Judgment Dharnidhar Jha, J. 1. The three appellants namely Surendra Ram (since dead). Munnu Ram alias Munna Ram and Narayan Ram were tried for a composite charge under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 23/98/1/98 and were found guilty by the judgement and order of conviction dated 30th August 2000 and each of them was directed to suffer R.I. for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The above noted judgement and order of conviction is questioned by the three appellants in the present appeal. 2. It may be pertinent to point out that during the pendency of the appeal before this Court an information was placed about the death of the appellant Surendra Ram and accordingly report was directed to be submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda and the same was received and appears on the record of the present appeal. As per the report of the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda. Surendra Ram was abducted and murdered and for that Noor Sarai RS. case No. 19 of 2004 was registered. While submitting the report by his memo No. 215/C dated 22.1.2005 the Superintendent of Police enclosed with it the report of the Officer incharge of Noor Sarai P.S. which has as its annexure the post-mortem examination report of the dead body of Surendra Ram in connection with the above noted Noor Sarai P.S. case. Thus in the light of the death of Surendra Ram the appeal on his behalf stands abated and it remains only on behalf of Munnu Ram and Narayan Ram. 3. The prosecution case emanates from the fardbeyan of Jagat Prasad P.W.9., who happens to be the son of the deceased Daulati Devi @ Indira Gandhi in which he stated that while he was proceeding from his house in the night on 25.12.1996 after taking meals for keeping watch on his boring house, he heard a bulla at about 7 P.M. which was coming from his cattle shed. The deceased Daulati Devi used to reside in the cattle shed and was looking after animals kept there. The informant found that two persons, i.e., the two appellants Narayan Ram and Munnu Ram were running away towards south after coming out of the cattle shed of P.W.9. The deceased Daulati Devi used to reside in the cattle shed and was looking after animals kept there. The informant found that two persons, i.e., the two appellants Narayan Ram and Munnu Ram were running away towards south after coming out of the cattle shed of P.W.9. P.W.9 claims to have caught appellant Narayan Ram who gave the informant a push and freed himself to run away. However, the chain of the wrist watch of Narayan Ram was broken and a part of it remained in the hands of P.W.9 while the watch fell down on the ground. The two appellants made good their escape. 4. It is further alleged that the informant raised bulla which attracted persons of the neighbourhood and those persons also saw the two appellants running away. The informant, thereafter, went inside the cattle shed and in the flash of a torch light, found that his mother was lying dead in a pool of blood in the court yard east of the cattle shed. Persons like Arjun Yadav (not examined) Murari Prasad (P.W.5), Krishna Yadav (P.W.3), Ranvijay Prasad (P.W.6) and the younger brother of the informant and others who assembled on the hulla of Chor Chor saw the two appellants with many others, fleeing away as also the mother of the informant. 5. As regards the motive for the commission of the offence P.W.9 stated in his fardbeyan that there had been some quarrel between the appellants and the deceased for dumping the house hold dirt and discard in his field. Besides this, the deceased was branded a witch by the accused persons. 6. On the basis of the fardbeyan of P.W.9 the first information report was drawn up by the officer incharge of Noor Sarai PS. by registering Noor Sarai PS. case no. 190/96 under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the same was investigated into by RW.10 S.I. Rajendra Pd. Yadav who after holding the inquest, inspecting the place of occurrence sending the dead body for autopsy and recording the statements of the witnesses, sent up the three appellants for taking their taking the food trial. case no. 190/96 under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the same was investigated into by RW.10 S.I. Rajendra Pd. Yadav who after holding the inquest, inspecting the place of occurrence sending the dead body for autopsy and recording the statements of the witnesses, sent up the three appellants for taking their taking the food trial. It may be of some importance to note that the fardbeyan and the first information report were not exhibited during the trial but those documents could indicate that the deceased appellant Surendra Ram was not named in the fardbeyan and as such was not accused initially in the case and was sent up subsequently after the close of the investigation which ultimately resulted into the impugned judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned judge as indicated above. 7. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses for bringing home the charge against the three accused during the course of the trial and as also brought on record 4 documents. Three in the nature of signatures of different witnesses like P.W.5 Murari Prasad. P.W.6 Ranvijay Kumar and P.W.9 Jagat Prasad, the postmortem examination report (Ext.4) and the inquest report (Ext.3). 