant Kuldip Manjhi assaulted PW 4 by means of a Farsa. PW 3 Bhagwan Prasad has stated that appellant Abdul Khan fired from his gun causing injury on his left eyebrow. Gafoor Khan assaulted the informant with bomb and appellant Kuldip Manjhi assaulted PW 4 by means of a Farsa. PW 4, Kishori Mahto, in his evidence, has stated that appellant Abdul Khan fired from his gun causing injury to PW 3, Gafoor Khan threw a bomb causing injury to the informant and he himself was assaulted by appellant Kuldip Manjhi by Farsa. PW 5, Sardhan Devi, mother of the informant, in her evidence, has stated that she was assaulted by appellant Mundrika Pandey with a Garasa causing injuries on her both hands. She has further stated that one of the appellants assaulted her with lathi but she has not given the name of assailant who assaulted her with lathi. Although PW 10, Krishna Dev Mallick, in his evidence, has stated that during the course of investigation he found injuries on the persons of informant, PW 3 and PW 4 and he prepared injury certificates and sent them to Wazirganj Hospital for treatment but no such injury certificate prepared by him has been brought on record by the prosecution. PW 12, Jai Narayan Prasad, an advocate clerk, has proved six injury reports said to be in the writing of Dr. Ram Kumar Singh. These injury reports are marked Exts. 6 to 6/5. He has said that Dr. Ram Kumar Singh is dead but in cross examination he has stated that he does not know when Dr. Ram Kumar Singh died and he had no occasion to work with him and the injury reports (Exts 6 - 6/5) were not written in his presence. His evidence on the point of death of Dr. Ram Kumar Singh who is said to have issued Exts. 6 to 6/5 does not appear to be convincing. This witness, who is an advocate clerk, as stated above, had no occasion to work with Dr. Ram Kumar Singh but still he has proved the injury certificates said to be in the writing of Dr. Ram Kumar Singh. If Dr. Ram Kumar Singh had died, the prosecution could have brought these injury certificates on record by examining any other doctor but this has not been done in this case. Ram Kumar Singh but still he has proved the injury certificates said to be in the writing of Dr. Ram Kumar Singh. If Dr. Ram Kumar Singh had died, the prosecution could have brought these injury certificates on record by examining any other doctor but this has not been done in this case. In our opinion no importance can be attached to the injury certificates which have been Droved bv PW 12, who is an is injury report in respect of PW 9, the informant, shows that he had received four injuries out of which injury no. (1) was dislocation of right thumb which was grievous in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance and other injuries were simple in nature. Injury no.(2) was an incised wound caused by a sharp cutting weapon and injury no.(3) by fire and injury no.(4) by hard blunt substance. The informant nowhere in his evidence has stated that he was assaulted by any of the appellants by any sharp cutting weapon or by any hard blunt substance, and he had received four injuries. As stated above, the specific evidence of informant is that he had received injuries only on his right hand. The court below by observing that injury no.(2) which was an incised wound is possible by splinters of bomb having sharp edges has taken into consideration this injury report but the court below lost sight of the fact that this injury certificate showing as many as four injuries on the persons of informant does not support the evidence of informant on the point of injuries. Similarly, Ext.6/3 which is in respect of PW 3, Bhagwan Prasad, shows that he had received two injuries, one linear cut mark about 2" near right eyebrow and one incised wound on the right arm. The evidence of PW 3 is that he received injuries when appellant Abdul Khan fired from his gun. The court below has considered this aspect of the fact that injuries which were found on the person of PW 3 as suggested by Ext. 6/3 were not possible by gun shot because the injuries were incised and cut injuries but then by observing that PW 3 failed to identify his assailant in the melee and because of the fact that he had received injuries it did not give any weightage to this discrepancy. PW 9. 6/3 were not possible by gun shot because the injuries were incised and cut injuries but then by observing that PW 3 failed to identify his assailant in the melee and because of the fact that he had received injuries it did not give any weightage to this discrepancy. PW 9. the informant in ing him and PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 the appellants chased them when they were running towards their pucca house at that time his mother Sardhan Devi (PW 5) was standing at the Darwaja of the house but at that time he could not say anything to her because he himself was in hurry and searching for a place to save his life and thereafter he entered the house. About assault on his mother he has stated that she was assaulted outside the house. In view of his evidence that he entered the house running and thereafter his mother was assaulted outside the house, the possibility of his witnessing the assault on