Judgment Lakshman Uraon, J.-Both the criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.7.96 and 31.7.96 respectively passed by Sri R.P. Verma, the learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Session Case No. 66/94. 2. As both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda in S.T. No. 66/94, hence both these criminal appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a single judgment of this Court. 3. All the appellants have challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against them under Sections 302/34 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act sentencing each of them to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. The appellant, Anil Thakur (in Cr. Appeal No. 412/1996) has further been convicted and sentenced under Section 27 of the Arms Act and ordered to undergo R.I. for three years directing that in case of the appellant, Anil Thakur, both the sentences will run concurrently. 4. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fard-beyan (Ext.2) of the informant, PW-1, Ratish Thakur, full brother of the deceased, Jitendra Thakur, recorded on 24.1.94 at 19.45 Hrs. at village Amarpur School Tola by the S.I, Hare Ram Sharma, I.O, PW-12, on the basis of which Godda P.S. Case No. 23/94 dated 24.1.94 was registered and formal FIR Ext. 3, was drawn on the same day at 22 Hrs. Thereafter, the FIR was sent to the Court concerned on 25.1.94 which was received in the Court of C.J.M, Godda on 26.1.94. The learned Sessions Judge, Godda charged Dhaneshwar Thakur, Srikant Thakur, Mohar Lal Thakur and Anil Thakur, appellants of both the appeals, under Section 302/34 IPC whereas, Ani! Thakur (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 412/1996) was further charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 5. The informant, PW-1, Ratish Thakur, in his fardbeyan has stated that on 24.1.94 he alongwith his brother, Jitendra Thakur, had gone to Pathrahat. They were purchasing kerosene oil where these four appellants alongwith others picked up a quarrel with kerosene oil dealer, Diwakar Mandal. Jitendra Thakur took side of the dealer for which he was threatened by these appellants. Both the parties, who are of the same village Amarpur School Tola, thereafter proceeded towards their village. They were purchasing kerosene oil where these four appellants alongwith others picked up a quarrel with kerosene oil dealer, Diwakar Mandal. Jitendra Thakur took side of the dealer for which he was threatened by these appellants. Both the parties, who are of the same village Amarpur School Tola, thereafter proceeded towards their village. Jitendra Thakur was a private compounder practising in the village. From Pathrahat both the informant and his brother, Jitendra Thakur, returned home on a single bicycle. But, Jitendra Thakur did not stop at his door rather asked the informant to proceed towards Upar Tola as he had to give medicine to a person. At about 5 P.M. on the same day at their village Amarpur School Tola when they were crossing in front of the house of Pudai Das, the appellant Dhaneshwar Thakur, Anil Thakur, Srikant Thakur and Mohan Lal Thakur came from behind, caught hold of their cycle and pushed it. Both the brothers fell down. They threw Jitendra Thakur on the ground and started assaulting him. The informant raised alarm. On hearing the alarm his brother, Moti Lal Thakur, PW-2, Chanchla Devi, PW-5, wife of Jitendra Thakur and Pawan Kumar Das, PW-6, rushed there. When the appellant, Dhaneshwar Thakur, exhorted to kill Jitendra Thakur, the appellant, Anil Thakur (in Cr Appeal No. 412/1996) shot at Jitendra Thakur causing injury on his nose. When the appellants ran towards the informant, he fled away and returned to the P.O. when the villagers assembled there. He saw his brother, Jitendra Thakur, in a pool of blood and dead. The alleged occurrence took place only due to land dispute in between his brother, Jitendra Thakur and the appellant. On the fardbeyan recorded by the 1.0, the informant, Ratish Thakur signed (Ext.1) in presence of the villager, Sanjiv Thakur, who also signed on it. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, Godda relied upon the evidence of PW-1, Ratish Thakur, PW-2, Mohar Lal Thakur, PW-5, Chanchala Devi and PW-9, Urmila Tuddu as eye-witnesses corroborating the manner of the alleged occurrence whose evidence were also supported by the I.O., PW.-12, Hare Ram Sharma and the doctor, Ashok Kumar, PW-13, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Jitendra Thakur and convicted all the appellants and sentenced them thereunder as referred in above paras. 7. 7. Assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda the learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that in course of trial Dhaneshwar Thakur (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 312/1996) has died on 6.12.2002 and to this effect I.A. No.1001 of 2003 has been filed. In view of this fact, the appeal against Dhaneshwar Thakur stands abated. