Judgment M.L.Visa, J. 1. Both these appeals, as they are directed against the same judgment dated 7-8-2001 and order dated 9-8-2001 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 2000/2 of 2000 convicting Md. Haidar (appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 469 of 2001), Md. Suhail and Md. Vaish (both appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 508 of 2001) and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life u/s. 302 of Indian Penal Code (in short " Indian Penal Code, 1860 ") and rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s. 27 of Arms Act, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 9-5-1999 at 9 p.m. Sub Inspector B Kumar, the then Officer-in-charge of Akbarpur Police Station (not examined) recorded the Fard-e-bayan of informant Md. Tanveer Qamar alias Sanjay (P.W. 5) at Bundelkhand Outpost in which informant stated that on the same day at about 6 p.m. he and Md. Babloo were talking with each other sitting in Tarbanda field when Munna Mian came there and told that all the three appellants were searching for Md. Babloo and were saying that they would kill him. In the meantime, Md. Imran, Md. Burhan and Chand Khan came there. At about 6.30 pm. informant, Md. Babloo, Md. Imran, Chand Mian and Munna came to a road and boarded a bus. Munna got down from the bus at a place near school in spite of repeatedly asking by Md. Babloo not to do so. Informant suspected something when Munna left them in the way. Thereafter, they all got down from the vehicle at by-pass turning and went to the house of one Fakru who was not present in his house. Thereafter, they all came to a place near the garage of one Md. Wasim at about 7.15 p.m. where all the three appellants with two unknown persons came there and surrounded them and appellant Md. Haidar caught hold of Babloo and started assaulting him and took him to a place on old Patna Ranchi Road. Informant and his companions raised protest on which all the three appellants took out pistol from their waists and fired on Md. Babloo who fell down on the road. Haidar caught hold of Babloo and started assaulting him and took him to a place on old Patna Ranchi Road. Informant and his companions raised protest on which all the three appellants took out pistol from their waists and fired on Md. Babloo who fell down on the road. The informant escaped by running towards bypass road and in that process once he fell down and received injuries on his knee and finger of right foot. Babloo died at the spot. The informant further alleged in his Fard-e-bayan that in a planned way. Munna had called them and appellants committed murder of Babloo on account of previous enmity. The Fard-e-bayan of informant was forwarded to Officer-in-charge of Nawadah Town Police Station because place of occurrence was in his jurisdiction where a case was registered by drawing a formal first Information report and after investigation, charge sheet against all the three appellants and Md. Munna, showing him absconder, was submitted. Cognizance of the case was taken and since Md. Munna was absconding so his case was separated and the case of appellants was committed to the Court of Session where charges under sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sec. 27 of Arms Act were framed against . them and after trial, they were held guilty and convicted and sentenced, as stated above. 3. The case of appellants, as it appears from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, is complete denial of allegations and their false implication in this case. No witness on behalf of appellants has been examined. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined fourteen witnesses. Tanveer Qamar alias Sanjay (P.W. 5) is informant. Md. Fahimuddin (P.W. 1) and Haji Nezamuddin (P.W. 2) are witnesses on inquest report. Md. Irfan (P.W. 3), Md. Shahid Hussain (P.W. 4), Md. Manzoor Alam (P.W. 6) are eye-witnesses to the occurrence, Syed Anlsur Zama (P.W. 7), Md. Sattar (P.W. 8), Md. Jasimuddin (P.W. 11) and Md. Kabiruddin (P.W. 12) had seen some persons exchanging hot words with each other. Dr. Manohar Lal (P.W. 9) is the doctor who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased. Ram Pukar Bhagat (P.W. 10) is the Investigating Officer. Md. Abbas (P.W. 13) has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Sattar (P.W. 8), Md. Jasimuddin (P.W. 11) and Md. Kabiruddin (P.W. 12) had seen some persons exchanging hot words with each other. Dr. Manohar Lal (P.W. 9) is the doctor who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased. Ram Pukar Bhagat (P.W. 10) is the Investigating Officer. Md. Abbas (P.W. 13) has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Mithilesh Kumar (P.W. 14) is also the Investigating Officer who had taken charge from Shri R.P. Bhagat (P.W. 10) on his transfer. 