Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Both these appeals are connected ones arising out of the same case and therefore both these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Appellants of both these appeals have been convicted- under Secs. 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Upendra Rai and Hardwar Rai and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 4. The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 19-9-1986, a Ramlila was going on in front of the house of accused Jamuna Singh and the male and female members of the village were witnessing the same. There was separate arrangement for sitting of male and female. Amidst the Ramlila, accused Jamuna Singh Haran Singh. Anil Singh. Biran Singh. Birendra Singh and Ravindra Singh entered into the sitting place of the female members and objections were raised by the male members as to why they have gone towards the female members and it was protested by Ramashish Rat and there was verbal altercation between Rama shish Rai and the accused persons on this Jamuna Singh took out his pistol and commanded to 1911 the protesters. On which the accused-persons aforesaid came there armed with gun and opened fire from their respective guns as a result of which Upendra Rai. Hardwar Rai and Ramashish Rai sustained gun-shot injuries. It is the specific case of the prosecution that accused Haran Singh shot fire upon Upendra Rai accused Anil Ram shot fire at Hardwar Rat and Biran Singh shot fire at Ramashish Rat. Injured persons thereafter were taken to hospital and in the way to Hospital, injured Upendra Rai, succumbed to his injuries, since the condition of Hardwar Rai was deteriorating at Tekari Hospital, he was shifted to Gaya Medical College and Hospital from Where he was taken to Ranchi and he was admitted in Sewa Sadan Hospital. Ranchi where Hardwar Rai succumbed to the injuries on 24-9-1986. Injured Rama-shish Rat was taken to Tekari Hospital and ultimately to Delhi Hospital where he survived. 5. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Gopal Rai, PW 6 drawn up at Tekari Police Station on 19-9-1986 at 2.45 a.m. a case under Secs. 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, and 302 (If the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, was registered against the named accused persons. 5. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Gopal Rai, PW 6 drawn up at Tekari Police Station on 19-9-1986 at 2.45 a.m. a case under Secs. 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, and 302 (If the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, was registered against the named accused persons. 6. After due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused-persons and cognizance of the offence was taken. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. However, the case of the appellant Haran Singh alias Harendra Singh was split up as he had absconded. Ultimately, after apprehension of Haran Singh all the accused-persons were tried and were found guilty for the offence and were sentenced as indicated above. 7. The defence of the accused persons is of false implication on account of enmity and they have pleaded innocence. 8. Prosecution, in all, examined as many as ten witnesses in support of its case, Out of them PWs 1 Awadhesh Rai, 2 Kishori Rai, 3 Suresh Rai, 4 Udai Rai and 5 Ramashish Rai are eye-witnesses of the occurrence. PW. 6 Gopal Rai is hearsay witness, PW 7 DR. Kapildeo Prasad has held autopsy over the dead body of Upendra Rai. PW 8 Raghunath Chaudhary is the Investigating Officer of the case. PW 9 Tuleshwar Rai is Court witness who has said about the treatment of Hardwar Rai whereas PW 10 Lalan-Tiwari has proved the formal First Information Report. The defence has also examined four witnesses namely Birendra Singh, Biran Singh, Arvind Kumar and Jamuna Singh. 9. At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention that two persons, namely, Upendra Rat and Hardwar Rai are alleged to have been killed at the hands of the appellants in the alleged occurrence whereas PWs 5 Ramashish Rai had sustained gun-shot injuries. Autopsy of deceased Vrendra Rai, alone was held at Gaya by PW 7. Prosecution has not explained about the autopsy of deceased Hardwar Rai nor any doctor has been examined to show that the autopsy was held over the dead body of Hardwar Rai. It would also be pertinent to mention here that injuries caused on the person of Ramashish Rai. PW 5, have also not been proved as neither the injury report is on record nor the doctor has been examined. 10. It would also be pertinent to mention here that injuries caused on the person of Ramashish Rai. PW 5, have also not been proved as neither the injury report is on record nor the doctor has been examined. 10. PW 6, the informant, in his evidence, had stated that on 19-9-1986 at about 9 p.m. in the night, he was at his darwaja and on hearing the sound of gun-shots he came out of his house and he saw Ramashish Rai PW 5 crying in the field and he also saw Upendra Rat and Hardwar Rai in injured condition. From Ramashish, he came to know that firing had taken place at the place of Ramlila on account of sitting arrangement. He also came to know from Ramashish that accused Birendra and Haran Singh had opened fired upon Upendra Rai whereas Anil had opened fire on Hardwar Rai and he had also sustained injuries out of the fire opened by them. He has further stated in his evidence that all the injured persons were being taken to Tekari Hospital and on the way Upendra Rai succumbed to the injuries. Ultimately, injured Ramashish and Hardwar were taken in Tekari Hospital where Tekari Police came and recorded his fardbeyan. He has further stated in his evidence that both the injured Ramashish and Hardwar were referred to Gaya Hospital. In his cross-examination, this witness has categorically stated that on the fateful night he had not gone to see Ramlila. He has further stated in his cross-examination that PW 5 Ramashish Rat is his cousin. 