his mother does not arise. Ext. 6/2 is the injury report of Akloo Mahto but he has not been examined. The informant in his evidence has stated that Akloo Mahto is too old to come to depose but then it is surprising that although in the Fardbeyan it is stated that Akloo Mahto also received injuries when appellants threw brickbats but neither he nor any other witness in his evidence has stated that Akloo Mahto had also been injured. Notwithstanding the fact that injury certificates. (Ext. 6 series) have not been proved by a competent witness the injury certificates do not fully support the case of prosecution. We therefore find that so far the question of assault to the informant and other witnesses by appellants is concerned no convincing and trustworthy evidence has been adduced by the prosecution. 7. On the point of arson and theft we find that PW 1 Shambhu Mahto has simply stated that when the appellants fled away he found that his cow shed had been set on fire. He has not stated anything about theft. PW 3, Bhagwan Prasad has said that after assault he went on the roof of his house from where he saw that his cow shed had been set on fire. He has also not stated anything about the theft. He has not stated anything about theft. PW 3, Bhagwan Prasad has said that after assault he went on the roof of his house from where he saw that his cow shed had been set on fire. He has also not stated anything about the theft. PW4, Kishori Mahto in his evidence has stated that he also saw from the roof of his house that his cow shed was set on fire. About theft he is also silent. PW 9, the informant, has stated that the appellant set fire to his cow shed and they committed theft of wheat, rice and ornaments from his old tiled house but in his cross examination he has clearly stated that he did not see any one setting fire to his cow shed and at that time his cattle were not in cow shed. PW 2, Rukmani Devi and PW 5, Sardhan Devi are only two eye witnesses on the point of arson and PW 2 Rukmani Devi is the solitary witness on the point of theft. PW 2 has stated that at the time of occurrence she was in the tiled house of her father and after hearing sound of firing she came out of her house in a lane and found 10-15 persons were chasing the informant and at that time she saw appellant Dhanuk Mahto and one else setting her cow shed on fire and thereafter she saw those persons pelting stones. PW 5 in her evidence has said that at the time of occurrence she was in her pucca hosue and after hearing sound of firing and explosion of bomb she came out of her house and found that appellants were chasing the informant and PW 3 and the appellants came to her pucca house and when she inquired from them why they were doing so, she was assaulted by appellant Mundrika Pandey with Carasa. She has stated that at that time she was with deceased Jilebia Devi near the door who was trying to close the door but the appellants after pushing the door entered the house and chased Jilebi Devi and committed her murder. On the point of arson she stated that Jauhar Ali Khan (since dead) and appellant Dhanuk Mahto set fire to the cow shed. On the point of arson she stated that Jauhar Ali Khan (since dead) and appellant Dhanuk Mahto set fire to the cow shed. In view of the aforesaid evidence, it appears that when the cow shed was set on fire PW 2 was in her tiled house and PW 5 was in her pucca house. 8. About the location of pucca house and tiled house of informant, PW 10, the I.O. in his evidence has stated that the pucca house is adjacent north to plot no. 126 in which there was a Gobar Gas Plant of informant and this pucca house is in village Karisoba. About the tiled house he has said that this house is situate 20 yards east from the pucca house and it is in village Khajuri and Gobar Gas Plant is adjacent south west to the pucca house of the informant. About the cowshed he has stated that it is situate south from the pucca house of the informant. PW 4 in his evidence has said that the cowshed is situate towards east of the Gobar Gas Plant in the same plot and there is a wall adjacent south to the pucca house dividing Gobar Gas Plant and his pucca house. About the tiled house he has said that this tiled house is situate at the distance of 5 bamboos towards west in village Khajuri from the Gobar Gas Plant. PW 2 who is said to have seen appellant Dhanuk Mahto and one else setting fire to her cowshed has stated that there is a lane in the direction of west north adjacent to her tiled house which turn towards south and there is another lane adjacent north to her tiled house in the direction of east- west and this lane joins the lane adjacent west-north to her tiled house in the north- south corner. Her further evidence is that at the time of occurrence she was in her tiled house and on hearing sound of firing and explosion of bomb she came out from her house in the lane. It does not seem probable that one standing in this lane will be able to see anybody setting fire to his cow shed because for that one has to come in the another lane which a in the direction of north-south. It does not seem probable that one standing in this lane will be able to see anybody setting fire to his cow