Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3428 (ALL)

RAJENDRA GAUR v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-11-06

A.K.ROOPANWAL, RAKESH TIWARI

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—The appellants Rajendra Gaur, son of Ram Sakal Gaur and Jai Govind son of Kapil Dev Gaur, residents of Khoranpur, Police Station Bhanwar Kol, District Ghazipur, have challenged the validity and correctness of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 7.2.1997 passed by Sri Brijendra Singh, Sessions Judge, Ghazipur, convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. in S. T. No. 49 of 1994 and S. T. No. 186 of 1996, State v. Rajendra Gaur and another, under Section 302, I.P.C. Police Station Bhanwar Kol, District Ghazipur. 2. The grounds of challenge to the aforesaid judgment and order are that the order of the trial Court is against the evidence on the record, the presence of the prosecution witnesses, who are interested and partisan persons, at the time of alleged occurrence is highly doubtful but the trial Court has ignored this aspect. It is also challenged on the ground that according to the F.I.R. and the evidence the witnesses have deposed that the victim was first shot at and thereafter done to death by Gandasa and knife. This deposition of the witnesses in cross-examination is challenged on the ground that the prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that after receiving the gunshot wound the victim fell down and blood was profusely oozing from that wound but it is clear form the post mortem report that no gunshot wound was found on the body of the victim. As such the ocular version is inconsistent with the medical evidence. Lastly, the impugned judgment and order is challenged on the ground that the defence version was more probable and trustworthy then the same should have been given weight and consideration by the trial Court and that the impugned judgment and order as passed by the Sessions Court is bad in law and is liable to be set aside in the criminal appeal by this Court apart from the sentence being too severe in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. It appears form the order sheet dated 24.8.1998 that Jai Govind, appellant No. 2, has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 5.9.1997. 3. It appears form the order sheet dated 24.8.1998 that Jai Govind, appellant No. 2, has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 5.9.1997. The facts as culled out from the record are that an FIR was lodged by the complainant Virendra Gaur, son of Indradev Gaur, resident of Khoranpur, Police Station Bhanwar Kol, District Ghazipur, inter alia that an ancestral landed property measuring 21 Manda is in the village in which Indradeo, Sakal and Kapildeo Gaur were entitled to land measuring 7 Manda each but the real brother of the complainant i.e. Brijnath Gaur had illegally occupied it and was cultivating the same. Due to this reason the sons of his uncle namely Rajendra son of Sakal nurtured ill will and harvoured enmity. In the report it was averred that on 12.12.1993 at about 5.30 P.M. when Brijnath Gaur was gathering leaves and his mother Surji as well as the wife of Brijnath Gaur namely Saraswati were doing work near pumping set on the land in dispute at that time Rajendra armed with Gandasa and Jai Govind armed with Katta (country made pistol) came from the western side of the cane crop. Jai Govind fired upon Brijnath Gaur with Katta with intent to kill, which injured him and thereafter Brijnath Gaur fell down in the field. At this Rajendra Gaur cut the throat of Brijnath Gaur with Gandasa and Jai Govind stabbed Brijnath Gaur in his chest by a knife, which he had brought with him. On call for help being raised by Smt. Surji and Smt. Saraswati the mother and the wife of the deceased, respectively, both the accused chased them and thereafter ran towards north; that dead body of the deceased Brijnath Gaur, his brother, was lying in the fields. The FIR was lodged on 12.12.1993 at 8.30 P.M. and was registered at Case Crime No. 318 of 1993, under Section 302, I.P.C., which is said to have been taken down word by word by the Head Moharrir on the dictation of the complainant. 4. Another F.I.R. was lodged against the accused- appellant Rajendra Gaur, son of Sakal Gaur, on 14.12.1993 at 3.05 P.M. under Section 25 Arms Act at Case Crime No. 320 of 1993, police station Bhanwar Kol, District Ghazipur, on recovery of a 315 bore country made pistol. 4. Another F.I.R. was lodged against the accused- appellant Rajendra Gaur, son of Sakal Gaur, on 14.12.1993 at 3.05 P.M. under Section 25 Arms Act at Case Crime No. 320 of 1993, police station Bhanwar Kol, District Ghazipur, on recovery of a 315 bore country made pistol. The Fard Baramadgi of the pistol and blood stained cotton Loongi had also been prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The said recovery is said to have been made on the confessional statement and pointing of the accused- appellant Rajendra Gaur. The I.O. also prepared the fard of blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence on 13.12.1993 as well as empty cartridges from about two steps from the body of the deceased in presence of the witnesses. 