Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. Though 19 persons were put on trial on various charges, others having been acquitted, appellants alone suffered conviction, who were sentenced by the trial Court to various terms of imprisonment. As for Basgit Singh, he suffered conviction under Sections 302 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code IPC for which he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the first count and a term of seven years imprisonment on the second count. He suffered conviction also under Section 27 of the Arms Act for which he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. Other appellants, namely, Sipahi Singh, Sudarshan Singh, Haliwant Singh, Haridwar Singh and Ramashish Nau too suffered conviction under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149, IPC and also under Section 307/149 IPC, for which while for the first count, they have been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, for the second count, they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years. They too suffered conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act, for which they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year with a rider that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Before we notice the narratives made by witnesses at trial, some of the salient features of the prosecution case can be discussed with brevity. At police case was registered on behest of Aliar Singh who in his fardbeyan stated inter alia that on 27th March, 1980, after he was released on bail by Court at Bhabhua, he happed to meet his father Radha Kishun Singh, cousin brother Ram Ayodhya Singh and also Gobardhan Singh and Jag Narain Singh, who had attended Court on the day to secure his release from custody. He also happened to meet Hari Mishra, Ram Kripal Mishra and Lal Muni Ram there and all of them set out for their village Semara. In the midway they also happened to meet Sheojag Singh, father-in-law of Ram Ayodhya Singh. They boarded a bus and alighted on completion of their journey for their house. It was alleged that shortly thereafter when they reached near the corner of his house in a lane, Basgit Singh, Sipahi Singh and Sudarshan Singh resorted to firing by which Gobardhan Singh, Radha Krishan Singh and he himself suffered injury in the lower part of their legs. It was alleged that shortly thereafter when they reached near the corner of his house in a lane, Basgit Singh, Sipahi Singh and Sudarshan Singh resorted to firing by which Gobardhan Singh, Radha Krishan Singh and he himself suffered injury in the lower part of their legs. They being apprehensive ran towards their house and took shelter therein but his house was surrounded by the appellants and their associates, who resorted to indiscriminate firing and some of them also sprinkled kerosene oil on the tiles of roofs of their house and set it on fire. It was alleged that after the house caught fire and they came out of their house to save their lives, Basgit Singh, Haliwant Singh and Ramashish Nau, resorted to firing causing injuries in his arms. Gobardhan Singh too had suffered injuries below his eye brows and his father too suffered injuries on the back and arms. They immediately took shelter in their house, pursuant to which Basgit Singh fired shot on Gurucharan Singh who dropped injured and succumbed to them shortly thereafter. When Ram Kawal Singh and Arjun Singh opened door and came out of the house, the accused persons again resorted to firing causing injuries to them and his grandmother Ekadashi Devi too suffered fire arm injuries when she forbade them to trespass in the house. However, shortly after dafadar came and reprimanded them, the miscreants had retired from the place of occurrence. 3. After Police case had been registered, as usual investigation followed, in course of which Police Officer recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, got the injured examined by the doctor and got autopsy held over dead body of deceased Gurucharan Singh. Eventually, 19 persons were put on trial and as has been noticed, only appellants alone suffered conviction who were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. 4. Defence of the appellants has been that of innocence and their false implica tion due to persisting land dispute and animosity generated therefrom, between the parties. As for killing of Gurucharan Singh, defence of the appellants was that house of Aliar Singh was ransacked by dacoits in course of which Gurucharan Singh was killed by them and the prosecution party having seized opportunity had falsely implicated appellants and others. As for killing of Gurucharan Singh, defence of the appellants was that house of Aliar Singh was ransacked by dacoits in course of which Gurucharan Singh was killed by them and the prosecution party having seized opportunity had falsely implicated appellants and others. Defence, however, had not chosen to examine any witness and the trial Court rejecting plea of innocence of the appellants had recorded finding of guilt and sentenced them in the manner stated above. 