R.C. CHAVAN, J.:- These two appeals are a sequel to the murder of one Madan Gattu Puniyala alias Madan Anna, which took place on 27-05-1992 at Wani in Yavatmal district. The police had prosecuted seven persons for their: involvement in the murder of said Madan Anna. The learned Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, acquitted original accused No.3 Namdeo Bhagwan Thakre and original accused No,7 Harishchandra alias Harish Kisanrao Lonare. The State has not preferred any appeal challenging the acquittal of these two accused. 2. The learned Sessions Judge convicted accused No.1 Shamrao Thakre of offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Penal Code for engaging in conspiracy to commit the murder of Madan Anna and sentenced Shamrao Thakre to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. or in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years. Criminal Appeal No.138 of 1996 has been preferred by accused No.1 Shamrao Thakre challenging his conviction and sentence. 3. Accused No.2 Dhanraj Bhagwan Thakre, accused No.4 Prakash Madhukar Kundale and accused No.6 Manoj Rambhau Bhagat were convicted by the learned Sessions .T udge of offence punishable under Sections 120n, 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and Section 3(1)/25(1)(1-B) of the Arms Act read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-, or in default to suffer further RI. for one year under the first count and RI. for one year with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, or in default to suffer further RI. for six months under the second count. They have preferred Criminal Appeal, which has been numbered as 212 of 1996. 4. Facts, which led to the prosecution of the appellants, are as under: 5. Madan Anna was working as a Contractor at Wani. He was also a Worker of Congress Party. Accused No.1 Shamrao is also a political worker and supported the opponent of Congress Candidate Uttamrao Patil in the parliamentary Elections. The relations between Madan Anna and accused No.1 Shamrao were not cordial. Madan Anna had received threats from the accused persons prior to the incident. On 27-05-1992 at about 7.00 a.m., Madan Anna had left for Mazri in hisjeep bearing registration No.MUJ-82. He was 'accompanied by one Laxman Nagbhidkar. They had also given a lift to a stranger. The relations between Madan Anna and accused No.1 Shamrao were not cordial. Madan Anna had received threats from the accused persons prior to the incident. On 27-05-1992 at about 7.00 a.m., Madan Anna had left for Mazri in hisjeep bearing registration No.MUJ-82. He was 'accompanied by one Laxman Nagbhidkar. They had also given a lift to a stranger. The jeep was stopped when it had crossed the first gate at a railway crossing and was approaching the second gate. A person told Madan Anna that a train was to pass and so he should take his jeep back. When the jeep was being reversed, a blue coloured Maroti van came from behind and overtook the jeep. Some persons from the van fired at Madan Anna severely injuring him. The person, who had stopped the jeep, as also the occupants of the van, drove away in the van. Madan Anna was, taken to the hospital, but succumbed to his injuries. On a report by Laxman Nagbhidkar, an offence was registered. 6. In the course of investigation, the police performed inquest and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. Madan Anna had sustained four fire arm injuries, which led to his death. In the course of investigation, it was found that accused No.1 Shamrao had secured a licence for revolver and has purchased a revolver and the ammunitions before the incident. The van, which was used in the commission of offence, was traced and it was found that the plaint from the side of the van had struck to the foot of the jeep when the two vehicles brushed against each other. Ultimately, the accused were found to be the persons who had engaged themselves in the murderous assault on Madan Anna. On completion of investigation, the police sent charge-sheet to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wani, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Yavatmal. 7. Upon consideration of the material before him, the learned Sessions Judge charged the accused of the offences punishable, under Sections 120-B, 302 read with Section 34, Section 302 simpliciter. Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, and section 3(1) read with Section 25(1)(1-B) of the Arms Act, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. All the accused pleaded not guilty and hence were put on trial. Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, and section 3(1) read with Section 25(1)(1-B) of the Arms Act, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. All the accused pleaded not guilty and hence were put on trial. The prosecution examined as many as 41 witnesses in order to bring home the guilt of the persons charged with murder of Madan Anna. Upon consideration of the evidence tendered before him, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants/accuse, as indicated above, and acquitted original accused No.3 and 7. Aggrieved thereby, the convicts have preferred these appeals. 8. The appellants in both the appeals were represented by Advocate Shri. A.V. Gupta. On behalf of the State, Shri. A.G. Mujumdar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, advanced the arguments to support the judgment. With the help of both the learned counsel, we have gone through the entire evidence in order to find out whether the conviction of the appellants was not sustainable, as canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants. The case rests not only on the ocular account of an eye-witness, but also on voluminous evidence to show that the appellants and the victim were at loggerheads, causing the appellants to eliminate the victim. 9. P.W.14 Abu Bakar was witness on the inquest performed on the body of the victim in Civil Hospital, Wani, on 27-05-1992 at about 10 a.m. The witness proved inquest panchanama at Exhibit 57. According to this witness, the clothes on the dead body were removed in his presence and injuries were observed. There were injuries on both the ears, which resembled a hole. Though blood had clotted in part, it was also oozing from these injuries. There was a cut mark on the lower left ear. There were holes on the chest and stomach, which were bleeding. A bullet was found when the underwear of the victim was removed. It was sealed in a paper packet. After this inquest, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination, which was conducted by P.W.35 Dr. Watekar. 