Judgment BALKRISHNA JHA, J. 1. Both the appeals have been directed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Nalanda at Bihar- Sharif on 23.1.1998 in Sessions Trial No. 374 of 1987. The appellant, Lal Babu Jamadar, has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. He has further been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act but no separate sentence has been awarded under the Arms Act. The rest six appellants, Ganouri Jamadar, Dani Paswan, Kirani Paswan, Ablesh Kumar Thakur, Bindu Thakur and Chandeshwar Mahto, have been convicted under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 14.10.1983 at about 6.45 p.m. the informant, Ajai Kumar, PW 9, alongwith his cousin brothers, Arjun Singh, PW 2, Baso Singh and nephew, Satyendra Prasad, PW 6, was sitting outside the door of his house. His brother, Ramdeo Prasad came out of the house to supply fodder to his cattle in the Naad adjacent north of the door. At that time there was electric light in which he noticed that all the abovenamed 7 accused-appellants variously named came near his brother, Ramdeo Prasad and started wrangling with him. His brother protested whereupon the appellant, Ablesh Thakur ordered that Maaro Saale Ko Goli Se, Yehi Sabka Neta Hai Evam Hero Banta Hai. On his order the appellant, Lal Babu Janladar, fired from his countrymade pistol which hit the neck of Ramdeo Mahto and he fell down there. Thereafter all the appellants started dragging his brother but on hulla the villagers assembled whereupon they left him and retreated from there in the western direction. The cousin brothers of the informant and many villagers witnessed the occurrence of murder of Ramdeo Prasad, the brother of the informant, Ajai Kumar, alleged to have taken place on account of long standing enmity in between the parties. 3. On the same day, i.e., 14.10.1983 at about 8.30 p.m., S.I., K.N.P. Singh of Nagarnausa O.P. recorded the fardbey an of the informant, Ajai Kumar at Nagarnausa O.P. and forwarded the same to the O.C., Chandi (Hilsa) for the institution of a case. 3. On the same day, i.e., 14.10.1983 at about 8.30 p.m., S.I., K.N.P. Singh of Nagarnausa O.P. recorded the fardbey an of the informant, Ajai Kumar at Nagarnausa O.P. and forwarded the same to the O.C., Chandi (Hilsa) for the institution of a case. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Chandi P.S. Case No. 242/83 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered against all the seven accused-appellants and the police switched over to investigation of the case. On completion of the investigation police submitted charge- sheet against all of them under aforesaid Sections. Accordingly cognizance of the offence was taken and their case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial on 18.11.1987. 4. At trial the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and also adduced some documentary evidence in support of the case. 5. The accused-appellants pleaded their innocence and false implication in this case due to enmity but adduced no oral or documentary evidence in support of their defence. 6. On consideration of the entire materials on record the Trial Court believed the prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. 7. On behalf of the appellants learned counsel submitted that the witnesses examined by the prosecution in this case are interested and inimical to the appellants, so the Trial Court erred in relying upon their evidence for their conviction. He has placed reliance on the case of Bir Singh and others V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1977 (4) SCC 421, wherein it has been held that: "The evidence of the interested and inimical witnesses must be corroborated by independent witnesses before they can be relied upon." It was again argued that the prosecution failed to examine the investigating officer in this case. On account of his non-examination major contradiction with objective findings were not brought on the record and, so, a great prejudice has been caused to the appellants. On behalf of the appellants in Cr. On account of his non-examination major contradiction with objective findings were not brought on the record and, so, a great prejudice has been caused to the appellants. On behalf of the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 61 of 1998 it was urged that the prosecution failed to show that they shared the common object with the co-accused appellant Lal Babu Jamadar for causing firing by him at the deceased Ramdeo Mahto, and so, the trial Judge committed error by convicting them under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC. On the other hand, the learned APP contended that the Trial Court has assigned valid reasons for convicting the appellants, so, both the appeals are fit to be dismissed. 