5. While assailing the findings recorded by Court below, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that since major part of the prosecution version about commission of arson and also complicity of large number of persons, who were put on trial, had been disbelieved by the Court below, hardly there remains any evidence on the record to fasten guilt against the appellants on the same set of evidence. While referring to the injuries sustained by Aliar Singh. Radha Kishun Singh and Gobardhan Singh which they sustained shortly after they allegedly reached the lane, submission is that considering the width of lane which seems to be quite narrow and also regard being had to the narrations made by witnesses, that they had proceeded to their house in the lane somewhat in queue, in all probability Gobardhan Singh alone who was at the bottom of the queue was expected to have suffered injuries and injuries on the persons of others who were ahead of him was quite unlikely. Contentions were raised that when there was indiscriminate firing, it was quite unlikely that all the three persons would suffer injuries only in lower part of their legs. Yet it is urged that attention of almost all witnesses was drawn by the defence on material particulars of the case to impeach their credibility and their evidences being materially different from statements rendered by them during investigation, but since Investigating Officer was not examined during trial, credibility of these witnesses remained open to question. Referring to age of some of the persons who were put on trial, submission is that even those persons who were sufficiently aged, were not spared from being implicated as Rupdeo Mishra one of the accused was put on trial was 90 years old. Referring to age of some of the persons who were put on trial, submission is that even those persons who were sufficiently aged, were not spared from being implicated as Rupdeo Mishra one of the accused was put on trial was 90 years old. About implication of appellant Hardwar Singh, submission is that he was made an accused only because he was helpful to the family of Basgit Singh in prosecuting cases in the Court, and we feel that to appreciate the contentions raised, narratives made by witnesses can be noticed which have been fairly spelt out in the judgment of the Court below also. 6. The witnesses examined by the State can be broadly classified in two sets as while Ram Kawal Singh (PW 1), Arjun Singh (PW 3) Gobardhan Singh (PW 4). Radha Kishun Singh (PW 5), and Aliar Singh (PW 9) claimed to have witnesses the entire incident, right from the beginning when Aliar Singh, Radha Kishun Singh and Gobardhan Singh sustaining injuries in the lane, when they were going towards their house, till killing of Gurucharan Singh, Jag Narain Singh (PW 2), Ram Kripal Mishra (PW 6), and Lal Muni Ram (PW 7) were witnesses only to the first part of the incident when these three injured had sustained gun shot injuries while approaching to their house Jag Narain Singh (PW 2), though claimed to have found Gurucharan Singh dead with gun shot injuries on his person did not claim to have noticed assailant of the deceased. Reiterating his earliest version, Aliar Singh (PW 9) would state that shortly after being released on bail, when he happened to meet some of the family members and also other persons in Bhabhua, he set out along with them for his village. After they reached southern lane, near his house, Basgit Singh, Sipahi Singh and Sudarshan Singh had resorted to firing causing injuries to him along with Gobardhan Singh and Radha Kishun Singh in their legs. They ran towards their house after they were chased by appellants and others, and as for the appellants, the witness would state that they held firearms with them. They ran towards their house after they were chased by appellants and others, and as for the appellants, the witness would state that they held firearms with them. It was stated by him that on being chased, when they came inside the house, and he could notice that on being exhorted by Basgit Singh, the miscreants poured kerosene oil on house and set it on fire and after he along with Radha Kishun Singh and Gobardhan Singh opened door and came out of the house, appellants had resorted to firing by which he along with Radha Kishun Singh and Gobardhan Singh had sustained injuries on their persons and they again escaped inside house. As for killing of Gurucharan Singh, the witness would state that after Basgit Singh had shot fire, Gurucharan Singh dropped injured and succumbed to them. When Ram Kawal Singh and Arjun Singh too, who were inside the house opened the door they too suffered injuries on their persons when miscreants resorted to firing on them. The miscreants had ransacked the house and also caused injuries to Ekadashi Devi. It was only after arrival of the Police Officer that he opened the door and narrated the incident to the Police Officer. Inquest over the dead body of his grandfather was prepared by the Police Officer who also seized blood stained earth and prepared seizure memo. The injured thereafter were examined in Bhabhua hospital. 