Judgment BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. Killing spree that came in motion in the year 1995, continued unabated till 1997, when entire family of Uday Kant Jha would have been extinct, but for Raghubansh Prasad Jha (PW 7) who remained sole surviving member in the family to mourn death of his father and two brothers. His brother Pradip Kumar Jha was killed some times in the year 1995 and subsequent events which the family witnessed, happened in the year 1997, only after two years of the first incident, when both Uday Kant Jha and Ashok Jha were killed. Precisely, essential features of the prosecution case, from which these instant appeals stem, can be noticed with brevity. Sequence of events, of which horrendous act was a fall out, can be traced to an incident, when on 6.2.1997, Uday Kant Jha along with his son Ashok Jha had been to Godda to bring iron rods and stone chips for construction of house, on a bullock cart. As ill luck would have it, during return to their village, when they reached on outskirt of the village, the bullock cart got stuck in the sand, and for rescue, Uday Kant Jha came to his village, which was at insignificant distance, and having taken oxen of Masudan Bhagat put the bullock cart in motion and hardly he reached near house of Lallan Bhagat, to replace the oxen of Masudan Bhagat by oxen of his own, when Ranjan Mandal, Ramesh Mandal, Deva, Praduman Thakur, Garbhi Yadav, Deval Yadav, Dilip Yadav, Baskit Bhagat, Umesh Bhagat, Yogendra Bhagat, Shibbal Paraiya, Mannu Manjhi, Vijay Bhagat and Jaikant Sah holding guns, maskets and pistols emerged from nearby houses and surrounded Uday Kant Jha and Ashok Jha. It was deva, who set the ball in motion, firing first shot on Uday Kant Jha in his waist, and when Uday Kant Jha ran towards his house, he dropped injured near house of Masudan Bhagat. 2. It was alleged that shortly thereafter Ranjan Mandal, Praduman Thakur, Deva, Dilip Yadav, Garbhi Yadav and Baskit Bhagat came chasing him, when Ranjan Mandal pumped bullet in his mouth followed by indiscriminate firing on him by others. When Ashok Jha ran for safety towards south, he too was chased by Ramesh Mandal, Umesh Bhagat, Yogendra Bhagat, Shibbal Paraiya, Mannu Manjhi, Vijay Bhagat, Jaikant Sah and Sikandar Kapri. When Ashok Jha ran for safety towards south, he too was chased by Ramesh Mandal, Umesh Bhagat, Yogendra Bhagat, Shibbal Paraiya, Mannu Manjhi, Vijay Bhagat, Jaikant Sah and Sikandar Kapri. Shibbal Paraiya took the lead and fired shots on the back of Ashok Jha when the later dropped injured, and assault was followed by Ramesh Mandal, who fired shots from his masket on him. Others too fired indiscriminate shots on Ashok Jha. Wife of Uday Kant Jha too had rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing sounds of firing. Long enmity was shown to be the genesis of the incident. 3. A police case has been instituted on behest of Raghubansh Prasad Jha, son of deceased Uday Kant Jha, whose fardbeyan was recorded by Police at village Pashana at 9.15 hours on 7.2.1997. As usual, investigation followed, in course of which the Police Officer who conducted investigation of the incident, having visited the place of occurrence seized blood stained soil and also empty shells of cartridges. The dead body of Uday Kant Jha and Ashok Jha was sent to mortuary for post-mortem examination. Inquest reports over the dead bodies were prepared and on conclusion of investigation, the Police Officer laid charge-sheet before the Court below. At trial, while State examined 9 witnesses, defence examined three witnesses and both the parties also placed on record some documents ostensibly to suggest long standing enmity between the parties. 4. Defence of the appellants had been that of innocence and they ascribed their false implication due to previous animosity, and as for killing of Uday Kant Jha and Ashok Jha, defence of the appellants was that they had many enemies, who were hostile to them, and possibility of their killing by them was quite probable. Praduman Thakur and Yogendra Bhagat also put defence of alibi to improbabilise their presence at the place of occurrence at the material time of incident. Defence of Praduman Thakur was that he was lecturer in Dhoraiya Degree College and was on duty at the relevant time of incident. Defence of Yogendra Bhagat too was quite similar, as it was pleaded on his behalf that he too was on duty in Godda Mahila College, where he was employed as Grade IV employee. Defence of Praduman Thakur was that he was lecturer in Dhoraiya Degree College and was on duty at the relevant time of incident. Defence of Yogendra Bhagat too was quite similar, as it was pleaded on his behalf that he too was on duty in Godda Mahila College, where he was employed as Grade IV employee. The trial Court, however, on evaluating the probative value, and noticing intrinsic character of evidences, rejecting plea of innocence of the appellants, recorded verdict of guilt against the appellants under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Though appellants suffered conviction also under Sections 120(B)/149, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, they were not sentenced on that count. 