10. Dr. Watekar, who was working as Medical Officer at Maregaon, had been asked by the Police Station Officer, Wani, to conduct the post-mortem examination at Wani, since the Medical Officer at Wani was on leave. After this inquest, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination, which was conducted by P.W.35 Dr. Watekar. 10. Dr. Watekar, who was working as Medical Officer at Maregaon, had been asked by the Police Station Officer, Wani, to conduct the post-mortem examination at Wani, since the Medical Officer at Wani was on leave. He stated that he went to the mortuary and conducted postmortem examination from 12.05p.m. to 2.00 p.m. According to him, there was an ash coloured shirt on the body of the victim and bluish full pant with a stripped underpant inside. There were four holes on the shirt and one hole on the full-pant and underwear below umbilicus. Dr. Watekar observed the following external injuries: "i) Fire arm injury to left lobule. The lobule was damaged. There was an entry wound below lobule, exist wound on right pan of face, i.e. maxillary fossa. The injury was 5" deep. ii) Fire arm injury on posterior auxiliary line, slightly back, it was to the left side, exist wound found on abdomen at the level of umbilicus. It was 5" deep. iii) Fire arm injury to the abdomen below the umbilicus. iv) Fire arm injury to the left arm, 5" deep exist wound. v) Abrasion of left side of back, 6" in length, ½” in diameter'. vi) Multiple abrasions on left side of back. vii) Abrasion on right, 1 1/2" in length and 1/2" in diameter. viii) Laceration to the forehead, 1/4" deep and 1/2"in diameter." According to Dr. Watekar, injuries No.(v) to (viii) could be caused due to fall on tar road. Dr. Watekar opined that the victim died of multiple fire arm injuries. He proved his noted of post-mortem examination at Exhibit 141. The witnesses fairly admitted that it was his first occasion to conduct the post-mortem examination on the body of a victim, who had died due to fire arm injuries. This lack of expertise has reflected in failure to mention all the details, as disclosed in the cross-examination. He admitted in the cross-examination that he had not observed any exist wound. He had observed in para 6 that there was no corresponding exist wound to "injury No.9", that is entry wound above the left clavical. He also claimed that he has correctly mentioned against injury No.(iii) that there was no exit wound. He admitted in the cross-examination that he had not observed any exist wound. He had observed in para 6 that there was no corresponding exist wound to "injury No.9", that is entry wound above the left clavical. He also claimed that he has correctly mentioned against injury No.(iii) that there was no exit wound. The notes of post-mortem examination revealed that the doctor has observed only eight external injuries. Injury to clavical was not noticed in those eight injuries. In spite of these deficiencies the evidence of Dr. Watekar would sufficiently indicate that victim Madan Anna died of injuries noticed- by Dr. Watekar, which included some fire arm injuries. The question is whether the accused persons or any of them were shown to be the authors of the injuries, which led to victim's death. 11. Victim's servant Laxman, who accompanied the victim in the jeep on the incidental morning, was examined as P.W.1. He stated that he was working as Cleaner on the victim's jeep since about a month before the incident. He stated that the victim used to drive the jeep and he used to occupy the rear seat on the conductor side. On the incidental morning, he had left the house with the victim, who was also known as Annaji, about 6.30 a.m. On their way, a pedestrian sough lift near Chuna Bhatti. The pedestrian stated that he wanted to go to Warora. Annaji asked the person to accompany them up to Patala. The person then occupied the rear seat on driver side. The report at Exhibit 34 lodged by Laxman, on the basis of which an offence was registered, however, makes no' reference to any such person being a co-passenger in the jeep. According to the report at Exhibit 34, P.W.1 Laxman and deceased Annaji were the only two passengers in the jeep. The report of P.W.1 Laxman had been recorded by P.W.38 Ghanshyam Palwade, who registered an offence thereupon as per Exhibit 35. 12. The person, who was given lift by the victim, was identified as Walmik Bhagat. P.W.5 Gulab Giri stated that on the incidental morning when he was standing in his courtyard, he saw victim Madan driving the jeep and going towards Mazri. He also stated that conductor Laxman (P.W.1) was occupying the seat behind the victim. 12. The person, who was given lift by the victim, was identified as Walmik Bhagat. P.W.5 Gulab Giri stated that on the incidental morning when he was standing in his courtyard, he saw victim Madan driving the jeep and going towards Mazri. He also stated that conductor Laxman (P.W.1) was occupying the seat behind the victim. He stated that he left his house for going to purchase Bidis and when he had crossed a distance of 10 to 15 paces, Walmik Bhagat came and told him that Anna had met with an accident and asked Gulab to inform the police. Walmik then went away. Gulab Giri then claimed that he went to Naka (presumably, Octroi Post) and informed the police as well as the family members of Madan Anna. P.W.38 PSI Palwade admitted in cross-examination that before P.W.) Laxman came to the Police Station, one Head Constable had informed him that he had received an information on telephone that firing was heard near the railway gate. The witness agreed that the note of important telephone calls is made in the station diary and explained that note of the information about the 'firing was not taken because there are coal mines in the area, and, though the witness did not so say, he possibly wJnted to hint that there are blasts in the coal mines and, therefore, a blast might have been misunderstood as firing and so was not recorded. P.W.5 Gulab Giri was categorical that he had informed the police that Madan Anna had met with an accident near the railway gate. 13. The evidence recounted thus far would bring out the following pecularities. First, Laxman's report at Exhibit 34 is silent about any person accompanying him in the jeep. Secondly, though Laxman stated that he was sitting on the rear seat of the conductor side and, the stranger - Walmik Bhagat - was sitting behind Madan Anna on the driver side, P.W.5 Gulab Giri states that Laxman Was occupying the seat behind Madan Anna. He does not state having noticed Walmik Bhagat in the jeep, but states that Walmik Bhagatmet him when he was going to purchase Bidis. While P.W.5 Gulab Giri claims to have informed the police only about an accident, P.W.38 Pal wade states that the police had learnt of firing and not of accident. He does not state having noticed Walmik Bhagat in the jeep, but states that Walmik Bhagatmet him when he was going to purchase Bidis. While P.W.5 Gulab Giri claims to have informed the police only about an accident, P.W.38 Pal wade states that the police had learnt of firing and not of accident. Walmik Bhagat, who possibly held the key to the mystery, has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them, opening up the possibilities of the incident having occurred in a manner different than the one stated by P.W.1 Laxman, or an abortive attempt in investigation to introduce Walmik as an eye-witness, who later refused to go along with the prosecution. 