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the genesis of the alleged 'occurrence was regarding quarrel in between the appellants and some others with the kerosene oil dealer, Diwakar Mandai, of Path rahat. The said kerosene oil dealer has not been examined by the prosecution. The alleged occurrence took place with the informant and his brother who were crossing in front of the house of Pudai Das of Amarpur School Tola. He has also not been examined by the prosecution. One Sanjiv Mandai who has signed on the fardbeyan has also not been examined by the prosecution. In the entire evidence the prosecution has not proved the sanction to prosecute the appellant, Anil Thakur in Cr. Appeal No. 412/1996 under Section 27 of the Arms Act and the cognizance under this Section itself is barred as provided under Section 39 of the Arms Act and has relied upon the cases reported in 2000 (3) PLJR 275 (Krishna Singh Vs. State of Bihar), 1986 PLJR 449 (Kapildeo Baitha Vs. State of Bihar) and 2003 (1) Criminal Law Journal 443 (SC) [Subhash Ram Kumar Bind @ Veki Vs. State of Maharashtra] The learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that enmity was there in between the parties. Even PW-5, Chanchla Devi, who was first in love with the deceased but subsequently strained relationship developed for which criminal cases were instituted against the deceased. The deceased was of loose character who was declared 'Bithlaha" by the Santhals due to illicit relationship with another girl. The village independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case who are either hostile witnesses or tendered witnesses. The prosecution has failed to connect the chain of the alleged occurrence. The informant, PW-1, Ratish Thakur, has deposed that he alongwith Chaukidar went to the P.S. where his fardbeyan was recorded on which he signed, Ext. 1. Chaukidar has not been examined by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to connect the chain of the alleged occurrence. The informant, PW-1, Ratish Thakur, has deposed that he alongwith Chaukidar went to the P.S. where his fardbeyan was recorded on which he signed, Ext. 1. Chaukidar has not been examined by the prosecution. The I.O. PW-12, Hare Ram Sharma, has contradicted his statement who deposed that he simply entered S.D.E. No. 485/24.1.94 on rumour and proceeded to village Amarpur where he recorded the fardbeyan of Ratish Thakur, the informant, at village Amarpur School Tala at 19.45 Hrs. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the I.O. is so much interested to prosecute these appellants that in course of investigation he has not mentioned the time and hour in the C.D. of his day to day investigation which is must as provided in the police manual. Inquest-report, Ext.4, is• in respect of one Jitendra Thakur, son of late Darwari Thakur, but the post mortem report shows that the autopsy was done by the-doctor, PW-13, in respect of one- dead body of Jitendra Thakur, son of Chander Thakur. Hence it is doubtful as to whether the autopsy of Jitendra Thakur, brother of the informant, PW-1, was actually performed by the doctor, PW-13, Ashok Kumar or not. It also casts suspicion in the prosecution story. The medical evidence of the doctor who did not find any charred injury on the dead body of Jitendra Thakur is contradicted by the ocular evidence of the interested eye-witnesses that from a blank point distance Anil Thakur fired with his revolver causing injury to Jitendra Thakur who succumbed due to that fire arm injury. The FIR is a substituted one as the informant himself contradicts regarding recording his fardbeyan at the P.S. who had gone alongwith the village Chaukidar. The alleged occurrence took place on 24.1.94 at 17 Hrs. and on the same day fardbeyan was recorded and FIR was drawn which was dispatched on 25th and was received in the office of C.J.M. on 26.1.94. The prosecution has not explained the delay in sending the FIR and has relied upon a case reported in AIR 1976 (SC) 2263 & 2423. and on the same day fardbeyan was recorded and FIR was drawn which was dispatched on 25th and was received in the office of C.J.M. on 26.1.94. The prosecution has not explained the delay in sending the FIR and has relied upon a case reported in AIR 1976 (SC) 2263 & 2423. Lastly it was assailed vehemently that the learned Sessions Judge while framing the charge against these appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act has not mentioned the time of the alleged occurrence in violation of Section 212 of the Cr.P.C which provides that particulars as the time, place and persons should be mentioned. In this present case the time of the alleged occurrence has not been mentioned resulting prejudice to these appellants who could not answer the charges levelled against them. In view of this fact, the whole trial is vitiated. 