JUDGMENT Talukdar, J. 1. IN a Mid Summer Evening of June 21st, 2004, the otherwise unobtrusive and the quiet hamlet of Baruipara in the District of Nadia and a less traversed brick laid pathway riveted the entire neighbourhood upon discovery of the mortal remains of Arshed Ali Mondal @ Lalu, who was found with injuries as noticed by the Autopsy Surgeon, P.W.20, Dr. Ajit Kr. Biswas, Medical Officer attached to Nadia District Hospital. 2. Fastened with the implication of the said murder of Lalu, the present respondents were placed in the array of accused persons in Sessions Trial No. 1 (June), 2005 to answer the following Charge: First-That you, on or about the 21st day of June, 2004at Baripur near the house of Suklal Sk. under P.S. Tehatta in furtherance of common intention did commit murder intentionally causing the death of Arsed @ Lalu Mondal and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance," Secondly--That you, on or about the same day and at the same place were a member of an unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of the common object of such assembly commit murders Intentionally causing the death of Arshed @ Lalu Mondal, commit the offence of rioting with deadly weapons to wit ram dao etc. and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance. Thirdly-That you with others on or about the 29th day of May, 2004 and before and after that date at Baruipara under P.S. Tehatta, agreed to do an illegal act to wit to commit murder of Arshed @, Lalu Mondal by illegal means and the same act of murder was done in pursuance of such agreement and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance." Fortune ultimately smiled when they were absolved of all the aforesaid Charges before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court Krishnagar(hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Trial Court') by virtue of the Judgment and Order under Appeal dated 24/05/2007. 3. THE State of West Bengal, doubting the correctness of the impugned Order of acquittal, has carried the same in Appeal. 4. 3. THE State of West Bengal, doubting the correctness of the impugned Order of acquittal, has carried the same in Appeal. 4. THERE are some well-settled parameters guiding the field of Appeal against acquittal by virtue of several pronouncement of the Apex Court and the various High Courts. Very recently, the Supreme Court in M. C. All and Anr. v. State of Kerala, (2010)2 C Cr LR (SC) 220 has fructified the position in Paragraph 44 of the said decision wherein it was held : ".................it becomes evidence that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal. The acquittal re-enforces and reaffirms the presumption of Innocence of the accused." On the anvil of the same and keeping in mind that the presumption of innocence fortifies in favour of the Respondent, who has earned an Order of acquittal, we would be required to see as to whether the Order under Appeal passes the Litmus test. 5. PRIOR to our foray in the why and why nots of the consortium of submissions made at the Bar, we feel a synoptical resume of the bundle of reasons, which have weighed in the mind of the learned trial Court to arrive at the impugned conclusion, are required to be gleaned. A) This is a case under Section 302, I.P.C, and admittedly the two sides belong to two political parties namely C.P.I.M. and S.U.C.I. It is also evident that number of cases are pending in which some of the important witnesses in this case are also accused persons. B) The evidence, as discussed above, suffers from infirmities and is not at all convincing to be relied upon." C) "As alleged, the time of murder is 6-30/6-45 P.M. The date is 21.6.2004,6th of Ashar according to Bengali calendar 22nd June is the longest day of the year. It was not a rainy day. Sun sets on that day at about 6-20/6-22 P.M. As such even at 6-30 P.M. a dim light exists and it does not become dark. The witnesses deposed in such a way that at the time of alleged murder the out side was in the thick darkness. It cannot be so dark at about 6-30 P.M. in the open area of the village, such as on the Bank of big pond. The witnesses deposed in such a way that at the time of alleged murder the out side was in the thick darkness. It cannot be so dark at about 6-30 P.M. in the open area of the village, such as on the Bank of big pond. Question of flashing of torch to recognize a person fleeing away a distance of 5 cubits does not arise at such a time. It suggests that the witnesses did not state the truth." D) The timing and place of murder has not been proved. E) Although Deceased Lalu used play card from 5-00 P.M. to 6-00 P.M. his companions Sahijuddin Sk., Gopal Das (master)and Misbaul Hague were not examined including the shopkeeper, where Lalu was last seen. F) Prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.W. 7, Eklashuddin and P. W. 9, Mohid Ali Mondal to bring home the Charge in respect of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. But their evidence that a memorial meeting was held in the local market on the occasion of murder of a S.U.C.I, supporter and in the said meeting Accused Chhadek, Mosafuddin, Saifuddin and Naimuddin declared that the murderers of Odud master, amongst whom Lalu was one of the Accused, would be murdered was not believable as there was no investigation in that direction as to whether any meeting to condole the death of Deceased Odud Master had taken place. G) Failure on the part of the Investigating Officer to send the seized blood stained and controlled earth from the Place of Occurrence for chemical examination and pinpointing the exact Place of Occurrence rendered the entire Prosecution case weak. H) Lastly, the Inquest Report (Ext.6) shows the hands and the legs of the Deceased were mud stained; although, the dead body was found on a brick road, which raises a serious doubt about the exact location of the Incident. 