Judgment CHANDRA MOHAN PRASAD, J. 1. Since these two appeals arise out of the same judgment, they have been heard analogous and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The two appellants have been convicted under Section 390 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) each and, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, under judgment dated 10th August, 2000 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions judge, Darbhanga in S.T. No. 170 of 1998. 3. The fardbeyan of informant Geeta Devi @ Gulab Devi (PW 21) was recorded at informants house by S.I. R. S. Singh, the Officer-in-Charge of Singhwara Police Station on 20th October, 1997 at 3.00 a.m. The informant alleged in the fardbeyan (Ext-3) that her husband Raj Kumar Das (deceased) was working as a BIDI-MAKER and in the preceding evening at 5.p.m. on 19th October, 1997 he had returned from his work and thereafter took toddy with some persons. He went to bed at night and slept on a chauki kept in te room which had no door shutters. After completing her work, she (the informant) closed the two doors of her angan. Her dewar Madan Das (PW 1) and dewars wife Parvati Devi (PW 19) both slept in a southern room of the house and her children slept in the northern room. In the night at about 10.10 Oclock, while the deceased was asleep and she was pressing his body, suddenly two persons jumped into the angan by scaling over the western wall. Out of those two, one, who was of black complexion (kala), tiny, stout carried a torch. The other one who was of fair complexion (gora), slim and aged 20-24 years and who looked like dhunia, meaning thereby a Mohammadan, kept his jhola in the angan and loaded cartridge in the pistol. An earthen lamp (diya) was lighting in the house. It was a moon lit night but due to trees around, there was darkness. The informant further staged that she took the torch from her husbands (deceaseds) bed and flashed it and then she got fear that criminals had entered into her house. An earthen lamp (diya) was lighting in the house. It was a moon lit night but due to trees around, there was darkness. The informant further staged that she took the torch from her husbands (deceaseds) bed and flashed it and then she got fear that criminals had entered into her house. Out of the two culprits, the dark, tiny one aged about 23- 24 years came near her and snatched her torch and asked her to unfasten her husbands wrist watch. She replied that she did not know how to unfasten the wrist watch. Then the culprit himself unfastened the wrist watch and kept it. Thereafter, the other culprit who was of fair complexion handed over his pistol to the dark compiexioned culprit and he (the fair complexioned culprit), caught her husbands (deceaseds) hand and dragged him out of the chauki and got him stood up there and he demanded cash and things (malpani) whereupon she (the informant) said that they were labourer people and lived on their wages and she further said that she had a small tin box kept in the room of her deyadin (dewars wife) whereupon the culprits asked to get the door shutters of the room opened. Then her husband (the deceased) told that he would get it done after he puts on his dhoti but, in the mean time, one of the culprits asked the other to shoot her husband saying that after shooting, the door would be opened and then the fair complexioned culprit shot her husband (the deceased) hitting on his chest due to which he (the deceased) fell down and died immediately. Then the fair complexioned caught her hand and forced her to get the room of her deyadin opened. In the mean time, the other culprit opened both the doors of the angan. Through one of the gates in the angan the four culprits brought her one dewar Manoj Das (PW 20) into the angan and the two other criminals also entered another gate but two of them again went out. Out of the culprits remaining in the house, four had pistol and the two were empty handed. Through one of the gates in the angan the four culprits brought her one dewar Manoj Das (PW 20) into the angan and the two other criminals also entered another gate but two of them again went out. Out of the culprits remaining in the house, four had pistol and the two were empty handed. Her another dewar Mads Das (PW 1) cried whereupon three criminals entered into his room and the two criminals, one black and the other white complexioned put the pistol on him (PW 1) and asked him to keep quiet else he would be shot at and also asked him to hand over things, else he would be butchered, further saying that he (PW 21) had enough assets. The third culprit started throwing away and scattering the articles in the room in search of money. Her dewar (PW 1) told that he was a poor man living on wages earned as labourer and requested the criminals not to kill him and take away the things which they wanted to take. She further stated in her fardbeyan that when the criminals saw that her husband (the deceased) was bleeding and they thought him dead, one of the criminals hinted by sound by snapping his fingers for fleeing away. At