5. Narrations of the prosecution case is primarily that of Aruna Devi (PW 4), wife of deceased Uday Kant Jha, Raghubansh Prasad Jha (PW 7), son of deceased Uday Kant Jha, and Prem Kundan Bihari (PW 8), cousin of Uday Kant Jha and Hem Kant Thakur (PW 9), brother-in-law of deceased Uday Kant Jha. The doctor who held autopsy over the dead bodies of the deceased is Dr. Sunil Kumar Sinha (PW 3) and the Police Officer who held investigation is Tripurari Singh (PW 5). Raghubansh Prasad Singh (PW 1) Surendra Bhagat (PW 2) and Prayag Jha (PW 6) had turned hostile at trial and their attentions had been drawn by the State to impeach their credibility. 6. Adverting to evidences available on the record, we find Raghubansh Prasad Jha (PW 7) reiterating his earliest version which he rendered before the police to set the criminal law in motion, about appellants having encircled Uday Kant Jha and Ashok Jha near house of Masudan Bhagat, shortly after they had come there, employing oxen of Masudan Bhagat in the cart, which had stuck in the sand of Cheer river. When Uday Kant Jha, his father, began to flee it was Deva, who fired shot in his waist, and his father on receipt of injury dropped injured near the house of Masudan Bhagat. Shortly thereafter Ranjan Mandal. Ganeshi Manjhi, Garbhi Yadav. Dilip Yadav, Deval Yadav, Praduman Thakur, Baskit and others too came there, and among them it was Ranjan Mandal who fired shots on mouth of his father followed by indiscriminate firing by others. Shortly thereafter Ranjan Mandal. Ganeshi Manjhi, Garbhi Yadav. Dilip Yadav, Deval Yadav, Praduman Thakur, Baskit and others too came there, and among them it was Ranjan Mandal who fired shots on mouth of his father followed by indiscriminate firing by others. When Ashok Jha ran towards south, Ramesh Mandal, Shibbal Praiya, Mannu Manjhi, Vijay Bhagat, Umesh Bhagat, Yogendra Bhagat, Jaikant Sah and Sikandar Kapri chased him, and it was Shibbal Praiya who fired shots on his back. Other shot was fired by Ramesh Mandal who introducing the masket in the mouth, pressed the trigger. Others too fired indiscriminate shots on him. 7. Similar narrations were made by Aruna Devi (PW 4), wife of the deceased about her husband having been chased by appellants near Kali Mandir where they had come with the bullock cart with stone chips and iorn rods. When her husband ran towards north, at some distance, Ranjan Mandal, Praduman Thakur and Garbhi Yadav fired shots on him. Ranjan Mandal had fired shots on his face when her husband dropped injured. Others, who fired shots on him, were Praduman Thakur, Garbhi Yadav, Dilip Yadav and Deolal Yadav. and as for assailants of Ashok Jha, she states that Ramesh Mandal had fired shots on his face followed by shots fired by Yogendra Mandal, Umesh Bhagat. Shibbal Paraiya and others, when both her husband and son succumbed to the injuries. Prem Kundan Bihari (PW 8) too states about Dilip Yadav, Baskit Bhagat, Deolal Yadav and Garbhi Yadav chasing Uday Kant Jha and firing indiscriminate shots on him and after he had dropped injured, Ranjan Mandal had fired shots on him followed by another shots fired by Praduman Thakur on his head. As for Ashok Jha, the witness states that when he ran towards south, he was chased by Ramesh Mandal, Shibbal Praiya, Mannu Manjhi, Garbhi Yadav, Umesh Bhagat, Vijay Bhagat, Yogendra Bhagat and others, and it was Shibbal Paraiya who had fired shots on him, followed by another shot by Ramesh Mandal on his face. Other too had resorted to indiscriminate firing on him. 8. The last person who claimed to be ocular witness was Hem Kant Thakur (PW 9), who states that while he was going to village Pashana from his village Sadopur, he noticed Uday Kant Jha and Ashok Jha having been encircled on the bank of the river by the appellants, who were holding arms with them. 8. The last person who claimed to be ocular witness was Hem Kant Thakur (PW 9), who states that while he was going to village Pashana from his village Sadopur, he noticed Uday Kant Jha and Ashok Jha having been encircled on the bank of the river by the appellants, who were holding arms with them. Deva fired shot on waist of Uday Kant Jha, and when later ran towards north, he dropped injured near house of Masudan Bhagat. He had been chased by Deva, Ranjan Mandal, Praduman Thakur, Deolal Yadav, Garbhi Yadav, Dilip Yadav, Ganesh Manjhi and Baskit Bhagat. As for Ranjan Mandal, the