JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. The judgment and order, dated 20.2.09 and 22.2.09, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura in case No. S.T. 45 (WT/S) of 2005, is in challenge in this appeal. By the impugned judgment and order aforesaid, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC) and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months each for their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the Appellants have come up with this appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. H. Debnath, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Tripura. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, as revealed at the trial, may be stated thus: On 3.4.03 at about 11.15 am, SI Biswanath Deb of Sonamura Police Station was informed that a dead body was lying in Kamalnagar road. The said information was entered as G.D. Entry No. 89 and Sri Deb, SI of Police, Sonamura proceeded to the place of occurrence. After arriving at the place of occurrence, at about 11.45 am, he found that a dead body was lying on the southern side of the Kamalnagar high school, Smt. Kumari Debbarma, wife of the deceased identified the dead body to be the dead body of her husband and she submitted an oral complaint with the Investigating Officer, which was recorded and accepted as an ejahar. According to the said informant, on 3.4.2003, at about 11.30 am, Sri Jaigya Debbarma (Appellant No. 1), Sri Kaithya Debbarma, Sri Mannan Mia (Appellant No. 2), Shah Alam, Birendra, Hiralal and some other persons, being armed with dao, lathi, knife etc. entered the premises of Sri Bishu Debbarma (hereinafter called, 'the deceased') and forcefully took him with them on the pretext of taking him to the police station. Taking the deceased, in the said way, towards the northern side of the Kamalnagar High School, the accused persons left the place after killing the deceased. The said oral information made by the wife of the deceased was treated as FIR and the same was exhibited as Exbt. Taking the deceased, in the said way, towards the northern side of the Kamalnagar High School, the accused persons left the place after killing the deceased. The said oral information made by the wife of the deceased was treated as FIR and the same was exhibited as Exbt. 5/1. Accordingly, police registered a case, being Sonamura P.S. Case No. 07 of 2003, under Sections 302/34 IPC and launched investigation into the matter. During investigation, police recorded statement of the witnesses, prepared the Inquest report, a sketch map of the place of occurrence and forwarded the dead body for autopsy. Police seized some blood stained soil and lathi from the place of occurrence. During the investigation, it was found by the Investigating Officer that twelve persons, including the above named accused persons, got involved in causing the death of the deceased. At the close of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against twelve persons under Sections 302/34 IPC, showing four of the said twelve persons as absconders. Out of the said' absconders, three accused persons appeared before the Court. Hence, the trial proceeded against 11 persons, including the present Appellants. The offence under Section 302 IPC, being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Sections 302/34 IPC and explained the charge to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses, including the Medical Officer, who performed the autopsy, and the Investigating police officer. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the allegations, brought against them, and examined two witnesses as defence witnesses in support of their plea of innocence. Considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge acquitted (1) Hiralal Debbarma, (2) Bimal Debbarma, (3) Swapan Debbarma, (4) Shah Alam, (5) Bimal Debbarma, (6) Khokan Debbarma, (7) Prantosh Pal and (8) Ajit Mia for want of sufficient evidence. However, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellants aforesaid as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge acquitted (1) Hiralal Debbarma, (2) Bimal Debbarma, (3) Swapan Debbarma, (4) Shah Alam, (5) Bimal Debbarma, (6) Khokan Debbarma, (7) Prantosh Pal and (8) Ajit Mia for want of sufficient evidence. However, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellants aforesaid as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. H. Debnath, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, taking us through the FIR and the evidence on record, has submitted that except the evidence of P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 6 and P.W. 8, who were the close relatives of the deceased, there is no other independent witnesses in support of the prosecution version. It is also submitted that there are sufficient contradictions in the evidence of the said witnesses, who claimed to be the eye witnesses and that in view of the said contradictions, found in their evidence and for want of reliable and substantive evidence, the said witnesses cannot be believed. It is further contended that, as alleged by the prosecution, the occurrence took place in a broad day light, that too near a school which was functioning at the relevant time. Therefore, it is submitted on behalf of the defence that, in view of non-examination of any independent witnesses, including any teacher or student from the said school, the evidence of the said related witnesses cannot be believed to base the conviction. Another contention raised by the learned Counsel, appearing for the Appellants, is that as the accused persons were tried under Section 302/34 IPC, in view of acquittal of some of the accused persons on benefit of doubt, the conviction of the Appellants, on the basis of the same set of evidence, cannot stand the test of law and as such they are also entitled to be acquitted. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has relied on the decision in the case of Sukhram v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported AIR 1989 SC 772 . It is further submitted, by the learned defence counsel, that the wife of the deceased, who, deposing as P.W. 6, claimed to have followed the deceased at the time of taking the latter by the accused persons, failed to state in her written complaint (i.e. Exbt. No. 5) that she and her daughters and son had followed the accused persons and witnessed the occurrence themselves. No. 5) that she and her daughters and son had followed the accused persons and witnessed the occurrence themselves. Therefore, it is submitted that the evidence of the said related witnesses, who were the wife, the daughters and the son of the deceased, that they had seen the occurrence themselves, was developed subsequently and as such the same cannot be relied upon to base the conviction. 5. Refuting the said argument, advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellants, Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, submitted that there are sufficient evidence on record, including the evidence of the eye witnesses and that the learned trial Judge committed no illegality by recording the conviction and sentence warranting interference with the impugned conviction and sentence. 6. We have patiently heard the arguments, advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, and carefully perused the evidence on record. 7. In view of the counter arguments, made by the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, we feel it appropriate to briefly recapitulate the evidence of the witnesses as follows: 8. Mr. Shankar Datta, ASI of Police, who was examined as P.W. 1, stated that on, 3.4.03, he accompanied SI Biswanath Deb, who proceeded to the place of occurrence. He stated that a dead body was found lying near Kamalnagar School. 9. Mr. Joy Kumar Das, who was a constable of Police, Sonamura PS was examined as P.W. 2. Supporting the evidence of P.W. 1, he stated that, on 3.4.03, he accompanied SI Biswanath Deb to the place of occurrence and that the dead body was taken to the Sonamura hospital for post mortem examination. He stated that after the post mortem examination, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. 10. Smt. Rabindra Debbarma, a daughter of the deceased, deposed as P.W. 3. She stated that, her deceased father was a Congress worker and that after the return of the CPM Government to power, the deceased remained away from his house for about a month. 10. Smt. Rabindra Debbarma, a daughter of the deceased, deposed as P.W. 3. She stated that, her deceased father was a Congress worker and that after the return of the CPM Government to power, the deceased remained away from his house for about a month. This witness, in her evidence, stated that, on the fateful day at about 10.30 am, the accused persons, namely, Jagabandhu Debbarma, Birendra Debbarma, Swapan Debbarma, Abdul Mannan, Shah Alam, Bimal Debbarma, Khokan Debbarma, Hannan Mia, Cifan Mia, Prantosh Paul, Ajit Mia, Hiralal Debbarma went to their house and took her father for attending a meeting in the office of the CPM party. She stated that some of the accused persons had virtually pulled her father by touching his ganjee and moved him towards the party office and that near the Kamalnagar High School, the accused persons had mercilessly beaten him with dao, lathi, spade etc., causing his death, on the spot. She also stated that, at the time of taking the deceased from his house, she, her mother (P.W. 6), her sister Laxmirani Debbarma (P.W. 4) and her brother Jitendra Debbarma (P.W. 8) were present and that alarm being raised by them. Sri Jishtakanya Debbarma (P.W. 11) and Smt. Chandrasri Debbarma (P.W. 12) went to the place of occurrence and that they also followed his father and witnessed the occurrence. She stated that none, except the said two persons (i.e. P.W. 11 and P.W. 12), arrived at the place of occurrence and that she and her mother were also assaulted by Mannan Mia, Cifan Mia and Jagabandhu Debbarma She further stated that Sri Jitendra Debbarma (P.W. 8) who was collecting firewood near their pond saw their father being taken by the accused persons and that he also joined the said witnesses. From her cross-examination, it is found that she did not tell the I.O. that Adbul Mannan and Ajit Mia also went to their house for taking her father and that she did not tell the I.O. that Mannan Mia had hit her father with a lathi on his forehead. From her cross-examination, it is found that she did not tell the I.O. that Adbul Mannan and Ajit Mia also went to their house for taking her father and that she did not tell the I.O. that Mannan Mia had hit her father with a lathi on his forehead. Though this witness stated that the accused Jagabandhu Debbarma assaulted her father with a 'Kodal' on the back of his head that accused Hannan Mia assaulted the