that time, she came out of the house and saw that her bhaisur (husbands elder brother) was coming towards her husband but the criminal who was outside threw a bomb which exploded and her bhaisw Mahendra Das (PW 2) received injury and then he returned back to his house. In the mean time, taking a chance, she fled towards the village and raised nulla there. She says that her dewar disclosed that the criminals had taken away his wifes nosepin valued at Rs. 300/- (three hundred). She further alleged that besides this, criminals also took away one torch and two watches and, thus, the properties, worth Rs. 900/- (nine hundred) were looted. She claimed that she and her dewar could identify the criminals on seeing them again. She described that the criminals were wearing half pant and shirt, gamchha and ganji and they looked like Muslims. She also alleged that while fleeing away, the criminals, had also taken away, one patromax but they had left it behind on the road. She claimed that 8-9 unknowns criminals had committed dacoity and also killed her husband. 4. She described that the criminals were wearing half pant and shirt, gamchha and ganji and they looked like Muslims. She also alleged that while fleeing away, the criminals, had also taken away, one patromax but they had left it behind on the road. She claimed that 8-9 unknowns criminals had committed dacoity and also killed her husband. 4. As many as 24 witnesses were examined in this case by the prosecution and the appellants examined 9 defence witnesses. The appellants had denied the charges and the defence story, as set out particularly in the evidence of D.W. 5 Rama Paswan, chaukidar was that in the night of 21st October 1997, and also in the morning of 22nd October, 1997 at 7.00 a.m. Rajeshwar Yadav, Nandu Yadav, Suresh Yadav, Mushar Yadav and Yugal Yadav of village Bhagwatipur had come to the informant and they had asked the informant to implicate the two appellants in the case assuring her that if the two appellants were implicated, they would help her with money and gift of land. The defence witnesses, as examined by the appellants were DW 1 Rajendra Ram, DW 2 Lakshman Yadav, DW 3 Ram Chandra Yadav, DW 4 Arun Kumar Lal, DW 5 Rama Paswan, DW 6 Singheshwar Thakur, DW 7 Hari Sharan Jha, DW 8 Yugeshwar Thakur and DW 9 Khobari Yadav. These witnesses deposed about the defence story and they also proved some documents whereby the appellants tried to indicate enmity of the appellants with Rajeshwar Yadav and others who are said to have visited the informants house in their attempt to persuade the informant, as per the evidence of DW 5. 5. Out of the prosecution witnesses, PW 1 Madan Das, PW 2 Mahendra Das, PW 19 Parwati Devi, PW 20 Manoj Kumar Das are the inmates of the house who deposed as eye witness to the occurrence. PW 21 Gita Devi is the informant. PW 18 Sanjha Devi is the mother of the deceased who on learning about the occurrence, came to the house in the next morning. PW 3 Kewal Das, PW 4 Tulsi Das, PW 5 Kameshwar Ram, PW 6 Hira Sao, PW 7 Md. Izhar @ Izharwa Khan, PW 8 Md. Mokim, PW 9 Ram Nandan Das, PW 10 Lakshman Sah, PW 14 Yugal Yadav, PW 15 Rajeshwar Yadav, PW 16-Mahesh Mahto and PW 17 Md. PW 3 Kewal Das, PW 4 Tulsi Das, PW 5 Kameshwar Ram, PW 6 Hira Sao, PW 7 Md. Izhar @ Izharwa Khan, PW 8 Md. Mokim, PW 9 Ram Nandan Das, PW 10 Lakshman Sah, PW 14 Yugal Yadav, PW 15 Rajeshwar Yadav, PW 16-Mahesh Mahto and PW 17 Md. Quddusall have been declared hostile by the prosecution; All these witnesses deposed that they knew nothing about the occurrence and they declined to have made any statement before the Police supporting the occurrence, when their attention was drawn towards such Police statements. 6. PW 11 Yogendra Ram, PW 12 Bhudhan Ram and PW 13 Ram Baidehi Sah are not hostile witness but they also deposed that they knew nothing about the occurrence and there is nothing in their cross-examination for any consideration for the prosecution. 7. PW 22 Dr. A.K. Kishore Prasad is the doctor who held the post mortem examination on I the dead body of the deceased. PW 23 Sri Arun Kumar Sinha is the Judicial Magistrate who had conducted the Test Identification Parade. PW 24 Ram Sakha Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. 8. The doctor (PW 22) deposed that on 20th October, 1997, at 12.30 p.m. he had conducted the P.M. Examination on the dead body of the deceased Raj Kumar Das and found the following ante mortem injuries on his person : "One oval lacerated and penetrating wound 1" x 1/2" x chest cavity was present in front of chest over sternum. The margins of the wound were charred and inverted (wound of entry). Tattooing were present around the wound and over upper part of the chest and fact including shoulder joint. The wound was found going inwards in the chest cavity. On opening the chest cavity, it was found filled with blood and blood clots. The sternum was found fractured. The arch of aorta, right lungs were found torn and perforated. The whole tissues around the wound were found disorganised. As bullet was found embedded into the post wall of the chest. The above noted injuries were ante mortem, grievous and dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature and caused by a bullet fired by firearm. The death was due to haemorrhage and shock. Time of death : 6-18 hours from the time of P.M. Examination." 