witness states that he fired shot on his face followed by another shot fired on his head by Praduman Thakur. Others too had resorted to firing on him when Ashok Jha ran towards south, he too was chased by Ramesh Mandal, Umesh Bhagat, Yogendra Bhagat, Shibbal Paraiya, Munna Manjhi, Vijay Bhagat, Jaikant Sah and Sikandar Kapri. It was Shibbal Paraiya who fired shots on his head followed by another shot on face of Ashok Jha by Ramesh Mandal. Others too had fired indiscriminate shots on him. 9. Tripurai Singh, S.I. (PW 5)stated to have recorded fardbyan of the informant at the place of occurrence where he noticed two dead bodies to be that of Uday Kant Jha and Ashok Jha. He seized blood stained earth and also empty shells of cartridges, prepared inquest report over the dead bodies and sent them to mortuary for post-mortem examination. 10. Dr. Sunil Kumar Sinha (PW 3) stated to have noticed three entry wounds on head and blow chest of dead body of Uday Kant Jha. He stated to have noticed also incised injuries on the dead body. Metallic substances too had been recovered from the dead body, and on the dead body of Ashok Jha, he stated to have noticed four entry wounds, which were on mouth, abdomen, back and right arm, and all the injuries noticed on the dead body were ante-mortem in nature. Cause of death in estimation of the doctor in case of both the deceased was result of all the injuries on their persons. This is in essence all the evidence. 11. Cause of death in estimation of the doctor in case of both the deceased was result of all the injuries on their persons. This is in essence all the evidence. 11. Arguments, which are usually canvassed in criminal cases about interestedness of prosecution witnesses, they being partisan either by virtue of their relationship with the deceased or being keenly interested in the affairs of the prosecution, medical evidence not befitting to ocular testimony of witnesses and faulty investigation by the Investigating agency, were not made at bar by the learned counsel for the appellants, who, in his usual fairness, would confine his argument about conviction of the appellants under Section 302/149, IPC by the trial Court taking recourse to concept of "common object" to fasten vicarious liability against them. Findings recorded by Court below, contentions are raised, would not be sustainable in view of stale and recent events which were writ large on face of the prosecution, which says a lot about probability of false implication of the appellants due to persisting enmity between the parties. Conduct of Aruna Devi (PW 4), Raghubansh Prasad Jha (PW 7) and Hem Kant Thakur (PW 9) also came for criticism by the learned counsel for the appellants and thrust of the argument was that though Hem Kant Thakur (PW 9) had prior information about alleged conspiracy hatched by the appellants for killing of his brother-in-law, he would not take recourse to the public authority, and even though there had been gruesome killing of his brother-in-law and his son, before his naked eyes, he would not take pains to inform the wailing family members of the deceased who were none else but his kith and kin. The witness on his own showing, remained confined in a shaw mill at Godda after the incident, which was somewhat unusual. Lest we do not loose sight of essence of these arguments, we wish to discuss them with breveity. 12. Though PW 8 remained confined in his house shortly after witnessing gruesome killing of Uday Kant Jha and Ashok Jha and did not take recourse to public authority and also that he did not come for rescue of the deceased, inaction on his part alone would not make exclusion of this witness from consideration, as we are of the view that he was quite unarmed and bare handed whereas accused persons were armed with deadly weapons. How a person would react in a situation like this, cannot be encompassed by any rigid formula. It would depend on many factors, like in the present case, where witnesses are unarmed but the assailants are armed with deadly weapons. In a given case, instinct of self preservance can be the dominant factor. That being the position, inaction of PW 8 in not coming to the rescue of the deceased cannot be a ground for discarding his evidence if otherwise he is credible. Presence of Aruna Devi (PW 4), Raghubansh Prasad Jha (PW 7) and Prem Kundan Bihari (PW 8) at the place of occurrence appears to be probable also in view of the fact that the occurrence had taken place near the house of Lallan Bhagat which was hardly at a distance of 300 yards from the house of the deceased. 