Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 230 (PAT)

Arjun Rai v. State Of Bihar

2000-02-09

ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, NAGENDRA RAI

body2000
Judgment 1. The three appellants, who are the brothers, along with nine others were put on trial before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur for the offence under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and have been convicted under the aforesaid section and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The other nine accused-persons were acquitted. 2. The appeal arises out of an occurrence which took place in between the night of 27/28th June, 1992 at village Bisanpur said Ali withll Bidupur police station of Vaishali district in which dacoity was committed in the houses of Sakal Rai and deceased Kishun Rai and in course of dacoity, Kishun Rai was murdered. 3. The information about the occurrence in the form of fardbeyan was lodged by Jawahar Rai, son of the deceased Kishun Rai, on 28.6.1992 at 9.30 a.m. at his door which was recorded by the Officer-in-Charge of Bidupur police station, Shatrughan Prasad Singh, PW 18. 4. The prosecution version, in brief, is that in between the night of 27/28th June, 1992, the informant Jawahar Rai and his family members after taking meal had gone to sleep at 10.00 p.m. and at about 1.00 p.m., he heard sound of firing and groaning coming from near the house of Sakal Rai, PW 12. Thereafter, he woke up. In the meantime, the miscreants proceeded towards his house and on seeing them he concealed himself by the saide of bhuskaul (place of keeping chaff). The miscreants were numbering 20-25. Amongst them, in the torch-light flashed by the dacoits, he identified appellant Arjun Rai having a torch in one hand and a country-made pistol in other hand who entered into the house and abused her mother and came out from the house with certain articles. He also identified appellant Adalat Rai armed with gun, appellant Halla Rai, armed with country-made pistol, Bolta Rai alius Ramanand Rai with farsa, Ekbali Rai with knife, Mani Rai with lathi, Shankar Rai with bhala, Haku alias Kapil-deo Rai with lathi, Lal Babu Rai with pistol, Birendra Rai with lathi, Munshi Rai with bhala, Ram Ashray Rai with pistol all residents of village Bisanpur Said Ali at present residing at Juranpur Gopalpur within Bidupur police station and Girja Rai of village Shiv Prasad Diyara of Raghopur police station armed with pistol. There were 10 to 12 unknown persons to whom he also identified by face. There were 10 to 12 unknown persons to whom he also identified by face. They raided the house and started abusing. His father Kishun Rai due to fear fled away from that place towards south east and took shelter behind the Behaya bush in the field of Bisheshwar Rai. Appellant Arjun Rai is alleged to have gone these and fired causing injury to his father in his temple and appellant Adalat Rai also caused injury to his father in the left panjra as a result of which he died. Thereafter, appellant Adalat Rai came at his house and took a cot and brought the dead body of his father from the field of Bisheshwar Rai and kept in a field north of his house and appellant Arjun Rai is alleged to have uttered pointing out towards his mother that Kishun Rai has been murdered, she should go there to give him water. Thereafter, all the miscreants left the place. After departure of the miscreants Lalan Rai son of Sakal Rai, PW 12, (not examined) came to the house of the informant and informed that the miscreants, also entered into his house and committed assault and looted away articles and in course of that Rabindra Rai (PW 1), Lalan Rai (not examined), Indrajeet Kumar (PW 11), Lalti Devi (PW 7) and Kamal Devi (PW 8) have also received injury by fire-arms, lathi and knife. His mother and family members of Lalan Rai would give the details of the property looted by the dacoits. Amir Rai (PW 17), Chandradeep Rai (PW 13), Chandrakant Rai (PW 5), Lalu Rai (PW 6) and Ram Pravesh Rai (PW 4) witnessed the occurrence. 5. The motive for the occurrence, according to the informant, was that since long a dispute with regard to land is going on between his family and the family of the appellant Arjun Rai and a case is pending in the Court at Hajipur. Eight to ten days prior to the occurrence the deceased and Sakal Rai, PW 12, purchased a piece of land from Murat Rai which was in possession at appellant Arjun Rai since last fifteen years which has annoyed him. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan. Shatrughan Prasad Singh, PW 18, drew up a formal FIR and proceeded with the investigation. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan. Shatrughan Prasad Singh, PW 18, drew up a formal FIR and proceeded with the investigation. He visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and after conducting major portion of the investigation handed over investigation to Sri Mahendra Nath Singh, PW 20, who submitted the charge-sheet. After cognizance and commitment, 12 accused-persons were put on trial which ended in the conviction of the appellants and acquittal of the others. 