Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 542 (PAT)

Naresh Mandal v. State Of Bihar

2005-05-25

INDU PRABHA SINGH, RAJENDRA PRASAD

body2005
Judgment Rajendra Prasad, J. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 8.8.2001 passed by Shri sarweshwar Nath, IInd. Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar, in Sessions Case no.38/99 arising out of Barari PS Case no.47/98, whereby and whereunder learned trial Court found and held both the appellants guilty for the offences under Sections 363, 365, 302/34, IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years each under Sections 363 and 365, ipc and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Sec.201, IPC. Learned additional Sessions Judge ordered that sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story, in short is that since last one month there had been dispute between informant Rupan singh (PW 3) and previous settlees longendra Singh, Babloo Jha, Mahesh singh (appellant No.2), Naresh Mandal (appellant No.1) and 5-6 others of Belwa betona Jalkar relating to settlement of that Jalkar. As per informant he had taken settlement of that Jalkar this year in which he had 40% share. The informant had, also deposited Rs.5,000/- with deputy Director of Fisheries but the above persons wanted cent per cent share of Jalkar with them and stopped informant from fishing there which was objected by him. As per informant as he objected to, all the above named persons after consulting each other kidnapped informants son Dabloo Singh aged 12 years in the evening at about 5 p. m. on 10.4.1998 from cattle shed (Maweshibathan) situated behind the house of the informant. Informants son was lame. The informant further stated that at the time of kidnapping he was not present at his house and his wife Sakuntala Devi (PW 4) who was at home informed informant when he came to his house that all the above named persons who were draining water with pumping set for fishing took away his son. The informant further disclosed that before 3-4 days Babloo jha and Logendra Singh had threatened informant to leave claiming Jalkar otherwise they would kill him and destroy him. The informant claimed that the above named persons with an intention to remove informant from settlement of jalkar kidnapped his son and prayed police for investigating the case and recover his son and punish guilty persons and take appropriate legal action. 3. The informant claimed that the above named persons with an intention to remove informant from settlement of jalkar kidnapped his son and prayed police for investigating the case and recover his son and punish guilty persons and take appropriate legal action. 3. On the basis of written report of informant Rupan Singh (PW 3) Barari PS case No.47/98 dated 11.4.1998 under sections 363 and 365, IPC was instituted and investigation of the case was handed over to SI Abhay Kr. Singh (PW 7 ). Formal fir (Ext.5) was drawn against Logendra singh, Mahesh Singh (appellant No.2), naresh Mandal (appellant No.1) and babloo Jha. Police after completion of in-vestigation submitted charge-sheet against Mahesh Singh (appellant No.2)on 11/7/1998 and continued investigation against other accused persons. On 23/7/1998 police after completion of further investigation submitted charge-sheet against Naresh Mandal (appellant no.1), Logendra Singh, Jitu Singh, Goda singh and Bimal Singh showing them absconder. On the basis of charge-sheet cognizance against as many as six accused named Mahesh Singh, Naresh mandal, Logendra Singh, Jitu Singh, goda Singh and Bimal Singh was taken and later on case of all the above named accused persons were committed to the court of session vide order dated 29/1/1999. 4. As it appears from record one of six accused named Logendra Singh died during the pendency of the case and so case against him was dropped vide order dated 7/3/2000 and charges against remaining five accused named Mahesh singh, Naresh Mandal, Goda Singh, Jitu singh and Bimal Singh were framed under Sections 363, 365, 302/34 and also under Sec.201, IPC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after completion of trial acquitted accused Bimal Singh, Goda singh and Jitu Singh but held guilty, convicted and sentenced accused Naresh mandal (appellant No.1) and Mahesh singh (appellant No.2) as indicated in paragraph 1 of this Judgment. 5. In order to prove and establish its case the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and also brought on record several documents which shall be dealt at the relevant places. As against this, defence also examined as many as two witnesses, who are Pray Chandar Singh (DW 1) and Anand Pd. Singh (DW 2 ). 6. 