13. Though somewhat omnibus accusations had been attributed to other appellants about chasing both the deceased and firing shots on them, accusation of firing shots on the deceased was very much explicit in the earliest version of Raghubansh Prasad Jha, about Deva, Ranjan Mandal and Praduman Thakur to be assailants of Uday Kant Jha and Shibbal Praaiya and Ramesh Mandal, to be assailants of Ashok Jha. Though complicity of Ranjan Mandal, as assailant of Uday Kant Jha had surfaced in the evidence of Aruna Devi (PW 4), she was, however, not explicit about Praduman Thakur to be the assailant of her husband. As for assailant of Ashok Jha, she would name Ramesh Mandal, in explicit terms about he being the assailant of her deceases son. Quite in tune with his earliest version, Raghubansh Prasad Jha (PW 7) explicitly saddled Deva and Ranjan Mandal for firing shots on waist and mouth of his father, and as far complicity of rest appellants, he had made omnibus accusation about they too having fired indiscriminate shots on him. As for Ashok Jha, his evidence was that while Shibbal Paraiya had fired shot on his back, Ramesh Mandal had introduced masket in his mouth and pressed the trigger. In evidence of PW 8, Prem Kundan Bihari also explicit accusation had been attributed to Ranjan Mandal and Praduman Thakur for firing shots on Uday Kant Jha, not-withstanding omnibus accusation against rest about firing shots on him. In evidence of PW 8, Prem Kundan Bihari also explicit accusation had been attributed to Ranjan Mandal and Praduman Thakur for firing shots on Uday Kant Jha, not-withstanding omnibus accusation against rest about firing shots on him. As for Ashok Jha, though others too chased and resorted to indiscriminate firing on him, specific accusation had been attributed to Ramesh Mandal and Shibbal Paraiya alone for firing shots on him. The doctor had found two entry wounds on head of Uday Kant Jha while other fire arm wound was below the chest. At trial, Ranjan Mandal had been saddled with accusation of firing shots on mouth of Uday Kant Jha for which there has been evidence of PWs 4, 7, 8 and 9. Praduman Thakur was shown to have fired shots on head of Uday Kant Jha for which there has been evidence of PWs 8 and 9 only. As for Ashok Jha, the doctor noticed four entry wounds caused by fire arms which were on the mouth, abdomen, back, wrist joint and left arm. At trial both Shibbal Paraiya and Ramesh Mandal were shown to be authors of the injuries found on mouth and head of deceased Ashok Jha and for this there has been evidence of PWs 4, 7, 8 and 9. Accusation about resorting to indiscriminate firing on him was omnibus against rest appellants. 14. Assertion made by Aruna Devi (PW 4), wife of deceased Uday Kant Jha, to be ocular witness of the killing of her husband and son would not be negatived taking recourse to recitals made in the fardbeyan of Raghubansh Prasad Jha where she was described to have rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing sounds of firing, when she noticed her husband lying injured. There is no gainsaying that the ball was set in motion by Deva who had fired first shot on Uday Kant Jha when he dropped injured and rightly Aruna Devi would not state about witnessing Deva firing shot on her husband, as she had rushed to the place of occurrence shortly after her husband had dropped injured and subsequent assaults were made by Ranjan Mandal and Praduman Thakur, who had resorted to firing on him. Raghubansh Prasad Jha (PW 7) was son of deceased Uday Kant Jha who had set the police in motion and he also happened to be author of the fardbeyan. Raghubansh Prasad Jha (PW 7) was son of deceased Uday Kant Jha who had set the police in motion and he also happened to be author of the fardbeyan. Since he denied that he had also alias name as Bahera Jha, the appellants had brought on the record along with affidavit, deposition of a witness in another case. Narration made by this witness was quite inconformity with his earliest version which was explicit against five appellants and omnibus against rest and we too endorse our finding with the trial Court that he was an ocular witness to the killing of his father and brother for which complicity of appellants had been suggested by the prosecution. 15. Now adverting to the evidence of Hem Kant Thakur (PW 9), we have all reservation for him, as on his own showing though he had been visiting village Pashana, he was not fully conversant with the physical features of the village. Though this may not be a decisive ground, there are yet other infirmities. He had prior information about design of the appellants for killing of his brother-in-law. The name of person from whom he got information, has not been disclosed by him, and on his own showing, having witnessed the incident, he rushed to Godda where he remained confined in shaw mill during night. He did not inform superior Police Officer. He would not inform even wailing family members of the deceased, and that apart, though he had informed about the