14. The account of the incident given by P.W.1 Laxman is as follows. When the jeep reached the railway gate, the first gate was open and, therefore, the jeep moved over the rails. The second gate was closed, with a tall man of about 25 years old having black complexion arid wearing khakis, telling them that since a train was coming and he was closing the gate, the jeep should be taken back, The man did not heed Madan Anna's request to allow the jeep to pass and insisted on the jeep being taken back. When the jeep reversed through the first gate, the same man came near the jeep and threw chilly powder on the face of Annaji, who started ruhbing his eyes with hands. The person also allegedly threw chilly powder towards P.W.1 Laxman, who ducked, and hence chilly powder fell on his shoulder. The person then caught hold of Lax man and pulled him down. The other passenger in the jeep ran away when he was pulled down. Though he states about throwing of chilly powder, no such chilly powder was found in the inquest panchanama at Exhibit 57, on the person of the victim or on the clothes of the deceased seized in presence of P. W.16 Ambadas vide Exhibits 62 and 63. 15. The spot panchanama at Exhibit 60 was drawn up in presence of P.W.15 Mohammad Wahid. The samples of earth were seized from the spot. A bag containing chilly powder was indeed found about 13 feet away nom the railway gate. It was seized vide panchanama at Exhibit 60. P.W.1 Laxman identified accused No.5 Ratan as the person, who threw chilly powder at Annaji. The samples of earth were seized from the spot. A bag containing chilly powder was indeed found about 13 feet away nom the railway gate. It was seized vide panchanama at Exhibit 60. P.W.1 Laxman identified accused No.5 Ratan as the person, who threw chilly powder at Annaji. The panchanama at Exhibit 60 shows that the jeep facing towards north was standing adjacent to the southern side wall of Intekhal Oil Mill at about 200 ft. from the spot of occurrence. The rear portion of the driver side was dented due to dash against the wall. Thus the jeep seems to have gone in reverse direction and dashed against the wall. 16. P.W.1 Laxman had stated that when Annaji was taking the jeep in reverse, Annaji had asked Laxman to look behind. Accordingly, he was looking behind to give necessary signal to Annaji for taking the jeep in reverse direction. When Annaji was reversing the jeep, presumably in the reverse gear, and if Annaji was killed, it is not clear as to how instead of coming to a halt, the jeep went down to slope and hit the wall of Intekhal Oil Mill. It is also surprising that accused No.5 Ratan, who allegedly threw chilly powder, presumably from the driver side towards Annaji, was noticed by Laxman, who was looking behind, as the jeep was being reversed. It is also not clear as to when accused No.5 Ratan came over to the conductor's left side of the jeep, threw chilly powder at Laxman and pulled him down. 17. P.W.1 Laxman then stated that when he had been pulled down and the other passengers of the jeep had run a way, a light blue Maroti van in a moderate speed came from the conductor's side of the jeep. It came up to the front door of the jeep and the rear door of the van was parallel to the front door of the jeep. Then he heard the sound like firing. He looked back, but the man, who threw chilly powder, that is accused No.5, chased him. He saw that a man in the van held a small rifle. He claimed to have run away out of fright. One may thus visualise the scenario described· by P.W.1 Laxman. He was in the rear left hand seat of the jeep. He looked back, but the man, who threw chilly powder, that is accused No.5, chased him. He saw that a man in the van held a small rifle. He claimed to have run away out of fright. One may thus visualise the scenario described· by P.W.1 Laxman. He was in the rear left hand seat of the jeep. A man, who had thrown chilly powder at the driver, came over to him, pulled him down from the jeep, a van came from the left hand side and though it brushed against the jeep (as may be seen from the further story of the prosecution about the paint of one vehicle staining the other vehicle), Laxman as well as person throwing chilly powder could safely move away from both the vehicles without getting trapped between the vehicles, in an incident which must have taken place within a moment. 18. After the firing, according to P.W.1 Laxman, accused No.5 as well as others in the van, fled towards Warora side in the van. He saw deceased lying unconscious in the jeep. He ran towards Warora Naka and saw Annaji's friend Gulab Giri (P.W.5) sitting at the Naka. He asked Gulab Giri to inform Annaji's family members. Accordingly, Gulab Giri informed Annaji's family members. Satish and Shankar reached there and removed Annaji to hospital by car. A police jeep came and he went by police jeep to the Police Station and gave report at Exhibit 34. 