9. The learned APP in course of his argument has submitted that the alleged occurrence took place at village Amarpur School Tola. At 5 P.M. the informant was alongwith the deceased. On his alarm his brother, Mohar Lal Thakur, PW-2, wife of the deceased, Chanchla Devi, PW-5, Urmila Tudu, PW-9 and Pawan Das, PW-6 rushed there and saw the alleged manner of assault by these appellants on the deceased, Jitendra Thakur. The doctor, Ashok Kumar, PW-13, found fire arm injury on the deceased. The I.O. found the dead body in front of the house of Sudama Das of village Amarpur School Tola. He seized the material exhibits from the P.O., prepared inquest-report and seizure-list and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. The interested eye-witnesses have corroborated the prosecution case which were rightly relied by the learned Sessions Judge and has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. 10. The genesis of the alleged occurrence as deposed by PW-1 in his fardbeyan and also in his evidence is regarding an altercation which took place at village Pathrahat with kerosene oil dealer. Jitendra Thakur favoured the dealer although the dealer has not' been examined by the prosecution. The appellants had threatened Jitendra Thakur to see him. Another genesis is regarding land dispute of Jitendra Thakur with the appellants. Ratesh Thakur, PW-1, alongwith his brother, Jitendra Thakur (deceased) after purchasing two litres of kerosene oil at Path rahat were returning home on a cycle. The appellants had threatened Jitendra Thakur to see him. Another genesis is regarding land dispute of Jitendra Thakur with the appellants. Ratesh Thakur, PW-1, alongwith his brother, Jitendra Thakur (deceased) after purchasing two litres of kerosene oil at Path rahat were returning home on a cycle. They reached to their village, but the deceased informed the informant that he had to administer some medicines to a person of Upar Tola. Hence, they proceeded towards Upar Tola reached in front of the house of Pudai Das. Then all the appellants pushed their cycle. Both of them fell down. Thereafter, all the appellants threw Jitendra Thakur on the ground and started assaulting him. In the fardbeyan PW-1 has not alleged that the appellants Srikant Thakur and Mohar Lal Thakur (appellants in Cr. Appeal No 312/1996) tied the neck of Jitendra Thakur with Muffler. On the order of Dhaneshwar Thakur his son, Anil Thakur (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 412/1996) fired causing injury on the nose of Jitendra Thakur who fell and died in a pool of blood. On hearing the alarm raised by the informant, PW-1 his brother, Moti Lal Thakur, PW-2 and wife of the deceased, Chanchala Devi, PW-5, Urmila Tudu, PW9 and Pawan Das, PW-6, rushed there and saw the alleged occurrence. In course of evidence PW-1 has developed the story that the appellant Srikant Thakur and Mohar Lal Thakur tied the neck of Jitendra Thakur with muffler and were tightening it. In his evidence he has deposed that the alleged occurrence took place at the door of Hare Das in the village. Tile said Hare Das has also not been examined by the prosecution. On the order of Dhaneshwar Thakur, his son, Anil Thakur, fired with pistol causing injury to Jitendra Thakur who succumbed to his injuries. He alongwith Chaukidar of the village went to the P.S where his fardbeyan was recorded on which he signed, Ext.1. This statement has also been contradicted by the I.O., PW-12, Hare Ram Sharma, who has deposed that on rumour he entered S.D.E. No. 485/24.1.94 and proceeded to village Amarpur where he recorded the fardbeyan of Ritesh Thakur at 19.45 Hrs. The house of Hare Das is in front of the house of the appellant, Dhaneshwar Thakur. The informant and his brother were carrying bags containing vegetables and kerosene oil in a plastic bag. The house of Hare Das is in front of the house of the appellant, Dhaneshwar Thakur. The informant and his brother were carrying bags containing vegetables and kerosene oil in a plastic bag. The informant had not seen any weapon in the hands of the appellants. The articles purchased by them at Pathrapur market were not scattered at the P.O. where the alleged occurrence took place. When Anil Thakur fired at Jitendra Thakur then the informant who was threatened, fled away to the door of Ghunu Das and from there he claims to have seen the entire occurrence. Ghunu Das has also not been examined by the prosecution. In para 11 this witness who is the informant has clearly averred that he can not narrate the boundary of the P.O. Anil Thakur fired from a blank range distance touching the nose. After the alleged occurrence the appellants fled away and entered into the house of the appellant, Dhaneshwar Thakur. The informant went there and took up the plastic Dibba containing two litres of Kerosene oil and took to his home. PW-2, Moti Lal Thakur and PW-5, Chanchla Devi, wife of the deceased on hearing