shed because for that one has to come in the another lane which a in the direction of north-south. Similarly when the wall dividing the gobar gas plant and pucca house situate adjacent south to the pucca house and the cow shed was also in the same plot in which gobar gas plant was situate towards south of pucca house, the question of witnessing the setting of fire to the cow shed from the pucca house does not arise. On the point of theft, as stated earlier, PW 2 Rukmani Devi is the solitary witness. She has stated that appellants Lata Mahto, Dhanuk Mahto, Etwari Manjhi and Kuldip Manjhi entered the tiled house and appellant Dhanuk Mahto asked her to give informantion about the ornaments otherwise she would be killed and she then pointed out a place on the wall near the door of her house where the ornaments were kept concealed. According to her, after breaking the wall appellant Dhanuk Mahto took out the ornaments which included two ear rings, two Hasuli, one Mangtika and one Balfa, all made of gold and one silver Kamardhani polished with gold. She has further stated that Kuldip Manjhi, Lala Mahto and Etwari Manjhi took out rice from her granary. In her cross examination she has stated that about one and half maund rice was taken out which were kept in two bags and those bags were carried by appellant Etwari Manjhi, Kuldip Mahto and Lala Mahto. None of the prosecution witnesses has said that the aforesaid appellants carried away wheat and rice in bags. This witness has further stated that ornaments which were stolen by appellants belonged to her and her bhabhi and her bhabhi at that time had gone to her Naihar leaving behind the ornaments. She has further stated that at the time of occurrence about 10- 15 boxes were kept in her house which were maent for keeping clothes and cash money but ornaments were not kept in those boxes. She has further stated that at the time of occurrence about 10- 15 boxes were kept in her house which were maent for keeping clothes and cash money but ornaments were not kept in those boxes. It seems very improbable that some appellants entered the house for committing theft and they did not even try to touch the boxes, kept there and one of them inquired from PW 2 to tell him about the ornaments as if he was knowing from before that the ornaments must have been kept concealed. It is true that the I.O. in his evidence has stated that he found a portion of the wall in the tiled house dug and some rice were scattered near the granary but it appears that in order to create evidence on the point of theft the story of digging the wall for taking out ornaments has been purposely introduced. 9. On the point of forming an unlawful assembly and demolishing Gobar Gas Plant by the appellants. PW 1 in his evidence has stated the names of only six appellants although not common, and PW 8 has stated the names of only three appellants, PW 4 has stated the names of 10 appellants and informant has stated the names of as many as 24 persons out of whom three were not sent up for trial. It is the evidence of informant that Bandhu Mahto was brother of his grandfather Akloo Mahto and they both separated 20 years prior to the date of occurrence but they again became joint in the year 1955-56. This statement itself is contradictory because occurrence is said to have taken place on 23.7.78 and if 20 years prior to it there was a partition between Akloo Mahto and Bandhu Mahto it must be sometime in the year 1958, and therefore the question of their again becoming joint in 1955-56 does not arise, particularly in view of the evidence of informant that they after partition remained separate for 10 years. Informant has also admitted that Bandhu Mahto had executed a deed of gift in favour of his Sadhu appellant Dhanuk Mahto. Informant has also admitted that Bandhu Mahto had executed a deed of gift in favour of his Sadhu appellant Dhanuk Mahto. According to him, that deed was executed after playing fraud of Bandhu Mahto about 3-4 years prior to the occurrence and when he asked Bandhu Mahto to file a case, Bandhu Mahto told him that he himself should file a case and he (Bandhu Mahto) would depose in that case. The informant has stated that he does not know whether mutation in the name of appellant Dhanuk Mahto in respect of land covered by the deed of gift executed by Bandhu Mahto has been effected but then PW 7, Mahavir Mahto who is uncle of the informant has stated that mutation in the name of appellant Dhanuk Mahto has already been effected, but, according to him, it has been done after passing a back dated order by Anchaladhikari. PW 7 has further stated that he did not challenge the order of mutation but he has filed a title suit. The informant has admitted that appellant Dhanuk Mahto has executed a sale deed in respect of lands for which Bandhu Mahto had executed a deed of gift in his favour. Although PW 7 in his evidence has stated that his pucca house and Gobar Gas Plant are in Plot no. 26, Khata no. 469 and this land is not covered by deed of gift executed by Bandhu Mahto but the informant in his fardbeyan has clearly stated that the land of Gobar Gas Plant is claimed by appellants on the basis of sale deed executed in their favour by