Judgment Mridula Mishra, J. 1. These two appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order of conviction dated 11.12.2000 passed by Vllth Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, in Sessions Trial no. 86 of 1998. Appellants, Sikandar Singh @ Mangal Singh, Dablu Singh, Ajay Singh @ Bucha Singh and Promod Singh have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. All the appellants have further been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant (P.W. 11) Barauni (Garhara) Police instituted a case on 30.8.1997. The fardbeyan was recorded by the Sub-Inspector of the Garhara Police Station. In his fardbeyan the informant stated that in the night of 29/30.8.1997 his father after taking his meal was sleeping on the Varandah on a cot. His mother was also sleeping on a separate cot by the side of his father. He returned after visiting mela of Krishnajanmashtami from Garhara. He entered the house and woke up his mother. Just thereafter accused Dablu, Sikandar, Promod and Ajay Singh, armed with country made pistol came at the darwaja of the informant. Ajay Singh came and stood by the side of his mother and asked her not to raise alarm. The informant out of fear ran away and concealed himself behind a Maruka. From there he saw that Sikandar Singh, Promod Singh and Ajay Singh started firing at his father and his father succumbed to his injuries. Hearing the sound of firing as well as alarm, Rajiv Kumar Rai, Bachan Kumar Rai, Arvind Kumar, Achaybat Singh and Umesh Singh came there. All the four accused thereafter started fleeing away towards estern side. The reason behind the occurrence is that one Kailash Rai, one day the informant and demanded Rs. 50,000/- as subscription which was refused by his father and resulted into this occurrence. The case was investigated by the officer incharge of Barauni (Garhara) Police Station. After investigation chargesheet was submitted by him and on receipt of the charge-sheet cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions and on completion of trial the accused-appellants were convicted, as stated above. 3. Appellants have taken this plea that they have falsely been implicated due to land dispute. 4. After investigation chargesheet was submitted by him and on receipt of the charge-sheet cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions and on completion of trial the accused-appellants were convicted, as stated above. 3. Appellants have taken this plea that they have falsely been implicated due to land dispute. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined altogether twelve witnesses. P.W.1, P.W.7 and P.W.9 are the witnesses, who claimed to have seen the accused persons fleeing away after committing murder of Madan Mohan Rai. P.W.2 Shanti Devi is the wife of deceased Madan Mohan Rai and an eye witness to the occurrence. Another eye witness is P.W.11 Ranjeet Kumar Rai, son of deceased Madan Mohan Rai. P.W.3, Krishnandan Rai, has been examined as witness of seizure list and has proved his signature on the seizure list. P.W.6, Rajiv Kumar Rai and P.W.8 Shiv Nandan Singh are formal witnessess. P.W.10, Abu Nassar, is the second investigating officer of the case who has only submitted chargesheet in the case. P.W.5, Dr. Vijay Kumar, has conducted post mortem on the deceased and submitted the postt mortem report. P.W.12 Parsuram Bhatt, is the investigating officer of the case. 5. P.W.11, Ranjeet Kumar Rai, the informant in this case is an eye witness to the occurrence. He is the son of the deceased. He has stated that in the night of 29/30.8.1997 at 1-30 A.M. he returned after visiting Janmastami Mela. His mother was sleeping at darwaza on the cot. He called her and she woke up. His father was also sleeping on a separate cot at the darwaja of the house and at that time all the accused-appellants came there. He identified all of them in the emergency light. Ajay Singh asked her mother not to raise alarm. P.W.11 out of fear concealed himself behind the Maruka wherefrom he saw that all the four accused persons started firing on his father. He raised alarm and on hearing his alarm, P.W.4, P.W.7 and P.W.9 came and saw all the accused persons fleeing away from the house. According to P.W.11, the occurrence took place because one day prior to the occurrence his father refused to fulfil the demand of one Kailash Rai who had come to ask for Rs. 50,000/- as subscription. He raised alarm and on hearing his alarm, P.W.4, P.W.7 and P.W.9 came and saw all the accused persons fleeing away from the house. According to P.W.11, the occurrence took place because one day prior to the occurrence his father refused to fulfil the demand of one Kailash Rai who had come to ask for Rs. 50,000/- as subscription. This witness has further stated that he could indentify the accused persons as they were co-villagers and they used to visit his house. He also stated that there was no previous enmity between the family of the accused and the family of the informant. P.W.11 has further stated that P.W.7 and P.W.9, who are his brothers, were also inside the house at the time of occurrence. When he came at night his wife was