the alarm raised by PW-1, Ratish Thakur, went to the P.O and claimed to have seen the entire occurrence. PW-2, Moti Lal Thakur, was called by Ratesh Thakur. When he came out, he saw that the appellants, Mohar Lal Thakur and Srikant Thakur have tightened the neck of Jitendra Thakur with muffler. When Dhaneshwar Thakur exhorted to kill, then the appellant Anil Thakur fired with pistol causing injury to Jitendra Thakur. He has deposed in Para 4 that he does not know whether there was any dispute in between the parties regarding landed properties. He had stated before the 1.0 that he had not come out of his house on hearing alarm which also contradicts his statement that he was called by his brother, PW-1. Rather he and PW-5 were at a distance of 10 hands from the P.O and the informant Ratish Thakur was 2-4 hands ahead of them standing in the village lane which is towards North-West of the P.O. He had not seen any plastic tin containing kerosene oil in the hand of the informant. As per his statement the alleged occurrence took place in front of the house of Niru Das. As per his statement the alleged occurrence took place in front of the house of Niru Das. The said Niru Das has also not been examined by the prosecution. PW-3, Chunnu Lal Mandai has deposed that the alleged occurrence took place near the house of the appellant, Dhaneshwar Thakur, where Jitendra Thakur was seen by him fallen down having sustained grievous injuries. PW-4, Gangadhar Thakur has deposed that he went to the P.O where Jitendra Thakur had died in front of the house of Hara Das. Hara Das has also not been examined by the prosecution. Chanchla Devi, PW-5, on hearing the alarm raised by PW-1, Ratish Thakur, rushed to the P.O and saw the appellant, Anil Thakur and others assaulting her husband. On the order of the appellant, Dhaneshwar Thakur; the appellant, Anil Thakur, fired causing injury to Jitendra Thakur who fell down and died. She claimed that the P.O is the village lane near the door of Sudama Das. Sudama Das has also not been examined by the prosecution. PW-9, Urmila Tudu, who was standing at a distance did not come to the P.O out of fear. This witness, PW-5, did not see Dibba of kerosene oil in the hand of the informant. The appellant Anil Thakur opened fire causing Injury to her husband from the distance of one hand. PW-7, Bijay Das, a hostile witness has deposed that PW-9, Urmila Tudu has illicit relationship with the deceased Jitendra Thakur. She was seen at the PO where Jitendra Thakur had fallen down. PW-9, Urmila Tudu claims to be the eye-witness. She has deposed that when Jitendra Thakur and the informant, Ratish Thakur, reached near the door of Sudama Das, then all the appellants came out of their house. They pushed the cycle. The informant and his brother fell down. All the appellants laid down Jitendra Thakur on the ground. The appellant Sri Kant Thakur and Mohar Lal Thakur were pressing the' neck of Jitendra Thakur. Anil Thakur also pressed the neck of Jitendra Thakur. She claims that Dhaneshwar Thakur pulled him, by catching hold of his hand. Pawana Thakur who was stitching sacks in her house also rushed to the P.O and tried to intervene but Anil Thakur from a distance of 2-3 steps opened fire causing injury to Jitendra Thakur. He sustained bleeding injury on his nose and mouth. She claims that Dhaneshwar Thakur pulled him, by catching hold of his hand. Pawana Thakur who was stitching sacks in her house also rushed to the P.O and tried to intervene but Anil Thakur from a distance of 2-3 steps opened fire causing injury to Jitendra Thakur. He sustained bleeding injury on his nose and mouth. Thus, the evidence of this witness that she had gone to the PO is contradicted by PW-5, Chanchla Devi, wife of the deceased who has deposed that out of fear PW-9, Urmila Tudu did not go to the P.O where Jitendra Thakur had fallen down. The description of the detailed manner of occurrence as deposed by this witness, PW-9, could not be corroborated by even a single witness. She has suppressed the fact that there v were cases pending in between her and the deceased, Jitendra Thakur. She did not see any plastic bag on the handle of the cycle. She did not see any material scattered where Jitendra Thakur had fallen c down. She claims that she brought water and after lifting the neck of Jitendra Thakur, gave him water to drink. She also washed the blood found in the nose and mouth of Jitendra Thakur. But there was no blood-stain on her clothes. Chunnulal Mandal, PW-3, went to the house of Jitendra Thakur and informed his family members. Wife of Jitendra Thakur also came with water containing in a Lota. PW-10, independent witness of the village, Shankar Das, only saw the dead body of Jitendra Thakur but does not know as to who are the assailants. He saw the dead body in front of the house of PW-9, Urmila Tudu in a village lane. He did not see any article scattered there. He also deposed