5. In order to prove and establish its case the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and also brought on record several documents which shall be dealt at the relevant places. As against this, defence also examined as many as two witnesses, who are Pray Chandar Singh (DW 1) and Anand Pd. Singh (DW 2 ). 6. As it appears from trend of cross examination, suggestions thrown to prosecution witnesses and also statements of accused including appellants recorded under Sec.313, Cr PC, the defence plea is of ignorance and false implication owing to admitted dispute and enmity between the parties relating to settlement of Belwa Betona Jalkar. Specific defence also appears to have been set up that the prosecution party itself committed murder of the deceased and concealing the dead body implicated the accused persons falsely. 7. Out of ten witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW 2 Kamal Singh has not supported the prosecution case and so turned hostile and there is nothing in his statement so as to help the prosecution. PW 5 Vinod Kumar Shukla, judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar, is a formal witness, who, as per his statement recorded statements of Rupan singh (PW 3), Upender Singh (not examined), Nabi Singh (not examined), Kamal singh (not examined), Shakuntala Devi (PW 4) and Ganga Singh (PW 8) under section 164, Cr PC and proved all such statements marked Exts.3 to 3/5. PW 9 bharat Lal Rishi, who is also a formal witness, proved a written report of Rupan singh (PW 3) marked Ext.4/1, and stated that the said written report was in writing of this witness and was written by him at the instance of Rupan Singh. This witness has read over the written report (Ext.4/1) to informant Rupan Singh, who after hearing and understanding the same had put his thumb impression on the same. PW 10 Md. Mukhtar Alam is also a formal witness who proved carbon copy of inquest report marked Ext.6. 8. Pw 1 is Dr. Lakshmi Narayan mandal, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sadar hospital, Katihar, who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased babloo Singh aged 12 years, son of Rupan singh (PW 3 ). PW 10 Md. Mukhtar Alam is also a formal witness who proved carbon copy of inquest report marked Ext.6. 8. Pw 1 is Dr. Lakshmi Narayan mandal, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sadar hospital, Katihar, who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased babloo Singh aged 12 years, son of Rupan singh (PW 3 ). As it appears from the statement of PW 1, the doctor, who held postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased, the following injuries were found on the dead body of deceased :- (a) Both thighs are amputated through lower stand thing. There is incised wound around hip posteriorly and inured canal interiorly. All soft tissues (muscles, tissues, veins, tendered) have been removed from bones distal to wound around hips, leaving the femur alone on either side. (b) Both arms have been cut through elbow on either side. Incised wound around shoulder deep to bone. All soft tissues around distal to shoulder joints. (c) There are skin incised wound on the scalp-two posteriorly 1" x "x 1/4" x2, " x " x 1/4" on occipital region and " x " x 1/4" on left temporal region of scalp. Wounds are full of maggots. Internal injury : (a) On dissection of scalp, there is no blood or blood clots under the corresponding wound on scalp. Tissues has liquefied, no fracture of scalp bone. (d) On dissection of chest cavity lungs have been soft. Heart chambers are empty. No blood in chest cavity. (e) On dissection of abdomen : stomach is empty but distends due to P. P. Gas. All other viscera are in position and intact. There is no injury to viscera or there is no blood or blood clots inside abdomen. (d) On dissection of shoulder wounds and hip round there is not a single blood clot present in tissues around and under the wounds. This witness who is doctor, opined that all these wounds have been produced after the death of child and no definite opinion could be given regarding the cause of death. Hence, viscera has been preserved in saturated salt solution for chemical examination in forensic laboratory. As per doctor time elapsed since death and post-mortem held about 4-5 days. A piece of liver, splines, kidney, brain, lungs, heart with, its contents have been preserved in saturated salt. This witness also proved post-mortem examination report marked Ext.1. Hence, viscera has been preserved in saturated salt solution for chemical examination in forensic laboratory. As per doctor time elapsed since death and post-mortem held about 4-5 days. A piece of liver, splines, kidney, brain, lungs, heart with, its contents have been preserved in saturated salt. This witness also proved post-mortem examination report marked Ext.1. In his crossexamination this witness stated that he cannot say that death was a homicidal death. This witness also stated that injuries on the dead body were found after death. He further stated that in natural death blood will be clotted but cannot say time. When there was bleeding then there was loss of blood. 