deceased with a dao, on his left arm and that Mannan Mia hit him with a lathi on his forehead, from the cross-examination of this witness, it is found that she did not tell the Investigating officer, at the time of recording her statement under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, that Mannan Mia had hit her father with a lathi on his forehead and that Hannan Mia had assaulted him with dao on his left arm. Therefore, it appears that at the initial stage of giving statement before the police she did not disclose, that the deceased was assaulted by Mannan Mia with a lathi on his forehead and that Hannan Mia had assaulted him on his left arm. Hence, her said evidence, given on oath at the trial, appears to be either afterthought or development of earlier version. She denied the suggestion that she, along with her mother, sister Laxmibala and brother Jitendra, did not follow their father at the time of taking him by the accused persons. She also stated that the distance between the house of her father and the Kamalnagar High School i.e. the place of occurrence would be about one kilometre and that there was no house in between the place of occurrence and the house of the deceased. She stated that, on the date of occurrence, though the school was going on, noticing the occurrence, the teachers and the students had left the school after closing it. Admitting that the deceased was a Congress worker, she denied the suggestion that the accused persons being CPM supporters were falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, from her said evidence it appears that both the parties belonged to the different political parties and there was enmity between them. 11. Smt. Laxmirani Debbarma, Anr. daughter of the deceased deposed as P.W. 4. Therefore, from her said evidence it appears that both the parties belonged to the different political parties and there was enmity between them. 11. Smt. Laxmirani Debbarma, Anr. daughter of the deceased deposed as P.W. 4. She stated that as her father was a Congress worker and that he was not able to stay at his home. She further stated that, on the morning of the occurrence, she went to collect firewood and that, after sometime, her younger sister went to her and informed that her father was being taken by some people. On being so informed, she came running and found the accused persons, namely, Hannan Mia, Mannan Mia, Ajit Mia, Shah Alam, Jagabandhu Debbarma, Kaithya Debbarma and Prantosh Paul and many Ors. forcibly taking their father towards Kamalnagar school. She stated that her father was brutally assaulted by the accused persons near the Kamalnagar High School as a result of which he died. She further stated that they went to the place of occurrence where her father was found lying dead. She clearly stated, "none except we people", arrived at the place of occurrence and that she went to the BSF camp to inform about the incident. She also stated that there was no other house, situated between the place of occurrence and their house. She denied the suggestion that she did not witness her father being assaulted by the accused persons. From the evidence of this witness, it is found that, on the fateful morning, she had gone to collect firewood and she came to know about the taking of her father on being informed by her sister. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W. 4 indicates that they i.e., she herself along with her mother, sister and brother arrived at the place of occurrence after the death of her father and, at the time of their arrival, there no other persons had reached the said place. She did not state as to who had accompanied her to the place of occurrence. She also stated that she found the accused persons taking her father through the road. Therefore, it is doubtful whether the P.Ws. 3, 6 and 8 had accompanied her to the place of occurrence. She did not state as to who had accompanied her to the place of occurrence. She also stated that she found the accused persons taking her father through the road. Therefore, it is doubtful whether the P.Ws. 3, 6 and 8 had accompanied her to the place of occurrence. That apart, her only sister (P.W. 3), as revealed from the record, did not state that she had informed the P.W. 4 regarding taking of their father by the accused persons. Rather, the P.W. 3 stated that at the time of taking the deceased by the accused, she, her sister (P.W. 4), her mother (P.W. 6) and her brother (P.W. 8) were present in their house. Hence we do not find corroboration in her evidence to believe that she rushed home on being informed by her sister. Therefore, it is doubtful if she had at all witnessed the occurrence. 