JUDGEMENT S.N. JHA & P.N. YADAV, JJ, These two appeals arising from the same judgement of the trial Court have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgement. 2. There are four appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 533 of 1997 and one in Cr. Appeal No. 37 of 2000. They have been convicted under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. On 11.8.95 at 7.35 one Amrawati Devi of village Choumukha, P.S. Jogapatti District West Champaran made a fardbeyan before the Officer-in-Charge of Jogapatti Police Station stating that on 9.8.95 at about 11. P.M. when she was sleeping at her Bathan in village Choumukha along with husband Sukhari Yadav and son Chuman Yadav appellant Lagan Deo Yadav came there and called Sukhari Yadav. Earlier, they started living at village Sani Barwa after an incident which took place 20-25 days ago and her Devar Bansi Yadav i.e. was injured by the villagers of Choumukha. On 9.8.95 at 7.00 A.M. she came to Choumukha. Her husband Sukhari Yadav and son Chuman Yadav accompanied her upto Jogapatti and from there they went to Bettiah Court for some work. In the evening they come to Chomukha to spend the night there. While, thus, they were sleeping at the Bathan on the call of Lagan Deo Yadav, as aforesaid, Sukhari Yadav came out of the house when he was caught hold of by appellant Ramdhayan Yadav, and one Jangbahadur Yadav (not put on trial). At that point of time appellant Chandrasher alias Bhuar Yadav cut the hand of Sukhari Yadav. The hand so cut by him was picked up by appellant Shambhu Yadav. The informant and her son tried to hold her husband protesting against Acts committed by the accused when appellant Umesh Yadav caught hold of informant's leg. Subhash Yadav who carried double barrel gun threatened to kill all of them. Jugal Yadav tried to rescue the victim. However, he was felled on the ground by Ram Dhayan Yadav. Thereafter the accused persons took away Sukhari Yadav. The informant stated that, out of fear she and her son hide themselves in the sugarcane field of Bhagrasan Yadav. They remained there till the next day. Finally, she came to the Police Station to lodge the fardbeyan. 4. The said fardbeyan was reduced to writing and Jogapatti P.S. Case No. 69 of 1995 was registered. The informant stated that, out of fear she and her son hide themselves in the sugarcane field of Bhagrasan Yadav. They remained there till the next day. Finally, she came to the Police Station to lodge the fardbeyan. 4. The said fardbeyan was reduced to writing and Jogapatti P.S. Case No. 69 of 1995 was registered. After observing the necessary formalities of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants and they were put on trial. 5. At the trial the prosecution examined 10 witnesses to prove its case out of whom P.W.2 Daudhar Yadav, P.W. 3 Rajmati Devi were declared hostile and P.W. 9 Shambhu Sharan Prasad Singh and P.W.10 Raghubansh Prasad Singh were Police Officers. While P.W.9 Shambhu Sharan Prasad, the who is Officer-in-Charge of Jogapatti Police Station had investigated the case, P.W.10 Raghubansh Prasad Singh had simply - submitted charge-sheet at the end of investigation. The witnesses on facts are P.W.1 Raghunath Yadav, P.W.4 Rambabu Yadav, P.W. 5 Madhu Yadav, P.W. 6 Chhedi Mishra, P.W. 7 Chuman Yadav and P.W.8 Amrawati Devi. Except P.W.7 and PW.8 none claimed to have seen the assault which allegedly took place at the informant's Bathan. They except P.W.6 claimed to have seen the victim Sukhari Yadav being taken away by some of the appellants. P.W.6 did not see even that. We shall come to their evidence later. The material witnesses being P.W.7 Chuman Yadav and P.W.8 Amrawati Devi, we shall refer to their evidence first. 6. Amrawati Devi, as seen above, is informant of the case. She stated that in the night of occurrence when she was sleeping in her house at Shani Barwa (mention of Sani Barwa appears to be slip of tongue) along with her husband and son, Sukhari Yadav and Chuman Yadav, at about 11 P.M. Lagan Deo Yadav and one Shree Yadav came there and called her husband by name as to whether he had fallen asleep. Sukhari Yadav came out of the house when Ram Dhayan Yadav caught hold of him, Chandrashekher alias Bhuar Yadav cut Sukhari Yadav's hand by Dabia. Shambhu Yadav picked up the severed hand. When the informant went to rescue her husband she was forcibly pushed apart. One Haren Yadav (not put on trial), one of the miscreants, felled Chuman Yadav on the ground. Shambhu Yadav picked up the severed hand. When the informant went to rescue her husband she was forcibly pushed apart. One Haren Yadav (not put on trial), one of the miscreants, felled Chuman Yadav on the ground. The witness stated about the presence of, besides the appellants herein, Subhash Yadav, Shree Yadav, Haren Yadav and Ram Baran Yadav, none of whom were chargesheeted and put on trial. She stated about Shambhu Yadav, Umesh Yadav and Bhuar Yadav carrying double barrel gun which is an improvement in her version of the occurrence as stated in the fardbeyan. She further stated that Jugal Yadav came there and told the miscreants that Sukhari Yadav had done nothing and he may be spared. The accused persons however, ignored his protest and pushed him on to the ground. They took away Sukhari Yadav. Subhash Yadav at that point of time fired two shots. All of them thereafter went to their respective houses. She along with her son Chuman Yadav went to the sugarcane field of Bhagrasan Yadav and they hide there. After some time Subhash Yadav, Ram Dhayan Yadav and Bhuar Yadav returned to the place. They were saying that Sukhari Yadav had been cut into pieces and thrown. The informant somehow concealing herself went to the Police Station and lodged the fardbeyan. 