19. P.W.1 Laxman stated that his report was read over to him and he had admitted the contents to be correct. Yet, he could not explain the omission in the report about a person having been given lift in the jeep. He admitted that he had not told the police that he had been pulled out of the jeep, but denied having stated that after Maroti van went away by Warora road, he got down from the jeep. He contradicted this portion marked as "A" in Exhibit 34. He contradicted two more parts of his report at Exhibit 34, which were duly proved by P.W.38 PSI Pal wade. He contradicted three parts of his police statement, which were duly proved by P.W.40 PI Pathan at Exhibit 189 "A", "B" & ·'C". He contradicted this portion marked as "A" in Exhibit 34. He contradicted two more parts of his report at Exhibit 34, which were duly proved by P.W.38 PSI Pal wade. He contradicted three parts of his police statement, which were duly proved by P.W.40 PI Pathan at Exhibit 189 "A", "B" & ·'C". They are to the effect that the person, who threw chilly powder, had a round face, that the van came in a tremendous speed and that he had seen four persons sitting in the van. Laxman's refusal to have seen the persons in the van, would create a doubt about his subsequent identification of these persons. Similarly, his denial that he had described the person, who threw chilly powder, as one with round face, would also create a doubt of identity of accused No.5. 20. Though P.W.1 Laxman had claimed that he had only informed P.W.5 Gulab Giri about the incident, he admitted in cross-examination that he had telephoned the police also from the Naka and told them about the incident, which took place near the railway crossing. P.W.5 Gulab Giri, however, does not state that Luman made any telephone call from the Naka to Annaji's residence or police. On the other hand. P.W.5 Gulab Giri states that when Laxman came weeping to Naka and stated about the murder, he told Laxman that he had made a telephone call and asked Laxman to go near Madan Anna. It will be clear from the account of incident given by P.W.1 Laxman, the sale eye-witness, that his account is discrepant and he did not really have an opportunity to see the assailants. who had come in the van. His description of the person, who threw chilly powder, is also discrepant. 21. After the suspects were arrested, the Investigating Officer had caused an identification parade to be held by P.W.25 Shri. Mahajan, Naib Tahsildar. Shri. Mahajan states that he had received the requisition on 2-7-1992 for holding an identification parade. He wrote to the Police Inspector on 3-7-1992 and fixed 15-7-1992 as the date for holding the identification parade. Appellants Dhanraj, Prakash, Ratan and Manoj were arrested. in presence of reluctant panch Prakash examined as P.W.23, on 17-6-1992 by P.WAO PI Pathan. Shri. Mahajan states that he had received the requisition on 2-7-1992 for holding an identification parade. He wrote to the Police Inspector on 3-7-1992 and fixed 15-7-1992 as the date for holding the identification parade. Appellants Dhanraj, Prakash, Ratan and Manoj were arrested. in presence of reluctant panch Prakash examined as P.W.23, on 17-6-1992 by P.WAO PI Pathan. PI Pathan states that after apprehending for accused persons and effecting seizures of weapons from them at the time of arrest, he had produced them before the Magistrate at Wani and obtained their police custody remand. Thus, after the arrest on 17-6-1992. the suspects were sent up for test identification parade on 15-7-1992, that is almost one month after the arrest. 22. PI Pathan had recorded a demonstration panchanama vide Exhibit 128, in presence of P.W.31 Sunil Salve. This panchanama was recorded on 18-6-1992. The jeep and Maroti van were taken to the spot of occurrence in the same condition. P.W.1 Laxman was present. Original accused No.7 Harishchandra Lonare (who has been acquitted) was allegedly the driver of the van. The photographs were taken at that time. PI Pathan admitted in para 19 of his cross-examination that on 24-6-1992, he had directed ASI Shende to take accused Prakash, Dhanraj, Manoj and Ratan to Jodmoha and other places, which were allegedly visited by the accused after the incident. He admitted that from 24-6-1992 to 26-6-1992. ASI Shende, these four accused and panchas were together. Thus, the suspects were put up for test identification parade after they had been paraded at several places. 23. P.W.1 Laxman stated that he had been called at Tahsil Office, Yavatmal, for identifying the person, who had fired. From Tahsil Office, he was taken to Jail where 30 to 35 persons were standing in two rows. He identified the persons who drove the van, threw chilly powder and had fired. In cross-examination, he admitted that from Tahsil Office he walked to the Jail along with the police. 24. One Bhimrao, who had allegedly supplied petrol to the van in which miscreants had come, was examined as P.W.13. Identification by this witness is utterly useless, because P.W.40 PI Pathan had already admitted that he had sent four accused persons to 10dmoha and other places with ASI Shende after arrest and before the persons were put up for parade. 25. One Bhimrao, who had allegedly supplied petrol to the van in which miscreants had come, was examined as P.W.13. Identification by this witness is utterly useless, because P.W.40 PI Pathan had already admitted that he had sent four accused persons to 10dmoha and other places with ASI Shende after arrest and before the persons were put up for parade. 25. P.W.2 Dattatray claimed that on the incidental day, he wanted to go to Ghughus as usual from Wani. He wanted to take a lift in a Tipper and, therefore, kept his bicycle at the house of Sanjay Giri near Warora Naka and went to Belora Fata. He saw a light blue Maroti van facing towards Warora road. A man from the van made water, occupied the driver seat and the van then moved towards Warora. Near the railway gate, a man wearing white full pant and gray shirt having strips, was standing. That man was called by the driver. The van stopped. The man rushed towards the van. The man entered the van and the van then sped away. The witness was then made to identify the occupants of the van at the test identification parade. He stated that he had gone to Tahsil Office. Yavaunal and the Tahsildar took him to Jail where two persons were already sitting in the waiting room 30 to 35 persons were standing in a row and the Tahsildar asked him to identify the suspects. He then claimed to have identified the suspects in the Jail. As already pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants. Dattatray is a chance witness, who would have normally no business to be at the spot on the incidental day. Thc reasons stated by Daltatray are too strange to warrant belief. According to him, he used to travel by bus every day, but on the incidental day, the belt of his Chappal gave way. Hence he went by bicycle and wanted to take a lift in the Tipper. Then he made all his observations in respect of the van, though no incident had in fad taken place in his presence. He stated that he had disclosed the fact of his having seen a van to Bharat Thakur, who was close to Madan Anna and then his account seems to have reached the ears of police. Then he made all his observations in respect of the van, though no incident had in fad taken place in his presence. He stated that he had disclosed the fact of his having seen a van to Bharat Thakur, who was close to Madan Anna and then his account seems to have reached the ears of police. He admitted that he had not disclosed from 27th May till 1st June, 1992 to the police that he had seen the van. It is also significant that while according to P. W.1 Laxman, the person at the rail way gate was wearing a Khaki Shirt and a full pant, according to P.W.2 Dattatray, the person standing near the railway gate was wearing a white full pant and a gray coloured shirt. P.W.2 Dattatray also identified the said person as accused No.5 Ratan. Thus, the two witnesses had seen the same person wearing two different coloured clothes, which creates a doubt about their observation as well as identification. 