that there was some love affairs in between Urmila Tudu and Jitendra Thakur but since recent past there were differences. In the house of Urmila Tudu, PW-9; there was explosion of bomb in which she and the deceased, Jitendra Thakur, had sustained injuries for which Urmila Tudu, PW-9, had lodged FIR resulting remand of Jitendra Thakur in jail custody for about 17 days. Once Jitendra Thakur was assaulted by the Santhals of the locality as he has developed illicit relationship with one villager Suprabha Murmu. The deceased, Jitendra Thakur was declared Bitlaha by the Santhals. Once Jitendra Thakur was assaulted by the Santhals of the locality as he has developed illicit relationship with one villager Suprabha Murmu. The deceased, Jitendra Thakur was declared Bitlaha by the Santhals. PW12, after entering S.D.E. went to the village Amarpur School Tola and recorded the fardbeyan of Ratish Thakur on which he signed. Thus the earlier statement of Ratish Thakur, PW-1, which he gave at the P.S. in presence of village Chaukidal on which he signed, was not brought on record rather the subsequent fard-beyan, Ext.2, is a substituted fardbeyan which was recorded at village• Amarpur by PW12. PW-12 claims that on the fardbeyan recorded by him the informant signed in presence of witness, Sanjiv Mandai who also signed on it, Ext.2, is the fard-beyan on that basis formal FIR, Ext.3, was drawn. The I.O, PW-12, Hare Ram Singh found the P.O to be the village road. The dead body of Jitendra Thakur was found adjacent to the house of Sudama Das. He found an old cycle having one bag on its handle containing blood-stain thereon. He prepared inquest-report, Ext. A, in presence of the witness. He seized the article found there and• prepared seizure-list, Ext.5, in presence of the witnesses. Those articles were cycle and bags. He also seized blood-stained soil, material Ext. I and also the cycle, material Ext. II. In the bag he found syringes, needle and cotton in a plastic bag, material Ext. III. There were some note-books, diary, certificate, cotton and medicine including the photo of the deceased which he seized which are material Exts. IV. There were other plastic bags on the cycle, material Ext. IV/I, containing hand gloves stained with blood, material Exts. VI & VI/I. He sent the dead body for post mortem examination. In Para 14 the 1.0 has admitted that there is no mention of S.D.E. No. 485/24.1.94 in the C.D. He had not mentioned the time of arrival at the P.O in the C.D. He did not send blood-stained soil seized by him for its chemical examination. The material exhibits seized at the P.O and the seizure list prepared at the P.O, do not contain the signature of any of the witnesses, Para 17. The material exhibits seized at the P.O and the seizure list prepared at the P.O, do not contain the signature of any of the witnesses, Para 17. He recorded the statement of Urmila Tudu, PW-9 on 24.1.94 but the time of recording her statement has not been mentioned in the C.D. She has not stated before him that the appellants, Srikant Thakur and Mohar Lal Thakur had pressed the neck of Jitendra Thakur and Anil Thakur had also pressed his neck. Thereafter, Dhaneshwar Thakur had pressed his waist. The informant Ratesh Thakur has not stated that the appellant had tightened the neck of Jitendra Thakur with Muffler. He has very specifically stated before this witness, I.O. that he went to the P.S with the village Chaukidar where his fardbeyan was recorded. The 1.0 did not find any sign of scrambling at the P.O. The dead body was found near the house of Sudama Das at village Amarpur School Tala who is son of late Darwari Thakur. But the post mortem report shows that the autopsy was conducted on the dead body of Jitendra Thakur, son of Chander Thakur. Thus, the postmortem report, Ext.6, is not in consonance with the inquest-report, Ext. A which also creates doubt in the prosecution case. PW-13, Dr. Ashok kumar on 25.1.94 at 10 A. M conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Jitendra Thakur, son of Chander Thakur and not on the dead body of Jitendra Thakur son of late Darwari Thakur. However the doctor found the following ante mortem injuries on the person of Jitendra Thakur, son of Chander Thakur (i) Lacerated wound on righ1 half of the nose 1 14" x 112" x 4" deep (ii) Abrasion on the right elbow dorsal aspect• 1 W' x W' (iii) Abrasion on the left wrist veatral aspect 1" x 1/2" (iv) Abrasion on the dorsal aspect of left elbow 1" x 1/3" (v) About ten small punch from dark red area on the anterior neck. On dissection a bullet was found lodged in the middle crevial fossa slightly to the left of the midline on putting a probe into the right nostril there was almost a connection between the lodged bullet space and the wound externally in the nostril. He took out the bullet and preserved in a sealed glass vial. On dissection a bullet was found lodged in the middle crevial fossa slightly to the left of the midline on putting a probe into the right nostril there was almost a connection between the lodged bullet space and the wound externally in the nostril. He took out the bullet and preserved in a sealed glass vial. The doctor opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of fire arm injury as described above within 44 hours from tile time of post mortem examination. Ext.6 is the post mortem examination report in the pen and signature of this witness. 