5. Dr. Manohar Lal (P.W. 9), in his evidence, has said that on 10-5-1999, he was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Nawadah and on that day at about 7.20 a.m. held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Md. Babloo and found one oozing wound about 1/2" in diameter on right side of right eye angle about 1" above and margin of wound blackened, lacerated wound on left parietal region 2" x 2" x 1.5" x bone deep, bone broken into pieces and distorted disfigured bullet found below the skin of wound, 1/2" round clot retained wound found over the central portion of chest about 1" below the inter memory (sic) line and mar -gin of wound was black, 1" in diameter round oozing wound on right part of axillary line and lacerated wound 4" x 2" on the back of skull and the bone under the wound was broken and brain matter protruded through wound. He has further said that a distorted bullet metallic foreign body about 1" x 1/2" x 1 /2" broken into two pieces resembling bullet was recorded from the injury which he found on parietal region of the deceased and it was preserved in glass vial requesting the Investigating Officer to collect the same and send the same to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. According to him, time elapsed since death was within six to twenty four hours and cause of death was shock and hemorrhage produced by injuries especially injuries to brain and heart caused by firearms which may be pistol shots. He has proved his post-mortem examination report which is marked Exhibit 3. He has denied the suggestion of defence that his evidence is incorrect. From his evidence, it is proved that death of deceased was homicidal. 6. He has proved his post-mortem examination report which is marked Exhibit 3. He has denied the suggestion of defence that his evidence is incorrect. From his evidence, it is proved that death of deceased was homicidal. 6. Tanveer Qamar alias Sanjay (P.W. 5), the informant, in his evidence, has said that on the day of occurrence, he and deceased were together in Tadbanda where Munna came and informed that appellants were searching for Babloo saying that they would kill him and in the meantime, Chand and Imran also reached there and, thereafter, they all went to Rajoli Stand where they boarded a mini bus and when the bus reached near a school, Munna left the bus and then they by bus came to a petrol pump near bypass where they got down from the bus and went to the house of Fakru but Fakru was not present in his house and then they went to a place at bypass near the garage of Wasim where all the appellants came there and surrounded them and appellant Haidar caught hold of Babloo and started assaulting him and by dragging took him to Patna-Ranchi and when he and his companions raised protest, all the three appellants took out their pistols and fired on deceased Babloo who fell down and appellants fled away. He says that before occurrence, Md. Irfan (P.W. 3), Md. Shahid (P.W. 4) Md. Manzoor Alam (P.W. 6) had already reached there. He has proved his signature (Exhibit 2) on his Fard-e-bayan which, according to him, was recorded at Bundelkhand Outpost. 7. Md. Irfan (P.W. 3), Md. Shahid Hussain (P.W. 4) and Md. Manzoor Alam (P.W. 6) are said to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Md. Irfan (P.W. 3), Md. Shahid (P.W. 4) Md. Manzoor Alam (P.W. 6) had already reached there. He has proved his signature (Exhibit 2) on his Fard-e-bayan which, according to him, was recorded at Bundelkhand Outpost. 7. Md. Irfan (P.W. 3), Md. Shahid Hussain (P.W. 4) and Md. Manzoor Alam (P.W. 6) are said to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Md. Irfan (P.W. 3) has said that at the time of occurrence, he was returning in his car from Vijay Petrol Pump where he had gone to purchase oil and when he reached near as STD shop at main road, he found a crowd in which he identified the appellants and two unknown persons who all were assaulting the deceased and Manzoor, Imran, Chand, Shahid and, informant were asking them not to assault and he also asked them not to assault the deceased on which the appellants took out their pistols and fired on deceased and receiving firearm injuries, deceased fell down and he ran away towards pump and five minutes thereafter when he again came to place of occurrence, he found the deceased in the pool of blood and by that time, deceased had already died. In para 15, he has said that before firing, scuffle was going on with deceased and he was standing at a distance of about four to five metres from the crowd and firing was made from that crowd. This statement makes his ear-Her evidence that he saw the appellants firing on deceased quite doubtful because his evidence that firing was made from that crowd suggests that he had not seen the persons who opened fire from their firearms. Md. Shahid Hussain (P.W. 4) has said that at time of occurrence, he had gone to see a mechanic and when he reached the place of occurrence, he saw the appellants and two unknown persons assaulting, the deceased with fists and slaps and he as well as Sanjay, Chand and Imran asked them not to assault the deceased on which the appellants took put their pistols and they fired on deceased and deceased fell down and started pondering (sic) and there was stampede and after sometime when he returned, he found that deceased had died. In para 12, he has said that after seeing the dead body of deceased, he came to his mohalla where he informed about the occurrence to Khurshid, Sajjad, Ashique Hussain and others and he also gave information to the family members of deceased who, along with other persons to whom he had given