26. With this prelude, it may be useful to examine the evidence of P.W.25 Naib Tahsildar Shri. Mahajan. Shri. Mahajan stated that he requested the Jail Superintendent to make 30 to 35 persons available for the parade, in the ratio of 1 : 6. He then made all the dummies and accused persons to stand in line. The three witnesses that is P.W.1 Laxman. P.W.2 Dattatray and P.W.13 Bhimrao, were then made to identify the suspects. Shri. Mahajan prepared a report of the parade vide Exhibits 98 and 99 and forwarded the same by a letter at Exhibit 100 to the police. 27. In cross-examination, he admitted that he was aware that not more than two suspects should be paraded at once. Yet he had put five suspects at a parade having thirty dummies. He admitted that he had no idea of the prosecution case at the time of holding the identification parade. He admitted that there was no similarity between the suspects and dummies. In spite of these goof ups the results of the parade show that P.W.1 Laxman had identified three suspects and two dummies. P.W.2 Dattatray, who had claimed to have seen the driver making water did not identify original accused No.7 Harishchandra Lonare. He, however, identified accused Ratan, Dhanraj and Prakash. In spite of these goof ups the results of the parade show that P.W.1 Laxman had identified three suspects and two dummies. P.W.2 Dattatray, who had claimed to have seen the driver making water did not identify original accused No.7 Harishchandra Lonare. He, however, identified accused Ratan, Dhanraj and Prakash. Witness Bhimrao identified accused No.7 Harishchandra and appellants/accused Ratan, Prakash and Dhanraj, which should not be surprising in view of the fact that these persons had been taken by the police to Jodmoha where Bhimrao resides before the parade and after the incident. In view of this, the identification of the appellants by eye-witness P.W.1 Laxman or P.W.2 Dattatraya, and P.W.13 Bhimrao, who saw them after the incident is totally useless and unreliable. 28. It would, therefore, be necessary to find out whether the shaky word of P.W.1 Laxman could receive assurance of truthfulness at least from the circumstantial evidence gathered by the police. The circumstantial evidence for connecting the suspects to the crime is by showing that they had used a blue coloured Maroti van in the commission of offence. To show that the van was used in the commission of offence, the prosecution heavily relied on the scrappings of paint collected from the victim's jeep and the van. which were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. According to the prosecution, the analysis revealed that the scrapping of paint indicated that the van and the jeep had collided. It would be necessary to examine this evidence first. 29. The jeep seems to have been seized at the spot vide Exhibit 60 and the sky blue coloured linings on the foot rest on the conductor side of the jeep were found on the jeep. The foot rest was removed and taken into custody. 30. The van belonged to P.W.10 Girishkumar Popat. resident of Raipur (Chhattisgarh). He stated that in February or March. 1992, he had given the van to P.W.5 Ashok Oattani for being sold, which Ashok admitted. P.W.8 Ashok was categorical that he had not given the van to anyone on the incidental day. He stated that on 4-6-1992, he had gone to the Office of Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal, by the said van, where the van was seized after being seen by P.W.33 SOPO Sone. According to P.W.33 SOPO Sone, the van was allegedly brought by one PI Swami. He stated that on 4-6-1992, he had gone to the Office of Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal, by the said van, where the van was seized after being seen by P.W.33 SOPO Sone. According to P.W.33 SOPO Sone, the van was allegedly brought by one PI Swami. PI Swami does not seem to have been examined. Apart from P.W.8 Ashok Dattani and P.W.10 Girishkumar Popat, who state that the van was not given to the accused even P.W.7 Prakash and P.W.9 Bhagwandas do not support the prosecution story about the accused being connected to the van on the day of incident. 31. The van was inspected in presence of P.W.18 Shahu. He stated that there was a scratch on a portion near the petrol tank on the driver-side rear portion of the van. Blue colour of the van was removed from the lid of petrol tank and collected in a plastic container. A scratch of parrot green colour was also removed from the van and collected in a plastic container. A seizure panchanama was drawn up vide Exhibit 17 on 4-6-1992 in presence of this witness. The witness admitted in cross-examination that from the photographs taken in his presence and shown to him in the course of cross-examination no scratch was visible. He also admitted that the containers in which samples were taken did not bear the label signed by him and the other panch creating a doubt about the sanctity of process of collecting and forwarding samples. 