C.R. Sarma,J.- This set of appeals, arising out of the judg­ment and order, dated 2-.3.05, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in Sessions case No.ST(WT/A)48 of 2001 are based on similar facts involving similar question of law and the parties in the appeals are also represented by the same set of lawyers. Therefore, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals were heard together and we propose to dis­pose of all the appeals aforesaid by this com­mon judgment and order. 2. The appellants, in Criminal Appeal Nos.31 of 2005, 103 of 2006 and 58 of 2010 and the respondents, in Criminal Ap­peal No. 46 of 2005 were tried by the learned Sessions Judge in the above mentioned Ses­sions case, on the charges of committing the offences under Sections 302,120 B, 364 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'), Section 27 of Arms Act and Section 13 of Unlawful Activities (Pre­vention) Act. The learned Sessions Judge considering the evidence on record convicted the appellants Sri Nabakumar Debbarma and Sri Biswadayal Jamatia alias Dayal Jamatia under Sections 302 and 120 B IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 27 of Arms Act and Section 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The appellant Sri Premananda Namasudra was convicted under Section 120 B of IPC. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment and orders, sentenced Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma and Sri Biswadayal Jamatia to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, suffer imprisonment for another pe­riod of two months for their conviction under Section 302 IPC. The said two appellants were also sentenced to sufferimprisonrnent for life under Section 120 B of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 27 of Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The appellant Sri Premananda Namasudra was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, suffer imprisonment for another one year for his conviction under Section 120-B IPC. It was directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently and that the period of detention shall be treated as set off. The other accused persons, including Sri Himangshu Das and other respondents, in Criminal Appeal No.46/2005, were acquit­ted for want of evidence against them. 3. It was directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently and that the period of detention shall be treated as set off. The other accused persons, including Sri Himangshu Das and other respondents, in Criminal Appeal No.46/2005, were acquit­ted for want of evidence against them. 3. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the convict Sri Premananda Namasudra, Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma and Sri Biswadayal Jamatia preferred appeals, being Criminal Appeal Nos.31 of 2005,103 of 2006 and 58 of 2010 respectively. The State also, being dissatisfied with the quan­tum of punishment awarded to convict Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma, Sri Biswadayal Jamatia and Sri Premananda Namasudra and others have preferred Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2005 and preferred Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005, challenging the acquittal of Sri Himangshu Das and other respondents. 4. We have heard Mr. D. P. Kundu, learned Advocate General, Tripura, Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor, Tripura, Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Tripura and Ms Rumela Guha, learned coun­sel appearing for the State of Tripura. We have also heard Mr. P. K. Biswas, Mr. P. Majumder, Mr. M. K. Biswas, Mr. R. Debnath, learned counsel appearing on be­half of the private appellants and the private, respondents aforesaid. 5. The prosecution case, in brief, may be set out as follows :- Sri Bimal Kumar Sinha (since deceased), a CPI (M) party leader, who was the Minis­ter of Health & Family Welfare department, Government of Tripura, submitted his nomi­nation papers for contesting the Assembly election, as a candidate from the Kamalpur Assembly constituency in the year 1998. Sri Jagadish Ghosh (since deceased), also sub­mitted his nomination papers as a candidate of the Congress party for the said Assembly constituency. At the time of scrutiny of nomi­nation papers, his nomination papers were cancelled, on the basis of the objection raised by Bimal Kumar Sinha. Upon rejection of his nomination papers, Sri Jagadish Ghosh ex­pressed, in presence of Sri Ranjit Ghosh (PW 17) that Sri Bimal Sinha managed to cancel his nomination papers and as such even if he (Sri Bimal Sinha) could win the election, he (Sri Jagadish Ghosh) would ensure that re­election, in respect of Kamalpur constituency, was held within three months. Upon rejection of his nomination papers, Sri Jagadish Ghosh ex­pressed, in presence of Sri Ranjit Ghosh (PW 17) that Sri Bimal Sinha managed to cancel his nomination papers and as such even if he (Sri Bimal Sinha) could win the election, he (Sri Jagadish Ghosh) would ensure that re­election, in respect of Kamalpur constituency, was held within three months. On 9.2.98, when the campaign for the election was go­ing on, at about 10 am, Sri Bikram Sinha (PW 30), who is the foster brother of Bimal Sinha, was abducted by some unknown persons from near the bridge No.5 of Kamalpur-Kailashahar road. After abduction of Sri Bikram Sinha, his brother Bimal Sinha and Bidyut Sinha alias Rocket Sinha (since de­ceased) took steps to get Sri Bikram Sinha released and accordingly they made contact with various persons including Sri Himangshu Das (respondent in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2005) and Sri Satya Das, (since acquit­ted) in the said Sessions case in visited the house of Sri Satya Das at village Abhanga. Sri Sukh Ranjan Sinha (PW 31), who was the former Confidential Assistant (for short CA) of Sri Bimal Sinha, PW 6 Sri Rabindra Das and PW 12 Sri Nikunja Das extended helping hand to Sri Bimal Sinha, in his pursuit towards the release of his abducted brother Sri Bikram Sinha. During the said process, Sri Sukhranjan Sinha aforesaid, along with Amarjeet Sinha (P W10) visited the house of Sri Lab Debbarma (PW 24), at village North Masuria and made contact with one Pyarimohan Debbarma. In the house of Lab Debbarma, Sri Sukhranjan Sinha met one extremist belonging to the National Libera­tion Front of Tuipra (NLFT). In the said meet­ing, the above mentioned extremist, though initially demanded Rs.50 lakhs as ransom, agreed to release Sri Bikram Sinha, subject to payment of Rs. 10 lakhs. But, as Sri Sukhranjan Sinha informed him that they would be able to arrange Rs. 1.70 lakhs only, the said extremist left the place. According to Sri Sukhranjan Sinha and Sri Lab Debbarma, they came to know that the name of the said extremist was Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma i.e the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2006 and respondent in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2005. 6. In the meantime, the result of the As­sembly election was declared and Bimal Sinha, after winning the election, became the Cabinet minister of Health and Family Wel­fare department. 6. In the meantime, the result of the As­sembly election was declared and Bimal Sinha, after winning the election, became the Cabinet minister of Health and Family Wel­fare department. As Sri Bikram Sinha was not released till then, Bimal Sinha, along with his brother Bidyut alias Rocket, Sri Sukhranjan Sinha (PW 31) and others started process through Sri Himangshu Das and Sri Satya Das, to get Sri Bikram Sinha released. Accordingly, as demanded by the extremist, an amount of Rs. 1.70 lakhs was given to Sri Himangshu Das through Sri Satya Das on 28.3.98 and Sri Himangshu Das, on being asked by Sri Bimal Sinha, assured that Sri Bikram Sinha would be released very soon. On the fateful morning of 31.03.1998, Sri Premananda Namasudra, who is the appel­lant in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2005, went to the house of Sri Nihar Ranjan Sinha (PW 8) i.e. the brother of the said CA (P W 31) of the Minister, to know about the whereabouts of his brother Sri Sukh Ranjan Sinha (PW 31). As Sri Sukh Ranjan Sinha was not avail­able at his house, Premananda asked PW 8 to inform him within one hour as to whether the Minister i.e Bimal Sinha was available at Kamalpur or not. Premananda also told him that he wanted the said information for ar­ranging the release of the kidnapped brother of Bimal Sinha. Accordingly, PW 8 aished to his brother Sukh Ranjan Sinha (PW 31) and informed him about the enquiry, made by Premananda. Sri Sukh Ranjan Sinha (PW 31), after receiving the said information, con­tacted Bimal Sinha and asked Nihar Ranjan Sinha (PW 8) to inform Premananda that min­ister would be coming. Subsequently, Bimal Sinha, along with his personal guard Sri Ranjit Debbarma (PW 9) went to the house of Sri Manilal Sinha i.e. the house of PW 1 and PW 3. Thereafter, Bidyut alias Rocket and a cousin of Bimal Sinha, namely, Bikash Sinha (PW 27) reached the said house of Manilal Sinha. In the house of Manilal Sinha, all of them took their seats inside the house and Bimal Sinha enquired, from a Bengali person, who arrived at the house of Manilal Sinha, as to whether the extremist would come. Thereafter, Bidyut alias Rocket and a cousin of Bimal Sinha, namely, Bikash Sinha (PW 27) reached the said house of Manilal Sinha. In the house of Manilal Sinha, all of them took their seats inside the house and Bimal Sinha enquired, from a Bengali person, who arrived at the house of Manilal Sinha, as to whether the extremist would come. On being so enquired, the said man replied that they were waiting in the jungle in the eastern bank of Dhalai river and that they would come to have a talk with him (Bimal Sinha). On being so informed, Sri Bimal Sinha gave a walkie talkie to the said man, for the purpose of handing over the same to the extremist to facilitate them to talk to Sri Bimal Sinha. But the said man returned and reported the min­ister that they (extremists) wanted to have talk face to face. On being so informed, Sri Bimal Sinha, Sri Bidyut Sinha alias Rocket (both died at the hands of the extremists in the said occurrence), Sri Sukh Ranjan Sinha (PW 31) proceeded towards the bank of Dhalai river, asking Bikash Sinha (PW 27) and Ranjit Debbarma (PW 9) to stay inside the house. When they reached the river bank, Himangshu Das asked the Minister to go down the river bank and accordingly, the Minister, followed by Bidyut Sinha proceeded to the river bed wherein two tribal youths (extremists) opened fire through their fire arms killing the Minister and his brother aforesaid. Hearing the sound of gun fire, both PW 9 and P W 27 came out and saw the miscreants fleeing towards the eastern side of the river. Sri Ranjit Debbarma (PW 9) also, through his service revolver, opened fire, towards extremists, as a result of which, one of them sustained bullet injury on his leg and the said injured person was identified as Himangshu Das, who is the re­spondent in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2005. Sri Bimal Sinha and Sri Bidyut Sinha alias Rocket Sinha, who sustained bullet injuries, at the hands of the extremists, were immedi­ately shifted to the Kamalpur hospital, where they were declared dead. 7. Coming to know about the said occur­rence, Sri Babul Das (PW 34), Sub Inspec­tor of police and Officer-in-Charge of Salema police station rushed to the place of occur­rence, along with Sub Inspector Mukulendu Dey (PW 39) and the Officer-in-Charge Sri Babul Das. 7. Coming to know about the said occur­rence, Sri Babul Das (PW 34), Sub Inspec­tor of police and Officer-in-Charge of Salema police station rushed to the place of occur­rence, along with Sub Inspector Mukulendu Dey (PW 39) and the Officer-in-Charge Sri Babul Das. Sub Inspector Mukulendu Dey (PW 39) visited Bikash Sinha (PW 27), in his house, who narrated the incident to the said police officer. Accordingly, PW 39 re­duced the same into writing, got the signature of Sri Bikash Sinha, thereon and the same was treated and registered as FIR (Ext.P-8). Accordingly, police registered Salema PS caseNo.5 of 1998 under Sections 148/149/307/302/120/B of IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Section 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Though Salema police initially started the in­vestigation, the case was subsequently trans­ferred to the CID and Sri Durgesh Majumder, Inspector of CID (P W 49) was entrusted with the investigation. From the place of occur­rence, police seized parts of used bullets of A. K. Rifles and pistol. At the close of the in­vestigation, police submitted chargesheet un­der Sections 302/120 B read with Section 34 IPC, under Section 27 of the Arms Actd and under Sections 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, against 27 per­sons including Himangshu Das and the re­spondents in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005, Sri Premananda Namasudra, Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma and Sri Biswadayal Jamatia. Sri Sujit Das (PW 20), who was also arrested in this case and he has examined as an approver. 8. The case, being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, was committed to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar and thereafter it was transferred to the court of learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala for disposal. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302,120B, 364 A IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 27 of Arms Act and Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities Act against the appellants namely Sri Premananda Namasudra, Sri Naba Kr. Debbarma, Sri Biswa Dayal Jamatia and the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302,120B, 364 A IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 27 of Arms Act and Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities Act against the appellants namely Sri Premananda Namasudra, Sri Naba Kr. Debbarma, Sri Biswa Dayal Jamatia and the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005. The charges read as follows :-" (1) "That all of you along with others on 31.03.1998 (Tuesday) at about 11.45 hours at Avanga, near Ambassa-Kamalpur Road under Salema Police Station, District Dhalai, in furtherance of common intention of you all committed murder by intentionally causing the death of Bimal Sinha (Ex-Cabinet Minister of Health and Family planning department, Govt of Tripura) and his younger brother Bidyut Sinha and thereby committed an of­fence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cogni­zance. Secondly, that all of you along with others in between 30.01.1998 to 31.03.1998 at any time agreed to do illegal act by illegal means and in pursuance of your illegal con­spiracy Bimal Sinha and his younger brother Bidyut Sinha were murdered on 31.03.1998 at about 11.45 hours at Avanga, near Ambassa-Kamalpur Road, under Salema Police Station, District Dhalai and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec­tion 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. Thirdly, that all of you along with others on the same date, time and place, possessed and carried the unau­thorized gun and cartridges and used the same with an intention to kill Bimal Sinha and his younger brother Bidyut Sinha and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec­tion 27 of the Arms Act and within my cogni­zance. And fourthly, that all of you along with others on the same date time and place were member of the National Liberation Front of Tripura which has been declared an unlawful association by the central government and you took part in the commission of an unlawful activity to wit in committing murder to Bimal Sinha (Ex. Cabinet Minister of Health and Family planning Department, Govt. of Tripura) and his younger brother Bidyut Sinha and thereby committed an offence punishable un­der Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and within my cognizance. Cabinet Minister of Health and Family planning Department, Govt. of Tripura) and his younger brother Bidyut Sinha and thereby committed an offence punishable un­der Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and within my cognizance. And I hereby direct that all of you be tried by this court on the said charges. Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge also framed the following charges against the aforesaid accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Sec­tion 364A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the said Act, and un­der Section 27 of the Arms Act, which read as follows:- II. That all of you along with oth­ers on 09.02.1998 at about 10.00 hours at Saiker, near Bridge No. 5 on Kamalpur-Kailashahar road, under Kamalpur Police sta­tion, District Dhalai, in furtherance of com­mon intention of you all abducted Sri Bikram Sinha S/O Late Laxmi Kanta Sinha of Kamalpur, District Dhalai, younger brother of Late Bimal Sinha (Ex-Cabinet Minister of Tripura State) for ransom and thereby com­mitted an offence punishable under Section 3 64A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal and within my cognizance. Secondly, that all of you along with others in between 30.1.98 to 9.2.98 at any time agreed to do illegal act by illegal means and in pursuance of your illegal con­spiracy abducted Bikram Sinha (Younger brother of Late Bimal Sinha, Ex-Cabinet Min­ister) with ulterior motive and ransom on 9.2.98 at about 10.00 hours at Saiker, near Bridge No. 5, on Kamalpur-Kailashahar Road, under Kamalpur police station, Dis­trict Dhalai, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. Thirdly, that all of you along with others on the same date, time and place, possessed and carried the unauthorized gun and cartridges and used the same with a intention to abduct Bikram Sinha for ransom and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 27 of the Arms Act and within my cognizance. The charges were explained and read over to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. To prove their case, prosecution ex­amined as many as 49 witnesses and exhib­ited the seizure list, post mortem report, in­quest report, hand-sketch map etc. The charges were explained and read over to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. To prove their case, prosecution ex­amined as many as 49 witnesses and exhib­ited the seizure list, post mortem report, in­quest report, hand-sketch map etc. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused persons were examined under Sec­tion 313 of the code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.). They denied the allega­tions, brought against them and declined to adduce defence evidence. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants, namely, Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma, Sri Biswadayal Jamatia alias Dayal Jamatia and Sri Premananda Namasudra as indicated above. The other accused persons were ac­quitted for want of evidence. 10. We have noticed that, though, by or­ders, dated 15.6.04, 16.7.04, 27.7.04, 6.8.04 and 16.8.04, the case was posted by the learned trial Judge, for examination of defence witnesses and the accused persons also failed to adduce defence evidence, dur­ing their examination, under Section 313 CrPC, the accused were not specifically asked, if they would adduce defence evidence and thus they were not personally informed about their right to adduce evidence. On this point, we have heard the learned counsel, appearing for both the parties, regarding the impact of not putting such question vis-a vis non recording of their reply thereto. 11. The learned Advocate General, rely­ing on the decisions, held in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Krishna Master, re­ported in (2010) 12 SCC 324 , State of Rajas than Vs Jagdish & Ors., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 64 and Santosh Kumar Singh Vs State through CBI, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 747 and referring to the orders dated 15.6.04, 16.7.04, 27.4.04, 6.8.04 and 16.8.04 aforesaid, has submitted that by fix­ing the case for defence evidence, sufficient opportunities were given to adduce defence evidence and as such there was due compli­ance of the requirement of Section 313 CrPC. Therefore, it is submitted that no prejudice was caused to the defence, by not specifi­cally asking them as to whether they would adduce defence evidence. 12. In the case of Amar Singh (supra) the appellants chose not to examine defence wit­ness. Therefore, it is submitted that no prejudice was caused to the defence, by not specifi­cally asking them as to whether they would adduce defence evidence. 12. In the case of Amar Singh (supra) the appellants chose not to examine defence wit­ness. In the case of Santosh Singh (supra), the Supreme Court held that broad principle of examination under Section 313 CrPC is to put the incriminating material circumstances to the accused persons to facilitate them to offer explanation if they so desired and the court is required to see that no miscarriage of justice has occasioned. 13. In the case of Krishna Master (supra) the Supreme Court observed that if the ac­cused takes a plea that had any particular witness been examined, then they would have deposed against the prosecution and in favour of the defence, then the burden lies upon the accused to adduce defence evidence to pur­sue that plea. 14. The object of the statutory provision, as prescribed in Section 313 Cr.P.C., is to give an opportunity to the accused to know as to what incriminatory evidence is going to be used against him, so that he can explain the circumstances, appearing against him. This is the principle of natural justice. It is unfair to rely on any incriminatory evidence without giving the accused an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances, brought against him. 15. Mr. P. K. Biswas, the learned defence counsel appearing for the private appellants and the private respondents has fairly sub­mitted that, during the course of trial i.e after examination of the accused persons, under Section 313 CrPC, the court gave opportu­nity to examine defence witness, but the ac­cused persons chose not to examine any de­fence witness. 16. In view of the above submissions as well as from the orders aforesaid, passed by the learned trial Judge, we find that sufficient opportunities were given to the accused per­sons to examine defence witnesses to explain their stand with regard to the incriminating evidence brought against them. The incrimi­nating evidence/circumstances were put to them during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thus they were given opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances. 17. In view of the above, we find that no miscarriage of justice had occasioned, caus­ing prejudice to the accused persons, for not asking them, at the time of their examination under Section 313 CrPC, as to whether they would examine defence evidence. 18. 17. In view of the above, we find that no miscarriage of justice had occasioned, caus­ing prejudice to the accused persons, for not asking them, at the time of their examination under Section 313 CrPC, as to whether they would examine defence evidence. 18. It may be mentioned that the accused persons were also tried in S.T. case No. 100 of 2002 for the charges under Sections 364 A/120B read with Section 34IPC and Sec­tion 27 of the Arms Act and the trial ended with the acquittal of the accused persons. 19. Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the private appellants and the private respondents has submitted that, in the present case, apart from filing of the written information (Ext.P-8) by Sri Bikash Sinha (PW 27), which has been treated as FIR, Sri Ranjit Debbarma (PW 9), who was the se- curity guard of Bimal Sinha, on 31.03.98 it­self, at about 12:50 pm appeared in the Kamalpur police station and informed the police about the occurrence and that the said information, lodged by PW 9, was entered in the G.D. Entry as G.D. as Entry No. 1025, which has been exhibited as D/14. But, it is submitted that the police registered the case and proceeded with the investigation on the basis of a written information (Ext.P/8), lodged by PW 27 Sri Bikash Sinha aforesaid with the Officer-in Charge, Salema PS, at about 5 p.m. In view of the above, it is submitted that as the said G.D.Entry was made prior to the filing of the written information by Sri Bikash Sinha, the information received from Sri Ranjit Debbarma should have been treated as the FIR, in as much as the subsequent written report (Ext. P.8), submitted by P. W. 27, was nothing more than a statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the eye of law. 20. Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned counsel re­ferring to the said GD. Entry (Ext.D/14) and the written information (Ext.P/8) has submit­ted that there are sharp differences and dis­crepancies in the said information reports i.e. the GD. Entry (Ext. D-l 4) and the Ext. P/8 lodged by P. W. 27, regarding the persons in­volved and the assailants. It is also submitted that the said discrepancies, on material point, belies the prosecution version negating in­volvement of the private appellants and the private respondents. Mr. Biswas has submit­ted that according to the said GD. Entry (Ext. D-l 4) and the Ext. P/8 lodged by P. W. 27, regarding the persons in­volved and the assailants. It is also submitted that the said discrepancies, on material point, belies the prosecution version negating in­volvement of the private appellants and the private respondents. Mr. Biswas has submit­ted that according to the said GD. Entry, Ext.D-14, one Bengali youth, aged about 20 years had come and talking with the Minister had carried the walkie talkie for handing over the same to the extremists, to facilitate them to talk to the Minister, but he returned to in­form the minister that the said walkie talkie was not functional. It is also pointed out, that as per the said G.D. Entry, after the return of the said youth, the Minister had moved along with the said person towards the eastern side of the bank of the river, keeping the said in­formant (PW 9), Sri Bikash Sinha (PW 27) and the younger brother of Sri Sukh Ranjan Sinha in the house of Manilal Sinha, that as per GD. Entry, due to the existence of a cow shed, the place of occurrence was not visible and that after hearing the sound of gun fire, PW 9 came out and saw three persons, who were armed with guns, wearing half pants, running away from the place of occurrence. But it is pointed out, that in the Ext.P/18 i.e the written information, lodged by PW 27, who also claims to be an eye witness, it has been mentioned that one old aged Bengali man came to meet Bimal Sinha in the house of Manilal Sinha and that the said Bengali man was told by Bimal Sinha to gather informa­tion regarding the availability of the extrem­ists and on being so instructed, he went out and came back to tell the Minister that the extremists wanted to talk to the Minister. The Ext.P/8, reveals that the Minister had given a walki talkie to that old man, and, though he went to hand over the same to the extremists, came back to inform that the extremists wanted to talk face to face. PW 27 in his evi­dence, given on oath, has also stated that the said old Bengali man was Sri Satya Das. 21. Mr. PW 27 in his evi­dence, given on oath, has also stated that the said old Bengali man was Sri Satya Das. 21. Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the private appellants and the private respondents has submitted that pros­ecution version is not free from doubt and that there is no reliable and substantive evidence to show that the private appellants as well as the private respondents extend into any con­spiracy to commit illegal activity, pertaining to NLFT and that, in furtherance of their com­mon information to kill the deceased persons. The learned counsel has also submitted that none of the witnesses could properly identify the persons, who had killed the Minister on the fateful day and that the contradictory evi­dence given by P.W. 1, P.W.3, PW.9, PW.27 and PW.31, who claimed to be the eye wit­nesses to the occurrence, raises serious doubt about the prosecution version. It is also sub­mitted that the private appellants have been convicted only on suspicion, without any suf­ficient, cogent and reliable evidence on record. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents has submitted that there is not an iota of evidence, on record, to show that the private respondents were involved, either with any illegal activities relating to the NLFT or in the killing of Minister and his brother. The learned counsel has further submitted that Himangshu Das, Satya Das, Premananda Das and others were known to Bimal Sinha, his deceased brother and Mr. Sukh Ranjan Sinha (PW 31) because after the abduction of his brother, Bikram Sinha i.e., the Minister had approached Himangshu Das, Satya Das and others seeking their help for recovery of the said abducted brother of the deceased Min­ister. It is also submitted that it is on record (as revealed from the evidence of PW 31) that Himangshu Das, initially, expressed his reluctance to get involved in the matter, on the plea that such involvement with NLFT might invite trouble, but the Minister had as­sured that he would manage BSF, CRPF and Police and that there would be no such prob­lem or difficulty. The learned counsel has sub­mitted that from the evidence, on record, it has been well established that Himangshu Das and others tried their level best to help the Minister in getting his brother released and in the said process, as engaged/requested by the Minister, they had extended help. The learned counsel has sub­mitted that from the evidence, on record, it has been well established that Himangshu Das and others tried their level best to help the Minister in getting his brother released and in the said process, as engaged/requested by the Minister, they had extended help. The learned counsel, referring to the evidence of PW 29 i.e. the widow of Bidyut Sinha, submitted that there is sufficient evidence to find that the money, even if given to Himangshu Das through Satya Das, was given only for hand­ing over the same to extremists, that too at the request of the deceased persons. There­fore, it is submitted that, in the absence of any cogent, reliable and substantive evidence regarding involvement of Sri Himangshu Das and other private respondents with the killing of the Minister and his brother, the learned trial Judge rightly acquitted Himangshu Das and others and, as such, there is no sufficient ground for interfering with the said order of acquittal. The learned counsel further submit­ted that the contradictory evidence given by PW Nos. l, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 24, 27 ,31 and the discrepancies, found in the GD. En­try i.e. Ext.D-14, and the alleged FIR i.e. Ext.P-8, create serious doubt about the in­volvement of Sri Parimal Nama Sudra, Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma, Sri Biswa Dayal Jamatia and as such they are entitled to be acquitted. It is also submitted that, in the ab­sence of sufficient evidence, the acquittal of the private respondents, do not warrant in­terference by this Court. 22. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has relied on the following decisions:- (1) Hari Nath & another Vs. State of U.P. ; AIR 1988 SC 345 (2) Laba Ch. Datta & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura20002GLR104 (3) State of Punjab Vs. Sohan Singh AIR 1974 SC 300 (4) Md. Rustam alias Rustam Vs. State of Bihar AIR 2003 SC 562 (5) State of Karnataka Vs. Venkatesh & Ors. 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 539 (6) State of Orissa Vs. Brahmmananda Nanda AIR 1976 SC 2488 (7) Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1978 SC 1506 (8) Ganesh Bhaban Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 135 (9) S.D. Soni Vs. State of Gujarat 1992 CrLJ 567 (10) Ram Das Vs. State of Maharashtra 2006 AIR SCW 567 5 (11) Nepal Singh Vs. Brahmmananda Nanda AIR 1976 SC 2488 (7) Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1978 SC 1506 (8) Ganesh Bhaban Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 135 (9) S.D. Soni Vs. State of Gujarat 1992 CrLJ 567 (10) Ram Das Vs. State of Maharashtra 2006 AIR SCW 567 5 (11) Nepal Singh Vs. State of Hariyana AIR 2009 SC 2913 (12) Radha Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 2005 10 SCC 216 (13) Tahsildar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.I 959 CrLJ 1231 (14) Tahsildar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.AIR 1959 SC 1231 (15) S.D. Soni Vs. State of Gujarat 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 567 (16) State (DelhiAdmn.) Vs. V.C. Shukla & Anr. AIR 1980 SCI 382 (17) State of U.P. Vs. Sukhbasi & Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1224 (18) P.K. Narayanan Vs. State of Kerala 1995 1 SCC 142 (19) Hira lal Hari lal Bhagwati Vs. C.B.I., New Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 2545 (20) Kamala Muniratnam & Anr. Vs. State of A. P. 2003 CrlJ 4782 (21) Ghanashyam Jena Vs. State of Orissa, 2003 CrLJ4794 (paras 8,9) (22) Harchand Ch. Singh Vs. State of Hariyana AIR 1974 SC 344 (23) Man Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P, 2003 CrLJ 3908 (24) Md. Rustam alias Rustam Vs. State of Bihar AIR 2003 SC 562 (25) Mithu Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2001 SC 1929 (26) Mohan Singh & Anr. Vs State of M.P., AIR 1999 SC 883 (27) George & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala &Anr 1998CHJ2034 (28) Heramba Brahma & Anr. Vs. State of Assam AIR 1982 SC 1595 (29) C.K. Raveendran Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2000 SC 369 (30) Hate Singh Bhagat Singh Vs State ofM.P., 1953 CrLJ 1933 (31) 2005 5 SCC 272 (32) Javed Masood Vs. State ofRajasthan, 2010 AIR SCW165 6 (33) Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2005 5 SCC 2581 (34) Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary &Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2000 CrlJ 4640 (35) C. Magesh & Ors. etc. Vs. State of Karnataka 2010 AIR SCW 3194 (36) State ofRajasthan Vs. Naresh alias Ram Naresh 2010 CrLJ 1928 23. Mr. State ofRajasthan, 2010 AIR SCW165 6 (33) Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2005 5 SCC 2581 (34) Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary &Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2000 CrlJ 4640 (35) C. Magesh & Ors. etc. Vs. State of Karnataka 2010 AIR SCW 3194 (36) State ofRajasthan Vs. Naresh alias Ram Naresh 2010 CrLJ 1928 23. Mr. D.P. Kundu, learned Advocate General, State of Tripura, supporting the con­viction and the sentence rendered against Sri Premananda Namasudra, Sri Biswadayal Jamatia and Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma and challenging the inadequacy of punishment in respect of the said appellants and the acquit­tal of Sri Himangshu Das other respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005, has sub­mitted that the assassination of Bimal Sinha, who was a sitting Cabinet minister of State of Tripura and his brother Bidyut Sinha, alias Rocket Sinha was not an ordinary case of murder but a direct attack on the sovereignty and democracy of India, in asmuch as, the miscreants, who were the members of the banned NLFT, in order to achieve their ulti­mate object of cessation of a part of an In­dian territory from India committed the said dastardly crime. 24. Referring to the Part III and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the learned Advocate General has highlighted the consti­tutional mandate with regard to the State's duty to enforce the human rights of a citizen by providing fair and impartial investigation against any person accused of cognizable of­fence. The learned Advocate General, em­phasizing the need and justification for taking judicial notice of certain facts as it was pre­vailing at that time, has submitted that the ac­cused persons, along with Sri Jagadish Ghosh (since discharged), entered into a conspiracy to eliminate Bimal Sinha and to achieve the said goal of conspiracy, Sri Bikram Sinha, i.e brother of Bimal Sinha was abducted for the purpose of realizing ransom and to allure Bimal Sinha to approach the extremists to facilitate them to cause his death. 25. 25. The learned Advocate General has also submitted that, though there was sufficient evidence regarding involvement of the respon­dents in the Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005, in connection with illegal activities of NLFT and thelkilling of Bimal Sinha, the learned trial Judge committed error by refusing to rely on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to convict them, on the ground of existence of certain minor discrepancies and as such the acquittal of the said respondents is required to be interfered with. 26. It is also submitted that/ from the evi­dence on record, it has been well established that the said respondents along with the pri­vate appellants participated in the said con­spiracy to eliminate Bimal Sinha and conse­quently perpetrated the heinous crime of kill­ing a Cabinet Minister and his brother. There­fore, it is submitted that the punishment of life imprisonment awarded to Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma, Sri Biswa Dayal Jamatia and Sri Premananda Namasudra was inadequate and that they deserved capital punishment. The learned Advocate General has also submit­ted that the FIR was lodged immediately af­ter the occurrence i.e during the course of the day itself (FIR was lodged at about 5 pm on 31.3.98) and as such there was no inordinate delay in filing the FIR. 27. He also submitted that some minor variations as well as embroidery made by the prosecution witnesses, some of whom were village rustic, cannot be ground to throw the case overboard. ] 28. The learned Advocate General has also submitted that as the accused persons were known to the witnesses there was no neces­sity for holding T.I. parade and as such fail­ure to hold T.I. parade does not adversely affect the evidentiary value of the prosecu­tion witnesses, who identified the accused persons. 29. It is further submitted that it is the duty of the court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence, unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring so as utterly to destroy confi­dence in the witnesses. The learned Advo­cate General also submitted that justice should not only be done to the accused per­sons, but justice, at the same time, should be done to the prosecution also. It is submitted by the learned Advocate General, that acquit­tal, on flimsy grounds of minor discrepancies, does not amount to delivery of justice. The learned Advo­cate General also submitted that justice should not only be done to the accused per­sons, but justice, at the same time, should be done to the prosecution also. It is submitted by the learned Advocate General, that acquit­tal, on flimsy grounds of minor discrepancies, does not amount to delivery of justice. It is submitted that, though it is the duty of the court to see that an innocent person is not punished, the court is equally required to be vigilant so that a guilty person does not escape punish­ment. 30. In support of his argument, the learned advocate General has placed reliance on the following decisions:- (1) State of W.B. Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 ; (2) State of UP Vs. Anil Singh, 1998 Supp SCC 686; (3) Onkar Nath Vs. Delhi Admn, (1977) 2 SCC 611 ; (4) State of Maharashtra Vs. Sarangdhar -singh Shivdassingh Chavan, (2011) 1 SCC 577 . (5) Vinod Seth Vs. Devinder Bajaj, (2010)8 SCC 1 (6) Bondu Ramaswamy Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, (2010) 7 SCC 129 ; (7) Anand Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2010) 11 SCC 242 ; (8) Kalyan Kumar Gogoi Vs. Ashutosh Agnihotri, (2011) 2 SCC 532 ; (9) Alamelu Vs. State, (2011) 2 SCC 385 . The essence of these decisions at this Stage may be referred: 31. The learned Advocate General has submitted that Court can take judicial notice of certain things, which are wellknown to pub­lic, without formal proof. 32. Referring to the decisions in the case of OnkarNath (supra) as well as the provi­sions in Sections 56 and 57 of the Evidence Act, the learned Advocate General has em­phasized the need of taking judicial notice in respect of certain matters, without formal evi­dence. In the above referred case, the Su­preme Court observed that recognition of facts, without formal proof is a matter of ex­pediency and no one has ever questioned the need and wisdom of accepting the existence of matters which are unquestionably within public knowledge. In the aforesaid case, the court below took judicial notice, without formal evidence, that the Railway strike was imminent on May 5,1974 and that a strike paralyzing the civic life of the Nation was un­dertaken by the section of workers on May 8,1974. In the aforesaid case, the court below took judicial notice, without formal evidence, that the Railway strike was imminent on May 5,1974 and that a strike paralyzing the civic life of the Nation was un­dertaken by the section of workers on May 8,1974. The Supreme Court observed, that the courts below were justified in taking the said view without formal notice, (ii) In the case of Kalyan Kuamr Gogol Vs. Ashutosh Agnihotri & Anr., reported in (2011) 2 SCC 532 , the Supreme Court referred to the de­cision in Paokai Haokip Vs. Rishang: AIR 1969 SC 663 , wherein the Supreme Court had taken judicial notice of the fact that in India, all the voters do not always go to the polls and that the casting of votes at an elec­tion depends upon a variety of facts and it is not possible for anyone to predicate how may or which proportion of votes will go to one or the other of the candidate, (iii) In the case of Alamelu & Anr. Vs. State, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 385 , the question involved was the margin of error in age of a victim. The Medical Officer opined that the age of the girl could be from 17 to 18 years. The Su­preme Court observed that, this margin of error in age has been judicially recognized by this Court in Jay a Mala Vs. Govt. of J& K : (1982) 2 SCC 538 . In Jaya Mala (supra), the Supreme Court observed: "9.... However, it is notorious and one can take judicial notice that the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side". (iv) In the case of Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan & Anr (supra), the Su­preme Court observed that it is not possible to shut our eyes to the stark realities and court can take judicial notice of well recognized and publicly accepted matters of fact, (v) In the case of Vinod Seth (supra) the Supreme Court, referred the case of Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (II) Vs. (II) Vs. Union of India: (2005) 6 SCC 344 , wherein the Supreme Court ob­served that judicial notice could be taken of the fact that many unscrupulous parties take advantage of the fact that either the costs are not awarded or nominal costs are awarded against the unsuccessful party, (vi) In the case of Bondu Ramaswamy & Ors (supra), the Supreme Court referred to the case of Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Mahaboob: (2009) 14 SCC 54 , wherein it was observed "16. We can take judicial notice of the fact that in several States the awards of the Reference Court or the judgments of the High Court and this Court increasing the compensation, are not complied with and the landlosers are again driven to courts to initiate time-consuming execution process (which also involves con­siderable expense by way of lawyer's fee) to recover what is justly due. Resultantly the landlosers seldom get a substantial portion of proper compensation for their land in one lump sum immediately after the acquisition" and (vii) In the case of Anand Singh & Anr. (supra) the Supreme Court referred to the case of State ofU.P. Vs. Pista Devi: (1986) 4 SCC 251 , wherein it was observed that the housing conditions of Dalits all over the coun­try continue to be miserable even till date and is a fact of which courts are bound to take judicial notice. 33. The learned Advocate General, has submitted that the prevailing, situation includ­ing law and order position of the State was critical during the relevant period. He has also submitted that the extremist organization, in­cluding the banned organization of NLFT, were active in the State and they got involved with various illegal activities including extor­tion, abduction, murder, etc. with the object of bringing unrest to the State and to terrorize the people, effecting law and order situation and the public peace. 34. In view of the above principles of law and the decisions held by the Supreme Court, in the above referred cases, there is no diffi­culty in understanding that judicial notice of well accepted facts and happenings, which are commonly known to all, and acknowl­edge by the public can be taken into account without any formal proof of evidence. 35. 34. In view of the above principles of law and the decisions held by the Supreme Court, in the above referred cases, there is no diffi­culty in understanding that judicial notice of well accepted facts and happenings, which are commonly known to all, and acknowl­edge by the public can be taken into account without any formal proof of evidence. 35. In the light of above, we find force in the contention of the learned Advocate Gen­eral that the situation, prevailing at the relevant time, due to insurgency activities, involving extortion, abduction, murder etc. was not peaceful. It is also noticed that due to such activities the appropriate Government had banned the organization, namely NLFT. 36. In the case of West Bengal (supra) the Supreme Court, while laying down the principles regarding direction for investigation by CBI, observed that: "the extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situa­tions where it becomes necessary to provide credibility to and instill confidence in investi­gations". The Supreme Court further observed that: "the State has a duty to enforce the human rights of a citizen providing for fair and impar­tial investigation against any person accused of commission of a cognizable offence, which may include its own officers". 37. Keeping in mind, the above we now proceed to weigh the merit of the appeals before us. 38. In order to appreciate the counter ar­guments, advanced by the learned counsel, appearing for the parties and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, we feel it appropriate to, briefly, scan the evidence on record. 39. Dr. Subhashish Debbarma (PW 32), who was a Medical Officer of Kamalpur Hospital, on 31.03.1998, at 3 pm, conducted the post mortem examination of dead bodies of Bimal Sinha and his brother Sri Bidyut Sinha alias Rocket. The dead bodies were identified by Sri Buddha Debbarma and Circle Inspector of Kamalpur and one Sri Dipak Pathya and those were forwarded to him as per Kamalpur G.D. Entry No.214 dated 31.3.98. There is no dispute regarding the identity of the dead bodies. The Medical of­ficer, on the basis of the autopsy done by him, opined that the cause of the death of the de­ceased was cardio respiratory failure result­ing from massive hemorrhage from heart, liver and kidney, due to bullet injury, which was homicidal in nature. There is no dispute regarding the identity of the dead bodies. The Medical of­ficer, on the basis of the autopsy done by him, opined that the cause of the death of the de­ceased was cardio respiratory failure result­ing from massive hemorrhage from heart, liver and kidney, due to bullet injury, which was homicidal in nature. According to the Medi­cal officer, the time of death was less than six hours prior to the time of post mortem ex­amination. He has exhibited the post mortem report as Exts.P/12 and P/l 3. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at about 11.45 am. Therefore, from the said medical evidence, it has been established that the death of the deceased persons was caused due to multiple bullet injuries, sustained by them, on 31.3.98 at about 11.45 am. 40. According to the prosecution version, the occurrence took place in the bank of Dhalai river, towards the eastern side of the house ofManilal Sinha, whose house was situ­ated just on the western bank of the said river. According to Smt. Manila Sinha(PW. 1), the daughter of Sri Manilal Sinha on the date of occurrence at about 10-15 am, Sri Sukh Ranjan Sinha (PW 31), Sri Bimal Sinha, his brother Bidyut Sinha alias Rocket Sinha (both deceased), Sri Bikash Sinha (PW 27) and Sri Ranjit Debbarma (PW 9) arrived in their house and they took seat inside their dwelling house. Leaving them in their house, at her care, her mother had gone out to collect grass for their cow and her brothers and sisters had gone to the field and as such she was alone in the house. She stated that she was in the cow shed, tendering the newly born calf and that the river bed was visible through the gap of the grass made wall of the dilapidated cow shed. According to this witness, Sri Satya Das first appeared in their house and he was in­structed by the Minister to inform the extrem­ists. Thereafter, Satya Das went towards the east bank of the river and after a little while Sri Himangshu Das and Sri Premananda Namasudra of Uttar Masuria village arrived in her house. She stated that Satya Das also returned after about ten to fifteen minutes and informed the Minister that the extremists were coming and Sri Himangshu Das also confirmed the said information. She stated that Satya Das also returned after about ten to fifteen minutes and informed the Minister that the extremists were coming and Sri Himangshu Das also confirmed the said information. She also stated that Himangshu Das and Premananda Namasudra left towards the river and after about twenty to thirty minutes Himangshu Das again came and carried a wireless set for handing over the same to the extremists to facilitate them to talk to the Minister, but after about twenty to thirty minutes he returned with the wireless set and informed that the extremists wanted to talk directly face to face with the Minister. She also stated that in the mean time, some other persons, namely, Shyamal Das, Parimal Das, Sanjoy Das, Ramananda Namasudra also arrived there. According to PW 1, after receiving the said information from Himangshu Das, Bimal Sinha, his brother Bidyut Sinha alias Rocket Sinha, Sri Sukh Ranjan Sinha (PW 31) went out towards the river bed. She stated that she saw Satya Das, Himangshu Das and Premananda Namasudra coming towards the eastern bank of the river with two extremists. According to this witness one of the extremists was wearing napkin and cov­ering his head, while the other one was wearing a trouser and covered the head with nap­kin. She stated that at that time, Ranjit Debbarma i.e the security guard was loiter­ing in the courtyard and Himangshu Das asked Bimal Sinha to go down the river bed and on being so asked both Bimal Sinha and Bidyut Sinha went down the river bed. She also stated that she heard Bimal Sinha saying that he would touch the hands and feet of the ex­tremists and that they should not do so. Im­mediately thereafter, she heard the sound of gun fire and lied down on the floor. She also stated that the said extremists, along with Himangshu Das, Premananda Namasudra and Satya Das ran away towards eastern side of the river. She further stated that PW 9 also opened fire from his revolver and one of the bullets hit Himangshu Das, which caused him to flee limping. According to PW. 1, immedi­ately the villagers, CRPF personnel rushed to the river bank and found that Bimal Sinha and his brother Bidyut Sinha were lying in the river bed with bullet injuries and they were shifted to the hospital. She identified all the accused persons by name. 41. According to PW. 1, immedi­ately the villagers, CRPF personnel rushed to the river bank and found that Bimal Sinha and his brother Bidyut Sinha were lying in the river bed with bullet injuries and they were shifted to the hospital. She identified all the accused persons by name. 41. Admittedly, this witness was in the cow shed at the time of occurrence. The minster and others were in another house. Therefore, it is hardly believable that she, remaining in the cow shed, could follow the conversation that took place between the Minister, Satya Das and Himangshu Das. She stated that she saw the entire occurrence through the gap of the broken wall of the cow shed. In her cross-examination, she stated that the extremists were covering their faces with cloth and as such she could not recognize them. PW 1 in her cross-examination, admitted that she did not state, at the time of giving her statement under Section 161 CrPC that she saw Himangshu Das sustaining bullet injury, fired by the security guard of the Minister and limp­ing. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 that she had seen that Himangshu Das had sustained bullet injury and that he had fled the place of occurrence limping are the statements made by P W1, for the first time in the court. In our considered opinion if she had really seen Himangshu Das running away from the place of occurrence after sustaining bullet injury she should have stated the same before the In­vestigating officer i.e. at the earliest point of time. Her failure to make such vital disclo­sure, at the first available opportunity, raises doubt about her veracity. From her cross-examination, it is also found that she did not state before the Investigating officer that she found Satya Das, Himangshu Das and Premananda Namasudra, along with the two extremists. This statement of her stood be­lied by the evidence of PW.27 and PW.31, who saw the occurrence from close distance. Even the G.D. Entry i.e. Ext.D-14 and the alleged FIR i.e. Ext.P-8 also raises doubt in respect of her contention. Therefore, the said statement regarding presence of Himangshu Das, Satya Das and Premananda Namasudra along with the two extremists, at the time of occurrence being made for the first time in the court, can't be accepted without suspi­cion. 42. Even the G.D. Entry i.e. Ext.D-14 and the alleged FIR i.e. Ext.P-8 also raises doubt in respect of her contention. Therefore, the said statement regarding presence of Himangshu Das, Satya Das and Premananda Namasudra along with the two extremists, at the time of occurrence being made for the first time in the court, can't be accepted without suspi­cion. 42. Sri Uttam Singh, who deposed as PW 2, stated that, on the date of occurrence, at about 11:45 to 12 noon, he heard the sound of gun fire towards the house of Manila Sinha and rushed to the place of occurrence wherein they found that Bimal Sinha and his brother Bidyut Sinha alias Rocket Sinha lying with bullet injuries. He also stated that earlier Bimal Sinha had also discussed with Himangshu Das, Satya Das and Sukh Ranjan Sinha (PW 31) for the release of his abducted brother. He further stated that Himangshu Das was a member of an extremist group. However, this witness failed to identify Himangshu Das. As this witness failed to identify Himangshu Das, his statement that Himangshu Das was a mem­ber of the extremist group cannot be believed. He has not disclosed as to how he could know him to be a member of the extremist group. A bald statement that someone is a member of the extremist group cannot be accepted un­less the claim is substantiated by reasonable evidence. However, from the evidence of PW 2, it appears that the Minister had initiated the process for the release of his abducted brother with the help of Himangshu Das, Satya Das and Sukh Ranjan Sinha (PW 31) for which the Minister visited the houses of Satya Das and Manila Sinha (PW 1). 43. Smt. Sobha Rani Sinha, mother of PW 1, deposed as PW 3. She stated that Bimal Sinha used to visit their village and meet Himangshu Das, Premananda Namasudra, Nirmal Das, Shyamal Das, Paritosh Das, Ripan Das, Sanjoy Das, Nripendra Namasudra, regarding release of his abducted brother and that the said persons frequently met in the home of Satya Das. 43. Smt. Sobha Rani Sinha, mother of PW 1, deposed as PW 3. She stated that Bimal Sinha used to visit their village and meet Himangshu Das, Premananda Namasudra, Nirmal Das, Shyamal Das, Paritosh Das, Ripan Das, Sanjoy Das, Nripendra Namasudra, regarding release of his abducted brother and that the said persons frequently met in the home of Satya Das. She stated that on 25.3.98, while she was taking bath in the river at about 7 to 8 am, she found Sri Sukh Ranjan Sinha (PW 31), Sri Bhabanga Sinha (PW 7), Bidyut Sinha and Satya Das stand­ing on the river bank and saw Sri Satya Das going to the other side of the river to hand over money to Himangshu Das, who was on the other side of the river bank. She also stated that, on being asked by Bidyut Sinha about the receipt of the money, Himangshu Das confirmed that he had received Rs. 1,70,0007-. She further stated that, on being asked by Bidyut Sinha regarding the date of release of Bikram Sinha, Himangshu Das replied that Bikram would be released on that day itself. 44. According to this witness, on 31.3.98 at about 10.15 am, Sukh Ranjan Sinha, Bimal Sinha (deceased) Bidyut Sinha (deceased) and Ranjit Debbarma (PW 9) arrived in her house and she arranging their sitting accom­modation inside the house, left for collecting grass for her jersey cow. According to this witness, her husband also went to jungle for collecting bamboo and her daughter Manila (PW 1) was asked to nurse the cow. She stated that her other children were playing outside. According to this witness after a while she found some people coming from Masuria, who were coming towards the western di­rection. She also stated that she found Satya Das, Himangshu Das, Premananda Namasudra, Nirmal Das, Shymal Das, Paaritosh Das, Ripan Das, Sanjoy Das, Nripendra Namasudra, Parimal Das along with two other persons, one of whom were wearing a napkin and the other one was wear­ing atrouser, covering their heads with pieces of cloth. According to this witness, Satya Das, Himangshu Das and Premananda Namasudra went towards the river bank and she also, thinking that Bikram Sinha would be released, she went forward to see the re­lease of Sri Bikram Sinha from a little dis­tance. According to this witness, Satya Das, Himangshu Das and Premananda Namasudra went towards the river bank and she also, thinking that Bikram Sinha would be released, she went forward to see the re­lease of Sri Bikram Sinha from a little dis­tance. She found that Bikram Sinha and Bidyut Sinha were standing in the river bed raising their hands and at the same time she heard gun fire. Out of fear she had left towards the chilly field and lied down there. After some time she returned home and talked to her daughter as to what she had seen. She stated that Bimal Sinha and Bidyut Sinha were shot dead by the extremists. 45. Though PW.3 stated that she heard the conversation between Bidyut Sinha and Himangshu Das regarding receipt of Rs. 1,70,000/- by Himangshu Das, the learned trial Judge had drawn the attention of this wit­ness to the statement made by her under Sec­tion 161 CrPC and it is found that no such statement was there. The Investigating officer i.e PW 40 Pritish Bhattacharjee confirmed that PW 3 did not tell him that she had heard the conversation between Bidyut Sinha and Himangshu Das regarding payment of Rs.l ,70,000/-. Therefore, her statement re­garding payment of Rs.l,70,000/- to Himangshu Das having been made for the first time in the court cannot be accepted without suspicion. 46. According to this witness, she found private respondents Himangshu Das, Satya Das, Premananda Namasudra, Nirmal Das, Shyamal Das, Paritosh Das, Ripan Das, Sanjoy Das, Nripendra Namasudra and Parimal Das, coming with the extremists. She also testified that on 25.3.98, an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- was given to Himangshu Das, through Satya Das, towards the release of Bikram Sinha. 