7. The prosecution has examined 25 witnesses in this case in support of its case, out of whom Lalti Devi (PW 7), Kamal Devi (PW 8), Ram Ishwar Rai (PW 9), Indrajeet Kumar (PW 11) and Jagdish Rai (PW 14) have been tendered. PW 1 Ravindra Rai, PW 2 Lal Babu alias Lal Babu Rai, PW 3 Jagat Rai, PW 4 Ram Pravesh Rai, PW 5 Chandraket Rai, PW 6 Lalu Rai, PW 10 Darshan Devi, PW 12 Sakal Rai, PW 13 Chandradeep Rai, PW 15 Tetari Devi and informant PW 16 Jawahar Rai are alleged to be the eye-witnesses of the alleged occurrence. PW 19 Dr. Indra Mani Singh, PW 21 Dr. Sushil Kumar Sinha, PW 23 Dr. Ram Prasad Singh, PW 24 Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh and PW 25 Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha are the doctors who held post-mortem and examined the injured persons. Out of whom PW 24 Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh has conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and PW 19 and PW 21 were members of the Medical Board constituted for holding the post-mortem examination. PW 23, Dr. Ram Prasad Sigh, examined the injuries on the persons of PWs 7, 8,11,14 and Lalan (not examined). PW 25 Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha examined the injuries on the persons of PWs 1, 6 and 12, PWs 18 and 20 (Shatrughan Prasad Singh and Hamendra Nath Singh respectively) are the Investigating Officers. PW 17 Amir Rai is the father of the deceased and is a witness of seizure of empty cartridges and blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence and PW 22 Ganesh Thakur is a formal witness who has proved the protest petition. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants did not challenge the factum of dacoity with murder but submitted that the appellants have been implicated in this case due to enmity. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants did not challenge the factum of dacoity with murder but submitted that the appellants have been implicated in this case due to enmity. Elaborating his submission he stated that in this case occurrence took place during night and thereafter Chaukidar was sent to police station but he did not disclose the names of the appellants. Thereafter, the informant Jawahar Rai also went to the police station before lodging the first information report but did not disclose the name of any of the miscreants including the appellants. The informant after due deliberation with the other family members implicated the appellants. He also submitted that on the date of occurrence the night was dark one and it was not possible to identify the miscreants including the appellants in the torchlight alleged to have been flashed by the dacoits as it is highly improbable to believe that the dacoits would flash their torch on their own faces to get them identified by the witnesses. He has also submitted that the claim made by the most of the eye-witnesses to have seen the occurrence from the ditch near the house of Sakal Rai is falsified by the evidence of the Investigating Officer. 9. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the appellants along with others committed the occurrence due to animosity. They are co-villagers and they are known to prosecution witnesses from before and as such their identification in the torch light flashed by them was possible. It was also submitted that the witnesses consistently stated about the participation of the appellants in the crime. Some of them are injured witnesses and they are the last persons to leave the real offenders. The evidence of the eye-witnesses finds ample support from the medical evidence as well as the objective finding of the Investigating Officer. 10. So far as the factum of dacoity with murder is concerned, as stated above, the appellants did not challenge the same. The evidence on record shows that on the night of occurrence when the informant and other prosecution witnesses were sleeping in their houses, dalan, etc. the miscreants came. They first committed dacoity in the house of Sakal Rai, PW 12 and thereafter, they went to the house of the deceased Kishun Rai and there also they committed dacoity. They also assaulted the inmates of both the houses. the miscreants came. They first committed dacoity in the house of Sakal Rai, PW 12 and thereafter, they went to the house of the deceased Kishun Rai and there also they committed dacoity. They also assaulted the inmates of both the houses. Thereafter, the accused-persons noticed that Kishun Rai has concealed himself behind Behaya bush near the field of Bisheshwar Rai and then they also shot him dead. 11. PWs 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, 11,12,13,15 and 16 are the witnesses on the point of factum of dacoity and they have consistently stated that the dacoits had come and committed dacoity in the aforesaid two houses and also committed murder of Kishun Rai. PW 18 is Investigating Officer and