JUDGMENT - KANADE V.M., J.:---The appellants were charged under section 302 r/w section 34 of I.P.C., for having committed the murder of Murlidhar s/o Suka Wasnik on 11-5-1994. The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur by its judgment and order dated 11-4-1997 in Sessions Trial No. 13/95, convicted both the appellants herein under section 302 r/w section 34 of I.P.C., and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life. The appellants are challenging the said judgment and order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in this appeal. FACTS 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 were residing at village Channa. The deceased Murlidhar s/o Suke Wasnik was residing in the house adjoining to the house of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant No. 1 Arvind Choure, suspected that Murlidhar Wasnik had performed black magic on him and as a result of which, appellant No. 1-Arvind Choure had fallen ill and had become very serious and had to be admitted in the hospital. The case of the prosecution on is that after having recovered from the said illness, appellant No. 1-Arvind and his father Dayaram appellant No. 2 bore a grudge against the deceased Murlidhar Wasnik and therefore on 11-5-1994 at about 10.00 p.m. in the night, they went to the house of the deceased-Murlidhar Wasnik and assaulted him with a knife, as a result of which he died on the spot, this fact was informed to the Police Patil by the wife of the deceased-Murlidhar Wasnik, who stayed with the deceased at their house. On the next day i.e. 12-5-1994, he went to the house of Vishwanath Dhurve who in turn lodged a report in the Police Station and an offence was registered vide Crime No. 28/94 under section 302 r/w section 34 of I.P.C., against the accused and investigation was initiated by the Police and it is the case of the prosecution that during the investigation the house of the accused was searched by the Investigating Officer and during this search the Investigating Officer seized weapon which was used in the assault namely, one gupti and also the clothes which were borne by the appellant No. 1 Arvind, which were having blood stains. The panchanama was made in the presence of two independent panchas, in respect of the seizure of the knife and the clothes. The panchanama was made in the presence of two independent panchas, in respect of the seizure of the knife and the clothes. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of number of eye-witnesses, who had seen the said incident, and on the basis of the said evidence, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused. In the Sessions Court, charge was framed under section 302 r/w section 34 of I.P.C. The appellants/accused, however, pleaded not guilty to the said charge. 3. In the trial Court the prosecution adduced evidence and examined in all 8 witnesses, out of the 8 witnesses which were examined, 4 witnesses were examined as eye-witnesses namely, P.W. 3 Rama Shende, P.W. 4 Mrs. Satawabai Meshram, P.W. 6 Smt. Umabai Wasnik. The prosecution also examined the Doctor P.W. 5 Dr. Narhari Kawle. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted the appellants under section 302 r/w section 34 I.P.C. 4. The appellants are challenging the said appeal. We have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as also learned A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the State. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has taken us through the deposition and evidence on record and we have also gone through the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the only evidence against the appellants is the evidence of P.W. 6 Smt. Umabai Wasnik, wife of the deceased-Murlidhar and he submitted that the other eye-witnesses have turned hostile. Similarly, so far as seizure is concerned, seizure has not been proved. The evidence of P.W. 6 is not reliable as there is variance in the statement made by P.W. 6 Smt. Umabai Wasnik and the medical evidence which is brought on record by Dr. Kawale. He further submitted that the incriminating evidence against the accused has not been put to them in their statement which is recorded under section 313 Cri.P.C. and in the absence of any confrontation by the learned Sessions Judge of putting these incriminating evidence and asking their explanation, the said evidence will have to be discarded and finding of the learned Sessions Judge, therefore is incorrect. 6. 6. Learned APP, appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the prosecution has adduced ample evidence to prove the commission of the offence by the appellants and submitted that even if the sole testimony of P.W. 6 is taken into consideration, her evidence is natural and she has made a specific statement that she had seen the appellants assaulting the deceased-Murlidhar with a knife and on the basis of the said statement, the trial Court had convicted the appellants and, therefore, the said conviction should be confirmed. 