8. The defence of the appellants which may appear from the trend of cross- examination as also from their statements recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was that of a complete denial as regards their participation in the commission of the murder though they do not appear challenging, as they would not have, the killing of Daulati Devi by inflicting injuries as found by the doctor during the course of holding postmortem examination and preparing the report Ext.4 in that behalf. What they averred was that the appellants were falsely implicated on account of previous enmity between the parties as appears from the statement of appellant Munu Ram under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 9. The defence on the other hand examined a solitary witness and proved quite a good number of documents like the protest petition filed by P.W.9 in the case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda marked Ext.B, the four copies of deposition sheets of four witnesses recorded by the Judicial Magistrate during the course of enquiry under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. regarding the truthfulness of the complaint petition no. 27 (C)/88, which have been marked as Ext. C to C/3 for the defence. 27 (C)/88, which have been marked as Ext. C to C/3 for the defence. Two signatures of Jagat Prasad on the protest petition and Vakalatnama have been marked as Ext. A and A/1. 10. The learned trial court believed the eye witness account of the occurrence given by P.W.1 Jitan Gope, 3 Krishnandan Prasad and 4 Chhotan Yadav who were supported b other witness on the point of post-occurrence circumstances as also by medical evidence and discarded the plea of defence of false implication and innocence and passed the judgment and order of sentence as indicated above. 11. Shri R.J. Maharaj, Advocate appearing for the appellants took us through the evidence of 11 prosecution witnesses consisting of the I.O. and the doctor as also the solitary defence witness and has submitted that the sum and substance and the effect of the evidence adduced by the prosecution was that it was improbable for any of the witness to see and identify the assailants. The evidence led during the trial did not probabilise the motive which was alleged by the prosecution and it appears that the prosecution has failed in establishing that indeed the occurrence was committed for the same motive. It was next contended that the witnesses like RWs 1,3,4 were treated as eye witnesses and were relied upon by the trial court, were never eye witnesses nor they could be relied upon as their evidence did not inspire confidence and it was not proper for the trial court in the light of inimical back ground between the parties to accept their evidence and act upon the same to record the conviction and pass the sentence. Some of the witnesses could not have seen the occurrence which included RW.3 Krishnandan Prasad on account of the improbability of looking down from the place due to the site being intervened by other structures. It was next contended that the witnesses other than those relied upon as witnesses appear speaking out of their imagination and hypothesis and as such give contradictory statements of both major and minor aspect of the case and as such the whole gamut of evidence leaves big void and mystry as regards the authorship of committing the offence. It was next contended that the means of identification was not produced making the claim of RWs of identifying the accused unacceptable. 12. It was next contended that the means of identification was not produced making the claim of RWs of identifying the accused unacceptable. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the circumstances of the case also indicated that the prosecution has not come out with clean hands and there was every possibility of the appellants being falsely implicated in this case. 13. In a criminal trial it is never incumbent on the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime and often times, a motive is indicated to highten the probability that the offence was committed by the persons who was impelled by that motive But if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to enquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in with the alleged motive. This is what the Supreme Court observed while considering the requirement of proving motive for the commission of the offence in the case of State of U.P. vs. Hari Prasad reported AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1974. In another case the Apex Court were considering the failure of the prosecution in proving the motive and effect there of on the proof of the charges as may appear from Nachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1975 SC 118 , it was observed that the failure of the prosecution to establish the motive for the crime does not mean that the entire prosecution case has to be thrown over board. It only casts a duty on the court to scrutinise the other evidence particularly of the witnesses with greater care. Almost on the same line was yet another observation of the Apex Court in Molu vs. State of Haryana in AIR 1976 SC 2499 . It was held" it is well settled that where the direct evidence regarding the assault is worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive become more or less academic. Some times the motive is clear and can be proved and some times, however the motive is shrouded in mystry and it is very difficult to locate the same. If, however, the evidence of the witnesses is credit worthy and is believed by the court which has placed implicit reliance on them, the question whether there is any motive or not becomes wholly irrelevant. 