Judgment S.N.Jha and A.K.Verma JJ. 1. There are ten appellants in all in these two appeals. All of them have been convicted under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of imprisonment for life. Appellant Lalendra Yadav in Cr. Appeal No. 489 of 1998 has further been convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act and awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six years. 2. The occurrence in connection with which the appellants have been convicted took place in the night of 21/22 April, 1996. The occurrence was reported by P.W. 10 Dwarika Prasad {hereinafter called the informant) on 22.4.1996 at 10.00 A.M. According to him, he along with his deceased brother Gendo Yadav and younger brother Ram Swaroop Yadav went to sleep in the Khalihan situated on the south of the house. At about 10.00 P.M. 20 to 25 persons variously armed came there. He identified the appellants amongst them. They caught hold of the informant and his brothers and took them towards the forest on the southeast of the village. Out of fear, they did not raise alarm. On the way the miscreants asked them to give up their claim over the land of Bishunpur else they would be killed. The informant out of fear immediately agreed to the demand. Gendo Yadav, however, did not agree and entered into argument. Meanwhile, they had reached Chhapra Nala on the outskirts of the village. Sahdeo Paswan gave order to kill Gendo Yadav as he was not agreeing to their demand. Thereupon, Lalendra Yadav shot at him from his rifle. Sahdeo Paswan assaulted him with saif. After Gendo Yadav fell down, Sangeet Paswan gave tangi (kulhari) blow on the face causing cut injury and breaking of teeth. Chando Yadav gave saif blow on the stomach, The other appellants also assaulted the victim with stone, khanti and lathi. Gendo Yadav died as a result of these assaults. The informant and his other brother Ram Swaroop Yadav pleaded mercy and they were let off.Thereafter, the informant returned to his house. Being afraid of the miscreants he kept confined to his house. After the police came, he lodged the fardbeyan. 3. On the basis of the abovesaid fardbeyan, the police registered Akbarpur P.S. Case No. 55 of 1996. The informant and his other brother Ram Swaroop Yadav pleaded mercy and they were let off.Thereafter, the informant returned to his house. Being afraid of the miscreants he kept confined to his house. After the police came, he lodged the fardbeyan. 3. On the basis of the abovesaid fardbeyan, the police registered Akbarpur P.S. Case No. 55 of 1996. The Investigating Officer in course of investigation prepared the inquest report, sent the dead body for post-mortem, recorded statements of the witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and finally after completing necessary formalities submitted charge sheet against the appellants, and they were thus put on trial. 4. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses in all to prove its case out of whom P.W. 1 Binod Sharma, P.W. 2 Raj Kumar Yadav, P.W. 3 Ram Balak Prasad Yadav were formal, while P.W. 3A Jasiya Devi and P.W. 11 Sabitri Devi @ Yamuni Devi turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Out of the rest, P.W. 4 Naresh Yadav, P.W. 5 Fudan Thakur, P.W. 6 Jahur Mian and P.W. 8 Fulwa Devi were examined as hearsay witnesses, P.W. 12 Sukhdeo Prasad and P.W.13 Bindeshwari Prasad Yadav claimed to have seen the appellants taking the deceased and his two brothers i.e. last seen the deceased. P.W. 9 Dr. Anandi Kumar Manjhi and P.W. 14 Lal Kishun Ram were official witnesses who respectively conducted the post mortem and investigated the case and submitted charge sheet. P.W. 7 Ram Swaroop Yadav and P.W. 10 Dwarika Prasad, the informant himself, were examined as eye-witnesses. 5. The defence of the appellants besides the usual plea of innocence and false implication, is that the dead body was first seen by Shiva Yadav who informed the members of the deceaseds family and others and thus the plea of the informant and/or P.W. 7 Ram Swaroop Yadav of having seen the occurrence is false. In support of the defence, they examined besides Shiva Yadav as D.W. 1, Jagdish Yadav as D.W. 2 and Rajendra Prasad as D.W. 3. They also examined Mahabir Prasad Yadav as D.W. 4 on the point of enmity. It is relevant to mention here that according to the appellants there was no previous enmity with the deceased, rather the deceased was on litigating terms with the two brothers and therefore inimical with each other. 6. They also examined Mahabir Prasad Yadav as D.W. 4 on the point of enmity. It is relevant to mention here that according to the appellants there was no previous enmity with the deceased, rather the deceased was on litigating terms with the two brothers and therefore inimical with each other. 