7. In the instant case, P.W. 3 Rama Shende and P.W. 4 Mrs. Satawabai have turned hostile. They were examined as eye-witnesses. However, they did not support the story of the prosecution. Their evidence will not be of any assistance to the prosecution. P.W. 1 Vishwanath Dhurve has been examined to prove the F.I.R. He has stated in his evidence that due to shout of villagers that murder had been committed, he came out of the house and went to the house of the victim, where he saw that the victim was dead and was lying on the ground. He further stated that he stayed during the whole night at the house of the deceased and that the wife of the deceased informed him that the accused Arvind had assaulted the deceased. He further stated that on the next day, he went to the Police Station and lodged the F.I.R. So far as the said witness is concerned, he has not actually witnesses the said evidence. The said witness has also stated that P.W. 6 informed him that appellant No. 1 had assaulted the deceased with a knife. 8. P.W. 2-Sahadeo Kisan Chaware has made a very cryptic statement of four lines in which he has mentioned that he knew both the accused and he knew Murlidhar Wasnik and that the deceased had died 2, 3 years prior to the date on which he has given his deposition and he has further stated that he was not in the village when the said incident had taken place. This witness does not support the prosecution case in any manner. This witness has not been declared as hostile and the cross-examination has also been declined by the defence. 9. So far as P.W. 3 Rama Shende and P.W. 4 Mrs. This witness does not support the prosecution case in any manner. This witness has not been declared as hostile and the cross-examination has also been declined by the defence. 9. So far as P.W. 3 Rama Shende and P.W. 4 Mrs. Satawabai are concerned, both the witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. 10. P.W. 5 Dr. Narahari Kawle has given evidence in respect of injuries which were found on the person of the deceased and stated that in the Column No. 17 of the post mortem notes, he has noted the following injuries:-- 1) Stab injury on abdomen and back, written on separate paper. Injury on cross-exam, there is stab injury through and through on anteriorly. It is piercing on epigastric region of abdomen left upper side obligue in nature 1.8 cm. length, it is coming posteriorily right side 2 cm., away from 10th thoreic vertubra, wound of exist size is 1 cm. x 5 cm. After opening abdomen there is evidence of (1) stab injury through and through on stomach 1.8 cm x 2 cm. on interior wall and 1.8 cm x 2 cm. posterior wall of stomach. 2) Evidence of stab on pancreas 1.8 x .2 through and through going obliquely upwards and piercing abdomenal sorts through and through size 1.5 cm. x 1.1 cm over 10th thoracic certubra 2 cm. away on right side coming out to a skin. 3) There is evidence of posterior peritoneal haemorrhage about 1.5 to 2 1trsl. on wound of exist there is clotted blood. 4) There is evidence intra peritoneal haemorrhage (clothe blood) about 1 litre. (2) Abrasion forehead left side 1" x 1". (3) Multiple abrasion left side over bone of left thigh. (4) Abrasion ½" x ½" over right clavical. (5) Multiple abrasion left leg middle and lower part posteriorly. (6) Multiple abrasion right leg posteriorily lower 1/3rd part and near and below knee joint. (7) Multiple abrasions back left and right side over and below scapular region. (8) Lacerated injury right ear posteriorly ½" x ½" x 1/6th". (9) Lacerated wound right lumber region 1½" x ½" x 1/7th". 11. (6) Multiple abrasion right leg posteriorily lower 1/3rd part and near and below knee joint. (7) Multiple abrasions back left and right side over and below scapular region. (8) Lacerated injury right ear posteriorly ½" x ½" x 1/6th". (9) Lacerated wound right lumber region 1½" x ½" x 1/7th". 11. P.W. 5 has mentioned that so far as injury No. 1 is concerned that was the cause of death and the said injury has been caused on the abdomen and has pierced the internal vital organ as the pancreas and there is an entry wound and exit wound which indicates that the gupti was pierced from the abdomen and went through the body and came out of the other side of the body. So far as other injuries are concerned, those injuries are mainly in the form of abrasions on all parts of the body and those have not been evidently caused by the said gupti. The Doctor has given his opinion that the said injury No. 1 could be caused by the gupti, which was produced and was shown as Article No. 4. 12. Apart from this evidence, the only evidence which is adduced against the accused is in the form of statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Umabai Murlidhar Wasnik. She has made a singular statement in respect of actual assault on the deceased Murlidhar. She has stated that accused-Arvind, appellant No. 1 came to her house with gupti and that the accused-Dayaram, appellant No. 2 had caught hold both the hands of the deceased. Apart from the said statement, P.W. 6 has stated that accused No. 1 Arvind had assaulted the deceased Murlidhar on the stomach and all over the body with gupti. 