9. Pw 3 Rupan Singh is informant and father of deceased. It appears from his statement that on the alleged date and time of kidnapping of deceased he was not present in his house and had also not seen the actual occurrence of killing of his son. He stated that occurrence took place on 10/4/1998 when he was at katihar and paid Rs.5000.00 to Pradeep sah towards settlement of Jalkar as share money. Mahesh (appellant No.2), yogender, Nawal and Bimal were also at katihar. He further stated that at 12 p. m. Mahesh (appellant No.2) and other persons left Katihar and this witness stayed at Katihar till 5 p. m. and at 5 p. m. he was told to come next day. Then the informant reached at 7.30 p. m. in the evening then his wife told that Dabloo Singh was kidnapped by Logender, Babloo, Jitu. Mahesh (appellant No.2) and Naresh (appellant No.1 ). He stated that age of the deceased was 12 years and was reading in class 11. He also stated that Dabloo was kidnapped from bathan and accused mahesh (appellant No.2} told him that he would return Dabloo in the morning but longender and Mahesh did not return. Thereafter on 11.4.1998 this witness lodged written report at the police station. The written report was written by Allauddin, sarpanch (not examined) and he had put his L. T. I, on written report. He further stated that Abhay Singh, SI (PW 7)assaulted him and brought him at police station and asked to produce the boy and kept this witness in the hazat. He further stated that the dead body of Dabloo was seen by Kamal Singh (PW 2 ). He further stated that Abhay Singh, SI (PW 7)assaulted him and brought him at police station and asked to produce the boy and kept this witness in the hazat. He further stated that the dead body of Dabloo was seen by Kamal Singh (PW 2 ). The police brought dead body of Dabloo and he saw the legs and hands were cut from the dead body and the lower portion of the dead body was also cut. The police recovered the dead body and thereafter the informant was freed from the custody. He stated that statement of witnesses was recorded under Sec.164, Cr PC and this witness also filed a protest petition before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. 10. Pw 4 Shakuntala Devi is wife of informant and mother of deceased dabloo Singh, who stated that the occurrence took place on 10.4.1998 at 4 p. m. Babloo Singh came to her and calling took away her son Dabloo Singh for playing. Dabloo Singh is aged 12-13 years. Dabloo singh was taken at a distance of 50 yards towards south of bathan. Babloo, Naresh, mahesh, Yogender Singh came. Babloo jha lifted and took her son Dabloo (deceased) to maize field. This witness also went running there but did not find dabloo there. The area of maize field was seven bighas. She searched Dabloo and came back. She further stated that she called Jitender, Kamal, Nemi Singh, ganga Singh and along with them searched Dabloo but Dabloo was not found. The husband of this witness (PW 3) came from Katihar at 9 p. m. when this witness narrated the occurrence to her husband who also went to search Dabloo but Dabloo was not found. This witness also stated that Logender and Mahesh came and asked that they would return his son tomorrow but neither her son nor both logender and Mahesh met her thereafter. Her husband lodged case in Barari police station. This witness further stated that Daroga assaulted her husband and took him to police station and asked him to bring his son. This witness further stated that her nephew Kamal had gone on 13th instant to irrigate his garma paddy crop then he saw Jitu, Viday, yogender, Babloo Jha, Kailash, Boro singh, Shambhu, Nawal Kishore roaming there. The nephew of this witness kamal saw dead body of Dabloo under pipal tree whose heads and legs were not there. This witness further stated that her nephew Kamal had gone on 13th instant to irrigate his garma paddy crop then he saw Jitu, Viday, yogender, Babloo Jha, Kailash, Boro singh, Shambhu, Nawal Kishore roaming there. The nephew of this witness kamal saw dead body of Dabloo under pipal tree whose heads and legs were not there. As per this witness Kamal informed his uncle Upender Singh (not examined)then Upender Singh went police station. As per this witness she along with chowkidar went near dead body and identified the dead body of Dabloo. Police came from police station and took the dead body and sent the dead body to Katihar. She further stated that Bimal Singh armed with three knot and hasua came to her house and threatened to kill her husband and her son. This witness also stated that earlier also she had given her statement before the Court. She identified all the accused persons in the Court. 