7. P.W.7 Chuman Yadav in evidence narrated the incident as follows. He was sleeping along with his parents. Subhash Yadav called his father. Ram Dhayan Yadav caught hold of his hands and tied them with a piece of cloth. Bhuar Yadav cut his hand, Shambhu Yadav picked up the severed hand. He and his mother were holding of the legs of Sukhari Yadav. Umesh Yadav and Haren Yadav (not on trial) pushed him apart. Thereafter Subhash Yadav took his father towards school. He also fired two shots. After sometime Subhash Yadav and Ram Dhayan Yadav returned to the village. They were saying that Sukhari Yadav had been cut into pieces and his body had been thrown. He remained in the sugarcane field along with his mother for the night and whole of the next day. Thereafter they came out and reached Jogapatti Police Station where the case was lodged. 8. Coming to the remaining witnesses on facts, it may briefly be mentioned that P.W. 1 Raghunath Yadav did not claim to have seen the occurrence. He remained in the sugarcane field along with his mother for the night and whole of the next day. Thereafter they came out and reached Jogapatti Police Station where the case was lodged. 8. Coming to the remaining witnesses on facts, it may briefly be mentioned that P.W. 1 Raghunath Yadav did not claim to have seen the occurrence. He simply stated that he saw Sukhari Yadav being taken away by Subhash Yadav, Lagan Deo Yadav, Shuar Yadav, Shree Yadav, Umesh Yadav and others. He thus did not name Shambhu Yadav and Ram Dhayan Yadav. P.W.4 Ram Sabu Yadav too did not say anything on the point of assault at the Bathan. He stated that Sukhari Yadav was taken around village by Subhash Yadav. What happened to Sukhari Yadav later he could not say. P.W. 5 Madhu Yadav gave a different account of the case. He stated that while he was sleeping in his house at 11 PM. in the night of the occurrence, he came out on hearing hulla. He saw that Subhash Yadav was catching hold of Sukhari Yadav and Sant Kumar was also present there. He was asked by Subhash Yadav to get Ram Dhayan Yadav and thereafter Ramdhayan Yadav came along with Harendra, Shree Yadav and Chandra Shekher Yadav. P.W. 6 Chhedi Mishra stated nothing of significance in his evidence. He simply stated that he was sleeping in his house at the time of occurrence. In the morning he learnt that Sukhari Yadav had been taken away by the gang of Subhash Yadav. 9. The first thing which comes to our mind is delay in lodging the case. According to the informant she went in hiding in the sugarcane field of Bhagrasan Yadav and remained there for whole of the night and the next day. Taking into consideration the description of the sugarcane field, it is doubtful if the same could provide a hiding place if at all the informant was afraid of the appellants or others. The field was partly submerged in water, on the remaining part were root portions of the sugar cane crop (after harvesting), rendering almost the entire field open so as to be hardly suitable as a hiding place. The field was partly submerged in water, on the remaining part were root portions of the sugar cane crop (after harvesting), rendering almost the entire field open so as to be hardly suitable as a hiding place. Even if we accept the plea that the informant and her son remained in hiding there for whole of the night and the next day, it would appear that no explanation has been furnished for not going to the Police Station immediately thereafter. The occurrence took place in the night of 9.8.95 and as per the informant she remained in the sugarcane field upto afternoon or evening of 10.8.95. However, fardbeyan was lodged more than 24 hours thereafter at 7.30 P.M. on 11.8.95. Besides, if the informant had gone in hiding, there were others in their family who could have gone to the Police Station. The informant admitted in her evidence that no other member of the family took any step. It may be recalled that according to the informant Jugal Yadav had come to the P.O. at the time of incident, he had even tried to persuade the accused persons to spare the victim. If he had really seen the crime, he could have gone to the Police Station and reported the case. Curiously, he was not even examined as a witness in the case. We are inclined to think that had the occurrence taken place in the manner alleged the news would have spread like wild fire in the village and in that case it must have travelled upto the Police station, if not in the shape of concrete information at least as rumour. The Police came to know about the occurrence only when the informant lodged the case on 11.8.95 at 7.30 P.M. The delay in lodging the case in the facts and circumstances looms charge on the prosecution case. 10. It is relevant to mention here that though P.W.7 Chuman Yadav, the informant's son was present at the place of occurrence and had gone in hiding along with mother i.e. the informant, he was not examined by the Police. This in our opinion, to say the least was unnatural conduct impinging on the evidence of the witness. 