6. FLURRY of points have been presented before us by the Public Prosecutor for upsetting the Order under Appeal, who feels that the same is required to be revisited. He has placed much emphasis on the fact that even if it is true that there existed a political animosity between the Deceased and the Respondents-imply that was not sufficient for giving a clean slate to the Respondents. He has placed much emphasis on the fact that even if it is true that there existed a political animosity between the Deceased and the Respondents-imply that was not sufficient for giving a clean slate to the Respondents. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Place of Occurrence has been proved in the light of the Sketch Map (Ext.11) prepared by P.W.21, Jaharlal Chatterjee, the Investigating Officer and from the same it was reflected that the dead body was spotted by the Eye Witnesses P.W.1, Raihan Mondal, P.W.2, Hafijuddin Mallick and P.W.3, Marfat Ali Mondal as well as the other accompanying witnesses. 7. LEARNED Public Prosecutor on the strength of the same, submitted that once the place of occurrence have been proved and the surrounding evidence has revealed that the Eye Witnesses and the other connected witnesses have seen the Respondents to have fled away from the place of occurrence immediately after Lalu was murdered; if read alongside the evidence of the Eye Witnesses, who have given specific description as to how the throat of the Deceased was slit by Respondent No. 1 and he was shot by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, which have been corroborated by the Medical evidence of P.W.20, Dr. Ajit Kr. Biswas-nothing further remains for the Prosecution to prove. 8. LEARNED Public Prosecutor wondered even if P.W.21, Jaharlal Chatterjee failed to send the blood stained earth seized on the strength of the Seizure List (Ext.1), it hardly affected the credibility of the prosecution case. According to him, the finding of the learned trial Court that the Shopkeeper and other persons, where the Deceased Lalu used to play Cards, had not been examined, did not have any bearing as it was not a case of last seen together. 9. HE also showed from the evidence that delayed examination of the Eye Witnesses did not matter at all, as they have spoken with regard to pith and substance of the Prosecution case, which have been corroborated by the other attending evidence. 10. SUMMING up, learned Public Prosecutor very strongly argued that the Order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, was a result of a complete non appreciation of the evidence and materials on record. 10. SUMMING up, learned Public Prosecutor very strongly argued that the Order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, was a result of a complete non appreciation of the evidence and materials on record. He was of the view that had the learned trial Court taken into notice of the aforesaid features that he has pointed out; definitely another view was possible and on the basis of the same, he has prayed for setting aside the Order of acquittal. 11. MEETING his points, Shri Bagchi for the Respondents sought to discern each of them individually. 12. UPON having heard the submission of Shri Bagchi and accompanying him in the reading of the evidence and the Judgment and Order under Appeal, we find that he has made out the following broad analysis to maintain the Judgment and Order under Appeal. Shri Bagchi at first relied heavily on the fact that although it was not a rainy day, yet the dead body was soaked with mud. Easily, according to Shri Bagchi, it could be decipherable that the dead body, which was found on a brick road, was brought from a place elsewhere, where the murder took place. As such, he was of the view that the Place of Occurrence was shifted. 13. ACCORDING to him, the direction of the injury received by deceased Lalu, as shown from the ocular evidence of P.W. 1, Raihan Mondal, P.W.2, Hafijuddin Mallick and P.W.3, Marfat Ali Mondal, runs contrary to the finding of the Autopsy Surgeon P.W.20, Dr. Ajit Kr. Biswas. 14. HE also submitted that the Inquest Report prepared by P.W.21, Jaharlal Chatterjee did not bear any date and F.I.R. was forwarded to the Court after a much delay. Shri Bagchi argued that if this circumstance, is read with the fact of delayed examination of the Eye Witnesses; the possibility of false implication of the Respondents in the light of the admitted political enmity cannot be ruled out. More so, Shri Bagchi pointed out that P.W.2, Hafijuddin Mallick was an accused in the Odud murder case over the issue of which, the prosecution tried to show that the murder of Deceased Lalu was an act of vengeance as Lalu was also an accused in the said case. 15. More so, Shri Bagchi pointed out that P.W.2, Hafijuddin Mallick was an accused in the Odud murder case over the issue of which, the prosecution tried to show that the murder of Deceased Lalu was an act of vengeance as Lalu was also an accused in the said case. 15. SUMMING up, Shri Bagchi stated that since the witnesses were partisan in nature, their evidence was liable to be disbelieved and as the learned trial Court on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence came to a particular finding-in the absence of any material irregularity, it would not be appropriate to interfere. 16. AS a part of his submission, Shri Bagchi relied upon the decisions of Supreme Court in I) Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008)10 SCC 450 : (2009)1 C Cr LR (SC) 193; II) Shailendra Pratap and Anr. v. State ofU.P., (2003)1 SCC 761 . Ill) Md. Ankoos and Ors. v. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. reported in (2009)7 Supreme 231 and IV) The State of Punjab v. Tarlok Singh, 1971 Cr LJ 1063 to illustrate his point that unless and until there is some palpable illegality in the Order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, the Appeal Court should not normally interfere. He also referred to the decision of Supreme Court in Bhimappa Jinappa Naganur v. State of Kamataka, 1993 Cr LJ 1801 in support of his point that as undigested rice was found by the Autopsy Surgeon, P.W.20, Dr. Ajit Kr. Biswas in the stomach of the deceased, it was not believable that the deceased died in the evening. 