11. Pw 6 Kedar Kumar Singh stared that the occurrence took place on 19.4.1998 at 5 p. m. This witness and deceased Dabloo Singh were playing in the cowshed. Babloo Jha, Yogender Singh, mahesh Singh, Naresh Singh Bimal singh came and lifted and took away dabloo Singh in maize field when this witness raised hulla. As per this witness, on hulla her barima Shakuntala Devi (PW 4) saw all the above named persons taking away Dabloo Singh in maize field. This witness further stated that on his hulla, ganga, Nebi, Kamli, Goma also came and started searching Dabloo Singh but he was not found. On the same day in between 8-9 hours in the night Longender singh and Mahesh Singh came to his house and asked not to file a case and also not to weep and promised to return dabloo Singh, Rupan Singh, Ganga Singh, nebi Singh, Upender were asked that boy would be returned but Dabloo Singh was not brought in the morning. This witness further stated that his uncle Rupan singh (PW 3) lodged a case. This witness also stated that Daroga Abhay Singh had come to his house and had taken Rupan singh assaulting him to police station. This witness further stated that on Monday when Kamal Singh was irrigating paddy crops saw accused persons roaming in the field where there was a pipal tree. This witness also stated that Daroga Abhay Singh had come to his house and had taken Rupan singh assaulting him to police station. This witness further stated that on Monday when Kamal Singh was irrigating paddy crops saw accused persons roaming in the field where there was a pipal tree. Kamal Singh came and informed that dead body of Dabloo Singh was in Banana field under pipal tree. Thereafter Raghubir Singh, Vikash Singh, rakesh Singh and this witness and also others went there and saw dead body of dabloo Singh whose both hands were cut and lower portion of waist were also cut. Upender Singh and Kamal Singh went to police station and police reached there. After police came accused persons fled away. Only Mahesh Singh was caught. This witness also stated that his statements were recorded by Dy. S. P. and claimed to identify all the witnesses. 12. Pw 7 Abhay Kr. Singh, the investigating officer of this case, stated that on 11/4/1998 he was posted as ASI at barari Police Station. He further stated that on 11/4/1998 Rupan Singh (PW 3) had submitted a written report to officer-in-charge and this witness further proved the written report which was marked as ext.4. This witness also proved formal fir which was marked as Ext.5. As per this witness, he was handed over charge of investigation of this case by officer-in-charge. In course of investigation this witness recorded statement of Rupan singh (PW 3) and also inspected place of occurrence. As per this witness, place of occurrence was cattle shed of Rupan singh (PW 3) situated in village bhandartal mouza. Adjacent to cattle shed towards north there was house of informant, towards east there was village road, towards west there was house of mahesh Singh and towards north there was house of Dhaturi and towards south there was house of Jitender. This witness further stated that towards south there was pond of Jitender and towards adjacent south to pond of Jitender there was belwa betla Jalkar. This witness recorded statements of witnesses. This witness further stated that till evening deceased dabloo Singh was not traced but later on after Rupan (PW 3) came the dead body of deceased Dabloo was searched by Upender das. This witness seized the dead body at the instance of Upender from Banana field in presence of informant Rupan (PW 3) and Upender. This witness further stated that till evening deceased dabloo Singh was not traced but later on after Rupan (PW 3) came the dead body of deceased Dabloo was searched by Upender das. This witness seized the dead body at the instance of Upender from Banana field in presence of informant Rupan (PW 3) and Upender. As per this witness, Banana field from there the dead body was recovered belonged to one Sant Singh. The decomposed dead body of Dabloo singh was found in Banana field. Dead body of Dabloo Singh was identified by rupan Singh, Upender Singh and Kamal singh. This witness prepared inquest report of dead body in presence of witnesses in the Banana field which was signed by Upender. This witness stated that both the legs of dead body were amputated and the bones upto knee were also cut and bones above knee were attached with the body. Both the hands were also cut through elbows. There were two injuries on the back of head and one injury each left side of head which was caused by sharp cutting weapon. Pus