6. It is relevant to note here that similar version was given by P.W. 3A Jasiya Devi, P.W. 5 Fudan Thakur, P.W. 6 Zahoor Mian and P.W. 5 Fulwa Devi. It is worth pointing out that P.W. 3A is none-else than the wife of the deceased while P.W. 4 Naresh Yadav is the son and P.W. 8 Fulwa Devi is the daughter-in-law (wife of another son of the deceased, namely, Suresh Yadav). 7. We may now briefly refer to the evidence of prosecution witnesses. P.W. 2 Raj Kumar Yadav stated that it was he who brought the police. Earlier at 9.00 A.M. he had been informed by Ram Swaroop Yadav about the incident. He had told him that he learnt about the incident from Shiva Yadav. He did not disclose the name of the assailants. On query, he stated that he was not aware of the names of the assailants. P.W. 3A Jasiya Devi stated that she learnt about the incident from Shiva Yadav. It is he who had informed Ram Swaroop Yadav and Dwarika Prasad about the incident. P.W. 4 Naresh Yadav stated that Ram Swaroop Yadav had informed him about his fathers murder at about 9.00 A.M. He did not tell him about the assailants. He further stated that litigation was going on relating to partition of lands between Ram Swaroop Yadav and Dwarika Prasad on the one hand and his father on the other. Ram Swaroop Yadav and Dwarika Prasad had also instituted a criminal case against his father. RW. 5 Fudan Thakur stated that the deceased was on litigating terms with his brothers i.e. Ram Swaroop Yadav and Dwarika Prasad. He further stated that it was Shiva Mahto who saw the dead body for the first time and on his hulla Ram Swaroop Yadav, Dwarika Prasad and others went there. P.W. 6 Zahoor Mian stated to similar effect. He also stated that the deceased had litigation with his brothers relating to land. However, he had no dispute with the appellants. He further stated that it was Shiva Mahto who saw the dead body for the first time and on his hulla Ram Swaroop Yadav, Dwarika Prasad and others went there. P.W. 6 Zahoor Mian stated to similar effect. He also stated that the deceased had litigation with his brothers relating to land. However, he had no dispute with the appellants. People came to learn about the death of Gendo Yadav after Shiva Mahto saw the dead body. Having learnt about this, Ram Swaroop Yadav and Dwarika Prasad went there to see the dead body. P.W. 8 Fulwa Devi stated that there was no dispute between the deceased and the appellants. 8. It is relevant to mention here that while P.W. 2 Raj Kumar Yadav, P.W. 3A Jasiya Devi, P.W. 4 Naresh Yadav and P.W. 8 Fulwa Devi are closely related to the deceased respectively being brother-in-law, wife, son and the daughter-in-law. P.W. 5 Fudan Thakur and P.W. 6 Zahoor Mian are independent witnesses. 9. P.W. 12 Sukhdeo Prasad and P.W. 13 Bindeshwari Prasad Yadav were examined on the point of last seen. They stated that they saw the deceased and his two brothers i.e. Ram Swaroop Yadav and Dwarika Prasad being taken away forcibly by the appellants. The salient feature of their evidence is that P.W. 12 Sukhdeo Prasad stated that after seeing the deceased and his two brothers being taken away, he returned home and slept and did not inform any body. P.W. 13 Bindeshwari Prasad Yadav in his evidence further stated that there was no dispute between the appellants and the deceased. There was rather dispute between the deceased and his two brothers, Ram Swaroop Yadav and Dwarika Prasad. Another relevant fact which may be noticed from their evidence is that while according to P.W. 12 Sukhdeo Prasad, the deceased and his brothers were freely moving, according to P.W. 13 Bindeshwari Prasad Yadav, their hands and feet were tied by rope. 10. The evidence of aforementioned prosecution witnesses, not to speak about the defence witnesses, creates doubt about the motive of Ram Swaroop Yadav and Dwarika Prasad. 10. The evidence of aforementioned prosecution witnesses, not to speak about the defence witnesses, creates doubt about the motive of Ram Swaroop Yadav and Dwarika Prasad. It is to be noted that according to the prosecution case i.e. the fardbeyan of Dwarika Prasad, the appellants forcibly took away the deceased and his two brothers to put pressure upon them to give up their claim over Bishunpur lands, curiously, no less than Dwarika Prasad himself admitted in his evidence that the land of Bishunpur had been recorded in the revisional survey in the name of the State of Bihar for which a case under section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act had been instituted. He further stated about partition suit with the deceased. Ram Swaroop Yadav too similarly admitted in his evidence that there was no case amongst the brothers with respect to