17. HE referred to the decisions of Apex Court in Sevi and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1981 Cr LJ 736 and Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel v. Navnitbhai Nathubhal Patel and Ors. reported in 2004 SCC (Cr) 2032 on the point of delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Court and consequent chance of concoction in the same including delayed examination of the witnesses. 18. IN order to have a whole hog of the matter it would be profitable for us to at first advert to the array of witnesses adduced by the prosecution in their respective heads. P.W.1, Raihan Mondal, P.W.2, Hafijuddin Mallick and P.W.3, Marfat AN Mondal were Eye Witnesses. 19. 18. IN order to have a whole hog of the matter it would be profitable for us to at first advert to the array of witnesses adduced by the prosecution in their respective heads. P.W.1, Raihan Mondal, P.W.2, Hafijuddin Mallick and P.W.3, Marfat AN Mondal were Eye Witnesses. 19. P.W.7, Eklasuddin and P.W.13, Bablu Mondal were the witnesses, who spoke about the incident that after having heard the sound of firing and on going to the spot they saw the dead body of Lalu with his throat cut open. P.W.13, Bablu Mondal deposed that with the help of a torch, he recognized the Respondent No. 16,17 and 19 running away towards the field. Thereafter, he saw the Eye Witnesses were weeping at the spot. 20. P.W.7, Eklasuddin also corroborated P.W.13, Bablu Mondal and found Respondent Nos. 18, 20 and 21 running away. He also found P.W.1, Raihan Mondal, who told him that his Elder Brother was murdered by Respondent Nos. 1,2,3,9,11,13,14 and Respondent No. 8. Next, we have the evidence of Autopsy Surgeon P.W.20, Dr. Ajit Kr. Biswas, Medical Officer of the Sadar Hospital, Nadia. According to Dr.. Biswas ".......death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the Injuries" he noted. He found sharp cut injury on the left side of the right neck and also gun shot injuries. 21. P.W.21, Jaharlal Chatterjee, Investigating Officer, after conclusion of the investigation, filed the Charge Sheet. 22. P.W.14, Ashish Kr. Mukherjee, Judicial Magistrate, recorded the Statement (Ext.4 and 5) of P.W.7, Eklasuddin and P.W.13, Bablu Mondal under Section 164, Cr.P.C. P.W.4, Buchi Bibi, P.W.5, Maijuddin Sk. and P.W.6, Moazzem Hossain however, turned hostile. But P.W.4, Buchi Bibi and P.W.6, Moazzem Hossain saw the dead body on the road. P.W.4, Buchi Bibi also noticed that a cycle (Mat. Ext. 11) was lying on the road. 23. P.W.6, Moazzem Hossain found P.W.1, Raihan Mondal and P.W.12, Tarifa Begum present at the spot. 24. P.W.5, Maijuddin Sk. deposed with regard to the deceased playing cards with him till 4-30 P.M. P.W. 8, Samsun Nahar, the widow of the deceased, upon hearing the news of murder of her Husband, went to the Place of Occurrence and saw that his throat slit and bullet injuries in his chest. She heard from the Eye Witnesses that Respondent No. 1 cut the throat of her Husband with a Ramda while Respondent Nos. She heard from the Eye Witnesses that Respondent No. 1 cut the throat of her Husband with a Ramda while Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shot at him. They also named Respondent No. 7 and 15. 25. THEREAFTER, P.W.9, Mohid Ali Mondal saw the deceased alive for the last time after he rode away on his Bi-Cycle(Mat. Ext. II). He stated after hearing the news of the murder of Lalu, he went to the Place of Occurrence and saw the dead body with injuries on his throat and bullet on his chest. P.W. 3, Marfat Ali Mondal told him that Respondent No. 1 struck him with a Ramda and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 fired upon him from their firearms. 26. P.W.10, Kalam Mallick also stated that the dead body was lying in front of the house of one Kalam Molla. P.W. 11 Sahamina Bibi was simply tendered. 27. P.W. 12, Tarifa Begum, whose presence was spoken by another hostile witness P.W. 6, Moazzem Hossain, after hearing the news of firing came to the spot and rushed towards the house of Kalam Molla, where she saw the dead body of Lalu with his throat cut open and bullet injuries on his left. 28. SHE found the Eye Witnesses weeping and on her query they disclosed the name of Respondent No. 14, Respondent No.3, Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 12, Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 15 and 10. P.W. 15. Majid Sk. also being attracted by the sound of firing, came to the Place of Occurrence and saw Respondent Nos. 16,17 and 19 running away and recognized them in the light of his torch and also saw the dead body in front of the house of one Suklal. 29. P.W. 16, Mijanur Mallick, was also a witness in the same nature of P.W. 15, Majid Sk. on being attracted by the sound of firing he came and found Respondent No. 16 and 9 and also saw the dead body on the road. In his cross examination he admitted that he is an accused in the Odud murder case and also implicated in the Jibai murder case. 30. P.W.17, Bana Mondal, was the son of deceased Dilwar, who proved the Signature of his Father in the Written Complaint (Ext. 6) as a scribe and the Seizure List (Ext.2) including the Inquest Report (Ext.7). P.W.18, Sukurulla Sk. 30. P.W.17, Bana Mondal, was the son of deceased Dilwar, who proved the Signature of his Father in the Written Complaint (Ext. 6) as a scribe and the Seizure List (Ext.2) including the Inquest Report (Ext.7). P.W.18, Sukurulla Sk. was tendered by the prosecution and in cross examination by the defence he admitted that he was an accused in the Odud murder case. 31. P.W.19, Mahadeb Biswas, was a staff of the Sadar Hospital, Krishnagar. He proved the Register (Ext. 8) containing the fact of Post Mortem Examination held by P.W.20, Dr. Ajit Kr. Biswas. 