Judgment Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. All the three appeal arise out of the judgment and order of the same date and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Appellant No. 1 Shail Devi and Appellant No. 2 Bebi Devi in Cr. Appeal No. 276 of 2002 are the wife and the daughter of sole appellant Ramanuj Singh of Cr. Appeal No. 308 of 2002. Abodh Singh and Mohan Singh appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 293 of 2002 are the sons of Umesh Singh, who was also an accused in the case but died during the pendency of the trial and happened to be the brother of appellant Ramanuj Singh. They were all put on trial for offence under Sec.302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Ramanuj Singh was further charged for offence under Sec.27 of the Arms Act. Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I. Begusarai, by judgment dated 16th of May, 2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 270 of 1987 held all the appellants guilty of offence under Sec.302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for life. The appellant Ramanuj Singh has also been found guilty under Sec.27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the same appellants have preferred these appeals. 3. Prosecution was initiated on the basis of a fardbeyan given by P.W. 4 Rajendra Singh before the Sub-Inspector of Police of Begusarai Police Station on 23.8.1986 at 3.15 P.M. claiming that he happens to be the Pramukh of Begusarai Block and village Pachambha where the occurrence had taken place falls within his Panchayat. According to him he heard rumour that 5 persons have been killed at village Pachambha and on hearing the said rumour when he came to the village he learnt that an altercation had taken place between Mantun Singh and Suro Singh over cutting of the grass and that led to exchange of abuses and brickbats between both of them. Thereafter, according to the First Information Report, Mantun Singh was shot dead by Suro Singh, whereupon the father of Mantun Singh, namely appellant Ramanuj Singh, chased and killed him and also shot dead his 7 year old son and wife. Thereafter, according to the First Information Report, Mantun Singh was shot dead by Suro Singh, whereupon the father of Mantun Singh, namely appellant Ramanuj Singh, chased and killed him and also shot dead his 7 year old son and wife. According to the fardbeyan Suros son Kanhaiya Singh and his mother were also killed at the place of occurrence. Further the wife of Suro Singh also succumbed to the injury, while being carried to Sadar Hospital, Begusarai in a police jeep. In the First Information Report the informant further disclosed that one of the daughters of Suro Singh and his son are admitted in injured condition at Sadar Hospital, Begusarai. According to him the daughters of Suro Singh (who is admitted in the Begusarai Hospital) was an eye witness to the occurrence. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid information Begusarai PS. Case No. 168 of 1986 was registered under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. 5. After usual investigation Police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants besides one Umesh Singh, who died during the trial itself and they were charged for committing the murder of Suro Singh in furtherance of their common intention punishable under Sec.302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Ramanuj Singh was further charged for possessing country made pistol with intent to use the same for unlawful purposes punishable under Sec.27 of the Arms Act 6. Appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case had altogether examined nine witnesses. P.W. 1 Deochandra Prasad Singh is the witness to the inquest, P.W. 2 Debu Paswan is a Chaukidar and a formal witness and stated that the five dead bodies were sent to Begusarai Hospital from village Pachambha where the occurrence had taken place. P.W. 3 is a witness to the seizure list prepared by the Sub-Inspector of Police during the course of investigation when it had seized the blood stained earth and bricks. P.W. 4 Rajendra Singh is the informant of the case and does not cleim to be an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 5 Dr. B.C. Choudhary, P.W. 6 Dr. S.N. Baquer and P.W. 7 Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh at the relevant time were posted as the Civil Assistant Surgeons at Sadar Hospital at Begusarai and had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead bodies. P.W. 5 Dr. B.C. Choudhary, P.W. 6 Dr. S.N. Baquer and P.W. 7 Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh at the relevant time were posted as the Civil Assistant Surgeons at Sadar Hospital at Begusarai and had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead bodies. P.W. 8 Jhunna Kumari had lost her father, mother and brother in the incident and claimed to be an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 9 is an Advocates Clerk. who had identified the signature of the Sub-Inspector of Police on the formal First Information Report. 