5. The post mortem was done on the body of Brijnath Gaur, the deceased, on 13.12.1993 and post mortem report No. 490 of 1993 was submitted. It appears from the aforesaid post mortem report that the body of the deceased was brought for post mortem by C.P. No. 550 Ram Rekha Chauhan and V.C. Kichara both of police station Bhanwar Kol, District Ghazipur. The body of the deceased was of a person of 36 years of age and the probable time of death was about one day before. Rigor mortis was present on all extremity. The deceased suffered the following ante-mortem injuries : (1) Incised wound 8 cm x 6 cm on Rt. Side of collar bone deep (mandible bone). (2) Incised wound front of neck just above thyroid cartilage 10 cm x 6 cm x soft tissue muscle trachea. Blood vessels and oesophagus and surrounding tissue are cut. (3) Incised wound 3.5 cm x 1½ cm on front of Rt. side neck below Rt. ear. (4) Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm x cavity depth front of chest 9 cm below from left nipple. (5) Incised wound back of Rt. ear. (6) L.W. Back of left thigh. The contents of stomach showed semi digested food and cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. The post mortem report exhibit Ka-14 and eight enclosures were sent to the Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur, by the District Surgeon, Child Specialist, District Hospital, Ghazipur, alongwith sealed bundle of cloth containing Gangi-1, Swater Full-1 and Pajama-1. 6. The contents of stomach showed semi digested food and cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. The post mortem report exhibit Ka-14 and eight enclosures were sent to the Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur, by the District Surgeon, Child Specialist, District Hospital, Ghazipur, alongwith sealed bundle of cloth containing Gangi-1, Swater Full-1 and Pajama-1. 6. In the meantime the empty cartridge and the pistol recovered were also sent for examination to Ballistic expert at Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, Lucknow, which reported that the empty cartridges were fired from the country made pistol said to have been recovered on the pointing of the accused- appellant Rajendra Gaur. 7. The Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused Rajendra Prasad Gaur and Jai Govind in S. T. No. 49 of 1994, State v. Rajendra and another, and charges were framed under Section 302, I.P.C. and were read over and explained to them. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In S. T. No. 186 of 1996, State v. Rajendra Gaur, charge under Section 25 Arms Act was framed against the appellant Rajendra Gaur, and was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Both the Sessions Trials were connected and tried by the same Sessions Judge. 8. Virendra, complainant, son of Indradev, was examined as PW 1. He gave the family tree of the deceased and the appellants. He stated that ancestral properties had been distributed amongst the three brothers i.e. his father Indradev and his uncles Kapildev and Ram Sakal. The partition had taken place about 20 years back and all the brothers of his father lived separately thereafter. Further an agricultural field measuring about 21 Manda was owned jointly and each of the three brothers including his father had seven Manda each, but the deceased Brijnath Gaur had forcibly occupied the whole of the said agricultural land and was cultivating the same. The motive for the killing/ murder of the deceased Brijnath Gaur was that he had taken a loan for installing a pumping set on the land in dispute and forcible occupation and cultivation of the said land by the deceased Brijnath Gaur, which had angered his cousins Jai Govind and Rajendra. He narrated the incident substantially as was mentioned in the F.I.R. and proved the F.I.R. as exhibit Ka-1. He narrated the incident substantially as was mentioned in the F.I.R. and proved the F.I.R. as exhibit Ka-1. He also stated in his evidence that the deceased Brijnath Gaur used to work in Kutchery Mohammdabad in the day. He, the complaint, worked in a saw machine from 8 O’ clock in the morning to 6 O’ clock in the evening. The work of saw machine remained closed on Tuesday and he used to come to his village on that day; that before the incident of murder his brother Baijnath Gaur, one Shambhu Yadav is said to have been murdered in the year 1979 in which he, the complainant, was also an accused alongwith deceased Brijnath Gaur and that one of the brothers of Shambhu Yadav i.e. Nagina Yadav was living in the same village and was cultivating his field. It has also come in his statement that Shambhu Yadav had four young sons out of whom three were living in the village and one Lal Sahab was living in Punjab; that the deceased Brijnath Gaur had also submitted a written report of Maarpeet against Shambhu Yadav for beating them in enmity. The deceased Brijnath Gaur had also lodged a case against Siddhi Dusadh and Shiv Janam Yadav, which he was looking after as a Moharrir; that the night of occurrence was lit with moonlight; that he was an ocular witness of the occurrence of 12.12.1993 and that the accused Rajendra Gaur and Jai Govind were the persons, who had committed the crime, which was also seen by the mother and the wife of the deceased Brijnath Gaur. He also stated that except the deceased Brijnath Gaur no one else suffered any injury. 