32. P.W.21, Jaharlal Chatterjee, upon being entrusted with investigation, went to the Place of Occurrence, which he described as a village road near the house of Kalam Molla and from the Place of Occurrence he seized an old Bi-Cycle, a pair of black chappal stained with mud, hawai chappal also stained with mud and some blood stained earth on the strength of a Seizure List (Ext. 1) signed by P.W.2, Hafijuddin Mondal and P.W.3, Marfat Ali Mondal. He also held Inquest (Ext.7) on the dead body of deceased Lalu. The Sketch Map, which was marked Ext. 11, was also prepared by him. Thereafter, on completion of his investigation, he submitted Charge Sheet. 33. WE will now see as to whether we can break bread with either the learned Public Prosecutor or Shri Bagchi in the silhouette of their respective submission. 34. THE Plenary Powers vested upon us in terms of Section 386 subsection (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, throws a very long and wide sweep, where we have the power to reverse such order and direct that further inquiry be made, or that the accused be re-tried or committed for trial, as the case may be, or find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law. In other words, such powers are wide and extensive. Just as in an appeal directed against an Order of Conviction, we can reassess the evidence; similarly, as a First Court of Appeal directed against an Order of acquittal, we possess the same power. 35. THE traditional concept is that when two views are possible while hearing an appeal against an Order of acquittal, the Court should not adopt the other one by way of substituting its own reasoning. 35. THE traditional concept is that when two views are possible while hearing an appeal against an Order of acquittal, the Court should not adopt the other one by way of substituting its own reasoning. Credence should also be given to the finding of the trial Court, which had the benefit of watching the demeanor of the witnesses. 36. IT is equally a trite position of Law that unless the Order of acquittal is either perverse or suffers from any manifest illegality and a possible view is available the Court of Appeal in an Order against acquittal should be the slowest in interfering with the same. [SEE::1) Luna Ram v. Bhupat Singh, (2009)3 SCC 749 and 2) Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra, (2009)2 SCC (Cr)464]. It is also now equally a well-established principle of Law that the presumption of innocence is strengthened by the Order of acquittal and in the absence of compelling and substantial reasons, the same should not be upset. [See also: State of Punjab v. Karnal Singh, (2003)11 SCC 271 ]. 37. IN the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, (2007)3 SCC 755 : (2007)2 C Cr LR (SC) 131 the Supreme Court has laid down the principles that while hearing an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court can review the evidenced and interfere with the Order of acquittal only if the approach of the Lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the decision is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of Law and ignored the material evidence on Record. 38. THE Supreme Court in the said decision further reiterated the principle that mere possibility of two views would not be a ground for moving the Appellate Court, which would upset the decision of the Court below. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the decision of State Through SPE and CBI, Andhra Pradesh w. M. Krishnamohan and Anr., (2007)14 SCC 667 , dealing with an Appeal against acquittal also dealt with the theory of two views. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the decision of State Through SPE and CBI, Andhra Pradesh w. M. Krishnamohan and Anr., (2007)14 SCC 667 , dealing with an Appeal against acquittal also dealt with the theory of two views. It held : although Appellate Court ordinarily would not interfere with the finding of acquittal where both views are possible, but at the same time the Appellate Court is also entitled to consider the evidence brought on record by both, Prosecution and Defence and if on appraisal thereof, only one view is possible, certainly, the Appellate Court shall not hesitate to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. 39. IT further held in the said decision that presumption of innocence is a human right and when an accused is acquitted by a Court, such presumption becomes stronger. 40. WHILE assessing an Order of acquittal in exercise of our power vested under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, our primary concern should be to prevent miscarriage of Justice. The Court, in exercise of its Appellate power, can review the evidence and interfere with an Order of acquittal for compelling reasons such as where admissible evidence has been unreasonably and unjustifiably ignored. {See: Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal, 2004 SCC (Cr) 220 : 2004 C Cr LR (SC) 106]. In such trajectory, we would enter into the discussion so as to see as to whether the Order under appeal pass Muster. 41. THE prosecution has examined altogether twenty one witnesses. THEy are required to be seen in their respective segments. 42. AT first we would advert to the deposition of the Eye Witnesses (P.W.1, Raihan Mondal, P.W.2, Hafijuddin Mallick and P.W.3, Marfat Ali Mondal). P.W.1, Raihan Mondal happens to be the younger brother of deceased Lalu. He is the Author of the Written Complaint (Ext.6) scribed by deceased Dilwar, which was treated as the formal F.I.R.(Ext. 12). His version shows that he was accompanying his deceased brother, who was on a Bi-Cycle and after reaching an intersection, the deceased told him to go ahead and he took a different route. 