information went towards place of occurrence. In para 7, he has said that deceased was standing in a crowd facing towards west and he was assaulted by fists and slaps and this assault by fists and slaps continued for three to four minutes and thereafter, firing was made. In para 18, he has further said that deceased was assaulted by five persons and deceased did not make any attempt to run away because he was surrounded by all sides by the crowd and about himself, he has said that he was standing towards north from the crowd. His evidence that deceased was assaulted by five persons by fists and slaps for two to three minutes is against the statement of informant made in Fard-e-bayan as well as in his evidence according to which only appellant Haidar and caught hold of deceased and dragged him towards old Patna-Ranchi Road by assaulting him. Manzoor Alam (P.W. 6) has said that at the time of occurrence, he was returning from Mastanganj after getting a scooter repaired and when he reached the place of occurrence, he saw a crowd assembled there and in the crowd, he Identified appellants and two unknown persons who all were bringing the deceased by dragging to road. Informant, Irfan, Shahid and Chand were with deceased who were raising objection on assault to deceased by appellants and appellants, thereafter, fired from their pistols on deceased and deceased, alter receiving firearm injuries, fell, down and crowd disbursed and appellants fled away and ho then went to a tea stall and again he came to place of occurrence where he found that deceased was dead. In cross-examination, he has said that he is next door neighbour of deceased. In para 7 of his evidence, he has said that the scooter which he was bringing was not his scooter and he does not know its number and name of its owner and he also does not know the name of person who had given to him that scooter for repairing. In para 7 of his evidence, he has said that the scooter which he was bringing was not his scooter and he does not know its number and name of its owner and he also does not know the name of person who had given to him that scooter for repairing. Again he says that he had not gone anywhere for getting the scooter repaired but the scooter in the way went out of order. In view of all these statements, his earlier evidence that at time of occurrence, he was coming from Mastanganj after getting a scooter repaired becomes quite inconvincing. In para 9, he has said that residences of appellants are far away from his residence and he had no occasion of having any talks with them. In para 8, he has said that there is Hanuman Temple near the place of occurrence and priest and some other persons remain in the temple. In para 15, he has said that all the three appellants were standing at a distance of two to three feet from the two unknown persons and in para 17 , he has said that he place where deceased received firearm injuries was surrounded from also sides by a crowd and he was standing about a distance of seven to eight feet from deceased. 8. Syed Ansur Zama (P.W. 7), in his evidence, has said that on the day of occurrence at about 7.15 p.m. he saw deceased, informant and two to three boys having alteration and exchange of hot words between them and he then proceeded to his house in Ansar Nagar and he heard sound of firing and also saw that there was stamped and when he turned back, he saw that three persons were running towards Ansar Nagar from by pass and one of them was informant, carrying a pistol and after sometime, all those three persons disappeared in a lane and he heard thawt Babloo had been killed. He has further said that the two other persons who were with informant and were seen by him running were not appellants. In cross examination, he has said that he saw informant and deceased having exchange that he saw informant and deceased having exchange of hot words with each other. Md. He has further said that the two other persons who were with informant and were seen by him running were not appellants. In cross examination, he has said that he saw informant and deceased having exchange that he saw informant and deceased having exchange of hot words with each other. Md. Sattar (P.W. 8) has said that on the day of occurrence at 7-7.15 p. m, he had gone to by pass road for walking and at bypass turning, he saw six to seven persons exchanges hot words with each other and he then returned and when he crossed a distance of about ten to twenty steps, he heard the sound of firing and also saw three persons running away from there and when he reached near his house, he heard that Babloo had been murdered. He further says that he did not identify any body in the crowd. In cross-examination, he has said that appellants were not among those persons who were exchanging hot words with each other and he has further said that appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. Md. Jasimuddin (P.W. 11) has also said that at the time of occurrence, he had gone for walking along with (P.W. 7) and when he was at some distance from a petrol pump, he saw some boys exchanging hot words with each other and sometime thereafter, they started quarrelling with each other and he, out of fear, turned back and later on he came