9. PW 1 categorically stated that Jai Govind had fired upon the deceased Brijnath Gaur, which hit the deceased Brijnath Gaur near his chin from which blood was profusely oozing. At that time the deceased was bearing only Kachha, Baniyan and Payjama. Rajendra had attacked 5-6 times with Gandasa after the deceased Brijnath Gaur fell down and that Jai Govind stabbed 3-4 times Brijnath also with his knife, which was about 12 inches long and it was lastly stated by him that he went with Paras Kharwar to the police station for lodging the F.I.R. 10. Rajendra had attacked 5-6 times with Gandasa after the deceased Brijnath Gaur fell down and that Jai Govind stabbed 3-4 times Brijnath also with his knife, which was about 12 inches long and it was lastly stated by him that he went with Paras Kharwar to the police station for lodging the F.I.R. 10. PW 2-Smt. Surji also corroborated the statement of PW 1 and stated that the dispute was of landed property due to installation of a pumping set. She also deposed that they threatened Brijnath many times with dire consequences and that he was done away with at about 5.00 P.M. She lastly stated that two persons had come to kill Brijnath. They had covered their faces with cloth and she demonstrated before the Court that as to how the faces of the accused were covered up to the nose. 11. PW 3-Smt. Saraswati, wife of the deceased Brijnath Gaur, stated that her husband was earlier implicated in a false case of murder in which accused Rajendra and Jai Govind alongwith others were also accused in that case. Since the accused were not paying the expenses of the case the deceased Brijnath Gaur had been cultivating the joint property measuring 21 Manda to meet the same. Thus, for this reason the accused harvoured grudge against her husband. The incident, according to her, had taken place at the time when the Sun was setting but there was some light when the accused Jai Govind fired upon him and the accused Rajendra had attacked on him with Gandasa and thereafter Jai Govind again stabbed Brijnath in his chest with knife. Thus, she also narrated substantially the same story, which was narrated by PW 1 and PW 2 except with some discrepancy as to the time when the accused had come at the spot. 12. PW 4 to PW 9 are formal witnesses of the prosecution. Thus, she also narrated substantially the same story, which was narrated by PW 1 and PW 2 except with some discrepancy as to the time when the accused had come at the spot. 12. PW 4 to PW 9 are formal witnesses of the prosecution. PW 4-Karamraj Singh, S. I. Police Station Saidpur, District Ghazipur, stated that he had taken the evidence of the complainant Virendra Gaur on 12.12.1993 at about 8.30 P.M. The F.I.R. was lodged in his presence; that he also taken the evidence of Smt. Surji on the spot and had remained in the Mukim in the night where he sealed the first Parcha, inquest report was prepared on the next day i.e. on 13.12.1993, which was proved by him as exhibit Ka-3, taken the evidence of the Panchs and prepared challan lash and other documents, which were sent under his signatures in the custody of CP No. 550 Ram Rekha Chauhan and V.C. Kicheru for post mortem. He also proved the site plan exhibit Ka-8, collected plain and blood soaked earth in a container and recovered empty cartridge, all of which were sealed and signed by him and the witnesses. These were exhibit Ka-9 and Ka-10. He stated that thereafter he had taken the statement of Smt. Saraswati, wife of the deceased, and on the pointing out of accused Rajendra Gaur, who was apprehended on 14.11.1993 from near the boarder of village Simari recovered the country made pistol used in the crime wrapped in a blood stained Loongi. He proved the Fard of recovery as exhibit Ka-11. This contained the signatures of the witnesses. He also proved the empty cartridge, which was also exhibited. He lastly stated that he had sent the blood soaked earth and plain earth as well as the country made pistol and the empty cartridge to the Laboratory for examination. In the cross- examination he stated that the country made pistol and the blood stained Loongi were recovered from the earth on the pointing of the accused Rajendra Gaur. 13. PW 5-Dr. Dinesh Chandra Rai, Senior Child Specialist, District Hospital, Azamgarh, at that time, proved the post mortem report exhibit Ka-14 and opined that the injuries on the body of the deceased were sufficient for causing his death. In his cross-examination also he reiterated that some of the injuries caused to the deceased could also be related to Gandasa. 