he visited all the three place of occurrences namely, the house of Sakal Rai, Kishun Rai and Behaya trees near the field of Bisheshwar Rai. He found empty cartridges inside the angan of house of Sakal Rai. He also found broken box in his house of Kishun Rai. He also found broken attachees and articles scattered there. He visited the place when Kishun Rai received injury and there he found blood on the earth and empty cartridge and prepared a seizure-list. The objective finding of the Investigating officer shows that in the night of occurrence the miscreants had come and looted articles and also killed Kishun Rai. 12. PW 34 held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries which are quoted below : "1. Lacerated wound on the left side of head 5" x 4" cranial cavity with inverted lacerated blackened margin. Left periotal temporal bones were fractured into pieces. The under line meninges and brain matter was lacerated and coming out through wound. The upper portion of cinna was also lacerated. 24 small p size pellets were found embedded in brain matter and were removed. 2. Lacerated would with blackened irregular inverted margin on left side of back extending outer aspect 1 1/2 x 1 x abdominal cavity directed inward, forwards on opening the wound abdominal cavity was full of blood and clots. Ascending colon mesentry and sound loops of small intestine were found lacerated. 8 small p size pellets were recovered from ascending colon. 2. Lacerated would with blackened irregular inverted margin on left side of back extending outer aspect 1 1/2 x 1 x abdominal cavity directed inward, forwards on opening the wound abdominal cavity was full of blood and clots. Ascending colon mesentry and sound loops of small intestine were found lacerated. 8 small p size pellets were recovered from ascending colon. 7 pellets found in mesentry and 6 such pellets were recovered from loops of small intestine." According to the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were caused by fire arm. PW 23 Dr. Ram Prasad Singh examined the injuries on the persons of PWs 7, 8, 11 and 14 who have been tendered. PW 25 Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha examined the injuries on the persons of PWs 1, 6 and 12. Their evidence show that the aforesaid witnesses and one Lal (not examined) received injuries in the said occurrence. Thus, the evidence on record clearly prove that the dacoity with murder had taken place at the date and time as alleged by the prosecution. 13. The next question is to be considered is as to whether these appellants along with others known and unknown persons have participated in the crime. The evidence on record shows that there was a deep-rooted enmity between the prosecution party on one hand and the accused-persons on the other hand. In the first information report itself two motives have been alleged with regard to commission of offence. The first was that a dispute with regard to land was going on for long and a case was pending before the Magistrate at Hajipur and second motive alleged was that prior to 7-8 days of the occurrence. PW 12 Sakal Rai and deceased Kishun Rai had purchased land from one Murat Rai which was earlier in possession of the appellant Arjun Rai and the said purchase of land annoyed him. The enforcement in his evidence has reiterated that aforesaid motives are for the commission of occurrence. He further clarified the matter by saying that the litigation which was going on in the Court of Hajipur has ended in conviction of the appellants and the conviction was upheld in the appeal. He further stated that his father and the family members of Sakal Rai had purchased the land from Murat Rai. The appellant Arjun Rai wanted to purchase the said very land but on failure he annoyed. He further stated that his father and the family members of Sakal Rai had purchased the land from Murat Rai. The appellant Arjun Rai wanted to purchase the said very land but on failure he annoyed. PW 5 in his evidence has also stated that a dispute with regard to land was going on between the appellants and other accused with Kishun Rai deceased. Thus, the evidence on record shows that the parties are on inimical terms prior to the alleged occurrence. 14. The evidence on record further shows that all the eye-witnesses examined in this case either belong to the family of Sakal Rai or Amir Rai father of the deceased or related to them. Sakal Rai himself is PW. 12. PW 2 Lal Babu @ Lal Bahadur Rai is his son. PW 7 is Lalti Devi wife of his another son Lalan Rai. PW 11 Indrajeet Kumar is his another son. PW 5 Chandraket Rai has admitted that he is nephew of Sakal Rai PW 12. PW 17 Amir Rai is father of PW 3 Jagat Rai, PW 14 Jagdish Rai and deceased Kishun Rai. PW 6 Lalu Rai is son of Jagat Rai. PW 8 and PW 10 are two wives of Jagdish Rai. PW 15 is widow of the deceased Kishun Rai and PW 4 Ram Pravesh Rai and PW 16 Jawahar Rai are the sons of the deceased Kishun Rai. PW 13 Chandradeep Rai is son of Janak Rai who is brother of Amir Rai PW 17. 