14. If, however, the evidence of the witnesses is credit worthy and is believed by the court which has placed implicit reliance on them, the question whether there is any motive or not becomes wholly irrelevant. 14. In the leading case of Suresh Chand Bahari vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1994 SC 2420 the Apex Court were again considering the requirement of proof of motive in a criminal trial and their Lordships elaborated as to what could be the motive. It was observed as under: "some time motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and, therefore, motive behind the crime is the relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced. A motive is something which prompts a person to form opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act but with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention. In a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of the crime it affords added support to the findings of the court that the accused was guilty for the offence charged with. But it has to be remembered that the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless any trust worthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to a certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime. 15. Thus from the above findings and observations of the Apex Court what could be definite about the relevance of motive in a criminal trial is that the proof may be required when it is alleged to be the only impelling factor to the accused for commission of the offence, but in case of non-proof of the same by the prosecution, the evidence cannot be thrown over board. The non-proving of motive rather casts a duty upon the court to make deeper forensic enquiry regarding the proof of the charges through the evidence of the witnesses. 16. Here in the present case the fardbeyan of P.W.9 alleges two motive for the accused persons for committing the murder of Daulati Devi. The non-proving of motive rather casts a duty upon the court to make deeper forensic enquiry regarding the proof of the charges through the evidence of the witnesses. 16. Here in the present case the fardbeyan of P.W.9 alleges two motive for the accused persons for committing the murder of Daulati Devi. The one was dumping the discard and dirt of their household by the accused persons on the land of the deceased and the second was that the deceased was being branded a witch by the appellants. The statement in the above behalf in the fardbeyan is not in many words but they are sufficient to indicate that the deceased was badly annoyed with the acts of dumping of dirt in her field by the accused and she could not have taken it lightly that she was branded a witch. As regards the proof of above two facts of motive the witnesses like P.Ws 1 Jitan Gope. P.W.3 Krishnanandan, P.W.7 Parmila Devi wife of informant and the daughter-in-law of the deceased and lastly P.W.8 Ramjee Prasad the husband of the deceased have stated a few lines in their evidence regarding the cause as to why the accused persons would commit the murder. The P.W.1 Jitan Gope in para 2 stated that there was some quarrel/dispute in between the deceased Daulati Devi and the accused persons for dumping dirts in her field by the accused and as such the occurrence took place. He has not stated that Daulati Devi was being branded a witch by the accused which was the other motive alleged in the fardbeyan. The witness in cross-examination paragraphs 18 and 19 has stated that Daulati Devi herself used to dump the dirt of her house in her field and there was never any quarrel or dispute between her and the accused. Paragraph 19 of P.W.1 further elaborates and clarifies the position. P.W.1 has stated in the above noted paragraph that the field in question of Daulati Devi was south of the path way running near the house of appellant Munnu Ram and she dumped her dirts in it. There was yet another field of Kameshwar Mahto situated contiguous south of above noted field of the deceased which was being tilled by appellant Munnu Ram and he used to dump his dirts in that field. There was yet another field of Kameshwar Mahto situated contiguous south of above noted field of the deceased which was being tilled by appellant Munnu Ram and he used to dump his dirts in that field. Thus as per the evidence of P.W.1 the accused persons could not be held to be dumping their dirts and house-hold-discard in the field of the deceased 17. P.W.3 Krishnanandan Pd. has stated that there were two factors which impelled the accused persons for committing the offence and those were the same as stated in the fardbeyan that the deceased was branded a witch by the accused persons and further that there had been some quarrel between the accused and the deceased for dumping the dirts and house hold discard in the field of the deceased. (P.W.1 para 1). P.W.3 was cross- examined on the above facts in paragraphs 21 and 22. He