incident, Sri Kant Singh, Jawahar Jha and Gaiby Jha in the village, they would not come to strengthen the assertions made by this witness. Our feeling is that had PW 9 been an ocular witness, it was reasonably expected of him that he would rush to the house of his deceased brother-in-law, at least to console the bereaved family members. There are yet other infirmities which render him unworthy of credence. He could not say about weapons held by individual appellant. He was not emphatic as to who was assailant of Uday Kant Jha. There are yet other infirmities which render him unworthy of credence. He could not say about weapons held by individual appellant. He was not emphatic as to who was assailant of Uday Kant Jha. As for Ashok Jha too, he could not notice as to who was his assailant, though he would make omnibus accusation that Vijay Bhagat, Jai Kishore Sah, Mannu Manjhi, Yogendra Bhagat and Umesh Bhagat were his assailants, and to crown all, on stress having been put on him by the defence to disclose complicity of individual assailant, he would name Sikandar Kapri in very explicit term about he being assailant of Ashok Jha which was admittedly not the case of the prosecution, and for reasons of these infirmities, which have made his testimony vulnerable and unworthy of credence, we find that this witness, who hails from village Sadopur, was projected by the prosecution simply to claim himself as an eye-witness. 16. True it is that number of shots found on the person of the deceased were not in proportion to the number of assailants suggested by the prosecution, as the prosecution had a case that all had resorted to indiscriminate firing on both the deceased. Though a number of injuries were noticed on the person of the deceased by the doctor, who held autopsy over the dead body, they are not in quite proportion to the number of assailants. However, we are of the view that variation in number of shots fired by the accused contradicted by medical evidence would not affect evidence of the witnesses, as firing of one shot or two shots is immaterial in the matter of assessing culpability of the accused and our view is fortified by the decisions of the Apex Court reported in 1997 (2) East Cr C 169 (SC) : 1997 Cr LJ 2983, (Mithlesh Upadhyaya V/s. The State of Bihar) and 2000 (1) East Cr C 33 (SC) : 2000 (1) PLJR (SC) 19 (Leela Ram (d) through Dulichand V/s. State of Haryana and another). 17. Defence of alibi of Praduman Thakur and Yogendra Bhagat was not tenable for the reason that there was no clinching evidence of unimpeachable character to rule out all possibility of presence of these two appellants at the place of occurrence, and that apart, Dhoraiya Degree College where Praduman Thakar was shown as lecturer was only at a distance of 15 km. away from village Pashana, and similar was the case with Yogendra Bhagat also, as Godda too, where he was employed in a Mahila College was hardly at a distance of 12 k.m. from village Pashana. Both the places were not at such a distance which would totally exclude possibility of presence of these two persons during the incident. Needless to emphasise that concept of alibi postulates altogether impossibility of physical presence of a person at a particular time, at a particular place *and there being no good evidence, plea of alibi of both the appellants has to be rejected. However, in case of Praduman Thakur his case can be judged from other angle in the backdrop of evidences available on the record. Neither Aruna Devi (PW 4) nor Raghubansh Prasad Jha (PW 7) would name Praduman Thakur explicitly as assailant of the deceased, notwithstanding there being explicit assertion made by other witnesses about he being assailant of Uday Kant Jha. His name with explicit assertion as assailant has not been described even in the earliest version of Raghubansh Prasad Jha when his fardbeyan was recorded by the police. Though with explicit assertion as assailant of Uday Kant Jha, there has been evidence of PWs 8 and 9, if evidence of PW 9 is excluded from consideration, as we have noticed earlier, there has been solitary evidence of Prem Kundan Bihari (PW 8). We are not oblivious of the fact that the doctor has noticed two injuries on head of Uday Kant Jha and there has been assertion made by ocular witnesses about Praduman Thakur having fired shots on head of Uday Kant Jha. Since a number of persons were shown to have fired indiscriminate shots on the deceased, some of which might have lost aim, it is not unlikely that shots fired by others might have hit the deceased on head, there being two injuries on this part of the person of Uday Kant Jha, and for that reason, in view of the explicit accusation attributed to Praduman Thakur, about he being assailant, having not been substantiated by evidence of other witnesses, except that of PW 8, we are of the view that Praduman Thakur deserves benefit of doubt and he be acquitted of the charges. 