15. Thus, all the witnesses examined in this case come from the family of two persons namely, Sakal Rai and Kishun Rai in whose houses dacoity has been committed and they are in litigating terms with the appellants from before. Now a days the independent witnesses are reluctant to come to the Court for various reasons including threat to their lives as well as the life of their family members. If the Court in such a situation discards the prosecution case only on the ground that the witnesses examined are interested and coming from hostile sources then there would be miscarriage of justice. The settled law is that when witnesses are on inimical terms from before and are related to the family of the prosecution, in that case, their evidence is not to be rejected mechanically. The settled law is that when witnesses are on inimical terms from before and are related to the family of the prosecution, in that case, their evidence is not to be rejected mechanically. On the other hand, their evidence is to be scrutinised with care and caution. If the evidence is convincing, clinching and finds support from the other materials on record, then the conviction can be recorded on the basis of their evidence. In this case, as stated above, the manner of occurrence has been narrated bv PWs 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6,11,12,13,15 and 16. Out of them PWs 1, 6 and 12 are injured witnesses. PW 1 Rabindra Rai stated that he was sleeping at his Bathan at the time of occurrence which is 40 yards west of the house of PW 12 Sakal Rai. He heard sound of cry coming from the house of Sakal Rai and noticed 20-25 persons including the appellants and others who have been acquitted. He also stated that he saw that the miscreants were assaulting Sakal Rai. The appellant Arjun Rai noticed him concealing in the bush and ordered his companions to catch hold of me. Thereafter, Mani Rai and Birendra Rai since acquitted assaulted me with lathi. Thereafter, he became unconscious. Thus, he is not a witness on the point of dacoity in the house of Kishun Rai nor he is a witness on the point of assault to deceased Kishun Rai. Ext. A shows that his father was convicted in a case instituted with regard to murder of Gigal Rai in which the appellant Arjun Rai was a witness. He claims that after seeing the dacoits he concealed himself behind Be-haya bush which was up to the height of 5-6 feet from where he claims to have identified the dacoits. He does not speak a word about the means of identification. He further stated that after he bacame unconscious, he was brought at his house and thereafter he regained consciousness at his house at 4.00 a.m. but no body came to see him. He also stated in his cross-examination that the dacoit Lai Babu had concealed his face with towel. PW 2 Lal Babu Rai alias Lal Bahadur Rai is son of Sakal Rai. He has stated that he was at his house. In the meantime, 20-25 dacoits armed with weapons came and they committed dacoity in his house. He also stated in his cross-examination that the dacoit Lai Babu had concealed his face with towel. PW 2 Lal Babu Rai alias Lal Bahadur Rai is son of Sakal Rai. He has stated that he was at his house. In the meantime, 20-25 dacoits armed with weapons came and they committed dacoity in his house. Among others, he identified 14 persons including these appellants. He also stated that they assaulted his father Sakal Rai and brother Lalan Rai who is not examined and thereafter, they went to the darwaja of Kishun Rai and they committed dacoity in his house also killed Kishun Rai and brought his dead body in the same way as has been stated in the first information report. It appears that this witness was examined after 10-15 days of the occurrence. At the time of occurrence, he fled away from his house and had concealed himself in bhuskaul of Sita Ram Mahto which is at a distance of 10-15 laggis; one laggi is equivalent to 6-7 feet. He has admitted that after the occurrence, he went to the house in the morning. This witness also said that in the torch-light of the miscreants, he has identified them. PW 3 Jagat Rai is the brother of the deceased and claims that he was sleeping at his own dera which is west of the house of Sakal Rai. He has stated that in the torch-light flashed by the miscreants, he identified 14 accused-persons named in the first information report. Thereafter, he stated that the miscreants committed dacoity in the house of the deceased. He further stated that when he and his son Lalu Rai (PW 6) proceeded towards the house of Sakal Rai, the appellant Halla Rai at the direction of Arjun Rai fired which caused injury in the thigh of his son and thereafter, he fled away. Thereafter, the dacoits committed dacoity. He also stated that appellant Arjun Rai and Adalat Rai fired at the deceased Kishun Rai and thereafter, he stated same tiling which is stated in the first information report. He has admitted that the deceased was his brother. He met with the police officer after 10-15 days of the occurrence