13. In our view, the said evidence cannot be accepted firstly because P.W. 6 has not disclosed about the nature of the incident in detail. She has made a cryptic statement that Arvind-accused No. 1, came to her house and he assaulted the deceased Murlidhar on the stomach and all over the body by gupti. Her evidence is not corroborated by the medical evidence on record, which shows that there was only one injury which has been caused by gupti. So far as other injuries are concerned, they are only abrasions. Her evidence is not corroborated by the medical evidence on record, which shows that there was only one injury which has been caused by gupti. So far as other injuries are concerned, they are only abrasions. The specific statement of P.W. 6 that Arvind had given various blows to the deceased Murlidhar on the stomach and all over the body with gupti are not corroborated by the medical evidence. Thus her statement appears to be doubtful and it is possible that she may not have actually witnesses the said incident but may have arrived on the spot after the incident was over. P.W. 6 has not given any reason or any motive for the assault by Arvind appellant No. 1 and Dayaram-appellant No. 2. In our view, the said evidence cannot be relied upon. 14. Though P.W. 6 could have identified the gupti, the said gupti has not been shown to her. As identified article 1 is the same gupti, yet this incriminating evidence, explanation has not been sought from the accused in the questions which are asked to him in statement under section 313 of Cri.P.C. 15. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has rightly argued that since the incriminating circumstances have not been put to the accused in the form of questions, while seeking his reply and statement under section 313 of Cri.P.C. These incriminating circumstances and evidence cannot be relied upon by the prosecution. He has submitted that the incriminating circumstances, evidence in respect of seizure of gupti and the clothes from the house of the accused have not been put to the appellants in their statement under section 313 of Cri.P.C. Similarly, the Chemical Analysers report also has not been put up to the accused while seeking his reply under section 313 of Cri.P.C. He submitted that it is a well settled law that if the questions are not put and if the incriminating evidence is not put to the accused while seeking their reply under section 313 of Cri.P.C., the said evidence cannot be relied upon. The trial Court has asked only six questions to accused Nos. 1 and 2. The questions are as follows :- Q. No. 1 Have you heard the evidence of prosecution. Answer Yes. The trial Court has asked only six questions to accused Nos. 1 and 2. The questions are as follows :- Q. No. 1 Have you heard the evidence of prosecution. Answer Yes. Q. No. 2 P.W. 6 Umabai Wasnik in her deposition stated that you accused Arvind assaulted Murlidhar on his stomach and all over his body with gupti. What you have to say about it ? Answer It is false. Q. No. 3 Do you want to say anything more ? Answer Due to enimical terms between me and Umabai Wasnik she falsely deposed against me. False case is filed against me. Q. No. 4 Do you want to lead any defence evidence? Answer No. Q. No. 5 Do you want to examine yourself on oath? Answer No. Q. No. 6 What you have to say about question of sentence? Answer I am poor. Accused Dayaram is an old man. So, leniency be shown while passing the sentence. 16. Thus, it is an admitted fact on record that the various incriminating circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have not been put to the accused while recording his statement under section 313 of Cri.P.C. 17. It is necessary at this stage to examine the correct position in respect of the statement which are recorded by the Court while examining the accused under section 313 of the Cri.P.C. Section 313 of Cri.P.C., reads as follows :-- "Section 313. Power to examine the accused (1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court-- (a) may at any stage without previously warning the accused put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary; (b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case; Provided that in a summons case where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispose with his examination under Clause (b). (2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1). (3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them. (2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1). (3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them. (4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed. 18. Perusal of the said section indicates that in every enquiry or trial in order to enable the accused personally to explain any circumstances, appearing in the evidence against him, the Court may ask any question at any stage. Sub-clause (2) specifically lays down that no oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1). Under the old Act under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the corresponding section of the present section 313 was under section 342 of the said Act. Sub-section (1) however, has been rearranged