43. SOON thereafter, he heard a cry "save me, I am being killed". Attracted by the same, he went to the place and flashing his Torch light (Mat. Ext. 43. SOON thereafter, he heard a cry "save me, I am being killed". Attracted by the same, he went to the place and flashing his Torch light (Mat. Ext. i) he found Respondent No. 1 slitting the throat of his elder brother with a Ramda and Respondent No. 3 and 2 firing from their fire arms. He also noticed the presence of Respondent No. 4, Respondent No. 9, Respondent No. 11, Respondent No.6, Respondent No. 12, Respondent No. 14, Respondent No. 15, Respondent No. 8, Respondent No. 13 and others. Deceased Lalu died at the spot. 44. P.W.2, Hafijuddin Mallick, another Eye Witness, substantially corroborates P.W.1, Raihan Mondal. He was also accompanying both deceased Lalu and after they parted with each other, he heard an alarm and rushed to the said direction and saw on the flash of his Torch light that Respondent No. 1 was cutting the neck of Lalu with a Ramda. There were 20/22 persons, who were present armed with deadly weapons. He also deposed that Respondent No. 3 and 2 were armed with fire arms so also the others. He could recognize apart from Respondent Nos. 3 and 2, Respondent No.8, Respondent No.9, Respondent No. 15, Respondent No.4, Respondent No.6, Respondent No.5, Respondent No. 12, Respondent No. 14 and Respondent No. 13. 45. THIS would now bring us to the other Eye Witness. He is P.W.3, Marfat Ali Mondal. His evidence corroborates the other Eye Witnesses. According to him, after they parted with the Deceased, he heard a sound of fire and alarm. After flashing his Torch light he found Respondent No. 1 assaulting the Deceased by Ramda on his left shoulder while Respondent Nos. 3 and 2 were armed with fire arms. He could recognize Respondent No.3, Respondent No.1, Respondent No.2, Respondent No.5, Respondent No. 13, Respondent No.6, Respondent. No. 15, Respondent No. 14, Respondent No. 13, Respondent No.8, Respondent No.9, and Respondent No. 12 46. THE Inquest Report (Ext.7) prepared by P.W.21, Jaharlal Chatterjee, the Investigating Officer shows that P. W. 18, Sukurulla Sk. Late Father of P. W. 17, Bana Mondal and others were signatories to the same. But mysteriously enough it did not contain any date. The incident took place at about 7-00 p.m. in the evening of 21/06/ 2004 whereas, the F.I.R. (Ext.7) was lodged at abouL00-30Hrs. of 22.06.2004. Late Father of P. W. 17, Bana Mondal and others were signatories to the same. But mysteriously enough it did not contain any date. The incident took place at about 7-00 p.m. in the evening of 21/06/ 2004 whereas, the F.I.R. (Ext.7) was lodged at abouL00-30Hrs. of 22.06.2004. All the Eye Witnesses were examined by the Investigating Officer P.W.21, Jaharlal Chatterjee on 23/06/2004. Shri Bagchi is quite right in his submission that at the very first blush after the incident, the Eye Witnesses had a scope for interaction with the Investigating Agency. Yet, nothing was spelt out in the direction of the allegations, which they have poured later on. This is evident from the Seizure List(Ext. 1), which was prepared by the Investigating Officer, P.W.21, Jaharlal Chatterjee at about 5-30 to 6-15 Hrs. of 22/06/2004. This related to the seizure from the Place of Occurrence in respect of an old Cycle, some slippers and blood stained earth etc. It was attested by P.W.2, Hafijuddin Mallick and P.W.3, Marfat Ali Mondal, both Eye Witnesses. 47. BUT it is quite intriguing as to why the narration of events was not before the Investigating Agency even after so many hours of the incident. 48. COMPOUNDING the said situation, is the Inquest Report (Ext.7) prepared by P. W.21, Jaharlal Chatterjee. It does not bear the date and time. It was attested amongst others by P.W. 18, Sukurulla Sk. and others. P.W.2, Hafijuddin Mallick was present when the inquest was held by P.W. 21, the Investigating Officer. Here, we will not read silence as a golden rule. This would now bring us to the attending evidence so as to see how far they lend credence to the ocular evidence. 49. P.W.4, Buchi Bibi, P.W.5, Maijuddin Sk. and P.W.6, Moazzem Hossain chose to resile from their earlier version attracting the wrath of Section 154 of the Evidence Act for reasons best known to them. 50. FROM the evidence of P.W.4, Buchi Bibi and P.W.6, Moazzem Hossain we find that the dead body was found on the road. If we refer to the evidence of P.W.8, Samsun Nahar, the widow of the deceased, who came to the place soon after hearing the news of the death of her Husband, saw the mortal remains of her soul mate with his throat slit open and his chest carrying bullet injuries on the road. 51. If we refer to the evidence of P.W.8, Samsun Nahar, the widow of the deceased, who came to the place soon after hearing the news of the death of her Husband, saw the mortal remains of her soul mate with his throat slit open and his chest carrying bullet injuries on the road. 51. P.W.9, Mohid Ali Mondal, who also reached the spot soon after the incident, found Lalu lying on the road with the injuries as noticed by his companion witnesses. 52. P.W. 10, Kalam Mallick also speaks likewise so also P.W. 12, Tarifa Begum, who has been mentioned by P.W. 1, Raihan Mondal. As such, her evidence is of some importance. Let us see what she has stated. She found deceased Lalu with bullet injuries and his throat cut open lying on the road. He saw P.W.1, Raihan Mondah P.W.2, Hafijuddin Mallick and P.W.3, Marfat Ali Mondal were weeping. From them she learnt the names of Respondent No.1, Respondent No.2, Respondent No. 15, Respondent No.13, Respondent No.6, Respondent No.12, Respondent No. 10, Respondent No. 14, Piaruddin, Respondent No.3, Respondent No.5, Respondent No.7, Respondent No.4, Respondent No.9 and Respondent No.8. 53. SHE also deposed having heard that Respondent No.2 opened fire and Respondent No. 1 caused Ramda injury on the throat of the deceased. 