47. Smt Kaijala Sinha, who deposed as PW 4, stated that on the fateful day, at about 10-20 am, she went to the river bank to take bath and at that time, she found two persons (one of whom was wearing a napkin and the other one was wearing a pant) going towards the western side of the river bank, where Bimal Sinha and Bidyut Sinha were standing. Ac­cording to this witness, Satya Das and Himangshu Das were also present there and that there were about 4/5 persons along with those two persons. Ac­cording to this witness, Satya Das and Himangshu Das were also present there and that there were about 4/5 persons along with those two persons. She stated that there was conversation between the Minister and those two persons, who had covered their heads and body with cloth and that they had opened fire at the Minister and his brother. She further stated that the said two persons, who had fired at the Minister ran away towards the eastern side of the river along with Himangsu Das, Satya Das and others. She stated that Himangshu Das was limping. From the crossexamination of this witness, it is found that though she claimed that she found Himangshu Das and Satya Das, coming to the river bank, along with two extremists, who had covered their heads, she did not make such statements before the Investigating of­ficer. In our considered opinion the failure of this witness to disclose the involvement of Himangshu Das, Satya Das and others at the time of her examination under Section 161 CrPC is a vital omission, which adversely af­fect the truth of her statement, made before this court. 48. That apart, the evidence of PW.27 and PW.31, who were also eye witnesses to the occurrence, do not support the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 regarding presence of Satya Das, Himangshu Das, Parimal Nama Sudra, Premananda Namasudra and other private respondents. The Investigating officer (PW 49), who examined her under Section 161 CrPC, confirmed that PW 4 did not tell him that she found Himangshu Das and Satya Das coming to the river bed along with two per­sons covering their heads. The evidence of PW.27 and PW.31, who were also eye wit­ness, negates the said evidence of PW.4. In view of the above, we are inclined to believe that Himangshu Das and Satya Das also came with the said miscreants. 49. Sri Joynal Halam, who deposed as P W 5 stated that about 10/12 days prior to mur­der ofBimal Sinha, two NLFT extremists and two of their helpers visited their village. He stated that Naba Kumar Debbarma and Biswadayal Jamatia were the extremists and that Himangshu Das and Sudhangshu Das their helpers. According to this witness, on being asked by them, he had collected 500 grams of rice for the said extremists. He stated that Naba Kumar Debbarma and Biswadayal Jamatia were the extremists and that Himangshu Das and Sudhangshu Das their helpers. According to this witness, on being asked by them, he had collected 500 grams of rice for the said extremists. He fur­ther stated that on the day of occurrence, while he was in the jhum cultivation field, at about 2 pm, he found Naba Kumar Debbarma, Dayal Jamatia, Himangshu Das, Sudhangshu Das and 10/12 other persons and that Himangshu Das was limping. According to this witness, the said persons disclosed that they had shot dead Bimal Sinha and they asked him to tell the villagers not to open their mouths. This witness did not specifically indi­cate as to who had disclosed that Bimal Sinha was killed by whom. Therefore, this bald statement, disclosing that they had shot dead Bimal Sinha is a vague one. He further stated that on the following day, he found four per­sons including Himangshu Das, Sudhangshu Das, Dayal Jamatia and that Himangshu Das had beaten him due to his refusal to collect rice for them. He also stated that Naba Kumar Debbarma had told him, showing a fire arm, that he had shot the Minister with the said AK rifle and that, if necessary, he would shoot him too. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of the defence. He stated that he was examined by police and that he had also given statement before the Magistrate, on being taken to the Magistrate by Sri Atin Halam, who was the member of the village. From his cross-examination, it is found that he did not mention the name of Himangshu Das at the time of making statement under Section 161 CrPC. He denied the suggestion that he had falsely stated that Himangshu Das had a ban­dage on his leg. He admitted that he did not state, before the Magistrate, that Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia were armed with fire arms, that he found Himangshu Das limping and that Himangshu Das had beaten him with a stick, when he refused to collect subscription. He admitted that there was no such statement, made under Section 164 CrPC, that Naba Kumar Debbarma had shot dead the Minister. Of course, he stated that after the death of the Minister they had made conversation. He admitted that there was no such statement, made under Section 164 CrPC, that Naba Kumar Debbarma had shot dead the Minister. Of course, he stated that after the death of the Minister they had made conversation. He also admitted that, in his statement under Section 161 CrPC, there was no such statement that there was a bandage in the leg of Himangshu Das. From the said cross-examination of PW 5, it is clear that this witness did not tell the police, while mak­ing statement under Section 161 CrPC, that he had seen any bandage on the leg of Himangshu Das. It is also found that he did not make any statement, under Section 161 CrPC, that he was told by Naba Kumar Debbarma that he had shot dead the Minis­ter. What he has stated is that he could un­derstand the same from the conversation, made by the extremists. 50. From the above, it appears that this witness, though claimed that he was told by Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia that they had shot dead the Minister, in his cross-examination, he admitted that no such statement was made by him before the Mag­istrate at the time of giving statement under Section 164 CrPC and also in his statement recorded by police under Section 161 CrPC. It is found that this witness failed to disclose the said vital information at the earliest op­portunity i.e at the time of making statement under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. There­fore, his statement, made before the court, involving Naba Kumar Debbarma, Dayal Jamatia and Himangshu Das cannot be ac­cepted without suspicion. 51. This witness, in his cross-examination, further contradicted his evidence by saying that he did not meet Naba Kumar Debbarma on the date of occurrence. But, in his in-chief examination, he clearly stated that, on the date of occurrence, at about 2 pm, he found Naba Kumar Debbarma, Dayal Jamatia, Himangsh1, Das and Sudhungshu Das along with 10/12 persons. He further stated that Himangshu Das was limping. In view of the above, we do not find this witness to be a trustworthy and reli­able one. He further stated that he had no previous conversation with the extremist and their helper and that they were not previously known to him. He has not stated as to how he could identify them. In view of the above, we do not find this witness to be a trustworthy and reli­able one. He further stated that he had no previous conversation with the extremist and their helper and that they were not previously known to him. He has not stated as to how he could identify them. His evidence that he met the said persons and that he identified them is quite doubtful. Therefore, the evidence of PW 5 does not help the prosecution to establish that Naba Kumar Debbarma, Biswadayal Jamatia, Sudhangshu Das, Himangshu Das and the private respondents had committed the alleged offence. 52. Sri Rabindra Das, PW 6 stated that Bimal Sinha had told him that he had talked to Himangshu Das regarding the release of his brother. This witness stated that he in­formed Bimal Sinha that he would not get any help from Himangshu Das, since he was found in the company of Jagadish Ghosh, who was an accused in Bank docoity case. According to this witness, Himangshu Das was a petty contractor and he used to collect subscrip­tions for the extremist organization. He fur­ther stated that at the time of occurrence, he heard the sound of gunshot and found Himangshu Das, Sudhungshu Das, Prema-nandaNamasudra, Hemuchand Debbarma, Ranjit Debbarma, Swapan Das, Sudhungsh Das, Rajkanta Debbema, his son Sujit Das and 10/12 persons running away towards eastern side of the river. He also stated that Himangshu Das was limping. He further stated that his son Sujit Das, who was released on bail had told him that, he along with Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia had killed the Minister and that after they had fled towards the jungle. In his crossexamination, he admitted that there was no such statement, under Section 161 CrPC, to the effect that he had found Himangshu Das fleeing away limping. However, he admitted that he found Himangshu Das with bleeding injury, on his thigh, at his house, wherefrom he had fled. This statement of PW 6, that he found Himangshu Das, with bleeding injury, at his house, negates his evidence that he saw Himangshu Das running away from the place of occurrence, along with other accused per­sons. This is fortified by the evidence of PW.27 and PW.31, who being the eye wit­nesses did not support the evidence of PW 6 regarding involvement of the persons. This is fortified by the evidence of PW.27 and PW.31, who being the eye wit­nesses did not support the evidence of PW 6 regarding involvement of the persons. He denied the suggestion that he had threatened/ induced his son Sujit Das to be an approver. In his cross-examination, this witness contra­dicted his evidence by saying that he was un­able to remember whether his son had told him that, after the murder of Bimal Sinha, he along with Naba Kumar Debbarma and oth­ers had fled and took shelter in the jungle. He also stated that he could not remember whether his son had told him that Naba Kumar Debbarma had shot dead the Minister. 53. In view of the above, it appears that the evidence, given by PW 6 that he was told by his son that he (son) along with Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia had shot dead the Minister is selfcontradictory and unreliable. That apart, if he had seen Himangshu Das running away from the place of occurrence along with the other miscre­ants, there was no reason not to disclose such vital information at the time of making statement under Section 161 CrPC. That apart, PW 27 and PW 31 aforesaid did not sup­port his version. In view of the above, the evidence given by PW 6 does not inspire confidence to believe that he had seen Himangshu Das, his son Sujit Das and others running away with other miscreants, from the place of occurrence. It is not believable that his son i.e Sujit Das had told him that he along with Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia had killed the Minister. Fact remains that his son Sujit Das (PW.20) has denied to have made such disclosure. 54. Sri Bhabanga Sinha, who deposed as PW 7, stated that, he along with Bimal Sinha and Satya Das, visited the house of Himangshu Das in connection with the release of the brother of Sri Bimal Sinha. He stated that an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- was given, in his presence to Satya Das and that Satya Das along with two others had carried the money and handed over the same to Himangshu Das in presence of himself, Biduyt Sinha, Nikunja Das, Sukh Ranjan Sinha and two others on the bank of the river at Abhanga. He stated that an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- was given, in his presence to Satya Das and that Satya Das along with two others had carried the money and handed over the same to Himangshu Das in presence of himself, Biduyt Sinha, Nikunja Das, Sukh Ranjan Sinha and two others on the bank of the river at Abhanga. He also stated that on being asked by Bidyut Sinha, Himangshu Das had con­firmed, from the other side of the river that he had received the money. In his cross-exami­nation, this witness admitted that no such statement regarding payment of money to Himangshu Das and confirmation made by Himangshu Das was there in his statement, recorded under Section 161 CrPC. 55. From the evidence of this witness, it reveals that the money was given to Sri Himanghsu Das. Though this witness claimed that he had seen Satya Das and two other young men carrying the money to Himangshu Das, the PW.3, who also claimed to have seen the same, stated that it was only Satya Das, who had carried the money. She did not say that two other persons had accompanied Satya Das. In our considered opinion, this is a major contradiction, in the evidence of the eye witness. This contradiction raises doubt about the evidence of PW.3 and PW.7. How­ever, PW 29, wife of Bidyut Sinha has clari­fied that the said money given to Himangshu Das for giving to extremists. Fact remains that Himangshu Das has persuaded by Bimal Sinha to help him in this matter. 56, Sri Nihar Ranjan Sinha, who was the brother of Sri Sukh Ranjan Sinha i.e the C.A to the Minister deposed as PW 8. According to this witness, in the morning of 31.3.98, PremanandaNamasudra (appellant) came to him and enquired about the whereabouts of the Minister. As he expressed his ignorance, Premananda Namasudra told him that he wanted to know, within an hour, about the whereabouts of the Minister for the purpose of arranging the release of his abducted brother. This witness met his brother Sukh Ranjan Sinha (PW 31) and informed him about the enquiry, made by Premananda Namasudra, and his brother (PW.31) told him to inform Premananda and Bilas that Minis­ter would be coming. He further stated that his brother had told him that he would tele­phone the Minister. This witness met his brother Sukh Ranjan Sinha (PW 31) and informed him about the enquiry, made by Premananda Namasudra, and his brother (PW.31) told him to inform Premananda and Bilas that Minis­ter would be coming. He further stated that his brother had told him that he would tele­phone the Minister. On being so informed by his brother, he returned to his village and in­formed Premananda and Bilas accordingly. 57. From the evidence of this witness, it is found that, in the morning of the date of oc­currence, Premananda wanted to know about the whereabouts of the Minister and, accord­ingly, Premananda was informed that the Min­ister would be coming. This witness further stated that at about 8 am, the Minister along with his security guard went to the house of Manilal Sinha. He denied the suggestion that Premananda did not ask him about the Min­ister and that he did not inform Premananda regarding availability of the Minister. Though this witness claimed that he had informed Premananda about availability of the Minis­ter as indicated by his brother, he admitted that there was no such statement, made un­der Section 161 CrPC that he had informed Premananda after receiving the information about the Minister from his brother. 58. In view of the above, the statement made by this witness regarding the enquiry made by Premananda and the information furnished to Premananda by this witness re­garding availability of the Minister appears to be a disclosure, made for the first time in the court. There is no reason as to why this wit­ness did not disclose such vital information to the Investigating officer at the time of giving statement, under Section 161 CrPC. His fail­ure to disclose such vital information at the earliest opportunity raises doubt about the veracity of his evidence. That apart, even if his evidence is accepted as true then also no fault can be found with Premananda, in as much as, Premananda also, participated in the process to get of the abducted person (PW.30) released. There is nothing to show that Premananda he had informed or induced the Minister to go to the place of occurrence. 59. Sri Amarjit Sinha, who deposed as PW 10, stated that after the abduction of Sri Bikram Sinha, his brother Bimal Sinha had informed him that he had contacted Sri Himangshu Das for the release of his brother. There is nothing to show that Premananda he had informed or induced the Minister to go to the place of occurrence. 59. Sri Amarjit Sinha, who deposed as PW 10, stated that after the abduction of Sri Bikram Sinha, his brother Bimal Sinha had informed him that he had contacted Sri Himangshu Das for the release of his brother. He further stated that he had suggested the Minister that it would be better to contact Sri Aten Halam and Sri Charpaisek Halam of Jumthung. According to this witness, he along with Sukh Ranjan Sinha (PW.31) went to the house of Sri Lab Debbarma (PW 24) and requested Sri Parimohan Debbarma to try for release of Bikram Sinha and Parimohan had brought an extremist leader to the said house and that the extremist leader had demanded Rs.50 lakhs, as ransom towards the release of brother of Bimal Sinha. He further stated that, though they agreed to pay Rs. 1,70,0007-, the said extremist demanded Rs. 10 lakhs. From the evidence of this witness, it is found that the said extremist leader was brought to the house of Lab Debbarma by Sri Parimohan Debbarma on being requested by them. There is nothing to show that Parimohan was in­volved with occurrence. Therefore, accord­ing to this witness at the time of meeting the said extremist leader there were none except Parimohan Debbarma, P W 10 himself and Sukh Ranjan Sinha (PW 31). 60. Sri Lab Debbarma, who was exam­ined as PW 24, supporting the evidence of P W10 stated that Parimohan Debbarma was requested to contact the extremist and ac­cordingly, Parimohan Debbarma had brought an extremist leader to his house. He stated that the extremist leader had discussed with Sukh Ranjan Sinha regarding ransom and demanded Rs.50 lakhs. He further stated that though Sukh Ranjan Sinha agreed to pay 1,60,000/-, the said extremist leader left the place demanding Rs.10 lakhs. He further stated that the name of the extremist leader was Naba Kumar Debbarma. As both PW 10 and PW 24 were present at the time of discussion with the said extremist leader, whom PW 24 claimed to be Naba Kumar Debbarma, we find no reason as to why PW 10 did not mention the name of the said ex­tremist leader. 61. As both PW 10 and PW 24 were present at the time of discussion with the said extremist leader, whom PW 24 claimed to be Naba Kumar Debbarma, we find no reason as to why PW 10 did not mention the name of the said ex­tremist leader. 61. PW 31 Sukh Ranjan Sinha stated that subsequently he came to know that the name of the extremist, who went to the house of Lab Debbarma and Naba Kumar Debbarma. This witness did not disclose the source as to how he could know that the name of the said extremist was Naba Kumar Debbarma. In view of the above, as PW 10, PW 24 and PW 31 were present at the time of discus­sion with the said extremist, the failure or the silence of PW 10 about the identity of the said extremist raises doubt about the evidence given by PW 24 and PW 31 regarding the identity of the said extremist. 62. Be that as it may, PW 10, P W 24 and PW 31 stated about the demand made by the said extremist, in the house of Lab Debbarma, in connection with the release of the abducted person (PW.30). From record, it is found that another case for abduction under Section 364 AIPC being ST No. 100 (WT/A)/2002 was registered against all the accused persons and they have been acquit­ted from the said charge. Therefore, we are not required to decide the matter regarding the demand of ransom in connection with the said abduction and release of PW.30. 63. Sri Kamala Charan Halam who de­posed as PW 11 stated regarding seizure of a letter alleged to be issued by the NLFT extremist from the house of Charpariseikh Halam. 64. Sri Nikunja Das, PW 12 stated that the Minister i.e Bimal Sinha requested him to accompany him to the house of Satya Das and that Bimal Sinha had held discussion with Satya Das and Himangshu Das, regarding release of his brother and that Premananda was also present in the said discussion. 64. Sri Nikunja Das, PW 12 stated that the Minister i.e Bimal Sinha requested him to accompany him to the house of Satya Das and that Bimal Sinha had held discussion with Satya Das and Himangshu Das, regarding release of his brother and that Premananda was also present in the said discussion. He further stated that Himangshu Das was in­volved in various cases relating to extremist activities and that one day, he along with Sukh Ranjan Sinha, Bidyut Sinha and Bhabanga Sinha went to the house of Satya Das, where Premananda Namasudra, was present and that in their presence Bidyut Sinhahad handed over the money to Sri Bhabanga, who in turn gave it to Satya Das. He also stated that Premananda and Satya Das went to the other side of the river and handed over the money to Himangshu, who after receiving the same told that. Bikram would be released. But PW 7 Bhabanga Sinha stated that Satya Das along with two other young boys had crossed the river and handed over the money to Sri Himangshu Das and that Himangshu Das had confirmed the receipt of the money. There­fore, according to PW 7, who also claims to be present at the time of giving the money by Satya Das to Himangshu Das said that Satya Das and two persons carried the money to Himangshu Das. So, according to PW 7, Himangshu Das did not say anything about the release of Bikram Sinha. But according to PW 12, who claims to be present at the time of giving money to Himangshu Das, said that both Satya Das and Premananda Namasudra had gone to the other side of the river to hand over the money and that, on re­ceipt of the said money, given by Satya Das, Himangshu Das had informed that Bikram Sinha would be released. Therefore, accord­ing to PW 7, three persons had carried the money to Himangshu Das, but according to PW 12 only two persons i.e Satya Das and Premananda Namasudra had carried the money to Himangshu Das. Though, accord­ing to PW. 12, Himangshu had assured the relative of PW.30, according to PW.7, no such assurance appears to have been made. Therefore, accord­ing to PW 7, three persons had carried the money to Himangshu Das, but according to PW 12 only two persons i.e Satya Das and Premananda Namasudra had carried the money to Himangshu Das. Though, accord­ing to PW. 12, Himangshu had assured the relative of PW.30, according to PW.7, no such assurance appears to have been made. In our considered opinion, both PW 7 and PW 12, having claimed to be the eye witnesses to the said occurrence, the said contradiction is a major one which raises doubt about the ve­racity of their evidence. He clearly stated that Himangshu Das and Satya Das belonged to Congress party. It is on record that there was difference of political affiliation amongst in witnesses and the accused persons. 65. Even if the evidence of PW 7 and PW 12 are believed it can at best lead to the find­ing that the money was given by Himangshu Das. Admittedly, Sri Bimal Sinha i.e the Min­ister, from the time of abduction of his brother was all along in touch of Himangshu Das and Satya Das and he had taken their help for the release of his abducted brother. There is noth­ing on record that Himangshu Das had de­manded the said money or that Himangshu Das had abducted his brother. That apart, according to PW.31, Himangshu Das initially, on being contacted for the said purpose, de­clined to get involved and the Minister had assured him to extend help in getting the re­lease of his brother (PW.30). The evidence of PW 7, PW 24 and PW 31 also indicates that the extremist leader, who was identified to be Naba Kumar Debbarma by PW 24 and PW 31, had demanded the money. 66. Smt. Ranjana Sinha, wife of late Bidyut Sinha alias Rocket (since deceased), was examined as PW 29. She stated that her hus­band had arranged Rs. 1,70,000/- and she was told by her husband that the said money was given to Himangshu Das for giving the same to the NLFT extremists. From her evi­dence, it is clear that the service of Himangshu Das was utilized for carrying the same to the extremists. Therefore, it cannot be held that Himangshu Das, either for his own behalf or on behalf of the extremist, had claimed the said amount. 67. From her evi­dence, it is clear that the service of Himangshu Das was utilized for carrying the same to the extremists. Therefore, it cannot be held that Himangshu Das, either for his own behalf or on behalf of the extremist, had claimed the said amount. 67. Sri Tapan Ghosh, who deposed as PW 13 stated that, on 31.3.98, Sukh Ranjan Sinha (PW 31) and his brother Nihar Ranjan Sinha (PW 8) had asked him for the key of the Panchayat officer and accordingly, the orifice of the Panchayat was opened for mak­ing a telephone call to the residence of the Minister, but the Minister was found not avail­able. He did not state anything against the accused persons. 68. Sri Hirla Darlong (P W14) was present at the time of abduction of Bikram Sinha (PW.30). He stated that he along with Bikram Sinha were abducted by the extremists and that the extremists had released him asking to carry a letter to the family members of Sri Bikram Sinha. He could not identify the ab­ductors. 69. Sri Purni Ram Reang, who earlier was a member of the NLFT has been examined as PW 15. He stated that he left the said or­ganization and joined a Government job. He stated that he knew the members of the NLFT, with whom he had worked and that Biswa Dayal Jamatia was a member of the NLFT. He identified Biswa dayal Jamatia in the court. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there was no such statement, under Section 161 CrPC, that he had disclosed to the po­lice that Biswa Dayal Jamatia was a member of the NLFT group and that he had worked with him. He denied the suggestion that, be­ing benefitted by the CPI(M) led Government, he had falsely deposed. From the above, it appears that this witness did not disclose be­fore the Investigating officer, while making statement under Section 161 CrPC, that Biswa Dayal Jamatia was a member ofNLFT organization. Therefore, he appears to have made such disclosure, for the first time, in the court. His failure to disclose such vital infor­mation at the earliest available opportunity, i.e at the time of making statement under Sec­tion 161 CrPC, raises doubt about the veracity of his statement that Biswa Dayal Jamatia was known to him to be a member of the NLFT extremists. 70. Sri Nilesh Das has deposed as PW 16. His failure to disclose such vital infor­mation at the earliest available opportunity, i.e at the time of making statement under Sec­tion 161 CrPC, raises doubt about the veracity of his statement that Biswa Dayal Jamatia was known to him to be a member of the NLFT extremists. 70. Sri Nilesh Das has deposed as PW 16. He stated that he came to know from newspaper that Himangshu Das and Sudhungshu Das were helpers of extremists and that they collected subscriptions. In his cross-examination, the witness admitted that he did not tell the Investigating officer that he came to know from newspaper that Himangshu and Sudhungshu collected sub­scription for NLFT. From the above, it ap­pears that P W 16 had no personal knowl­edge as to whether Himangshu Das and Sudhungshu Das were the members of the extremists and whether they had collected any subscription for NLFT. He derived such in­formation from newspaper only. 71. Sri Ranjit Ghosh, who deposed as PW 17, stated that, after the Assembly election, Sri Bimal Sinha frequently visited the village Abhanga and informed him, time to time, that he was trying to make contact for release of his brother through Himangshu Das and his unclein-law i.e. Sri Satya Das. Therefore, from the evidence of this witness, it appears that the Minister was trying to get his abducted brother released with the help of Himangshu Das and Satya Das. As noticed earlier, PW.31 also stated that Himangshu Das was per­suaded by the Minister to extend help in the matter. He also stated that the Minister had informed him that he apprehended that Sri Putul Singh Debbarma and Sri Jagadish Ghosh (discharged) had entered into a con­spiracy to murder him. He further stated that on the date of occurrence, Sri Jagadish Ghosh had shifted his family from residence and since then he was not traceable. This witness stated that Sri Jagadish Ghosh and Sri Putul Singh Debbarma had entered into a conspiracy to murder Bimal Sinha on the ground that the nomination paper of Sri Jagadish Ghosh was cancelled at the instance of Bimal Sinha. Fact remains that Sri Jagadish Ghosh, who was the prime suspect of the conspiracy was dis­charged. Therefore, the allegation of hatch­ing a conspiracy by Sri Jagadish Ghosh in collusion with the accused persons to elimi­nate the Minister, stands negated. 72. Fact remains that Sri Jagadish Ghosh, who was the prime suspect of the conspiracy was dis­charged. Therefore, the allegation of hatch­ing a conspiracy by Sri Jagadish Ghosh in collusion with the accused persons to elimi­nate the Minister, stands negated. 72. Sri Mangal Chandra Debbarma who deposed as PW 18, stated that he heard that his son Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma had joined the NLFT. 73. Sri Raj Mohan Jamatia, who deposed as PW 19, stated that Sri Sadhan Jamatia, father of Biswa Dayal Jamatia had told him that his son Biswa Dayal Jamatia was a mem­ber of the NLFT. Therefore, it appears that PW 19 had no such personal knowledge re­garding Biswa Dayal Jamatia. His evidence is nothing better than hearsay evidence. 74. Sri Sujit Das, who was arrested in this case, was examined as an approver (PW 20). He is the son of PW 6. He stated that he knew Himangshu Das, Naba Kumar Debbarma and Biswa Dayal Jamatia, Nripendra Jamatia and others and that he came into contact with Naba Kumar Debbarma and Biswa Dayal Jamatia in the Jail. He expressed his ignorance about the abduction of Bikram Sinha. He also stated that he did not approach Haripada Gope (PW 21) to write an application, seeking permis­sion for becoming an approver, in connection with the murder of Bimal Sinha and Bidyut Sinha. He stated that he submitted the said application on being tutored by his parents. This witness was declared hostile and cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. Though this witness was cross-examined by the pros­ecution, nothing substantive could be elicited from his cross-examination. In his cross-ex- amination made by the prosecution, he stated that he put his signature on the said applica­tion believing that the same was an applica­tion for bail. He also stated that the scribe of the application did not read over to him the contents of the application and that he did not know the contents of the prayer made in the said application. Therefore, from the evidence of this witness, it is found that though he was examined as an approver, he declined to sup­port the prosecution version. 