and the word personally has been added after the word accused in the expression, "for the purpose of enabling the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him". Similarly, the proviso also has been newly added, sub-section (3) corresponds to sub-section (2) of the old section. However, it has to be noted that the proviso for drawing inference from the refusal to give answer or giving false answers, appearing in the old sub-section (2) has been omitted in the present section. Section 3 therefore, merely states that the accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them. 19. The section is obviously based on the principle involved in the maxim audi alterm partem, namely that no one should be condemned unheard. It will be profitable to examine what the Law Commissions has to say in its 41st report in which it has observed as follows:- 24.40. Section 342 is one of the most important sections in the Code. It requires that the Court must, at the close of the prosecution evidence, examine the accused "for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstance appearing in the evidence against him." The section, for a moment, brushes aside all Counsel, all prosecutors, all witnesses, and all third persons. It requires that the Court must, at the close of the prosecution evidence, examine the accused "for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstance appearing in the evidence against him." The section, for a moment, brushes aside all Counsel, all prosecutors, all witnesses, and all third persons. It seeks to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused for the purpose of enabling the accused to give his explanation. For a while, the section was misunderstood and regarded as authorising an inquisitorial interrogation of the accused, which is not its object at all. The key to the section is contained in the first sixteen words of the section. Giving an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence is the only object of the examination. He may, if he chooses, keep his mouth shut or he may give a full explanation, or if he is so advised, he may explain only a part of the case against him. 24.41. Discussing the history and scheme of his section in his History of the Criminal Law of England, Stephen writes:- "The words specifying the purpose for which questions are to be asked were not in the Code of 1872, which authorised the examination of the accused without assigning any reason for it. Perhaps the expression was introduced in the Code of 1882 in order to soften what many people consider a harsh proceeding. For my own part I regret the alteration. It will either be inoperative or most embarrassing, and it looks like an apology for what does not require one. It is, however, hypocritical, for the Code contains no provision as to what is to happen if the questioning does not conform to the directions of the Code, and it specifically enacts that the Court and jury (if any) may draw such inference from the refusal of the accused to answer or from his answers as they please. Besides, in practice, every question any one could want to ask might be justified by the terms of the section, e.g. The witnesses say they saw you at this place. Were you there or not, and, if not, where were you? The words thus make hardly any difference." 24.42. This state of the law continued till the year 1848, when by 11 and 12 Vic. Were you there or not, and, if not, where were you? The words thus make hardly any difference." 24.42. This state of the law continued till the year 1848, when by 11 and 12 Vic. c. 42, the present system was established under which the prisoner is asked whether he wished to say anything, and is warned that if he chooses to do so what he says will be taken down and may be given in evidence on his trial. The result of the whole is that as matters stand the prisoner is absolutely protected against all judicial questioning before or at the trial, and that, on the other hand, he and his wife are prevented from giving in their own behalf. He is often permitted, however, to make any statement he pleases at the very end of the trial, when it is difficult for any one to test the correctness of what is said." "This is one of the most of characteristic features of English Criminal Procedure, and it presents a marked contract to that which is common to, I believe, all continental countries. It is, I think, highly advantageous to the guilty. It contributes greatly to the dignity and apparent humanity of a criminal trial. It effectually avoids the appearance of harshness, not to say cruelty, which often shocks an English spectator in a French Court of justice, and I think, that the fact that the prisoner cannot be questioned stimulates the search for independent evidence. The evidence in an English trial is, I think, usually much fuller and more satisfactory than the evidence in such French trials as I have been able to study." "On the other hand, I am convinced by much experience that questioning, or the power of giving evidence, is a positive assistance, and a highly important one, to innocent men and I do not see