54. P.W. 15, Majid Sk. was also a contemporaneous witness, who, after hearing the sound of fire, proceeded to the Place of Occurrence and saw Respondent No. 17, Respondent No. 19 and Respondent No. 16 running away, whom he could recognize in the light of his Torch and later on detected Lalu was lying before the house of one Suklal. P.W.16, Mijanur Mallick fully corroborates P.W. 15, Majid Sk. He recognized Respondent No. 16 and Respondent No. 19 as the persons, who were fleeing away from the Place of Occurrence and subsequently, detected the dead body of the Deceased on the road. 55. P.W.7, Eklasuddin and P.W. 13, Bablu Mondal in the same segment are, however, required to be treated little differentially. P.W.7, Eklasuddin was guarding fish at the bank of his pond. He heard a sound of bursting of cycle tube and saw Ismail Sk.(Respondent No.20), Nurujjaman@ Bapi (Respondent No. 18) and Sajjat Biswas (Respondent No. 19) to run away. He recognised them in the light of his Torch. P.W.7, Eklasuddin was guarding fish at the bank of his pond. He heard a sound of bursting of cycle tube and saw Ismail Sk.(Respondent No.20), Nurujjaman@ Bapi (Respondent No. 18) and Sajjat Biswas (Respondent No. 19) to run away. He recognised them in the light of his Torch. Thereafter being attracted by the sound of crying, he went to the road and found the dead body of Lalu in front of the house of Kalam Molla. 56. FROM P.W.1, Raihan Mondal he came to know that Lalu was murdered by Respondent No. 14, Respondent No.1, Respondent No. 13, Respondent No. 11, Respondent No. 9, Respondent No.2, Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.8. P.W.7, Eklasuddin was an accused in the Jibai Mondal case. Next, we have before us, P.W. 13, Bablu Mondal. He was proceeding towards the house of one Nutu Sk. at the relevant point of time for the purpose of hiring a plough. Hearing a sound of firing he stopped on the way. He saw Respondent No. 17, Respondent No. 19 and Respondent No. 16 moving towards the field and after going to the Place of Occurrence found P.W. 12, Tarifa Begum and P.W.3, Marfat Ali Mondal weeping and saw the dead body of Lalu with his throat slit open on the road. 57. STATEMENTS of P.W.7, Eklasuddin and P.W.13, Bablu Mondal were recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. (Ext.4 and Ext.5) by P.W. 14, Ashis Kr. Mukherjee, learned Judicial Magistrate, Tehatta. 58. FROM a compact analysis of all the witnesses we have discussed in the preceding paragraphs, it would at once be noticed that the dead body was found on a road, which is a pucca road [See: Sketch Map (Ext.Tr)] whereas the hands and legs of the dead body was smeared, with mud. It has been brought out from the evidence that it was not a rainy day. It is also found from the contemporaneous evidence of P.W.15, Majid Sk., P.W. 16, Mijanur Mallick and P.W. 12, Tarifa Begum that so soon thereafter, when they heard the sound of firing, they reached the spot where the dead body was found. 59. THIS is the position, which have also been stoutly reinforced from the evidence of the Eye Witnesses (P.W. 1, Raihan Mondal, P.W.2, Hafijuddin Mallick and P.W.3, Marfat Ali Mondal). 60. AT once the question would arise as to how the dead body contained mud. 59. THIS is the position, which have also been stoutly reinforced from the evidence of the Eye Witnesses (P.W. 1, Raihan Mondal, P.W.2, Hafijuddin Mallick and P.W.3, Marfat Ali Mondal). 60. AT once the question would arise as to how the dead body contained mud. The same was positioned on a brick laid road. The Inquest Report (Ext.7) points to the fact that the hands and legs of the deceased contained mud. As such, it can be easily gathered that the Place of Occurrence has been shifted. Furthermore, the Seizure List(Ext. 1) containing the seizure amongst other items, there was a slipper, which contain some mud. This would require us to travel to the cross examination of P.W. 12, Tarifa Begum again. In her cross examination she said "...............The dead-body was lying on the kancha portion of the brick-soling road." Conversely, she also stated "...............It Is not a fact that during rainy season that portion of the road becomes muddy." Reading together the entire compendium of circumstances leading to the death of Lalu and presence of the amalgamation of the entire set of witnesses being attracted by the cry of deceased Lalu followed by firing of shots, we find that Lalu was riding a Bi-Cycle [SEE: the ocular evidence of P.W.1, Raihan Mondal, P.W.2, Hafijuddin Mallick, P.W.9, Mohid Ali Mondal]. In the event Lalu was made to meet his Maker at the Place of Occurrence designated by the Prosecution on the strength of the Sketch Map (Ext. 11) and through the narration of the witnesses..........both ocular and contemporaneous, we feel in view of the geophysical location of the citus,it was not possible to have mud on the hands of deceased Lalu and his slippers. 61. WE could have understood that Lalu was murdered elsewhere and thereafter his body was thrown on the brick laid road and in the process the same would have been covered with mud. But from the witnesses, which we have noticed, that immediately after the murder they rushed to the spot within perhaps a fraction of second and found that the dead body was lying on the brick road. At once a reasonable conclusion can be formed that the prosecution case in this regard is very much wilted on account of such situation. 62. At once a reasonable conclusion can be formed that the prosecution case in this regard is very much wilted on account of such situation. 