7. Appellants denied to have committed the offence and from the trend of the cross-examination their defence seem to be that the prosecution has not come out with the true story. 8. In support of their defence they have examined D.W. 1 Shiv Shankar Choudhary, Advocates Clerk, who had stated about the murder of Mantun Singh by firearm injury and proved the First Information Report (Ext. A) on account thereof. D.W. 2 Dr. S.M. Baquer is a Civil Assistant Surgeon, who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Mantun Singh, whereas D.W. 3 is a Sub-Inspector of Police posted at Begusarai at the relevant time and had recorded the fardbeyan of P.W.1 Jhunna Kumari at the Sadar Hospital, Begusarai and had proved the same. 9. The Court below on appraisal of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and has placed reliance on the evidence of P.W. 8 Jhunna Kumari. 10. P.W. 1 Deo Chandra Prasad Singh had stated in the evidence that the Sub-Inspector of Police had come to his village Pachambha in connection with the murder of Suro Singh and others and had prepared the inquest report of deceased Kanhaiya Singh and Bhola Devi separately in his presence and he had signed the same and in Court he identified his signature. 11. P.W. 2 Debu Paswan is a Chaukidar of the village where the occurrence had taken place and had stated that Sub-Inspector of Police had sent him to Begusarai Hospital alongwith five dead bodies and other constables were also with him. 12. 11. P.W. 2 Debu Paswan is a Chaukidar of the village where the occurrence had taken place and had stated that Sub-Inspector of Police had sent him to Begusarai Hospital alongwith five dead bodies and other constables were also with him. 12. P.W. 3 Rajendra Sao had stated in his evidence that Sub-Inspector of Police had come to his village in connection with the murder of Suro Singh and others and from the place of occurrence he had seized bamboos, blood stained earth, blood stained brick etc. in his presence and he had been a witness of that. In paragraph 5 of the cross-examination he had stated that Mantun Singh was murdered and, therefore, about thousand villagers have collected and assaulted persons at the residence of the deceased Suro Singh. 13. P.W. 4 Rajendra Singh at the relevant time was Pramukh of Begusarai Block and is also the informant of the case. According to his evidence he is also the Mukhia of Bagmara Panchayat within which village Pachambha falls. According to him on 23.8.1986 at about 1 p.m. while he was at Bagmara Chowk he learnt that a murder had taken place at Pachambha whereupon he went to the said village by Rikshaw and reached at about 1.30-2.00 p.m.. He went to the residence of appellant Ramanuj Singh where the dead body of his son Mantun Singh was found in the courtyard. Near the field he found the dead body of Suro @ Kamla Kant and the dead bodies of his mother and son were also found. The wife of Suro was also in injured condition and she was sent to the Hospital by jeep but she succumbed to the injury. He has stated that he has given the fardbeyan to the Sub-Inspector of Police and had identified his signature thereon. In paragraph 6 of the cross-examination he had stated that Sriman Narayan Singh was the cousin of deceased Suro Singh and for the murder of said Sriman Narayan Singh. Suro Singh was facing a criminal case, which is still pending. 14. RW. 5 Dr. In paragraph 6 of the cross-examination he had stated that Sriman Narayan Singh was the cousin of deceased Suro Singh and for the murder of said Sriman Narayan Singh. Suro Singh was facing a criminal case, which is still pending. 14. RW. 5 Dr. B.C. Choudhary at the relevant time was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Sadar Hospital, Begusarai and had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Kanhaiya Singh on 24.8.1986 at 8.00 a.m. and found the following injuries on his person:- "(1) Firearm injury, wound of entrance 1/2" diameter on the right frontal bone of the head margins were inverted, charred and burnt.On dissection bones of head were fractured.Brain substance was penetrated all over." 15. According to the doctor the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of firearm injury caused to the deceased which in his opinion was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. He had also opined that the injury was caused within 24 hours from the time of examination. 16. P.W. 6 Dr. S.M. Baquer was also a Civil Assistant Surgeon at Sadar Hospital, Begusarai and had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Suro Singh and found following injuries on his person:- "(1) Incised wound 6" x 2" x 31/2" on the lower part of the forehead and the skull cavity was opened. About 3/4th of the brain substance came out. (2) Incised wound 3" x 1" x 1" on the left side of the face just below the temporal bone. (3) Fracture of the mandible with haemotoma. (4) Fracture with haemotoma of the mameberium esteena (Chest). (5) Fracture with haemotoma of the left temporal bone." 17. In the opinion of the doctor injury nos. 1 and 2 were grievous in nature and caused by sharp weapon such as spade whereas the remaining injuries although grievous were caused by hard blunt substance such as brickbats. In his opinion the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage caused by injury no.1. Time elapsed since death was within 24 hours. 