14. PW 5-Dr. Dinesh Chandra Rai, Senior Child Specialist, District Hospital, Azamgarh, at that time, proved the post mortem report exhibit Ka-14 and opined that the injuries on the body of the deceased were sufficient for causing his death. In his cross-examination also he reiterated that some of the injuries caused to the deceased could also be related to Gandasa. 14. CP 550 Ram Rekha Chauhan was produced before the Court as PW 6, who detailed the taking into custody the body of the deceased for post-mortem. He also proved the Panchayatnama, which was exhibit Ka-13. 15. Similarly, PW 7 Badri Narain Dubey, H.C. 295 of Police Station Chaubeypur, District Varanasi, proved the chik report No. 166/93 as exhibit Ka-2 and also deposed about the sending of his special report No. 34 dated 12.12.1993 as exhibit Ka-16. He also explained about the sending of G.D. to the Circle Officer on 15.12.1993 and of depositing of the recovered goods in the Malkhana on 14.12.1993 at about 14.55 by the I.O., PW 4. 16. PW 8- Tashbali Ram proved the Fard Baramadgi report exhibited as exhibit Ka-18. PW 9-Dev Narain Pandey stated that he was I.O. of Crime No. 320/93 u/s 25 Arms Act; that he prepared the chik report and had taken the statement of PW 4- Karamraj Singh, Station Officer, accused Rajendra and Constable Moharrir Tashbali Ram, the scribe of the FIR on the same day. He also stated that he had also taken the statement of Constable Akhilesh Upadhyay, Constable Tara Shanker Pathak, witnesses Jai Karan Ram and Hira Lal and also prepared the site plan of recovery of the country made pistol; that charge-sheet was prepared by him, which he proved as Exhibit Ka-21. 17. Statement of the accused Rajendra Gaur was taken under Section 313, Cr.P.C. in which he denied the recovery of the country made pistol and the blood stained Loongi from the field of Nanhu Rai where they were concealed under the earth. 18. Similarly, the accused Jai Govind also denied his having done anything with the murder of the deceased Brijnath Gaur. 18. Similarly, the accused Jai Govind also denied his having done anything with the murder of the deceased Brijnath Gaur. In the written arguments under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the appellant Jai Govind submitted that he was in his in-laws house from one day prior to the incident and was falsely implicated in this case; that he had no enmity with the deceased Brijnath and that the deceased Brijnath was not a man of good character. For this reason many persons living around did not like him and were inimical to him. The family of Shambhu Yadav was also inimical to the deceased Brijnath as he was also a party in one of the cases. Father of Paras Kharwar, who had accompanied the complainant to the police station, is an employee in the police department and he had very good terms with the family of Shambhu Yadav. He categorically stated that the complainant lived in Buxer and Paras Kharwar had implicated them due to his relationship with the local police and left free the real murderers. 19. We have heard Mr. Apul Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Karuna Nand Vajpayee, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Mr. Mishra argued that the incident had not taken in the manner as alleged by the complainant and the witnesses. According to him, it is very doubtful that the incident had taken place at about 5.00-5.30 P.M. He submitted that the accused have falsely been implicated in the case and it appears that the incident took place in the late hours of night. The eyewitnesses, who were said to have been present were not present at all and have only deposed against them on the basis of the family dispute whereas the real culprits could be the family members of Shambhu Yadav with whom there is a long drawn enmity and the deceased Brijnath was fighting against them. He also argued that the source of light is doubtful as the witnesses have stated that there was dense fog. According to the Moon calender it was one day before Amavasya. He also argued that the source of light is doubtful as the witnesses have stated that there was dense fog. According to the Moon calender it was one day before Amavasya. There is no firearm injury on the body of the deceased Brijnath whereas all the witnesses have categorically stated that fire was made by pistol on Brijnath, which hit him, he received injury and fell down on the earth, blood was profusely oozing and thereafter the deceased was killed with Gandasa and knife. 20. As regards PW 1, the complainant of the case, it is said that at the most he can be said to be a chance witness as he used to come to the village only on Tuesday when the saw machine, where he was working, remain closed, whereas the day of occurrence was Sunday and his presence at the site of occurrence is doubtful and cannot be believed. 