Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 373 (CHH)

GAURI SHANKAR GIRI v. STATE OF C. G.

2011-11-30

R.N.CHANDRAKAR, T.P.SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT As per Hon'ble Shri T.P. Sharma, J. :- 1. Cr.A.Nos.l087/2007, 92/2008, 333/2008 and 116/2009 filed against common judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 29-9-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, in Sessions Trial No.93/2006 are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By filing Cr.A.No.1087/2007 appellant Gauri Shankar Giri, Cr.A. No.92/2008 appellant Ram Krishna Choudhary, Cr.A.No.333/2008 appellant Thuluram Sarthi and Cr.A.No.116/2009 appellant Bharat Jaiswal (Dansena) have challenged legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 29-9-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, in Sessions Trial No.93/2006, whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellants/seven accused persons of the case guilty for formation of unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons having common object to commit murder of Basant Kumar, to conceal the evidence of criminal case and to commit conspiracy, convicted the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, 201 & 120B of the IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo RI for two years; RI for two years; imprisonment for life & pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default additional RI for one year; RI for five years & pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default additional RI for one year; and RI for ten years & pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default additional RI for one year, respectively. 3. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appellants as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 4. As per case of the prosecution, in the intervening night of 24th & 25th February, 2006, the appellants formed unlawful assembly, they were holding deadly weapons and were present at Katen Ghutkuri forest near Bahera tree along with basant Kumar (since deceased). They committed murder of Basant Kumar and burnt the dead body, thereafter, they fled from the spot. When Basant Kumar did not return back to his house on 25-2-2006, villagers and relatives of Basant Kumar made search of Basant Kumar. Dead body of Basant Kumar was found at forest in semi-burnt condition with injuries. Lambodar (PW-l) went to Police Station Baramkela and lodged FIR against unknown person vide. Ex.P-1. Morgue was recorded vide Ex.P-8. Investigating Officer left for the scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex. P-6, prepared inquest over the dead body of Basant Kumar vide Ex.P-7. Lambodar (PW-l) went to Police Station Baramkela and lodged FIR against unknown person vide. Ex.P-1. Morgue was recorded vide Ex.P-8. Investigating Officer left for the scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex. P-6, prepared inquest over the dead body of Basant Kumar vide Ex.P-7. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-2. Bloodstained & plain soil,-one flat & round shaped stone of 7 Kgs. stained with blood, one flat & square shaped stone of 5 Kgs. stained with blood, one piece of stone of 3 Kgs. stained with biood, ash found over the body of ½ Kg. and one woolen piece were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-3. Soil below the dead body was taken out and seized vide Exs.P-4 & P-5. Another map was prepared vide Ex.P-14. 5. Dead body of Basant Kumar was sent for autopsy to Community Health Centre, Baramkela. Dr. J. Choudhary (PW-10) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P-32 and found following symptoms/injuries:- (1) Bleeding from ear and nose. (2) Swelling over left part of head in the size of 27 cm. x 20 cm. (3) Swelling of 20 cm. x 15 cm. over right side of head. (4) Parietal, temporal and frontal bones were found fractured. (5) Brain was crushed. (6) Right thigh and abdomen were burnt. (7) Burn injuries were post-mortem in nature. Mode of death was shock and death was homicidal in nature. 6. During course of investigation, one of the accused persons namely Bodhram was taken into custody, he shown his willingness to give confession, he was produced before the Magistrate on 17-3-2006, he was directed to be produced on 20-3-2006 and on 20-3-2006 after explaining the fact that he is not under obligation to give confession and the confession given by him may be used against him, despite he was ready to give his confession statement, it was recorded on 20-3-2006 vide Ex.P-42 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh. 7. Thereafter, statements of two witnesses namely Lochan (PW-8) & Daulatram (PW -13) were recorded. They have deposed that they have seen all appellants along with Basant (since deceased) on 24-2-2006 in the evening near Bahera tree and gn second day, injured dead body of deceased Basant was found. Spot map was prepared by the Patwari videEx.P-10. 8. 