11. PW 1 Awadhesh Rai, in his evidence has supported the prosecution version of the case as disclosed by the informant and has stated that in the night of 19-9-1986 he was seeing Ramlila at the darwaja of accused Jamuna Singh, where males and females had assembled at the place of Ramlila. There was separate arrangement of sitting for the males and females and admist the Ramlila accused Ravindra. Birendra. Biran Singh. Anil Singh. Jamuna Singh and Haran Singh went towards the female side to tease the women. On that Ramashish Singh PW. 5 asked Jamuna Singh not to do so which infuriated Jamuna Singh and he took out pistol from his waist and Upendra fired in the air and directed his men to, to kill Ramashish, Ravindra. Birendra Singh. Biran Singh. Anil Singh. Jamuna Singh and Haran Singh went towards the female side to tease the women. On that Ramashish Singh PW. 5 asked Jamuna Singh not to do so which infuriated Jamuna Singh and he took out pistol from his waist and Upendra fired in the air and directed his men to, to kill Ramashish, Ravindra. Birendra Singh. Biran Singh. Haran Singh and Anil Singh came out with guns and started firing gun-shots as a result of which Upendra. Hardwar and Ramashish sustained gunshots injuries. This witness further states in his evidence that Haran shot fire on Upendra. Anil shot fire on Hardwar whereas Biran shot fire on Ratnashish. After sustaining injuries Upendra, Hardwar and Ramashish started fleeing away and they were chased by the accused-persons and they went on firing shots from their guns and when the injured persons has fallen down they retreated. Injured Ramashish, Hardwar and Upendra were taken to Tekari Hospital where fardbeyan of PW 6 Gopal Rat was recorded by the police. It is further stated that the injured Upendra died on the way to the hospital whereas Hardwar and Ramashish were referred to Gaya Medical College and Hospital for treatment. This witness in cross-examination stated that about 100 to 150 persons were seeing Ramlila and injured were chased by the accused-persons and they were fired at. This witness has further stated that Upendra having received the gun-shot injuries fell on the land of Deo Singh at about 100 to 125 yards from the place of occurrence and ultimately he fell down at the darwaja of Arjun Rat. This witness has further, stated in his cross-examination that Hardwar Rat had sustained injuries near the Sahan. A suggestion was put to this witness to the effect that he had not stated before the Investigating Officer that Jamuna Singh had taken out pistol from his waist and had opened fire. This suggestion however has been denied. 12. PW 2 Kishori Rat in his evidence has also deposed on the same line as that of PW 1 and has stated that accused persons had opened fire at Upendra. Ramashish and Hardwar Rat. He has specifically stated in his evidence that Haran Singh had shot at Upendra Rat. Anil Singh had shot at Hardwar and Biran Singh had shot at Ramashish. In his cross-examination. Ramashish and Hardwar Rat. He has specifically stated in his evidence that Haran Singh had shot at Upendra Rat. Anil Singh had shot at Hardwar and Biran Singh had shot at Ramashish. In his cross-examination. this witness has stated that deceased Upendra had sustained gun-shot injuries near the dalan of Ramashish. He has further stated that Ramashish had sustained injuries at a distance of 45 yards from his dalan. He has further stated in his cross-examination that all the three injured namely Upendra. Hardwar and Ramashish were lying injured near the dalan of Ramashish. 13. PW 3 Suresh Rat who is also an eye-witness of the occurrence, has also deposed on the line of PW 1 and PW 2 and has supported the prosecution version of the case. This witness has stated in his evidence that firstly. Jamuna Singh had opened fire in the air and thereafter accused Haran Singh. Anil. Ram Biran. Birendra, Ravindra, and Jamuna started chasing Ramashish, Hardwar and Upendra. In paragraph 4 of his cross-examination, this witness has stated that Jamuna Singh had got a case instituted under Sec. 307 of the IPC against his father and he along with other persons had also gone to jail in connection with that case and the case is still pending. This witness has categorically stated about the enmity with Jamuna Singh. In his cross-examination, this witness has further stated that Hardwar Rat had stated that firstly Upendra Rai, the deceased, had sustained injuries and thereafter, Hardwar sustained gun-shot injuries in sugarcane field and thereafter Ramashish sustained gun-shot injuries nearby the sugarcane field. He has further stated in his cross-examination that injured Hardwar Rat had remained for some time in Gaya Hospital and from there he was taken to Ranchi and in course of treatment, he died at Ranchi. He has further stated in his cross-examination that after his return from Ranchi, his statement was recorded by the police. He has further stated that at Ranchi the police had recorded the statement of his father Tuleshwar Rat and he had put his signature. He has further stated that without explaining over the statement to his father, his signature was taken. This witness is none else but the brother of Hardwar Rat who is said to be dead. 14. PW 4 Uday Rat is said to be another eye-witness of the occurrence. He has further stated that