32. P.W.40 PI Pathan had forwarded these samples among others to the Forensic Science Laboratory vide Exhibit 182. The report of the Laboratory is at Exhibit 186. It shows that the scrapping of blue paint collected from the foot rest of the jeep tallied with the paint scrappings in a plastic container labelled parrot coloured scrappings and blue coloured scrappings. The report also shows that the greenish paint collected from the plastic container labelled parrot coloured scrappings tallied with greenish paint scrappings labelled parrot coloured paint scrapped from Jeep MUJ 82. If this report is co-related to the requisition at Exhibit 182, it may be seen that item No.4 in Exhibit 182 marked as Exhibit D and E has possibly been referred to as Exhibits 4 and 5 in the report. Article 4 is a parrot coloured scrappings from Maroti van. If this report is co-related to the requisition at Exhibit 182, it may be seen that item No.4 in Exhibit 182 marked as Exhibit D and E has possibly been referred to as Exhibits 4 and 5 in the report. Article 4 is a parrot coloured scrappings from Maroti van. Item No.5 in Exhibit 182, which is marked as Exhibit F, is scrapping of the jeep. The report shows that Exhibit 4 and 6 tally with each other. Item No.3, market as Exhibit C in requisition Exhibit 182, is said to tally with the blue paint scrappings in Exhibits 4 and 5 in the report Exhibit 186. It is not clear as to how Exhibit 4 in the report Exhibit 186 could be blue paint scrappings, since the report itself shows that they were parrot coloured scrappings. The report would, however, show that some paint of the jeep brushed with the van and some paint of the van struck to the jeep. 33. However, the manner in which the paint scrappings were gathered and sent to the Laboratory, the high profile of the victim as well as the accused in the case .and other attendant circumstances would necessitate a caution while readily accepting these findings about the paint of one vehicle sticking to the other. 34. P.W.3 Sambhaji, Revenue Inspector, had drawn a sketch of the spot. Another sketch is at Exhibit 167. These sketches of the spot would enable in understanding the evidence of P.W.1 Laxman about the manner in which the two vehicles came near each other. It is the theory of the prosecution that the accused persons had hatched a conspiracy to eliminate Madan Anna after fully equipping themselves with the knowledge of Madan Anna's movements. As a part of this conspiracy, Madan Anna's vehicle was stopped at the railway gate. Ordinarily, therefore, the van in which shooters were travelling would have come from the driver side of the jeep, since Madan Anna was driving the jeep. Yet, it seems that the van came from the conductor side of the jeep. It may also be seen that while Madan Anna was taking his jeep in the reverse direction, the van had come from behind. Now ordinarily when the railway gate is being closed and when the vehicle is being taken in reverse. Yet, it seems that the van came from the conductor side of the jeep. It may also be seen that while Madan Anna was taking his jeep in the reverse direction, the van had come from behind. Now ordinarily when the railway gate is being closed and when the vehicle is being taken in reverse. it will move towards the left hand side as has indeed happened, since the jeep eventually lodged itself on the all of Bashir Oil Mill towards left hand side road. Therefore, if the theory of conspiracy to eliminate Madan Anna. after duly considering his movements, is to be believed as also the fact that the jeep was taken in reverse towards the left hand side, the story that the van came from behind from the left hand side, becomes unnatural creating a suspicion about the story of paint of one vehicle sticking the other in order to connect the van to the incident. The thread, if any, is too slender to provide a viable link to reach the miscreants. 35. P.W.4 Raju, relation of the victim and P.W.6 Satish, victim's son-in-law, had not witnessed the incident. Raju reached Wani at about 10.30 p.m. on 27-5-1992 after the incident and Satish reached the spot soon after the incident. Both, however, state that the relations between accused No.1 Shamrao and victim Madan Anna were strained. The evidence of Raju would show that on 9-5-1992 itself. there was a telephonic exchange of words between accused No.3 Namdeo Thakre (acquitted by the Trial Court) and Madan Anna. It may be seen from the panchanama at Exhibit 60 in respect of the jeep that there was a sword in the jeep itself. In view of these threats, it is incredible that Madan Anna would give a lift to a stranger. P.W.4 Raju states that he was not aware whether Madan Anna carried and chilly powder or any arms in the jeep because of the threats to his life. 36. P.W.6 Satish admitted that he was being prosecuted for firing at accused No.1 Shamrao. The witness, however, denied the suggestion that he was falsely stating against Shamrao to ensure that Shamrao does not depose against him in the case of firing at Shamrao. 37. P.W.41 PSO Shere had proved complaints received in the Police Station well before the incident, indicating the strained relations between the parties. The witness, however, denied the suggestion that he was falsely stating against Shamrao to ensure that Shamrao does not depose against him in the case of firing at Shamrao. 37. P.W.41 PSO Shere had proved complaints received in the Police Station well before the incident, indicating the strained relations between the parties. FIR at Exhibit 26 was lodged by one Bhagwan Narayanrao Thakre about the assault on Shamrao Thakre on 5-12-1991. Exhibit 198 is the report byP.W.41 PSG Shere himself against Madan Anna for having formed an unlawful assembly and injured one Guddu Ramji Upadhyay. FIRs at Exhibits 199 and 200 seem to be the cross-complaints by Ashoksing and Dhanraj Thakre for incident dated 24-1-1992. In the complaint by Dhanraj Thakre, P.W.4 Raju is one of the accused, whereas in the complaint by Ashoksing, Dhanraj, Namdeo and others are shown as accused. Though the prosecution has tendered so much of evidence of animosity, there is nothing to indicate as to what was immediate cause to launch murderous attack on Madan Anna. Thus, though there was undoubtedly enough gun powder, there is nothing to indicate as to who sparked this gun powder to lead to death of Madan Anna. In the context of dispute between the parties, Madan Anna would have been more conscious about his safety and movements. The road at the spot has fairly good flow of traffic, as admitted by P.W.1 Laxman in para 16 of his deposition. Laxman also admits that the trucks are parked on the site between Chuna Bhatti and Naka. Godowns and warehouses arc near the site. In spite of this, it is curious that the incident was not witnessed by anyone except poor P.W.1 Laxman. 38. The evidence of P.W.20 Mahadeo, in whose presence some photographs were seized vide Exhibit 80, or that of photographer Ramesh examined as P.W.26, does not help in throwing any additional light on the manner in which the incident occurred. 39. The prosecution examined Kailash Lonare as P.W.30 to prove complicity of the acquired accused No.7 Harishchandra Lonare, the driver of the van. However, Kailash turned hostile and in any case, Harishchandra's acquittal is not challenged in this appeal. 