has stated in the above two paragraphs that Daulati Devi was never branded a witch in the village rather she was called Indira Gandhi by the people and that there had never been any case against the accused persons for dumping the dirt and discards or for branding her a witch. P.W.7 Pramila Devi the daughter in-law of the deceased and wife of the informant has not spoken that the accused persons dumped dirts or called her mother-in-law a witch and has simply stated in para 2 of her evidence that some disputes were coming on since before the occurrence and as such the murder was committed. P.W.8 Ramjee Prasad the husband of the deceased stated in para 2 that there was enmity in between P.W.8 and the accused persons and as such the murder was committed. Thus the two witnesses P.Ws 7 and 8 have not supported that there was any bad blood between the deceased or her family members on the one hand and the accused persons on the other for the two reasons assigned in the fardbeyan. Curiously, the informant Jagat Prasad examined as P.W.9 in the case has not stated anything as to what could be the reason for the commission of the offence. I have gone through his evidence very carefully specially with a view to isolating out of it the facts and the motive to the accused persons and I have failed in locating anything. I have gone through his evidence very carefully specially with a view to isolating out of it the facts and the motive to the accused persons and I have failed in locating anything. Thus on consideration of the evidence of the above noted witnesses what I find is that the prosecution could not succeed in establishing the motive for which the accused persons were alleged to be impelled to have committed the murder of Daulati Devi. 18. The above finding of mine is not sufficient to hold that the prosecution had miserably failed in proving the charges and that the appellants deserve to be acquitted because, the failure of the prosecution in not establishing the motive, as noticed above from the decisions of the Supreme Court, may not be sufficient in throwing the evidence of thewitnesses over board and acquitting the accused. The failure in proving the motive casts a duty on courts to be circumspect and more careful in making deeper enquiry about the trustworthiness of the witness. 19. Before I do that, I want to consider as to what is the relationship of the witnesses with the deceased. After having considered the evidence of the witnesses what I find is that the nine witnesses are related to each other and appear to be family members may be close may be a bit distant. P.W.1 Jitan Gope an eye witness like P.W.3 Krishnanandan has stated in para 16 of his evidence that Daulati Devi was her Bhabhi. It may further appear from the same paragraph that P.W.3 Krishnanandan Prasad was the son of the elder brother of the husband of the deceased. P.W.2 Dwarika Gope is the son of Chhotan Gope, P.W.4P., as appears from the heading of his deposition itself and he has stated that Jitan Gope P.W.1 was his cousin and that the deceased was his Bhabi. Krishnanadan Prasad, P.W.3, admitted in paragraph 2 that the deceased was her aunt. This fact gets further clarified from the paragraph 29 of P.W.3 in which he has stated about a partition of a particular homestead land and has stated that half of the homestead was given to his father while the other half was given to Daulati Devi. Krishnanadan Prasad, P.W.3, admitted in paragraph 2 that the deceased was her aunt. This fact gets further clarified from the paragraph 29 of P.W.3 in which he has stated about a partition of a particular homestead land and has stated that half of the homestead was given to his father while the other half was given to Daulati Devi. Chhotan Gope as indicated above is the father of P.W.2 and is related on account of being the father-in-law of the deceased as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 because the deceased was Bhabhi to them. Murari Prasad P.W.5 is not an eye witness. P.W.5 Ranvijay Kumar is the younger brother of the informant RW.9 Jagat Prasad, whereas P.W.7 Parmila Devi is the wife of the informant P.W.9. Ramjee Prasad P.W.8 is the husband of the deceased. These witnesses appear closely related, but their simple close relationship with the deceased or her family may again not be sufficient to discard their evidence because a witness may be related but he may not be interested. There is a difference between a witness being related and being interested. This difference was luciddy brought out by the apex Court in State of Rajsthan vs. Smt. Kalki reported in AIR 1981 SC 1390 . It may appear from paragraph 5-a of the report that related is not equivalent to interested. The witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of litigation in the degree in a civil case, or in seeing the accused persons punished. Similarly the family members simply, because they are the family members of the deceased, could not be held to be unreliable persons as regards their evidence, if the facts and circumstances of the case makes their presence probable and their claim as eye witnesses acceptable. It is, therefore necessary to find out whether the witnesses who deposed against the appellant during the trial were simply related or were interested in terms as indicated by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Kalki {Supra). 