75. Sri Haripada Gope, the scribe of the said application alleged to be made by PW 20 deposed as P W 21. Therefore, from the evidence of this witness, it is found that though he was examined as an approver, he declined to sup­port the prosecution version. 75. Sri Haripada Gope, the scribe of the said application alleged to be made by PW 20 deposed as P W 21. He stated that he had written the said application, on being re­quested by Sri Sujit Das (PW 20) and that he had read over the contents of the same to P.W. 20. But P.W. 20 categorically denied the same. In view of the said denial, we do not find much force in the evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 21 to believe that the P.W. 20 had voluntarily made any statement involving him­self, and Nabakumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia. That apart, P.W. 6, in his cross-ex­amination stated that he was unable to remem­ber if his son (P.W. 20) had told him that after killing the Minister they had taken shelter in jungle. He also expressed his ignorance if his said son had told him that Nabakumar had shot dead the Minister. This contradictory stand, taken by P.W. 6, raises serious doubt about the veracity of the evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 21. 76. Sri Pradip Acharjee, who deposed as PW 22, stated about the disappearance of Sri Jagadish Ghosh from his residence on the date of occurrence. 77. Sri Hara Kumar Debbarma, who de­posed as PW 23, was a party commander of the pilot car of the Minister. He rushed to the place of occurrence after hearing the sound of firing. He stated on his arrival in the occur­rence, he found 10/15 persons fleeing from the river side. According to this witness, the bodies of the Minister and his brother were carried to the Kamalpur hospital, where the Medical officer had declared them dead. In his cross-examination, he stated that he directed Sri Ranjit Debbarma (PW 9), personal security guard of the Minister to inform the matter to the police station at that time itself. 78. According to this witness, the bodies of the Minister and his brother were carried to the Kamalpur hospital, where the Medical officer had declared them dead. In his cross-examination, he stated that he directed Sri Ranjit Debbarma (PW 9), personal security guard of the Minister to inform the matter to the police station at that time itself. 78. Smt. Sukriti Das, who deposed as PW 25 stated that, on the date of occurrence at about 9 am, when she arrived in the house of Premananda, who was her neighborer, for taking a beetle-nut, from his wife, Sri Premananda, who was about to leave riding a bi-cycle, told her to bring her children in­side the house as Bikram Sinha (P.W. 30) would be brought by the extremists on that day. According to this witness, she returned home and as she did not find her children, who had gone towards the river bank, she rushed to the river bank and found Sujit Das, Himangshu Das, Ripan Das, Paritosh Das, Satya Das, Premananda Namasudra and Nripendra Namasudra, Nirmal Das, Shyamal Das, Sudhir Das, Sanjoy Das and Dilip Das proceeding towards the west. She also stated that, when she went to bring her children, she was threatened by the tribal youth, for which she had returned home with the children. Ac­cording to this witness, after some time she had heard the sound of bullets and came to know that Bimal Sinha and his brother Bidyut Sinha were killed in the river bank by the ex­tremists. Her evidence that she found the said persons does not indicate that they were in­volved with killing of the deceased. P W 27 and PW 31 also lend support to the said view. 79. She also stated that they received a notice from NLFT extremists demanding Rs.6,000/-and that she after managing Rs.600, selling her goats, sent the said money to the extremists through Himangshu Das, who had link with the extremists. She denied the suggestion that she did not tell the Inves­tigating officer that Premananda Namasudra had asked her to keep her children inside home on the ground that Bikram Sinha would be brought by the extremists. However, she admitted that no such statement was avail­able in her statement, given under Section 161 CrPC. She also denied the suggestion that no ransom was paid through Himangshu Das and that Himangshu Das had any link with the extremists. However, she admitted that no such statement was avail­able in her statement, given under Section 161 CrPC. She also denied the suggestion that no ransom was paid through Himangshu Das and that Himangshu Das had any link with the extremists. Even if, we believe that sub­scriptions were sent through Himangshu Das, it does not led to the conclusion that Himangshu Das has done anything, in collu­sion with the extremist, in this case. His pre­vious bad conduct is not relevant. 80. From the evidence of PW 25 it ap­pears that she was asked by Premananda Namasudra to keep her children inside the house because Bikram Sinha would be brought by the extremists for the purpose of releasing him on that day. From the evidence on record, it is found that Premananda was also engaged in the process for release of Bikram Sinha. Therefore, her statement that Premananda had asked her to keep her chil­dren in the house does not support the story that Premananda had entered into conspiracy to kill the deceased. The said caution, alleged to be made by Premananda, to P.W. 25, who was his good neighbourer, considering the prevailing situation, can't be accepted with prejudice to Premananda. 81. Sri Biswanath Saha, who deposed as P W 26, was a police photographer. He took the photographs of the dead bodies. 82. Smt. Tripti Debnath, who was a Sub Inspector of Police deposed as PW 28. She stated that Inspector Durgesh Majumder had seized one envelope containing a Xerox copy of the constitution of the NLFT in connection with Salema PS case No.05 of 98. She put her signature on the seizure list as a witness. She has exhibited the said document (Xerox copy of the constitution of the NLFT) as Ext.P/10 and the envelop as Ext.P/11. 83. Sri Bikram Sinha (P.W. 30) was re­leased by the extremists on 19.5.98 i.e. after the assassination of his brothers aforesaid. Deposing as PW (30), he stated that the name of the Commander of the group, who had abducted and kept him in their custody was 'Dafung' and that Dafung told him that Himangshu Das and Sudhungshu Das were making contact with his brother for his re­lease and that they would come and take him back. Deposing as PW (30), he stated that the name of the Commander of the group, who had abducted and kept him in their custody was 'Dafung' and that Dafung told him that Himangshu Das and Sudhungshu Das were making contact with his brother for his re­lease and that they would come and take him back. He further stated that one of the ex­tremists, namely, Raja, who was guarding him, during the captivity, had informed him that NLFT extremists Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia had shot his brothers. He further stated that he was informed by the Commander Dafung that as there was nobody to pay ransom on his behalf, he was released, without taking any money and that the pur­pose of his abduction was served. He further stated that, prior to his abduction, the NLFT extremists had demanded subscription for two to three times and that, once, he had paid Rs.10,000/-. 84. A separate case being ST. (WT/A) 100 of 2002 was registered against all the accused persons in connection with abduc­tion of this witness. He admitted that, while giving evidence in the said case, he did not state that Raja had told him that Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia had killed his brothers. He also admitted that, in this case statements given, under Section 161 CrPC, he did not state before the Investigating of­ficer that Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia had shot his brothers. He further ad­mitted that, while making statement under Section 161 CrPC in S.T. 100 of 2002, he did not state before the Investigating officer that the Commander Dafung had told him that he was released without taking money and that the purpose of his abduction was served. He further admitted that while giving state­ments before the Investigating officer, he did not disclose that Commander Dafung had told him that Himangshu Das and Sudhungshu Das were making contact with him and his broth­ers. 85. He further admitted that while giving state­ments before the Investigating officer, he did not disclose that Commander Dafung had told him that Himangshu Das and Sudhungshu Das were making contact with him and his broth­ers. 85. From the above evidence, it appears that, though PW 30, at the time of giving evi­dence in the court, stated that he was told by the Commander Dafung that Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia had killed his brothers, that he was released by the extrem­ists without taking any money and that their purpose of kidnapping him was served, he did not make such vital disclosure at the time of giving statement before the Investigating officer in connection with this case as well as at the time of giving evidence in S.T. 100 of 2002. If he had received any such informa­tion from the extremists, regarding killing of his brothers by Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia, he should have disclosed such vital fact at the earliest available opportunity i.e immediately after his release, more par­ticularly, at the time of giving statement under Section 161 CrPC in connection with this case and also at the time of giving evidence in S.T. case No. 100 of 2002, but he failed to do so. 86. In view of the above, it is found that PW 30 kept such vital information with him and disclosed the same, for the first time at the time of giving evidence in this case. His failure to make such disclosure at the earliest opportunity i.e at the time of giving statement under Section 161 CrPC and also at the time of giving evidence in S.T. case No. 100 of 2002 creates serious doubt about the truth­fulness ofhis version. If such vital information was received by him, naturally, he would have shared the same with other witnesses, more particularly with PW.27, who was his brother. PW.27 did not say anything in favour ofhis said evidence. Therefore, we do not think it safe, to rely on his evidence, to believe that he was told by Dafung that his brothers were killed by Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia. Failure to disclose such vital infor­mation to near relative not to speak of oth­ers, adversely effects the credibility of the witness. 87. Therefore, we do not think it safe, to rely on his evidence, to believe that he was told by Dafung that his brothers were killed by Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia. Failure to disclose such vital infor­mation to near relative not to speak of oth­ers, adversely effects the credibility of the witness. 87. PW 33 Biswa Ranjan Choudhury and PW 34 Sri Babul Das were Sub Inspectors of CID, PW 38 Sri Buddha Debbarma was a Sub Inspector of Police, posted at Kamalpur Police Station at the relevant time, PW 39 Sri Mukulendu Das was a Sub Inspector of Police, posted at Salema Police station, as he then was, and he investigated into the mat­ter, on being entrusted by the Officer-in-Charge of Salema Police station, PW 40 Sri Pritish Bhattacharjee was a Sub Inspector of CID, who investigated into the matter after the investigation was transferred to the CID, PW 41 Sri Haripada Bhattacharjee was a CID officer, PW 42 Sri Nagendra Tripura was a Sub Inspector of Police at Salema Police station at the relevant time, PW 43 Sri Bijoy Deb was a Constable of Police at Salema Police station, PW 44 Sri Sadhan Shil was also a Constable of Police at Kamalpur Police station, P W 45 Sri Sriman Majumder, Sub Inspector of CID, PW 46 Sri Subhash Chandra Das, Deputy Superintendent of Po­lice , CID, who was also one of the Investi­gating officers and PW 49 Sri Durgesh Majumder, Sub Inspector of CID, was also one of the Investigating officers. The said police officers arrived at the place of occur­rence after the incident and they being the Investigating officers as well as seizure list witnesses were formal official witnesses. They had no personal knowledge as to who had killed the deceased persons. 88. Sri RabindraDebnath, PW 47 stated about the visit of the Investigating officer to the place of occurrence. According to this witness, police had recovered a part of a fired bullet, which was seized the same by prepar­ing a seizure list in his presence. He exhibited the said seizure as Ext. P/28 and the seized part of the bullet as Ext.P.M.O/10. 89. According to this witness, police had recovered a part of a fired bullet, which was seized the same by prepar­ing a seizure list in his presence. He exhibited the said seizure as Ext. P/28 and the seized part of the bullet as Ext.P.M.O/10. 89. PW 48 Sri Sailesh Das alias Bilas stated that once Himangshu Das had told him that it would not be possible to get the re­lease of Bikram Sinha without contacting him and accordingly he had informed Sukh Ranjan Sinha about the said information received from Himangshu Das. He further stated that NLFT extremists were very active in their locality. P. W. 31 Sri Sukha Ranjan Sinha has testified that Sri Himangshu Das, on being persuaded by the Minister, extend help in the rescue operation. 90. From the evidence of PW 1, as dis­cussed above, we have found that on the date of occurrence at about 10-45 am, Bimal Sinha, Bidyut Sinha alias Rocket, Bikash Singh (PW 27), Ranjit Debbarma (PW 9) and Sri Sukh Ranjan Sinha (P W 31) had assembled and the Minister had discussed with Himangshu Das and Satya Das regarding availability of the extremist, in connection with the release ofhis brother. In view of the above, Sri Ranjit Debbarma (PW 9), Bikash Sinha PW 27) and Sukh Ranjan Sinha (PW 31) appear to be the most vital eye witnesses to the occurrence. 91. Therefore, in order to unearth the truth, we feel it appropriate to carefully scrutinize their evidence. 92. Sri Ranjit Debbarma (PW 9), in his evidence, stated that he and Bimal Sinha held discussion with Himangshu Das, Satya Das and Parimal Namasudra in the house of Satya Das. He also stated Premananda who was called by Himangshu Das was known to him (PW 9) since earlier. He stated that oln 31.3.98 in the house of PW 1, the Minister, his younger brother Bidyut, his cousin brother Sri Biksh Sinha (PW 27) and Sri Sukh Ranjan Sinha (P W 31) had taken their seats inside the house, while he was in the courtyard. According to this witness, when the Minister and the aforesaid persons were sitting inside the room, Sri Satya Das arrived there and informed the Minister that the extremist would come. Thereafter, Satya Das had left the place and moved towards the bank of the river and then Himangshu Das came inside and met the Minister. According to this witness, when the Minister and the aforesaid persons were sitting inside the room, Sri Satya Das arrived there and informed the Minister that the extremist would come. Thereafter, Satya Das had left the place and moved towards the bank of the river and then Himangshu Das came inside and met the Minister. As Himangshu Das told the Minis­ter that the extremists agreed to talk to the Minister, the Minister had told Himangshu Das that the extremists need not come to him and that they could talk to him through the wire­less set. Later, we will notice, from the evi­dence of PW.31, that it was Nripendra with whom such discussion was held and that the wireless sets were sent through Nripendra and Satya Das and not through Himangshu Das. This aspect of the matter we will be discussed in the later part of the judgment. According to PW.9, the Minister handed over a wireless set to Sri Himangshu Das for the pur­pose of giving the same to the extremists. He also stated that the Minister had instructed him how to operate the said wireless. This witness further stated that after 20 to 25 min­utes, Himangshu Das returned with the wire­less set and informed the Minister that the extremists wanted to talk with the Minister face to face. According to this witness, after giving the said information, Himangshu Das went towards the eastern bank of the river and after receiving the said information from Himangshu Das, the Minister, Bidyut, Bikash (PW.27) and Sukh Ranjan (PW.31) went out of the house and proceeded towards the river bank, instructing him (PW 9) to remain in the courtyard. According to this witness, he found 6 to 7 persons coming from the eastern di­rection of the river and out of the said per­sons two persons had covered their head and body with pieces of cloth and as Himangshu Das had called the Minister to go down the river, the Minister and his brother Bidyut had gone down the river bank, while Sukh Ranjan Sinha (P W 31) was standing at the river bank. He stated that he heard exchanges of words amongst the Minister, Himangshu Das and others, followed by brush fire and hearing the sound of firing, he also rushed to the river bank and fired 12 rounds towards the miscreants through his service revolver, as a result of which, one of the miscreants, i.e Himangshu Das was hit by the bullets fired by him. He further stated, that amongst the said 6 to 7 persons, who were with the extremists, he could recognize Himangshu Das, Satya Das, Premananda Namasudra and Nripendra Namasudra and that all of them fled towards the eastern bank of the river. Thereafter, he found the Minister and his brother lying on the river bank with bullet injuries. He stated that he, with the help of the neighboring people had shifted his Minister and his brother to the hospital, where they were declared dead. In his cross-examination, this witness admitted that there was no statement, made by him, under Section 161 CrPC, that he had told the Investigating officer that Satya Das had come to the house of Manilal Sinha and had talked with the Minister. He admitted that, in his statement made under Section 161 CrPC, it was stated that a Bengali boy had come and talked to the Minister. In the G.D. Entry i.e. Ext.D-14, we find that it was men­tioned that a young boy of 20 years had come to meet the Minister and that the Minister had told him to inform the extremist to talk through wireless, which he sent through the said boy. This witness, in his in-chief examination, though stated that Himangshu Das came and informed the Minister regarding the willing­ness of extremists to talk to him, that the Min­ister had sent him with the walkie talkie to facilitate them to talk to him (Minister), that after 20 to 25 minutes Himangshu Das had come back with the wireless set and informed the Minister, that they wanted to talk to him face to face and that Himangsu Das had went out towards the eastern bank of the river, admitted that the name of Himangshu Das did not transpire in his statement, made under Section 161 CrPC. From the above admis­sion, it appears that he mentioned the name of Himangshu Das, for the first time in the court i.e. at the time of giving evidence. From the above admis­sion, it appears that he mentioned the name of Himangshu Das, for the first time in the court i.e. at the time of giving evidence. His failure to mention the name of Himangshu Das at the time of making statement under Sec­tion 161 CrPC cannot be accepted without suspicion. He also admitted that there was no statement, under Section 161 CrPC, made before the Police, that he found Himangshu Das, Satya Das, Premananda Namasudra, Nripendra Namasudra and two other persons (covering their face and body with cloths) and that Himangshu Das had called the Minister to go down the river bank. This witness ad­mitted that he did not tell the Investigating of­ficer that he heard an altercation between Himangshu Das and the Minister followed by brush fire. PW 31 who was nearer to the place of occurrence did not say about any altercation between Himangshu and the Min­ister. Though this witness stated that the bul­let fired by him had hit Himangshu Das, he admitted that there was no such statement, under Section 161 CrPC. He further admit­ted that there was no statement, under Sec­tion 161 CrPC that he could identify Himangshu Das, Satya Das, Premananda Namasudra and Nripendra Namasudra in the minds of the said miscreants. From the above cross-examination, it appears that this witness, at the time of making statement under Sec­tion 161 CrPC, did not state before the In­vestigating officer that Himangshu Das had come to meet the Minister, that Himangshu Das had carried the wireless set, that Himangshu Das had informed the Minister that the extremists wanted to talk to him face to face, that Himangshu Das sustained bullet in­jury fired by him, that he could identify Himangshu Das, Satya Das, Premananda Namasudra, Nripendra Namasudra coming with the two extremists, who had fired at the deceased persons and also that the said per­sons were seen by him running away from the place of occurrence. From the above, it transpires that he did not make such state­ment before the Investigating officer, at the time of giving statement under Section 161 CrPC. Therefore, his failure to make such vital disclosure at the earliest available opportu­nity, without any reasonable explanation, raises doubt about the truthfulness of his ver­sion. That apart, in the last part of his cross-examination, he stated that, on 31 -3-98, he did not go to Kamalpur PS on 12-50 pm. Therefore, his failure to make such vital disclosure at the earliest available opportu­nity, without any reasonable explanation, raises doubt about the truthfulness of his ver­sion. That apart, in the last part of his cross-examination, he stated that, on 31 -3-98, he did not go to Kamalpur PS on 12-50 pm. He denied that on that day, about 12-50 pm, he had reported at Kamalpur PS and informed the Officer-in-Charge about the occurrence. He also denied that his information was en­tered in the GD. book of the police station as G.D. Entry No. 1025 dated 31-3-98. Ext. D/ 14 is the said GD. Entry. This GD. Entry clearly indicates that Ranjit Debbarma (PW 9) had arrived at the police station, immedi­ately after the occurrence i.e at about 12-50 pm and reported about the incident. The said denial made by this witness, despite the fact GD. Entry was made in regular course of business in the police station, without any scope for fabrication, can't be believed. The said GD. Entry lead to find that PW 9 has falsely stated that he did not appear in the Kamalpur police station and that he did re­port about the occurrence. It is not believ­able that a security guard of the Minister, who was assassinated by extremist in his presence, would not go to a police station to report the incident. This conduct, on the part of PW 9, who was the security guard of the deceased Minister, demolishes his credibility. Therefore, his evidence that he had seen Himangshu Das calling the Minister to the river bank and that Himangshu Das, Satya Das, Premananda Namasudra, Nripendra Namasudra had ac­companied other two miscreants is not free from doubt. This evidence of PW.9 stands negated/contradicted by two other eye wit­nesses i.e. PW.27 and PW.31, whose evi­dence we will, shortly discuss. This witness did not state anything regarding involvement of other accused persons. In order to seek corroboration, in the evidence of PW 9, we now proceed to examine the evidence of PW 27, who was also present with PW 9 on the date of occurrence. He was a cousin of the deceased persons. 93. PW 27, Bikash Sinha stated that, he along with Bidyut, went to the house of a Manipuri person (i.e. PW 1) situated on the eastern bank of Dhalai river. He was a cousin of the deceased persons. 93. PW 27, Bikash Sinha stated that, he along with Bidyut, went to the house of a Manipuri person (i.e. PW 1) situated on the eastern bank of Dhalai river. On his appear­ance, he found Bimal Sinha, his C.A. Sri Sukh Ranjan Sinha (P W.31), the younger brother of Sukh Ranjan Sinha, namely, Nihar Ranjan Sinha (PW 8) and the personal security guard of the Minister, namely, Ranjit Debbarma (PW 9). He stated that, when they were sit­ting inside the house of PW 1, one Bengali gentleman came there and told the Minister that the extremists wanted to talk with the Minister. In his written information (Ext.P-8) lodged with police, also this witness stated about the arrival of such a person. According to this witness, the said Bengali gentleman went out with a walkie talkie and again came back to inform that the extremists wanted to talk with the Minister face to face. This wit­ness identified the said Bengali gentleman, in the court, as Satya Das. He further stated, that on being informed by Satya Das, the Minister, Bidyut and Sukh Ranjan Sinha (PW.31) went towards river and that he, along with P W 9 remained in the hut. He fur­ther stated that after sometime, he heard the voice of Minister, who uttered, "What are you doing ? What are you doing ?" He clearly stated that, when the Minister and others left towards the river and he along with PW 9 were sitting and 4 to 5 persons were around the hut. According to this witness, hearing the sound of gun fire, he, along with PW 9, came out from the house and went towards the river bank. He stated that PW 9 and CRPF per­sonnel had opened fire and that he saw 10 to 15 persons crossing the river. According to this witness, he came to the main road and thereafter, injured persons i.e Bimal and Bidyut were taken to the hospital where they were declared dead. He further stated that on the same day, at about 1:30 pm, a police officer visited him, who at his narration about the incident transcribed the information and he put his signature on the transcription. He exhibited the said written information as Ext.P18. He further stated that on the same day, at about 1:30 pm, a police officer visited him, who at his narration about the incident transcribed the information and he put his signature on the transcription. He exhibited the said written information as Ext.P18. A careful examination of the evidence of PW 27 and PW 9 will lead to find some ma­jor contradictions raising doubt about the ve­racity of their evidence. According to PW 9 both Himangshu Das and Satya Das, at dif­ferent times came and talked with the Minis­ter and Himangshu Das had carried the wire­less set to the extremists. But according to PW 27, only Satya Das came to meet the Minister and he carried the wireless set. PW 27 who was all along present with the Minis­ter and PW 9 did not make any whisper about the presence of Himangshu Das, Premananda and others. Therefore, the evidence of PW 9 that Himangshu Das had visited the Minister and carried the wireless set, that he had called the Minister to go down the river bank, that Himangshu Das, Satya Das, Premananda Namasudra and Nripendra Namasudra were seen running away from the place of occur­rence along with the other miscreants are not supported by PW 27, who was also the eye witness to the occurrence. Becauseaccording to PW 27 10/15 unknown persons were seen running away. If PW 9 could identity them, there was no reason for PW 27, who was with PW 9 not to disclose their names. It is not a case that PW.9 and PW.27 were at dif­ferent places. Their evidence, more particu­larly the evidence of PW.27, indicates that they were together and saw the occurrence from the same place at the same time. PW.31 also supports PW.27. If the evidence of PW 27 is believed, the evidence of PW 9 that Himangshu Das had come and asked the Minister to go down the river bank, that Himangshu Das, Premananda, Satya, Nripendra, came to the place of occurrence and ran away from the place of occurrence, after committing the crime, is not believable. The evidence of PW 31 also does not sup­port the evidence of PW 9. Admittedly, both PW 9 and PW 27 were matured and intelli­gent persons. Considering the facts and cir­cumstances of the case and the visibility claimed by then, it cannot be believed that they had any reason to give such contradic­tory evidence. The evidence of PW 31 also does not sup­port the evidence of PW 9. Admittedly, both PW 9 and PW 27 were matured and intelli­gent persons. Considering the facts and cir­cumstances of the case and the visibility claimed by then, it cannot be believed that they had any reason to give such contradic­tory evidence. Therefore, the said contradic­tory evidence, surfaced from the evidence of PW 9 and PW 27 regarding presence of Himangshu Das, Satya Das, Premananda Namasudra and Nripendra Namasudra, in the company of the extremists, can't be believed. 94. That apart, according to PW 9, PW 27 had also accompanied the Minister and his brother to the river bank leaving him in the hut. But, according to PW 27, both of them (i.e. PW 9 and PW 27) were inside the hut and they came out only after hearing the sound of gun fire. Therefore, if PW 27 is believed then it must be reasonably concluded that PW 9 had no scope to see Himangshu Das, Satya Das and Premananda Namasudra corning with the extremists and Himangshu Das calling the Minister to go down the river bank. The ExtD/ 14 i.e the GD. Entry, made at the instance of PW 9, raises serious doubt about the verac­ity of the evidence of PW 9 as well as his credibility. According to the GD. Entry, one Bengali youth aged about 20 years came and informed the Minister that they (extremists) agreed to come and that the Minister also told him to inform the extremists that they may come without anything in their hands. Accord­ing to the G.D. Entry, as instructed by the Minister, the said boy had carried the walkie talkie to hand over the same to the extremists to facilitate them to talk to the Minister, but he returned to report that the walkie talkie was not functional. From the G.D. Entry, it appears that the Minister and his younger brother along with that person i.e the 20 years old boy, had proceeded towards the eastern side of the river and Ranjit Debbarma (PW 9) and Bikash Sinha (PW 27) and the brother of Sukh Ranjan Sinha i.e. Nihar Ranjan Sinha (PW 8) were asked to remain in the hut. The GD. The GD. Entry further reveals that the brother of the C.A i.e Nihar Ranjan Sinha also pro­ceeded to the river bank and that due to the obstruction caused by the cow shed, the Min­ister and others were not visible. In the GD. Entry, it has been recorded that after a while, the informant heard loud voice of conversa­tion i.e exchange of words and that they came out and heard the sound of brush fire towards the river side. According to the GD. Entry, PW 9 found three persons, wearing half pant and armed with guns who ran away from the place of occurrence. It has also been revealed that the PW.9 opened fire at them. If the in­formation recorded in the said GD. Entry is believed then the evidence of P W 9 and PW 27 becomes doubtful and less trustworthy. Admittedly, the said GD.Entry, being made at 12-50 pm i.e immediately after the occur­rence, cannot be thrown away. If Sri Himangshu Das or any of the miscreants, in­cluding Satya Das Premananda Namasudra and NripendraNaniasudra were identified by the said informant i.e PW 9, he should have disclosed such identity at the time of giving the said information at the first available opportunity. If he could identify them, it is not understood what made him to mention about one Bengali youth (aged about 20 years) in­stead of disclosing the names of persons whose, names he had cited at the time of giv­ing evidence in the court. This indicates that at the time of occurrence, he did not know the names of the said persons, whose names he disclosed in the court. The failure to dis­close the names of the accused persons in the FIR despite knowing their names ad­versely affects thetruthfulness of evidence given by the witness. 