18. On the same day at 9.30 a.m. this doctor had also conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Kanti Devi wife of Suro Singh and found following injury on her person:- "(1) Lacerated wound 11/2" x 1/2"x 1/2" on the left eye brow. Time elapsed since death was within 24 hours. 18. On the same day at 9.30 a.m. this doctor had also conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Kanti Devi wife of Suro Singh and found following injury on her person:- "(1) Lacerated wound 11/2" x 1/2"x 1/2" on the left eye brow. (2) Lacerated wound with fracture of the frontal bone 11/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" and in underlying huge haemotoma underneath the skin and there was also huge haemotoma on the skull cavity and it has also injured the frontal lobe of the brain. (3) Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the lateral cantheus of the left eye. (4) Lacerated wound with fracture of the Zygometic bone 11/2" x 1/2" x 1". (5) Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" x 1" on the chin." 19. According to the doctor injury nos. 2 and 4 were grievous in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance such as blunt portion of the spade and brickbats and the rest injuries were simple in nature caused by hard blunt substance such as brick-bats. In the opinion of the doctor the death had taken place due to shock and haemorrhage caused by injury no. 2 and the time elapsed since death was within 24 hrs. 20. P.W. 7 Dr. Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh was also a Civil Assistant Surgeon posted at Sadar Hospital, Begusarai and he conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Mola Devi and found following injuries on her person:- (1) Lacerated wound 21/2" x 3/4" on the left side of her face above the left eye-brow lateral extending upto left frontal bone. On further dissection there was haemotoma beneath the skin and muscles, the skull cavity was fractured in multiple pieces membrane was torn, the brain matter was lacerated and skull cavity was full of blood. (2) A lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/2z" x Vz" medial to the first injury and at level of the left eye-brow. On further dissection there was haemotoma beneath the skin and muscles and there was fracture of frontal skull bone. The membrane was torn and brain matter was lacerated. (3) Incised wound 3/4" x 1/4A" x 1/2z" above the right brow. On further dissection there was haemotoma beneath the skin and muscles. The frontal bone was fractured. There was haemotoma in the skull cavity. The membrane was torn and brain matter was lacerated. (3) Incised wound 3/4" x 1/4A" x 1/2z" above the right brow. On further dissection there was haemotoma beneath the skin and muscles. The frontal bone was fractured. There was haemotoma in the skull cavity. The membrane was torn and brain matter was lacerated. 21. In the opinion of the doctor the death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock caused by the injuries found on the person of the deceased. He further opined that the injury Nos. 1 and 2 were caused by hard and blunt substance such as brickbats and injury no. 3 by sharp cutting weapon such as spade. 22. PW. 8 Jhunna Kumari is the daughter of the deceased Suro Singh, her father, mother, grand mother and brother have been killed in the occurrence and she claims to be an eye witness to the occurrence. She disclosed her age as 9 years on 22nd September, 1989 when her evidence was recorded. The Court also assessed her age to be 9 years. According to her evidence at about 11 a.m. she alongwith her father and sister Rina Kumari had gone in the field to cut grass and at that time Mantun while returning inquired from her father as to why he is getting the grass cut by his small daughter and after saying that Mantun threw brick on her father. At this, according to this witness her father stated that he is going to make a complain to his father and all of them returned to their residence. According to this witness after sometime Mantun, accused Umesh, since dead, appellants Ramanuj, Usha @ Shail Devi and Bebi Devi, who happen to be the wife and daughter of Ramanuj Singh respectively came and started assaulting her family members. According to her appellant Ramanuj Singh shot dead her 8 year old brother Kanhaiya. Her mother was assaulted by appellant Mohan Singh by Kudal (spade) as also Samath. According to her, appellants Umesh and Abodh chased her father and assaulted him in the field. She had further stated that her mother was assaulted by appellants Ramanuj, Bebi, Shail Devi and Mohan Singh by Samath and spade. According to her she was fleeing away with her younger brother when she was apprehended by the appellants Usha Devi and Bebi Devi