Judgment B.K.Jha, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order passed on 25.11.1987 in Sessions Trial No. 407/84, 79/86 by then learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Nawadah. 2. All the abovenamed three appellants have been convicted and sentenced to R.I. for life under Ss. 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. They have further been convicted and sentenced to R.I. for three years u/s. 449 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences awarded to them, however, have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution is that in the intervening night of 18/19.02.1980 on hearing the sound of Kharkharhat of the door and foot steps of some persons the informant, Bundi Mahton woke up and went on the first floor of his house. He noticed that 3/4 persons were standing outside of his house and one person was climbing on the first floor of his house by scaling over the wall. The informant threw a brick on the person climbing on the floor of his house and he fell down in the court-yard. His 3/4 associates came inside the court-yard and took him dragging out of the Aangan. The informant raised alarm of "Chor-Chor" whereupon his family members woke up and joined his hands in pelting brick bats on the miscreants. In the mean time all the miscreants surrounded the house of the informant and shouted "Shala Tumhara Dhan Daulat Lene Ke Liye Nahin Aaye Hain Balki Tumhara Jaan Lene Ke Liye Aaye Hain" and began to explode bombs. The wife of the informant was also raising alarm of "Chor-Chor" and brick batting on the miscreants. One of the miscreants hulred a bomb on first floor of the house which hit the wife of the informant, she fell down injured on the ground and died. The informant also sustained bomb injuries. The further case of the prosecution is that the miscreants were 15/20 in number in which the informant identified all the three appellants, namely, Rameshwar Mahton, Baso Mahton and Jagdish Mahton. All these three appellants were shouting "Shala Ish Tarah Se Hissa Nahin Dega shale Ko Ghar Main Ghushkar Jaan Se Maar Dalo". The miscreant were armed with bomb, lathi and danda and they had exploded three bombs. After the death of the wife of the informant the miscreants retreated from the place of occurrence. All these three appellants were shouting "Shala Ish Tarah Se Hissa Nahin Dega shale Ko Ghar Main Ghushkar Jaan Se Maar Dalo". The miscreant were armed with bomb, lathi and danda and they had exploded three bombs. After the death of the wife of the informant the miscreants retreated from the place of occurrence. The miscreants had turbaned their heads still the informant and his daughter, Kalo Devi, P.W. 5, identified the appellants in the torch light flashed by them (miscreants). The motive behind the occurrence has been alleged to be that the appellant, Rameshwar Mahton, the own Sharhu of the informant wanted to have 1/2 share in the landed properties gifted to the wife of the informant by her parents and for this he with the help of other miscreants committed the murder of his wife. 4. On 19.2.1980 at 10.15 A.M., S.I., S. Pandey, O.C., Akbarpur Police Station recorded the fard beyan (Ext. No. 3) of Bundi Mahton at his house in Village Rajapur Indor, P.S. Akbarpur, District Nawadah. On the basis of his fard beyan (Ext. No. 3) a formal F.I.R. (Ext. No. 4) was drawn up and Akbarpur P.S. Case No. 7(2) 80 dated 19.2.1980 was registered against the accused-appellants and unknown under Ss. 147/148/302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act. After usual investigation police chargesheeted all the three accused-appellants for trial which ended in their conviction and sentence as mentioned above. 5. The defence of the appellants is that they are quite innocent and had not at all participated in the alleged crime. In fact, the prosecution party brought this false case to put a pressure upon them to give up their claim of half share in the properties of the father-in-law of the appellant, Rameshwar Mahton. 6. At trial the prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses in support of its case. Out of them. P.W. 6, Bundi Mahton, the informant and his daughters, P.W. 4, Chandri Devi and P.W. 5, Kalo Devi, are the eye witnesses to the occurrence, P.W. 1, Mahabir Paswan, is a formal witness and has proved his signature (Ext. No. 1) on the seizure list (Ext. No. 1/4). Out of them. P.W. 6, Bundi Mahton, the informant and his daughters, P.W. 4, Chandri Devi and P.W. 5, Kalo Devi, are the eye witnesses to the occurrence, P.W. 1, Mahabir Paswan, is a formal witness and has proved his signature (Ext. No. 1) on the seizure list (Ext. No. 1/4). P.W. 2, Narayan Mahton and P.W. 3, Mahabir Mahton, were declared hostile on the point of identification of the appellants but they have supported the factum of occurrence and death of Laxminiya