when his statement was recorded. He met with other witnesses namely PW 12 Sakal Rai and PW 16 Jawahar Rai but he has no talk about the occurrence with them. He has admitted that the deceased was his brother. He met with the police officer after 10-15 days of the occurrence when his statement was recorded. He met with other witnesses namely PW 12 Sakal Rai and PW 16 Jawahar Rai but he has no talk about the occurrence with them. He has admitted in his cross-examination that soon after occurrence he went to the house of Kishun Rai where his dead body was lying. There witnesses Chandradeep Rai and Chandraket Rai were also present. He stated that he remained there till 4/5 a.m. but no body disclosed the name of any person who participated in the crime nor any body disclosed that as to who has killed the deceased. PW 4 Ram Pravesh Rai is the son of the deceased. He also claims to have seen the occurrence and stated the same very thing which has been stated in the first information report. He has admitted that the night of the occurrence was dark. He does not claim that he was having any means of identification. After occurrence he went to the house of Sakal Rai. PW 5 Chandraket Rai has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was sleeping in his house and on hearing the sound of fire arm and cry he woke up and saw that the dacoity was being committed in the house of Sakal Rai and Kishun Rai. He also stated that the dacoits also killed Kishun Rai who had concealed himself behind the Behaya bush. He claimed to have seen the occurrence from a ditch which is south of the house of deceased Kishun Rai. In the statement before the police, he has not stated that the appellants and other miscreants were armed with deadly weapons and torch. PW 6 Lalu Rai claims that he was sleeping at the bathan. He heard India coming from the house of Sakal Rai. He went there and saw that on the order of appellant Arjun Rai appellant Hulla Rai fired which caused injury in his thigh and thereafter he became unconscious. PW 10 Darshan Devi is the wife of Jagdish Rai. She also claims to have seen the occurrence and identified the appellants who had entered inside the house. She claims that the dacoits removed the ornaments from her person. She in her cross-examination admitted that she never comes out from her house. PW 10 Darshan Devi is the wife of Jagdish Rai. She also claims to have seen the occurrence and identified the appellants who had entered inside the house. She claims that the dacoits removed the ornaments from her person. She in her cross-examination admitted that she never comes out from her house. She does not identify others except the family members. Thus, her claim to have identified the appellants is highly doubtful. PW 12 Sakal Rai in whose house dacoity was committed, has named 13 persons including these appellants as the persons who have committed dacoity in his house and also assaulted him and his son. He has admitted in his cross- examination that after receiving injury, he became unconscious and thereafter he regained consciousness in PMCH. So, he has not seen the occurrence with regard to dacoity in the house of Kishun Rai as well as the murder of Kishun Rai. PW 13 Chandradeep Rai has stated that at the time of dacoity he was sleeping at his bathan. He named 12 persons including these appellants. He has also stated that the dacoity was committed in both the houses and the miscreants killed the deceased. He also stated that at the time of occurrence he has concealed himself in a ditch and he along with others witnessed the occurrence. This ditch (gabra) is situated south of the house of the deceased Kishun Rai and it is deep up to the chest. Some of the dacoits had concealed their faces. He also stated that the dacoits were flashing their torches in which he identified the miscreants. PW 15 Tetri Devi is the widow of the deceased and she has stated that at the time of occurrence, she was sleeping in her house. She has named the appellants who had entered in the house and forcibly taken away Rs. 2,000/- from her. They also snatched ornaments from her person. They also broken the boxes. PW 16 is the informant who has reiterated the manner of occurrence as stated in the first information report and he has further stated that he had identified the miscreants in the light of the torch flashed by the miscreants. 16. Thus, the eye-witnesses named the appellants along with other 14 persons as participants in the crime. PW 16 is the informant who has reiterated the manner of occurrence as stated in the first information report and he has further stated that he had identified the miscreants in the light of the torch flashed by the miscreants. 16. Thus, the eye-witnesses named the appellants along with other 14 persons as participants in the crime. Out of them 12 including the appellant were put on trial and nine have been acquitted by the trial Court as the evidence of those witnesses were not accepted with regard to participation of the aforesaid persons. 