Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 106 (PAT)

Bhagwat Bind v. State of Bihar

2001-02-06

B.N.SINGH, D.P.S.CHOUDHARY

body2001
JUDGMENT B.N. SINGH 'NEELAM, J.:- Both the above mentioned criminal appeals so preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are taken up and heard together because of their arising out of the judgment of conviction and sentence so passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, VII, Munger in Sessions trial bearing No. 99 of 1984 dated 30th April, 1987, by virtue of which all the ten accused-persons facing trial got convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code being sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Accused Deep Narain Bind, Tenu Bind, Asharfi Bind, Sura Chand Bind and Nandey Bind also got convicted under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and on each count got sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Accused Rameshwar Bind, Sahendra Bind and Kantiman Bind got convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and were sentenced to undergo R.1. for two years. Accused Parmeshwar Bind was also convicted under Section 379 of the IPC, being sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. All the sentences so awarded to accused-persons facing trial were directed to run concurrently. 2. It is against the said judgment of conviction and sentence so passed; accused Bhagwat Bind, Parmeshwar Bind, Sahendra Bind, Rameshwar Bind and Kantiman Bind filed criminal appeal No. 197/87 under Section 374(2) of the Cr. PC which was so admitted on 15.5.1987 and because of the death of accused-appellant Bhagwat Bind taking place, the appeal against him got abated. The rest of the accused-persons preferred criminal appeal No. 212/87 arising out of the same judgment of conviction and sentence so passed, as detailed above, which was also so admitted on 20.5.1987 and in course of the pendency of this criminal appeal because of the death of two accused-appellant, namely, Tenu Bind and Nandey Bind taking place, the appeals so preferred by them also got abated. That being the position, there remains three appellants only in criminal appeal No. 212/87, i.e., Deep Narain Bind, Asharfi Bind & Sura Chand Bind whereas four appellants in criminal appeal No. 197/87 because one of the appellants Bhagwat Bind breathing his last during the pendency of the present appeal. 3. In both the criminal appeals so preferred being taken up together the appellants are being represented by the learned counsel Mrs. 3. In both the criminal appeals so preferred being taken up together the appellants are being represented by the learned counsel Mrs. Seema Ali Khan and the State of Bihar by the learned A.P.P. Mr. Kailash Bihari Prasad. 4. The prosecution case, in short, as coming from the mouth of the First Informant Ramawatar Singh (not being examined because of his death taking place in course of trial) is that on the 1st of September, 1983 at about 16.30 hours in village Bilokar Tola Korashi while he was moving along with his son Vidyanand Singh (since deceased) for getting his maize crop harvested and at that occasion Vidyanand Singh was calculating the wages of the labourers in the Gohal of Dukhan Kora (PW 9) and at that occasion the informant with other witnesses were in a field hardly at a distance of about 30 yards from the said Gohal, all the accused-persons facing trial approached Vidyanand Singh and it was accused Bhagwat Bind (since deceased) who is said to have been the order giver as to kill Vidyanand Singh as a result of which, as per the prosecution case, Deep Narain Bind, Tenu Bind (since deceased), Sura Chand Bind, Nandey Bind (since deceased) and Asharfi Bind are said to have thrown bomb carried by them upon Vidyanand Singh as a result of which the informant's son Vidyanand Singh sustained injuries and after his falling down on the ground other accused persons, namely Sahendra Bind, Rameshwar Bind and Kantiman Bind are said to have fired to him and even chased the informant and the witnesses. Accused-appellant Parmeshwar Bind is said to have snatched away the wrist watch and a golden chain from the person of Vidyanand Singh also taking cash from the deceased's pocket; upon the Hullah being raised, according to the prosecution case, other persons also arrived and the accused persons, in the meantime, managed to escape and the informant and other witnesses said to have collected found Vidyanand Singh dead and good number of injuries were so found on his person. This will not be out of place to mention that in the FIR itself the details are given with regard to the long drawn enmity going on between the parties because of the land dispute which was, as per the prosecution case, the motive of intentionally causing the death of the informant's son in furtherance of the common object of all the accused-persons. With regard to the alleged occurrence said to have taken place at 16.30 hours, the fardbeyan marked as Ext. 2 is said to have been recorded at 23.30 hours on the basis of which Dharhara PS case bearing No. 120(9)/83 got so registered and after the completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was so submitted against the accused-persons facing trial and after taking the cognizance of the offence the case record was so committed to the Court of Sessions whereas against the accused-persons charges under different heads got so framed, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial of Sessions case bearing No. 99 of 1984 arising out of G.R. case bearing