Devi, the wife of the informant by bomb injuries. P.W. 7, Bansi Sao, is also a formal witness. His evidence is that Darogaji seized a bag containing bombs from a lane in front of the house and bomb explosion remains from the roof of the house of the informant, Bundi Mahton. He prepared seizure list in his presence and he put his signature thereon (Ext. No. 1/3), P.W. 8 is Dr. A.S.A. Haque who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Laxminiya Devi and P.W. 9, S.I., S. Pandey, is the I.O. of this case. 7. The evidence of P.W. 8, Dr. A.S.A. Haque, is that on 19.2.1980, he conducted autopsy on the dead body of Laxminiya Devi and found the following ante-mortem external injuries: (i). Blast wound which had blown out the whole of abdominal wall exposing and damaging the stomach, intestine and blood vessel. Fracture of both the hip bone was noticed and spleen was lacerated. On dissection he found spleen lacerated, kidney pale, bladder empty, lungs pale, heart empty. According to him, the above injuries was caused by explosive substance such as bomb blast and was sufficient in ordinary course of nature of cause death. The time elapsed since death and post-mortem examination held was found about 16 hours. He proved the post-mortem report (Ext. No. 2). 8. P.W. 6, Bundi Mahton, the informant, is one of the eye witnesses to the occurrence. His evidence is that in the relevant night on the sound of Kharkharahat he woke up and alongwith wife went at the roof of his house. He noticed some persons near the Darwaja of his adjacent neighbour Tulash Mahton and some persons in the courtyard. One person was climbing on the roof of his house by scaling over the wall. He threw a brick which hit him and he fell down. He noticed some persons near the Darwaja of his adjacent neighbour Tulash Mahton and some persons in the courtyard. One person was climbing on the roof of his house by scaling over the wall. He threw a brick which hit him and he fell down. His 4/5 associates took him dragging out of the court yard. Thereafter the miscreants began to explosion bombs. In the mean time his both the daughter also came and joined their hands in pelting brickbats at the miscreants and raising alarm of "Chor-Chor". The dacoits were shouting that "they had come to commit his murder and not to commit theft." His further evidence is that he identified all the three appellants, Rameshwar Mahton, Baso Mahton and Jagdish Mahton. The accused-appellant, Baso Mahton, hurled a bomb on the roof of his house which hit his wife and she died at the spot. Thereafter they retreated from the place of occurrence. He has further stated that the accused-appellant, Rameshwar Mahton is his own Sharhu and wanted to have share in the property gifted to his wife by her father. He did not cocede his demand and so he committed the crime with the help of others. He has further stated that on the following day police came in village, recorded his fard beyan and he put his signature thereon (Ext. No. 1/1). He also prove the signature of Shyama Mahton on the fard beyan (Ext. No. 1/2). His further evidence is that the accused-appellant, Rameshwar Mahton had brought a partition suit which was dismissed. In cross examination he has deposed that he had seen the dacoits from the first floor of the house which was about 20fts. high from the ground. He has further stated that the dacoits were 15/20 in number and they had not masked their faces but had kept turbans on their heads. After the departure of the dacoits, villagers including Surajdeo, Dukho Mahton, Narayan Mahton and Bishun Sah came there. He has admitted to have stated before the police that the accused-appellant, Baso Mahton, threw a bomb on the roof which hit his wife and she died of bomb injuries. He had denied the suggestion that he had filed any compromise petition in this case. He has stated that, in fact, his signature (Ext. A) was forcibly obtained on the compromise petition. P.W. 4, Chandri Devi, is the married daughter of the informant. He had denied the suggestion that he had filed any compromise petition in this case. He has stated that, in fact, his signature (Ext. A) was forcibly obtained on the compromise petition. P.W. 4, Chandri Devi, is the married daughter of the informant. Her evidence is that in the relevant night on the alarm of chor-chor raised by her parents, she woke up and went at the roof of the house alongwith her sister Kalo Devi, P.W. 5. She also joined them in pelting of brick bats at the thieves who trying to climb at the roof by scaling over the wall. She identified all the three appellants, namely, Rameshwar Mahto, Baso Mahto and Jagdish Mahto. They were throwing bombs at the roof which hit her mother and she died. All the appellants shouted that they had come not to commit theft but to kill them. Her further evidence is that on account of share dispute in the