7. Almost in similar terms, narrations were sought to be made also by Ram Kawal Singh (PW 1), Arjun Singh (PW 3) Gobardhan Singh (PW 4), and Radha Kishun Singh (PW 5), about Aliar Singh, Gobardhan Singh and Radha Kishun Singh sustaining gun shot injuries in the lane when Basgit Singh, Sudarshan Singh and Sipahi Singh had resorted to firing on them. Narrations almost in similar terms were sought to be, made by these witnesses also about these three persons, namely, Gobardhan Singh, Radha Kishun Singh and Aliar Singh sustaining injuries when they came out of the house after it had caught fire. Narrations were made by these witnesses echoing the same tune also about Ram Kawal Singh and Arjun Singh sustaining gun shot injuries when they too had endeavoured to come from the house. 8. Evidence of other witnesses too who were not witness to the entire incident can be noticed. Narrations were made by these witnesses echoing the same tune also about Ram Kawal Singh and Arjun Singh sustaining gun shot injuries when they too had endeavoured to come from the house. 8. Evidence of other witnesses too who were not witness to the entire incident can be noticed. Though Jag Narain Singh (PW 2) would state about Aliar Singh, Radha Kishun Singh and Gobardhan Singh sustaining injuries when Basgit Sigh, Sripal Singh and Sudarshan Singh had resorted to firing, he would not tell about rest part of the incident as he had retired from the place of occurrence. However, as has been noticed earlier, he stated to have seen Gurucharan Singh dead with the gun shot injuries on his person. He claimed to have found house burnt at some places. 9. Ram Kripal Mishra (PW 6) and Lal Muni Ram (PW 7) too happened to be among other set of witnesses. Though Ram Kripal Mishra (PW 6) too had accompanied Aliar Singh from Bhabhua Court, when said Aliar Singh along with Radha Kishun Singh and Gobardhan Singh had sustained injuries in the lane, while approaching towards their house, he was not a witness to the rest part of the incident, as witness states that shortly after he noticed appellants and others chasing them, he made good his escape. Almost similar evidence had been that of Lal Muni (PW 7) also who too claimed to have accompanied Aliar Singh from Bhabhua Court when Aliar Singh, Gobardhan Singh and Radha Kishun Singh had sustained injuries on their persons when they were approaching towards their house in the lane. This witness too was not a witness to the rest part of the incident as shortly after he noticed appellants and others near house of Basgit Singh, he being apprehensive ran towards his house. 10. Though evidence of rest witnesses are not on material particulars of the case, narrations made by them also can be noticed, and as for Ram Ayodhya Singh (PW 8), though he too was shown to be witness of the entire incident, he being in the company of Aliar Singh from the very beginning when they left Bhabhua Court for their village, he was simply tendered by the State. Evidence of Gobind Chaubey (PW 14), dafadar was that shortly on receipt of information from Komal Dusadh, about incident of firing at the house of Aliar Singh, he rushed to his house, where he noticed dead body of Guruchanran Singh. Shiyjag Singh (PW 10) too was tendered by the State and Hotillal (PW 11) too was quite formal, as he placed on the record only the injury register and inquest report brought from the office of the Deputy Superintendent, Bhabhua. Gupteshwar Mishra (PW 12), a dresser in Bhabhua Hospital, placed on the record injury reports purported to be in the writing of Dr. Janardan Prasad Singh, in respect of the five injured, and also the post mortem report of the deceased of which Dr. Janardan Prasad Singh happened to be the author. Badri Narain Prasad (PW 13) had placed on the record carbon copy of injury report of Ekadasi Devi. Similarly, Kanhaiya Singh (PW 15) had placed on the record the inquest report of Gurucharan Singh, said to be in the writing of Harihar Dubey, Police Officer and lastly, Ram Lakhan Ram (PW 16) was happened to be Advocate Clerk, had brought on the record the Police case diary of Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 25 dated 28th March, 1980, and also the first information report and also death certificate in respect of Harihar Dubey, Police Officer. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State. 