12. Sri Dhirendra Debbarma, deposing as P.W. 5, stated that, at the time of occurrence, he was taking bath along with Jatish Debbarma (14) and Jiban Debbarma (13) and that, hearing hue and cry, they came out from the water and found the accused persons forcibly taking the deceased. He further stated that, the accused persons and the deceased were followed by the wife of the deceased and P.W. 4, P.W. 3 and P.W. 8. He further stated that, though he tried to intervene, he left the place on being assaulted by Mannan Mia on his left hand. This witness further stated that after sometime he came to know that the deceased was killed near the Kamalnagar High School and then proceeding to the Kamalnagar High School he found P.W. 4, P.W. 3 and Ors. near the dead body. But neither P.W. 4 nor P.W. 3 stated about the intervention made by P.W. 5 and the assault caused to him by accused Mannan. Rather, P.W. 4 clearly stated that nobody except them went to the place of occurrence. Therefore, the statement of P.W. 5 belies stood behind by P.W. 4, P.W. 5 in his in-chief examination stated that he saw the accused Jagadish, Kaithya Debbarma, Hannan Mia, Mannan Mia, Ajit Mia, Khokan Debbarma, Prantosh Paul, Hiralal Debbarma, Cifan Mia and many Ors. taking the deceased. Therefore, the statement of P.W. 5 belies stood behind by P.W. 4, P.W. 5 in his in-chief examination stated that he saw the accused Jagadish, Kaithya Debbarma, Hannan Mia, Mannan Mia, Ajit Mia, Khokan Debbarma, Prantosh Paul, Hiralal Debbarma, Cifan Mia and many Ors. taking the deceased. But from the cross-examination of this witness, it is found that, before the investigating officer at the time of making statement under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, he had mentioned the names of accused Ajit Mia, Mannan Mia and Hannan Mia. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 5 regarding involvement of other accused persons appears to be either afterthought or a developed version. Further, though the P.W. 5 stated that he was taking bath along with P.W. 13 and P.W. 14 and that they came out from the water and saw the accused persons taking the deceased, both P.Ws. 13 and 14 did not support the version of P.W. 5. Rather, P.W. 14 negated the presence of P.W. 5 with P.Ws. 13 and 14 at the time of taking their bath in the river. Hence, we find no corroboration in the evidence of P.W. 5 to believe that he had seen the deceased being taken by the accused persons. 13. Smt. Kumari Debbarma, wife of the deceased, who was examined as P.W. 6, stated that, on the date of occurrence at about 10 am, when she, her husband and her daughter Rabimala (P.W. 3) were at home the accused persons, namely, Jaigya, Kaithya, Hannan, Mannan, Ajit, Swapan, Cifan, Birendra, Hiralal, Khokan and many Ors. went to their house and took her husband to the Panchayat office on the plea of attending a meeting. She further stated that she and her daughter Rabimala (P.W. 3) followed her husband crying and that her son Jitendra (P.W. 8) and daughter Laxmirani (P.W. 4) also joined them. This witness stated that her husband was taken to the Kamalnagar High School, where he was mercilessly beaten up by the accused persons causing his death. At the time of cross-examination, her attention was drawn to the Exbt. No. 5 and she admitted that the names of Khokan, Ajit, Citan, Swapan and Hannan were not mentioned in the Exbt. 5. Exbt. No. 5 is the statement made by P.W. 6, in the form of complaint and received by the Investigating Officer. At the time of cross-examination, her attention was drawn to the Exbt. No. 5 and she admitted that the names of Khokan, Ajit, Citan, Swapan and Hannan were not mentioned in the Exbt. 5. Exbt. No. 5 is the statement made by P.W. 6, in the form of complaint and received by the Investigating Officer. She denied the suggestion that the accused persons did not take her husband forcefully for the purpose of taking him to the Panchayat office. She admitted, in her cross-examination, that she did not state before the police that she, her daughter and her son Jitendra had followed her husband when he was being taken by the accused persons. She further stated that she told the I.O. that she and her daughter Rabimala (P.W. 3) had followed her husband upto the Kamalnagar High School. The said contradictory statement, given by the P.W. 6, at two different stages, raises doubt as to whether she, along with her daughters and son, had followed the deceased to the Kamalnagar High school, i.e. the place of occurrence. From her cross-examination, it is found, that P.W. 6 was examined by the I.O. after about 3/4 days from the date of occurrence. This witness further stated that the house of Arun Debbarma (D.W. 1) was situated in the northern side of her house and that the house of Shambhu Debbarma was in the western side while the house of Jahar Debbarma (D.W. 2) was situated in the eastern side of her house. From the evidence of this witness, it transpires that at the time of taking her husband by the accused persons, in the alleged way, she and her daughter Rabimala (P.W. 3) followed him, crying. According to P.W. 4 Laxmirani, she was informed by her younger sister about the taking of their father. P.W. 6 did not state that anyone of her daughters had gone to inform the said P.W. 4, P.W. 3 who, was the sister of P.W. 4, also did not state that she had informed her sister (P.W. 4) about the occurrence. Rather, P.W. 3 contradicted, the statement of P.W. 4, by stating that, at the time of taking their father by the accused persons, she, her mother (P.W. 6), her sister (P.W. 4) and her brother Jitendra Debbarma (P.W. 8) were present in their house and that they followed their father. Rather, P.W. 3 contradicted, the statement of P.W. 4, by stating that, at the time of taking their father by the accused persons, she, her mother (P.W. 6), her sister (P.W. 4) and her brother Jitendra Debbarma (P.W. 8) were present in their house and that they followed their father. This evidence of P.W. 3, belies the evidence of P.W. 4 that the P.W. 4 was informed by her sister about the occurrence and also the evidence of the P.W. 6 that her daughter and the son i.e. P.W. 