landed property this crime was committed by the appellants with the help of other miscreants numbering 15-20. In cross-examination she has stated that the dacoits had turbaned their head and had masked their faces, but she identified all the three appellants from their voice. P.W. 5, Kalo Devi, is the another daughter of the informant. Her evidence is similar to that of her sister, Chandri Devi, P.W. 4 She also pelted brick bats at the miscreants who were 16-16 in number. She identified all the three appellants. The appellant, Baso Mahto, hurled a bomb which hit her mother and she died. In cross-examination she has stated that the miscreants had not masked their faces. She has admitted to have stated before the police that the appellant, Baso Mahto, threw a bomb which his her mother as a result of which she died. P.W. 9, S. Pandey, the then Officer-in-Charge of Akbarpur Police Station, Dis-trict-Nawadah, is the I.O. of this case. His evidence is that on 19.2.80 he had heard about the murder of a person in village-Rajapur Indaur, P.S. Akbarpur, District-Nawadah. On this information he made Sanha entry No. 382 and proceeded for the P.O. village alongwith the police party. At about 10.15 A.M. he arrived in the P.O. village, recorded the fard beyan of the informant, Bundi Mahto, (Ext. 3) and a formal F.I.R. (Ext. 4) was drawn up on the basis of his fard beyan. On this information he made Sanha entry No. 382 and proceeded for the P.O. village alongwith the police party. At about 10.15 A.M. he arrived in the P.O. village, recorded the fard beyan of the informant, Bundi Mahto, (Ext. 3) and a formal F.I.R. (Ext. 4) was drawn up on the basis of his fard beyan. He inspected the P.O. and found some bricks of the northern wall removed. He also found the dead body of Luxminia Devi, the wife of the informant, lying at the roof. He also found remains of bomb, one live bomb and a bag. He seized all the incriminating articles found at the place of occurrence and prepared seizure list. He also prepared the inquest report of the deceased, Luxminiya Devi. (Ext. 5), and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. He recorded further statements of the informant and the statements of other witnesses. The witnesses, Narain Mahto, P.W. 2 and Mahavir Mahto, P.W. 3, claimed to have identified all the three appellants in his statements recorded by him. In cross-examination he has stated that he had not found any sign of bomb explosion either at the roof of the house or on the ground. His attention was drawn to the statements of the witnesses recorded by him. The witnesses, Kalo Devi, had not stated before him that her mother died of bomb injuries caused by the appellant, Baso Mahto. The witness, Chandri Devi, had not stated before him that all the three appellants had hurled bombs from the ground. The informant had not stated before him that his daughters, Chandri Devi and Kalo Devi, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 respectively, had also came at the roof of the house. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the alleged eye witnesses to the incident are close relatives, interested and inimical to the accused. it was further contended that they have not only contradicted the statements of police but they are also inconsistent with each others depositions. Learned counsel again contended that it was not possible for the witnesses to identify the appellants in the manner alleged in the F.I.R. and they falsely claimed to have identified them, so, they are quite unreliable witnesses and conviction of the appellants is fit to be set aside. 10. Learned counsel again contended that it was not possible for the witnesses to identify the appellants in the manner alleged in the F.I.R. and they falsely claimed to have identified them, so, they are quite unreliable witnesses and conviction of the appellants is fit to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State, Shri Bhagya Narayan Gupta, A.P.P. argued that the Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and passed the judgment of conviction which requires no interference by this Court. 11. It is clear that the case of the prosecution entirely rests on the evidence of P.W. 4, Chandri Devi, P.W. 5 Kalo Devi and P.W. 6, Bundi Mahto the informant. All of them have deposed about the incident and the manner of the occurrence. They are the members of the same family and are father and daughters. It is well established by law that relationship does not make evidence unreliable but it requires a more careful and strict scrutiny. On close scrutiny of their evidence I find that below listed features render their testimony discardable: (i) There is averment in the F.I.R. that the accused persons 15/20 in number came to the place of occurrence, surrounded the house of the informent and started throwing bombs on the first floor of his house. All