9. As bullet was found embedded into the post wall of the chest. The above noted injuries were ante mortem, grievous and dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature and caused by a bullet fired by firearm. The death was due to haemorrhage and shock. Time of death : 6-18 hours from the time of P.M. Examination." 9. PW 23 Arun Kumar Sinha who conducted the T.I. Parade deposed that he conducted the said T.I. Parade on 19th December, 1997 and the T.I.P. Chart was proved as Ext-2. He deposed that witness Geeta Devi (the informant) had identified Ram Sagar Prasad and Raj Kumar Yadav (the two appellants) and that Manoj Das (PW 20) had identified the appellant Raj Kumar Yadav only. 10. PW 24 Ram Sakha Singh (Investigating Officer) deposed that on 20th October 1997 he had recorded the fardbeyan (Ext-3) of the informant and he had also conducted the investigation of the case. He further deposed at para 2 that receiving the information, he had recorded S.D. Entry No. 443 dated 20th October, 1997 and then he had proceeded to the place of occurrence. He deposed at para 3 that on reaching the place of occurrence, he had found the dead body of the deceased which had fire-arm injuries and he and also found the remains of exploded bomb there. At para 16 be describes the place of occurrence which was the informants house made of bricks and was khaparpos. He says that in the room there were marks of blood and near the darwaza of the room copious blood was found there. Then the Investigating Officer says about having drawn up the First Information Report. At para 48 of his evidence, the Investigation Officer has proved the statement of the informant as made before him during the investigation. At para 62 he has proved the statement of witness Manoj Kumar Das (PW 20). At para 49 he deposed that he had arrested the appellants Ram Sagar Prasad @ Sagaria on 30th October, 1997. 11. Firstly, the evidence of PW 21 is being taken up for consideration. She deposed in her examination-in-chief that the occurrence took place between 10 to 10.45 p.m. she stated that her husband was sleeping in the house and she was pressing his legs at which time two criminals by scaling over the eastern wall of the house entered into the house. She deposed in her examination-in-chief that the occurrence took place between 10 to 10.45 p.m. she stated that her husband was sleeping in the house and she was pressing his legs at which time two criminals by scaling over the eastern wall of the house entered into the house. She had a torch and she flashed it. One of the two criminals was of dark complexion, tiny and stout and the other one was tall, slim and of fair complexion. The tiny one took her torch and he asked her to unfasten her husbands wrist watch but she told him to take it himself and then he took the watch from her husband. Then that criminal abused her husband and asked him to stand up. Her husband asked for from her for dhoti and he put on dhoti. She asked the criminals to take what they wanted. Then the informant further deposed that the tall criminal loaded pistol and gave the same to the; tiny criminal who got her husband stood against the wall of the house and shot at him due to which smoke occurred he tiny criminal took the informant towards the room of her deyadin and when she resisted, he threatened her to shoot her like her husband. Then she deposed at para 4 that there were several criminals outside the room and they were throwing away the articles hither and thither. She further deposed at para 5 that in the room of Madan Das the criminals took one clock and gold nosepin of the wife of Madan Das. She also deposed that she asked Madan Das and his wife not to put any resistance to the Dacoits because they had killed her husband. Then she deposed at para 6 that, thereafter she fled away from her house. She also said that while she was fleeing away, the tiny criminal had tried to catch hold of her but she managed to escape. At para 8 of her evidence, she deposed that the daroga had recorded her fardbeyan and she had put her left thumb impression on its. She further deposed that before putting her left thumb impression she had got it read over and understood it and then had put her left thumb impression on it. This is the evidence which was adduced by the informant in her examination-in-chief. She further deposed that before putting her left thumb impression she had got it read over and understood it and then had put her left thumb impression on it. This is the evidence which was adduced by the informant in her examination-in-chief. It would appear from her examination-in-chief that she has not named any of the criminals and she has given only the physical description of those criminals who took part in the occurrence. However, seeing the two appellants in dock during her evidence, she