JUDGMENT By Court. — The appellants were charged under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Khublal Yadav. They were further charged under Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. On conclusion of trial, the appellants were found guilty of committing offences under Section 302 and Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, for which they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. In addition, appellant Nos. 6 and 8 were convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and appellant Nos.1 to 5 and 7 were also convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year-all the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution was launched on the basis of fardbeyan of Punuwa Devi (P.W.8), the wife of alleged injured Shyamlal Yadav. 3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 9.4.1989 at about 9 P.M. the accused-appellants Bhuneshwar Yadav armed with Dab, Basudeo Yadav with Katari, Munna Yadav with Farsa, Darbari Yadav with axe, Phulchand Yadav with Farsa, Thami with lathi, Dwarka with Bhala, Horil with lathi surrounded the deceased Khublal Yadav, who was returning after easing himself. When the deceased reached near the house of Horil Yadav, he accosted by Horil and there were hot exchanges between them relating to some land dispute. The Informant and her family came out of their house and reached near the house of accused Horil Yadav and tried to pacify the accused persons. But in the meantime accused-appellant Phulchand gave a Farsa blow on the head of Khublal. Accused Bhuneshwar Yadav inflicted injury with his 'Dab' on the head of the deceased, Khublal fell down and died. The accused-appellants, thereafter, dragged Khublal Yadav inside the house and there also they caused some injuries on his person. As a result, Khublal died. Phulchand Yadav and Munna Yadav also assaulted the husband of the informant causing injuries. When Mahabir Yadav went to rescue, accused Dwarika Yadav gave 'Bhala' (spear) blow on him. 4. On the basis of the said fardbeyan of Punuwa Devi the Police registered a case against the accused persons under Sections 147/148/149/302/307 of the Indian Penal Code. The police took up investigation and after completion, submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellants. 5. Charges under Sections 147/148/ 302/34 I.P.C. were framed against the appellants. 4. On the basis of the said fardbeyan of Punuwa Devi the Police registered a case against the accused persons under Sections 147/148/149/302/307 of the Indian Penal Code. The police took up investigation and after completion, submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellants. 5. Charges under Sections 147/148/ 302/34 I.P.C. were framed against the appellants. The appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 6. In course of trial, he specifically made out a case that on 9.4.1989 at about 9 PM appellant Horil Yadav came out of his house to attend call of nature and where he saw 8-9 persons standing on the door, out of which he identified Shyam Lal Yadav, Mahabir Yadav and the deceased Khublal Yadav. Khublal Yadav was armed with 'Dab' and other two persons were holding lathies' in their hands. Khublal Yadav inflicted injuries on the head of Horil Yadav and the other persons gave lathi blows, Horil Yadav sustained injuries. The wife of the accused Horil Yadav raised alarm. Deceased Khublal ran outside and was chased by a crowd. The village Chaukidar was called. Dwarka Yadav and Munna Yadav then went to Koderma and informed the Police. However, the Police did not record their statement there, rather came to the village in the midnight and went to the house of Khublal Yadav. Police recovered the dead body of Khublal Yadav from the house of the complainant and in collusion with Shyamlal and his family members, instituted a false case implicating the appellants. Khublal Yadav was himself a hardened criminal and was an accused in two murder cases. All the appellants are innocent and have not committed the offence. 7. The prosecution in order to prove the charges against the appellant, altogether examined eight witnesses. P.W. 1 the Doctor who conducted the post mortem on dead body of the deceased Khublal Yadav; P.W. 2 Godni Devi is said to be an eye-witness, P.W. 3 Shyamlal Yadav and P.W. 4 Mahabir Yadav are said to be injured persons and claims to be the eye witnesses; P.W. 5 Phuluwa Kumari also claimed to be eye-witness; P.W. 6 is another Doctor who had examined the injured Shyamlal Yadav and Mahabir Yadav; P.W. 7 is Investigating Officer and P.W. 8 Punuwa Devi is the informant. The prosecution also adduced documentary evidence and exhibited post mortem report (Exhibit-1), injury reports of Shyamlal Yadav and Mahabir Yadav (Exhibit-2 and 2/1), fardbeyan of Punuwa Devi (Exhibit-:3), formal F.I.R. (Exhibit-4) and seizure list (Exhibit-5). 8. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant again denied the allegations. 9. Two defence witnesses were also examined. D.W. 1 Mathura Ram proved injury register of the hospital. D.W. 2 is the Doctor who had examined the injuries of the accused-appellant Horil Yadav. The defence also exhibited Complaint Case No. 192/89 which arose out of the same occurrence as Exhibit-A and the injury report of Horil Yadav as Exhibit-B. 10. Learned trial court, on conclusion of the trial, held the appellants guilty of the charges under Sections 302/34 as also under Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, and convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. 11. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants, challenging their conviction. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. After going through the record and hearing learned counsel, we found the following features in this case:- (i) P.W. 2, who happens to be an eye-witness, in paragraph-9 of her deposition has stated that the Police first went to the house of Khublal and met Shyamlal. The Police recorded the statement of Shyamlal on which Shyamlal has given his LT.I. But the said statement has not been brought on record by the prosecution. (ii) The occurrence took place in night and there was no source of light, the claim of witnessing occurrence by the witnesses is highly doubtful and unbelievable. (iii) D.W.2 has stated that the accused-Horil had also sustained injuries. The Doctor had examined the injuries on Mahabir and Shyamlal (P.W. 3 and P.W. 4). He also supported the claim of the defence that Horil Yadav sustained injuries. The injury report of Horil Yadav has been proved by D.W. 1 and marked as Exhibit-B. But the said injuries have not been explained by the prosecution. (iv) The Investigating Officer in his deposition has stated that on getting a floating information regarding the occurrence he made a Sanha entry and proceeded to the village. The said 'Sanha', however, has not been brought on record. (iv) The Investigating Officer in his deposition has stated that on getting a floating information regarding the occurrence he made a Sanha entry and proceeded to the village. The said 'Sanha', however, has not been brought on record. There are contradictions in the testimonies of P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 8 regarding manner of occurrence and the same is also not supported by medical evidences. (v) Learned Trial Court, tried to meet the said points but the reasons recorded by him, have no substance. (vi) P.W. 2, who is said to be the eye-witness, has clearly stated that the Police had first taken the statement of Shyamlal Yadav and Shyamlal had put his L.T.I. on his statement. The said statement has not been brought on record. Suppression of the said statement, which assumes the status of fardbeyan in accordance with Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. goes to the root of the case and vitiates the entire prosecution. (vii) Learned Trial Court has discarded the deposition of P.W. 2 and has observed that her statement is contradictory and cannot be relied upon. The prosecution has not objected to the statement and she was not declared hostile. Her testimony cannot be rejected outrightly only because she has given contradictory statement. (viii) Learned Trial Court has further held that since the known persons can be identified in night even in absence of torch-light or any source of light, cannot be said that it was not possible to identify the assailants. Learned trial court failed to appreciate that the identification was not by the words of mouth rather the witnesses claimed to have identified and seen the accused persons inflicting specific injuries, though the manner of assault and the weapons used were not corroborated. There are vital contradictions in the statement of the different witnesses. (ix) Regarding the unexplained injuries learned Trial Court has said that the injuries on the persons of the accused Horil Yadav is simple in nature and in absence of explanation of the prosecution is not a fatal defect. Regarding non-production of Sanha Entry learned court below has tried to explain contrary to the clear statement of the Investigating Officer that the Investigating Officer had only heard the rumour of the occurrence and that rumour cannot be said to be an F.I.R. and non-production of 'Sanha' has not caused prejudice to the Defence. 13. Regarding non-production of Sanha Entry learned court below has tried to explain contrary to the clear statement of the Investigating Officer that the Investigating Officer had only heard the rumour of the occurrence and that rumour cannot be said to be an F.I.R. and non-production of 'Sanha' has not caused prejudice to the Defence. 13. We are not convinced with the said reason recorded by learned Trial Court. The said observations run counter to the materials on record and are also contrary to the established legal principles. The said defect in the prosecution case gives rise to serious doubts and shakes the credibility of the prosecution case. 14. Learned Trial Court has tried to meet and explain those material defects to the benefit of the prosecution contrary to the settled principle of law. The benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused persons, not to the prosecution. 15. We find that the ocular evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 5, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 is not corroborated by the medical evidences of P.W. 6. There are vital contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. On such inconsistent and contradictory testimonies of the PWs, it is unsafe to convict the appellants. We do not find any cogent, clinching and reliable evidences and material on record to hold the appellants guilty and affirm and uphold the judgment of learned Trial Court. 16. We hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubts. 17. We are, therefore, constrained to set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants and to allow this appeal giving the appellants benefits of doubts. 18. Since the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of bail bonds.