11. Since narrations made by all witnesses have been noticed, a brief comment on their credibility can now be made. Contrary to omnibus accusations made in the fardheyan, Aliar Singh (PW 9) states that he sustained injuries only from Hardwar Singh and he could not say as to by whom Gobardhan Singh and Radha Kishun Singh had sustained injuries on their persons. Since narration made by this witness about chase by appellants and others, he along with his father and cousin brother sustained injuries. Gurucharan Singh having been shot dead by Bashist Singh was challenged by the defence that being materially different from his statement made during investigation, on material particulars of the incident for which his attention had been drawn; grievance of the appellants was that as Police Officer was not examined, credibility of this witness remained open to question. Gurucharan Singh having been shot dead by Bashist Singh was challenged by the defence that being materially different from his statement made during investigation, on material particulars of the incident for which his attention had been drawn; grievance of the appellants was that as Police Officer was not examined, credibility of this witness remained open to question. Attention of Ram Kawal Singh (PW 1) who claimed to have witnessed the incident, when he was feeding the cattle, was drawn by the defence as his evidence before the Court was materially different from the statement made during investigation about Haliwant Singh. Ramshish Nau and Hardwar Singh holding guns. Attention of this witness was also drawn that he did not make parallel statement before the Police that when Aliyar Singh, Radha Kishun Singh, Gubardhan Singh and he along with Arjun Singh came out of the house, firing was resorted by appellants, when they had sustained gun shot injuries on their persons. Attention of Jag Narain Singh (PW 2) also was drawn by the defence about he having simply stated before the Police only about seeing six persons injured, though this witness claimed to have seen the incident of firing and victims sustaining guns shot injuries. Attention of Arjun Singh (PW 3) too was drawn to his earlier version rendered before the Police about Radha Kishun Singh, Gobardhan Singh and Aliar Singh having been noticed by him coming limping, on sustaining gun shot injuries on their persons. His attention was also drawn about he having not made parallel statement before the Police about Haliwant Singh, Ramashish Nau and Haridwar Singh holding fire arms. His credibility was also sought to be impeached by the defence about he having not stated before the Police about the appellants and others chasing the victims. His credibility was also challenged about he having not made statement before the Police about Basgit Singh, Haliwant Singh, Ramashish Nai, Sudar- shan Singh, and Sipahi Singh holding fire arms and also that when Radha Kishun Singh, Aliar Singh and Gobardhan Singh came out from their house, they suffered gun shot injuries on their persons on firing resorted to by appellants. Assertions made by this witness about he along with Ram Kawal Singh sustaining injuries, on coming out from the house was also challenged by the defence, there being no such parallel statement before the Police. Assertions made by this witness about he along with Ram Kawal Singh sustaining injuries, on coming out from the house was also challenged by the defence, there being no such parallel statement before the Police. Attention of Gobardhan Singh (PW 4) too on material particulars of the incident was drawn about Basgit Singh, Sipahi Singh, Hardwar Singh, Ramashish Nai and Sudarshan Singh having fired shots by which Aliar Singh, Gobardhan Singh, Ram Kewal Singh, Arjun Singh and Radha Kishun Singh sustained gunshot injuries. Assertions made by this witness was also challenged he having not made such statement before the police about six appellants holding fire arms and chasing them. Credibility of Radha Kishun Singh (PW 5) too remained open to question in view of attention of this witness having been drawn by defence about his evidence in Court being materially different from statement made during investigation about he sustaining injuries along with Gobardhan Singh and Aliar Singh after they reached near corner of the house. Assertion made by this witness about appellants holding firearms and opening fire on them and also on Ram Kewal Singh and Arjun Singh, after they came out from the house after it had caught fire and sustained injuries on their persons was also challenged by the defence that being materially different from statement made by him during investigation. Attention of PW 6 was drawn that before police he stated to have heard sound of firing, only when he had reached his house. Attention of this witness was drawn, for the having not stated during investigation, about appellants holding firearms and resorting to firing from house of Basgit Singh. Similar was the case with evidence of Lal Muni Ram as his attention too had been drawn on some material particulars of the case. 12. Apart from these infirmities that has crept in evidence of these witnesses, their credibility can be judged from other angle also. Similar was the case with evidence of Lal Muni Ram as his attention too had been drawn on some material particulars of the case. 12. Apart from these infirmities that has crept in evidence of these witnesses, their credibility can be judged from other angle also. It was acknowledged by witnesses that land dispute and also litigations have been persisting between families of Basgit Singh and Aliar