without explaining over the statement to his father, his signature was taken. This witness is none else but the brother of Hardwar Rat who is said to be dead. 14. PW 4 Uday Rat is said to be another eye-witness of the occurrence. In his evidence, he has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was at his darwaja and on hearing the hulla he came out and went towards the Chaumuhani and there he found Hardwar Rat lying injured at the Darwaja of Gopal Rat, PW 6. He has further stated that he had also seen Ramashish Rai in an injured condition near the darwaja of Ramashish and there he came to know from Ramashish that on the order of Jamuna Singh, Haran Singh, Birendra Singh, Ravindra Singh and Anil Ram had opened fire. He has further stated that injured were taken to Tekari Hospital for treatment. In paragraph 3 of his cross-examination, this witness has stated - about 307 case pending in between Jamuna Singh and Tuleshwar. He has further stated in that very paragraph that the deceased Upendra and Hardwar Rat were brothers whereas Ramashish was their cousin. 15. PW 5 Ramashish Singh is another eye-witness of the occurrence. This witness has supported the prosecution version of the case in his evidence and has deposed on the same line as that of PWs 1, 2 and 3. In his evidence, he has disclosed the names of the appellants as the assailant of Upendra Rat, Hardwar Rat and at the same time, he has also stated that he also sustained gun-shot injuries at the hands of the accused appellants. This witness in his cross-examination, has categorically stated that after sustaining injuries he along with Upendra and Hardwar were being taken to Tekar Hospital. In the way Upendra succumbed to the injuries and he and Hardwar were referred to Gaya Medical College and Hospital for further treatment. This witness has further stated that Hardwar was taken to Ranchi, for treatment, whereas he got himself treated at Gaya and also at Delhi. However, neither any doctor has been examined nor any injury report has been brought on record showing that this witness had also sustained injuries. 16. PW 9 Tuleshwar Rai is a court witness. This witness has further stated that Hardwar was taken to Ranchi, for treatment, whereas he got himself treated at Gaya and also at Delhi. However, neither any doctor has been examined nor any injury report has been brought on record showing that this witness had also sustained injuries. 16. PW 9 Tuleshwar Rai is a court witness. In his evidence, he has stated that on the day of occurrence, he was not in the village as had gone in Jajmanka and after two days when he returned, he heard about the occurrence at Gaya and he came to know that his son Hardwar has been admitted in Gaya Medical College and Hospital. He went to the hospital and he went to Ranchi with his injured son Hardwar Rai where Hardwar Rai succumbed to the injuries in course of treatment. A suggestion was put to this witness that he had lodged a fardbeyan at Ranchi (Ext. C) and he had put his signature on the same marked as Ext. 1. When this Exhibit was shown to him he stated that he had not made any statement at Ranchi although Exht. 1 is his signature. In answer to this question put by the Court. this witness has further stated that police from Kotwali Police station. Ranchi, along with another police officer Chandrama Singh who happens to be his co-villager came and there his signature was obtained on a plain paper This witness has further stated that police officer Chandrama Singh happens to be the cousin of accused Jamuna Singh. This witness in paragraph 5 of his cross-examination has admitted the factum of enmity with Jamuna Singh as there was a criminal case under Sec. 307 of the IPC. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to state that Exht. C is said to be the fardbeyan of this witness at Ranchi were he had disclosed that his son Hardwar had sustained injuries in course of dacoity which was committed in his house. Though this witness had denied about the aforesaid fardbeyan much reliance should not. therefore be placed upon this document in view of the evidence of this witness that cousin of Jamuna Singh police officer of Ranchi had obtained his signature in the company of the Officer Incharge. Kotwali Police Station, Ranchi. 17. Though this witness had denied about the aforesaid fardbeyan much reliance should not. therefore be placed upon this document in view of the evidence of this witness that cousin of Jamuna Singh police officer of Ranchi had obtained his signature in the company of the Officer Incharge. Kotwali Police Station, Ranchi. 17. The evidence of PW 7 Kapildeo Prasad who held autopsy over the dead body of Upendra Rai has stated in his evidence that he had found anti-mortem pellet injuries in front portion of the body and on dissection had further found that pellets had also touched the lungs and heart of the deceased. In the opinion of the doctor the injuries were caused by gun-shots. 