to know that Babloo had been killed. In cross examination, he has said that among those 5-6 persons, who were seen by him quarrelling with each other, appellants were not there. Md. Kabiruddin (P.W. 12) has said that at the time of occurrence he along with four to five persons had gone to by pass road for walking and when he reached near a petrol pump, he saw five to six persons exchanging hot words with each other and he along with his companions returned and when he reached fifteen to twenty steps, he heard sound of two firings and because there was stampede, he returned to his house and later on, he came to know that a man named Babloo had been killed. In cross examination, he has said that appellants were not among those persons who were exchanging hot words with each other at by pass road. 9. In cross examination, he has said that appellants were not among those persons who were exchanging hot words with each other at by pass road. 9. On the point of occurrence, I find that there are two sets of witnesses. The first set of witnesses who are claiming eye witnesses includes informant (P.W. 5), Md. Irfan (P.W. 3), Md. Shahid (P.W. 4) and Md. Manzoor (P.W. 6). In the first information report, informant, has stated that right from Tradbana field to the place of occurrence, Md. Imran, Chand Khan and Munna along with deceased were with him and they all from Tadbana field come to road where they boarded a buS and although Munna got down from the bus in the way but remaining persons came to bypass road where they also left the bus and from there, they went to the house of Fakru and from there, they came to the place of occurrence where occurrence took place. Although Munna Khan was made an accused in this case who absconded but then Md. Imran and Chand Khan, who were with informant from the very beginning till the time of occurrence, have not been examined in this case. It is true that Ram Pukar Bhagat (P.W. 10), the Investigating Officer, in his evidence in paras 34 and 35, has said that he made search for Imran and Chand but could not find them and the father of Imran told him that he had gone outside and father, family members and neighbours of Imran told him that his relations are living in Delhi and Kolkata where they had sent information for sending Imran to Nawadah and father of Chand also told him that Chand had gone to Mumbai and information to him had been sent. Against this he, in para 37 of his evidence, has admitted that in para 201 of case diary, he has noted that Imran was made available on 26-6-1999 and his statement was recorded. He has further said that in para 212 of case diary, it is stated that none of the appellants had any criminal history. Against this he, in para 37 of his evidence, has admitted that in para 201 of case diary, he has noted that Imran was made available on 26-6-1999 and his statement was recorded. He has further said that in para 212 of case diary, it is stated that none of the appellants had any criminal history. For his contradictory statements about Imran that inspite of his efforts, Imran was not available and again that he recorded statement of Imran on 26-6-1999, a fact which he has mentioned in para 201 of case diary, 1 find that non-examination of Imran is a circumstance which goes against the case of prosecution because this witness who, as per the case of prosecution, was with deceased right from the very beginning till the occurrence took place would have been a very competent witness on behalf of prosecution. The Court below, relying upon a decision a reported in 1998 BCCR 666, has not considered the non-examination of Imran a circumstance making the case of prosecution weak because according to it in the said judgment, it has been held that "If the eye witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case are found to be truthful and their testimony reliable, non examination of other probable witnesses would not create any doubt regarding veracity of prosecution case." In my opinion, the principle laid down in the judgment which has been relied upon by the Court below is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The witnesses who are named in Fard-e-bayan and out of them, admittedly, so far Imran is concerned, his statement was recorded during investigation but prosecution, instead of examining him, has produced those witnesses who are not named in first information report and who are only chance witnesses. The presence of these chance witnesses at the place of occurrence has been found by the Court below a natural phenomenon on the ground that the occurrence took place on Patna Ranchi Road and a crowd had assemble, therefore, there was every possibility of presence of chance witnesses and their evidence-cannot be discarded only on this score. The informant has said that Md. Irfan (P.W. 3) and Md. Shahid Hussain (P.W, 4) are working as agents at Rajoli bus stand. The informant has said that Md. Irfan (P.W. 3) and Md. Shahid Hussain (P.W, 4) are working as agents at Rajoli bus stand. He has further stated that from Tadbana field, he along with deceased, Imran, Chand and Munna came to Rajoli bus stand where he did not find Irfan (P.W. 3) and Md. Shahid (P.W. 5) but in para 3 of his evidence, he has said