4 and P.W. 8 had joined them. According to P.W. 3, all of the said four witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 3, 4, 6 and 8 were present at the time of arrival of the accused persons in their house. But according to P.W. 4 she had gone to collect firewood and she was informed by her sister about the taking of her father and on being so informed she had rushed home, whereas according to P.W. 6, the deceased "and her daughter (Rabimala) P.W. 3 were present at home at the time of arrival of the accused persons in their house. According to P.W. 6, both the P.Ws. 4 and 8 joined them later on. Therefore, in view of the above material contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 6 and 4, regarding their presence at the time of occurrence, it is doubtful if they were present at the time of alleged taking of the deceased by the accused persons. P.W. 4, in her in-chief examination, clearly stated "we went to the place where my father was found lying dead. Nobody else except we people came there." This statement of P.W. 4 clearly indicates that the said witnesses arrived in the place of occurrence after the death of the deceased, which implies that they did not see the occurrence i.e. causing death or assault by the accused persons. Therefore, it is doubtful as to whether the P.Ws. 3, 4, 6 and 8 had followed the deceased and witnessed the occurrence themselves. This doubt is fortified by the failure of the P.W. 4, P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 to support the evidence of P.W. 3 that she and her mother (P.W. 6) were also assaulted by accused Mannan Mia, Cifan Miah and Jagabandhu. 14. P.W. 7 was the Medical Officer who performed the post mortem examination. This doubt is fortified by the failure of the P.W. 4, P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 to support the evidence of P.W. 3 that she and her mother (P.W. 6) were also assaulted by accused Mannan Mia, Cifan Miah and Jagabandhu. 14. P.W. 7 was the Medical Officer who performed the post mortem examination. He found the following injuries on the persons of the deceased 1) A clean/contused lacerated wound measuring 1 inch x 1/4 inch x 1/4 inch x 1/4 inch on the forehead over the right eye brow. 2) A contused lacerated would measuring 1 inch x 1/4 inch x 1/4 inch on the left elbow, lateral side. 3) A contused lacerated wound measuring 2 inch X 1 inch x 2 inch on the occipital region with brain matter coming out through the injury side. In the opinion of the said Medical Officer, the cause of death was the injury in respect of the brain i.e. in occipital region caused by hard and blunt object, which was homicidal in nature. That the deceased died due to the said injuries is not disputed. Hence, the death of the deceased is an admitted fact. 15. Sri Jitendra Debbarma, son of the deceased, deposing as P.W. 8, stated that, when he was working in the jungle, near his house, he heard his sister calling her elder sister Laxmibala informing her that their father was being taken away forcibly. On being so informed, as stated by P.W. 8, he ran home and saw the accused persons, namely, Mannan Mia, Hannan Mia, Jagabandhu Debbarma, Hiralal Debbarma, Birendra Debbarma, Swapan Debbarma, Shah Alam, Bimal Debbarma, Khojcan Debbarma, Cifan Mia, Prantosh Paul, Ajit Mia and many Ors. taking his Mier towards the Kamalnagar High School. Though the P.W. 8 stated that he came to know from his sister about the taking of his father by the accused persons, from his cross-examination, it is found that he did not tell the I.O. about receipt of such information from his younger sister. He further stated that he had told the I.O. that at about 10.30 am, he heard from the people that his father was taken away by the accused persons. This statement of P.W. 8 contradicted his earlier statement that he came to know about the occurrence from his sister. He further stated that he had told the I.O. that at about 10.30 am, he heard from the people that his father was taken away by the accused persons. This statement of P.W. 8 contradicted his earlier statement that he came to know about the occurrence from his sister. It is also found from his cross-examination, that he did not state before the police that accused Hannan Mia had given a dao blow on the left hand of the deceased that Mannan Mia had hit his father on the hands and that Jaigya gave a blow with a spade on the back side of his father's head. Therefore, the evidence of this witness regarding the assault caused by the said accused, in the alleged way, appears to be development of his initial statement, made under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. He also stated that he had told the police' that he found the accused Bimal, Shah Alam, Khokan, Cifan and Prantosh taking his father. If this statement of P.W. 8 is believed then his statement given on oath that he saw the accused Jagabandhu, Hiralal, Swapan, Ajit also taking his father cannot be believed. This contradiction, noticed in the evidence of P.W. 8, in our considered opinion is a vital contradiction raising doubt about the truthfulness of his evidence. From the evidence on record, it has been found that the place of occurrence was situated at the distance of one kilometre from the house of the deceased. The P.W. 8 did not state that he had followed the accused persons or his father to the place of occurrence. Therefore, it is doubtful as to how he could see the accused persons assaulting his father and thereby causing his death. Neither P.W. 4, nor P.W. 3, (both are sisters of P.W. 8), stated that P.W. 8 came home, on being informed by either of them. Therefore, there is no corroboration in the evidence of P.W. 8 to believe that he was informed by one of his sisters, facilitating his arrival at their house to see his father being taken by the accused. Hence, it is not safe to believe that the P.W. 8 could see the occurrence. 