62. EVEN the two other witnesses P.W.7, Eklasuddin and P.W.13, Bablu Mondal, whose Statements were recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. by P.W.14, Ashis Kr. Mukherjee, Judicial Magistrate, Tehatta, were also very much categorical in their stand that they saw the dead body of Lalu on the road. Submissions to this effect by Shri Bagchi bears much weight. EVEN at the cost of repetition we must say that if at all, we are to believe that the candle of Lalu's life ebbed out elsewhere and his remains were placed on the brick laid road, then also we cannot reconcile ourselves with the evidence of the Eye Witnesses (P.W.1, Raihan Mondal, P.W.2, Hafijuddin Mallick and P.W.3, Marfat Ali Mondal) as well as the contemporaneous witnesses (P.W.15, Majid Sk., P.W.16, Mijanur Mallick and P.W.12, Tarifa Begum) as because of the fact they are very categorical to the extent that immediately after hearing a cry that someone was being put to death and firing of shots, they rushed to the Place of Occurrence and in their divergent version even spoke about some of the Respondents deserting the Place, whom they could recognize with the help of their Torch light. Although, it was doubted by Shri Bagchi and also found by the learned Trial Court that the day of occurrence being the longest day, darkness could not have descended so soon so as to push the concerned witnesses to resort to Torch light for identifying a person. We need not enter into the meteorological dissection. 63. THE Inquest Report (Ext. 7) does not contain any date. in ordinary circumstances it would have been absolutely of no use. But in the peculiar fact situation of the cobweb of events, which we are tracing in the annuls of the Trial..........we feel this is quite relevant, as the time and place of Occurrence stand disproved. 64. EVEN if it is true that there cannot be an embargo on either the timing of consumption of food or the pattern of food he intakes, the finding of the Autopsy Surgeon, P.W.20, Dr. Ajit Kr. 64. EVEN if it is true that there cannot be an embargo on either the timing of consumption of food or the pattern of food he intakes, the finding of the Autopsy Surgeon, P.W.20, Dr. Ajit Kr. Biswas that he found "................half- digested rice amounting six ounces with no smell"and in his admission in cross examination".........Presence of half- digested rice in the stomach suggests that the death occurred within 3 hours of taking meal" has to be read in tune with the evidence of the widow of Deceased that is P.W.8, Samsun Nahar, who deposed "...............In our village we cook twice In a dav once In the noon at about 11 a.m. and again In the night. We complete our meal in the noon within 12-00 hours. On the relevant day too we completed out lunch within 12-00 noon" In a humdrum situation, these factors car not be governing issues while deciding such question but keeping in mind the fissures in the Prosecution case, we feel that it cannot be brushed aside. The decision relied upon by Shri Bagchi in Bhimappa Jinappa Naganur v. State of Karnataka (supra) has axiomatic application. 65. IT is said that if the Eye Witnesses speak in the same voice in a picture perfect tune, they are termed as parrots. But parrots also sometime disagree when faced with the reality, be it food or otherwise. Here, the parrots P.W.1. Raihan Mondal, P.W.2, Hafijuddin Mallick and P.W.3, Marfat Ali Mondal have sang in three different tunes while naming the Respondents other than Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3, whom the learned Public Prosecutor sought to solely impinge upon. 66. IN our opinion, from a circumspective analysis of the ocular evidence sought to be flourished by the attending evidence of P.W.8, Samsun Nahar, P.W.9, Mohid Ali Mondal, P.W.10, Kalam Mallick, P.W. 11, Sahamina Bibi, P.W.12, Tarifa Begum, P.W. 15, Majid Sk. and P.W.16 Mijanur Malick-we do not feel confident to accept them in a wholesome fashion. Similarly, the reading of the other witnesses (P.W.7, Eklasuddin and P.W. 13, Bablu Mondal) shows that they gave out versions of their witnessing presence of the Respondents in the vicinity of the Place of Occurrence. 67. and P.W.16 Mijanur Malick-we do not feel confident to accept them in a wholesome fashion. Similarly, the reading of the other witnesses (P.W.7, Eklasuddin and P.W. 13, Bablu Mondal) shows that they gave out versions of their witnessing presence of the Respondents in the vicinity of the Place of Occurrence. 67. IT has to be kept in mind that the category of witnesses P.W.8, Samsun Nahar, P.W.9, Mohid Ali Mondal, P.W.10, Kalam Mallick, P.W. 11, Sahamina Bibi, P.W.12, Tarifa Begum, P.W.15, Majid Sk., P.W-16, Mijanur Mallick and P.W.7, Eklasuddin as well as P.W. 13, Bablu Mondal including the ocular evidence of P.W. 1, Raihan Mondal, P.W.2, Hafijuddin Mallick and P.W.3, Marfat Ali Mondal may not come out with an exact Photostat version of each other. Dissimilarities may be apparent. IT is only natural and would go to show that the witnesses are speaking spontaneously with regard to their version of the incident. But as we have seen from the appreciation of the aforesaid witnesses, each of them have given diabolically different names of the concerned Respondents with regard to their presence in the scene of occurrence. 68. EVEN if we calculate an aggregate of all the names of the Respondents and seek to fix their culpability on the basis of such quotient, in our opinion, it would still be unsafe, as because we are of the opinion that there is sharp difference with regard to the narration of the incident and naming the concerned Respondents by the, relevant witnesses, which does not bestow much confidence in the mind of the Court in this regard. Enmity is a double-edged weapon and said to incise both ends. It may be a paradigm for a student of anatomy to assess, which side cuts deep but for a Court of Law, it is sufficient to a remember that even though enmity cut both sides-when the same has been pleaded, due regard in the due process of the situation should be given. Otherwise, chanting the above hackneyed phrase would render Justice without any meaning. 69. THE Central theme of the entire prosecution case rotates around a memorial meeting for condoling the death of one Odud Master, where blood of his killers was asked for. Otherwise, chanting the above hackneyed phrase would render Justice without any meaning. 