40. In order to prove complicity of accused No.1 Shamrao the prosecution examined a number of witnesses about Shamrao's acquiring a licence for a revolver and purchasing a revolver and ammunition. 41. However, Kailash turned hostile and in any case, Harishchandra's acquittal is not challenged in this appeal. 40. In order to prove complicity of accused No.1 Shamrao the prosecution examined a number of witnesses about Shamrao's acquiring a licence for a revolver and purchasing a revolver and ammunition. 41. P.W.32, the then District Magistrate, Shri. H. R. Kulkarni, stated that in March. 1992, accused No.1 Shamrao applied for a licence for a revolver. Shamrao was President of Wani Municipal Council at the relevant time. On the recommendations of the Superintendent of Police and Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Wani, Shri. Kulkarni granted a licence to accused No.1 Shamrao, who then purchased a weapon in May, 1992 and produced the weapon before Shri. Kulkarni along with the cash memo, etc. 42. P.W.12 Chandrakant Deshmukh is a fire arm dealer at Nagpur. He stated that on 15-5-1992, he sold a .32 Bore Revolver No.01016 of ERMA Company, Germany, with 20 cartridges to one Shamrao Thakre of Wani, who had a licence issued by the District Magistrate. He proved the relevant entries in the Daily Sale Register copy where of is at Exhibit 52. Copy of the receipt issued is at Exhibit 53. It seems that initially 15 cartridges were purchased, but possibly at the same time the number was increased to 20 and hence there was some overwriting and 20 cartridges are shown to have been sold. The fact that accused No.1 Shamrao had acquired a revolver licence in May, 1992 soon before the incident, in our opinion, is entirely without any significance. A person, who has a design to commit murder, is unlikely to acquire a licence and purchase a fire arm with relevant entries being made. The evidence of P.W.11 Manoj, who turned hostile, about his being made to carry a cardboard box containing a licensed revolver of Shamrao Thakre, is of no use. 43. P.W.22 Mohd. Safique secured the arm licence from accused No.1 Shamrao on 17 -9-1992 and brought it to the Local Crime Branch where it was seized vide Exhibit 82 in presence of P.W.21 Manohar Gulhane. 44. P.W.24 Bezil Samuel is the person in whose presence record of armory of P. W.12 Chandrakant was secured by police to show that accused No.1 Shamrao had purchased a revolver and the cartridges. 45. All this evidence is utterly useless in indicating complicity of accused No.1 in the crime. 44. P.W.24 Bezil Samuel is the person in whose presence record of armory of P. W.12 Chandrakant was secured by police to show that accused No.1 Shamrao had purchased a revolver and the cartridges. 45. All this evidence is utterly useless in indicating complicity of accused No.1 in the crime. It cannot by any stretch of imagination indicate engaging in any conspiracy to eliminate the victim. Purchase of revolver for self protection may be just as innocuous carrying a sword in his jeep by victim Madan Anna. 46. A country-made revolver was seized from accused No.4 Prakash Kundale vide Exhibit 87 by P.W.40 PI Pathan in presence of P.W.27 Motiram. He had also seized a Deshi Katta from accused No.6 Manoj Bhagat vide Exhibit 89. On 14-7-1992, according to PI Pathan, accused No.1 Shamrao Thakre surrendered at his office. He was accompanied by Manoj Nikam, who was examined as P.W.11, but turned hostile. Manoj produced a bag containing revolver and 15 cartridges, which were seized by him in presence of P.W.19 Prabhakar. The weapons seized were sent by PI Pathan to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Bombay with invoice Exhibit 101 and letter Exhibit 184. They were carried to the Forensic Science Laboratory by P.W.28 PC Santosh. 47. These articles were examined by P.W.37 Shri. Ramteke, Assistant Chemical Analyser to the Government and Ballistic Expert, who proved his report at Exhibit 156 after carrying out test firing. The report at Exhibit 156 shows that a country-made revolver seized from accused No.4 Prakash Kundale was capable of chambering .38" revolver cartridges and had a tendency to hit off centre. The residues of fired gun powder were detected in barrel washing of Exhibit 1, showing that Exhibit 1, showing that Exhibit I was used for firing prior to its receipt in the Laboratory. The country-made hand gun seized from accused No.6 Manoj Bhagat was capable of chambering and firing 12 bore shotgun cartridges and it too showed that it was used for firing prior to its receipt in the Laboratory. The .32 caliber revolver licensed to accused No.1 Shamrao Thakre also showed that it was used for firing prior to its receipt in the Laboratory. The velocity or the fired bullet from this revolver was effective in causing death. The .32 caliber revolver licensed to accused No.1 Shamrao Thakre also showed that it was used for firing prior to its receipt in the Laboratory. The velocity or the fired bullet from this revolver was effective in causing death. On examination of the clothes of the victim, the Ballistic Expert reported that the shot holes are consistent with the passage of lead projectiles having been fired from beyond the powder range of a weapon. 48. Expert Shri. Ramteke stated that his opinion was not sought as to whether the injuries were possible due to the weapons sent to him for examination. He stated that though it was difficult to identify the weapon from the nature of injuries on the body. it was possible to give opinion in respect of the injuries by examining the holes on the cloth in case of smooth bore weapon. Two of the three weapons examined by him were smooth bore weapons. Yet, it may be seen that Shri. Ramteke has not opined that on examination of the holes on the cloth that the injuries on the victim could have been caused by any of the three weapons sent to him for examination. He admitted in cross-examination that he had carried out test firing only with a view to ascertain whether the weapons were in working order and not for deciding the range. He agreed that two of the weapons being country made the standard data would not be applicable to the weapons and unless test firing is undertaken, it would not be possible to opine about the powder range of the weapons. 