95. In the case of Hari Nath & Anr. Vs. State of U.P, reported in AIR 1988 SC 345 , Supreme Court observed that failure to men­tion the name of the accused person, who was known to the witness in the F.I.R would raise a reasonable doubt about their complicity in the crime. 96. In the case of Laba Ch. 95. In the case of Hari Nath & Anr. Vs. State of U.P, reported in AIR 1988 SC 345 , Supreme Court observed that failure to men­tion the name of the accused person, who was known to the witness in the F.I.R would raise a reasonable doubt about their complicity in the crime. 96. In the case of Laba Ch. Datta and oth­ers vs. State of Tripura, reported in (2000) 2 GLR 104, a Division Bench of this Court observed that omission to mention the fact of involvement of the accused persons in the F.I.R affect the probability of the case and is relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case. 97. In the case of State of Punjab vs. Sohan Singh, reported in AIR 1974SC 300, Supreme Court held that failure to mention important fact in the FIR adversely affects the prosecution story. 98. As the PW.9, at whose instance the GD. Entry was made and as the informant was all along present with the PW.9, their fail­ure to disclose the names of the said miscre­ants, including the names of Sri Himangshu Das, Sri Satya Das and Sri Premananda Namasudra, in the GD. Entry as well as in Ext.No.P-8, raises serious doubt about the veracity of the evidence given by PW 9. Hence it is hard to believe that he had seen Sri Himangshu Das, Sri PremanandaNamasudra, Sri Satya Das, Sri Nripendra Namasudra and others along with the miscreants. This failure adversely affects the prosecution story re­garding involvement of the said persons. 99. The information lodged by PW 27 was subsequent to the said GD. Entry. The infor­mation received from PW 27 was recorded by Sri Mukulendu Das, Sub Inspector of Police (PW 39) and the same was treated as FIR and marked as Ext.P/8. The said FIR, which was lodged after sufficient delay (FIR ''received at the police station at about 5:05 pm) does not disclose the name of Sri Flimangshu Das or anyone of the respondents. In the said FIR (Ext.P-8), it was stated that, an old man had come to meet the Minister and that he carried the walkie talkie to hand over the same to the miscreants. In the said FIR (Ext.P-8), it was stated that, an old man had come to meet the Minister and that he carried the walkie talkie to hand over the same to the miscreants. In the said FIR, it was clearly stated that Bimal Sinha, Bidyut Sinha and Sri Sukh Ranjan Sinha, on being informed by the said old man that the extremists wanted to talk with the Minister face to face, proceeded towards the river bank and that PW 9 and the informant i.e. PW 27 remained inside the hut. According to the FIR, hearing the sound of gun fire, PW 9 and PW 27 had come out from the hut and proceeded towards the river bank. They found 4 to 5 persons running towards the eastern side and the dead bodies of the Min­ister and his brother, lying on the river bed. If any of the miscreants, including Himangshu Das, were found along with the said extremists there was no reason not to disclose their names in the said written FIR, which was lodged after sufficient delay i.e. at about 5 pm despite the fact that the occurrence took place at 11.45 am and that the police station was situated at a distance of 5 km only. 100. The learned Advocate General sub­mitted that the FIR was lodged promptly i.e. during the course of the day and as such there was no delay and that all minute details are not required to be included in FIR. (i) In the case of Budh Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2007) JOSCC 496, it has been observed that first information re­port is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of the entire event and that the same cannot contain the minutest details of the events. However, it is necessary to disclose the es­sential facts in the first information report, which should be lodged at the quickest pos­sible time. The Supreme Court also observed that: "if the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are found to be believable, a de­fective investigation by itself can't be a ground for acquittal and that purported improvement made by a witness is not of much significance." In the above referred case, the FIR was transcribed by PW.8 on the basis of oral statement made by PW. 1 and the same con­tained all material particulars. The FIR was recorded immediately after the occurrence. 1 and the same con­tained all material particulars. The FIR was recorded immediately after the occurrence. In view of above, the improvement made by PW. 1 was held to be not of much significance, (ii) In the case of Ram Das Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2006 AIR SCW 5675, Supreme Court observed that mere delay in lodging FIR is not by itself necessar­ily fatal to the case of the prosecution, notice must be taken to the fact that the report was lodged belatedly and this is a relevant fact. This fact regarding belated delay of lodging the FIR, has to be considered in the light of other facts and circumstances of the case and in a given case, Court may be satisfied that the delay in lodging the report has been suffi­ciently explained. In the light of the totality of the evidence, the Court of fact has to con­sider whether the delay in lodging the report adversely affects the case of prosecution. It is a matter of appreciation of evidence. There may be cases where there is direct evidence to explain the delay and in the absence of di­rect evidence, there may be circumstances appearing on record, which provide a rea­sonable explanation for the delay. 101. It is settled law that FIR is to be lodged promptly, disclosing material and vital information. In determining whether there is delay or not, the facts and circumstances of the case, the place of occurrence, distance of police station from the place of occurrence, ability of the informant are to be considered. In the present case, the occurrence, including assassination of a Cabinet Minister and his brother took place at 11.45 am at a distance of only 5 km from the police station. The Confidential Assistant (PW.31), the personal guard (PW.9) and the cousin of the Minister (PW.27) were all along present with the de­ceased persons. Police arrived at the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. In such a situation, there was no sufficient rea­son not to lodge the FIR, immediately after the incident but to wait till 5 pm. In our con­sidered opinion, there was inordinate delay in lodging the said FIR (Ext.P-8) and this delay creates doubt about the prosecution version. We have already noticed that the GD. Entry No. 1025, dated 31.03.98 i.e. Ext. In our con­sidered opinion, there was inordinate delay in lodging the said FIR (Ext.P-8) and this delay creates doubt about the prosecution version. We have already noticed that the GD. Entry No. 1025, dated 31.03.98 i.e. Ext. No.D-14, made in the Kamalpur police sta­tion, at the instance of PW.9, was the infor­mation lodged with the police, prior to the submission of Ext.No.P-8 and as such the Ext.No.D-14 should have been treated as the FIR. The Ext.No.P-8 could, at best be a statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The law prescribed by Section 154 CrPC is very clear in this regard. 102. Another eye witness to the occur­rence was Sri Sukh Ranjan Sinha, who was the Confidential Assistant (CA) to the Minis­ter. He deposed as PW 31. He stated that Satya Das and Himangshu Das were con­tacted to get the release of Bikram Sinha and that the Minister also had a talk with Himangshu Das and Satya Das. According to this witness, when discussion was held in the house of Satya Das, Sri Premananda Namasudra, Sri Nripendra Manasudra, Sri Ramananda Namasudra, Sri Sanjoy Das, Sri Shyamal Das, Sri Nirmal Das, Sri Paritosh Das, Sri Ripon Das, Sri Parimal Das used to keep vigilance as guard of Himangshu Das. Though this disclosed about the discussions held in the house of Satya Das with Himangshu Das and the presence of the said accused persons, he does not state anything incriminating against them. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and that too Himangshu Das was engaged by the Minis­ter, such discrepancy with him and the pres­ence of the said persons can lead to hold them guilty of the offences charged. He further stated that as per discussion held with the extremist leader, an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/-was arranged for payment to the extremists. According to this witness, on 24-3-98, a dis­cussion was also held with Premananda Namasudra, Satya Das and Bidyut Sinha (de­ceased) and that on the next day (25.3.98) Premananda Namasudra had informed him that an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- would meet the purpose and accordingly, he had informed the Minister over telephone. He further stated that on 26.3.98 an amount of Rs. 1,70,000 was paid to Himangshu Das through Satya Das in presence of Sri Nikunja Das (PW 12). 103. 1,70,000/- would meet the purpose and accordingly, he had informed the Minister over telephone. He further stated that on 26.3.98 an amount of Rs. 1,70,000 was paid to Himangshu Das through Satya Das in presence of Sri Nikunja Das (PW 12). 103. According to PW 31, on 31.3.98, his brother Nihar Ranjan Sinha (PW 8) and Bhabanga Sinha (PW 7) had informed him that Premananda came to his house and in­formed that NLFT extremists wanted to talk to the Minister. On being so informed, he had contactedthe Minister and informed him about the information received from Premananda Namasudra. According to this witness, he was told by the Minister to wait in front ofhis house and he also informed his brother Nihar Ranjan Sinha (PW.8) to inform Premananda Namasudra that the Minister would be going to the house of Sri Satya Das. He further stated that as the Minister was little late he had proceeded to the house of Manila Sinha, i.e the house of PW 1, situated on the bank of Dhalai river. From the evidence of this wit­ness, it is found that Premananda had only conveyed the information that the NLFT ex­tremists wanted to talk to the Minister. It has already been noticed, from the evidence on record, that Himangshu Das, Satya Das and some other persons were involved in the pro­cess to get release of the abducted brother of the Minister, in, as much as their help was sought by the Minister. According to the evi­dence of PW 8, i.e the brother of PW 31, Premananda wanted to know the availability of the Minister at Kamalpur for arrangement of the release of Bikram Sinha by the extrem­ists. But the evidence of P W 31 does not in­dicate that Premananda wanted to know the whereabouts of the Minister in connection with the release ofhis abducted brother. What is revealed from the evidence of PW 31 is that Sri Premananda Namasudra had con­veyed the information that NLFT extremists wanted to talk to the Minister and nothing more, (ii) In our considered opinion the said communication was vital and important, hav­ing bearing with regard to the alleged role played by Sri Premananda Namasudra. There is nothing on record to find, from the evidence of PW 31, that Premananda had wanted the Minister to be available at a particular place at a particular time. There is nothing on record to find, from the evidence of PW 31, that Premananda had wanted the Minister to be available at a particular place at a particular time. Therefore, the said infor­mation, furnished by Sri Premananda Namasudra cannot lead to believe that Premananda had entered into any conspiracy with the NLFT extremists to cause the death of the Minister.(iii) According to PW 31, on 31.3.98 at about 10 am, the Minister along with his personal security guard Sri Ranjit Debbarma (PW 9) reached the house of Manilal Sinha and they were joined by Sri Bikash (PW 27) and Bidyut Sinha (since de­ceased). He also stated that Sri Satya Das appeared and met the Minister and thereaf­ter Nripendra Namasudra and Sanjoy Das also arrived at the said house. According to this witness, Minister wanted to know from Nripendra as to whether the extremists would come or not and Nripendra informed that they were waiting at a little distance. He further stated that Nripendra and Sanjoy told him that they came to study the situation. According to this witness, Premananda Namasudra re­mained there standing as a guard behind the black berry tree. But PW 9, who claimed to have seen Sri Premananda Namasudra, Sri Nripendra Namasudra, Sri Himangshu Das in the company of the extremist at the place of occurrence and running away along with other miscreants, after committing the crime, did not state that Premananda and Nripendra had appeared, along with Satya Das, in the house, where Minister and his brother were sitting. Even PW 27 who was, all along, present with PW 31 did not state anything regarding the presence of any person other than Satya Das. The Ext. P.8, made by PW.27 also does not disclose anything about Sri Premananda, Sri Himangshu Das and Sri Nripendra Namasudra. (iv) P W 31 further stated that when he had told Sri Nripendra Namasudra that if the NLFT extremists wanted to talk to the Minister then only one of them may come without any arms but the Minister had told that the extremists need not come, rather they could talk to him through wireless set and accordingly Sri Nripendra Namasudra left with a wireless set for hand­ing over the same to the extremists. Accord­ing to this witness, at about 11 -25 Himangshu Das arrived there and he (PW.31) noticed some Bengali youth, on the eastern bank of the river. Accord­ing to this witness, at about 11 -25 Himangshu Das arrived there and he (PW.31) noticed some Bengali youth, on the eastern bank of the river. He further stated that Satya Das went to the eastern side of the river with a wireless set and returned to tell the Minister that the extremists could not talk with the wireless set and that they wanted to talk face to face. On being so informed, PW 31 himself, the Min­ister, Bidyut Sinha and Satya Das came out from the house towards the back side of the cow shed, situated on the river bank. He stated that Himangshu Das, who was stand­ing on the slope of the river bank had asked the Minister to go down the river. According to this witness, at that time, Bikash Sinha (PW 27) and his brother Nihar Ranjan Sinha (PW 8) were waiting in the hut of Manilal Sinha. He further stated that, on being so asked by Himangshu Das, the Minister, followed by his deceased brother, went down the river and he noticed that two tribal youths came towards the Minister, from the eastern side of the river bank and that the said two boys who had covered their bodies with 'gamcha' (napkin) were wearing long pant, (v) But PW 1, who also claimed to have seen the miscreants, as she was also observing the entire situation from their cow shed, stated that one of the miscreants was wearing a napkin, while the other one was wearing a trouser and that they were accompanied by Sri Himangshu Das, Sri Satya Das and Sri Premananda Namasudra. PW 3, the mother of PW 1 also stated in tune with PW 1, regarding the dresses of the extremists. In the G.D. Entry i.e D/14 it was mentioned that the extremists were wearing half pant. But according to PW 31 both of them were wearing long pants. This discrepancy regarding the wearing apparels of the extremists surfaced from the evidence of the eye witnesses, raises doubt as to whether PW 31, PW 1 and PW 3 had really seen the extremists and other persons com­ing towards the Minister and his deceased brother. PW 31 stated that he noticed that some Bengali youths were also coming to­wards the bank of the river. PW 31 stated that he noticed that some Bengali youths were also coming to­wards the bank of the river. He noticed that two tribal youths, who came to the middle of that river bank took out AK 47 rifle and one of them had exchanged words with the Min­ister. According to this witness, the said two youths came closer and, after having some talks with Bidyut Sinha, fired at the Minister and his brother Bidyut Sinha. Noticing the said firing, PW 31 ran to the nearby CRPF camp and the CRPF and escort party of the Minis­ter also moved towards the place of occur­rence. They reached the place of occurrence and carried the bodies of the Minister and his brother, to the Kamalpur hospital, where the Medical Officer declared them dead. From the above narration of the entire incident, as revealed by PW 31, it is found that at the time of the occurrence Satya Das was present with them i.e. PW.31 and the deceased, and Himangshu Das was standing on the slope of the river, when the two tribal youths, who were armed with AK 47 rifle came and fired at the Minister and his brother after some exchange of words, (vi) PW.31 clearly stated that the persons who left, crossing the river, amongst others, were Sri NripendraNamasudra, Sri PremanandaNamasudraand Sri Ramananda Namasudra. He never stated that Premamanda and Nripendra either come back or were seen in the place of the occur­rence. According to this witness, when the Minister and his brother had advanced about 10 cubits (about 15 feet), he found the Min­ister sitting in Kneel down position and the two tribal youths, coming towards the Minis­ter from the other side of the river bank whose bodies were covered with gamcha, were wearing long pants. According to PW.31, the two tribal youths, who came to the middle portion of the river, took out AK 47 rifle and told the Minister "you are joking with us" and the Minister also assured them not to get frightened. He further stated that the said two boys came closer to the Minister and his brother and one of them, after talking some­thing with Bidyut Sinha fired at them. He heard the voice of the Minister who uttered "What are you doing ? What are you doing ?" just before the firing incident. 104. He further stated that the said two boys came closer to the Minister and his brother and one of them, after talking some­thing with Bidyut Sinha fired at them. He heard the voice of the Minister who uttered "What are you doing ? What are you doing ?" just before the firing incident. 104. PW.31 further stated that, once the Minister told him that Jagadish Ghosh (since discharged) had maintained a grudge against him in connection with the rejection of his candidature and that Himangsu Das had also told the Minister that Jagadish Ghosh was creating problem in the release of Bikram Sinha. He also stated that Satya Das, Sudhungshu Das, Himangshu Das, Prema-nanda Namasudra, Ramananda Namasudra and Sanjoy Das along with two NLFT ex­tremists and others entered into a conspiracy to kill the Minister, (i) According to this wit­ness, when the two tribal extremists, were approaching towards the Minister and his deceased brother, he (PW 31) asked Sri Nripendra Namasudra (accused) as to who were those two tribal persons and Sri Nripendra Namasudra had told him that they were Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma and Sri Dayal Jamatia (both appellants). He further stated that subsequently, he learnt that Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma had fired at Bimal Sinha and Bidyut Sinha. PW 31 also stated that 10/12 days prior to the said occurrence, negotiation was held, regarding payment of the ransom, with a tribal leader, in the house of Lab Debbarma (PW 24) in the presence of PW. 10 and that subsequently, he came to know that name of the said tribal leader was Naba Kumar Debbarma. This witness, in his cross-examination, admitted that he did not state before the Investigating officer that he had asked Nripendra about the identity of the said two tribal youths, who were coming to­wards the Minister and that Nripendra had told him that they were Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia. He also ad­mitted that he did not tell the IO that the tribal youth, who had fired at the Minister and his brother was Naba Kumar Debbarma. In view of the above, it is clear that P W 31 ad­mitted that he did not disclose the identity of the said two tribal youths, who had fired at the Minister and his brother. In view of the above, it is clear that P W 31 ad­mitted that he did not disclose the identity of the said two tribal youths, who had fired at the Minister and his brother. His failure to dis­close such vital information, at the earliest possible opportunity i.e at the time of record­ing of statement under Section 161 CrPC raises serious doubt about the veracity of his evidence. Therefore, as he made such vital disclosure, for the first time in the court, with­out disclosing the same to the IO at the time of rendering his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is not believable that he came to know that Sri Biswa Dayal Jamatia and Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma were the two as­sailants who killed the deceased, (ii) That apart, the evidence of PW.1, PW.9 and PW.27, makes it doubtful if Nripendra was there to disclose the identity of the said two assailants. It is hard to believe the evidence of this witness that he was told by Nripendra Namasudra that Dayal Jamatia and Naba Kumar Debbarma were the two extremists who had fired at the Minister and his brother. Because the above discussed evidence indi­cates that Nripendra namasudra had left the company of PW 31 taking the wireless set aand there is no evidence of his rejoining the PW 1. (iii) In his cross-examination, this wit­ness further stated that, when Himangshu Das was contacted by the Minister for taking steps to release his brother, Himangshu Das had expressed his unwillingness to get involved with extremist matter, on the ground that such involvement might invite difficulties and prob­lems from the police and CRPF personnel and that Himangshu Das was assured by the Min­ister that he would manage the police, BSF and CRPF personnel and that he (Himangshu Das) would not face any problem or difficulty. This witness also stated that he did not see whether the Minister Bimal Sinha had fallen down after sustaining the bullet injuries, be­cause the place of occurrence was not visible from the place where he was standing. This statement of PW 31 belies his evidence that he had seen the said two youths coming to­wards the Minister, that he had asked Nripendra Namasudra regarding their iden­tity, that Nripendra had told him that those two extremists were Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma and Sri Biswa Dayal Jamatia. 105. This statement of PW 31 belies his evidence that he had seen the said two youths coming to­wards the Minister, that he had asked Nripendra Namasudra regarding their iden­tity, that Nripendra had told him that those two extremists were Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma and Sri Biswa Dayal Jamatia. 105. Sri Babul Das, who was one of the Investigating officers deposing as PW 34 stated that on 31.03.98 at about 12:20 pm, he received a telephone call from the CRPF camp regarding the incident and accordingly, he along with Sub Inspector Mukulendu Das (PW.39) and others went to the place of oc­currence and therefrom to the Kamalpur Hospital, where they found the dead bodies of the Minister and his brother. He stated that he did not find any of the extremists in the place of occurrence and that after his return to the police station he received a recorded FIR, sent by Mukulendu Das, Sub Inspector of Police, on the basis of which this case was registered. He has exhibited the said FIR as Ext.P/8. He clearly stated that he got the tele­phonic information at about 12:20 pm. He further stated that he seized one country-made pistol from the house of Sudhungshu Das and 25 gms of gun power in a plastic bag. 106. Smt. Bijoy Laxmi Sinha, widow of late Bimal Sinha deposed as PW 35. She stated that the extremists had demanded Rs.50 lakhs towards the release of Sri Bikram Sinha and that her husband had told her that one Jagadish Ghosh and some other persons were creating problem in the release of Bikram Sinha. She also stated that her husband and brother-in-law were killed by the extremists on31.3.98. 107. PW 36 Alis Mia was a witness to the seizure of wearing apparels of the de­ceased person. 108. Sri Nrkpendra Majumder, PW 37, stated that he saw the dead bodies of the deceased in the hospital. 109. Sub Inspector Buddha Debbarma (PW 38) who was posted at Kamalpur po­lice station at the relevant time stated that he saw the dead bodies of the deceased in the Kamalpur hospital and that he prepared the inquest report. He has exhibited the inquest reports of Bimal Sinha and Bidyut Sinha as Ext.P-19/1 andExt.P-20/1 respectively and his signatures thereon as Ext.P-19/2 and P-20/2. He also stated that he seized the wear­ing apparels vide Ext. 18. 110. He has exhibited the inquest reports of Bimal Sinha and Bidyut Sinha as Ext.P-19/1 andExt.P-20/1 respectively and his signatures thereon as Ext.P-19/2 and P-20/2. He also stated that he seized the wear­ing apparels vide Ext. 18. 110. Sri Mukulendu Das, Sub Inspector of Police (PW 39), who was posted at Salema Police station at the relevant time stated that, he along with the Officer-in-Charge Babul Das (PW 34), at about 12:35 pm, got the information from the CRPF camp regarding the incident of firing and rushed to the place of occurrence and thereafter, to the hospital, where they found the dead bodies of the Min­ister and his brother. He also stated that he went to the house of Sri Bikash Sinha (PW 27) and on being narrated by Bikash Sinha he had written down the information about the incident, which was registered as FIR. He has exhibited the said FIR as Ext.P/8.3. he further stated that he seized some blood stained earth and three cartridges of AK 47 rifle and pistol by seizure list. He stated that the case was handed over to the CID. 111. Sri Pritish Bhattachartjee (PW 40) Sub Inspector of CID, stated that he was also one of the members of the investigating team and that Sub Inspector Durgesh Majumder (PW.49) was the Investigating officer. He stated that on being requisitioned by the In­vestigating officer, he recorded the statement of Sobha Rani Sinha (PW 3), Ranjit Ghosh, Constable Sreecharan Roy, Head Constable Har Kumar Debbarma under Section 161 CrPC and that he seized one letter, written, in Bengali language, by an NLFT extremist to Sri Charpai Seikh Halam. 112. Sri Haripada Bhattacharjee deposed as PW 41. He was also one of the members of the CID team, involved in the investigation of the matter. 113. PW 42 Nagendra Tripura, Sub In­spector of Police, PW 43 Constable Bijoy Deb, PW 44 Constable Sadhan Shil, PW 45 Sriman Majumder, Sub Inspector of CID photographer, P W 46 Subhash Chandra Das, DSP,CID and PW 49 Durgesh Majumder Sub Inspector of CID were involved in the investigatioa 114. Durgesh Majumder (PW 49) stated that at the close of the investigation and after obtaining necessary approval from the author­ity, he submitted chargesheet, on 29-7-99 under Sections302/120 B/l 20/34IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sec­tions 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Pre­vention) Act, against the accused persons. Durgesh Majumder (PW 49) stated that at the close of the investigation and after obtaining necessary approval from the author­ity, he submitted chargesheet, on 29-7-99 under Sections302/120 B/l 20/34IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sec­tions 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Pre­vention) Act, against the accused persons. He stated that he examined the witnesses and recorded their statement under Section 161 CrPC. 115. From the above discussed evidence, it has been clearly established that after the abduction of Bikram Sinha (PW 30), his brothers Bimal Sinha and Bidyut Sinha initi­ated process to get him released and during the said process, the deceased persons, their cousin Bikash Sinha (PW 27) and the Minister's CA (PW 31) made several con­sultations with various persons, including Sri Himangshu Das, Sri Satya Das, Sri Prema-nandaNamasudra, Sri NripendraNamasudra etc. at various places, including the village and house of Sri Satya Das and Sri Lab Debbarma (PW24). 116. It is the prosecution version that Sri Jagadish Ghosh, failing to get his nomination paper, for the candidature of the State As­sembly election, accepted entered into a con­spiracy with Sri Sudhungshu Das, Sri Himangshu Das, Sri PremanandaNamasudra, Sri RamanandaNamasudra, Sri Sanjoy Das, Sri Sujit Das and NLFT extremists to elimi­nate Bimal Sinha, at whose instance/objec­tion his nomination paper was cancelled and in pursuance to their said common intention and conspiracy, the accused persons, includ­ing the private appellants and the private re­spondents caused abduction of the brother of the Minister and allured him to meet the extremists, on the fateful morning, for facili­tating his assassination and as a consequence of this conspiracy, the Minister and his brother Bidyut Sinha were called to the river bed, where they were brutally killed by the extrem­ists. There is no dispute that the Minister and his brother were killed by two assassinators by using fire arms. 117. Sri Jagadish Ghosh who has been alleged to be the prime conspirator was also impleaded as accused in this case and he has been discharged, at the recommendation of the prosecution. This discharge of Sri Jagadish Ghosh, not being challenged, the said dis­charge attained its finality. 