8 Out of eleven witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW 1, Gariban Paswan, is a hostile witness and has not supported the prosecution version. PW 5, Shyam Sundar Prasad and PW 6, Satyendra Prasad, were tendered for cross-examination but nothing could be extracted in their cross-examination by the defence. PW 10, Ram Bilash Prasad, is a formal witness and has proved the formal FIR (Ext. 2). PW 11 is Dr C.P. Sinha who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, Ramdeo Mahto. The I.O. was not examined by the prosecution. PW 2, Basudeo Prasad, PW 3, Arjun Prasad, PW 4, Vijay Kumar, and PW 9, Ajay Kumar, the informant, are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW 7, Rampati Devi, and PW 8, Indu Devi, identified the appellants while they were fleeing away from the place of occurrence after the commission of the offence. It may be pointed out here that PW 2, Basudeo Prasad PW 3 Arjun Prasad are the cousin brothers and PW 4, Vijay Kumar, is the own brother of the informant, Ajay Kumar, PW 9. PW 7, Rampati Devi, is the mother and PW 8, Indu Devi, is the wife of the deceased, Ramdeo Mahto. 9. The evidence of PW 11 Dr. C.P. Sinha is that on 15.10.1983 at about 10.30 a.m. he conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ramdeo Prasad, found rigor mortis present in all the limbs with the following ante mortem injuries on his person : "(i) One round lacerated penetrating wound 1/2" diameter with ragged inverted irregular blackened margin (cavity) on the right side of the neck. C.P. Sinha is that on 15.10.1983 at about 10.30 a.m. he conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ramdeo Prasad, found rigor mortis present in all the limbs with the following ante mortem injuries on his person : "(i) One round lacerated penetrating wound 1/2" diameter with ragged inverted irregular blackened margin (cavity) on the right side of the neck. (ii) One round lacerated wound of 3/4" diameter with irregular averted margin on the left side of the neck at the level of trachea and oesophaguos (exit). (iii) The injury was caused by firearm bullet. Grievous in nature and ante mortem. (iv) On dissection - On the neck the wound was found penetrating through and rapturing the right carotid blood vessel, trachea and oesphagous and passing at the left side of the neck. Massive blood and clots were present in the neck tissues. Blood had also travelled into stomach, which was found containing about one pound of blackish blood. Intestines had gases and foqal matter. Liver, spleen and kidney were pale. Heart was empty, urinary bladder was also empty genetilic was normal." In his opinion the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of above injuries and the time elapsed between death and post mortem examination held was 12 to 18 hours. He proved post mortem examination report (Ext. 3). In cross-examination he has stated that lacerated penetrating wound may be caused by blunt pointed weapon. 10. The defence has also not challenged the murder of Ramdeo Prasad and it stands proved by the medical evidence that he died of the firearm injuries caused on his neck. The defence has challenged their involvement in the commission of the murder of Ramdeo Prasad. 11. PW 9, Ajay Kumar, the informant, is the own brother of the deceased Ramdeo Prasad. His evidence is that at the relevant hour of the occurrence he alongwith Arjun Prasad. PW 3, Basudeo Prasad, PW 2, Vijay Kumar, PW 4 and Satyendra Prasad, PW 6, was sitting outside of the door of his house and Ramdeo Mahto was supplying fodder to his cattle. In the meantime all the seven accused-appellant variously armed came, surrounded Ramdeo Mahto and started wrangling with him. He protested whereupon on the order of the appellant Ablesh Thakur, the appellant Lalbabu Jamadar fired from his countrymade pistol which hit on the neck of Ramdeo Mahto and he fell down. In the meantime all the seven accused-appellant variously armed came, surrounded Ramdeo Mahto and started wrangling with him. He protested whereupon on the order of the appellant Ablesh Thakur, the appellant Lalbabu Jamadar fired from his countrymade pistol which hit on the neck of Ramdeo Mahto and he fell down. Thereafter all the accused - appellants started dragging him but on the assemblage of the villagers on the sound of firing and nulla they left him there and made good escape from there. He has further stated that while Ramdeo Mahto was being taken to Nagarnausa he died on the way. Then he was taken to Nagarnausa police station. The Officer-in- charge recorded his fardbeyan and he put his signature