that before firing, Irfan (P.W. 3), Shahid (P.W. 4) and Md. Manzoor (P.W. 6) had come to place of occurrence. It means that P.Ws. 3 and 4, who are working as agents a Rajoli bus stand, did no meet the informant and his companies at Rajoli bus stand when informant along with deceased and his companions had gone there from Tradbana field but at the place of occurrence, they all of a sudden appeared just before firing. The Investigating Officer, in his evidence, has said that twenty feet towards west north from place of occurrence, there Is garage of Md. Wasim, thirty feet towards east of place of occurrence, there is STD booth of Md. Fahim Munshi, towards south west of place of occurrence, there is a Hanuman temple and towards north of place of occurrence, there Is a locality named as Ansar Nagar. Prosecution has not examined Wasim, Fahim Munshi or anybody from Hanuman temple or Ansar nagar. Shahid Hussain (P.W. 4), as stated earlier, In his evidence, has said that he had gone to a mechanic and while returning he reached the place of occurrence. His attention was drawn by defence that before Investigating Officer, he had not stated that he had gone to see a mechanic near place of occurrence and Investigating Officer, in para 40 of his evidence, has stated that this witness had not stated before him that he had gone to see a mechanic but he has said that for some personal work, he had gone to bypass road. In view of this contradiction in his evidence, his presence at the place of occurrence appears to be doubtful. 10. In this case, the evidence of informant is affected by some circumstances which may make his evidence not convincing and trustworthy. In view of this contradiction in his evidence, his presence at the place of occurrence appears to be doubtful. 10. In this case, the evidence of informant is affected by some circumstances which may make his evidence not convincing and trustworthy. His case in his Fard-e: bayan as well as in his evidence is that Munna Khan informed him and deceased that appellants were searching deceased for killing him and, thereafter, he came to road, boarded a bus which he left at by pass road and, thereafter, went to the house of Fakru. According to him, in the way, Munna got down from the bus and he apprehended possibility of some un-toward incident and when at the house of Fakru, he did not meet him, he along with the deceased and his other companions came to Patna-Ranchi Road where occurrence took place. It is very unsual on his part that inspite of receiving information from Munna Khan that appellants were searching deceased for killing him, he did not make any effort of giving this information to police or to any body else. According to him when he went to the house of Fakru, he did not meet him but this part of his evidence has been contradicted by Investigating Officer who, in para 41 of his evidence, has said that informant had told him that when he went to the house of Fakru, he met him and according to Investigating Officer, this fact, is mentioned in para 30 of case diary. Had informant met Fakru, he must have told him the threat of appellants as disclosed to him by Munna Khan and Fakru in this situation would have been a very competent witness to tell this fact but Fakru has also not been examined, 11. About the second set of witnesses which includes Syed Md. Anisur Zama (P.W. 7), Md. Sattar (P.W. 8), Md. Jasimuddin (P.W. 11), Md. Kabiruddin (P.W. 12 ), I find that P.Ws. 8, 11 and 12 have said that at the place of occurrence, they had seen exchange of hot words between some persons but appellants were not among those persons and sometime thereafter, they heard sound of firing and came to know that deceased had been killed. Syed Md. Jasimuddin (P.W. 11), Md. Kabiruddin (P.W. 12 ), I find that P.Ws. 8, 11 and 12 have said that at the place of occurrence, they had seen exchange of hot words between some persons but appellants were not among those persons and sometime thereafter, they heard sound of firing and came to know that deceased had been killed. Syed Md. Anlsur Zama (P.W. 7) gives a quite different picture of the occurrence and he says that after hearing the sound of firing and stamped when he turned back, he saw three persons running away from the place of occurrence and among them he identified the informant who carrying pistol and in cross-examination, as stated above, he has said that he had seen the informant and deceased exchanging hot words with each. He, as well as P.Ws. 8, 11 and 12, have been produced as witnesses by prosecution and none of them has been declared hostile by the prosecution. I find no reason to disbelieve them. Their evidence shows that appellants were not present at the place of occurrence and informant was found running away from the place of occurrence with a pistol in his hand immediately after the occurrence. This set of witnesses creates a serious doubt against the case of prosecution. 