was oozing from injuries. The entire body and upper part of head were scrapped and tongue was protuded and both the eyes were also obtrud and the hairs of head were also saved. This witness sent dead body to Sadar Hospital, Katihar for postmortem and obtained post-mortem report. Thereafter this witness arrested Mahesh singh (appellant No.2) on 13.4.1998 and other accused persons were absconding. This witness took statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet. This witness had also been cross-examined at length and in his cross-examination this witness appears to have stated that rupan Singh {pw 3) had asked this witness that he had got operated the hernia of deceased some days ago. This witness also stated that Rupan (PW 3) never told this witness that Jogender and Mahesh had asked to return his son. This witness further stated that Shakuntala Devi (PW 2) had not stated the names of accused who had taken away her son. This witness further stated that Kedar Singh had told this witness that Dabloo was sitting and Babloo was playing. Kedar Singh had also told this witness that Babloo had called Dabloo to Banana field for eating banana. Kedar Singh also told this witness that Babloo and Dabloo went and kedar Singh remained playing. This witness further stated that Kedar Singh had told this witness that Dabloo was sitting and Babloo was playing. Kedar Singh had also told this witness that Babloo had called Dabloo to Banana field for eating banana. Kedar Singh also told this witness that Babloo and Dabloo went and kedar Singh remained playing. This witness further stated the Upender had informed about the dead body at police station. This witness had not recorded statements of Gulab Singh and Jitender. This witness denied that as he was new officer he did not do proper investigation. 13. Pw 8 Ganga Singh stated that rupan Singh was his brother. Occurrence took place before two years four months on Friday at 5 p. m. in the evening. This witness was working near Banana field situated towards south of house of Rupan singh. He saw Dabloo (deceased) and kedar Singh (PW 6) playing there and logender Singh, Mahesh, Babloo, Bimal singh came and after lifting Dabloo (deceased) took him towards west in maize field. This witness called his family members. Mother of Dabloo started weeping. They searched Dabloo but he was not found. Mahesh and Logender came and asked mother of Dabloo that the child would be found in the morning but the child was never found. This witness further stated that Rupan instituted a case in police station. Daroga caught Rupan and also assaulted him. This witness further stated that on Monday when Kamal singh was irrigating his paddy crops kamal and Upender were working in their field the dead body of Dabloo was found in the Banana field. Upender informed police station and thereafter police came and Mahesh was caught in banana field. This witness also saw the dead body. As per this witness, waist and arms of dead body were cut. He further stated that his statement was recorded by Magistrate. He identified accused persons in the Court and claimed to identify all other witnesses. This witness also stated that all accused persons used to threaten this witness for not giving evidence in this case. This witness had also been cross-examined at length which shall be dealt at the relevant places. 14. The only point for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the charges levelled against the appellants beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. 15. The main contentions of the learned counsel Mr. This witness had also been cross-examined at length which shall be dealt at the relevant places. 14. The only point for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the charges levelled against the appellants beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. 15. The main contentions of the learned counsel Mr. Raj Kumar appearing for the appellants are that though prosecution alleged motive against the appellants and other accused, who were not found guilty and acquitted by the learned trial Court of committing murder of deceased as there was dispute of appellants and other accused with the informant relating to dispute of settlement of Jalkar the prosecution failed to establish such motive, inasmuch as the prosecution failed to prove that Jalkar, in question, was settled in favour of informant. The contention was that though motive itself cannot be decisive test for determination of criminal character of human acts yet motive becomes important when it is specifically alleged and as the prosecution failed to establish motive inspite of specific allegation against the appellants and other co-accused learned trial Court would have not held appellants guilty and recorded a