appellant Dhanuk Mahto. After admitting that certain land belonged to Bandhu Mahto who was separate from his brother Akloo Mahto, the grandfather of informant and father of PW 7, the case of the prosecution is that he again became joint with Akloo Mahto but no evidence to this effect has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution, PW 7 stated that after becoming joint with them Bandhu Mahto handed over his entire land to his family by a deed of surrender. No such document has been filed. No such document has been filed. The case of the prosecution is that at the time of occurrence, the informant and PW 1, PW 3 & PW 4 were uprooting vegetable plants in the land where they had constructed a Gobar Gas Plant but PW 10, the I.O., in his evidence has stated that he did not find any crop in the plot where Gobar Gas Plant was constructed. This does not support the case of the prosecution that at the time of occurrence the informant and his men were uprooting the vegetable plants in the plot in which they had constructed the Gobar Gas Plant. !t is the evidence of informant that at the time of construction of that Gobar Gas Plant 2-3 day prior to the date of occurrence the appellants did not raise any objection. In this situation it does not seem probable that after construction of the Gobar Gas Plant the appellants would come to the land of the informant and start demolishing the Gobar Gas Plant. About the plot in which Gobar Gas Plant is said to have been constructed, it is the own case of informant in the Fardbeyan that the appellants are claiming this land. In this evidence also he has admitted that there was partition between his grandfather Akloo Mahto and his brother Bandhu Mahto and Bandhu Mahto had gifted his land to appellant Dhanuk Mahto who by a registered sale deed has sold the land which he received from Bandhu Mahto to appellants Pyare Md. Khan, Abdul Khan and others. In this view of the matter the possession of informants party on the land where Gobar Gas Plant was constructed and where the appellants, as alleged, on the day of occurrence went becomes doubtful. 10. Khan, Abdul Khan and others. In this view of the matter the possession of informants party on the land where Gobar Gas Plant was constructed and where the appellants, as alleged, on the day of occurrence went becomes doubtful. 10. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in this case the prosecution has proved that death of deceased Jilebi Devij was homicidal and the prosecution was further able to prove that Jauhar Ali Khan who at the time of occurrence was with appellants had committed her murder and on this basis the court below had found appellant Jauhar Ali Khan guilty under section 302 IPC and because the murder of Jilebi Devi was committed in the same transaction, the other charges against the appellants of forming unlawful assembly, committing mischief by demolishing Gobar Gas Plant, assaulting the informant and his men and committing theft and setting fire to the cow shed of the informant are proved. In the present appeals we are not deciding the merit of conviction of Jauhar Ali Khan who was found guilty under section 302 IPC by the court below because admittedly he is dead. The murder of Jilebi Devi as per the case of the prosecution was committed in the pucca house of the informant whereas the offences for which the appellants have been charged in this case are said to have been committed in a different plot in which Gobar Gas Plant was constructed and in the tiled house of informant which are quite away from the pucca house. So, if the court below found Jauhar Ali Khan guilty for committing murder of Jilebi Devi, this fact itself will not be a circumstances which goes in favour of prosecution in respect of its case against other appellants. 11. All the prosecution witnesses who have been examined by prosecution claiming themselves as eye witnesses to the occurrence are closely related to each other. The fardbeyan shows the presence of other independent witnesses also whose names are given in the Fardbeyan but out of them only Mohan Mahto (PW 6) was produced by prosecution but he was tendered. About Jhuman Manjhi and Ramjee Mahto the informant in his evidence has stated that they have gone to the other side and whereabouts of Muneshwar Manjhi and Bishun Manjhi is not known as they live outside. About Jhuman Manjhi and Ramjee Mahto the informant in his evidence has stated that they have gone to the other side and whereabouts of Muneshwar Manjhi and Bishun Manjhi is not known as they live outside. It is true that the evidence of witnesses cannot be discarded only on account of their being related to each other but then if the witnesses belong to one family having land dispute with appellants and their evidence is not consistent and it does not inspire confidence to believe them, in such circumstance it will not be safe to rely on their testimony. 12. Considering the entire evidence on record, we find that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. 13. In the result, these appeals are allowed. The judgment and order of the court below is set aside. The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. R.N.Prasad, J. 14 I agree.