16. P.W. 9 was a photographer, who took some photographs of the deceased. 17. P.W. 10 was a formal witness, who had filled up the FIR form. 18. Hence, it is not safe to believe that the P.W. 8 could see the occurrence. 16. P.W. 9 was a photographer, who took some photographs of the deceased. 17. P.W. 10 was a formal witness, who had filled up the FIR form. 18. P.W. 11 was tendered by the prosecution, but his cross-examination was declined. 19. Sri Chandrasree Debbarma P.W. 12, who was a neighbourer of the deceased, was examined as P.W. 12. He stated that, on the date of occurrence at about 10.30 am, while he was at her residence, hearing hue and cry, he came out and saw the deceased being taken away by the accused persons and that he along with the relatives of the deceased went to the Kamalnagar High School, where the deceased was found lying dead. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that he along with the relatives of the deceased i.e. wife, daughters and son of the deceased went to the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying dead. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 12 implies that, before the arrival of P.W. 2 and other relatives of the deceased, the deceased was already killed. This witness, who accompanied the said relatives of the deceased, nowhere stated regarding the assault made by the accused persons. Thus, he failed to lend corroboration in favour of the evidence of P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 on material point. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W. 12, it appears that neither P.W. 12 nor the said relatives of the deceased i.e. P.Ws. 3,4,6 and 8 could see the assault, alleged to be made by the accused persons, causing the death of the deceased. 20. Sri Jiban Debbarma was tendered by the prosecution as P.W. 13. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that his house was adjacent to the house of the deceased and that there were 4/5 other houses near the house of the deceased. He further stated that there were about fifty houses on both sides of the road, situated in between the house and the deceased and the Kamalnagar High School. According to P.W. 5 Dhirendra Debbarma, he along with Jiban Debbarma (13) and Jyotish Debbarma (P.W. 14) were taking bath and they saw the accused persons taking the deceased. But P.W. 13 did not state anything regarding the taking of the deceased by the accused persons. According to P.W. 5 Dhirendra Debbarma, he along with Jiban Debbarma (13) and Jyotish Debbarma (P.W. 14) were taking bath and they saw the accused persons taking the deceased. But P.W. 13 did not state anything regarding the taking of the deceased by the accused persons. He clearly stated that he did not meet the deceased on the date of occurrence. Therefore, we find it doubtful as to whether P.W. 5 saw the accused persons taking the deceased. Though P.W. 3 stated that there was no house in between the place of occurrence and the house of the deceased, P.W. 13 belied the said statement of the P.W. 3 by saying that there were about 50 houses, in between. Therefore, in view of the said contradiction, on material point, we find it difficult to believe P.W. 3 for suppression of such material fact. 21. Mr. Jyotish Debbarma, deposing as P.W. 14, stated that he did not know if the deceased was murdered. This witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. 22. The Investigating officer was examined as P.W. 15. In his cross-examination, on being asked, the I.O. stated that there is no explanation in the case diary as to why the statement of P.W. 6 was not recorded on the date of occurrence itself or till 9.4.06. From the above evidence of the Investigating Officer, in spite of getting an opportunity, it appears that the Investigating officer failed to explain as to why the said statement of the said witness was not recorded immediately. It is found that the statement of the P.W. 6 was recorded on 9.4.06, but the occurrence took place on 3.4.06. Therefore, there was sufficient delay in examination of P.W. 6. This delay in examining the said witness, not being explained by the Investigating Officer, raises doubt about the veracity of the statement made by the said witness. 23. Carefully considering the evidence of P.W. Nos. 3, 12 and 14, as discussed above, it is found that the said witnesses, i.e. P.W. Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 8 arrived at the place of occurrence after the occurrence i.e. after the death of the deceased. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that they saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased. Carefully considering the evidence of P.W. Nos. 3, 12 and 14, as discussed above, it is found that the said witnesses, i.e. P.W. Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 8 arrived at the place of occurrence after the occurrence i.e. after the death of the deceased. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that they saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased. That apart, though the P.W. 3 stated that the accused persons had assaulted her and her mother, none of the other witnesses, including the P.W. 6, herself supported P.W. 3's evidence in this regard. In our considered opinion, if P.W. 6 and P.W. 3 were assaulted by the accused persons, P.W. 3 should have been supported by the said witnesses, more particularly by P.W. 6. Thus, all of the said vital witnesses contradicted each other's evidence, on material point, raising doubt about the very presence of the said witnesses at the time of occurrence in the place of occurrence. Another important aspect of the matter is that the wife of the deceased made an oral complaint before the Investigating officer after meeting him in the place of occurrence on the very day of occurrence and the said complaint was recorded and treated as an FIR, which was exhibited as Exbt. 5. In the said Exbt. No. 5, except the names of six of the accused persons, the names of other accused persons were not mentioned. Even the names of Hannan Mia, who was alleged to have assaulted the deceased, was not mentioned. In the Exbt. No. 5, it was stated that the accused persons had taken the deceased to the Police Station. That apart, the role played by the accused persons, i.e. in assaulting the deceased, was not mentioned in the said written complaint Exbt. 5, being the statement made by the informant, at the first point of time, should have contained names of all the accused persons and the role played by the accused persons in assaulting the deceased. That apart, the same is silent about the presence of the witnesses at the time of the occurrence. If the witnesses, more particularly the said informant (P.W. 6) had seen Hannan Mia assaulting the deceased, there was no reason not to mention his name in the Exbt. 5. Therefore, failure to mention the name of one of the main accused persons, namely, Hannan Mia along with Ors. If the witnesses, more particularly the said informant (P.W. 6) had seen Hannan Mia assaulting the deceased, there was no reason not to mention his name in the Exbt. 5. Therefore, failure to mention the name of one of the main accused persons, namely, Hannan Mia along with Ors. and also the role played by the accused persons in assaulting the accused persons raise doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story itself As per Exbt. 5, the deceased was taken to the police station, whereas according to P.W. 3, the deceased was taken to the office of the CPM for the purpose of attending a meeting. Contradicting the said statement of P.W. 3, P.W. 6 stated that her husband i.e. the deceased was asked by the accused persons to go to the Panchayat office for some meeting. In our considered opinion, the said contradictory statements, on material point, raise doubt about the evidence of the said witnesses. If the said persons were present at the time of taking the deceased by the accused persons there should not have been such contradiction in their evidence regarding the place of to which the deceased was being taken. Therefore, we do not find it safe to believe that the said witnesses could see the accused persons taking the deceased from his house. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses aforesaid has been negated by the D.W. 1 and D.W. 2. 24. D.W. 1 Arun Debbarma was a neighbourer of the deceased. He stated that, at about 10.30 am, Smt. Kumari Debbarma (P.W. 6) went to his office and informed that her (P.W. 6) husband was killed. On being so informed, as stated by D.W. 1, he accompanied her to the Kamalnagar school and found the dead body of the deceased, lying therein. He clearly staled that, at the time of his arrival, no other persons were present in the said place of occurrence. This witness further stated, that alarm being raised, the nearby people, including the sons and daughters of the deceased had arrived there. He clearly stated that neither P.W. 6, nor her sons and daughters told him as to who had killed the deceased. This witness was duly cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. No contradiction was elicited to render his evidence unbelievable. He clearly stated that neither P.W. 6, nor her sons and daughters told him as to who had killed the deceased. This witness was duly cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. No contradiction was elicited to render his evidence unbelievable. We find no reason to hold that this witness, being an independent one, would have falsely deposed on oath. 25. D.W. 2 Jaharlal Debbarma was the Vice President of Gaon Sabha and brother-in-law of the deceased. His house was situated on the western boundary of the deceased. He stated that at about 10.30 am, while he was in his residence, he heard Kumari Debbarma crying that her husband was killed and on being so informed, he went to the Kamalnagar High School and found the dead body of the deceased lying near the road. He also stated that Sri Arun Debbarma (D.W. 1) also joined them on being informed by the wife of the deceased, and that no other persons were present at that time in the place of occurrence. He further stated that the sons and daughters of the deceased had arrived at the place of occurrence after about thirty minutes. This witness further stated that the wife of the deceased and their sons and daughters did not tell him as to who had killed the deceased. D.W. 2 was also duly cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. He denied the suggestion that he and D.W. 1 did not reach the place of occurrence at about 10.30 am. During the cross-examination of the witnesses, nothing could be brought out to disbelieve him. Hence, his evidence could not be demolished. He being a neighbourer that too brother-in-law of the deceased, we find no reason to reject his evidence. 