Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants in all the three appeals and learned counsel for the State in view of earlier orders indicating that the appeals may be finally disposed of on receipt of the lower court records if it is found that there is no legal evidence on record for conviction. All the three appeals are directed against judgment of conviction dated 25.1.2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Sheikhpura in ST. No. 880/05 whereby appellant Brajesh Patel has been convicted under sec. 302/34 of the IPC, sec. 27 of the Arms Act and the other two appellants under sec. 120B of the IPC. By order dated 27.1.2007, all the three appellants have been awarded R.I. for life for offence under the IPC. Appellant Brajesh Patel has been further sentenced to R.I. for three years u/s 27 of the Arms Act which is to run concurrently. 2. The fardbeyan in this case was lodged by father of the deceased, PW 7 leading to Sheikhpura PS Case No. 32/04. On investigation, police found the case true and chagesheet was filed accordingly. During trial, prosecution examined seven witnesses. All turned hostile. The 10 and the Doctor were not examined and there is no reason for their non-examination. 3. On going trhough the materials on record, particularly the deposition of witnesses and the order-sheet of the trial court, we find sufficient force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants that since all the seven prosecution witnesses including the brother and the father of the deceased (PW 6 and 7 respectively) have been declared hostile and the prosecution could not examine either the Investigating Officer or the Doctor, there is no legal evidence worth the name to sustain the conviction of the three appellants for the charge under sections 302/34 and 120B of the IPC. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment in respect of all the three convicted accused Brajesh Patel (Cr.Appeal No. 172/07), Naresh Mahto (Cr. Appeal No. 175/07) and Pramod Kumar (Cr. Appeal No. 213/07) has to be set aside. However, we have given anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that it is a serious case in which a contractor, Sanjay Ram aged about 32 years, has been killed on a public road on 17.2.2004 during day hours. Appeal No. 175/07) and Pramod Kumar (Cr. Appeal No. 213/07) has to be set aside. However, we have given anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that it is a serious case in which a contractor, Sanjay Ram aged about 32 years, has been killed on a public road on 17.2.2004 during day hours. The fardbeyan given on the same date by father of the deceased, Saryug Prasad (PW 7) discloses that the deceased was engaged in construction of a village road under Jawahar Rojgar Yojna and by way of extortion moeny, Rs. one lakh was demanded from him by accused Pramod Kumar with a threat that he would be killed if the amount was not paid. Since the demand was not met, hence Pramod Kumar allegedly in league with Naresh Mahto hired three persons to commit the crime. Allegedly, the assailants came on a motorcycle and shot the deceased while he was going on his motorcycle on a pitch road but the villagers chased and due to brickbat etc. the assailants fell down. One of them said to be Satish managed to escape and could not be put on trial but others two were apprehended. On account of alleged assault by villagers, one of them, namely, Ranjeet died while accused-appellant Brajesh was apprehended and confined till the arrival of the informant and recording of the fardbeyan by the police. 4. The broad features of the case disclose the influence of people engaged in the crime of extortion as all the seven prosecution witnesses appear to have been gained over and have been declared hostile. They include PW 6, Mananjay Kumar, a brother of the deceased as well as the informant (PW 7) Saryug Prasad, who is father of the deceased. 5. After going through the order-sheet of the trial court, learned counsel for the State submitted that on the prayer of the prosecution on 28.12.2006 i.e. after about 10 months of framing of charges, bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the IO because the earlier warrant issued against him had not been executed and no report was sent by the police. The next date was fixed only after 13 days i.e. for 11.1.2006. The next date was fixed only after 13 days i.e. for 11.1.2006. There was no execution report of the bailable warrant and the court on the request of the defence to close the case, fixed the next date 16.1.2006, by way of last chance to the prosecution. On that date, a petition for time was filed for producing further witnesses but the case was closed and the impugned judgment was pronounced on 25.1.2007. 6. We appreciate the anxiety of the trial court for expeditious disposal of the criminal case of serious nature but certain aspect of the matter were not kept in mind otherwise the learned trial court would have taken greater care to ensure that non-bailable warrants etc. should have been issued and executed against the IO as well as the Doctor in a serious case of present nature. In not keeping such important aspect of the case in mind, the learned trial court, in our view, committed irregularity, illegality and impropriety. All the possible evidence of the prosecution could not come on record on account of such hasty action of the trial court closing the case without taking effective steps to secure presence of the 10 and the Doctor for deposition as a witness. On that account, the trial itself got vitiated resulting into the impugned judgment of conviction without any legal evidence worth the name. 7. In the facts of the case, the impugned judgment of conviction and the order awarding sentences passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Sheikhpura in Sessions Trial No. 880/05 arising out of Sheikhpura PS Case No. 32/04 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court for proceeding further with the trial by issuing bailable as well as non-bailable warrant against the IO as well as the Doctor. He shall take precuation that after the issuance of the process, sufficient time is given for the next date so that the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura gets sufficent time to ensure that the process are served upon the 10 and the Doctor by the next date. The gap between the dates should not be less than four weeks in such a situation. In the facts of the case, the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura is also directed to render all assistance to the trial court. The gap between the dates should not be less than four weeks in such a situation. In the facts of the case, the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura is also directed to render all assistance to the trial court. He is being personally made responsible to ensure execution of warrants of arrest to secure presence of the 10 and the Doctor for the trial in the instant case. 8. In the interest of justice, we feel compelled to issue another direction to the trial court to direct the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura to hold an enquiry in respect of PW 6, Mananjay Kumar, a brother of the deceased and PW 7, Saryug Prasad, father of the deceased as to whether at the time of earlier examination in court they were under any threat, influence or coercion exerted by the accused persons. In case the enquiry report to be submitted by the Superintendent of Police within two months, discloses such influence on the aforesaid material witnesses then sufficient protection should be given to these witnesses by the police and they should be re-examined in course of the trial and then their entire evidence should be appreciated in its entirety in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these three appeals are allowed. 10. The appellants shall now stand discharged from the liability of their bail bonds provided they appear before the trial court on or before 20th August, 2007. It goes without saying that on their appearance, their present bail bonds shall stand discharged but the trial court will be at liberty to accept fresh bail bonds and release them on bail. 11. The lower court records should be sent down immediately and a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial court by fax within one week.