Singh, as none else but Aliar Singh (PW 9) would acknowledge that in case of murder of Ram Keshwar Singh (S.T. No. 179 of 1981), he along with Ram Kripal Mishra and Lal Muni Ram, who are witnesses in this case, was accused, and all of them had suffered conviction by trial Court, appeal against which was pending before High Court, and in that case, Viswanath, Sipahi, appellant Bahadur Sharma, and appellant Sudarshan were witnesses against them. Acknowledgement in similar terms were made also by Ram Kripal Mishra (PW 6). This is not the only evidence about animosity between the parties and witnesses being inimical to appellants, as none else but Aliar Singh (PW 9) would acknowledge that Sanichari Devi, mother of appellant Basgit Singh had instituted a case of theft and assault against him, Gobardhan Singh, Jag Narain Singh, Ram Ayodhya Singh and Radha Kishun Singh, and in that case, Gupta Mishra, Rajaram Mishra, Dhurphekan Sharma and Halwant Singh were witnesses and in that case the accused had suffered conviction in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate. Though Lalmuni Ram (PW 7) would deny, Ram Kripal Mishra (PW 5) would make tacit admission of the fact. Aliyar Singh would make candid admission that preceding the instant case, more than three cases were instituted against him in which he had suffered conviction but eventually he was acquitted. He would acknowledge also about cases instituted from his side against Ram Sagar, Basgit, Sipahi, Sudarshan, Rameshwar, Sancihari, mother of Basgit in which he along with Jag Narain, Ram Ayodhya, Ram Kripal Mishra, and Buchun Mishra was witness and in that case accused were acquitted by the trial Court. He would acknowledge in no uncertain terms that he had instituted other cases also against Basgit Singh and others in which too the accused were acquitted. Radha Kishun Singh (PW 5) would admit that Bahadur Sharma accused was an employee of Basgit Singh. He would acknowledge in no uncertain terms that he had instituted other cases also against Basgit Singh and others in which too the accused were acquitted. Radha Kishun Singh (PW 5) would admit that Bahadur Sharma accused was an employee of Basgit Singh. Suggestions were given to Ram Kripal Mishra (PW 6) that he was witness in all cases instituted from side of Aliyar Singh. When families of Basgit and Aliar are on litigating terms both the parties are at loggers head, and both families are faction redden, contention raised on behalf of the appellants about their false implication for no good reasons cannot be said to be without substance, particularly in view of infirmity that has crept in evidence of the witnesses. 13. We have also noticed some other disturbing features of the prosecution case. It was acknowledged by witnesses, who were on material particulars of the incident that after Radha Kishun Singh, Gobardhan Singh and Aliar Singh had taken shelter in their house through southern gate, which was closed from the inside, even though the appellants and others had been resorting to firing from outside and had also encircled the house, none of them made any serious endeavour to get their access in the inner apartment of the house through the western door which was yet open. If at all the appellants and their associates were determined to make murderous assault on the victims, since western door was yet open, nothing would have prevented them to force their entry in the house and translate their design into action. If Gobardhan Singh, Radha Kishun Singh and Aliar Singh had suffered gun shot injury while approaching to their house and had thereafter taken shelter inside the room, it was not expected that even when the miscreants had not made any endeavours to force their entry into the house, they would again come out from the room with all apprehension of sustaining gun shot injuries on their person by the appellants, who were holding fire arms, and similar analogy would apply in case of injuries suffered by Ram Kawal Singh and Arjun Singh also, and as in their case also it was not expected that they would get out of the house for sustaining gun shot injuries on them persons, particularly when the appellant had allegedly surrounded the house and had also resorted to firing. 14. 14. Son far as injuries sustained by Arjun Singh and Ram Kawal Singh also are concerned, there has been omnibus accusation against appellants, made by PWs 3, 4, 5, and 9 without assigning explicit role to the appellants to be author of particular injury on individual victim. 15. Coming to explicit accusation abattributed to Basgit Singh about he being author of episode of killing of Gurucharan Singh, evidence of the witnesses on this score too did not appear to be free from blemishes. Though PWs 1, 4.5. and 9 claimed to be ocular witnesses to the killing of Gurucharan Singh by Basgit attention of almost all these witnesses had been drawn by the defence about their evidences being materially different from statement made by them during investigation as none of them were eye witnesses before Police about Basgit Singh having shot dead the deceased. 