20. It is, therefore necessary to find out whether the witnesses who deposed against the appellant during the trial were simply related or were interested in terms as indicated by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Kalki {Supra). 20. For finding out whether there was animosity and bad blood between the two parties, one is not required to wade much through the evidence of 9 prosecution witnesses and it is sufficient only to consider the evidence of P.W.3 Krishnandan Prasad, a family member and a close agnatic relation of the informant, being his uncle who had joint properties with the husband of the deceased as I have already indicated by referring to para 29 of P.W.3. The evidence of P.W.3 in different paragraphs indicate that he attempted much initially to conceal the inimical relationship of his family with the accused persons but subsequently the defence appears succeeding in eliciting out of the witness the truth. In paragraph 11 of his evidence P.W.3 stated that he did not know any Manju Devi wife of Surendra Ram the deceased appellant. He again concealed in para 12 the fact that Manju Devi wife of Surendra Ram had initiated the prosecution of the witness for her attempted rape but subsequently in para 13 he admitted that Manju Devi had filed such case agai4st his full brother Yugal Gope. A suggestion was given to him in para 15 and that was denied by the witness that the case filed by Manju Devi wife of Surendra Ram against him and his brother bore complaint petition no. 27(c)/88 and Manju Devi had deposed against him and his brother. In para 14 he had denied that in the case for attempted rape committed by the witness and his brother one Nageshwar Gope had deposed as the Sarpanch of the village, Exts. C to C/ 3 are the deposition- sheets of different witnesses recorded during the course of inquiry in complaint case no. 27 (C)/88 and it indicates that Manju Devi. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law as also Nageshwar Gope had deposed on attempt to commit rape upon Manju Devi wife of Surendra Ram Ext.C/2 is the deposition by Manju Devi and the heading of deposition indicates that she was the wife of Surendra Ram. 27 (C)/88 and it indicates that Manju Devi. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law as also Nageshwar Gope had deposed on attempt to commit rape upon Manju Devi wife of Surendra Ram Ext.C/2 is the deposition by Manju Devi and the heading of deposition indicates that she was the wife of Surendra Ram. P.W.3 in the last line of paragraph 14 of his evidence has stated that there was no person except Surendra Ram of the same name in his village. 21. Besides the above it has been admitted by P.W.3 in para 18 that he, his father and brother were facing trial for the charge of committing murder of Ramashish Gope before the Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Biharsharif in S.T.R. No. 152/92. In paragraphs 19 and 20 the witness has admitted that Mangal Ram was the father of appellant Munnu Ram and Surendra Ram and the said Mangal Ram had deposed against him and other accused of the above noted sessions trial, some 3/4 months before the recording of the evidence of P.Ws 3 in the present trial. Thus what appears from the above evidence is that there was deep animosity between the parties and cases were filed in which the wife of one of the appellants was the complainant while the father of the two appellants Munnu and Surendra Ram was a prosecution witness in the Session Trial against RW.3 and others. This could be the reason as to why RW. 7 Parmila Devi and P.W.8 Ramjee Prasad while speaking about the motive in their evidence did not specify the two motive stated in the \ardbeyan rather simply stated that animosity was prevailing between the two sides from much before the occurrence. 22. In the back ground of animosity and bad blood what is required, of course, is to scan the evidence of such witnesses with more care and caution and make attempt to separate the truth from the falsehood. The principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not apply to our system of administration of justice. Considering our social back ground and behaviour the court as such has to take out the truth and leave out falsity. The principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not apply to our system of administration of justice. Considering our social back ground and behaviour the court as such has to take out the truth and leave out falsity. If the court finds that the evidence suffers from inherent weakness and patent contradictions which materially affect the prosecution case, then in that case it may not be easier for a court to carry out the exercise of separating the grains from chaff. 