No. 1341/83, as many as fourteen prosecution witnesses got so examined on behalf of the defence, particularly, on behalf of Bhagwat Bind, breathing his last in the course of the pendency of the present appeal. Good number of documents are also so produced being duly proved such as the fardbeyan, post-mortem report (Ext.1), inquest report (Ext.3), seizure list (Ext.4), series of petitions etc. relating to the disputes between the parties (Exts. 5 to 7). Out of the fourteen PWs so examined PWs 1, 2, & 3 are said to be eye-witnesses. In course of trial PWs 5, 6, 8 & 10 are declared hostile. PW 4 is the medical officer conducting postmortem examination on the dead-body of the informant's son Vidyanand Singh. PWs 7 & 9 are tendered. PWs 11 to 13 are the formal witnesses and PW 14 is the Investigating Officer of the case. Deposition of the DWs, since mainly concerned accused Bhagwat Bind, who is now dead is not discussed. PW 4 is the medical officer conducting postmortem examination on the dead-body of the informant's son Vidyanand Singh. PWs 7 & 9 are tendered. PWs 11 to 13 are the formal witnesses and PW 14 is the Investigating Officer of the case. Deposition of the DWs, since mainly concerned accused Bhagwat Bind, who is now dead is not discussed. The learned Court below after evaluating the evidence oral and documentary available on the record, it transpires, has come to he conclusion that in course of trial the prosecution had succeeded as to bring home the charges so levelled against the accused-persons as a result of which they got convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonments, as detailed above, which need not be repeated. It is because of the judgment of conviction and sentence so passed the present two criminal appeals got so preferred by the persons convicted. 5. Mrs. Seema Ali Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants of both the criminal appeals has submitted that the Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence so passed are bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. At the very outset it is pointed out that the long drawn enmity between the parties also admitted in the present case-bone of contention being the land dispute and it is because of this animosity, the present appellants got falsely implicated. As regards the informant's son Vidyanand Singh being murdered and his dead-body being found in the Gohal of Dukhan Kora is not disputed from appellant's side but it is emphatically argued that the prosecution had failed to establish the place of occurrence where actually the murder of Vidyanand Singh would have taken place and also the manner of occurrence, as detailed finding place in the fardbeyan. Since the prosecution side in the present case has not come with the clean hands, in the background of the facts and circumstances, the learned Court below rather has erred in convicting the accused appellants and sentencing them thereunder. Since the prosecution side in the present case has not come with the clean hands, in the background of the facts and circumstances, the learned Court below rather has erred in convicting the accused appellants and sentencing them thereunder. Another point which is so raised is that by the plain reading of the fardbeyan, particularly, the formal FIR so drawn on the basis of the fardbeyan so given, it will transpire that for the alleged occurrence so taking place, as per the prosecution, at about 16.30 hours on 1.9.1983 the fardbeyan being recorded the same day at 23.30 hours and formal FIR being drawn up next day on 2.9.1983 in the morning hours the same was being placed before the CJM on 9.9.1983, i.e., after a lapse of complete six days and no satisfactory explanation comes from the prosecution side for this undue delay in despatching the FIR to the Court concerned which rather leads to take into account that in the hands of the police there was an ample opportunity as to twist the matter obliging the members of the prosecution side falsely implicating the present appellants with whom the members of the prosecution side had admittedly long drawn enmity going on and it is, thus, a clear case when the prejudice was so caused to the present appellants because of the presentation or the FIR in the Court after a lapse of six days and this unexplained delay of presentation of the FIR to the Court concerned after a lapse of six days thus, provides legitimate basis for suspecting that the FIR was recorded much latter giving time to the members of the prosecution side to introduce establishment and distorted version of the occurrence. In support of this contention on behalf of the defence a reported case is also so referred AIR 1976 SC 2423 (Ishwar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh). It is further argued on behalf of the appellants that out of the three witnesses claiming themselves to be the eyewitnesses, i.e., PWs 1 to 3, PWs 1 & 2 are the full brothers son of Narayan Prasad Singh and PW 3 is also no one else but the muscle man of PWs 1 & 2. It is further argued on behalf of the appellants that out of the three witnesses claiming themselves to be the eyewitnesses, i.e., PWs 1 to 3, PWs 1 & 2 are the full brothers son of Narayan Prasad Singh and PW 3 is also no one else but the muscle man of PWs 1 & 2. On behalf of the appellants by referring to PWs, 7, 8, 9, & 10 with the evidence of PW 1 it is pointed out that as regards the place of occurrence and the assemblage of the witnesses so detailed by these witnesses which gave them an opportunity to see the event them is