identified them stating that they were criminals who had committed the occurrence and who had shot her husband. At para 9 of her evidence, she deposed that she had gone to attend the Test Identification Parade and in that she had identified the two dacoits and that those two dacoits were present in dock whom she identified during the occurrence. There has been extensive cross-examination of this witness. At para 13 of her cross-examination, she deposed that before going to attend the T.I. Parade, she did not know the name of any of the accused. At para 44 she further stated that she knew the names of the accused (appellants) for the first time during the Test Identification Parade. She also deposed at para 46 that after the occurrence in the morning, she had not stated before the daroga the name of any of the dacoits because she did not know any such name at that time. At para 31 of her cross-examination, she deposed that she had fled away from her house and had gone to the house of her dadia-sas whose name was Palti Devi and she had disclosed before her dadia-sas that Raj Kumar Yadav @ Lalka had shot her husband dead and that after 5 minutes, she had returned back to her house with her dadia-sas. Here she says that shordy after the occurrence, she had disclosed the name of appellant Raj Kumar Yadav before her dadia-sas but it has to be remembered that in paras 13 and 45 of her evidence, she categorically stated that she did not know the name of any of the dacoits before she attended the T.I. Parade which was held on 19th December 1997. At para 42 of her cross-examination, she was further developed her claim of identification by saying that she had told her dadia-sas the name of Ram Sagar Prasad @ Sagaria and Raj Kumar Yadav @ Lalka, i.e. the two appellants. The appellants have challenged the informants claim of identification which would be dealt with subsequently after discussing the evidence of other witnesses also which will be relevant for deciding this point. While cross-examining the informant, her attention was drawn at paras 15 and 55 of her evidence towards her previous statement as made before the Police she denied to have stated before the Investigating Officer on 22th October, 1997 that in the night at 10-11 Oclock while she was serving her husband, two persons Raj Kumar Yadav @ Lalka and Ram Sagar Prasad @ Sagaria had entered into the house and that she had identified Raj Kumar Yadav and Ram Sagar Prasad because she had worked in the fields of these two persons for cutting the straw of mania and that her friends of Bhawatipur had encouraged her and that is why she had stated the names of these persons. The evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW 24, para 28) is relevant to be discussed here. The Investigating Officer has deposed that on 22nd October, 1997, he had recorded the statement of informant Geeta Devi and she had stated before him that in the night at 10-11 Oclock she had identified Raj Kumar Yadav @ Lalka and Ram Sagar Prasad @ Sagaria in whose fields she had earlier worked for cutting the straw of mania and she had also stated that her friends of Bhagwatipur had given her courage due to which she became fearless and it was due to this that she disclosed the. name of these two persons. Thus, the informant is taking a vacillating stand. At one time she says that before attending the Test Identification Parade she did not know the names of any of the dacoits whereas at another time she names the two appellants as dacoits claiming that they were amongst the criminals. 12. name of these two persons. Thus, the informant is taking a vacillating stand. At one time she says that before attending the Test Identification Parade she did not know the names of any of the dacoits whereas at another time she names the two appellants as dacoits claiming that they were amongst the criminals. 12. At para 56 of her cross-examination, the informant deposed that she had no knowledge that on 27th October, 1997 she had got one petition filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate through her Advocate Sri Shyam Lal Yadav stating therein that in the night of 19/20th October, 1997, the dacoits included Raj Kumar Yadav @ Lalka, Khomari Yadav and Ram Sagar Prasad son of Bhogi Prasad of village Ghurdaur Bhawatipur under Police Station Singhwara and that on 20th October 1997, she had given her fardbeyan and she had named the two appellants in her fardbeyan but subsequently she learnt that the daroga who recorded the fardbeyan wilfully did not mention the name of the two appellants in the fardbeyan Thus, the informant denies any knowledge of having filed any such petition but the petition has been brought on the record and the petition as well as the vakalatnama have been proved by the defence as Ext-G and Ext-H. Perusal of the petition shows that the informant had filed such petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the petition contained that facts. Thus, on one hand the informant categorically says in her evidence that she did not know the name of any of the dacoits before attending the T.I. Parade but on the other hand she mentions the name of the dacoits and also files petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and she also makes a claim that the Police Officer who recorded the fardbeyan purposely did not mentioned the name of the appellants, does not show any kind of consistency in the evidence of the informant, in so far as the claim of identification is concerned. 