118. In the case of State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. 117. Sri Jagadish Ghosh who has been alleged to be the prime conspirator was also impleaded as accused in this case and he has been discharged, at the recommendation of the prosecution. This discharge of Sri Jagadish Ghosh, not being challenged, the said dis­charge attained its finality. 118. In the case of State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. V.C. Shukla & Anr., reported in AIR 1980 SC1382, the Supreme Court laid down "in order to hold a person guilty under Sec­tion 120B IPC, there must be direct or circum­stantial evidence to show that there was an agreement between two or more persons to com­mit an offence. This clearly indicates that there must be a meeting of minds resulting in an ulti­mate decision taken by the conspirators, regard­ing the commission of an offence". It has also been observed in the said case that: "though it is true that in most cases it will be difficult to get direct evidence of an agree­ment to conspire evidence of an agreement to conspire but a conspiracy can be inferred even from circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence". 119. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Sukhbasi & Ors., reported mAIR 1985SC 1224, the Supreme Court observed : "to substantiate the charge under Section 120B IPC, there must be a criminal conspiracy at least between two or more persons and it must be established that prior to commission of the offence, they had conspired together to do the alleged act". 120. In the case of P.K. Narayanan Vs. State of Kerala, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 142 , the Supreme Court observed: "essence of criminal conspiracy is an agree­ment to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both". It has also been observed : "if the circumstances are compatible with the innocence of the accused persons then it cannot be held that the prosecution has suc­cessfully established its case". The Supreme Court further observed that: "inferences from such proved circum­stances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation". 121. In the case of Kamala Muniratnam & Am. Vs. The Supreme Court further observed that: "inferences from such proved circum­stances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation". 121. In the case of Kamala Muniratnam & Am. Vs. State of A.P, reported in 2003 CRI.L.J. 4782, the Supreme Court observed: "in a case under Section 120B IPC, there must be an agreement between two or more per­sons to constitute criminal conspiracy". 122. In the case of Ghanashyam Jena Vs. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 CRI.L.J. 4794, the Supreme Court observed: "there must be some evidence with regard to hatching up of the conspiracy and acquittal of co-accused persons from the charge under Section 120B of IPC unsettles the foundation of the charge against the remaining accused". 123. In the case of Mithu Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 2001 SC 1929 , the Supreme Court observed: "to substantiate a charge under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 IPC, it must be shown that the criminal act complained against was done by one of the accused persons in further­ance of the common intention of the both". The Supreme Court also observed: "common intention has to be distinguished from same or similar intention and that an infer­ence has to be drawn from the acts or conduct of the accused or other relevant circumstances as available". The Supreme Court further observed: "an inference as to common intention shall not be readily drawn; the culpable liability can arise only if such inference can be drawn with a certain degree of assurance". 124. In the case of Mohan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of M.P, reported in AIR 1999 SC 883 , the Supreme Court observed : "in order to hold a person guilty of an of­fence with the help of Section 34 I PC, it is nec­essary to notice the consequence of events preceding to alleged offence committed by the accused persons". 125. In view of the above principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in a case of criminal conspiracy, in order to prove the charge, prosecution is required to establish by adducing cogent and reliable evidence ei­ther oral or circumstantial that there was an agreement between the parties or meeting of minds to commit the alleged offence. In the absence of substantive evidence towards such agreement no allegation of criminal conspiracy can stand. 126. In the absence of substantive evidence towards such agreement no allegation of criminal conspiracy can stand. 126. In the present case the conspiracy is alleged to have been hatched from the date, on which the nomination paper of Jagadish Ghosh was cancelled. PW17 Ranjit Ghosh, in his evidence stated that Jagadish Ghosh had declared that, even if Bimal Sinha could win the election, he (Jagadish Ghosh) would ensure that an election was again held within three months. He further stated that Bimal Sinha told him that Jagadish Ghosh and Putul Singh Debbarma were conspiring against him. Fact remains that the said alleged prime con­spirator i.e Jagadish Ghosh has already been discharged. There is no evidence on record to show that there was any agreement or meeting of minds amongst Sri Jagadish Ghosh and the appellants, namely Sri Premananda Namasudra, Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma, Sri Biswa Dayal Jamatia and the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.46/2005 for killing the Minister and his brother. It is true that direct evidence to establish the allegation of con­spiracy can be rarely available, but this does not mean that one can be held guilty of con­spiracy without any substantive evidence. In the absence of direct evidence, there must exist strong circumstantial evidence, pointing the guilt to the accused persons and inconsis­tent with their innocence. 127. The statement of PW.17 aforesaid can't safely lead to hold that the said persons abducted PW.30, with an aim to kill the Min­ister. Law is well settled that, unless cogent and reliable evidence is adduced, no suspi­cion, howsoever high, can take the place of substantial evidence and it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond all rea­sonable doubt. Prosecution must stand on its own leg. 128. The evidence that Sri Himangshu Das, on being requested by the Minister, got involved in the process of negotiation with the extremists and that Sri Satya Das, Sri Nripendra Namasudra, Premananda Nama­sudra and other respondents in Criminal Ap­peal No.46/2005 extended help, does not amount to substantive evidence to hold that they had entered into any criminal conspiracy to kill the Minister and his brother. 129. In the case of S.D. Soni Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 567, Supreme Court observed that prosecu­tion case must stand on its own legs and it cannot benefit from the weakness of the de­fence. 130. 129. In the case of S.D. Soni Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 567, Supreme Court observed that prosecu­tion case must stand on its own legs and it cannot benefit from the weakness of the de­fence. 130. In the case ofSarad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1984 (4 SCC) 116, Supreme Court ob­served that prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any stand from the weakness of the defence and that it is not the law where there is any infirmity or lacuna in a case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea, which is not accepted by a Court. 131. In the case of Nepal Singh Vs. State ofHariyana : AIR 2009 SC 2913 , the Su­preme Court observed that presumption can­not be ground to record conviction. 132. As discussed earlier, none of the said witnesses stated that the said appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 31/2005, 103/2006 and 58/2010 as well as the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.46/2005, had at any point of time entered into any agreement or made any understanding or that there was any meeting of minds amongst them with a view to eliminate the Minister and his brother. 133. In the present case, Sri Premananda Namasudra has been convicted under Sec­tion 120B IPC i.e for the offence of con­spiracy. The prosecution version is that Sri Premananda, in pursuance of their conspiracy to kill the Minister, with the help of extrem­ists, allured the Minister to go the place of occurrence and that this act, on the part of Premananda, facilitated the killing of the Min­ister and his brother. We have already no­ticed, from the evidence of PW 8 and PW 31, that, in the morning of the date of occur­rence, Premananda Namasudra wanted to know the whereabouts of the Minister in con­nection with the release of his brother. Ad­mittedly, Premananda also got involved with the process initiated for the release of the ab­ducted person. Prior to the date of occur­rence also, the Minister had met and con­tacted Premananda, Himangshu Das, Satya Das and others. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW 8 and PW 31, we find that Premananda wanted information regarding the availability of the Minister in connection with release of his brother. Prior to the date of occur­rence also, the Minister had met and con­tacted Premananda, Himangshu Das, Satya Das and others. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW 8 and PW 31, we find that Premananda wanted information regarding the availability of the Minister in connection with release of his brother. There is nothing to find from the evidence of PW 8 and PW 31 that Premananda had asked the Minister to go to a particular place, rather PW 31 had con­veyed the information that the Minister would be available in the house of Satya Das. Fact remains that the Minister went to the house of PW 1 i.e not to the house of Satya Das. Therefore, it is clear that Premananda had no information that the Minister would be avail­able in the house of PW.I. PW 1, Manila Sinha, in whose house, the Minister, his brother Bidyut Sinha, his personal security guard Ranjit Debbarma (PW 9) and his CA Sukh Ranjan Sinha (PW 31) were camping, just prior to the occurrence, on the fateful day, stated that, when the Minister and his team had arrived in their house, Satya Das followed by Himangshu Das and Premananda Namasudra had met the Minister and that Satya Das and Himangshu Das had talk with the Minister and thereafter Himangshu Das was sent by Minister, giving him a wireless set to hand-over the same to the extremist. Thus, it is found that the services of Satya, Himangshu and Premananda was utilized by the Minister for the purposes of getting the release of his abducted brother. 134. Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned counsel, referring to the evidence of PW.1, PW.3, PW.9, PW.27 and PW.31, has submitted that, in view of the contradictory evidence given by the said witnesses, on material points, the prosecution version regarding involvement of the private appellants and the private re­spondents can't be believed. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General, relying on the decision held in the case of Anil Singh (supra), has submitted that minor addition and contradictions, noticed in the evidence of prosecution witnesses can't be ground to throw the prosecution case. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General, relying on the decision held in the case of Anil Singh (supra), has submitted that minor addition and contradictions, noticed in the evidence of prosecution witnesses can't be ground to throw the prosecution case. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Anil Singh, reported in 1988 (Supp) SCC 686, the Supreme Court observed that the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved and such addition can't be ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. It is settled law that, if there is a ring of truth in the main, the court should not reject the evidence only on the ground of ad­dition or omission. It is the duty of the court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evi­dence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glar­ing as utterly to destroy confidence in the wit­nesses. The pious duty of a presiding judge in a criminal proceeding is to see not only that no innocent person is punished, but also that at the same time, a guilty person does not es­cape. 135. From the evidence of PW. 1, it tran­spires that both Himangshu Das and Premananda Namasudra left towards the river bank. She also stated that, subsequently, af­ter getting information from Himangshu, the Minister, his deceased brother and PW.31, went towards the river and this time she saw Satya Das, Himangshu Das and Premananda Namasudra coming with the two extremists, belonging to tribal community, towards the Minister and his brother. According to her evidence, immediately after the occurrence, the extremists, along with Himangshu Das, Premananda Namasudra, Satya Das, had run away. So, if she is believed five persons came and they ran away after after committing the offence. She clearly stated that she was ob­serving the entire incident from the cow shed. But, her mother (PW 3) claimed to have seen Satya Das, Himangshu Das, Premananda Namasudra, Nirmal Das, Shyamal Das, Paritosh Das, Ripan Das, Sanjoy Das, Nripendra Namasudra, Parimal Das and two others, one of whom was wearing a napkin and the other one was wearing a trouser and she stated that the said persons covered their bodies with cloths. But, her mother (PW 3) claimed to have seen Satya Das, Himangshu Das, Premananda Namasudra, Nirmal Das, Shyamal Das, Paritosh Das, Ripan Das, Sanjoy Das, Nripendra Namasudra, Parimal Das and two others, one of whom was wearing a napkin and the other one was wearing a trouser and she stated that the said persons covered their bodies with cloths. PW 9 i.e the personal se­curity guard of the Minister, who was stand­ing in the courtyard of PW 1, at the time of occurrence, claimed to have seen Himangshu Das, Satya Das, Premananda Namasudra and Nripendra N amasudra running away from the place of occurrence after the firing incident. 136. Therefore, according to PWs. 1, 3 and 9 taking their common version, Himan­gshu Das, Premananda Namasudra, Satya Das, were in the company of the two extrem­ists, who had fired at the deceased persons and they, along with the said two extremists, had fled the place. This is one set of the evi­dence given by the said eye witnesses and this evidence indicates involvement of Himangshu, Satya and Premananda. Though PW 3 stated that she saw Satya Das, Himangshu Das, Shyamal Das, Paritosh Das, Ripon Das, Sanjoy Das, Nirmal Das and Parimal Das, P W1 saw only Himangshu Das, Satya Das and Premananda Namasudra while PW 9 stated about the presence of Himangshu Das, Satya Dazs, Premannda Namasudra, Nripendra Namasudra. There is no corroboration of other persons in their evi­dence. 137. But, there is another set of conflict­ing evidence, given by other two vital eye witnesses, who had better opportunity to the see the occurrence. 138. PW 27 Bikash Sinha and PW.31 Sri Sukha Ranjan Sinha, were also the eye wit­nesses to the occurrence. According to P W. 1 and PW.9, the said PW.27 and PW.31 went out along with the Minister towards the river, so, naturally, they could better see the occur­rence and the persons involved. 139. According to PW.27, he was present with PW 9 at the time of occurrence. This indicates that he did not go out with the Min­ister, his deceased brother and PW.31. But, both PW. 1 and PW.9 stated that PW.27 also went out. 139. According to PW.27, he was present with PW 9 at the time of occurrence. This indicates that he did not go out with the Min­ister, his deceased brother and PW.31. But, both PW. 1 and PW.9 stated that PW.27 also went out. As PW.27, himself stated that he did not go with the Minister, his brother and PW.31 also did not say that PW.27 had ac­companied him along with the deceased, there is no sufficient reason to believe the statement of PW.9 and PW.1 that they saw P.W.27 going with the Minister and others. P W1 also said that the deceased Premananda and PW 31 had gone out. So according to PW 1 also, Pw 27 did not go out. Hence, PW 1 sup­ported PW 27 but P W 9 and PW 31 contra­dicted the same. In our considered view, this is a major contradiction, which suggest doubt about the truthfulness of the evidence given by PW.9 and PW.1. 140. Regarding evidentiary value of the witness, who give conflicting and contradic­tory statement on material and vital point, the Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions has held that no reliance can be placed on such conflicting evidence to base conviction. 141. In the case of Man Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P, reported in 2003 CRI.L.J. 3908, the Supreme Court observed that "if there exists two contradictory sets of evidence then both are liable to be rejected". In the above referred case, the Supreme Court ob­served that: "in this way, the evidence of alleged ocular witnesses Bhajan (PW.1) and Smti Tar Chand (PW.2) do not coincide with each other and the above facts and circumstances leads to infer that neither Bhajan (PW. 1) nor Smt. Tar Chand (PW.2) had occasion to be present at the time of occurrence". The Supreme Court further observed that: "such contradictory evidence given by two eye witnesses makes the credibility of the wit­nesses highly doubtful and no reliance can be placed on their evidence". 142. In the case of Harchand Ch. Singh Vs. State of Hariyana, reported in AIR 1974 SC 344 , Supreme Court observed that when two contradictory sets of evidence are laid, it is difficult to base conviction on such contra­dictory evidence. 143. 142. In the case of Harchand Ch. Singh Vs. State of Hariyana, reported in AIR 1974 SC 344 , Supreme Court observed that when two contradictory sets of evidence are laid, it is difficult to base conviction on such contra­dictory evidence. 143. From the evidence of Bikash Sinha (PW.27), it is found that, when he along with the deceased, PW 9 and P W 31 arrived in the house of PW 1, one Bengali gentleman had come to the said house and held discus­sion with the Minister. He later identified the said Bengali man as Sri Satya Das. This wit­ness does not support the evidence of P W1, PW 3 and PW 9 regarding presence of Himangshu Das and Premananda Namasudra either in the house of PW 1 or in the place of occurrence. If the evidence of PW 27 is be­lieved, it must be held that neither Premananda Namasudra nor Himangshu Das had arrived in the house of PW 1 to meet the Minister. According PW 27, when the Minister and his brother, along with PW 31 proceeded to­wards the river, to meet the extremists, he was in the house of PW 1 with PW 9. But ac­cording to P W 9, the deceased persons, PW 31 and PW 27 went out from the house to­wards the river bank. Therefore, there is ma­jor contradiction in the evidence of PW 9 and PW 27 which raises doubt about the veracity of their evidence. 144. That apart, according to PW 27 af­ter the departure of the Minister, his brother and PW 31, towards the river, they (PW 9 and PW 27) heard the Minister shouting, "What are you doing ? What are you doing?" and hearing the sound of gun fire they came out and saw 10/15 persons crossing the river. From the evidence on record, it has already been noticed that Satya Das, Premananda Namasudra, Nripendra Namasudra and Himangshu Das were known to this witness. This witness did not make any whisper re­garding presence of Himangshu Das and Premananda Namasudra. 145. Now, turning to the evidence of an­other eye witness, i.e PW 31, we notice that he also contradicted the evidence of PWs 1,3, 9 and 27. According to PW 31, when they arrived in the house of P W1, firstly Nripendra Namasudra and Sanjoy Das had arrived at the said house and they left after talking to the Minister. 145. Now, turning to the evidence of an­other eye witness, i.e PW 31, we notice that he also contradicted the evidence of PWs 1,3, 9 and 27. According to PW 31, when they arrived in the house of P W1, firstly Nripendra Namasudra and Sanjoy Das had arrived at the said house and they left after talking to the Minister. According to this witness, Nripendra Namasudra and Sanjoy Das again came back, followed by Premananda Namasudra and they remained there. Accord­ing to PW.31, he told Nripendra Namasudra that extremists if they wanted to talk to the Minister, one of them could come, without any arms. But PWs 1, 9 and 27, who also claimed to be eye witnesses to the occurrence did not say anything about holding of such discussion with Nripendra. From the evidence of PWs 9, 27 and 31, it is found that they were all along present in the house of PW 1 with the Minister and his brother and there is nothing on record to find that P W 31 had any occasion to talk with Nripendra, to the ex­clusion of PW 27 and PW 9. None of PW 9 and PW 27 supported the evidence of PW 31 that he had any discussion with Nripendra. 146. Another glaring inconsistency, regard­ing the presence of Nripendra with PW.31, can be noticed from the evidence of PW.31 himself. According to PW.31, Minister had talked with Nripendra and sent him with a wireless set, for handing over the same to the extremists. This witness does not say that Nripendra, who went with the wireless set, had ever come back. He also stated that, sub­sequently, Satya Das came and he was fol­lowed by Himangshu Das. PW 31 further stated that Satya Das, who also carried one wireless set, given by the Minister, to hand­over the same to the extremist, returned to tell the Minister that the extremists wanted to talk face to face and, on being so informed, he (PW.31) along with the Minister, his de­ceased brother and Satya Das came out of the house and moved towards the river side, where they found Himangshu Das, standing on the slope of the river. Here, we may pause for a moment and again scrutinize the evidence of PW1, PW9, PW27 and PW31. 147. Here, we may pause for a moment and again scrutinize the evidence of PW1, PW9, PW27 and PW31. 147. According to PW 31, two wireless sets were carried by two persons, namely, Sri Nripendra NAMASUDRA followed by Sri Satya Das. But according to PW.1 and P W.9, the Minister had given the wireless set to Himangshu Das only, who carried the same. Surprisingly, PW 27 is silent about such wireless set. If the evidence of the PW.27 coupled with the written information i.e. Ext.P-8 is perused, it would be found that it was only Satya Das, who had carried the wireless set. The Ext.P-8 as well as the oral evidence of PW.27 excludes the presence of Himangshu, Nripendra, Parimal etc. It is quite surprising as to how there could be such ma­jor contradiction in the evidence of the said eye witnesses as well as the Ext.P-8, which the prosecution treated as, FIR. The said contradiction found in the evidence of the above mentioned witnesses raises serious doubt about the involvement of Himangshu Das and Premananda Namasudra, Nripendra Namasudra as well as the credibility of the evidence given by the said witnesses. PW 27, who was one of the eye witnesses and present along with P W 9 and P W 31, all along, did not whisper anything against Premananda and Himangshu Das, Nripendra and others, ex­cept saying that as old man i.e Satya Das came and carried the wireless. 148. Another major contradiction is no­ticed in the evidence of the said witnesses is regarding the presence and the role played by Satya Das, Himangshu Das and Prema­nanda Namasudra. According P W 1, Satya Das, Himangshu Das, Premananda Namasu­dra, Nripendra and other respondents in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2005. were found coming along with the two tribal extremists towards the river bank i.e to the place, where the Minister and his brother were killed and the said persons ran away from the place of occurrence after committing the crime. PW 3 i.e the mother of PW 1 also stated that she saw Premananda Namasudra, Satya Das and Himangshu Das Nirmal Das, Shyamal Das, Paritosh Das,Ripan Das, Sanjoy Das, Nripendra namasudra coming with two other persons, who covered their heads with cloth coming towards western direction and that they halted on a heap of sand. PW 3 i.e the mother of PW 1 also stated that she saw Premananda Namasudra, Satya Das and Himangshu Das Nirmal Das, Shyamal Das, Paritosh Das,Ripan Das, Sanjoy Das, Nripendra namasudra coming with two other persons, who covered their heads with cloth coming towards western direction and that they halted on a heap of sand. PW 9 also claimed to have seen Himangshu Das along with 6/7 persons coming to the river bank and he found Himangshu Das, Satya Das, Premananda Namasudra and Nripendra Namasudra running away from the place of occurrence. But PW 27, who also went out towards the river bank, along with PW 9, immediately after the occurrence, did not say about the presence of Satya Das, Himangshu Das and Premananda Namasudra. 149. It is doubtful as to how PW 9, who also went out with PW 27 could see more than what P W 27 saw or for that more than PW 31 who was all along present near the place of occurrence since prior to the leaving of the deceased to the said place of occur­rence. According to PW 27, after the occur­rence, 10/15 persons were seen crossing the river. As discussed earlier, if the evidence of PW 31 is taken into confidence, Satya Das was all along with them, in as much as, he went out from the house with the Minister, his brother and PW 31 towards the river bank. PW 31, nowhere stated that Satya Das, Himangshu Das and Premananda Nama-sudran Nripendra and others, as mentioned above, came along with the extremists. He claimed that, he from the river bank, saw two extremists coming to the place of occurrence. According to P W 31, he found Himangshu Das standing on the slope of the river and the two tribal youths, who came near the Minis­ter, after some altercation, fired at the Minis­ter and his brother. This witness did not make any whisper that Satya Das, Himangshu Das Nripendra, Premananda Namasudra and those other respondents in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2005. were present with the ex­tremists or that they had run away along with the said assassinators. Admittedly, PW 31 came out along with the Minister and his de­ceased brother and he was standing on the river bank, with his eye on the Minister, when the Minister and his brother went down the river bank, on being called by Himangshu Das. were present with the ex­tremists or that they had run away along with the said assassinators. Admittedly, PW 31 came out along with the Minister and his de­ceased brother and he was standing on the river bank, with his eye on the Minister, when the Minister and his brother went down the river bank, on being called by Himangshu Das. He was at closer distance, from the place of occurrence, than PW 9 and PW 1. There­fore, it cannot be accepted that PW 9, who was in the courtyard of the house of PW 1, and P W 1, who was inside the cowshed, could have better visibility/opportunity to no­tice the occurrence than the P W.31, who was quite near the place of occurrence. Hence, the evidence of PW.31 belies the evidence of PWs. 1,3 and 9 that Satya Das, Himan-gshu Das, Premanandan Namasudra and such other respondents of Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2005 came with the extremists and that they had fled with them. That apart, in the written information i.e. the G.D. Entry (Ext.No.D-14 and also in the written infor­mation, which was treated by the investigat­ing agency as Ext.P.-8 no mention was made about the involvement of the said respondents of the Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2005 as well as Sri Premananda Namasudra, Sri Nabakumar Debbarma and Sri Biswa Dayal Jamatia, whjo are appellants in Criminal Ap­peal Nos. 31 of 2005, 103 of 2006 and 58 of 2010. 150. In the case of Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1506 , Supreme Court observed: "As is well known entries made in the gen­eral diary about all the events that take place in the police station in chronological order and it is ordinarily difficult to fabricate false entries in the case diary". This observation indicates that there should be presumption as to correctness of such en­try in the general diary, unless contrary is proved. 151. In the case of State of Orissa Vs. Brahmmananda Nanda, reported in AIR 1976 SC 2488 , Supreme Court observed that failure of the witness, who saw the murderer assault, to disclose for a day and a half with­out any explanation, such non disclosure would adversely affect the prosecution story. Such failure, is a very serious infirmity, which destroys the credibility of the evidence of the witness. 152. In the case of Martar Singh Vs. Such failure, is a very serious infirmity, which destroys the credibility of the evidence of the witness. 152. In the case of Martar Singh Vs. State of U.P, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 3067, Supreme Court observed that failure of eye witnesses to inform the police immediately after the occurrence raises doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. In the above referred case, the FIR was lodged 45 minutes after the incident despite the fact that the police station was situated close and vis­ible from the place of incident. The eye wit­ness i.e. P.W. 1 did not go immediately to police station to report, but he went to Sri C. Singh to prepare a written report and then went to police station with the written report. The Supreme Court observed that the fact that P.W. 1 took 45 minutes in reporting the incident at the police station createed doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case and did not rule out false implication of the accused against whom P.W. 1 had some civil disputes. 