thereon (Ext. 2). Witnesses, Basudeo Prasad and Arjun Prasad, also signed his fardbeyan (Ext. 1 and 1/1). In cross- examination his evidence is that during the relevant period the deceased Ramdeo Mahto was living jointly with him in the house. He has further stated that the appellants, Ablesh Thakur and Bindu Thakur, are the sons of Degan Thakur. There was a murder case of Degan Thakur in which Ram Deo Mahto, Arjun Prasad, his father Barari Mahto and others were the accused which ended in their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. At paragraph 8 of his cross-examination his evidence is that Bihari Mahto was his grand father and he died leaving behind Barari Mahto, his father Dwarika Prasad and Gauri Mahto. The witnesses Shyam Sundar Prasad PW 5, and Arjun Prasad, PW 3, are the sons of Dwarika Prasad. Witness Basudeo Mahto, PW 2, is the son of Gauri Mahto and witness Satyendra Prasad, PW 6, is the son of Basudeo Prasad. At paragraph 11 his evidence is that in the east of his Dalan Krishna Singh and Baleshwar Singh, in south Sanjay Singh, in the northern and western corner Jawadhar Jamadar, Brikch Rameshwar and Chandra Choudhary have got their houses. At para 12 he has further stated that Naad was in the parti land situated in the north of his dalan. At para 14 he has further stated that five minutes after arrival of the deceased Ram Deo Mahto near Naad the accused - appellants appeared there and till the end of the occurrence Ramdeo Mahto remained at Naad. At para 12 he has further stated that Naad was in the parti land situated in the north of his dalan. At para 14 he has further stated that five minutes after arrival of the deceased Ram Deo Mahto near Naad the accused - appellants appeared there and till the end of the occurrence Ramdeo Mahto remained at Naad. His further evidence is that there was 3/4 firing shots and on the sound of which the villagers instantly arrived there. After the departure of the accused- appellants he went near his brother, Ramdeo Mahto and spotted him lying on the ground at a distance of 4/5 ft. from Naad. He was unconscious and blood was oozing out from his body and had also fallen on the ground. He further stated that Arjun Prasad, Basudeo Prasad, Vijay Kumar, Satyendra Prasad, his mother and his bhabhi also rushed to the place of occurrence alongwith him. Chhatri Jamadar, Brahmadeo Sah and many villagers also came there. Then his brother was taken to Nagarnausa where he died and Arjun Prasad and Vijay Kumar also accompanied them and lodged the case. At the alleged time PW 2, Basudeo Prasad, PW 3 Arjun Prasad and PW 4, Vijay Kumar, were also sitting alongwith the informant, PW 9. Ajay Kumar in the dalan of the deceased Ramdeo Mahto. The evidence of PW 2, Basudeo Prasad is that the victim Ramdeo Mahto was supplying fodder to his cattle. The appellant, Lal Batau Jamadar, with pistol rest six appellants alongwith some unknown armed with bhata and garansa came there and the appellant Ablesh Kumar Thakur ordered the appellant, Bal Babu Jamadar to kill Ramdeo Mahto. On his order the appellant Lal Babu Jamadar fired from his pistol which hit on his neck and he fell down on the ground. He has proved his signature and that of Arjun Prasad on the fardbeyan, Ext. 1 and 1/1 respectively. In cross-examination he has stated that there was one firing and after 5-10 minutes of the firing he came out of Dalan and went near the main door of the house of the informant, Ajay Kumar. He noticed all the accused persons and many villagers there. He has further stated that Ramdeo Mahto received firearm injury at the main darwaza of the informant Ajay Kumar and he fell down there. He noticed all the accused persons and many villagers there. He has further stated that Ramdeo Mahto received firearm injury at the main darwaza of the informant Ajay Kumar and he fell down there. Blood had fallen there and there were bloodstains also on the lungi Vest and underwear of the deceased, Ramdeo Mahto. The evidence of PW 3, Arjun Prasad, is that all the seven accused- appellants came near Ramdeo Mahto and started wrangling with him. Ramdeo Mahto protested whereupon the appellant Ablesh Thakur, ordered his brother, Bindu Thakur, that Maaro Sale Ko Goli Se, Yehi Sabka Neta Hai Evam Hero Banta Hai. On his order the appellant, Lal Babu Jamadar, fired from his countrymade pistol at Ramdeo Mahto which hit on the right side of his neck and he fell down. Thereafter the appellants, Dani Paswan, Kirani Paswan and Ablesh Thakur, started dragging him but on the assemblage of the villagers they left Ramdeo and fled towards west. In cross-examination he has admitted that Rampati Devi, the mother of the appellant Ablesh Thakur and Bindu Thakur