sleeping inside the room, but subsequently she woke up and served dinner to his father-in-law, she was also by the side of his father-in-law in the room at the time of occurrence. He heard the sound of firing and he alongwith his father-in-law, P.W.7 and P.W.9 came out and saw the occurrence. He went to the police station to give information at 2 O clock in the night as the police station is at a distance which takes five minutes to reach there from his house. This witness has stated that all the witnesses P.W.8, P.W.3, P.W.1 and P.W.4 are related to each other, P.W.11 has stated that in the night of the occurrence there was no electricity in the village. The emergency light was there in the room of the house. He admitted that he did not show the emergency light was there in the room of the house. He admitted that he did not show the emergency light to the investigating officer. The informant P.W.11 has further stated that witness P.W.4 resides just adjacent to his house. He stated that when investigating officer had prepared the inquest report, he and his brothers, P.W.7 and P.W.9 were not present there. He denied the suggestion that he is not the eye witness to the occurrence and he was not present at the time of occurrence. 6. Another eye witness P.W.2, Shanti Devi, is the mother of P.W.11 and wife of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he is not the eye witness to the occurrence and he was not present at the time of occurrence. 6. Another eye witness P.W.2, Shanti Devi, is the mother of P.W.11 and wife of the deceased. She has stated that at the time of occurrence i.e. in the night of 29/ 30.8.1997 at 1-30 A.M. she was sleeping on a separate cot by the side of her husband. At 1-30 A.M. Ranjit Kumar Rai came back to his house alongwith his father-in-law. She woke up. Immediately thereafter all the accused armed with pistol came at the darwaja and they asked her to keep silent and not to raise alarm. Thereafter, they started firing at her husband. It is stated that at that time emergency light was burning. She had also stated that the occurrence took place because her husband refused to pay Rs. 50,000/- to Kaiiash Rai. Her statement was recorded by the police before the statement of her son was recorded. Her husband received four injuries due to the firing made by the accused persons. She has admitted that Kailash Rai had no enmity with her family and the accused persons are not related to Kaiiash Rai. She has stated that there was another chowki at the place of occurrence, and it was for Umesh Rai, father-in-law of her son Ranjeet. She has stated that P.W.4 reached at the place of occurrence within one or two minutes of the filing. Ranjeet (P.W.11), P.W.7 and P.W.9 also came. She has admitted that on the date of occurrence there was no electricity in the house, supply of electricity had been disrupted for two days prior to the occurrence because there was heavy storm. She has further stated that Umesh Rai, the father-in-law of her son (P.W.11) was inside the room and came at the place of occurrence after hearing the sound of firing. A suggestion was given to this witness that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case which has been denied. 7. P.W.1, P.W.7 and P.W.9 have stated that they had seen the accused fleeing away from the place of occurrence as they reached just after the occurrence. P.W.1 has stated that he came at the place of occurrence after hearing the sound of firing and saw that Madan Mohan Rai was lying dead on the cot. 7. P.W.1, P.W.7 and P.W.9 have stated that they had seen the accused fleeing away from the place of occurrence as they reached just after the occurrence. P.W.1 has stated that he came at the place of occurrence after hearing the sound of firing and saw that Madan Mohan Rai was lying dead on the cot. At that time light was burning there and he saw four persons fleeing away from there who were Mangal Singh, Dablu Singh, Sikandar Singh and Promod Singh. Madan Mohan Rai had received four injuries on his chest. According to this witness also the occurrence took place because of refusal to pay Rs. 50,000/- as subscription by the deceased one day prior to the date of occurrence to Kaiiash. This witness has stated that he is related to P.W.3 and P.W.8 as P.W.3 and P.W.8 are own brothers and they are his uncles. He has also stated that at the time of occurrence he had returned from Mela. He had gone to visit Mela but he did not meet P.W.7, P.W.9 and P.W.11 in the Mela. P.W.1 has stated that house of P.W.4 is adjacent to the house of deceased Madan Mohan Rai and P.W.4 reached at the place of occurrence immediately because his house is by the side of the house of the deceased. 