judgment of conviction. It was further contended that though prosecution claimed several witnesses to have seen the occurrence the prosecution did not examine such witnesses and the witnesses examined by the prosecution were only relatives and it is settled principles of law that the statements of relation witnesses are to be examined very carefully and cautiously. It was also contended that from the prosecution story and also from the statement of informant it is very clear that informant was never an eye witness to the alleged occurrence of kidnapping and also killing and the statements of other witnesses examined by prosecution are also not such so as to establish that the appellants committed kidnapping and murder in the manner as alleged. It was also contended that learned Court below itself came to the conclusion in paragraph 13 of the judgment and observed that "let us discuss the evidence on the point of kidnapping of Dabloo Singh. It was also contended that learned Court below itself came to the conclusion in paragraph 13 of the judgment and observed that "let us discuss the evidence on the point of kidnapping of Dabloo Singh. There are eye witnesses on the point of kidnapping and there are no eye witnesses with regard to murder so it is a case of circumstantial evidence with regard to murder of Dabloo Singh" and so the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence but the circumstantial evidence considered by the learned lower court are not such so as to point indubitably to the conclusion that it were appellants and the appellants only who were preparators of the crime and the circumstances relied upon were also not incomputable with the innocence of the accused. It was contended that circumstantial evidence relied upon did not forge such a chain as to support the sole hypothesis that the accused committed the murder. 16. As against this, learned APP Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha appearing for the state submitted that there was sufficient evidence so as to indicate that appellants had kidnapped deceased Dabloo Singh and even there was no eye witness on the point of committing murder there were sufficient circumstantial evidence so as to establish the guilt of appellants beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. 17. On a careful consideration of statement of all the ten witnesses examined by the prosecution it is evident that out of ten witnesses examined by the prosecution PW 1, Dr. Lakshmi Narayan mandal, who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Dabloo singh, PW 3 Rupan Singh, who is informant and father of deceased, PW 4 shakuntala Devi, who is wife of informant and mother of deceased Dabloo Singh, PW 6 Kedar Singh, who is aged about 11 years and so a child witness PW 7 Abhay Kr. Singh, who is investigating officer of this case and PW 8 Ganga Singh who is brother of informant, are only material witnesses on the point of kidnapping and murder and all other witnesses PW 2, PW 5, PW 9 and PW 10 are either hostile or formal witnesses. 18. Singh, who is investigating officer of this case and PW 8 Ganga Singh who is brother of informant, are only material witnesses on the point of kidnapping and murder and all other witnesses PW 2, PW 5, PW 9 and PW 10 are either hostile or formal witnesses. 18. On further examination of statement of PW 3 Rupan Singh (informant) it is evidently clear that this witness is not an eye witness to either occurrence of kidnapping or murder as he himself stated that at the alleged time of occurrence he was not present and he heard about the occurrence from his wife shakuntala Devi (PW 4 ). 19. On further examination of the statements of PW 8 Shakuntala Devi, PW 6 Kedar Singh and PW 8 Ganga Singh, it is evidently clear that PW 4 Shakuntala devi is mother of deceased Dabloo Singh, pw 6 Kedar Singh is nephew of PW 3 rupan Singh and PW 8 Ganga Singh is brother of PW 3 Rupan Singh, the informant, and so all these material witnesses PW 4, PW 6 and PW 8 are related to each other and so their statements are to be appreciated with great care and caution. On a careful consideration of written report (Ext.4) it is evidently clear that written report was submitted by PW 3 Rupan Singh and it is further evidently clear from the written report that though shakuntala Devi (PW 4) informed PW 3 rupan Singh, who is the informant, that logender Singh, Babloo Jha, Mahesh singh (appellant No.2), Naresh Mandal (appellant No.1) and 5-6 others who were draining water with pump set for fishing had taken away her son yet she did not disclose the names of witnesses who had also seen the occurrence and so the statements of PW 16 Kedar Singh and PW 8 ganga Singh both of them are also relation of informant and PW 4 Shakuntala devi and so also require careful consideration. 