69. THE Central theme of the entire prosecution case rotates around a memorial meeting for condoling the death of one Odud Master, where blood of his killers was asked for. It is admitted that Odud Master belonged to the political party from which the Respondents belonged, whereas Lalu, who was an Accused in the said case along with P.W.16, Mijanur Mallick, P.W.18, Surulla Sk., P.W. 10, Kalam Mallick and P.W.2, Hafijuddin Mallick belonged to a different political party. 70. IT has been borne out from the evidence of P.W.8, Samsun Nahar, the widow of the deceased Lalu and P.W.9, Mohid Ali Mondal that they had affiliation to a particular political party. Furthermore, we find that P.W.7, Eklasuddin and P.W.10, Kalam Mallick are Accused in connection with a criminal case involving one Jibai Mallick. In his cross examination P.W.3. Marfat Ali Mondal admitted "................ I know the witnesses of this case. All of them are supporters of C.P.I.M. Party." 71. THE situation is porous to such an extent that Eye Witnesses' account, which, even though may not be taken as a Gospel truth, but has great impact before a Court in usual circumstances. But in the particular factual matrix of the present case, we find it hesitant to place any reliance on the same. Although like a bad workman, who always quarrels with his tools, it would not be a taciturn situation for us to carp out the lapses and latches of the Prosecution; on the contrary, it is expected of us to rise above the same and delve at the truth. But even the ocular evidence, which is infested with such high degree of dichotomy, that it would be absolutely unsafe to accept it. 72. IN Shlvappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2009)1 SCC (Cr) 143 the Supreme Court had held: "Minor discrepancies or some Improvements also, IN our opinion, would not Justify rejection of the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, If they are otherwise reliable. Some discrepancies are bound to occur because of the sociological background of the witnesses as also the time gap between the date of occurrence and the date on which they give their depositions IN Court" We could have applied the ratio of the decision of Shlvappa and Ors. Some discrepancies are bound to occur because of the sociological background of the witnesses as also the time gap between the date of occurrence and the date on which they give their depositions IN Court" We could have applied the ratio of the decision of Shlvappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (supra) to embrace the ocular evidence but found that it is so prickly and so incongruous in nature, which went to the extent of being mutually exclusive of each other, we feel it better to ignore the same. 73. LEARNED Public Prosecutor although zeroed on to Respondent No. 1, Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3, as from the ocular evidence their descriptive role in dealing with the assault, is forthcoming, which we find also corroborative from the medico-legal opinion of P.W.20 Dr. Ajit Kr. Biswas but as we have found that the entire Prosecution case has been wimpled by virtue of myriad Lacunaes and discrepancies, which pervade deep, it would be unwise to act against them, more so when the learned trial Court had arrived at a finding, which we cannot find any fault with. 74. IN the quagmire of the entire events leading to the death of Lalu and the purported memorial meeting to condole the death of Late Odud Master, which could not be proved as admitted by the INvestigating Officer, P.W.21, Jaharial Chatterjee; we feel that keeping in mind the admitted bad blood between the two groups, the question of their false implication could not be absolutely ruled out in view of several cracks in the prosecution case. Traversing through the entire evidence in our own way and after applying our Judicial mind on the probative value thereof, we cannot share the view of the learned Public Prosecutor in support of the Appeal, which would persuade us to interfere with the same in the absence of any patent illegality, gross non appreciation of material evidence, which, otherwise, if had not taken into account, would have rendered a different finding. 75. 75. ON the contrary, as we have found in the trajectory of the entire bundle of situation that has surfaced before us, that the situation is neither so vulnerable nor there is any scope for a single view that is required to be taken for spilling the milk pot under appeal-we are of the opinion that the grounds set out by the learned trial Court in support of its finding and clothed by the legal reasoning of Shri Bagchi, we are reluctant to interfere. 76. WHILE forming an opinion in the said direction, we feel the decision of Supreme Court in Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (supra), Shailendra PratapandAnr.v. State of (supra), Md. Ankoos @ Ors. v. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. (supra) and The State of Punjab v. Tariok Singh (supra) relied upon by Shri Bagchi have square application in the factual matrix of the present case. In our venture, as we have had already formed an opinion from the conclusion we have gathered in the foregoing Paragraphs, we feel we need not advert to the other points raised by Shri Bagchi and the citations in support thereof. 77. FROM a wholesome appreciation of the entire evidence and other materials on record, we would not be in a position to buy the arguments advanced by the learned Public prosecutor in support of the Appeal and having felt inclined to accept the same advanced by Shri Bagchi, we dismiss the appeal. 78. THE Respondents stand discharged from their bail bonds, which they had furnished before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagar in terms of the Order passed by the Division Bench on 17/03/2008. Appeal dismissed. Dr. Chaudhuri, J. -I agree.