23. The truthfulness of the witnesses could be tested on many parameters like the probability of the witnesses being present on or about the scene of occurrence so as to seeing the offence being committed including the reason assigned by them for being present there. The other factor which may be taken into account could be sufficiency of the light at the scene if the offence was committed in night so as to facilitating the identification of the accused persons properly and clearly. Besides, the evidence must have a ring of truth around it and it should be consistent on all material aspect of the case. 24. Whether the witnesses have corroborated the prosecution version on material point or not could be appreciated only when one appreciates the importance of the first information report. It is not that the first information report is the instrument which sets the criminal law in motion only and gets the investigating agency to work, but it is the most important document as regards the prosecution case. It is the document on the basis of which the prosecution presents its version and points out to the courts as to what was its initial story and how it has materially been corroborated by evidence, oral or documentary. The first information report, like the medical report, could be used both by the prosecution and the defence. I have already pointed out the use of the document by the prosecution for the purposes of corroboration and also for placing it before the court as its initial version. The first information report, like the medical report, could be used both by the prosecution and the defence. I have already pointed out the use of the document by the prosecution for the purposes of corroboration and also for placing it before the court as its initial version. The medical report could also be used by the prosecution to corroborate the oral evidence adduced by it in a case: while the defence could be using the medical evidence to point out to the court that the medical man found injuries which were in complete conflict with the manner of occurrence alleged in the first information report or as stated by the witnesses. Like wise the defence could use the first information report to argue before the court that the version which was initially putforth by the prosecution has materially been changed by it through oral evidence and further that the contradictions or improvements are meant for a particular purpose, may be for seeking an illegal conviction. Thus, the first information report appears a patent weapon in the hands of the defence to set up a critisum of the prosecution evidence by contradicting it on various material points. 25. Keeping the above in my view, I have proceeded to examine the evidence of the three witnesses who have claimed themself to be the witnesses of the occurrence. The first difficulty in accepting P.Ws 1, 3 and 4 as eye witnesses is that their names did not figure in the fardbeyan of P.W.9 as persons who had really seen the occurrence. In fact after carefully going through the fardbeyan one could find that the informant was the first person who reached the place of occurrence, when he found the two first information named accused Narayan Ram and Munnu Ram running away from inside the cattle shed. He subsequently states that four persons namely P.W.3 Krishna Yadav (who is in fact Krishnandan Prasad, (P.W.3), Murari Prasad, P.W.5, Ranvijay Kumar P.W.6. as also Arjun Yadav were the persons who have arrived at the place of occurrence first. If at all P.W.3 Krishnandan Prasad had arrived at the place of occurrence and had really seen the occurrence, it was expected to him to have narrated the entire story to the informant who was his first cousin and it was expected that the fact had appeared in the fardbeyan. If at all P.W.3 Krishnandan Prasad had arrived at the place of occurrence and had really seen the occurrence, it was expected to him to have narrated the entire story to the informant who was his first cousin and it was expected that the fact had appeared in the fardbeyan. Similarly, one does not find mention of Jitan Gope and Chhotan Yadav in the fardbeyan as persons who indeed had seen the occurrence and had narrated the same to the informant. Their evidence after being carefully read by me points out that they claim to have seen the occurrence and rushed to the place of occurrence. In fact Jitan Gope P.W.1 has stated in para 15 of his evidence that after seeing the occurrence from the roof top of his house he raised a bulla which attracted the inmates of his house to the roof and thereafter he came down and went to the place of occurrence along with his lady family members. He further states that many persons came thereafter his arrival which included P.W.4 Chhotan Yadav, P.W.5 Murari Prasad. P.W.3 Krishnandan Prasad. P.W.8 Ranvijay Prasad, P.W.7 and others. As against the above. P.W.3 Krishnandan Prasad says in paragraphs 23 that he raised a bulla after seeing the occurrence and came to the place of occurrence but before him many persons had assembled there and he narrated to persons assembled there that he had seen the offence being committed by the three accused persons. P.W.4 Chhotan Gope claims in para 18 that he was the first person to have reached the place of occurrence after seeing it. He has further stated in paragraph 20 the above facts to Chaukidar who had also assembled there along with others. The first line of the above paragraph indicates that after P.W.4 had reached there P.W.1. P.W.5 and P.W.3 also arrived there. 