7. Thereafter, statements of two witnesses namely Lochan (PW-8) & Daulatram (PW -13) were recorded. They have deposed that they have seen all appellants along with Basant (since deceased) on 24-2-2006 in the evening near Bahera tree and gn second day, injured dead body of deceased Basant was found. Spot map was prepared by the Patwari videEx.P-10. 8. During course of investigation, appellant Kunu @ Garjan @ Bodhram was taken into custody, he made discloser statement of knife vide Ex.P-16 and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex.P-17. Appellant Birju made discloser statement of wrist watch vide Ex.P-18 and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex.P-19 in broken condition. Appellant Gauri Shankar made discloser statement of petrol bottle vide Ex.P-20 and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex.P-21. Appellant Ram Krishna made discloser statement of wrist watch vide Ex.P-22, but it was not recovered. 9. The accused persons were arrested. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination vide Ex.P-48 and presence of blood over the knife recovered from Bodhram was confirmed vide Ex.P-48A. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Raigarh, from where learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. 10. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as thirty-three witnesses. The accused were examined under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. 11. Defence has examined defence witness Arjun Giri (DW-1) who has deposed that his grand-son Rahul, son of appellant Gauri Shankar was admitted in Medical College, Raipur on 2-2-2006 and he was discharged on 14-3-2006, during the aforesaid period Gauri Shankar was with him at Raipur. 12. Alter affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and record of the trial Court. 14. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Mr. Prafull Bharat & Mr. 12. Alter affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and record of the trial Court. 14. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Mr. Prafull Bharat & Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, vehemently argued that this is a case of blind murder, conviction of the appellants is based on last seen evidence of Lochan (PW-8) & Daulatram (PW-13) and confession of accused Bodhram. Learned counsel submitted that the trial Court has relied upon the statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC Ex.P-42 of accused Bodhram. Aforesaid evidence is not confession of accused Bodhram. Virtually, it is exculpatory statement/confession and not inculpatory statement/confession. Therefore, it cannot be relied upon as confessional statement of Bodhram. However, it would have been relied upon by the prosecution after adducing Bodhram as witness, but during the course of accusation of Bodhram as accused, his inculpatory statement cannot be treated as confessional statement and is not admissible in evidence. Likewise, statements of Lochan (PW-8) & Daulatram (PW-13) under Section 161 of the CrPC have been recorded after lapse of considerable time on 21-3-2006 as Exs.D-2 & D-4, respectively, i.e. after twenty-four days of incident, especially after arrest, production and recording of the statement of accused Bodhram under Section 164 of the CrPC. Lochan (PW-8) is resident of Village Mekra, Police Station Baramkela, Distt. Raigarh and Daulatram (PW-13) is resident of Village Padkipali, not of village Karanpali. The prosecution has not explained as to how the investigating officer came to know that these witnesses are witnesses of last seen in the present case. These witnesses have specifically deposed that they were present during last rituals of deceased Basant in his village and have participated in last rituals of Bas ant, however, they have not narrated the incident to any person. Evidence of these witnesses does not inspire confidence and is not trustworthy. Virtually, in the present case, Investigating Officer I.L. Purre (PW-22) was investigating the crime till 12-3-2006, thereafter the case was handed over to another investigating officer namely Sushanto Banerjee (PW-23) on 16-3-2006 who arrested accused Bodhram and produced before the Magistrate on 17-3-2006. Evidence of these witnesses does not inspire confidence and is not trustworthy. Virtually, in the present case, Investigating Officer I.L. Purre (PW-22) was investigating the crime till 12-3-2006, thereafter the case was handed over to another investigating officer namely Sushanto Banerjee (PW-23) on 16-3-2006 who arrested accused Bodhram and produced before the Magistrate on 17-3-2006. This clearly reveals that all of a sudden, the investigating officer has been changed and new investigating officer arrested accused Bodhram on same day, thereafter; statements of Lochan (PW-8) & Daulatram (PW-13) were recorded on 21-3-2006 which shows that the entire investigation is concocted and unfair, and that both the witnesses are concocted witnesses. 15. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants Gauri Shankar Giri & Thuluram Sarthi, placed reliance in the matter of State of T.N. Vs. J. Jayalalitha, (2000) 5 SCC 440, in which the Supreme Court has held that confessional statement of co-accused could not be treated as evidence for deciding to proceed against another accused, more so when the statement was exculpatory in nature, exculpatory statement cannot be treated as evidence. Mr. Awadh Tripathi further placed reliance in the matter of R. Janakiraman Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, CBI, SPE, Madras, (2006) 1 SCC 697, in which the Supreme Court has held that the court cannot start with the confession of a co-accused and must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution, but the court can use confession of co-accused to lend support or assurance to the conclusion of guilt which the court is about to reach on the other evidence. 16. Mr. Prafull Bharat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Ram Krishna Choudhary, placed reliance in the matter of Kashmira Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 159, in which the Supreme Court has held that the confession of an accused person is not evidence in the ordinary sense of the term as defined in Section 3. It cannot be made the foundation of a conviction and can only be used in support of other evidence. Mr. Prafull Bharat further placed reliance in the matter of Mohd. Khalid Vs. It cannot be made the foundation of a conviction and can only be used in support of other evidence. Mr. Prafull Bharat further placed reliance in the matter of Mohd. Khalid Vs. State of W.B., (2002) 7 SCC 334, in which the Supreme Court has held that conspiracy can be proved by direct evidence, though the same is rarefy available, or by circumstantial evidence and confession of co-accused, even without corroboration, can be taken into consideration. 17. Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Bharat Jaiswal (Dansena), placed reliance in the matter of Sidharth, etc. etc. Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 4352, in which the Supreme Court has held that confessional statement of main accused naming another accused as one of the conspirators, not supported by the fact that he had actively participated in conspiracy, confession made by main accused cannot be basis for conviction. Mr. Dheerendra Pandey further placed reliance in the matter of State of M.P. through CBI etc. Vs. Paltan Mallah and others etc., AIR 2005 SC 733, in which the Supreme Court has held that extra judicial confession of co-accused relating to other accused is no substantive evidence against the other accused persons and no conviction can be based on extra judicial confession of co-accused. 18. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed all appeals and submitted that evidence of Lochan (PW-8) & Daulatram (PW-13) relating to last seen theory inspires confidence, same is trustworthy and their evidence cannot be out rightly rejected on the ground that their statements under Section 161 of the CrPC have been recorded after twenty-four days of incident. Delay in recording statement of any witness or delay in lodging report by itself is not fatal to the prosecution or ground for rejection of evidence if such delay is properly explained. Learned State counsel further submitted that evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufficient to prove the case. After appreciating evidence available on record, the trial Court has rightly convicted & sentenced the appellants. 19. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. 20. Learned State counsel further submitted that evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufficient to prove the case. After appreciating evidence available on record, the trial Court has rightly convicted & sentenced the appellants. 19. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. 20. In the present case, homicidal death of deceased Basant Kumar as a result of fatal injuries found over his body has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellants, otherwise also, it is established by evidence of Dr. J. Choudhary (PW-10) and autopsy report Ex.P-32 that death of Basant Kumar was homicidal in nature. 21. As regards complicity of the appellants in crime in question, conviction is substantially based on last seen theory i.e. evidence of Lochan (PW-8) & Daulatram (PW-13) and statement of accused Bodhram recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. 22. The word confession has not been defined anywhere. As per dictionary meaning (Black's Law Dictionary Eighth Edition), confession means a criminal suspect's oral or written acknowledgement of guilt, often including details about the crime. 23. Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with confession of the accused and the circumstances which it can be relied upon. Section 164 of the CrPC provides recording of confessions or confessional statements' by the Judicial Magistrate i.e. recording of judicial confession. 