had brought a murder case against him, the deceased Ramdeo Mahto and others which culminated in their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. In that murder case Shyam Sunder Devi the mother of appellant Lal Babu Jamadar and appellant Dani Paswan were the witnesses. He has further admitted that the appellant Dani Paswan had also brought a case of arson against him, the deceased, Ramdeo Mahto and others before the present case in which the wives of appellant Dani Paswan and Kirani Paswan were the witnesses. He has again admitted that the appellant Ablesh Thakur had lodged a case for looting the household articles and assaulting them against him and Ganauri Jamadar. In that case they were convicted by the trial Court but were acquitted by the appellate Court in which the appellant Dani Paswan was one of the witnesses. He has further stated that at the alleged time Ramdeo Mahto was feeding his cattle at a distance of 3/4 ft. from verandah of the informant, Vijay Kumar. The accused-appellants came, surrounded him and there was only one firing. He has further stated that when Ramdeo Mahto was supplying fodder to his cattle in the Naad there was firing from a distance of 5 ft. of northern side of the Naad. Ramdeo Mahto fell down there. from verandah of the informant, Vijay Kumar. The accused-appellants came, surrounded him and there was only one firing. He has further stated that when Ramdeo Mahto was supplying fodder to his cattle in the Naad there was firing from a distance of 5 ft. of northern side of the Naad. Ramdeo Mahto fell down there. The accused-appellants dragged him upto a distance of 10 ft. towards north of the Naad and the blood had fallen at the dragging place. He has further stated that the witnesses, Ganesh Mahto, Chhatri Beldar and many others arrived at the P.O. The evidence of PW 4, Vijay Kumar, is that all the accused-appellants came near Ramdeo Mahto where he was feeding his cattle and started quarreling with him. On protest the appellant, Ablesh Thakur, ordered that Maro Saale Ko Goli Se, Yehi Sabka Neta Hai Evam Hero Banta Hal On his order the appellant, Lal Babu Jamadar, fired from his pistol which hit his neck and he fell down. Thereafter the appellants dragged him up to a short distance. In cross- examination he has stated that he identified the accused appellant in the electric light. He has further admitted that Degan Thakur, the father of the appellant Ablesh Thakur was murdered and in that murder case his father and the brother deceased Ramdeo Mahto were the accused. Shyam Sundar Devi, the mother of the appellant. Lal Babu Jamadar, was the witness in that case. He further stated that the I.O. had come to his house there was no electric light because of tripling and so, the lantern was burning. He has further deposed that at the time of occurrence he had not seen any person near the main darwaza and the accused persons were standing at a distance of 2-3 ft. from there. He has further stated that the deceased Ramdeo Mahto was supplying fodder to his cattle just in the North-West of the darwaza having his face towards north. There was firing from a distance of 5-6 steps of western side and Ramdeo Mahto received firearm injury and fell down there. Thereafter the accused-appellants took him to the parti land by dragging. The blood had fallen there. There was firing from a distance of 5-6 steps of western side and Ramdeo Mahto received firearm injury and fell down there. Thereafter the accused-appellants took him to the parti land by dragging. The blood had fallen there. He has admitted before the police that at the alleged time Ramdeo Mahto was feeding his cattle and all the accused appellants came and there was a firing which hit the neck of Ram Deo Mahto and he fell down on the ground. He has also admitted to have stated before the police that Ramdeo Mahto was dragged but on the assemblage of the villagers they left him and fled away from the place of the occurrence. The evidence of PW 7, Rampati Devi, is that while she was sitting on her Otta she heard sound of firing. She rushed to the place of occurrence and spotted her son lying with firearm injury on the ground. She also spotted the appellants, Ablesh Thakur, Bindu Thakur, Lal Babu Jamadar, Ganauri Jamadar and Dani Paswan, fleeing away from the place of occurrence. They dragged her son to some distance and he died. In cross-examination she has stated that the witnesses, Arjun Prasad, PW 3, Basu, PW 2 and Satyendra Prasad, PW 6, were sitting alongwith her at the Otta. She has further stated that the blood had fallen at the place of occurrence. The evidence of PW 8, Indu Devi is that while she was cooking food inside the house she heard the sound of firing. She came out of the house and noticed firearm injury on the neck of her husband and the blood was oozing out. She also saw that the appellant Lal Babu Jamadar, Ablesh Thakur, Bindu Thakur, Kirani Paswan, Dani Paswan and Chandrashekhar Mahto were fleeing away from the place of occurrence. In cross-examination she has stated that within the vicinity of her house Rameshwar, Arjun and many others have got their houses. She has further stated that the witnesses, Shyam Sunder Prasad, PW 5, Ajay Kumar, PW 9, Vijay Kumar, PW 4, and Arjun Prasad, PW 3 came to the place of occurrence after her arrival there. 