18. 18. Apart from there being omnibus accusation about all having fired shots on the deceased, other role assigned to the appellants was also about chasing the deceased and we may now analyse those evidences. As for Uday Kant Jha, in terms of the fardbeyan of Raghubansh Prasad Jha (PW 7), those who chased him were Deval Yadav, Dilip Yadav, Garbhi Yadav and Baskit Bhagat, and narration with sustained consistencies about chasing of Uday Kant Jha by these four persons were made also by PWs 4 and 8. As for chase of Ashok Jha, there has been evidence of Raghubansh Prasad Jha (PW 7), maker of fardbeyan, and Prem Kundan Bihari (PW 8) about Mannu Manjhi, Vijay Bhagat, Umesh Bhagat and Yogendra Bhagat chasing him. 19. Submission made by Sri P.N.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants about these appellants being not vicariously liable, there being no common object, would not detain us any longer. If the sub-mission is accepted, this would be a complete negation of the settled proposition of law enunciated by catena of decisions. as right from the case of Masalti V/s. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202 , and Lalji V/s. State of U.P., (1989) 1 SCC 437 , to the cases of State of U.P. V/s. Dan Singh, (1999) 3 SCC 747, State of Andhra Pradesh V/s. Thakkidiram Reddy, (1998) 6 SCC 554 . Anil Rai V/s. State of Bihar, 2001 (3) East Cr C 329 (SC) : (2001) 7 SCC 318 , and Gangadhar Bahera V/s. State of Orissa, 2003 (1) East Cr C 352 (SC) : (2002) 8 SCC 381 , the Court have consistently followed the principles enunciated in cases of Masalti and Lalji. and we are of the view that crucial question of determining in cases was as to whether persons constituting unlawful assembly were merely passive witnesses and had joined the assembly as a matter of idle curiosity and without intention to entertain common object of the assembly. We need not reiterate that common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered from nature of assembly, arms used by them and also behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of the occurrence. We need not reiterate that common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered from nature of assembly, arms used by them and also behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of the occurrence. It is the inference to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of each case and we are of the view that once the case of a persons fall within the ingredients of Section 141, IPC, question that he did nothing with his own hands would be immaterial. Apart from those against whom there has been explicit accusation about firing shots on a particular part of human body" of the two deceased, there has been evidence about participation of Garbhi Yadav, Dilip Yadav and Devlal Yadav for chasing Uday Kant Jha, and such evidence is also against Mannu Manjhi, Vijay Bhagat, Yogendra Bhagat and Umesh Bhagat for chasing Ashok Jha. Conduct of all these appellants and also the formidable nature of weapons, which they were shown to have held with them would make them expressly answerable for sharing common object of the assembly to make them answerable under Section 149, IPC. Since there has been no evidence that among the assailants, Ranjan Mandal. Shibbal Paraiya and Ramesh Mandal were authors of fatal injuries, there being no such finding of the doctor about particular injury to be cause of death, they would be answerable for the offence under Section 149, IPC. However, we may hasten to add that neither there was coherency nor consistency in narrations made by witnesses about complicity of Ganesh Manjhi, Sikandar Kapri and Jaikant Sah even among those who chased both the deceased. 20. Sri P.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants would draw our attention to the case of Ranbir Yadav V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1996 (1) East Cr C 277 (SC) : AIR 1995 SC 1219 and the learned counsel would argue that when parties are at daggers drawn and all good feelings have been lost among them, there being cross cases between the parties, possibility of tendency to implicate even innocent persons would not be ruled out. True it is that in a case where there are party factions, it is extremely difficult for the Court to guard against such a danger and the only real safeguard against the risk of condemning the innocent with the guilty, lies in insisting on acceptable evidence which in some measure implicates such accused and satisfies conscience of the Court. We have taken all care and precaution to be on guard, and for which we have scanned the evidences available on the record. There have been cases and cross cases for which some