24. While dealing with requirement of confession, the Supreme Court in the matter of Kanda Padayachi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1972 SC 66, has held that an admission of a fact, however incriminating, but not by itself establishing the guilt of the maker of such admission, does not amount to confession within the meaning of Sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act. 25. While dealing with same question, the Supreme Court in the matter of Veera Ibrahim Vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 1167, has held that a statement in order to amount to a "confession" must either admit in terms the offence, or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of an incriminating fact, howsoever grave, is not by itself a confession. A statement which contains an exculpatory assertion of some fact, which if true, would negative the offence alleged, cannot amount to a confession. 26. An admission of an incriminating fact, howsoever grave, is not by itself a confession. A statement which contains an exculpatory assertion of some fact, which if true, would negative the offence alleged, cannot amount to a confession. 26. While dealing with the question of written and oral confession, the Supreme Court in the matter of Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewar Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 1692, has held that confession means an admission of guilt whether it is communicated to another or not. The Supreme Court observed in para 5 of its judgment as follows:- "5. The expression 'confession' is not defined in the Evidence Act, 'Confession' is a statement made by an accused which must either admit in terms the offence, or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. The dictionary meaning of the word 'statement' is "act of stating; that which is stated; a formal account, declaration of facts etc." The word 'statement' includes both oral and written statement. Communication to another is not however an essential component to constitute a 'statement'. An accused might have been over-heard uttering to himself or saying to his wife or any other person in confidence. He might have also uttered something in soliloquy. He might also keep a note in writing. All the aforesaid nevertheless constitute a statement. If such statement is an admission of guilt, it would amount to a confession whether it is communicated to another or not. This very question came up for consideration before this Court in Sahoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 40: (1966 CrLJ 68). After referring to some passages written by well known authors on the "Law of Evidence" Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) held that "communication is not a necessary ingredient to constitute confession". In paragraph 5 of the judgment, this Court held' as follows: ...Admissions and confessions are exceptions to the hearsay rule. The Evidence Act places them in the category of relevant evidence presumably on the ground that as they are declarations against the interest of the person making them, they are probably true. The probative value of an admission or a confession goes not to depend upon its communication to another, though, just like any other piece of evidence, it can be admitted in evidence only on proof. The probative value of an admission or a confession goes not to depend upon its communication to another, though, just like any other piece of evidence, it can be admitted in evidence only on proof. This proof in the case of oral admission or confession can be offered only by witnesses who heard the admission or confession, as the case may be.... If, as we have said, statement is the genus and confession is only a subspecies of that genus, we do not see any reason why the statement implied in the confession should be given a different meaning. We, therefore, hold that a statement, whether communicated or not, admitting guilt is a confession of guilt. (Emphasis supplied)" 27. While dealing with the words confession and exculpatory statements, the Supreme Court in the matter of Palvinder Kaur Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354, has held that a confession must either admit in terms the offence, or at any rate, substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact is not of itself a confession. A statement that contains self-exculpatory matter cannot amount to a confession, if the exculpatory statement is of some fact, which if true, would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. A statement which when read as a whole is of an exculpatory character and in which the prisoner denies his guilt is not a confession and cannot be used in evidence to prove his guilt. 28. In the aforesaid touchstone of law, we are required to examine Ex.P-42, the confession of accused Bodhram. 