the three witnesses and the deceased wife of the informant were also present on the first floor of the house throwing brick bats from there on the accused. One of the accused threw a bomb on first floor which hit the wife of the informant and she fell down injured and died immediately at the spot. At trial the prosecution developed a story by alleging that all the three accused appellants were indulged in throwing bombs causing death of Laxminia Devi, the wife of the informant. But all the three witnesses have also contradicted each other on this point in their evidence. The evidence of P.W. 4, Chandri Devi, is that all the three appellants threw bombs causing the death of her mother. But the evidence of P.W. 5, Kalo Devi and P.W. 6, Bundi Mahto, the informant is that the Baso Mahto hurled a bomb causing the death of Laximinia Devi. All these three witnesses have also contradicted their statements made before the police u/s. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the evidence of P.W. 5, Kalo Devi and P.W. 6, Bundi Mahto, the informant is that the Baso Mahto hurled a bomb causing the death of Laximinia Devi. All these three witnesses have also contradicted their statements made before the police u/s. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The witness Kalo Devi had not stated before P.W. 9, S. Pandey, Officer Incharge that the appellant, Baso Mahto, hurled a bomb at her mother and she died. The witness, Chandri Devi, had not stated before him that all the three appellants had hurled bomb at her mother causing her death. The informant, Bundi Mahto, P.W. 6 had not stated before him that his daughters, Chandri Devi and Kalo Devi P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 had also come at the roof of the house. Further it is very strange and surprising that the accused persons were throwing bombs continuously on the first floor of the house of the informant but only his wife sustained injury. Again on visit of the P.O. the I.O. P.W. 9, S. Pandey, had not found any sign of the bomb explosion either at the roof of the house or on the ground. (II) In the fard beyan It has been stated that all the accused had turbans on their heads but their faces were visible and they were identified in the torch light flashed by the accused themselves. The evidence of P.W. 4, Chandri Devi (para 18) is that the accused had concealed their faces and she identified them by their voice. But the evidence of P.W. 6, Bundi Mahto, the informant, is that the accused persons had not concealed their faces P.W. 5, Kalo Devi is silent on the point of the means of identification of the accused appellants. (iii) It has come in the evidence of the witnesses that all of them were on the first floor of the house which was more than 20 high from the ground where the appellants were alleged to have been standing with turbans on their head, so, it was not possible for the witnesses to identify the appellants from the roof in the torch light flashed by them (accused appellants). (iv) No independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution version. (iv) No independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution version. The informant, Bundi Mahto, P.W. 6 has stated at para 28 that after the departure of the dacoits the witnesses, Suryadeo, Dukha Mahto, Narayan Mahto and Bishun Sah arrived at the place of occurrence and he narrated them about the occurrence. But the prosecution examined only Narayan Mahto, P.W. 2. The other independent witnesses were neither examined nor any plausible explanation was furnished by the prosecution for their non-examination. (v) It is further apparent that all the three appellants are close relatives and are father and sons. The appellant, Rameshwar Mahto is the own Sarhu of the informant, Bundi Mahto, P.W. 6. The appellants were demanding half share in the landed properties gifted to the wife of the informant by her parents, On being not conceded by the informant there was a civil litigation between the parties for the partition of the said landed property. So, both sides were inimical to each other from before the occurrence. 12. Thus, I find that the approach and appreciation of the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was manifestly erroneous and unfounded. He ignored lapses, omissions and major contradictions and wrongly appreciated the evidence in favour of the prosecution. 13. Thus, I come to the conclusion that the infirmities pointed out above cast a serious doubt to the veracity of the prosecution case and all the three appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt. 14. In the result, there is merit in this appeal and it is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges. All the three appellants are on bail, so, they are discharged from the liability of their executed bail bonds. M.L.Visa, J. 15 I agree.