16. Admitted facts are that neither doctor, who examined injuries, nor the doctor who held autopsy over the dead body was examined by the State during trial. Investigating Officer too was not examined for which evidence was sought to be led that both doctor and Investigating Officer were dead. Apart from the fact that there has not been good and reliable evidence about their death, though injury reports of all the injured and also the post mortem report purported to be in the handwriting of Dr. Janardan Prasad Singh was placed on the record, these documents were admitted in evidence by trial Court with objection raised by the appellants. Apart from the fact that there has not been good and reliable evidence about their death, though injury reports of all the injured and also the post mortem report purported to be in the handwriting of Dr. Janardan Prasad Singh was placed on the record, these documents were admitted in evidence by trial Court with objection raised by the appellants. Though contentions are raised on behalf of the State that these documents can be noticed by the Court taking recourse to provisions of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we consider it useful to notice the aforesaid provision which enjoins that "when any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution and the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each of such document." It further enjoins that " when genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be led in evidence in any inquiry, trial or proceeding without proof of the signature of the person document." Though these documents were placed on the record with the aid of formal witness since genuineness of these documents had been seriously challenged by the appellants, we are afraid that even on this score we can look into those documents to consider the objective findings recorded either by the Police Officer of the positive findings recorded by the doctor. 17. Analysing the evidence of the witnesses, we have noticed that some of the witnesses were not emphatic in their assertions about fire arms held by the appellants though it seems to us that the trial Court being obsessed with accusation attributed to the appellants about holding arms had chosen to record findings of guilt against them. As was admitted by witnesses, even though operation of arson and assault and indiscriminate firing continued for hours together, none from the village came to be a witness, and as has been evidence of Ram Kawal Singh (PW 1), there are cluster of houses around the place of occurrence, even those persons were not the witnesses of the occurrence. Yet there are other disturbing features which make the prosecution case vulnerable. Virodhi Pasi. Yet there are other disturbing features which make the prosecution case vulnerable. Virodhi Pasi. Chowkidar, was living in other part of house of PW 7 even he would not be available for reporting the incident to the Police. Though a number of persons had sustained firearm wounds on their persons, as has been prosecution version, there was not a drop of blood at the place of occurrence. Even assuming, in the first part of incident, all the three persons sustained injuries only in the lower part of their legs, notwithstanding indiscriminate firing allegedly resorted to by the miscreants.As only Aliyar Singh was to be released from custody on that day, there was no good reason for assemblage of so many persons in the Court that day and even when none of them was bailor of Aliyar Singh. Even object for such a large number of persons, who are the witnesses, collecting at Bhabhua, remains quite invisible. Neither any purchases were made by them in the market nor there appears to be sustainable reasons for their visiting Bhabhua that day. These flaws had rendered the prosecution version, in our view quite vulnerable and the trial Court has lost sight of these vital facts. Argument canvassed on behalf of the appellants that since major part of the prosecution case about commission of arson and complicity of number of persons was suspected by the trial Court, with the feeble evidence, guilt cannot be fastened on the same set of evidence, against these appellants, did not appear to be without substance. 18. Having given our deepest and anxious consideration to the fats and circumstances of the case and also evidences placed on the record, we are of the view that finding of guilt and also sentence recorded by the Court below cannot be sustained and in that view of the matter, findings of guilt and also sentence recorded by the Court below are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Since appellants Sudarshan Singh, Haridwar Singh, Haliwant Singh, Sipahi Singh and Ramashish Nau @ Ramashish Hajam @ Ramashish Singh are on bail, they are discharged from liability of their bail bonds. Appellant Basgit Singh, who happens to be in custody, is directed to be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The appeal accordingly succeeds. 19. I agree.