evidences have been placed on the record. We may notice them for a moment to draw some acceptable conclusion. For killing of Sattan Mandal, in the case, that was instituted by Kali Kinker Thakur (brother-in-law of the deceased Uday Kant Jha), Raghubanshi Prasad Jha (PW 7), Pappu Jha, Binod Jha. Laddu Jha and Manoj Jha were arrayed as accused. In case of killing of Bharao Jha, Pappu Jha. deceased Ashok Jha and Bahera Jha were accused, and for killing of Pradeep Jha. in the case that was instituted in the police station, Bharon Jha and his son Rajesh Jha were arrayed as accused. Mirtunjay Jha too had instituted a case against Awadh Jha and deceased Uday Kant Jha. Anirudh Thakur happens to be father of Praduman Thakur and Mirtunjay Thakur happens to be cousin brother of Praduman Jha. Evidence had been brought on the record that deceased Uday Kant Jha had his land adjacent to the land of Ramesh Mandal, son of deceased Sattan Mandal, and there used to be dispute with regard to damage of crops. For a moment we would have assumed the instant case to be off shoot of previous animosity, had there been evidence of prosecution of, Uday Kant Jha or his family members by appellants, preceding the incident. Though there had been many cases, essence of their relevancy in the present context is not conspicuous, there being no evidence as to who were accused arrayed in case of murderous assault on Pappu Jha, and the only relevant matter to our mind was the case instituted against Raghubansh Prasad Jha (informant), Pappu Jha, Binod Jha and others for killing of Sattan Mandal, as Ramjan Mandal and Ramesh Mandal, both sons of deceased Sattan Yadav, were arrayed as accused in this case. Other cases, in our view, were quite irrelevant to persuade one to believe that for no good reasons the appellants were falsely implicated by the prosecution party. Though Pappu Yadav, Raghubansh Prasad Jha (informant) and deceased Ashok Jha were accused in case of killing of Bharoan Jha with whom Uday Kant Jha had some sort of land dispute, even son of Bharoan Jha is hot accused in this case, and our view is that had there been tendency of falsely implicating innocent persons, there was no good reason as to why son of Bharaon Jha would not have been implicated in this case. Garbhi Yadav, Yogendra Bhagat, Vijay Bhagat, Dilip Yadav, Devlal Yadav, Umesh Bhagat, Shibbal Paraiya and Mannu Manjhi had no concern with the previous litigation, and there was no good reason that they would be falsely implicated by the prosecution, and that apart, we have noticed that even though there had been party faction, plea of false implication, in view of good evidence about their complicity had been negatived by the Apex Court, and conviction recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court was affirmed in case of Ranveer Yadav (supra). The old maxim that enmity was double edged weapon which cuts bath ways still holds good as while it may be a tool for false implication of innocent, it may also mobilise a person to commit wrong and even atrocious crime. Though motive except past animosity has not explicitly surfaced in evidence of witnesses, regard being had to the nature of evidences which are direct, the matter of motive even if it appears to be invigible, looses all its significance and remains a matter of only academic interest. 21. Having bestowed our deepest and anxious considerations to the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and also regard being had to the evidences available on record, while we acquit appellant Praduman Thakur, giving him benefit of doubt, we also acquit appellants Ganesh Manjhi, Sikandar Kapri and Jai Kant Sah, due to insufficiency of evidence against them. Those acquitted are also discharged from liability of their bail bonds. However, we uphold conviction and sentence awarded against appellants, Ramesh Mandal, Mannu Manjhi, Shibbal Paraiya, Vijay Bhagat, Umesh Bhagat, Yogendra Bhagat, Dewal Yadav, Garbhi Yadav, Dilip Yadav and Ranjan Mandal. Those acquitted are also discharged from liability of their bail bonds. However, we uphold conviction and sentence awarded against appellants, Ramesh Mandal, Mannu Manjhi, Shibbal Paraiya, Vijay Bhagat, Umesh Bhagat, Yogendra Bhagat, Dewal Yadav, Garbhi Yadav, Dilip Yadav and Ranjan Mandal. Since appellants Yogendra Bhagat, Mannu Manjhi, Dewal Yadav, Garbhi Yadav, Dilip Yadav, Vijay Bhagat and Umesh Bhagat are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and the trial Court is directed to take them into custody forthwith to serve out remainder of the sentences. 22. In the result, while Cr. Appeal No.151 of 2000 is dismissed, Cr. Appeal No. 79 of 2000 and Cr. Appeal No. 125 of 2000 succeed in part, and all the three appeals are disposed of as indicated above. SACHCHIDANAND JHA, J. 23 I agree.