much of contradiction in the evidence of PW 1 with that of the other material prosecution witnesses detailing the sequence of events. It is also pointed out that PW 1 in para 7 & 8 of his evidence has given the details with regard to the' members of the Karas' family also being present at the spot but PW 5, Shanichar Kora, his wife Munni, PW 6, PW 7 Chamru Kora, PW 8 Bhagwan Kora, PW 9, Budhhu Kora and PW 10, Dukhar Kora are silent on the point of identification of the present-appellants and their silence gives, thus, fatal blow to the prosecution story with regard to the present appellants, in any way, participating in committing the murder of Vidyanand Singh, as alleged. It has been submitted that, as a matter of fact, Vidyanand Singh was done to death at some other place and his body being kept in the said Gohal and if Vidyanand Singh was so murdered by some one else and at some different place, in no way, the present appellants can be held guilty of committing any offence leading to his murder and, that way too, the judgment of conviction and sentence so passed are liable to be interfered and as to meet the ends of justice the present accused-appellants deserve acquittal. Reference is also made to para 13 of the evidence of PW 2 in which it is detailed by PW 2 with regard to the presence of PWs 6, 7 & 10, i.e., Munni, wife of Shanichar Kora, Chamru Kora and Dukhan Kora and if it is to be relied upon. Reference is also made to para 13 of the evidence of PW 2 in which it is detailed by PW 2 with regard to the presence of PWs 6, 7 & 10, i.e., Munni, wife of Shanichar Kora, Chamru Kora and Dukhan Kora and if it is to be relied upon. In that case, in normal course, it was expected by these members of the Kora family also to vomit the names of the assailants or the persons committing the offence as a result of which Vidyanand Singh lost his life but that is not the case. It has been brought in notice that the material prosecution witnesses of occurrence are PWs 1 to 3 as so produced on behalf of the prosecution. By referring to para 10 of the evidence of PW 3 it is also submitted that he is also specific with regard to the presence of PWs 5, 7, 8 & 10 at the P.O., i.e. the members of the Karas families but they are not coming or deposing anything on the point of identification of the present appellants. As regards the place of occurrence, it is further pointed out that it has come from the mouth of material prosecution witnesses that from three sides there was standing crops at the place of occurrence and, that being the position, it has been also emphatically argued that without detailing the exact position where the witnesses were standing at the time of occurrence it was unsafe on the part of the learned Court below as to treat PWs 1 to 3 as eye-witnesses to the scene when there was obstruction from three sides because of the standing Maize plants. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants by referring to the evidence of the Investigating Officer has submitted that in course of inspection, the I.O. has not found any sign of splinter marks in the Gohal or of the pellets and, as per the prosecution story, if bombs were so thrown and arms fired in the said Gohal of Dukhan Kora, in all probabilities. it was expected of some pellet marks of splinter marks to be found nearby which also falsifies the prosecution story with regard to the manner of occurrence and also the P.O. being the Gohal of Dukhan Kora. it was expected of some pellet marks of splinter marks to be found nearby which also falsifies the prosecution story with regard to the manner of occurrence and also the P.O. being the Gohal of Dukhan Kora. There is also discrepancy so cropping up in the evidence of Koras with that of PWs 1 & 3 with regard to the explosion of bomb because the members of the Kora family detailing with regard to only one bomb exploded and PWs 1 & 3 giving the details with regard to good number of bombs exploded. The members of the Kora family so examined it is further pointed out, are silent on firing of the gun contrary to the evidence of PWs 1 & 3 & the members of the Koras family have also not detailed the arms carried by the miscreants but PWs 1 & 3 are over enthusiastic in giving that details too which can not be relied upon when, according to the PWs 1 to 3, even the members of the Kora family were also present at the spot and the Koras families do not supported the prosecution story on material point. It has also been argued that PWs 1 to 3 are specific in saying that right from the time of occurrence i.e., 16.30 hours to the time of the recording of the fardbeyan i.e., 23.30 hours on 1.9.1983 they were present at the spot where the occurrence is said to have taken place, i.e., near the Gohal of Dukhan Kora but they have also uttered with regard to not giving the details of the names of the accused-persons to the persons assembling which was not so expected in normal course and that also put a dent on the prosecution story. Much emphasis is placed by the learned counsel for the appellants to the statements of PW 3 at paragraph 15 in which PW 3 has stated that prior to the arrival of the police after the occurrence taking place, PWs 1 to 3 and others of his family members were consulting each other as to who should be made accused. Much emphasis is placed by the learned counsel for the appellants to the statements of PW 3 at paragraph 15 in which PW 3 has stated that prior to the arrival of the police after the occurrence taking place, PWs 1 to 3 and others of his family members were