153. As discussed above, the delay in lodging the Ext.P-8, failure to discharge vital information, regarding involvement of the ac­cused persons and the confliction noticed in the said information contained in the written reports as well as the oral evidence of the witnesses makes the prosecution version doubtful. The evidence of PW 31 and PW 27, coupled with the Ext.D-14 and Ext.P-8, negates the story narrated by PW. 1, PW.3 and PW.9 regarding involvement of the pri­vate appellants and Sri Himangshu Das and the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2006. Therefore, we are inclined to believe that none, but the two killers had approached the Minister and his brother in the river bed and they had fled the place of occurrence, after firing at the Minister and his brother, as a result of which the Minister and his brother Bidyut died. 154. PW 25 has stated that once she had contributed Rs.600/- to the extremist through Himangshu Das, who had link with the ex­tremist. The said allegation is not the subject matter of this case. There is no charge that Himangshu Das had collected subscription from PW 25 for and on behalf of the extrem­ist. 154. PW 25 has stated that once she had contributed Rs.600/- to the extremist through Himangshu Das, who had link with the ex­tremist. The said allegation is not the subject matter of this case. There is no charge that Himangshu Das had collected subscription from PW 25 for and on behalf of the extrem­ist. The accused persons i.e the above men­tioned appellants and the respondents have been charged under Section 13 of the Un­lawful Activities (Prevention) Act, on the al­legation that they being members of NLFT and took part in the commission of unlawful activity in committing murder of Bimal Sinha and his brother Bidyut Sinha. Fact remains that, despite his reluctance to get involved, the Minister had persuaded Himangshu Das to take part in the process of getting the re­lease of PW 30. It is on record that the Min­ister, PW 31 and PW 27 had taken the ser­vices of Himangshu Das in the said process. The fact that Himangshu Das and Parimal Namasudra had contacted the extremists/ab­ductors of PW 30, does not lead to hold that Sri Himangshu and Sri Parimal Namasudra got involved with illegal activities committed by any member of the NLFT towards the kill­ing of the deceased persons. It has been con­tended that as Sri Parimal Namasudra on the fateful morning had asked PW 25 to keep her children in the house telling her that the extremists would bring Sri Bikram Sinha for his release. This statement that Sri Parimal knew that Sri Bikram would be released and that the children should be kept in home, does not indicate that he had the knowledge about the assassination of the Minister and his brother. There is nothing on record to show that he had said or indicated that such incident would take place. Prosecution cannot be the basis for conviction in such cases. Therefore, we find no substantive evidence to believe that they indulged in unlawful activities, in col­lusion with the NLFT. 155. There is nothing on record to show that he had said or indicated that such incident would take place. Prosecution cannot be the basis for conviction in such cases. Therefore, we find no substantive evidence to believe that they indulged in unlawful activities, in col­lusion with the NLFT. 155. In view of the above, we find no sub­stantive evidence to believe that Sri Premananda Namasudra i.e the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2005 in collusion with the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.45 of 2005, 103 of 2006, 58 of 2010 and the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005 after entering into a conspiracy had killed the Minister and his brother by using arms and that they got involved any unlawful activities, in connection with the killing of the deceased. 156. Now the question is who were those two assailants who had killed the Minister and his brother. According to the prosecution, those two were Sri Biswa Dayal Jamatia and Sri Naba Kumar Jamatia. According to P Ws 24,31 and 10, they once met one extremist leader in the house of PW 24 with whom they had negotiated the terms of release of Bikram Sinha. Though PWs 24 and 31 stated that the name of the said extremist leader, who came to negotiate with them, was Naba Kumar Debbarma, none of them could state as to how or from what source they could identify that he was Naba Kumar Debbarma. Surprisingly, PW 10, who was also present with PW 24 and PW 31 at the time of meet­ing the said extremist did not state about the identity of the said leader. If PWs 24,31, in the said meeting, could identify the said per­son as Naba Kumar Debbarma, it cannot be believed that PW 31 and PW 10 did not share such information with PW 10 or that they would have kept P W 10 ignorant about the identity of such an important and relevant person. PW 24 admitted that he knew the name of the said extremist leader subse­quently. This indicates that neither P W 24 nor PW 31 could know the name of the said ex­tremist on the day of their meeting with him. Now the important question is how could they identity the said persons. Fact remains that the said witness neither stored the said infor­mation amongst themselves nor disclosed it to others. 157. This indicates that neither P W 24 nor PW 31 could know the name of the said ex­tremist on the day of their meeting with him. Now the important question is how could they identity the said persons. Fact remains that the said witness neither stored the said infor­mation amongst themselves nor disclosed it to others. 157. In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Venkatesh & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 539, Supreme Court observed fail­ure of prosecution witnesses to disclose the relevant information to anyone at the earliest opportunity and the delay in disclosing such information is not free from serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case. 158. Therefore, in view of the above prin­ciple of law, the failure of PW.31 and 24 to disclose the name of Nabakumar Debbarma to PW. 10, raises doubt about the veracity of the evidence of PW.24 and PW.31. 159. There is nothing on record to show that they knew the said persons since earlier. No Test Identification Parade was also held. Fact remains that, the PWs 24 and 31 had seen the said person only once, that too for a short time, so it is doubtful that they could remember his identify for such a long time i.e. till giving evidence in the court. The learned Advocate General has submitted that failure to hold TIP is not fatal for the prosecution. The law regarding necessity to hold TIP has been settled in a catena of decisions. 160. In the case of State ofMaharastra Vs. Sukhdev Singh & Anr., reported in (1992) 3 SCC 700 , the Supreme Court ob­served: "17. From the above facts it is not possible to infer that Sukhi and Sukha were in occupa­tion of the flat. This gap is sought to be filled through PW 48 H.S. Bhullar who claims to be a friend of the inmates of the flat. This witness deposes to have taken three prostitutes to the flat to satisfy the sexual urges of Sukhi, Sukha and another who were living therein. Now this witness is said to have identified Sukha in court. Ex.318 dated December 8,1988 is an application given by Accused 5 Jinda alleging that when he and Sukha were being taken to court they were shown to the prosecution witnesses. Now this witness is said to have identified Sukha in court. Ex.318 dated December 8,1988 is an application given by Accused 5 Jinda alleging that when he and Sukha were being taken to court they were shown to the prosecution witnesses. Be­fore we examine this allegation it is necessary to bear in mind that PW 48 was apprehended by the police on May 10, 1986 and was booked as a coaccused but was later released and used as a witness. Great care must be exercised be­fore acting on such a belated identification in court by a witness who cannot be said to be an independent and unbiased person. Corroboration is sought to be provided through the maid servant PW 49 Lalita who was working in the flat. She too had identified the accused in court only. She was candid enough to accept the fact that the accused Sukha and Jinda were shown to her and PW 48 when they were being taken to court. This admission nullifies the identifica­tion of the two accused by these two witnesses in court. No weight can be attached to such identification more so when no satisfactory ex­planation is forthcoming for the investigation officer's failure to hold a test identification pa­rade. So also PW 50 Hira Sinha, one of the pros­titutes, also identified him in court but she too was not called to any test identification parade to identify the inmates of the flat. She too ad­mits that Sukha was shown to her when he was in the lock-up. The other prostitute Jaya who is said to have had sex with Sukha was not called to the witness-stand though she attended court, When PW 50 could not identify the person with whom she had sex what reliance can be placed on her identification of Sukha in court after a lapse of almost two years? Besides, it is an ad­mitted fact that there was considerable change in the appearance of the accused, earlier they were clean shaven and later they were attired like Sikhs making identification all the more dif­ficult. No neighbour, not even the laundryman, was examined to establish their identity. In this state of the evidence if the learned trial Judge was reluctant to act on such weak evidence, no exception can be taken in regard to his ap­proach. 25. No neighbour, not even the laundryman, was examined to establish their identity. In this state of the evidence if the learned trial Judge was reluctant to act on such weak evidence, no exception can be taken in regard to his ap­proach. 25. From the facts discussed above it be­comes clear that the direct evidence, if at all, regarding the identity of the persons who moved about in different assumed names is ei­ther wholly wanting or is of such a weak nature that it would be hazardous to place reliance thereon without proper corroboration. As pointed out earlier the direct evidence regard­ing identity of the culprits comprises (i) identi­fication for the first time after a lapse of consid­erable time in court or (ii) identification at a test identification parade. In the case of total strang­ers, it is not safe to place implicit reliance on the evidence, of witnesses who had just a fleeting glimpse of the person identified or who had no particular reason to remember the person con­cerned, if the identification is made for the first time in court. In the present case it was all the more difficult as indisputably the accused per­sons had since changed their appearance. Test identification parade, if held promptly and after taking the necessary precautions to ensure its credibility, would lend the required assurance, which the court ordinarily seeks to act on it. In the absence of such test identification parade it would be extremely risky to place implicit reli­ance on identification made for the first time in court after a long lapse of time and that too of persons who had changed their appearance. We, therefore, think the learned trial Judge was perfectly justified in looking for corroboration. In Kanan Vs. State of Kerala: (1979) 3 SCC 319 this Court speaking through Murtaza Fazal Ali, J observed: (SCC p. 320 para 1) "It is well settled that where a witness identifies an accused who is not known to him in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless un­less there has been a previous T.I. parade to test his powers of observation. The idea of hold­ing T.I. parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability to identify an un­known person whom the witness may have seen only once. The idea of hold­ing T.I. parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability to identify an un­known person whom the witness may have seen only once. If no T.I. parade is held then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his testimony regard­ing the identification of an accused for the first time in Court." 161. In the case of Raju alias Rajendra Vs. Sate of Maharastra, reported in 1998 (1) SCC 169 , the Supreme Court laid down the necessity of holding TIP in the case where the person identified was not previously known. 162. In view of the above, as the appellants were not known to the said witnesses and as they had seen him only once, that is in the house of PW.24, failure to hold TIP im­mediately after his arrest adversely effected the evidentiary value given by the persons who identified the accused. Therefore, their evi­dence regarding identity of Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma is not believable. 163. It is on record that another case be­ing S.T 100 of 2002 was registered against all the accused persons, including Naba Kumar Debbarma under Section 364 A/120 B/34IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and the said case resulted in acquittal. Therefore, even if Naba Kumar Debbarma had made any negotiation regarding ransom, towards the release of the abducted person he did so in connection with the said case. In view of his acquittal in the said case, it cannot be concluded that he was, the person, who was involved in the alleged abduction, demand of ransom and killing of the Minister and his brother. This view is fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nepal Singh (supra). 164. PW 6 Rabindra Das, the father of P W 20 i.e Sujit Das stated that his son who became an approver, had told him that his son along with Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatiahad killed the Minister. But PW 20 denied that he had made any such state­ment. In view of such denial on the part of PW 20, it is doubtful that PW 20 had made any confession before PW 6. This doubt is fortified by the self-contradiction, made by PW 6. But PW 20 denied that he had made any such state­ment. In view of such denial on the part of PW 20, it is doubtful that PW 20 had made any confession before PW 6. This doubt is fortified by the self-contradiction, made by PW 6. In his cross-examination this witness stated that he was unable to remember whether his son had told him that, after the murder of the Minister Bimal Sinha, he (his son) along with Naba Kumar Debbarma, Dayal Jamatia and others fled away and took shelter in the jungle and that Naba Kumar Debbarma had shot dead the Minister Bimal Sinha. In view of the said statement made by PW 6, it is found that PW 6 was not confi­dent enough to say that his son i.e PW 20 had made any confession or discloser involv­ing himself, Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia in connection with the assassi­nation of the Minister. Reliance can be placed on extra-judicial confession, only when it is found to be clear, unambiguous, and trust­worthy and consistent. 165. In the case ofHeramba Brahma & Anr. Vs. State of Assam, reported in AIR 1982 SC 1595 , the Supreme Court ob-served- "in order to accept the extra-judicial confes­sion as reliable evidence, it must pass the test of reproduction of exact words, the reason or motive for confession and person selected on whom confidence is reposed". 166. In the case of C. K. Raveendran Vs. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 2000 SC 369 , the Supreme Court observed that: "in order to rely upon the extra-judicial con­fession, the exact words or even the words as nearly as possible have to be reproduced by the witness before whom such statement is made". 167. Therefore, in order to rely on the extra-judicial confession, such confession must be reproduced in the exact words, dis­closed by the maker and the evidentiary value of such extra judicial confession depends on the credibility/reliability of the person, before whom such confession is made. That apart, it is also necessary to consider as to what is the compelling circumstance in making such con­fession. That apart, it must be voluntary, free from any threat and inducement. In the present case, the maker i.e PW 20 has categorically denied that he made any such statement. That apart, it is also necessary to consider as to what is the compelling circumstance in making such con­fession. That apart, it must be voluntary, free from any threat and inducement. In the present case, the maker i.e PW 20 has categorically denied that he made any such statement. He clearly stated that he was threatened and in­duced by his father i.e PW 6 to become an approver and that he had put his signature, on the application, which he could not read, without knowing the contents of the same and under the impression that the same was an application for his bail. 168. In the case of Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. State of Mahar­ashtra, reported in 2000 CRI.L.J. 4640, the Supreme Court observed: "the basis of the tender of pardon is not the extent of the culpability of the person to whom pardon is granted, but the principle is to pre­vent the escape of the offenders from punish­ment in heinous offences for lack of evidence". The Supreme Court also observed that: "the evidence of the Approver must, how­ever, be shown to be of a reliable witness". In view of the above stand of the P. W. 20 and the contradictory statement, given by PW 6, demolished the credibility of P W 6. There­fore, we do not find it safe to rely on the evi­dence of PW 6 to believe that PW 20 had disclosed that Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia had killed the Minister and his brother. 169. The prosecution in order to establish the involvement of Dayal Jamatia, Naba Kumar Debbarma has also relied on the evi­dence of Sri Joynal Halam (PW 5), Sri Puni Ram Reang (PW 15) and Sri Sukh Ranjan Sinha (PW 31). Sri Joynal Halam (PW 5) stated that 10/12 days, prior to the occur­rence, two NLFT extremists i.e Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia along with their helpers Sudhungshu Das and Himangsh Das went to the village for collecting rice from the villagers and that on being directed by them, this witness had collected 500 gms of rice. He stated that Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia were armed with fire arms. He stated that Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia were armed with fire arms. He further stated on the date of occurrence i.e the date of assassination of the Minister and his brother, at about 2 pm, when he was re­turning home, he found Naba Kumar Debbarma, Dayal Jamatia, Sudhungshu Das and Himangshu Das along with 10/12 per­sons and that Himangshu Das was limping. According to this witness, the said persons declared that they had shot dead Bimal Sinha and that the villagers should not open their mouth. He did not state as to who of the said persons had said so. It cannot be acceptable that all the said 14/15 persons, would have shouted together, that they had killed the Min­ister. If anyone or more of them had made such disclosure, PW 5 should have been able to disclose his or their identity. Therefore, his statement, aforesaid appears to be vague and highly improbable. He further stated that on the next day, he again found Himangshu Das, Sudhungshu Das, Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia and that Himangshu Das, who had a bandage on his leg had beaten him with a stick due to his refusal to collect rice. He stated that Naba Kumar Debbarma had threatened him, showing a fire arm, that he had killed the Minister with that rifle and that, if necessary, he would shot him too. The said statement, made by PW 5, is found to be un­reliable due to the contradictory statement given by him during his crossexamination. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that he did not meet Naba Kumar Debbarma on the date of occurrence, but he met him on the next day. Therefore, the evidence of PW 5 that he had met Naba Kumar Debbarma, Dayal Jamatia, Himangshu Das and others on the date of occurrence at 2 pm is nothing but false statement. He further stated that he had no previous connection with the extremists and their helpers and that they were not pre­viously known to him. Therefore, as this wit­ness did not, previously, know the said persons, it cannot be believed that he could iden­tify the said unknown persons after long de­lay, in the Court, by seeing him only once i.e. in 1998. Fact remains that no T.I.P. was also held, after the arrest of the said persons. Therefore, as this wit­ness did not, previously, know the said persons, it cannot be believed that he could iden­tify the said unknown persons after long de­lay, in the Court, by seeing him only once i.e. in 1998. Fact remains that no T.I.P. was also held, after the arrest of the said persons. We have already noticed the effect of failure to hold TIP in such cases. Therefore, in the ab­sence of a T.I.P., the identification of the ac­cused persons, in the court after long delay, that too when the witness got sufficient op­portunities to see the accused persons, dur­ing their remand period as well as during the trial, can't be accepted without suspicion. It is hard to believe that PW 5, who claimed to have seen the said persons only once could remember their identity till the date of giving evidence in the court on 4.3.02 i.e. after four years, inasmuch as the occurrence took place on 31.3.98. It has been well settled in a catena of decisions that, in a case, where the person identified is previously known to the witness, no Test Identification parade is necessary. But in the cases where the identified persons were seen for the first time, that too for a short pe­riod, failure to hold T.I.P. immediately after the arrest raises doubt about the veracity of such witness, who deposes after long delay. This witness had given statement under Sec­tion 164 CrPC before the Magistrate also. He admitted that he did not state before the Magistrate that Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia were armed with weapons, that he found Himangshu Das limping and that Himangshu Das had beaten him with a stick on his refusal to collect subscription. He also admitted, when his attention was drawn to his statement, made under Section 164 CrPC, that no such statement, indicating that Naba Kumar Debbarma had shot the Minister, was there. He admitted that in his statement under Section 164 CrPC, it was recorded that after the death of the Minister they had the con­versation. From the above, it appears that PW 5, though gave statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, did not disclose that Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia were armed with weapons and that Himangshu Das had beaten him with a stick. 170. In the case of Radha Kumar Vs. From the above, it appears that PW 5, though gave statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, did not disclose that Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia were armed with weapons and that Himangshu Das had beaten him with a stick. 170. In the case of Radha Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2005 10 SCC 216 , the occurrence took place on 19.03.1993 and the witnesses were exam­ined on 12.08.1994 and 11.01.1995 i.e. af­ter several months. The witnesses did not dis­close the complicity of the appellant in crime in their statement made before the police and they did not disclose the name of the appel­lant before the police. No reason was assigned by prosecution for not disclosing the name of the appellant before the police by the wit­nesses. In view of the above, Supreme Court observed: "This being the position, we are of the view that it would not be safe to place reference of the statement of the witnesses, who made for the first time in Sessions Court after several months of the alleged occurrence without there being any reasonable excuse for not naming the accused before the police specifically when the prosecution case has not been supported by the informant, who also claimed to be an eye witnesses". 171. In the case of Tahsildar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1959 SC 1012 : 1959 CRI.LJ. 1231, the Supreme Court, while laying down the procedure of contradicting witness by confronting him with his previous statement, made under Section 161 Cr.P.C., observed: "if the witness admits its former statement, no further proof is necessary". It has also been held by the Supreme Court that if the witness does not admit his former statement then practice generally followed is to admit it subject to proof by the police of­ficer. 172. A careful scrutiny of his evidence in­dicates that the PW.5 had, at best heard the conversation, made by the said persons. His statement that he had heard their conversa­tion, and his failure to disclose such vital in­formation at the earliest opportunity i.e at the time of given statement before the Magistrate raises doubt about the veracity of his state­ment. This doubt is confirmed by his contra­dictory statement that he did not meet Naba Kumar Debbarma on the date of occurrence. His statement that he had heard their conversa­tion, and his failure to disclose such vital in­formation at the earliest opportunity i.e at the time of given statement before the Magistrate raises doubt about the veracity of his state­ment. This doubt is confirmed by his contra­dictory statement that he did not meet Naba Kumar Debbarma on the date of occurrence. Unless the witness, before whom the extra-judicial confession is alleged to be made, is found to be reliable and trustworthy, it is not safe to believe that such extra-judicial con­fession, as alleged by the witness was made. In view of the above, we find that prosecu­tion failed to draw support from the evidence of PW 5 in favour of its contention regarding involvement of Sri Nabakumar Debbarma, Sri Biswa Dayal Jamatia, Sri Sudhangshu Das and Sri Himangshu Das. 173. The Prosecution has also relied on the evidence of PW 15 Sri Puniram Reang. Deposing as PW 15 he stated that, earlier, he was a member of the NLFT and during that period he worked with Sri Biswa Dayal Jamatia, who was also a member of NLFT. He surrendered in 1996 and got a Govern­ment job. In his cross-examination he stated that before the assassination of the Minister i.e at the time of surrendering (July 1996) told the police that Biswa Dayal Jamatia was an NLFT. He stated he was not examined by police in this case. The Investigating Officer i.e PW 49 also confirmed that PW 15 did not tell him that Biswa Dayal Jamatia was a member of NLFT and that he worked under him. 174. In view of the above, it is clear that Pw 15 did not disclose the name of Biswa Dayal Jamatia to be a member of NLFT at the initial stage of making statement in this case. That apart, he also said that he did not tell the Investigating officer that he will be able to identify him if he see him. This statement of P W 15 makes it doubtful to believe his state­ment as to whether he personally knew Biswa Dayal Jamatia or not. His said statement made in 1996 i.e at the time of his surrender cannot lead to hold that Biswa Dayal Jamatia was a member of NLFT at the time of the assassi­nation of the Minister and his brother. His said statement made in 1996 i.e at the time of his surrender cannot lead to hold that Biswa Dayal Jamatia was a member of NLFT at the time of the assassi­nation of the Minister and his brother. Hence, we find no force in the evidence of PW 15 to believe that Biswa Dayal Jamatia was a mem­ber of NLFT and that he committed the crime alleged in this case. 175. As we are not inclined to accept the evidence of PWs 5, 6 and 15 regarding in­volvement of Naba Kumar Debbarma and Biswa Dayal Jamatia in connection with the assassination of the Minister, we are left with the evidence of PW 31 only. 176. It has already been found that PW 31 stated that when he was standing on the river bank i.e just prior to the assassination of the Minister and his brother, he asked NripendraNamasudra as to who were those two persons (tribal) coming towards the Min­ister and, on being so asked, Nripendra had informed him that they were Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia. He further stated that subsequently, he learnt that Naba Kumar Debbarma had fired at Bimal Sinha and his brother Bidyut Sinha, of course, he did not state as to how, subsequently, he came to know that Nabakumar Debbarma had fired at the deceased. Therefore, we are re­quired to examine if Nripendra Namasudra had disclosed the identity of Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia. If PW 31 is believed, it must be held that, just before the occurrence, when he was standing on the river bank, observing the two assailants coming to the Minister and his brother, Nripendra Namasudra was also near him (PW.31). None of the other eye witnesses, i.e PW 1, PW 9 and PW 27 stated that Nripendra Namasudra was available with PW 31. If we scrutinize the evidence of PW 31, we will be led to find that Sri Nripendra Namasudra was sent by the Minister with the wireless to hand over the same to the extremists and he had crossed the river. P W 31, himself clearly stated that those, who crossed the river, were Nripendra Namasudra and Premananda Namasudra. PW 31, nowhere stated that, after crossing the river with the wireless set, Nripendra Namasudra had ever returned back. There­fore, the availability of Nripendra, just before the occurrence, with PW 31 is not at all be­lievable. P W 31, himself clearly stated that those, who crossed the river, were Nripendra Namasudra and Premananda Namasudra. PW 31, nowhere stated that, after crossing the river with the wireless set, Nripendra Namasudra had ever returned back. There­fore, the availability of Nripendra, just before the occurrence, with PW 31 is not at all be­lievable. That NripendraNamasudra was not available near PW 31, to make such disclo­sure, will stand fortified by the evidence of PW.3 and PW.9. PW 3 stated that, she found Sudhungshu Das, Himangshu Das, Premananda Namasudra, Nripendra Namasudra, Sanjoy Das and others coming along with two other persons, one of whom was wearing gamcha (napkin) and other one was wearing trouser. Therefore, according to PW 3, Nripendra Namasudra was in the company of the said assassinators i.e not with PW 31. PW 9 stated that 6/7 persons, in­cluding the two assassinators, who came to­wards the Minister and his brother and that they fled the place after the occurrence. Ac­cording to this witness, amongst those 6/7 persons, Himangshu Das, Satya Das, Premananda Namasudra and Nripendra Namasudra were also there. Therefore, if PW 3 and P W 9 are believed it must be concluded that Nripendra camq with the extremists to the place, where the Minister and his brother were assassinated and fled therefrom. There­fore, the evidence of PW 31 that he had asked Nripendra about the identity of the said as­sailants and that Nripendra had disclosed the names as Naba Kumar Debbarma and Dayal Jamatia are not at all believable. Even PW 27 also, who was one of the eye witnesses, did not support the evidence of PW 31 that Nripendra Namasudra was with P W 31. It is settled position of law that contradictory evi­dence given by the eye witnesses with regard to vital and material points, makes the pros­ecution version doubtful. In view of the above contradictions and discrepancies, we are not inclined to believe that Nripendra had identi­fied the said assassinators as Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma and Sri Biswa Dayal Jamatia. This being the position, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to estab­lish the identity of the assailants/two extrem­ists, who had assassinated the Minister and his brother. Therefore, it cannot held that Sri Biswa Dayal Jamatia, Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma were the two persons, who killed the deceased. 