13. Besides the informant, PW 20 Manoj Kumar Das is the only witness who claimed to have identified appellants Raj Kumar Yadav during the occurrence. As per the prosecution story the dacoits had entered into the room of this witness and they had taken away one clock as well as gold nosepin of his wife who also sleeping in the room. Besides the informant, PW 20 Manoj Kumar Das is the only witness who claimed to have identified appellants Raj Kumar Yadav during the occurrence. As per the prosecution story the dacoits had entered into the room of this witness and they had taken away one clock as well as gold nosepin of his wife who also sleeping in the room. In this examination-in-chief, this witness mentions with all the details about the occurrence. This witness deposed at para-6 that he had identified appellant Raj Kumar Yadav in the T.I. Parade. At para 14 he deposed that Raj Kumar Yadav was known to him from before the occurrence because he frequently visited the chowk of the village, hence, he know him. Thus, this witness claims that he knew appellant Raj Kumart Yadav by his name from before the occurrence. Then it does not stand to reason, why he was put on T.I. Parade before him. At para 16 of his cross-examination, he deposed that he had stated before the Investigating Officer about identifying the dacoits but the Investigating Officer (PW 24, para 62) deposed that Manoj Das (PW 20) had not claimed to identify any dacoit and he had simply described the physical features and the complexion of the criminals. Thus, this witness names the appellant Raj Kumar Yadav as one of the criminals but in his statement before Investigating Officer, he has not disclosed any such name. As to the circumstances, which led this witness to make a claim of identification with regard to appellant Raj Kumar Yadav, this witness had deposed that some of the criminals had come to him and had asked him to go to the room of his brother Madan Das (PW 1) and when he declined to go, appellant Raj Kumar Yadav took him to his deceased brother Raj Kumar Das and had threatened him that he would be met with the same fate. This is a very important and vital circumstances which allowed this witness an opportunity to identify appellant Raj Kumar Yadav as claimed by him. At para 20 of his cross-examination, this witness asserted that he had stated before the Investigating Officer but the Investigating Officer (PW 24, para 63) stated that Manoj Kumar Das (PW 20) had not given any such statement before him. At para 20 of his cross-examination, this witness asserted that he had stated before the Investigating Officer but the Investigating Officer (PW 24, para 63) stated that Manoj Kumar Das (PW 20) had not given any such statement before him. Thus, this omission by not stating this vital fact before the Investigating Officer makes the claims of this witness doubtful 14. As to the other witnesses, on the point of occurrence, PW 2 Mahendra Das has simply stated that on hearing hulla chor- chor he had rushed towards informants house but a bomb was exploded on the way and due to the injuries received by him he had returned back to his house. PW 19 Parwati Devi is the wife of PW 1 who deposes in detail about the occurrence but she categorically deposed at para 7 of her evidence that she did not identify any of the decoits. 15. PW 1 Madan Das has also deposed giving all the details of the occurrence but this is curious and surprising that at para 6 in the very examination-in- chief seeing the two appellants in dock during his evidence, he deposed that he knew the two appellants who were co-villagers and he further stated that the two appellants were amongst the dacoits. Thus, the PW 1 who is the brother of the deceased Raj Kumar Das and who was also present in the house and in whose room the dacoits had entered any they had taken away one clock as well as nosepin of his wife had the opportunity to see the dacoits, excludes the presence of the two appellants amongst the dacoits. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the informant did not name any of the appellants in her examination-in-chief and at paras 13 and 44 of her evidence, she clearly asserted that before attending the Test Identification Parade, she did not know the name of any of he appellants. In such view of the matter, the learned counsel stressed that the informants subsequent claim that she knew the appellants and she identified them is not worthy of reliance. In such view of the matter, the learned counsel stressed that the informants subsequent claim that she knew the appellants and she identified them is not worthy of reliance. Learned counsel for the appellants also pointed out towards the informants statement as made before the Investigating Officer during the investigation that she had been encouraged by her friends of Bhagwatipur and that after that encouragement, she stated the name of these two appellants, further makes the claim of identification doubtful. It was also argued that in evidence at para 8 the informant (PW 21) admits that before putting her L.T.I. on the fardbeyan, she had got it read over and had understood the same and then she had put her L.T.I. and in that fardbeyan, she does not name any of the dacoits and she mentions only the physical appearance and complexion of the criminals. Therefore, if the informant subsequently takes the name of the two appellants, it is an embellishment and addition in the prosecution with regard to the identification. 17. The appellantss counsel argued that in this case, appellant Ram Sagar Prasad @ Sagaria was remanded on 30th October, 1997 and the Test Identification Parade was held on 19th December, 1997. Thus, it was pointed out that the Test Identification Parade was held after 50 days of the arrest. As to appellant Raj Kumar Yadav it was pointed out that while he as in custody in another case, he was put on Test Identification Parade in this case and it was argued that this point has also been discussed in para 27 of the trial Court judgment. Thus, learned counsel for the appellants argued that appellant Raj Kumar Yadav was also in custody from long before the holding of the Test Identification Parade. Learned counsel further argued that while in custody, during investigation, accused was required to be produced every fortnight before the Court under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is mandatory in nature and while he was taken to the Court he was exposed to the common people. Learned counsel argued that the informant had filed petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and, thus, she was visiting the Court during those time and it cannot be ruled out that she had an opportunity to see the appellants before attending the Test Identification Parade. 18. Learned counsel argued that the informant had filed petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and, thus, she was visiting the Court during those time and it cannot be ruled out that she had an opportunity to see the appellants before attending the Test Identification Parade. 18. As to the delay in holding the Test Identification Parade, the learned counsel cited the case of Soni V/s. State of U.P., (1982) 3 SCC 368 (1) wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that when there is delay in holding Test Identification Parade, it throws doubt on the genuineness thereof apart from the fact that it is difficult that after lapse of such a long time, the witnesses would remember the facial expressions of the appellants. In the cited case, there was delay of 42 days in holding the Test Identification Parade and due to that delay, the Test Identification Parade was not believed and the accused were acquitted. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that in this case there has been delay of 50 days. Learned counsel also cited another decision in the case of Rajesh Govind Jagesha V/s. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 160 : 2000 (1) East Cr C 105 (SC). This decision also supports the above contention. The learned counsel argued that the Test Identification Parade in which the identification was made also stands vitiated due to the claim of the informant that she had named the appellants before Investigating Officer. It was also argued that even the informants claim that she knew the appellants, is not fit to be believed as because there are materials to indicate that some persons had encouraged the in- formant to name the two appellants as dacoits. Therefore, it was argued that before attending the Test Identification Parade the informant was already obsessed with the idea that she had to identify only these two appellants for the identification of whom she has already been encouraged by other people. Due to these reasons the Test Identification Parade looses its credibility. 19. The learned counsel alternatively argued that even if the Test Identification Parade is considered on its face value, the same is not worthy of reliance due to the delay. Due to these reasons the Test Identification Parade looses its credibility. 19. The learned counsel alternatively argued that even if the Test Identification Parade is considered on its face value, the same is not worthy of reliance due to the delay. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, we are of the view that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubts that the two appellants had participated in the occurrence. Due to the said reasons, appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. 20. In the result, these two appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. It appears that the appellants are in jail. They are set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted to be detained in any other case. PRABHAT KUMAR SINHA, J. 21 I agree.