8. P.W.4 is the next door neighbour of the informant and the deceased, who has stated that the deceased was known to him and he was killed. Just after the occurrence he had gone to the house of the deceased where the investigating of ficer had taken his signature on a blanksheet of paper. He had not stated before the investigating officer that he went to the house of the deceased after hearing alarm and he saw the accused persons in the electric light fleeing away towards the east of darwaza and all of them were armed with pistol. He has stated before the police that the deadbody of Madan Mohan Rai was lying on a cot at darwaza of P.W.11. On his examination-in-chief he has stated that his house is just adjacent to the house of Madan Mohan Rai. When he reached at the house of Madan Mohan Rai, the family members were not present there. He saw the deadbody of Madan Mohan and raised alarm. On this, wife of deceased came there. On his examination-in-chief he has stated that his house is just adjacent to the house of Madan Mohan Rai. When he reached at the house of Madan Mohan Rai, the family members were not present there. He saw the deadbody of Madan Mohan and raised alarm. On this, wife of deceased came there. He has further stated that Ranjeet (P.W.11) and Bom Bom (P.W.9) were present there. He did not see anyone fleeing away from the place of occurrence. No one had given any threat to anyone prior to the occurrence. P.W.4 has not been declared hostile by the prosecution though he has not supported the case of the prosecution. 9. P.W.7 is the son of the deceased. He stated that in the night of the occurrence he was sleeping inside the house. He heard the sound of firing and came out. He saw the accused persons fleeing away towards the east of the darwaja. He also saw that his father was lying dead. He identified the accused persons in the light. At the time of occurrence his brother Ranjeet, his wife and his father-in-law were having their meal inside the room. Door of his room was closed. On hearing the sound of his mothers weeping he came out and found his father lying dead. He had shown the blood-stained bedsheet and the firing mark at the place of occurrence to the Investigating Officer. P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.1 and P.W.11 also came at the place of occurrence. P.W.7 has denied that there were no light and electricity in the night of occurrence. 10. P.W.9 is another witness who has said to have seen the accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence. He is son of the deceased and brother of P.W.7 and P.W.11. He had stated that he was sleeping in his room at about 1-30 A.M. On hearing sound of firing he came out and saw the accused persons fleeing away with pistol in their hands. He saw the dead body of his father having injury on the chest. According to this witness, the reason behind this occurrence is refusal to make payment to Kailash Rai by his father. This witness has also stated that the house of P.W.4 is close to his house. He has further stated that he has no knowledge that at the time of occurrence P.W.7 and P.W.11 were present inside the house. According to this witness, the reason behind this occurrence is refusal to make payment to Kailash Rai by his father. This witness has also stated that the house of P.W.4 is close to his house. He has further stated that he has no knowledge that at the time of occurrence P.W.7 and P.W.11 were present inside the house. He has admitted that when he heard the sound of firing there was no light in his house. He has stated that his father used to sleep without emergency light when there was no electric supply. He stated that one day prior to the occurrence the supply of electricity had been disrupted in the village. Further he has stated that no seizure was made in his presence. He has denied his suggestion that occurrence has not taken place in the manner, as deposed by him. 11. P.W.5 is the doctor who has conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased. He has stated that he found four lacerated wounds on the deadbody of the deceased caused by fire arms. Injury no.3 is the wound of entry and injury no. 4 is a wound of exit on right forearm. Injury nos. 1 and 2 were on the chest. The injuries were sufficient to cause death and, in his opinion, death caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries. He has proved the post mortem report marked as Ext.3. He found two bullets inside the body which were sealed and handed over to the police. 12. P.W.12, the investigating officer has stated that on 30.8.1997 he was Incharge of Garhara out post in the Barauni Police Station. On that date at 4 O clock in the morning he recorded the fardbeyan of Ranjeet Kumar Rai. He proved his signature on fardbeyan (Ext.6), forwarding of the fardbeyan made by him Ext.7, signature of Laljee Pd. Singh Ext.8 and formal F.I.R. Ext. 9. He also prepared inquest report in his own hand writing which he has proved as Ext.10. After recording the fardbeyan of P.W.11, he started investigation of the case. He had seized the wads of fired cartridges at the place of occurrence and prepared the seizure list. He also recorded statement of P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.6, P.W.1, P.W.9 and P.W.7. The place of occurrence was darwaza of Ranjeet Kumar Rai. After recording the fardbeyan of P.W.11, he started investigation of the case. He had seized the wads of fired cartridges at the place of occurrence and prepared the seizure list. He also recorded statement of P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.6, P.W.1, P.W.9 