11. 10. It is relevant to mention here that though P.W.7 Chuman Yadav, the informant's son was present at the place of occurrence and had gone in hiding along with mother i.e. the informant, he was not examined by the Police. This in our opinion, to say the least was unnatural conduct impinging on the evidence of the witness. 11. The informant stated that the victim was taken away by Subhash Yadav and others, but as per the evidence of P.W.5 Madhu Yadav the victim was seen in the company of appellant Subhash Yadav alone. As per P.W. 5, curiously, Subhash Yadav asked to get appellant Ramdhayan Yadav and others. This makes the entire version of the informant doubtful, for, according to her, Ram Dhayan Yadav was not only present at the place of occurrence but, had also played positive role in the crime, whereas as per the P.W.5, he was not present in the company of Subhash Yadav, he reached only after being summoned by him. 12. It is true that P.W.1 and P.W. 4 besides P.W.5 stated about taking away of the victim in the night but in the facts and circumstances, we have grave doubts about the veracity of their evidence. Their evidence gives an impression as if the victim was taken around the village but as the occurrence had taken place in the midnight, at or after 11 P.M. when the entire village must have gone to sleep, it is beyond our understanding as to whether the story of taking the victim around the village was plausible. It is to be kept in mind that according to the prosecution case the hand of the victim had been cut away i.e. severed from the body. If he was being taken around the village in that condition, the witnesses should have said so in their evidence. It was a fact which could not escape notice. But they did not say anything of the kind. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that evidence of the informant is not corroborated by the evidence of either P.W.7, her son, or the villagers, namely, P.Ws, 1,4 and 5. P.W. 6, as a matter of fact, did not say anything about the occurrence. He merely stated to have learnt about it in the next morning. 13. It may also be mentioned that no blood was found at the place of occurrence. P.W. 6, as a matter of fact, did not say anything about the occurrence. He merely stated to have learnt about it in the next morning. 13. It may also be mentioned that no blood was found at the place of occurrence. If the hand of the victim had been cut so much so that it was picked up, it must have resulted in profuse bleeding but no blood was found by the Investigating Officer. Counsel for the State submitted that it was rainy season and rains might have washed away the blood. No witness has said about rains. Even during rainy season it does not rain every day and therefore it can be conjectured that the blood got washed away by rains. We are conscious of the fact that there was delay in making local inspection. The occurrence took place in the night of 9.8.95 whereas the I.O. went to the Police Station in the morning of 12.8.95 at 6 A.M. But even in that case the informant could have at least shown the place where the incident had taken place, we are inclined to think that where the hand is severed it must result in profuse bleeding, and had the informant shown the place where the incident taken place, the I.O. might have found some trace of blood. In the circumstances we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the occurrence. 14. Lastly, we may notice the submission that the deceased was a veteran criminal who was involved in a large number of cases. As a matter of fact, P.W.9 stated that he had submitted charge-sheets in as many as 12 cases of murder, kidnapping, rape, dacoity etc. against him. It was submitted that, may be, in order to escape the trial in those cases the victim fled away and got the instant case lodged. It is not necessary to make any comment on the submission. However, the possibility of the victim fleeing away to escape the criminal cases pending against him cannot be ruled out. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore the appellants are entitled to acquittal. 15. In the result, the appeals are allowed the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants are set aside. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore the appellants are entitled to acquittal. 15. In the result, the appeals are allowed the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants are set aside. Appellants, Lagan Deo Yadav. Shambhu Yadav. Chandrashekhar alias Bhuar Yadav and Ram Dhayan Yadav are on bail, they are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. Appellant Umesh Yadav is in jail. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 16. Let the first and last page of the judgement be handed over to Smt. Anjana Bhagat who as appeared Amicus Curiae to facilitate payment of her fees by the Legal Aid Committee.