26. Besides the above except P.W.1 Jitan Gope and P.W.9 Jagat Prasad, non of the witnesses or for that matter any other witness, has stated as to how could they see and identify the accused persons running away. What I mean to say is that non except RW.1 and 9 has disclosed the source of identification. P.W.1 Jitan Gope has stated that he flashed his torch light from his roof too and saw the occurrence in that light. What I mean to say is that non except RW.1 and 9 has disclosed the source of identification. P.W.1 Jitan Gope has stated that he flashed his torch light from his roof too and saw the occurrence in that light. That the night was completely dark and nothing could be seen, has been stated by P.W.1 in paragraph 14 when he stated that persons could be seen in the darkness but could not be identified. He has further stated that he would not have identified any of the accused had there not been a torch light with him. The informant P.W.9 also speaks in paragraph 16 of his evidence that if he had no torch with him he could not have identified the three accused persons. The two remaining eye witnesses 3 and 4 do not claim to have seen the accused in any light nor do they say that there was any other source of light at the place of occurrence. The witnesses in their cross- examination by the defence have stated that they did not produce the torch light before the police. (P.W.1 in para 14 and P.W.9 in para 37). The evidence of P.W.10 Rajendra Pd. Yadav also the I.O. of the case also does not indicate that he was either shown the torch or any torch light was produced by any of the witnesses claiming that they had identified the accused persons and had seen the occurrence in it. This creates a doubt on the claim of the witnesses that they had either a torch with them or they had seen the occurrence as they claim to have. 27. P.W.1 Jitan Gope claims that he was on the roof top and from there he saw the occurrence. The time of occurrence was about 7 P.M. and the date was the 25th December 1996. The court can take judicial notice that on the 25th December, which is usually the X-Max day, it is quite cold and people never venture to come out of their house. It appears highly improbable and unacceptable that P.W.1 would be roaming on his roof top in that cold evening of the occurrence. Apart from the above. P.W.1 has given no reason as to why he would be at his roof top in one of the coldest nights of the year. It appears highly improbable and unacceptable that P.W.1 would be roaming on his roof top in that cold evening of the occurrence. Apart from the above. P.W.1 has given no reason as to why he would be at his roof top in one of the coldest nights of the year. This story probably was crafted so as to justify his claim of having seen the occurrence. P.W.3 Krishnanandan was milching his buffalow as may appear from his evidence in para 1 and the vision is intervened by 4 high wall which was found by P.W.10 there at the place of occurrence as appear from paragraphs 2 of P.W.10. Admittedly there was no light at the place of occurrence, the witness does not say that he had any light with him and it appears a difficult proposition that he would be seeing the occurrence across the partition wall. P.W.4 Chhotan Gope appears to have seen the occurrence after hearing the cries of the deceased. But in cross-examination in para 14 he has admitted that he was hard of hearing. Besides the above, if one goes through the evidence of three witnesses it may be found that their attention was drawn to the fact through which they projected themselves as the eye witnesses and the earlier made during the course of investigation before the police and I have great hesitation to accept them as such. 28. Minor contradictions never weigh in criminal cases unless they go to show as to how the witness could be motivated to make false statement. The witnesses contradicted each other on may material points and on the peripheral matters as well. I have already indicated as to how the claim of P.Ws 1,2 and 4 that they arrived at the scene of occurence has been contradicted by them. Besides the three other witnesses like P.W.2 and 6 also appear contradicting other RWs as to who appeared at the scene of occurrence first. Witnesses like Ramji Prasad the father of the informant also contradicts P.W.6 Ranvijay Kumar on the point of their arrival at the scene of occurrence. Ranvijay Kumar P.W.6 has stated that his family members arrived at the scene of occurrence after he had arrived there (Para 10). His wife RW.7 has stated that P.W.6 and P.W.8 the father of P.W.6 and herself went together to the place of occurrence. RW.8 Ramji Pd. Ranvijay Kumar P.W.6 has stated that his family members arrived at the scene of occurrence after he had arrived there (Para 10). His wife RW.7 has stated that P.W.6 and P.W.8 the father of P.W.6 and herself went together to the place of occurrence. RW.8 Ramji Pd. the father of P.W.6 and 9 has stated in paragraph 8 that all his family members did not come out of the house together. 29. In addition to the above the prosecution version in the first information report is that when the informant P.W.9 rushed to the cattle shed he found only two accused persons Narayan Ram and Munnu Ram coming out of it. The fardbeyan does not indicate that any of the accused had any weapon in his hand. However, the witnesses including P.W.9 who came to depose in the trial court claim to have seen a gun in the hand of Surendra Ram and Pasuli ( a sharp cutting weapon) in the hands of both Narayan and Munnu. P.W.9 further stated in fardbeyan as also in his evidence that he caught hold of appellant Narayan Ram who gave him a jerk and pushed him to free himself and in that process the wrist watch of Narayan Ram fell on the ground and the chain of the watch remained in the hand of the informant. P.W.10 did not find any watch at the place of occurrence. None of the P.Ws including P.W.9 produced either the watch or the part of the broken chain before P.W.10. The I.O. also did not find any weapon at the place of occurrence. 