11. The informant, PW-1 has deposed that after the alleged occurrence he went to the P.S. where he gave his fard-beyan which was recorded in presence of the village Chaukidar on which he signed. The FIR was registered on the same day i.e., 24.1.94 at 22 Hrs. and on the next day i.e., 25.1.94 it was dispatched to the Court. Godda P.S. is very near in the Godda Town itself where the Civil Court is situated. The FIR was received in the office of the C.J.M., Godda only on 26.1.94 i.e., after delay of two days. It happens only because the I.O., PW-12, Hare Ram Sharma, has contradicted the fardbeyan of the informant, PW-1, recorded at the P.S. itself, rather he entered S.D.E on rumour and went to the P.O. village. He had not mentioned in the C.D. about the time of his arrival at the P.O village and recorded the fardbeyan of Ratish Thakur at village Amarpur. Not a single interested witness has deposed that fardbeyan of Ratish Thakur was recorded at village Amarpur. It seems that the FIR (fardbeyan) was changed and the present fardbeyan, Ext.2, is a substituted one. In a case reported in AIR 1976 S.C. 2423 (Ishwar Singh vs. State of U.P.) relied by the learned counsel for the appellants it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that "The extra ordinary delay in sending the FIR is a circumstance which provide a legitimate basis for suspecting that the FIR was recorded much later than the stated date and rather affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishment and set up distorted version of occurrence". In this present case in the fardbeyan the informant Ratish Thakur has not stated regarding tightening the neck of Jitendra Thakur by the appellants, Srikant Thakur and Mohar Lal Thakur. He has given the P.O to be in front of the house of Pudai Das. The I.O went to the village but the time when he reached there has not been mentioned in the C.D. The materials seized at the P.O does not bear the signature of the seizure-list witnesses nor they have been examined by the prosecution. The alleged occurrence took place only due to some difference at Pathrahat market while purchasing kerosene oil. The dealer of kerosene oil, Diwakar Mandal, has not been examined. The independent witness, Sanjiv Mandal, whose signature bears in the fardbeyan has not been examined. Chaukidar alongwith whom the informant went to the P.S. where his fardbeyan was recorded has not been brought on record. The informant developed the prosecution story in course of his evidence in Court stating that Srikant Thakur and Mohar Lal Thakur tightened the neck of Jitendra Thakur with muffler. The appellant, Dhaneshwar Thakur is alleged to be the order giver. The kerosene oil containing in a plastic jar was taken by the informant but the same was not seen by his brother, PW-2, Motilal Thakur or his Bhabhi, PW-5, Chanchla Devi, wife of the deceased. The I.O, found cycle fallen there. There was blood in the handle of the cycle. The witnesses have deposed that they did not see any article scattered at the P.O except the fallen cycle. There was not a single bag, at the P.O. On the other hand, PW-12, Hare Ram Sharma, the I.O, found a lumber of articles including the cycle fallen there. He did not see kerosene oil containing in any plastic jar to corroborate that the informant and his brother Jitendra Thakur had gone to Pathrahat market and has purchased 2 litres of kerosene oil. PW-12 found blood-stained bag on the handle of the cycle. Inside the bag there were other bags containing some medicines, syringes, cotton and one plastic bag containing hand gloves which was stained with blood. PW-12 found blood-stained bag on the handle of the cycle. Inside the bag there were other bags containing some medicines, syringes, cotton and one plastic bag containing hand gloves which was stained with blood. The prosecution has lot explained as to how there was bloodstain in the plastic bag hanging on the land of the cycle and inside that bag here were other plastic bags containing land gloves stained with blood alongwith other materials and medicines, syringes, needle etc. The P.O is also not clear as to whether it is near the house of Pudai Das as mentioned by the informant in, his fardbeyan, Ext.2 or near the house of Hara Das as deposed by the informant, PW-1, Ratish Thakur in the Court in Para 1 or in front of the house of the appellant. Dhaneshwar Thakur and Hara Das as deposed by the informant himself in Para 7 who has also