26. Carefully perusing the evidence of D.W. 1 and D.W. 2, more particularly the evidence of D.W. 2, who was a relative of the deceased, we find that the wife of the deceased and the D.Ws. 1 and 2 were first persons to see the dead body of the deceased and that they were followed by the son and the two daughters of the deceased. Considering the contradictory evidence given by the P.Ws. 3, 4, 6 and 8, as indicated above, coupled with the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2, we do not find it safe to believe that P.Ws. Considering the contradictory evidence given by the P.Ws. 3, 4, 6 and 8, as indicated above, coupled with the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2, we do not find it safe to believe that P.Ws. 3, 4, 6 and 8, who were the daughters, wife and son of the deceased respectively could see the accused persons assaulting the deceased as alleged by them. That apart, the other accused persons who were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC were acquitted by the learned trial Judge on benefit of doubt. 27. In the case of Sukhram (supra), the Appellant and Gokul were charged under Sections302/436/34 IPC. Both of them were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentences awarded to the Appellant, but gave benefit of doubt to the accused Gokul and acquitted him of both the charges. The Appellant preferred the appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court confirming the conviction and sentence awarded to him. On appeal, against the said conviction, the Supreme Court allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the Appellant, observed as follows: There is Anr. aspect of the matter which has also escaped the notice of the High Court when it sustained the conviction of the Appellant under Section302 read with Section 34 and Section 436 read with Section 34 IPC while acquitting accused Gokul of those charges. Though the accused Gokul and the Appellant were individually charged under Sections 302 and 436 IPC, they were convicted only under the alternative charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 436 read with Section 34 IPC by the Sessions Judge. Consequently, the Appellant's convictions can be sustained only if the High Court had sustained the convictions awarded to accused Gokul also. Inasmuch, as the High Court has given the benefit of doubt to accused Gokul and acquitted, it follows that the Appellant's convictions for the two substantive offences read with Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained because this is case where the co-accused is a named person and he has been acquitted and by reason of it the Appellant cannot be held to have acted conjointly with anyone in the commission of the offences. The position of law is well settled by this Court and we may only refer to a few decisions in this behalf vide Prabhu Babaji v. State of Bombay AIR 1956 SC 51 ; Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra (1964) 1 SCR 678 : AIR 1963 SC 1413 and Baul v. State of U.P (1968) 2 SCR 450 : AIR 1968 SC 728 . It, therefore, follows that even if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses did not suffer from any infirmity, the acquittal of the other named accused Gokul would stand in the way of the Appellant being convicted constructively under Section 34 IPC for the substantive offences under Section 302and Section 436 IPC. 28. In the light of above principle of law laid down by the Apex Court, in our present case, as the other accused persons, who were also tried along with the present Appellants for the offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC, were acquitted by the learned trial Judge on benefit of doubt, the Appellants are also entitled to get the same benefit of doubt. Therefore, the conviction and the sentence recorded against the present Appellants on the basis of the same set of evidence cannot stand. It is settled law that in a criminal case, the prosecution is required to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. In the event of existence of two inferences one going in favour of the accused persons and the other in favour of the prosecution, the benefit should always be given to the accused persons. 29. In view of the above, considering the entire evidence on record, we are constrained to hold that it is doubtful as to whether the said witnesses had, in fact, seen the occurrence themselves and therefore, the prosecution could not prove the allegation, brought against the Appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, Appellants are entitled to be acquitted on benefit of doubt. 30. In the light of the above discussion, we find sufficient merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, impugned conviction and sentence recorded against the Appellants, are set aside and quashed. The Appellants be set at liberty forthwith from the liability of this case. 31. Send down the lower Court records. Appeal allowed.