18. PW 8. Raghunath Choudhary is the Investigating Officer of this case. In his evidence, he has stated that on 19-9-1986 he was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police. Tekari Police Station and at about 2.15 hours he recorded the fardbeyan of Gopal Rai PW 6 at Tekari Sate Dispensary. At the same time he also states in his evidence that the fardbeyan was written by one Ram Binay Singh at his dictation. Hehas further stated in his evidence that at the Police Station itself he lad received information that injured Ramashish and Hardwar have been shifted to Gaya Hospital. He thereafter held inquest of Upendra and went to the place of occurrence. In his evidence he has further stated that he had found one stage for playing Ramlila and nearby the stage he had found wad of the cartridges. He had further found wad in the Jhinguni field and had also seen blood spots. This witness has further stated in his evidence that he had not prepared any injury report of Ramashish nor he had received and injury report as Ramashish had fled away from the hospital. He has further stated in his evidence that on the next day i.e., 20-9-1980 he had recorded the statement of PW 1 Awadhesh Kumar and there Awadhesh had not stated about teasing of the women at the hands of the accused-persons. He has further stated that Awadhesh had not stated before him that firstly. Jamuna Singh had taken out a pistol from his waist. The Investigating Officer has further stated in his evidence that when he interrogated Ramashish he stated before him that accused-persons had come to his darwaja and there they had opened fire: 19. He has further stated that Awadhesh had not stated before him that firstly. Jamuna Singh had taken out a pistol from his waist. The Investigating Officer has further stated in his evidence that when he interrogated Ramashish he stated before him that accused-persons had come to his darwaja and there they had opened fire: 19. Defence witnesses examined by the defence have not suggested anything substantive and therefore their evidence need not be discussed in detail. 20. From the evidence of PW 1 Awadhesh Rai, it appear that he had gone to Tekari Hospital along with the deceased. Upendra. Hardwar and Ramashish but his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer where as fardbeyan of Gopal Rai PW 6 was recorded who had not actually seen the occurrence as per the evidence. 21. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as discussed above it appears that though they had tried to support the prosecution version of the case they have not spelt out the truth. PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 who are said to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence have made contradictory statements before the police and in the Court. On analysis of their evidence it appears that sometimes they unfolded the story of teasing women at the place of Ramlila and sometimes they have unfolded the story of firing at darwaja of Ramashish. From their evidence it is apparent that Upendra. Ramashish and Hardwar were chased by the accused-persons and indiscriminate firing was made. 22. From the evidence of the doctor PW 7, it is manifest that deceased Upendra had sustained injuries in his chest. It is not understandable as to when the deceased was being chased from behind how he had sustained injuries in, the front part of his body and no injury whatsoever was found on his back. Secondly it is not understandable as to when Ramashish had sustained injuries why the doctor who examined him was not examined and why the injury report was not brought on record. It has come in the evidence of Investigating Officer PW 8 that he had not prepared any injury report of Ramashish as he had fled away from Gaya Hospital. Secondly it is not understandable as to when Ramashish had sustained injuries why the doctor who examined him was not examined and why the injury report was not brought on record. It has come in the evidence of Investigating Officer PW 8 that he had not prepared any injury report of Ramashish as he had fled away from Gaya Hospital. At the same time it is also not known as to under what circumstances autopsy over the deceased was not held at Ranchi when police had arrived in the Hospital which is evident from the evidence of PW 9 Tuleshwar Rai father of deceased Hardwar. It is also not known as to under what circumstance Hardwar was shifted to Ranchi and was treated in private nursing home namely Nagarmal Seva Sadan and why he was not shifted from Gaya to Patna when Patna was nearer to Gaya. 23. These circumstances go to show that prosecution has not unfolded the true story of the occurrence and has concealed the material facts. The appellants have been tried for committing murder of Upendra and Hardwar but in view of the evidence the factum of death of Hardwar has not been proved by the prosecution. At the same time Ramashish PW 5 also cannot be said to be a competent eyewitness as his injuries, have also not been proved. 24. It has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that there was enmity in between Jamuna Singh and family of Hardwar and thus the prosecution side and the accused persons were inimically disposed towards each other. 25. From the evidence as discussed above it appears to me that the prosecution witnesses have not spelt out the truth and they have not unfolded the true fact leading to the occurrence and therefore, the evidence discussed above does not inspire confidence and the entire prosecution case appears to be doubtful. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the prosecution has failed to prove the manner and genesis of the occurrence beyond all reasonable doubts. 26. In the result, both these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Appellants Jamuna Singh, Biran Singh alias Shashibhushan Singh, Birendra Singh and Arvind Kumar alias Anil Singh alias Anil Ram Ram are on bail. 26. In the result, both these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Appellants Jamuna Singh, Biran Singh alias Shashibhushan Singh, Birendra Singh and Arvind Kumar alias Anil Singh alias Anil Ram Ram are on bail. They are discharged from the liabilities of their bail-bonds. Appellant Haran Singh alias Harendra Singh of Cr. Appeal No. 41 of 1993 is in custody. He is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other matter.