17. There are certain circumstances in the case which, in our view, creates a doubt about the participation of the appellants in the crime. The occurrence took place in the midnight and it appears that the Chaukidar was sent to the police station in the morning. The Investigating Officer has stated in paragraph 13 that in the morning on 28.6.1992 at 7.00 a.m. Chaukidar came at Bidupur police station and gave information about the occurrence on the basis of which a Sanha was recorded. He informed about the murder and dacoity but did not disclose about the name of any accused. From the evidence of PW 1 Rabindra Rai, PW 2 Lal Babu Rai and PW 3 Jagat Rai, it appears that in the early morning the informant Jawahar Rai, Chandraket Rai PW 5, Chandradeep Rai PW 13 and others proceeded from the village on a boat to Hajipur. From the bank of river, they proceeded to Hajipur on a Jeep. While going to Hajipur, they stayed at Bidupur police station and the informant informed the Bidupur police station about the occurrence. Thereafter, the informant remained at the police station and injured and others proceeded to the hospital at Hajipur. The informant even at that stage did not name the appellants as having participated in the crime. PW 3 has stated that after occurrence he went near the dead body of the deceased Kishun Rai. He also stated that near the dead body of the deceased. PW 5 Chandraket Rai, PW 13 Chandradeep Rai and others were present. No body disclosed there as to who has killed Kishun Rai nor any body disclosed the name ot any of the appellants. For the first time, the name of the appellants figured as an accused in the fardbeyan lodged at 9.30 a.m. on 28.6.1992 in the village itself. PW 5 Chandraket Rai, PW 13 Chandradeep Rai and others were present. No body disclosed there as to who has killed Kishun Rai nor any body disclosed the name ot any of the appellants. For the first time, the name of the appellants figured as an accused in the fardbeyan lodged at 9.30 a.m. on 28.6.1992 in the village itself. If the prosecution party had identified the appellants and others as participants in the crime then their names should have been disclosed soon after the occurrence. They should have disclosed the names of miscreants to the Chaukidar who was sent to the police station. Jawahar Rai who had gone to the police station before lodging the fardbeyan also did not disclose the names of the appellants. This conduct on the part of the informant and other prosecution witnesses create doubt about participation of the appellants in the crime and support the submission of the appellants that no body had identified the appellants and due to animosity the appellants and others have been implicated in this case. 18. Admittedly, on the date of occurrence there was dark night. None of the prosecution witnesses claims that they have means of identification either torch or any means whatsoever by which they identified the miscreants. Some of the witnesses have stated that the dacoits were flashing their torches which gave them opportunity to identify the miscreants. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is highly improbable that the dacoits will flash their torches towards their own faces to facilitate their identification. This submission does not appeal to us. The identification is also possible in the torchlight flashed by the dacoits. Even identification in the dark night is also possible. However, in this case the claim of identification is not acceptable. PW 4 has stated that 20-25 dacoits had concealed their faces. Some other witnesses have also stated that some of the dacoits were concealing their faces. If the dacoits had concealed their faces, then their identification was not possible in the torch-light flashed by the dacoits. Most of the witnesses have claimed to have identified the dacoits while they were concealing themselves in a Behaya bush or in a ditch. The said assertion is not supported by the objective finding of the Investigating Officer. If the dacoits had concealed their faces, then their identification was not possible in the torch-light flashed by the dacoits. Most of the witnesses have claimed to have identified the dacoits while they were concealing themselves in a Behaya bush or in a ditch. The said assertion is not supported by the objective finding of the Investigating Officer. This apart, their evidence with regard to participation of other nine accused-persons has been disbelieved by the trial Court. 20. In view of the aforesaid infirmities in the evidence of all the eyewitnesses, we are of the view that the evidence of the eye-witnesses, who are interested and hostile, on the point of participation of the appellants in this case is not worth acceptance. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 21. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants is set aside and the appellants are discharged of the liabilities of the bail-bonds. They are directed to be released forthwith unless they are wanted in any other case.