and P.W.7. The place of occurrence was darwaza of Ranjeet Kumar Rai. He found a cot at the darwaza on which the dead body of Madan Mohan Rai was lying. He also found another cot and a chowki at the place of occurrence. He was informed that the wife of the deceased was sleeping on one of the cots and beside this he found another chowki at the place of occurrence. He found sufficient blood fallen on the cot. P.W.11 stated before him that he had witnessed the occurrence concealing himself behind the Maruka. He sent the dead body of the deceased for post mortem and also obtained post mortem report on 4.11.1997. He submitted the investigation report to P.W.10 as he was transferred to another place. P.W.12 has stated that in presence of P.W.3, empty catridges were recovered by him. P.W.4, Achhayabat Singh, has stated before him that he saw the accused persons in the light of electricity. All the accused persons had pistols in their hands. In cross-examination P.W.12 had stated that in course of-investigation none of the witnesses had stated before him that they identified the accused persons in the emergency light. He did not find any electricity bulb at the place of occurrence. No one of the deceaseds family had come to the police station to give information about the occurrence to him. He was informed about the occurrence as rumour and in order to verify he went to the place of occurrence. P.W.7 and P.W.9 had not stated before him that in the electricity light they had seen the accused persons at the place of occurrence. P.W.2, P.W.7, P.W.9 and P.W.11 had not stated before him that they had identified the accused persons in the emergency light and emergency light was also not shown to him. P.W.12 has stated that P.W.9 has not stated before him that the accused persons had come to ask for subscription which was not paid and this was the reason for occurrence. P.W.12 has stated that P.W.9 has not stated before him that the accused persons had come to ask for subscription which was not paid and this was the reason for occurrence. This witness has also stated that while he was preparing seizure list and inquest report, no male members from the family of the deceased had come to put their signature on the seizure list or the inquest report. P.W.12 has also stated that P.W.2 did not mention before him that she was sleeping on a separate cot by the side of her husband. P.W.2 had stated before him that at that time she was sleeping on a separate cot. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the conviction of the appellants on the ground that claim of the prosecution witnesses that they have identified the accused persons at the place of occurrence is highly improbable. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the date of occurrence was a dark night. In the F.I.R. itself it is the case of the prosecution that at the time of occurrence electric blub was burning at the place of occurrence and in that light the informant had identified the accused persons and witnessed the occurrence. Other witnesses have also stated that in the light they saw accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence. P.W.2, P.W.7, P.W.9 and P.W.11 have admitted that at the time of occurrence there was no supply of electricity in the village. For the first time, in course of trial, all witnesses have stated about the presence of emergency light at the place of occurrence as a means of identification. This is not the case of the prosecution in the F.I.R. None of the prosecution witnesses had stated before the Investigating Officer (P.W.12) in their statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding identification of the accused persons in emergency light. P.W.12 has clearly stated that during investigation none of the witnesses had stated before him that they have identified the accused persons in the emergency light. He has further stated that no emergency light was shown to him by the informant. He did not even find any electric blub at the place of occurrence. In such circumstance, identification of the accused-appellants by P.W.11, P.W.2, P.W.8, P.W.7 and P.W.9 is highly improbable and doubtful. 14. He has further stated that no emergency light was shown to him by the informant. He did not even find any electric blub at the place of occurrence. In such circumstance, identification of the accused-appellants by P.W.11, P.W.2, P.W.8, P.W.7 and P.W.9 is highly improbable and doubtful. 14. Another point raised by the counsel for the appellants is that the prosecution story that P.W.2 and P.W.11 are eye witnesses is falsified by the prosecution evidence. It has been stated by P.W.2 that she was sleeping by the side of her husband on another cot. She had seen the occurrence as she was present there. P.W.12 has stated that P.W.2 had not said before him that she was sleeping by the side of her husband on another cot. P.W.2 had stated in her evidence that there was another cot which was for Umesh Rai, father-in-law of P.W.11. P.W.12 has also found other two cots beside the cot on which the deadbody of the deceased was lying at the place of occurrence. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is unbelievable and improbable that P.W.2 coming from a village background will sleep by the side of father-in-law of her son P.W.11. In this view, the presence of P.W.2 at the time of occurrence becomes doubtful. Regarding P.W.11 it has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.9 has stated in his evidence that he had no knowledge whether P.W.7 and P.W.11 were present in the house in the night of the occurrence. P.W.11 himself has stated that he came out from his room after hearing the sound of firing as at that time he was taking meal with his father-in-law in the room. P.W.7 has also supported the fact that P.W.11 was taking meal with his father-in-law inside the room. This admission made by P.W.11 himself corroborated by the evidence of P.W.7 makes the presence of P.W.11 at the place of occurrence doubtful. In this view, the evidence of P.W.11 as eye witness cannot be believed. Another reason for disbelieving the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.11 as eye witness is the evidence of P.W.4. P.W.4 has not supported the case of prosecution. He has not been declared hostile. P.W.4 has stated that he had not seen any accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence. Another reason for disbelieving the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.11 as eye witness is the evidence of P.W.4. P.W.4 has not supported the case of prosecution. He has not been declared hostile. P.W.4 has stated that he had not seen any accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence. It has been admitted by all the witnesses that the house of P.W.4 is just by the side of the house of P.W.11. It has been admitted by P.W.2 that P.W.4 reached at the place of occurrence within two minutes of firing. P.W.4 has stated that after hearing the wound of firing he came at the place of occurrence. No family members of the deceased were present at the place of occurrence. He raised alarm on which P.W.2 came from inside the house. The evidence of P.W.4 is a substantive evidence. Presence of P.W.4 immediately after the occurrence at the place of occurrence has been admitted by all the prosecution witnesses. If evidence of P.W.4 is believed, in that case, presence of P.W.2 and P.W.11 at the time of oc currence cannot be believed and it becomes doubtful. 15. Learned counsel for the State has advanced his argument that since appellants are co-villagers, their identification is possible by the prosecution witnesses. P.W.2, being the wife of the deceased, is the most natural witness and her presence cannot be doubted. It is true that prosecution witnesses and the appellants are co-villagers but it is not the case of the prosecution that they had identified the appellants by voice. It is the specific case of the prosecution that appellants were identified in electric light. In course of trial the prosecution witnesses have introduced a new case that they identified the accused persons in emergency light. All the witnesses admitted that there was no electricity in the village on the date of occurrence. The Investigating Officer has not supported this evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He has stated that none of the witnesses had stated before him that they identified the accused in the emergency light. He has also stated that during investigation he was not shown any emergency light. In such circumstance, conviction cannot be affirmed when identification of the accused appellants by the prosecution witnesses itself is doubtful. 16. He has stated that none of the witnesses had stated before him that they identified the accused in the emergency light. He has also stated that during investigation he was not shown any emergency light. In such circumstance, conviction cannot be affirmed when identification of the accused appellants by the prosecution witnesses itself is doubtful. 16. It is true that a single infirmity may not make the case of the prosecution doubtful but cumulative effect of infirmities make the case of the prosecution doubtful when not a single independent witness has come to the court to support the prosecution case. All the witnesses have stated that the reason behind the occurrence was demand of Rs. 50,000/-by Kailash Rai. None of the witnesses stated that appellants had made any demand of subscription from the deceased. It has also been admitted by the witnesses that the accused persons have no relations with Kailash Rai and the accused persons are not related to each other. As such, there is no motive for the appellants to participate in the occurrence. In such circumstances, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and the conviction by the trial court cannot be affirmed. 17. In the facts and circumstances, the judgment and conviction of the trial court is set aside. Appeals are allowed. Appellants are acquitted. Appellants, namely, Sikandar Singh@ Mangal Singh, Dablu Singh and Ajay Singh are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Appellant, Promod Singh, of Cr. Appeal no. 19 of 2001 is on bail. He is discharged from liability of his bail bond. Ram Nandan Prasad, J. 18 I agree.