29. Ex.P-42, the statement of accused Bodhram under Section 164 of the CrPC, has been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh on 20-3-2006 in which Bodhram has deposed details of the offence and has deposed the role attributed to six co-accused persons/co-appellants. In his detailed evidence, he has not stated anything that he has played role or he has participated in commission of offence, inter alia, in para 6 he has specifically deposed that he was requesting other accused persons not to kill but they did not agree. Para 6 of his statement reads thus, “ eSa lHkh ls dgRkk jgk fd bls er ekjks ysfdu lHkh yksx yksx ugha ekusA ” 30. Para 6 of his statement reads thus, “ eSa lHkh ls dgRkk jgk fd bls er ekjks ysfdu lHkh yksx yksx ugha ekusA ” 30. Ex.P-42 clearly reveals that Bodhram has not admitted his guilt or commission of offence or the ingredients of offence committed by him. His statement under Section 164 of the CrPC is exculpatory confessional statement of accused Bodhram. 31. As held by the Supreme Court in the matters of Kanda Padayaehi, AIR 1972 SC 66 (supra), Veera Ibrahim, AIR 1976 SC 1167 (supra), Shiva Karam, AIR 2009 SC 1692 (supra), Palvinder Kaur, AIR 1952 SC 354 (supra), J. Jayalalitha’s case, (2000) 5 SCC 440 (supra), R. Janakiraman, (2006) 1 SCC 697 (supra), Kashmira Singh, AIR 1952 SC 159 (supra), Mohd. Khalid, (2002) 7 SCC 334 (supra), Sidharth, AIR 2005 SC 4352 (supra) and Paltan Mallah’s case AIR 2005 SC 733 (supra), statement of co-accused Bodhram cannot be treated as confession, rather same is exculpatory statement of accused Bodhram. Ex.P-42 even cannot be considered for corroboration in absence of any opportunity of cross-examination to other accused persons. Virtually, after recording of statement of the co-accused under Section 164 of the CrPC, the investigating agency was having opportunity to make him witness. 32. In these circumstances, evidence of Lochan (PW-8) & Daulatram (PW-13) only, remains for consideration for proving offence against the appellants. 33. Lochan (PW-8) & Daulatram (PW-13) have categorically deposed in their evidence that on 24-2-2006 they have seen all appellants near Bahera tree along with Basant Kumar (since deceased) and on second day Basant was found dead. As per autopsy report, death of Basant was homicidal in nature. Evidence of Lochan (PW-8) & Daulatram (PW-13) may be treated as last seen theory i.e. the deceased was seen alive in the company of the appellants last time on 24-2-2006, and on second day morning he was found dead. Time gap between last seen and death of the deceased is too short. Therefore, it can be treated as substantive circumstance against the appellants. 34. As per evidence of Lochan (PW-8), he has seen the appellants along with the deceased near Bahera tree. After detection of dead body he also visited Katen Ghutkuri forest where dead body of the deceased was kept and he has attended one ritual (dash karm). Therefore, it can be treated as substantive circumstance against the appellants. 34. As per evidence of Lochan (PW-8), he has seen the appellants along with the deceased near Bahera tree. After detection of dead body he also visited Katen Ghutkuri forest where dead body of the deceased was kept and he has attended one ritual (dash karm). As per para 3 of his evidence, before dash karm i.e. 10th day of death of deceased Basant Kumar, he had already informed Balkrishna Choudhary (PW-2) - father of Basant Kumar, that he has seen the appellants along with deceased Basant Kumar. In para 4 of his evidence, this witness has further deposed that he has informed Balkrishna Choudhary (PW-2) after 5-6 days of incident. As per para 4 of his evidence, police were camping at village for one month and he has stated to the police after 5-6 days of incident and the police lias recorded his statements 2-3 times. In para 6 of his evidence he has also deposed that he himself has not informed the police suo motu, but the police had called him 2-3 times and recorded his statement. 35. Daulatram (PW-13) has corroborated the evidence of Lochan (PW-8). In para 4 of his evidence, Daulatram (PW-13) has deposed that he came to know on 25-2-2006 that Basant has been murdered. As per para 5 of his evidence, he was present at the time of inquest. As per para 10, he has informed about the incident to the police within ten days of incident. 36. As per evidence of Lochan (PW-8) & Daulatram (PW-13), they have seen deceased Basant alive in the company of the appellants last time on 24-2-2006 and when they came to know that Basant has been murdered, they came to the village, they attended last rituals of deceased Basant, and they informed the police and father of the deceased within ten days of incident, but their statements under Section 161 of the CrPC have been recorded on 21-3-2006 after lapse of 24 days of incident. They have denied the suggestion that their statements have been recorded after 24 days, inter alia, they have specifically deposed that their statements under Section 161 of the CrPC have been recorded within ten days of incident. They themselves have not informed the police, but they were called by the police. They have denied the suggestion that their statements have been recorded after 24 days, inter alia, they have specifically deposed that their statements under Section 161 of the CrPC have been recorded within ten days of incident. They themselves have not informed the police, but they were called by the police. As per evidence of Lochan (PW-8), police was camping at the village for one month in relation to investigation of the offence, but within ten days any of the accused has not been arrested by the police and statements of these witnesses under Section 161 of the CrPC have not been recorded prior to 21-3-2006. Statement of accused Bodhram under Section 164 of the CrPC as Ex.P-42 has been recorded on 20-3-2006 and thereafter, statements of these witnesses under Section 161 of the CrPC have been recorded. Delay in recording statement by itself is not fatal to the prosecution or their evidence cannot be out rightly rejected on the ground of delay in recording their statements, if such delay is properly explained. 