20. It appears from the statements of PW 4 Shakuntala Devi, wife of informant and mother of deceased Dabloo singh, that one Babloo Singh (not examined) came to her and took away her son dabloo Singh at a distance of 50 yards towards south of bathan for playing when babloo, Naresh, Mahesh, Jogender Singh came. Babloo Jha lifted and took her son dabloo to maize field. Babloo Jha lifted and took her son dabloo to maize field. Thereafter witnesses also went there but Dabloo was not found there. She also stated that jitender, Kamal, Nebi Singh and Ganga singh searched Dabloo but Dabloo was not found. Similarly, PW 6 Kedar Singh who is aged about 11 years, a child, stated that Dabloo Singh was playing in the cow shed. Babloo Jha, Jogender Singh, mahesh Singh, Naresh Singh, Bimal singh came, lifted and took away Dabloo singh in maize field and when this witness raised hulla PW 4 Shakuntala Devi saw all the above named persons taking away Dabloo Singh in maize field. This witness also stated that on hulla Ganga, nebi, Kamli, Gama also came and started searching Dabloo Singh but he was not found. Similarly, PW 8 stated that at the time of alleged occurrence he was working near Banana field situated towards south of house of Rupan Singh when he saw Dabloo and Kedar Singh (PW 6) playing there. As per this witness. Logender singh, Mahesh, Babloo and Bimal Singh came and lifted Dabloo Singh (deceased)and took him towards west in maize field. This witness called his family members. On a careful consideration and scrutiny of statements of these three witnesses, who claimed to have seen accused persons kidnapping deceased Dabloo Singh, it is apparent that these witnesses had never seen that the accused named by these witnesses had also killed deceased dabloo. Learned trial Court also found that there is no eye witness on the point of killing and so convicted the appellants on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 21. As there is no eye witness on the point of killing and the learned trial court based order of conviction on circumstantial evidence, I shall consider whether circumstantial evidence of this case is so consistent and cogent so as to establish that it were appellants, who committed murder of deceased. From the evidence of doctor who held post-mortem on the dead body of deceased, it is evidently clear that as per doctor the injuries found on the dead body were after death and there being no eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence of killing, it is difficult to believe that accused persons after killing had also cut hand and legs of the deceased. 22. 22. On consideration of evidences brought on record in its entirety it is evidently clear that the informant himself is not an eye witness to the alleged occurrence of both kidnapping and murder and the statements of other material witnesses who are PW 4 Shakuntala Devi, mother of deceased, PW 6 Kedar Singh a child witness and nephew of informant and PW 8 Ganga Singh, brother of informant, are also indicated that though these witnesses claimed to have been appellants along with other accused kidnapping deceased Dabloo Singh they are not eye witnesses on the point of killing of deceased by appellants and other accused persons in the manner as alleged. Since there is specific allegation of enmity of the accused persons with the informant from before relating to settlement of jalkar and motive for committing murder of deceased and as enmity cuts both ends, if there is probability of accused persons committing murder there is also no less probability of false implication of the accused persons by informant. In such circumstances, quality of evidences and standard of proof of establishing the guilt shall be required to be of high standard. On a careful consideration and examination of evidences brought on record it is evidently clear that the evidences on record are not sufficient to establish that the appellants along with other accused committed murder of deceased in the manner as alleged. The only circumstances that these appellants had dispute with the informant relating to settlement of Jalkar in absence of eye-witnesses on the point of killing can not be sufficient to establish the guilt of appellants. 23. On a careful consideration of evidence brought on record and my discussions in foregoing paragraphs i come to the conclusion and hold that prosecution has miserably failed to prove and establish charges levelled against these appellants in the manner as alleged beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. 24. In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court is, hereby, set aside. Since both the appellants are in custody they are directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.