and assaulted severely. She had further stated that her mother was assaulted by appellants Ramanuj, Bebi, Shail Devi and Mohan Singh by Samath and spade. According to her she was fleeing away with her younger brother when she was apprehended by the appellants Usha Devi and Bebi Devi and assaulted severely. According to her later on her father, mother, brother and grand-mother died. In a cross-examination she had stated that while she came out from the house she was chased by the appellants Shail Devi and Bebi Devi, thrown on the ground and assaulted by Garasa. In cross-examination she had further stated that her brother was also assaulted by Garasa. In paragraph 5 of the cross-examination she had denied that Mantun was shot dead in her presence and she had further stated that Mantun had assaulted her father. In paragraph 6 of the cross-examination she had admitted to have given a statement at Begusarai Hospital between 12 to 2 p.m. and has asserted that she had named accused Umesh Singh and also appellant Shail Devi in that. She had also asserted that during the course of examination she had disclosed the name of appellant Bebi Devi. She had also claimed to have disclosed the name of appellants Mohan Singh and Abodh Singh during the course of investigation. She had admitted in paragraph 8 of the cross-examination that Mantun Singh died later on but showed ignorance as to the person who had killed him. She has further admitted that her father was mentally disturbed. 23. P.W. 9 Arun Kumar Singh is the Advocates Clerk and had identified the writing of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who had drawn the First Information Report ( Ext. 3). 24. D.W. 1 Shiv Shankar Choudhary is another Advocates Clerk, who had proved the formal First Information Report ( Ext. A) recorded by A.S.I., Binda Paswan on the basis of the fardbeyan given by appellant Bebi Devi. 25. D.W. 2 Dr. S.M. Baquer besides conducting the post mortem examination on the dead bodies of the persons referred to above had also conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Mantun Singh @ Ajit Singh Son of appellant Ramanuj Singh aged about 16 years on 24.8.1986 at 10.30 a.m. and found following injuries on his person:- "1. D.W. 2 Dr. S.M. Baquer besides conducting the post mortem examination on the dead bodies of the persons referred to above had also conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Mantun Singh @ Ajit Singh Son of appellant Ramanuj Singh aged about 16 years on 24.8.1986 at 10.30 a.m. and found following injuries on his person:- "1. Firearm injury on the lower part of the forehead just above the bridge of the nose W in diameter with inverted margin charred and burnt. On dissection I found that it pierced the rkin, bone and came out with a huge opening on the head. It completely blown up the left parietal bone and a part of right parietal bone with major portion of the brain matter." In his opinion the injury found on his person was grievous in nature caused by firearm within 24 hours of the examination. In his opinion the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage on account of the aforesaid injury. 26. D.W. 3 Radheshyam Dubey at the relevant time was posted as Sub-Inspector of Town Police Station, Begusarai and according to him on the said date at 2.30 p.m. he recorded the fardbeyan of P.W. 8 Jhunna Kumari at Sadar Hospital, Begusarai and after it was explained to her she put her thumb impression on that. According to him he received an O.D. slip from the Hospital for recording the fardbeyan. He had sent the fardbeyan to the Begusarai Mufassil Police Station by making entry in the Station Diary and he had proved the O.D. Slip and the First Information Report. 27. It is relevant here to state that the statement of P.W 8 Jhunna Kumari and her sister Rina Kumari were recorded under Sections 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure. However, Rina Kumari has not been examined as witness nor the Investigating Officer of the case has turned up to depose. 28. Mr. A.K. Thakur, appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the evidence of only eye witness P.W. 8 Jhunna Kumari is not fit to be accepted. He points out that according to her own evidence on 22nd of September, 1989. she claimed to be aged about 9 years and the Court below had also assessed her age to be 9 years and the occurrence having taken place on 23rd of August, 1986 she would be aged about 6 years. He points out that according to her own evidence on 22nd of September, 1989. she claimed to be aged about 9 years and the Court below had also assessed her age to be 9 years and the occurrence having taken place on 23rd of August, 1986 she would be aged about 6 years. He points out that in the absence of her evidence being corroborated by any other evidence it shall be unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellants. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Arbind Singh vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1068) and our attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph 2 of the judgment which reads as follows:- "The entire case hinges on the evidence of the child witness PW 2 Roopam Kumari, the daughter of the deceased and appellant Arbind Singh. The incident occurred late in the night and she claims she was awakened by the noise of quarrelling. She further claims to have seen her father tying and nailing her mother before hanging her. At the date of the incident she was aged about 5 years. When her evidence was recorded she was aged about 9 years. The learned trial Judge did not undertake a voir dire before recording her evidence on oath although he notes that she was capable of understanding and answering the question. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there was a gap of 4 years between the incident and the date on which her evidence was recorded. Immediately after the incident she was interrogated but as she was weeping her statement was not recorded. Thereafter her statements were recorded on 25th October, 1984, 28th October, 1984 and 5th November, 1984 the last being under S. 164 of the Criminal P.C. In her first statement she did not say that her mother was hanged. Subsequently she said she was hanged by electric wire. She later said she was hanged with the help of a jute string. In her statement on 5th November, 1984, she stated that her father had thrown a jute string around the neck of her mother and killed her. It will, therefore, appear from these statements that she has not been consistent in her version. She later said she was hanged with the help of a jute string. In her statement on 5th November, 1984, she stated that her father had thrown a jute string around the neck of her mother and killed her. It will, therefore, appear from these statements that she has not been consistent in her version. That apart, we have carefully perused the evidence of this witness and we find traces of tutoring on certain aspects of the case it appears from her evidence that she was very close to her maternal uncle with whom she was living when her mother had gone to Deoghar for training. Immediately after the incident she was taken away by her maternal uncle who happens to be a fairly important figure. In her evidence she stated that there used to be quarrels between her father and mother and the former used to ill-treat the latter without any rhyme or reason. Then she adds that her father wanted to remarry and, therefore, he was ill-treating her mother. Now the case put up was that the husband was ill-treating the wife as he wanted to sell her jewellery to purchase a scooter. Therefore, the statement made by PW 2 that her father was ill-treating her mother because he wanted to remarry could only be the result of tutoring. She also tried to involve all the other family members including her uncle Shambhoo whom she could not even recognise in the dock. This she could have done only at the behest of someone else. She also stated that neither her father nor her grandfather met her mothers expense at Deoghar, a fact of which ordinarily a child under five years of age would not be aware. She even tried to involve her fathers sister whose name she had not mentioned earlier. There are also certain other statements made in the course of her deposition which would suggest that possibility of tutoring could not be ruled out. Having taken a careful look at the evidence of this child witness we are of the opinion that implicit faith and reliance cannot be placed on her testimony since it is not corroborated by any independent and reliable evidence. It is well settled that a child witness is prone to tutoring and hence the court should look for corroboration particularly when the evidence betrays traces of tutoring. We. It is well settled that a child witness is prone to tutoring and hence the court should look for corroboration particularly when the evidence betrays traces of tutoring. We. therefore, think that the appellant No. 1 was entitled to benefit of doubt." 29. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that the corroboration of the evidence of the child witness is not required, it is not a rule of universal application but a rule of caution. In the absence of any corroboration, if the evidence of the child witness is wholly reliable the conviction can be sustained submits Mr. Prasad. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Singh and Another vs. State of M.P. [(2005)13 Supreme Court Cases 624] and our attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph 15 of the judgment which reads as follows:- "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, was not justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is not in dispute that PW 2 Mangai Singh was the only eyewitness. He was a minor. Although we do not intend to lay down a law that in all situations evidence of a minor must be corroborated by other independent evidence, the evidence of PW 2 in our opinion required a closer scrutiny. He contradicted himself on material particulars. He did not make any statement before the police that he had seen the occurrence