Bishunpur fands though he claimed that there was some dispute. It appears from his evidence that the family owned 25 acres of land at Bishunpur after sale of one and a half acres of land by their father who was still alive. It does not appear probable that in the life time of the father there would be dispute amongst his sons with respect to land which was recorded in the name of the State of Bihar. If there was any dispute, it was with the State of Bihar and not with the appellants. Ram Swaroop Yadav in fact went on to admit that in one of the cases one of the sons of the deceased was witness for the appellant Lalendra Yadav which prima facie shows that the appellants were on cordial terms with the deceased. 11. The prosecution seems to suggest that there was ongoing dispute between the appellants on the one hand and the deceaseds family on the other which provided motive for the occurrence. It has been said so not only in the fardbeyan but also in the evidence of Ram Swaroop Yadav and Dwarika Prasad. The fact appears to be just the opposite. The prosecution seems to suggest that there was ongoing dispute between the appellants on the one hand and the deceaseds family on the other which provided motive for the occurrence. It has been said so not only in the fardbeyan but also in the evidence of Ram Swaroop Yadav and Dwarika Prasad. The fact appears to be just the opposite. The fact appears to be that there was a pending litigation amongst the brothers with respect to partition of lands and therefore there was no occasion for the appellants to forcibly take away the deceased and his two brothers in order to put pressure with respect to Bishunpur lands which, as indicated above, stood in the name of State of Bihar. Thus, there was no occasion for the appellants to make the deceased give up the claim over those lands. According to the prosecution case, Ram Swaroop Yadav and Dwarika Prasad were let off by the appellants as they agreed to abandon their claim. The deceased was done to death because he did not agree to their demand which in the facts and circumstances appears to be highly improbable. Though motive is not conclusive in a case based on direct evidence, where the motive stands falsified that may make the prosecution case doubtful. 12. Indeed, the conduct of Ram Swaroop Yadav and Dwarika Prasad was highly doubtful. Though they claimed to have accompanied the deceased and in their presence the deceased was killed, they did not lodge any information until the police arrived on the next date at 10.00 A.M. They admitted in their evidence that they did not inform any body about the incident. They claimed to have informed the family members but the evidence of the family members seems to be contrary. They clearly stated that they learnt about the incident from Shiva Mahto. If as per their version, Ram Swaroop Yadav and Dwarika Prasad came to know about lying of the dead body in Chhapra Nala from Shiva Yadav, it is apparent that their claim that occurrence was committed in their presence falls to the ground. In any view, there is no explanation for the delay in instituting the case. 13. If as per their version, Ram Swaroop Yadav and Dwarika Prasad came to know about lying of the dead body in Chhapra Nala from Shiva Yadav, it is apparent that their claim that occurrence was committed in their presence falls to the ground. In any view, there is no explanation for the delay in instituting the case. 13. In the facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that once the claim of Ram Swaroop Yadav and Dwarika Prasad of having seen the occurrence is disbelieved, it would follow that there is no eye witnesses to the occurrence. There is enough evidence to suggest that Ram Swaroop Yadav and Dwarika Prasad learnt about the dead body from Shiva Yadav and if that is so, their claim of seeing the occurrence and the deceased being killed in their presence falls flat on the ground. All that remain is the claim of Sukhdeo Prasad and Bindeshwari Prasad Yadav of last seen. However, their conduct too appears to be unnatural and not much reliance can be placed on thier evidence. In the facts and circumstances, the possibility of their having hand in the crime or falsely implicating the appellants cannot be ruled out. We are satisfied that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the impugned conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. 14. In the result, the appeals are allowed. Conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants are set aside. Appellants Sahdeo Paswan and Sangit Paswan of Cr. Appeal No. 489 of 1998 are in jail. They are directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The other appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.