deposed that he had not seen any arms in the hands of the appellants. Rather he fled away on being threatened by the appellants, to the house of Ghunu Das from where he, his brother, PW-2, and wife of the deceased, PW-5, saw the alleged occurrence. In Para 11 he has stated that he cannot give description of the boundary of the alleged place of occurrence. As deposed by PW-1, PW-2, PW-5 and PW-9, Anil Thakur caused injury on the nose by touching it with pistol but the doctor did not find any charred wound on the person of the deceased. This also contradicts about opening of the fire from a close distance. The genesis of the alleged occurrence regarding the land dispute in between the parties is not known to Moti Lal Thakur, PW-2, brother of the informant who deposed that the P.O is in front of the house of Niru Das. PW-3 saw the dead body of Jitendra Thakur near the house of the appellant, Dhaneshwar Thakur PW-4, Gangadhar Thakur, deposed that PW-9, Urmila Devi, rushed to the P.O on the alarm raised by Ratish Thakur and saw all the appellants. On the order of Dhaneshwar Thakur the appellant, Anil Thakur, fired causing injury to Jitendra Thakur who succumbed to his injuries. As per earlier statement the alleged occurrence took place in front of the door of Sudama Das. On the order of Dhaneshwar Thakur the appellant, Anil Thakur, fired causing injury to Jitendra Thakur who succumbed to his injuries. As per earlier statement the alleged occurrence took place in front of the door of Sudama Das. She has given a different story regarding her presence at the P.O that she offered water by lifting the head of Jitendra Thakur which is contradicted by PW-5, Chanchala Devi, wife of the deceased, who deposed that out of fear, Urmila Tudu, did not go to the P.O. The I.O. has also deposed that Urmila Tudu has not stated before him that she was present at the P.O and saw the occurrence. PW-4, Gangadhar Thakur, has denied that there was any difference and cases pending in between PW-9, Urmila Tudu and the deceased, Jitendra Thakur. Whereas, PW-3, Pawan Das, who are stitching sacks in the house of PW-9, Urmila Tudu, has deposed that once PW-9, Urmila Tudu, has instituted a case against Jitendra Thakur. 12. When considered all the pros and cons the prosecution case and the evidence of the witnesses, I find that the fardbeyan, Ext.2, which the informant, PW1, gave at the PS. on which he signed, was not brought on the record rather fardbeyan which is alleged to have been recorded by PW-12, Hara Ram Sharma, at Amarpur School Tola has been substituted. The delay in sending the FIR to the Court of C.J.M, Godda also creates doubt as admitted by the 1.0 itself that he has not mentioned the time of his arrival at the P.O where he claims to have recorded the fardbeyan, Ext.2 of the informant, PW-1. The PO has also been contradicted by the interested and closely related witnesses who are PWs-1,2,5,9 and also hostile witness, Pawan Das, PW-6. The independent village witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile by the prosecution and are also tendered witnesses who are PW-6, Pawan Das, PW-7, Bijay Das, PW-10, Shankar Das, PW-11, Bharti Devi and PW-8, Sabi Dasi. The interested and closely related witnesses have given contradictory statements regarding the genesis of the alleged occurrence and the manner of the alleged occurrence as I have stated above that the PO is also contradictory to each other. The inquest-report, Ext. The interested and closely related witnesses have given contradictory statements regarding the genesis of the alleged occurrence and the manner of the alleged occurrence as I have stated above that the PO is also contradictory to each other. The inquest-report, Ext. A, shows that the dead body of Jitendra Thakur, son of late Darwari Thakur, was found in front of the door of the house of Sudama Das of village Amarpur School Tola. The witnesses have given the P.O to be in front of the house of Pudai Das and as mentioned in the fardbeyan, Ext.2, in front of the door of Hara Das as deposed by the informant, PW-1, contradicted his statement regarding the P.O as deposed in the fardbeyan and also contradicts the statement of his brother, Moti Lal Thakur, PW-2 who has given the P.O to be in front of the house of Niru Das whereas, PW-2 Chunnu Lal Mandai saw the dead body in front of the house of the appellant, Dhaneshwar Thakur. PW-4, Gangadhar Thakur, saw the dead body in front of the house of Hare Das. PW-7, Vijay Das saw the dead body of Jitendra Das at the door of Sudama Das. PW-9, Urmila Tudu has also deposed that she saw the dead body of Jitendra Thakur in front of the door of Sudama Das. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the P.O also. PW-10, Shankar Das, has deposed in Para 4 that he saw the dead body in front of the house of PW-9, Urmila Tudu, in a lane. He has also deposed that there was explosion of bomb prior to the alleged occurrence in the house of Urmila Tudu in which she and Jitendra Thakur (deceased) had sustained injuries. Urmila Tudu had lodged FIR against Jitendra Thakur (deceased) in which Jitendra Thakur remained in jail for about 17 days. The Santhals of the locality has also assaulted Jitendra Thakur as he had developed illicit relationship• with a village girl, Suprabha Murmu and was declared Bit/aha meaning thereby, Jitendra Thakur was in the hit list of Santhals. It creates doubt in my mind as to why the dealer of Kerosene oil of Pathrahat was not examined which was the cause of the alleged occurrence. PW-2 who is the brother of the informant, does not know as to whether there was any case pending regarding the land dispute. It creates doubt in my mind as to why the dealer of Kerosene oil of Pathrahat was not examined which was the cause of the alleged occurrence. PW-2 who is the brother of the informant, does not know as to whether there was any case pending regarding the land dispute. The P.O could not be established where the dead body was found. On the other hand, as deposed by PW-10, Shankar Das, the dead body was found in front of the house of Urmila Tudu in a Gali. Prior to that there was difference in between them for which Urmila Tudu had instituted cases against Jitendra Tudu. The defence has not examined any witness who has filed certified copy of Jamaband No. 144, Ext. A certified copy of charge sheet of Godda town P.S. Case No. 29/86, Ext. B and certified copy of the judgment of G.R. Case No. 118/86, Ext. C, to show that Urmila Tudu was the informant and accused were Jitendra Thakur (since dead) and his brother, PW-2, Motilal Thakur. There was another G.R. case lodged by her in G.R. Case No. 118/86 against Jitendra Thakur (deceased), his brothers, Motilal Thakur and Ratish Thakur under Sections 420, 406 & 323/34 IPC. These documents amply prove that there was strained relationship in between PW•9, Urmila Tudu and the deceased which is quite possible that there was love affairs in between Urmila Tudu and Jitendra Thakur but subsequently their relationship deteriorated and cases were instituted by Urmila Tudu against Jitendra Thakur. The. evidence also shows that in the house of Urmila Tudu there was bomb explosion and in which she and the deceased, Jitendra Thakur, had sustained bomb injuries. For that occurrence also Urmila Tudu had lodged FIR in which the deceased, Jitendra Thakur, was arrested and remained in th6 judicial custody for about 17 days. These documents contradict the statement of the interested witnesses that there was no strained relationship in between Urmila Tudu, PW-9, and the deceased. It also belies the statement of the witnesses who have deposed that Urmila Tudu had no illicit relationship with the deceased, Jitendra Thakur. 13. The conduct of the I.O. is also suspicious as to whether he recorded the fardbeyan at the P.S. or at the village Amarpur School Tola. It also belies the statement of the witnesses who have deposed that Urmila Tudu had no illicit relationship with the deceased, Jitendra Thakur. 13. The conduct of the I.O. is also suspicious as to whether he recorded the fardbeyan at the P.S. or at the village Amarpur School Tola. Only to conceal the truth he has not mentioned the time of his arrival at the PO village in the C.D. He did not even obtain the signature of the seizure-list witnesses nor they were made witnesses including the village independent witnesses. Considering all these facts, I find that the learned Sessions Judge, Godda has wrongly appreciated the evidence of PWs- 1,2,5 & 9 believing that their evidence were corroborated by the I.O. and the doctor, PW-13, which can not be sustained as it suffers from legal infirmities. 14. Viewed thus, I find that in this present case sanction to prosecute under Section 27 of the Arms Act has not been obtained. The contradictory statements of the interested witnesses regarding the manner of the alleged occurrence, the place of the alleged occurrence and also the time of the alleged occurrence, which have not been mentioned. in the charge framed against all these appellants, create doubt in the prosecution case itself. When considered in totality the benefit of doubt should go to the appellants. 15. In the result, I find merit in both these criminal appeals which succeed and are hereby allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against all these appellants by the learned Court below in S.T.No. 66/1994 are accordingly, set aside. As Anil Thakur (appellant in Cr. Appeal No 412/1996), is in custody, he is ordered to be released forthwith from the custody, if not wanted in any other case. As the appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 312 of 1996, namely, 1. Dhaneshwar Thakur, 2. Srikant Thakur and 3. Mohar Lal Thakur are, on bail, they are discharged from liabilities of their bail bonds. S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J.-I agree.