12. Ram Pukar Bhagat (P.W. 10), in his evidence, has stated that on the day of ocurrence, he was posted as Officer-in-charge at Bundelkhand Outpost and on that date at about 7.30 p.m. he received a telephonic information that a man had been killed near Mastanganj Petrol Pump by some miscreants and his dead body had been thrown at old Patna-Ranchi Road and he then recorded station diary entry No. 125 and proceeded towards place of occurrence. This station diary entry has not been brought on record. He further says that he reached the place of occurrence at 7.45 p.m. and found the dead body of Md. Babloo at Patna-Ranchi old road and he prepared an inquest report (Exhibit-1). He has further said that on the same day, he received the Fard-e-bayan of informant recorded by Binod Kumar, the then Officer-in-charge of Akbarpur Police Station. He has proved the Fard-e-bayan which is marked Exhibit 4 and he has also proved the formal first information report (Exhibit 5) and has said that he took up the investigating of the case. He has further said that on the same day, he received the Fard-e-bayan of informant recorded by Binod Kumar, the then Officer-in-charge of Akbarpur Police Station. He has proved the Fard-e-bayan which is marked Exhibit 4 and he has also proved the formal first information report (Exhibit 5) and has said that he took up the investigating of the case. Admittedly, the Fard-e-bayan was recorded by Binod Kumar, the then Officer-in-charge of Akbarpur Police Station and the heading of Fard-e-bayan shows that the same was recorded at Bundelkhand Outpost. Fard-e-bayan, further shows that it was forwarded to Town Police Station, Nawadah for necessary action because place of occurrence was In his jurisdiction. At Nawadah Police Station, formal first information report was drawn, perhaps, for the reason that at outpost, first information reports are not drawn and investigation was entrusted to (P.W. 10) who was posted as Officer-in-charge of Bundelkhand Outpost. Prosecution has not examined Binod Kumar, (P.W. 10), in para 27 of his evidence, has said that there is no entry at Bundelkhand Outpost showing the arrival of Binod Kumar, the then Officer-in-charge of Akbarpur Police Station and similarly there is no entry showing his departure from there. He has further said that in the entire case diary, there is no mention that In what connection, Binod Kumar had come to Bundelkhand Outpost. The Investigating Officer, in his evidence, has said that he had gone to place of occurrence from his Bundelkhand Outpost where he was posted and he has further said that on 9-5-1999, Binod Kumar was not posted at Bundelkhand Outpost. In para 24 of his evidence, Investigating Officer has said that on the day of occurrence at 7.45 p.m. he reached the place of occurrence but at that time, no body came forward to lodge the first information report or Fard-e-bayan for the occurrence. The informant, in para 18 of his evidence, has said that after occurrence, he first went to his mohalla where he narrated the incident to about ten to twelve persons and, thereafter, along with his mohalla people, he went to the Police Station but he did not meet the Officer-in-charge and he remained there for about an hour. The informant, in para 18 of his evidence, has said that after occurrence, he first went to his mohalla where he narrated the incident to about ten to twelve persons and, thereafter, along with his mohalla people, he went to the Police Station but he did not meet the Officer-in-charge and he remained there for about an hour. About ten to twelve persons of his mohalla who had accompanied him to Police Station, he says that because he was mentally perturbed at that time, therefore, he does not remember name of any one of them. He has further said that Officer-in-charge of Bundelkhand Police Station came to Police Station at about 10 or 10.30 p.m. and recorded in Fard-e-bayan. The evidence of Investigating Officer and informant on the point of Fard-e-bayan does not make it clear that how Fard-e-bayan of informant at Bundelkhand Outpost was reported by Binod Kumar who by that time was not posted there and was, admittedly, posted as Officer-in-charge of Akbarpur Police Station. Taking into consideration this fact along with the evidence of Investigating Officer in para 33 of his evidence that on 9-5-1999 till 8.30 p.m. he could not know the names of miscreants, I find force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that the entire case of prosecution becomes doubtful particularly in view of evidence of PWs. 7, 8, 11 and 12 that they had not seen the appellants at the place of occurrence and one of them has said that he saw the informant running away from the place of occurrence carrying a pistol. 13. Considering the entire evidence on record, I find that prosecution witnesses, who have claimed their presence at the place of occurrence have given quite contradictory statements and from their evidence, charges against the appellants are not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. 14. In the result, both the appeals are allowed and the judgment and order of Court below convicting and sentencing the appellants are hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted. 15. Md. Haidar, appellant of criminal appeal No. 469 of 2001 is on bail, therefore, he is discharged from the liabilities of his ball bonds. 16. Md. Suhail and Md. Vaish, appellants of criminal appeal No. 508 of 2001 are in Jail so they are directed to be released from jail at once, if not required in any other case.