why in the case of the guilty there need be any hardship about it. It must be remembered that most persons accused of crime are poor, stupid and helpless. It must be remembered that most persons accused of crime are poor, stupid and helpless. They are often defended by solicitors who confined their exertions to getting a copy of the deposition and endorsing it with the name of some Counsel to whom they pay a very small fee, so that even when prisoners are defended by Counsel, the defence is often extremely imperfect, and consists rather of what occurs at the moment to the solicitor and Counsel than of what the man himself would say if he knew how to say it. When a prisoner is undefended his position is often pitiable, even if he has a good case. An ignorant uneducated man has the greatest possible difficulty in collecting his ideas, and seeing the bearing of facts alleged, he is utterly unaccustomed to sustained attention or systematic thought, and it often appears to me as if the proceedings on a trial, which to an experienced person appear plain and simple, must pass before the eyes and mind of the prisoner like a dream which he cannot grasp." 24.43. It has been suggested that after the enactment of section 342-A which enables the accused to enter into the witness box if he so chooses and give evidence, section 342 is redundant and can be safely omitted. A view has also been expressed that the elaborate examination contemplated by this section leads to needless delay. At least, where the accused is represented by Counsel, it should be unnecessary to examine the accused, because his Counsel is bound to putforth, whatever explanation there is to be offered. As against this it has to be borne in mind that there are several offences (such as receipt of stolen property) which are of such a nature that the accused has to give his explanation because in the absence of reasonable explanation the accused runs the risk of being convicted by the Court relying on section 114, illustration (a) of the Evidence Act, 1872. The provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and other special laws which enable the Court to hold the accused guilty unless he can satisfactorily account for his possession of property or other articles may also be referred to in this connection. Section 342 of the Code affords the accused the only opportunity of giving such an explanation without running the risk of facing cross-examination. Section 342 of the Code affords the accused the only opportunity of giving such an explanation without running the risk of facing cross-examination. 24.44 Furthermore, differing from civil cases in this respect, the parties in criminal cases are not equally placed. The whole machinery of the State is against the accused. The accused has no investigation machinery; no power of search and no power of questioning, which the prosecution has. If he puts forth a definite case, he may not in many cases be able to prove it. This is also the reason why in civil cases preponderance of evidence is sufficient, but in criminal cases a shadow of doubt operates in favour of the accused. Even where the State provides Counsel for the accused, experience shows that the Court has to guide Counsel who is usually a junior member of the Bar. In this state of affairs, examination of the accused under section 342 appears to be essential proceeding. The mode of applying the section would, no doubt, vary with the knowledge, intelligence and experience of the Judge. If in a particular case the Judge exceeds the permissible limit and subjects the accused to an inquisitorial examination, the superior courts will correct the error. The words "question him generally" in the section are clearly intended to prevent unfair interrogative of the accused. 24.45 We have, after considering the various aspect of the matter as summarized above, come to the conclusion that section 342 should not be deleted. In our opinion, the stage has not yet come for its being removed from the statute book. With further increase in literacy and with better facilities for legal aid, it may be possible to take that step in the future. 20. The Apex Court has consistently held that section 313 Cri.P.C. is mainly intended to benefit the accused and as a corollary to benefit the Court in reaching the final conclusion. The provision is not intended, to nail him to any position, but to comply with the most salutary principle of nature justice enshrined in the maxim audi alterm partem. The Apex Court in the recent judgment in the case of (Basavaraj R. Patil and others v. State of Karnataka and others)1, 2000(8) S.C.C. 740 has examined the scope, object and the nature of the provisions of section 313 and has considered the earlier judgment of the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the recent judgment in the case of (Basavaraj R. Patil and others v. State of Karnataka and others)1, 2000(8) S.C.C. 740 has examined the scope, object and the nature of the provisions of section 313 and has considered the earlier judgment of the Apex Court. In paras 19 and 20, it is held that it is well