consulting each other as to who should be made accused. Posing a question the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that when, as per the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 3 were eye-witnesses there was no sense in their having consultation prior to the arrival of the police as to who should be made accused the police in the instant case had arrived at the PO after a lapse of seven hours and during this long period of seven hours, thus, as per the very evidence of PW 2, one of the eye-witnesses had ample opportunity to the prosecution members as to implead innocent persons, i.e., the accused-appellants because of the long drawn enmity coming on between them. As regards that post-mortem examination so proved by PW 4 the medical officer, it is submitted that the injury so found on the person of the deceased is not challenged. Truthly, as submitted, he did not die a natural death but, according to the learned counsel for the accused-appellants, murderous attempt on the life of the informant's son was so made by some other members not the appellants and the manner of occurrence and the P.O. so described were also not established in course of trial by the prosecution. Being innocent the accused-appellants, thus, are suffering the pangs of this criminal proceeding right from the year 1983 to this date. All other points also so taken as good grounds for setting-aside the judgment of conviction and sentence under challenge are pressed into service. Being innocent the accused-appellants, thus, are suffering the pangs of this criminal proceeding right from the year 1983 to this date. All other points also so taken as good grounds for setting-aside the judgment of conviction and sentence under challenge are pressed into service. PW 1, it is pointed out, can not be safely said to be an eye-witness because of the occurrence taking place, as alleged, at 16.30 hours and in para 6 of his deposition this witness has stated with regard to leaving his field in between 3 to 4 p.m. With regard to PW 2 it is once again submitted by, particularly, referring to his evidence in para 6 that, according to him, while having so many, villagers assembled he claimed himself to be near the dead-body till the arrival of the police at 11.30 p.m. but he also claims to have not disclosed the names of the assailants to any of the villagers. This sequence of events so given can not, thus, be swallowed easily because in normal course it was expected of him to vomit the names of the appellants to the persons assembling, if PW 2 was really an eyewitness to the scene. PWs 1 to 3 it is further pointed out are said to be present at the time of occurrence in their respective fields. PW 3's field was at a distance of 400 yards north to the field of PW 2 & 300 yards north to the P.O. In such circumstance, it is pointed out that it was not possible for PW 3 as to identify any of the miscreants from such a long distance. Because of PW 2 also stating that he could not see the assailants fleeing away that also falsifies and puts doubt on the credibility of his evidence. It is not the case of the prosecution that after the occurrence taking place any member of the prosecution side did take the trouble of going to nearest police station as to lodge FIR. PW 3 Abhinandan Choudhary has admitted with regard to PWs 1 &- 2 being the pattidars and Gotias of the deceased and, that being the position, all the witnesses so cited as eyewitnesses were interested witnesses. PW 3 Abhinandan Choudhary has admitted with regard to PWs 1 &- 2 being the pattidars and Gotias of the deceased and, that being the position, all the witnesses so cited as eyewitnesses were interested witnesses. With regard to Baidyanath Singh distributing the wages in the Gohal that is also not being supported by all the prosecution witnesses in course of trial the informant was suffering from paralysis on the date of the alleged occurrence which is also supported in the evidence of PW 11 and, that being the position, the details of the events so taking place as coming from the mouth of the informant, who died in course of trial, can also not be said to be trustworthy and reliable. The I.O. had found maize crops in the field north-south and east-west to the alleged place of occurrence and, in such circumstances, it can well be concluded that the PWs 1 to 3 had, thus, no opportunity to see the occurrence because of the standing maize crop found the place of the occurrence. The learned counsel for the appellants had not discussed much on the evidence of the DWs who were, particularly, relating to Bhagwat Bind, who has died in course of the pendency of this appeal. on these grounds, thus, it is submitted that it is a fit case in which the judgment of conviction and sentence so awarded requires interference and, thus, the prayer is that the same be rather set-aside and the accused-appellants be acquitted and discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds because of the appellants being given the privilege of bail after admission of these criminal appeals by this Court. 6. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, the learned A.P.P. representing the State, on the other hand, has submitted that true it is that there was enmity so going on between the parties but since the enmity cuts both ways it was because of the enmity that the accused-appellant by forming unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object committed the offences in which the valuable life of the informant's son Vidyanand Singh was so mercilessly taken away and to terrorise, the assailants even exploded bombs resorted to firing and one of the accused-appellants, namely, Parmeshwar Bind even committed an offence coming under the purview of Section 379 of the IPC. It has brought in notice that in the instant case there are three eye-witnesses to the scene, i.e., PWs 1 to 3. Post-mortem report also supported the prosecution version and the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses so examined on behalf of the prosecution here and there are the minor contradictions, in no way, dismantling the prosecution version and they can not, thus, be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. It is pointed out that true it is that the FIR was so placed in the Court concerned after 6/7 days but that has in the instant case caused no prejudice to the accused/appellant's side and in course of trial one line coming from the mouth of the material prosecution witnesses not supporting the prosecution version can not decide the fate of a particular case. This reference is, particularly, made by the learned A.P.P. in connection with the statement coming from the mouth of PW 3 stating with regard to his having consultation with PWs 1 & 2 discussing the names of the persons to be put as accused prior to the arrival of the police at the alleged place of occurrence. It is also submitted that true it is that this statement so coming from the mouth of PW 3 throws suspicion with regard to the false implication but that sole version can not decide the fate of the present case and on that basis the judgment of conviction be not to be set-side acquitting the accused-appellants. In support of his this contention the learned A.P.P. has referred to a reported case Siddique & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1999 SCC (Cr) 569, particularly, reference is made to its para 7. It is also submitted by the learned A.P.P. that it is not a common for persons when they see a ghastly murder being committed in their presence they almost loose their sense of balance and remains in that position for some time and it is because of this situation that PWs 1 to 3 the eye-witnesses could not reveal the names of the assailants to the villagers assembling after the occurrence and in support of his this contention on behalf of the State a reported case is cited Narayan Singh & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 1678 , particularly, its para 6 is referred. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 1678 , particularly, its para 6 is referred. it is also submitted that true it is that members of the Koras family have not given the names of the assailants, as fully detailed by PWs 1 to 3, but the materials on the record. particularly, the evidence of PWs 1 & 3 is sufficient as to show with regard to the accused-appellants participating and, that being the position, the judgment of conviction and sentence so passed do not require any interference and since the present criminal appeals so preferred have got no merit rather they be dismissed. 7. After hearing the learned counsel, for the appellants and the learned A.P.P. also after carefully going through the evidence oral and documentary so available on the record, at least, two things me admitted; Firstly, with regard to the long drawn enmity so coming on between the members of the prosecution side with that of the appellants-the bone of contention being a piece of land and, furthermore, the death of the informant's son Vidyanand Singh being not natural rather he was done to death which is so reflected by going through, particularly, the postmortem report being duly proved in course of trial and marked as Ext. 1 also being supported by PW 4, the medical officer, conducting the autopsy on the dead-body of Vidyanand Singh. That being the position, now the points to be considered is as to independently consider the matter carefully to examine all the relevant material circumstances as to come to the conclusion whether in course of trial the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused-appellants up to the hilt for committing. the offences under which they stood convicted and sentenced? That being the position, now the points to be considered is as to independently consider the matter carefully to examine all the relevant material circumstances as to come to the conclusion whether in course of trial the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused-appellants up to the hilt for committing. the offences under which they stood convicted and sentenced? To arrive at a definite conclusion with regard to the occurrence taking place, as detailed in fardbeyan, i.e., in the Gohal of Dukhan Kora (PW 9) and the sequence of events, as detailed from prosecution side resulting into the death of Vidyanand Singh, who is said to have sustained injuries in the hands of the appellants in furtherance of their common object, when the members of the prosecution side are said to have been surrounded by the appellants forming unlawful assembly and, in that course, exploding bomb resorting to firing and even committing theft by one of the accused-appellants, namely, Parmeshwar Bind, as a result of which, as alleged Vidyanand Singh succumbed to the injuries, it is necessary as to thoroughly scrutinise the evidence so adduced in. course of trial, particularly, on the point of the involvement of the accused-appellants, as claimed. It transpires after going through the record that for an occurrence taking place on 16.30 hours on 1.9.1983 the FIR so transmitted to the