12. In cross-examination she has stated that within the vicinity of her house Rameshwar, Arjun and many others have got their houses. She has further stated that the witnesses, Shyam Sunder Prasad, PW 5, Ajay Kumar, PW 9, Vijay Kumar, PW 4, and Arjun Prasad, PW 3 came to the place of occurrence after her arrival there. 12. On going through the fardbeyan of the informant, Ajay Kumar, PW 9 it is apparent that at the relevant hour of the occurrence his deceased brother, Ramdeo Mahto was supplying fodder to his cattle in the Naad adjacent north of the door of his house. All the appellants variously armed came there and started wrangling with him. On protest the appellant Ablesh Kumar Thakur ordered to kill him whereupon the appellant Lal Babu Jamadar fired from his country made pistol which hit on the neck of Ramdeo Mahto and he fell down there. Thereafter they started dragging him but on the assemblage of the villagers they left him and fled away towards western side. Thus, it is clear from the fardbeyan that there was only one firing and the deceased Ramdeo Mahto received firearm injury near the Naad adjacent north of the house of the informant and he fell down there. The evidence of PW 2 Basudeo Prasad indicates that some unknown criminals had also accompanied the aforesaid appellants and participated in the commission of murder of Ramdeo Mahto. According to him there was only one firing and Ramdeo Mahto received firearm injury near the main darwaza of the house of the informant. He fell down there and blood had fallen on the ground. This witness has not whispered even a single word about altercation in between the deceased Ramdeo Mahto and the appellants and his dragging by them. The evidence of PW 3, Arjun Prasad, suggests that there was altercation first and then Ramdeo Mahto was shot at by the appellant, Lal Babu Jamadar near Naad in the parti land situated at a distance of 3/4 ft. in north from the verandah of the house of the informant, PW 9. The blood had fallen there. He was dragged by the appellants, Kirani Paswan, Dani Paswan and Ablesh Kumar Thakur up to a distance of 10 ft. towards north from there. in north from the verandah of the house of the informant, PW 9. The blood had fallen there. He was dragged by the appellants, Kirani Paswan, Dani Paswan and Ablesh Kumar Thakur up to a distance of 10 ft. towards north from there. It appears from the evidence of PW 4, Vijay Kumar, that there was altercation first in between the deceased, Ram Deo Mahto and thereafter he was shot at by the appellant, Lal Babu Jamadar, just in the west of darwqja of the house of the informant. There was firing from a distance of 5-6 steps of western side of Ramdeo Mahto who after receiving firearm injury fell down there. The accused appellant took him to parti land by dragging and the blood had fallen. According to the informant PW 9, Ajay Kumar the firing took place near the Naad in the parti land situated in the north of his dalan and till the end of occurrence he remained there. The dead body was lying on the ground at a distance of 4-5 ft. from the Naad in the parti land. Thus, there is diversity in the ocular evidence on the point of the place of occurrence and shots of firing. According to PW 2, Basudeo Prasad, place of occurrence was near the main darwaza of the house of the informant whereas according to the evidence of other witnesses the place of occurrence was near the Naad in the parti land. Further as per the evidence of the informant there was 3-4 firing shots but according to his fardbeyan and the evidence of other witnesses there was only one firing. 