settled that the circumstances about which the accused was not asked to explain cannot be used against him. The Apex Court, way back in the year 1953 in the case of (Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. Madhya Bharat)2, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 468 has held that it was important to put to the accused each material fact which is intended to be used against him and to afford him a chance of explaining him, if he can. This view has been consistently taken by the Apex Court from time to time in the case of Jaydev v. State of Punjab, the Apex Court has held that the ultimate test in determining whether or not the accused has been fairly examined under section 313 would be to require whether having regard to the question put to him, did he get an opportunity to say what he wanted to say in respect of the prosecution case against him. The Apex Court has further held that if it appears from the examination of the accused person that if was defective and thereby prejudice has been caused to him, that would be no doubt a serious infirmity. 21. In view of the clear and unequivocal law, laid down by the Apex Court, if we examine the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the trial Court has not put the incriminating circumstances, in respect of the seizure of clothes from the house of the accused and gupti from his house and has not sought any explanation from the accused. Similarly, the Chemical Analyzers report has not been put to him and his explanation has not been sought, while he was being examined section 313 Cri.P.C. Similarly, the evidence of P.W. 1 in respect of P.W. 6 statement that she had informed P.W. 1 that the accused-Arvind had assaulted the deceased with a gupti also has not been put to him. In view of this, all this evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution will have to be discarded. 22. In view of this, all this evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution will have to be discarded. 22. Another infirmity in the prosecution case is that the prosecution has not examined number of witnesses and has given a precipe to the Court, seeking its permission for not examining to the two pancha witnesses, who have performed the panchanama, in respect of seizure of gupti and clothes from the house of the accused and also other eye-witnesses. The prosecution has not offered any explanation in the said precipe as to why these witnesses were not examined. One probable reason may be that the prosecution may have come to the conclusion that these witnesses including the panch witnesses have turned hostile and, therefore, he did not wish to examine the witnesses. However, the prosecution has not given any such explanation in the precipe which is filed at Exhibition 37. In view of this, even though the gupti and clothes have been recovered in the search carried out by the Investigating Officer and though he has made a statement to that effect in his examination-in-chief, yet the said evidence cannot be relied upon, firstly because the said incriminating evidence has not been put to the accused in his section 313 statement and secondly, because the panch witnesses have not been examined to prove the panchanama. 23. In our view, the prosecution has miserably failed in proving the said offence against the appellants and we have no hesitation in setting aside the sentence given by the Sessions Court and acquitting the accused from the said charge which is levelled against them. So far as appellant No. 2 is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence adduced by the prosecution against him. P.W. 6 did not informed P.W. 1 that the appellant No. 2 Dayaram had in any manner assaulted the deceased - Murlidhar. No role or overt act or in fact even his presence is not mentioned to P.W. 1 and apart from her cryptic statement that appellant No. 2 caught hold of the deceased, there is no other evidence against the appellant No. 2. Thus, both the accused/appellants herein are acquitted. 24. If normally there had been a lacunae in respect of asking explanation from the accused, while examining him under section 313 of Cri.P.C., the matter could have been remanded back only for the said purpose. Thus, both the accused/appellants herein are acquitted. 24. If normally there had been a lacunae in respect of asking explanation from the accused, while examining him under section 313 of Cri.P.C., the matter could have been remanded back only for the said purpose. However, in the instant case, even otherwise, there is no evidence on record against the appellants, as most of the eye-witnesses have turned hostile and there are some discrepancies in the prosecution case, as discussed by us herein above, and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in remanding the matter only for the purpose of affording reasonable opportunity to the accused to offer explanation to the incriminating circumstances. 25. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the appellants are acquitted. The judgment and order of the Sessions Court is set aside and quashed. Appeal allowed. -----