Court of the C:J.M. was received on 9.9.1983. though fardbeyan recorded on the same day at 23.30 hours no satisfactory explanation comes from the prosecution side in this regard whereas the FIR in respect of cognizable offence is to be sent to the Magistrate concerned forthwith and this unexplained delay in the despatch of the FIR to the Court concerned had, thus, given, in our considered opinion, ample time in the hands of the investigating agency and there is no wonder that the distorted version of the occurrence might have been introduced after due deliberation with the members of the prosecution side, as alleged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants also submitting that this act on the part of the investigating agency has, thus in the instant case caused great prejudice to the appellants. It is also found surprising that the eye-witnesses cited, i.e., PWs 1 to 3 being present at the alleged P.O. from 4.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. on the date of the occurrence, i.e. till the arrival of the police did not name the assailants to any of the villagers so assembling, as detailed in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and the plea so taken by the learned A.P.P. that PWs 1 to 3 were bewildered because of the ghastly murder taking place in their presence is also not believable because of PW 3 in his evidence has stated that all through this period prior to the arrival of the police consulting among themselves as to who should be made accused in the case this statement of PW 3 gives support to the defence version with regard to their being falsely, implicated due to long drawn enmity. The non-existence of any mark of violence, i.e., of the splinters or the pellets in the said Gohal, as detailed by the I.O. while inspection of P.O., also throws suspicion as to whether actually Vidyanand Singh was so assaulted in the said Gohal when, as per the prosecution case, indiscriminate firing was so resorted with that of the good number of bombs also exploded By going through the evidence of eyewitnesses it further comes in light that the have not denied of the members of the Koras families also being present at the P.O. but the members of the Koras so examined in course of trial have not fully supported the prosecution case with regard to the involvement of all the accused-appellants, as threat have discussed or detailed by, particularly, PWs 1 & 3. Taking the evidence as a whole, thus, it comes to light that the place of occurrence as detailed to be the Gohal does not find full support, particularly, with the evidence of PW 14, the Investigating Officer and, particularly, by going through the details of the inspection of the place of occurrence being made by the Investigating Officer. Taking the evidence as a whole, thus, it comes to light that the place of occurrence as detailed to be the Gohal does not find full support, particularly, with the evidence of PW 14, the Investigating Officer and, particularly, by going through the details of the inspection of the place of occurrence being made by the Investigating Officer. There is evidence on the record to show that at least, three sides of the field had at that time standing maize crops which, as suggested by the learned defence counsel, even if for arguments sake, taking the space of occurrence to be the said Gohal would have caused obstacle in seeing the occurrence by PWs 1 to 3 and the prosecution side, in our considered opinion, has also not succeeded as to clear this cloud adducing evidence that from the places where PWs 1 to 3 claimed to have seen the occurrence had no obstruction as to have a clear view of the assault inflicted on Vidyanand Singh (since deceased) discrepancies, in our opinion, have also cropped-up with regard to PWs 1 to 3 being at different points claiming them-selves although near to the place of occurrence but these witnesses though cited as eyewitnesses are not specific with regard to their being present all through and the discrepancies are such on this score which can not be ignored. If some of the members of the families of the Koras are also said to have been present at the P.O., as detailed by the eyewitnesses, PWs 1 to 3, in that case, the members of the Koras family would have also the equal opportunity as to see the occurrence and would have been in a position to name the accused-appellant which is not the case here. The members of the Koras families so examined in course of trial which transpires are very much conceptive in naming the accused-appellants as liberally being vomitted by PWs 1 to 3 but, in the background of the facts and circumstances, also keeping in mind that there was enmity so going on between the parties, the testimony of the occular version, i.e., of PWs 1 to 3, in such circumstances, particularly, after thoroughly going through their evidence can well be said to be inconsistent and the same has, thus, carried a ring of untruth which is difficult to be swallowed and they, thus, can not be said to be trust-worthy witnesses on the point of occurrence also the manner of occurrence including the place said to have been the spot where Vidyanand Singh is said to have been murdered. We find exaggeration and embellishment in their statements supporting the prosecution story, leaving loop holes and dent. We find exaggeration and embellishment in their statements supporting the prosecution story, leaving loop holes and dent. In the instant case, even after the occurrence taking place, as alleged by the informant, the members of the prosecution