21. As regards the eyewitness PW 2, the mother of the deceased, is concerned she had stated in the evidence that she is not able to clearly see and that all the assailants had wrapped their faces with cloth. She also demonstrated in the Court that how cloth was wrapped from head up to nose, therefore, there was no occasion for her to identify the accused. It is lastly argued that there is material inconsistency in the evidence of the witnesses and there is a great doubt that as to whether the occurrence had taken place on the date and at the time as alleged by the complainant in the FIR. 22. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that it is apparent from the prosecution case and the statements of the witnesses produced by the prosecution that the appellant Jai Govind had fired a shot from his Katta (country made pistol); as a result of which Brijnath (since deceased) received injury and fell down on the ground and blood was profusely oozing. At that time Rajendra Gaur, another assailant had attacked him with Gandasa. The injuries resulted into the death of Brijnath. He has referred to the post mortem report in detail and submits that there is absence of gunshot injury, therefore, the version of each of the eyewitnesses that Brijnath fell down on the ground when he received the injury of country made pistol fired by the appellant Jai Govind and blood was profusely oozing, was false. He has referred to the post mortem report in detail and submits that there is absence of gunshot injury, therefore, the version of each of the eyewitnesses that Brijnath fell down on the ground when he received the injury of country made pistol fired by the appellant Jai Govind and blood was profusely oozing, was false. It is said that all of them had given a tutored and photogenic vivid picture of the occurrence, which is not expected as each of the witness had stated the same perceptions and they were not standing at the same place. 23. Mr. Mishra also submits that there is variation in the evidence of Smt. Surji, mother of the deceased, and of Smt. Sarswati, wife of the deceased, regarding the time of arrival of the I.O. and his taking of the evidence makes the case improbable that the deceased Brijnath was murdered by the accused- appellants. The distance of police station from the place of occurrence is about 6 Kms and it is said that it has come on the record that neither the FIR was lodged nor G.D. entry was made on 12.12.1993 at 8.30 P.M. The FIR is ante-dated. It was lodged after the I.O. had visited the place of occurrence on 13.12.1993 in the morning. This according to the learned counsel for the appellants finds support from the fact that the Circle Officer had signed the FIR for investigation on 15.12.1993, therefore, no entry could have been made at least on 12.12.1993 and it must have been made sometime in the morning of 13.12.1993. The statements of the witnesses regarding preparation of food in the Madhai and its consumption is also at variance. In the post mortem report semi-digested food was found, which according to the learned counsel for the appellants show that the occurrence had taken place after 5.30 P.M., the time of occurrence alleged by the complainant in the FIR and in fact the deceased Brijnath was killed by some unknown persons in the night and then the incident was reported in the morning of 13.12.1993 when the investigation etc. was done. However, the appellants were falsely implicated showing the FIR and the GD entry to be ante-dated. This, according to Mr. was done. However, the appellants were falsely implicated showing the FIR and the GD entry to be ante-dated. This, according to Mr. Mishra, was done for the reason that there was already a dispute in regard to 21 Mandas of land, which was being forcibly occupied and cultivated by the deceased Brijnath but was not giving the share to the accused. 24. It is lastly urged that apart from the fact that the complainant Virendra claimed to be a chance witness, his presence was doubtful as even according to his own statement he used to come to the village on Tuesday when the saw machine, where he is working, remains close, but the day of occurrence was Sunday, a Chaturdashi of Krishna Paksha i.e. one day before Amavasya. Hence there could be no moonlight according to the Moon calender. Moreover, since the eyesight of the mother of the deceased was weak and the faces of the assailants were covered with cloth, there was no scope for them to recognize the assailants. 25. Mr. Karuna Nand Vajpayee, learned AGA, on the other hand submitted that the appellants could not sack the evidence of the eyewitness PW 1 and the basic fabric of the prosecution witness is that the accused Rajendra and Jai Govind had done away with their brother Brijnath at about 5.30 P.M. He states that the assailants were well known to the witnesses as they were their close relatives and were living in the same village, hence, even though the assailants might have covered their faces with cloth but they could have been recognized by the complainant and the wife and the mother of the deceased. As regards eyesight of Smt. Surji is concerned, it is stated that it has not come anywhere on the record that her eyesight was so weak that she could not see anything. Hence, her evidence cannot be disbelieved that she saw the appellants attacking at Brijnath and killing him. 26. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record we are of the considered opinion that there is material variance in the evidence given by the eyewitnesses. The witnesses had not only stated that the faces of the assailants were covered with cloth but the mother of the deceased also demonstrated in the Court how the faces of the assailants were covered up to the nose. The witnesses had not only stated that the faces of the assailants were covered with cloth but the mother of the deceased also demonstrated in the Court how the faces of the assailants were covered up to the nose. According to Smt. Surji, the mother of the deceased, it was fogged and cold winter day. The Moon calender showed that at about 5.30 P.M. there would not be sufficient light around the cane crops, which were standing where the deceased is said to be working in the field. Even if the statements of the eyewitnesses are taken on their face value the description of gruesome murder of Brijnath is too vivid. The assailants were neither speaking nor shouting. They are said to have come quietly from the western side from between cane crops when the appellant Jai Govind is said to have fired upon Brijnath, who is said to have received injury by all the three eyewitnesses including the complainant. No gunshot injury was found on the body of the deceased during post mortem examination. Even the recovery of blood stained Loongi on the pointing of appellant Rajendra is not a discovery within the meaning of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act but at the most it could be a recovery under Section 8 of the said Act and cannot be read against the appellants. 27. From the record it also appears that Brijnath was not a man of good character. He had many enemies in the village as has come in the evidence. He was oppressive and misused his post as Moharrir in the Court. The FIR definitely appears to be ante-time. In view of the admission of Smt. Surji that her eyesight was very bad and considering the fact that the faces of the assailants were covered with cloth neither she nor Smt. Saraswati could have recognized any person in the deem Moonlight of one day prior to Amavsya. Though, the complainant Virendra, Smt. Surji (mother of the deceased) and Smt. Saraswati (wife of the deceased) are said to be the eyewitnesses but even though they are rustic villagers yet they have tried to paint a photogenic picture of every minute detail of the occurrence. This could not have been done by three different persons in the manner they have deposed before the Court unless and until they are tutored. 28. This could not have been done by three different persons in the manner they have deposed before the Court unless and until they are tutored. 28. Apart from the above, we also find variance in the statements of the witnesses regarding the time of taking of the statements of the witnesses by the I.O., etc., which clearly raises a reasonable doubt in our minds as to whether the appellants had done away with their cousin Brijnath. The factum of death is not denied, but there is a reasonable and grave doubt in our minds as to who have in fact murdered Brijnath and whether it was the accused- appellants or they have been falsely implicated because of the dispute of landed property. The complainant had not explained how he came to the village on Sunday to become a chance witness. Admittedly, the reputation of Brijnath was not good. He was cantankerous, ill virtue and loose character. It has come in the written arguments of the appellants that the real murderers have been allowed to go free by the police and they have been falsely implicated in the murder of their brother. They have stated in so many words that the family of Shambhu Singh Yadav was inimical to them and Paras Kharwar, who had accompanied the complainant to the police station, was friendly to the family of Shambhu Singh Yadav, and had no reason to go alongwith the complainant to lodge the FIR. Therefore, we feel that the appellants have been able to raise reasonable doubts in our minds regarding the occurrence having been committed by the appellants or not. 29. In the circumstances of the case, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of conviction and sentence dated 7.2.1997 passed by the trial Court. The appellant No. 1 Rajendra Gaur shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. The appellant No. 2, Jai Govind, who is on bail, need not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled. 30. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent immediately to the C.J.M. concerned for compliance. ————