13. PW 7, Rampati Devi, the mother and PW 8, Indu Devi, the wife of the deceased, Ramdeo Mahto, have materially contradicted the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses to the occurrence, PW 2, Basudeo Prasad, PW 3 Arjun Prasad, PW 4, Vijay Kumar and PW 9, Ajay Kumar, the informant. According to PW 8 Indu Devi after her arrival at the place of occurrence the witnesses, Shyam Sundar Prasad, PW 5, Ajay Kumar, PW 9, Vijay Kumar, PW 4 and Arjun Prasad, PW 3 had come there whereas, according to PW 7 Rampati Devi, the witness Arjun Prasad, Basu, Sundar and Satyendra were sitting alongwith her on otta and on hearing the sound of firing they altogether rushed to the place of occurrence. The informant, Ajay Kumar, PW 9, has also admitted in his cross- examination at para 22 that he alongwith Arjun Prasad, PW 3, Basudeo Prasad, PW 2, Vijay Kumar, PW 4, Satyendra Kumar, PW 6, his mother Rampati Devi, PW 7 and bhabhi Indu Devi, PW 8, rushed together to the place of occurrence. Thus, the evidence of all the witnesses taken together belies the presence of the eye- witnesses out side the door of the house of the informant, Ajay Kumar, PW 9 and their claim to have seen the entire occurrence from there. All the eye-witnesses claimed to have seen the entire incidence from the veranda of the house of the informant also differ from each other in placing/fixing the scene of the occurrence.Again, admittedly the occurrence took place at 6.45 p.m. on 14.10.1984 and source of identification has not been brought on record by the prosecution. PW 4, Vijay Kumar, is the only one witness who has claimed to have identified them in the electric light. It means at the time of the occurrence the natural light was not sufficient for the identification of the appellants. 14. Further all the eye-witnesses to the occurrence are closely related to each other and there is a long standing enmity between the parties. It is apparent from the evidence of PW 3, Arjun Prasad, PW 4, Vijay Kumar and Ajay Kumar, PW 9, the informant, that prior to the occurrence of the present case there was murder case of Dagon Thakur, the father of the appellants Ablesh Kumar Thakur and Bindu Thakur in which Arjun Prasad, PW 3, the deceased Ramdeo Mahto and the father of the informant, Barni Mahto were the accused and the same ended in their conviction and sentence besides there was a case of arson and looting of the household articles by the appellants side against PW 3, Arjun Prasad, and the deceased, Ram Deo Mahto. Thus, the enmity between the parties is admitted and is fully established. In this context I refer the case of State of Punjab V/s. Jagir Singh, reported in AIR 1973 SC 2407 , wherein it has been held : "(25) A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to ones imagination and phantasy. In this context I refer the case of State of Punjab V/s. Jagir Singh, reported in AIR 1973 SC 2407 , wherein it has been held : "(25) A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to ones imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about, the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the Court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animous of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts.Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the Courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures." 15. Again the I.O. was not examined by the prosecution and no plausible explanation has been advanced for his non-examination. The admitted position of law is that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case but in certain cases where the evidence of the eye-witnesses suffers from serious infirmities with a suspicion to the prosecution case his evidence becomes essential to complete the chain of prosecution version. At the same time the prosecution has definitely suppressed the genesis/origin of the occurrence and has not presented the true version of the prosecution case. In the above background the non-examination of the I.O. in this case has definitely caused a great prejudice to the accused appellants because of denial of their rightful opportunity to cross-examine him on the objective findings as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr PC. 16. On the basis of the above discussion it follows that the guilt of the appellants has not been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts, the above infirmities create considerable doubts regarding complicity of the appellants in the commission of the murder of Ramdeo Mahto, so all of them are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 17. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. 17. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against them is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The appellant, Lai Babu Jamadar, is in custody and he will be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The six appellants, Ablesh Thakur @ Ablesh Kumar Thakur, Bindu Thakur, Dani Paswan, Kirani Paswan, Ganouri Jamadar and Chandeshwar Mahto are on bail, so, they are discharged from the liability of their executed bail bonds. Anil Kumar Sinha, J. 18 I agree. Both appeals accordingly allowed.