side did not bother as to rush to the nearest police station to report the matter rather the police on getting certain information arrived at the P.O. at 11.30 p.m., i.e., after a lapse of seven hours; the distance of the P.O. from PS being 12 k.m. and more surprisingly, the persons who would give the information to the police or the persons who had the source of information to the police were not being examined by the prosecution in course of trial and though the material prosecution witnesses, i.e., PWs 1 to 3, talked of the assemblage of good number of villagers after the occurrence and prior to the arrival of the police at the site but they all have come of not detailing the name of any of the assailants prior to the arrival of the police and such act also throws a light of suspicion as in normal course it was expected as to vomit the names of the assailants to the villagers assembling Just after the occurrence by the persons claiming to have seen the occurrence and not only this, statement was of PW 3 at para 15 rather gives a fatal blow to the prosecution story with regard to the involvement of these accused-appellants when he was specific in saying that till the arrival of the police and prior to that after the occurrence taking place though they were present at the spot but PWs 1 and 3 were all through consulting with each other as to who were the persons, in such circumstance, as to be made accused and the consultations so taking place as argued by the learned defence counsel was between PWs 1 to 3 and the informant. Needless to say, though the defence witnesses so examined mostly related to the allegations against Bhagwat Bind, one of the accused-appellants, who died in course of the pendency of the appeal, and, therefore, the depositions of DWs are not discussed. 8. Needless to say, though the defence witnesses so examined mostly related to the allegations against Bhagwat Bind, one of the accused-appellants, who died in course of the pendency of the appeal, and, therefore, the depositions of DWs are not discussed. 8. Taking the evidence as a whole and also putting the circumstance in nutshell and the evidence so adduced on behalf of the prosecution, we find that there is much strength in the argument so advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants that in course of trial in the instant case the prosecution had rather failed to establish the guilt of the accused-appellants with regard to their offences said to have been so committed coming under the purview of Section 302/149 of the IPC, 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, under 27 of the Arms Act & under Section 379 of the IPC. With regard to one of the accused-appellants Parmeshwar Bind committing theft of the watch, cash of Vidyanand Singh (since deceased) in our considered opinion, though Vidyanand Singh was so done to death but in course of trial the prosecution had failed to establish up to the hilt with regard to the involvement of the accused-appellant for such offence. It had also failed to establish with regard to some of the arms, as detailed in the fardbeyan of exploding bomb and resorting to firing on him and Parmeshwar Bind committing theft. It had also failed to establish with regard to some of the arms, as detailed in the fardbeyan of exploding bomb and resorting to firing on him and Parmeshwar Bind committing theft. Since in course of the inspection of the place of occurrence, except the dead-body being found, the I.O. had not even found any mark of pellet or splinter of the bombs nearby the Gohal or even the four stalls of the Gohal when, as per the prosecution story, so many bombs were exploded and there was indiscriminate firing, this also throws a doubt and suspicion as to whether, in such circumstance, the place of occurrence, as alleged, was the Gohal of Dukhan Kora, particularly, also in the light that the person said to have accounting with Vidyanand Singh relating to the wages as also not being produced supporting the prosecution version and, in that case, if the deceased and the person (Koras) accounting were sitting together calculating the wages, in normal course, it was expected that members of Koras would have sustained injuries which is not the case here and which also falsifies the prosecution version with regard to the manner of occurrence detailed by the first informant also being supported by PWs 1 to 3. 9. Consequently, we find that there is much of substance in the argument so advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants with regard to the noninvolvement of the present accused-appellants or non-committing the offences under which they stood convicted and sentenced, as detailed above, which need not be repeated, the prosecution had, thus, failed to establish those charges up to the hilt in course of trial and, in that light, the judgment of conviction and sentence so imposed while disposing of Sessions Trial case bearing No.99 of 1984 on the 30th of April, 1987 by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, thus, require interference. Taking that view, the judgment of conviction and sentence so passed which is under challenges stand set-aside. The accused-appellants being not found guilty of committing the offences for which they stood convicted and sentenced are, thus, hereby acquitted. The accused-appellants are on bail. They are, thus, discharged from the liabilities of their bail-bonds. This single judgment disposes of both the criminal appeals being heard together. Both the criminal appeals are, thus, hereby allowed.