37. While dealing with the question of delay in discloser of Occurrence by witnesses and the question of offering explanation, the Supreme Court in the matter of Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel Vs. Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel and others, (2004) 10 SCC 583, has held that evidence of witnesses who have not disclosed the occurrence soon thereafter and have not offered any reasonable explanation should not be accepted, delay in recording statement may be on account of so many causes but if such causes are explained then such delay in recording statement is not fatal to the prosecution. 38. In the present case, Lochan (PW-8) & Daulatram (PW-13) have stated that they have disclosed the fact/occurrence to the police after 5-6 days of incident or on 10th day of incident, but the police have not recorded any statement under Section 161 of the CrPC. They have not supported their statements Exs.D-2 & D-4 recorded on 21-3-2006 after lapse of 24 days of incident. 39. This is not the case in which the investigating officer was having sufficient knowledge that the accused persons have committed the offence, before 17-3-2006. Virtually, the case has been registered against unknown person. On 17-3-2006 or on 20-3-2006 or on 21-3-2006, the investigating agency, for the first time, came to know that the appellants have committed the offence. 39. This is not the case in which the investigating officer was having sufficient knowledge that the accused persons have committed the offence, before 17-3-2006. Virtually, the case has been registered against unknown person. On 17-3-2006 or on 20-3-2006 or on 21-3-2006, the investigating agency, for the first time, came to know that the appellants have committed the offence. There was no ground for not recording the statements of Lochan (PW-8) & Daulatram (PW-13) on 6th or 10th day of incident, if they have informed the police. In the present case, virtually, these witnesses not residents of the village where the deceased was residing, had not informed the police suo motu, but were called by the police officer. The police officer has not offered any explanation as to how he came to know that these witnesses are having knowledge of occurrence. Discloser of occurrence by these witnesses is also contradictory. However, as per record, they have for the first time informed the police on 21-3-2006 which they are not supporting. 40. In these circumstances, without any explanation of discloser of occurrence and delay in recording their statements, evidence of Lochan (PW-8) & Daulatram (PW-13) is not trustworthy and credence and is not safe to rely without further corroboration from independent sources. Except the alleged confession of accused Bodhram and last seen evidence of Lochan (PW-8) & Daulatram (PW-13), the prosecution has not collected any other substantive evidence to connect the appellants with the crime in question. In absence of any other evidence, evidence of Lochan (PW-8) & Daulatram (PW-13) is not of credence and trustworthy. In absence of any legal confession or evidentiary value of Ex.P-42, the alleged confession of accused Bodhram, virtually, there is no incriminating evidence against the appellants. In absence of any legal evidence, conviction and sentences of the appellants for commission of offence under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, 201 & 120B of the IPC are not sustainable under the law. 41. While convicting and sentencing the appellants under Sections 147, 148,302 read with Section 149, 201 & 120B of the IPC, the trial Court has committed grave illegality. 42. For the foregoing reasons, Cr.A.No. 1087/2007 filed by Gauri Shankar Giri, Cr.A.No.92/2008 filed by Ram Krishna Choudhary, Cr.A. No.333/2008 filed by Thuluram Sarthi and Cr.A.No.116/2009 filed by Bharat Jaiswal (Dansena) deserve to be allowed and they are hereby allowed. 42. For the foregoing reasons, Cr.A.No. 1087/2007 filed by Gauri Shankar Giri, Cr.A.No.92/2008 filed by Ram Krishna Choudhary, Cr.A. No.333/2008 filed by Thuluram Sarthi and Cr.A.No.116/2009 filed by Bharat Jaiswal (Dansena) deserve to be allowed and they are hereby allowed. Conviction and sentences imposed upon the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, 201 & 120B of the IPC are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the said charges. The appellants are in jail, they be set at liberty at once, they be released, if not required in any other case. Appeals Allowed.