49. It seems that a lead bullet has also been sent to the Expert. It may be seen that this bullet has not been retrieved from the victim's body. It is one which was mysteriously stared to have been found inside the underwear of the victim, as may be seen from the evidence of P.W.14 Abu Bakar, the witness on inquest panchanama on Exhibit 57. This bullet was sent to the Ballistic Expert vide requisition Exhibit 184 by P.W.40 PI Pathim. It is indeed enigmatic that the front portion of the bullet could be found in the underwear of the victim and did not pierce any part of the body. This bullet was sent to the Ballistic Expert vide requisition Exhibit 184 by P.W.40 PI Pathim. It is indeed enigmatic that the front portion of the bullet could be found in the underwear of the victim and did not pierce any part of the body. The finding of this bullet inside the underwear smacks of planting a bullet inside the underwear, making the report of P.W.37 Shri. Ramteke in respect of this bullet meaningless. Shri. Ramteke had stated in para 9 of his deposition that even if the bullet would have been sent to him for opinion without Article 33, he would have been in a position to ascertain the caliber, type and nature of fire arm and say that it was fired from a .32 revolver. 50. P.W.39 Sayed Abbas had conducted the inquest panchanama and seized the bullet. He stated that the bullet was found upon the underwear on the right hand side on the waist of the body, whereas P.W.14 Abu Bakar stated that the bullet was inside the underwear. P.W.14 Abu Bakar states that the underpant was intact and it did not have any hole. In view of this, the evidence of the Ballistic Expert in respect of the weapon licensed to accused No.1 Shamrao Thakre and the bullet seized in the course of inquest panchanama do not help in connecting accused No.1 Shamrao Thrikre to the crime. 51. The police seem to have seized one chit from accused No.7 Harishchandra Lonare, who has been acquitted. P. W.17 Baburao Kawle was a witness on the arrest panchanama Exhibit 66 and the seizure of chit vide Exhibit 67. The clothes of accused No.7 Harishchandra Lonare were seized on the next day vide Exhibit 68 in presence of the same witness. The chit is a printed advance receipt of Sanjay Framing Works, Datta Chowk, Netaji Market, Yavatmal, dated 25-4-1992, which is in the name of acquitted accused No.7 Harishchandra Lonare. But on the back side in half portion of the receipt, the name "Shamrao Thakre, Nagar Parishad President, Tilaknagar, Wani" was written by ball point pen. This chit was sent along with the specimen writing to P.W.36 Dilip Ahiwale, the State Examiner of Documents in CID. But on the back side in half portion of the receipt, the name "Shamrao Thakre, Nagar Parishad President, Tilaknagar, Wani" was written by ball point pen. This chit was sent along with the specimen writing to P.W.36 Dilip Ahiwale, the State Examiner of Documents in CID. Shri. Ahiwale found vide his opinion at Exhibit 151 and reasons at Exhibit 152 that the questioned writings on the chit incurs similar authorship when compared with the sample writings - S-1 to S-6. The sample writings, according to Exhibit 123 - the requisition, were those of accused No.4 Prakash Kundale. Presuming for a while that accused No.4 Prakash Kunule had written the name of accused No.1 Shamrao Thakre on a receipt found with accused No.7 Harishchandra Lonare, it is not clear as to how this writing would connect accused Harishchandra. Prakash and Shamrao to the murder of Madan Anna. 52. The learned Sessions Judge too in para 147 of his lucid judgment has discarded this part of the prosecution evidence. 53. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the impugned judgment must be upheld because the learned Sessions Judge has fully considered all aspects of the matter and the reliability of the witnesses, who deposed before him. 54. We have carefully considered the points urged by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, which, in his view, sufficiently establish that the appellants are guilty of murder of Madan Anna, but cannot subscribe to his view. First, purchase of revolver by accused No.1 Shamrao Thakre about which the prosecution made much ado, in itself is an innocuous act of securing an arm to protect himself. Accused No.1 Shamrao Thakre was President of the Municipal Council, Wani, at the relevant time and the report about assault on him is a part of the evidence tendered at the trial. It is, therefore, not unnatural that he wanted to acquire a fire arm. In any case, it is not imaginable that a person in politics and holding a responsible position would acquire a fire arm as a part of his conspiracy to liquidate a rival. Further, the seizure of bullet in the course of inquest panchanama is fraught with doubts because of the contradictory versions of P.W.14 Panch Abu Bakar and P.W.39 PSI Syed Habiburahman. Further, the seizure of bullet in the course of inquest panchanama is fraught with doubts because of the contradictory versions of P.W.14 Panch Abu Bakar and P.W.39 PSI Syed Habiburahman. Further, the finding of such a bullet outside the body and inside the underwear would be consistent with its having been planted and in that case would create a suspicion about the integrity of the investigation. 55. Non-examination of Walmik Bhagat, who was introduced after the FIR, to bean eye-witness, is a circumstance causing a serious doubt about the investigation and is suggestive of manipulations right from the stage of recording statements after the FIR. The situation at the spot described in sketches and the chronology of the events described by P.W.1 Laxman make it extremely difficult to conclude that Laxman would have had sufficient opportunity to see the assailants. Further, the events described by P.W.1 Laxman would make it difficult to believe that the two vehicles could have brushed in order to stain each other. The evidence of test identification parade is extremely vulnerable to all doubts. Identification of two innocent persons as miscreants demolishes any modicum of reliability that would have been otherwise left. 56. In view of this, though the learned Trial Judge, upon appreciation of evidence tendered before him, has held the appellants guilty, we find that the conclusions may be more the result of a voluminous evidence tendered before him about a murder in which bigwigs were involved. We find that the evidence does not clinchingly and convincingly point to the complicity of the appellants. 57. Consequently, we allow both the appeals and set aside the conviction and sentences imposed on all the appellants. The appellants are acquitted of the offences for which they were tried and convicted. Fine, if paid, be refunded to them. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by them shall stand cancelled. Appeals allowed.