from a mound. Existence of the mound was very vital in the sense that if his statement before the Court to the effect that the deceased, at the time of his assault, remained sitting, a question might have arisen that he was not in a position to witness the entire occurrence in detail from a distance. The distance between the place of occurrence and the place where he was collecting fodder, according to the investigating officer, was 105 feet. Furthermore, if upon noticing the appellants proceeding towards the deceased with barachhi and lathi in their hands he started running towards the place of occurrence, we fail to understand as to how he could climb upon a mound and see the entire occurrence. Furthermore, if upon noticing the appellants proceeding towards the deceased with barachhi and lathi in their hands he started running towards the place of occurrence, we fail to understand as to how he could climb upon a mound and see the entire occurrence. If he was in a position to see the entire occurrence either from the place where he was cutting the grass or while running towards the place of occurrence, there was absolutely no reason as to why he should climb upon a mound to see the occurrence. Furthermore, he stated that when the appellants saw him, they started running towards him and then he ran towards the village." 30. Having considered the rival submissions, we do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad submission of Mr. Prasad that in all situation evidence of a minor need not be corroborated by other independent witness and what is required to be done is to have closure scrutiny of the evidence of the child witness. When we apply this principle to examine the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that it is not fit case in which conviction of the appellants is fit to be sustained on the basis of the solitary evidence of a child witness. As a principle of law we are not in a position to hold that corroboration is necessary when prosecution attempts to base conviction on the testimony of a child witness. There may be a case in which the incidence is seen by a solitary child witness, hence corroboration of her evidence could be physically impossible. However, in the present case we have seen that besides RW. 8 Jhunna Kumari her sister was also a charge-sheet witness. The prosecution has not come out with any reason as to why her evidence was withheld and why she did not depose. In our opinion in this case in which witnesses are available and are not examined without any valid justification one can assume that prosecution purposely has withheld the said witness to conceal the real truth. In the charge-sheet Rina Kumari has been shown as a witness, who is none other than the sister of PW 8 Jhunna Kumari and there is nothing on record to show why she did not come to support the case of the prosecution. In the charge-sheet Rina Kumari has been shown as a witness, who is none other than the sister of PW 8 Jhunna Kumari and there is nothing on record to show why she did not come to support the case of the prosecution. It is worth mentioning that her statements was also recorded under Sec.164 of Code of Criminal Procedure during investigation. 31. PW 8 Jhunna Kumari the only solitary eye witness of the case had stated in her evidence that Mantun came along-with other appellants and participated in the crime. From the evidence of DW 2 Dr. S.M. Baquer said Mantun Singh died a homicidal death on the same day and near about the same time when the present incidence had taken place. Prosecution is miserably silent as to how said Mantun died. Not only this from the evidence of PW 3 Rajendra Sao in paragraph 5 of the cross-examination it is evident that after Mantun Singh was killed thousand of villagers collected and assault had taken place in the house of Suro Singh. From the facts stated above it is evident that the prosecution has attempted to conceal the entire truth. 32. Not only this PW 8 Jhunna Kumari had claimed to have named the appellants Shail Devi, Bebi Devi, Abodh Singh and Mohan Singh during course of investigation but the police officer, who had conducted the investigation has not been examined. On a closure scrutiny of the evidence of PW 8 we are of the opinion that her evidence is not wholly reliable and we feel it unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellants on her sole testimony. 33. True it is that four persons have lost their lives in the incidence but in the face of the evidence on record, we are not satisfied that the prosecution has brought home the charge beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly we are constrained to give all the appellants the benefit of doubt. 34. Accordingly all the appeals are allowed, judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside. Appellants Shail Devi, Bebi Devi and Ramanuj Singh are on bail. They shall be discharged of their bail bonds. Appellants Abodh Singh and Mohan Singh (in Cr. Appeal No. 293/2002) are in jail and they be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.