30. These are the circumstances which go a long way to indicate that the prosecution has not come out with clean hands. Apart from the above, P.W.2 Dwarika Gope son of P.W.4 Chhotan Gope, has stated in para 6 that he requested the persons assembled at the seen of occurrence to chase and catch the accused and accordingly 20/25 or 30 persons set out on search of the accused persons but they could not succeed. P.W.6 Ranvijay Prasad has also stated in paragraph 14 of his evidence that he asked his brother (informant P.W.9) to search for the accused persons who ran away towards south, but none moved out. P.W.6 Ranvijay Prasad has also stated in paragraph 14 of his evidence that he asked his brother (informant P.W.9) to search for the accused persons who ran away towards south, but none moved out. Though no RW has supported them but it could have been the natural conduct of the witnesses had they really seen and identified the accused persons for, the accused persons were none else than the co-villagers of the witnesses. It would have been an impulsive act by way of reacting to the distardly murder of a helpless lady that all would have rushed out of their respective houses to catch the real culprit. But non appear doing that besides one of the witnesses like P.W.1 Jitan Gope appears acting in the most unnatural manner. He stated in para 16 that after having arrived at the scene of occurrence from his roof top he stayed at the place of occurrence for a few minutes but did not talk to any one else. The witness went back to his house, took his meal and went away to spend his night in his tube well-house. This does not appear in consonance with the ordinary human conduct. These are some of the reasons which have persuaded me to hold that in fact nobody had seen the occurrence nor any body had seen any one running away as claimed by the prosecution witnesses and the witnesses were stating out of their hypothesis and imagination. There was enmity between the two sides. One of the elder family members of RW.9 and other witness had been murdered in a brutal manner as may appear from the evidence of P.W.11 Dr. Ravi Ranjan Rajesh who found the neck cut below the chin and thyroid cartiledge, besides cutting of the mandibular region of the face and finding of an incised wound on the right side on lower abdomen extending from umbilicus up to superior illiac spine and up to abdominal cavity deep with incision of peritoneum and loop of intestine protruding out of the wound. The witnesses must have been perplexed and in a tizzy and must be searching for the reason as also the persons who could have perpetrated the crime or who could have their hands behind it. The witnesses must have been perplexed and in a tizzy and must be searching for the reason as also the persons who could have perpetrated the crime or who could have their hands behind it. It is human psychology that faced with such brutal situation, human mind starts acting on an apriori suspicion that the enemies might have committed the crime and starts weaving out stories implicating inimical persons by assigning definite overt acts. This way not be always due to brooding but could be the result of jumping be a conclusion out of suspicion. Experience also shows that when such a story is putforth then the family members and relatives come together to support the allegations so that they see their enemies convicted and sentenced and thereby they get their inimical feelings assuaged. This appears more prominently done in the present case as not only three persons came out with eye witnesses account of the occurrence, but they also implicated Surendra Ram for whose implication there was no room left in the prosecution document like the fardbeyan. 31. RW.9 Jagat Prasad, the informant, appears to have filed a protest petition (Ext.B) in the case. He has not named Surendra Ram as an accused in it. But he and his witnesses have seriously implicated him by assigning clear overt act. This appears to me an improvement in the case and indicates the attempt by the Prosecution witnesses to implicate falsely an otherwise innocent person out of enmity. This is an improvement by them upon the initial version which also goes a long way to have an adverse impact on their testimony. 32. After having appreciated the evidence as I have, as per the discussions made by me above. I hold that the trial court gave insufficient reasons for drawing unsustainable inferences after misreading and misappreciating the evidence adduced in the case and as such I do not find the judgement and order of conviction sustainable. The same are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted. The appellant Munnu Ram is on bail. He shall be discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. Appellant Narayan Ram is in custody. He shall be released forth with if he is not wanted in any other case. 33. In the result the appeal is allowed. Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 34 I.agree.