177. This being the position, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to estab­lish the identity of the assailants/two extrem­ists, who had assassinated the Minister and his brother. Therefore, it cannot held that Sri Biswa Dayal Jamatia, Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma were the two persons, who killed the deceased. 177. The prosecution version is that Premananda Namasudra and the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005 were also involved in connection with the conspiracy, resulting the assassination of the Minister and his brother. We have already discussed that the service of Himangshu Das was utilized by the Minister, despite his reluctance to get in­volved with such matter and that he was as­sured that his involvement, in connection with the release of his abducted brother would not invite any trouble and that he would take care of the police, BSF and CRPF. That apart, PW 29, who is none other than the widow of Bidyut Sinha alias Rocket (since deceased), stated that her husband had told her that the money was given to Himangshu Das and that the same would be given to the extremists. This clearly indicates the innocence of Himangshu Das. 178. Now, the question is whether at the time of the assassination of the Minister and his brother Bidyut Sinha, the appellants in the Criminal Appeal Nos. 31 of 2005, 103 of 2006, 45 of 2010 and the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005 were in the company of the extremists. As noticed above, according to P W 1, both Himangshu Das, Satya Das had met the Minister in her house and thereafter Satya Das, Himangshu Das, Premananda Namasudra, along with two ex­tremists came to the river bank i.e the place of occurrence and that Himangshu Das, Premananda Namasudra and Satya Das ran away along with the extremists from the place of occurrence, after the incident. According to PW 3 also, Satya Das, Premananda Namasudra, Himangshu Das and Nripendra Namasudra came with the two assassinators. According to P W 1, Himangshu Das had carried the wireless set and came back with the same. PW 9 also stated, in tune with the evidence of PW 1 that Himangshu Das car­ried the wireless set and that Satya Das, Himangshu Das, Prmenanda Namasudra and Nripendra Namasudra came with the extrem­ists and they also fled along with the extrem­ists from the place of occurrence. PW 9 also stated, in tune with the evidence of PW 1 that Himangshu Das car­ried the wireless set and that Satya Das, Himangshu Das, Prmenanda Namasudra and Nripendra Namasudra came with the extrem­ists and they also fled along with the extrem­ists from the place of occurrence. But PW 27, who was also one of the eye witnesses and all along present with P W 9 did not make any whisper about the accused persons. Ac­cording to P W 27 only a Bengali gentleman i.e Satya Das came to meet the Minister and after receiving the information from Satya Das, the Minister, his brother Bidyut Sinha, PW 31 went towards the river bank, while he and PW 9 remained inside the hut. He did not state that Himangshu Das, Satya Das and Premananda Namasudra had either come or fled along with the extremists. He clearly stated that hearing the sound of gunshot, he and PW 9 came out and saw about 10/15 persons running away from the place of oc­currence, when CRPF and the personal se­curity guard of the Minister had opened fire at them. The G.D. Entry i.e. Ext. D-14 also indicates that three persons were running away from the place of occurrence. 179. In the case of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. State of Madhya Bharat: 1953 CRI.L.J. 1933; Raja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan : (2005) 5 SCC 272; Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) : (2005) 5 SCC 258; Javed Masood & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan : 2010 AIR SCW 1656, the Supreme Court observed that the prosecution is bound by the evidence, given by the prosecution witnesses, which goes in favour of the defence, if the prosecution fails to controvert the witness in the witness box. Therefore, if PW 27 did not see anyone of the said persons, it is hard to believe that PW 9 saw them coming to the deceased persons and leaving the place of occurrence. Absence of names of said persons in the Ext.P-8 i.e. the information lodged with police by PW.27 also indicates that PW.27 did not find those persons in the company of the appellants. Taking the evidence of PW 27 into confidence as well as the evidence of PW 31 i.e Sukh Ranjan Sinha we find that Sukh Ranjan Sinha was in a better position to observe the entire occurrence. 180. Taking the evidence of PW 27 into confidence as well as the evidence of PW 31 i.e Sukh Ranjan Sinha we find that Sukh Ranjan Sinha was in a better position to observe the entire occurrence. 180. According to Sukh Ranjan Sinha, Nripendra Namasudra had first carried the wireless set and subsequently, Satya Das had taken the wireless set. Therefore, according to PW 31, both Nripendra Namasudra and Satya Das carried the wireless set. Accord­ing to P W1 and P W 9, only Sri Himdnagshu Das had carried the wireless set. In our con­sidered opinion, this is a major contradiction affecting the very root of the prosecution story and raising doubt about the credibility of the witnesses. If the said witnesses had seen the actual happenings then there was no reason for such contradiction. The evidence of PW 1, PW 3 and P W 9 regarding involvement of Satya Das, Himangshu Das, Premananda Namasudra and Nripendra Namasudra and other respondents of Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005 stands nagated by the evidence of PW 31 and the contentions made in Ext.D-14 and Ext.P-8. According to P W 31, Satya Das, Himangshu Das, Premananda Nama­sudra and Nripenda Namasudra and other respondents of the Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005 neither came with the extremists, to the place of occurrence i.e the place where the Minister and his brother were assassinated, nor they had fled the place of occurrence with the extremists. PW 31, in clear terms, stated that he along with the Minister, Bidyut and Satya Das came out from the house and went towards the river bank, where they had found Himangshu Das standing on the slope of the river and the two youths (assailants) coming towards the Minister covering their head with pieces of cloth. Therefore, according to P W 31, only two persons i.e the assailants came to the place of occurrence. We have already found that the said two assailants could not be identified. If Satya Das, Himangshu Das and Premananda Namasudra and other re­spondents of Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005 also had come with the extremists, as stated by P Ws 1,3 and 9, there was no reason for PW 31 not to disclose such vital fact. We have already found that the said two assailants could not be identified. If Satya Das, Himangshu Das and Premananda Namasudra and other re­spondents of Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005 also had come with the extremists, as stated by P Ws 1,3 and 9, there was no reason for PW 31 not to disclose such vital fact. The evidence of PW 31 that Satya Das accom­panied him, the Minister and his brother and his evidence that two youths were coming to­wards the Minister from the eastern bank of the river clearly indicates that none other than the said two unidentified assassinators, who fired at the Minister and his brother came to the place of occurrence i.e the place of as­sassination. In view of the above evidence of PW.31 coupled with the silence of PW 27 regarding involvement of the said persons, the evidence of PWs 1,3 and 9 that Himangshu Das, Satya Das, PremanandaNamasudra and Nripendra Namasudra and the respondents of the Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005 were in the company of the extremists and that they had run away from the place of occurrence, after the assassination of the Minister and his brother, is not at all believable. This doubt is fortified by the absence of disclose in the Ext.D-14 and Ext.P-8, about the said per­son. 181. The learned Advocate General re­ferring to the decision held in the case of Anil Shil (supra) has submitted that minor varia­tions in the evidence of the witnesses and their tendency to do embroidery, in fear of being disbelieved, cannot negate their entire evi­dence and that there is sufficient truth in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to be­lieve, that the private appellants as well as the private respondents aforesaid were involved with the assassination of the Minister and that they were parties to the conspiracy towards the commission of the said crime. There can be no dispute that minor variation or addi­tion, on the part of the witnesses, cannot be ground to brush aside their entire evidence, if truth is found in the main or there is a ring of truth in their evidence. As discussed above, in the cases at hand, we find serious contra­dictions about the involvement of the accused persons. That apart, it has been noticed that when one set of witnesses supported the in­volvement of the accused persons, other set of witnesses negated such stand. As discussed above, in the cases at hand, we find serious contra­dictions about the involvement of the accused persons. That apart, it has been noticed that when one set of witnesses supported the in­volvement of the accused persons, other set of witnesses negated such stand. Therefore, in our view, the contradictions, indicated above relates to the truth of the prosecution story. Therefore, the contradictions, noticed above are sufficient material contradictions, on vital and material point, affecting the very root of the prosecution version. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the above discussed contradictions and variations are not minor. The said contradictions and discrepancies, found in the evidence of the above mentioned prosecution witnesses, raise serious doubt about the prosecution version itself. There­fore, the decisions cited by the learned Ad­vocate General does not help the prosecu­tion. That apart, as held in the case of Sadhu Singh (supra), the entries made in the G.D. are to be treated true because there is no scope for fabrication of the entries made in the GD. book. It is also settled law that dis­closure of information, relating to an offence, lodged at the first in point of time is required to be treated as FIR. (Ganesh Bhavan Patel (supra) and Martar Singh (supra)). In the present case the occurrence took place at about 11 -45 pm, but the written information was lodged at about 5-00 pm, though the police station was situated at a distance of 5 kms, from the place of occurrence. In the case of Ganesh Bhaban Patel vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1979 SC 135, the Supreme Court has laid down that inordinate delay in registration of FIR makes the pros­ecution story suspicious. 182. The information, which has been treated as FIR (Ext.P-8), being filed after sufficient delay, the informant PW 27 got enough opportunity to consult the other wit­nesses, more particularly, P W 9 and PW 31, who being personal security guard and the C. A. to the Minister were present with him at the time of occurrence. It is not the case that there was no scope for their interaction after the occurrence. In the said FIR, no mention was made about the presence of Himangshu Das, Premananda Namasudra, Nripendra Namasudra, Biswa Dayal Jamatia, Naba Kumar Deb barma and others. It is not the case that there was no scope for their interaction after the occurrence. In the said FIR, no mention was made about the presence of Himangshu Das, Premananda Namasudra, Nripendra Namasudra, Biswa Dayal Jamatia, Naba Kumar Deb barma and others. However, in the FIR, it was mentioned that one old aged man, belonging to Bengali community, came and met the Minister and that on being in­formed by the said old man, the Minister and his brother along with P W 31 went towards the river bank and the informant (PW 27) along with P W 9 remained inside the hut. As per the FIR, PW Nos. 1, 9 and 27 came out from the house after hearing the gun fire. The FIR is silent about the involvement of Satya Das, Himangshu Das, Premananda Nama­sudra, Nripendra Namasudra, Naba Kumar Debbarma and Biswa Dayal Jamatia and oth­ers. In our considered opinion, if Premananda Namasudra, Nripendra Namasudra, Himan­gshu Das came to meet the Minister and thereby accompanied the assailants, such vi­tal information should have been included in the FIR aforesaid. Failure to do so, raises doubt about the involvement of the said per­sons. If the disclosure, made in the FIR as well as in the oral evidence of eye witnesses, are found to be contradictory on material and vital point, it is not safe to rely on the evi­dence of the witnesses, which is contradic­tory to the disclosure made in the written in­formation i.e. FIR. 183. It is on record that prior to filing of the said FIR, a G.D. entry being G.D. Entry 1025 dated 31.3.98 was made in the Kamalpur police station in connection with the said incident. The G.D. Entry has been exhibited as D/14 and the G.D. Book w.e.f 10.3.98 to 31.3.98 (Vol 4 of Kamalpur po­lice station) has been exhibited as P.M.0.11. From the said GD. Entry, it is revealed that Sri Ranjit Debbarma (PW 9) i.e the personal security guard of the Minister went to the Kamalpur police station and informed about the incident. The said information was lodged at 12.50 pm. In the said GD. Entry, it was mentioned that one Bengali boy aged about 20 years came and informed the Minister that the extremists agreed to come to meet the Minister and that the Minister had informed him that one of them may come without any­thing in his hand. The said GD. The said information was lodged at 12.50 pm. In the said GD. Entry, it was mentioned that one Bengali boy aged about 20 years came and informed the Minister that the extremists agreed to come to meet the Minister and that the Minister had informed him that one of them may come without any­thing in his hand. The said GD. Entry further reveals that a walkie talkie was given to the said youth, who again returned back and in­formed that the walkie talkie was not func­tional. Thereafter, according to the said GD. Entry, the Minister moved towards the river, along with his brother and P W 31, while PW 9 himself and P W 27 remained in the hut. The GD. Entry further discloses that due to the existence of a cow shed, the place of occur­rence was not visible and that after a shortwhile, hearing the loud voice of conver­sation, they came out and heard the sound of brush fire in the river bank. According to the GD. Entry, three persons wearing half pant, armed with guns were seen running away from the place of occurrence. As the said GD. Entry was made prior to filing of Ext.P/8, the GD. Entry was the first information report in the eye of law as provided by Section 154 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the said GD. Entry, being the first information report, the Ext.P-8 was at best a statement made under Section 161 CrPC. The G.D. Entry aforesaid does not in­dicate involvement of the private appellants as well as the private respondents. As the maker of the GD. Entry, while giving evidence as PW.9, stated against Sri Satya Das, Sri Himangshu Das, Premananda Namasudra and Nripendra Namasudra, his failure to dis­close the names of the said persons at the earliest point of time raises doubt about the veracity of his evidence in the court. We fail to understand as to why the investigating au­thority did not treat the Ext.D/14 i.e the GD. Entry, which contained the information re­ceived at the earliest point of time, as the FIR. Surprisingly, PW 9, at whose instance, the said G.D. Entry was made, was silent about lodging of such G.D. Entry. In his cross-examination, he denied that, on 31.3.98, he went to the Kamalpur police station at 12.50 hours and that he had informed the police about the occurrence. Surprisingly, PW 9, at whose instance, the said G.D. Entry was made, was silent about lodging of such G.D. Entry. In his cross-examination, he denied that, on 31.3.98, he went to the Kamalpur police station at 12.50 hours and that he had informed the police about the occurrence. There being nothing contrary against the recording of the said en­try, we find no reason to hold that the same was not made, on being reported by PW.9. This conduct, on the part of PW 9, raises serious doubt about his credibility. If the con­tents, made in the G.D. Entry is believed, of course, there is no reason also not to disbe­lieve the same, then the statement, made in the FIR i.e. Ext.8, that a Bengali old man i.e Satya Das had come to meet the Minister on the date of occurrence is not believable, in as much as in the said GD. Entry, it was recorded that an youth of 20 years had met the Minis­ter. This aspect of the matter raises serious doubt about the involvement of Sri Satya Das and the veracity of the prosecution version. 184. It is the cardinal principle of criminal justice that prosecution is required to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and unless such burden is discharged, the prosecu­tion cannot draw benefit from the weakness of the defence. Law is well settled that if two views are possible i.e one going in favour of the accused persons and other going in favour of the prosecution, the benefit should go in favour of the accused persons. 185. The principles of law and the circum­stances in which an interference with the or­der of acquittal is permissible has been laid down by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. 186. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Naresh, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 368 , the Supreme Court observed :- "20......an order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused. This Court has dealt with the scope of interference with an order of acquittal in a number of cases." 187. In the case of Arulvelu (supra), the Supreme Court observed :- "36. This Court has dealt with the scope of interference with an order of acquittal in a number of cases." 187. In the case of Arulvelu (supra), the Supreme Court observed :- "36. Careful scrutiny of all these judgments lead to the definite conclusion that the appel­late court should be very slow in setting aside a judgment of acquittal particularly in a case where two views are possible. The trial court judg­ment can not be set aside because the appellate court's view is more probable. The appellate court would not be justified in setting aside the trial court judgment unless it arrives at a clear finding on marshalling the entire evidence on record that the judgment of the trial court is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in law." 188. In the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Supreme Court observed :- "(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evi­dence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substan­tial and compelling reasons', 'good and suffi­cient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquit­tal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of flourishes of language' to emphasise the re­luctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be pre­sumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the ac­cused having secured his acquittal, the pre­sumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be pre­sumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the ac­cused having secured his acquittal, the pre­sumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are pos­sible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the find­ing of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 189. In the case of C. Magesh & Ors. etc. Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 3194, the Supreme Court, laying down the principles of interference with the finding of acquittal, observed that: "it is true that High Court has ample powers to go through the entire evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion but before reversing the finding of acquittal, following conditions should be always kept in mind namely, (i) the presumption of innocence of the ac­cused should be kept in mind; (ii) if two views of the matter are possible view favourable to the accused should be taken; (iii) the appellate court should take into ac­count the fact that the trial Judge had the ad­vantage of looking at the demeanour of wit­ness; and (iv) the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. But the doubt should be reasonable that is the doubt which rational thinking man with reasonable honesty and consciously enter­tained." 190. In our considered opinion and as re­vealed from the above discussed evidence on record, the learned trial Judge has committed no miscarriage of justice and error in appre­ciating the evidence with regard to the ac­quittal of Himangshu Das and others, who are the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2005. In our view, the learned Sessions Judge correctly appreciated the evidence and came to right findings that the prosecution failed to establish the charges, brought against Sri Himangshu Das and others. We notice no perversity in the findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge in respect of Sri Himangshu Das and others in recording ac­quittal in their favour. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned acquit­tal, recorded, in favour of the said respon­dents. 191. We notice no perversity in the findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge in respect of Sri Himangshu Das and others in recording ac­quittal in their favour. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned acquit­tal, recorded, in favour of the said respon­dents. 191. In the light of the above discussion and the contradictions found in the evidence of the witnesses, on material and vital points, we have no hesitation in holding that the pros­ecution failed to adduce substantive, cogent and reliable evidence and prove beyond, all reasonable doubt, that the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.31 of 2005, 103 of 2006 and 58 of 2010 as well as the respon­dents in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2005 en­tered into a conspiracy for killing the Minister and that they had committed the alleged of­fences. From the records, we have also no­ticed that all the accused persons i.e the ap­pellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.31 of 2005, 103 of 2006, 58 of 2010 and the respon­dents in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2005 were charged under Section 302 read with Sec­tion 34,120BIPC read with Section 27 of Arms Act and Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, in Case No. S.T.(WT/A) 48 of 1998. The judgment and orders passed, in the said case, has given rise to the present appeals. They were also charged under Sections 364 A/34,120-B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, in S.T. No.48 of 1998 (Pages 101 to 116 of the record of S.T. No.48 of 1998) whereas in Sessions trial case, being S.T. No. (WT/A) 100 of 2002 also, Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2006, Sri Swapan Debbarma, Sri Renu Mohan Debbarma alias Henu Ram Debbamr alias Hemu chand Debbarma, both respondents in Criminal Appeal No.46/2005 (S.T. No.48/ 1998) and Sri Chandra Kumar Debbarma alias Channary Debbarma were also charged under Section 364 A/34, 120 B IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act and vide order, dated 27.7.04, passed in S.T. No. 100 of 2002, Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma, Renu Mohan alias Nenu Chan Debbarma, Swapan Kumar Debbarma and Chandra Kumar Debbarma alias Channary Debbarma were acquitted and set at liberty. The said order stands unchal­lenged. 192. The said order stands unchal­lenged. 192. The charges under Sections 364A/ 34,120B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act framed in S.T. No.48/1998 relates to abduction of Sri Bikram Sinha and the charges under the said Sections also relates to ab­duction of Sri Bikram Sinha i.e. relating to same offence involving same ingredients. 193. It transpires that Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma, Sri Swapan Debbarma, Sri Hemu Chand Debbarma were tried in two separate proceedings for the same offence i.e abduc­tion of Sri Bikram Singha by hatching a con­spiracy and use of fire arms (Sections 364/ 34, 120B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act) and despite their acquittal in S.T. case No.100 of 2002, the trial in S.T No 100 of 2002 continued till 02.03.2005. However, the learned trial Judge, in his judgment and or­der, dated 02.03.05, passed in S.T. No.48/ 1998, has recorded that in view of said ac­quittal, no separate charge under Section 364A IPC, in S.T. case No.48 of 2001 should have been framed, in as much as no chargesheet was filed under Section 364 A IPC in this case. The learned trial Judge also observed that no evidence has been laid in respect of the said charge. 194. When we invited response of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, with regard to the consequence and impact of the said acquittal in S.T. No. 100/2002, the learned Advocate General, referring to deci­sion held in the case of Monica Bedi Vs State ofAndhra Pradesh, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 284 , has submitted that the charges un­der Section 364 A IPC, in S.T. No.100 of 2002 was framed for the offence of commit­ting abduction of Bikram Sinha and the charges in S.T. No.48/1998 was framed for the murder of Bimal Sinha and Bidyut Singha and as such there being trial for two distinct offences, on different ingredients, there was no double jeopardy. In Monica Bedi (supra), the Supreme Court observed: "It needs no restatement that the bar to the punishment to the offender twice over for the same offence would arise only where the ingre­dients of both the offences are the same." The Supreme Court also observed: "It is true that the fundamental right guar­anteed under Article 20(2) of the Constitution is in the nature of an injunction against the State prohibiting it to prosecute and punish any per­son for the same offence more than once but the initial burden is upon the accused to take the necessary plea and establish the same." In the above referred case, the Supreme Court further observed: "29. It is thus clear that the same facts may give rise to different prosecutions and punishment and in such an event the protection af­forded by Article 20(2) is not available. It is settled law that a person can be prosecuted and punished more than once even on substantially same facts provided the ingredients of both the offences are totally different and they did not form the same offence." In Bhagwan Swarup lal Bishan lal Vs. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1965 SC 682 : (1965) 1 Cri.LJ. 608), the accused was con­victed with regard to a conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust in respect of the funds of one Jupiter Company. There was another prosecution against the accused for the con­spiracy to lift the funds of another company, though its object was to cover the fraud com­mitted in respect of the Jupiter Company. This Court held that (AIR PP.688-89, paras 11 -12) " 11.... the defalcations made in the Jupiter may afford a motive for the new conspiracy, but the two offences are distinct ones. Some ac­cused may be common to both of them, some of the facts proved to establish the Jupiter con­spiracy may also have to be proved to support the motive for the second conspiracy. The ques­tion is whether that in itself would be sufficient to make the two conspiracies the one and the same offence... 12.... The ingredients of both the offences are totally different and they do not form the same offence within the meaning of Article 20(2) of the Constitution and, therefore, that Article has no relevance......" 37. The ques­tion is whether that in itself would be sufficient to make the two conspiracies the one and the same offence... 12.... The ingredients of both the offences are totally different and they do not form the same offence within the meaning of Article 20(2) of the Constitution and, therefore, that Article has no relevance......" 37. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 2nd Edn., Vol.9, the law is succinctly summarized on this aspect of the matter as: "If the defendant pleads autrefois convict or autrefois acquit, the prosecution replies or demurs. If the prosecution replies, which is the usual course, a jury is sworn to try the issue(x). The onus of proving the plea is on the defendant(a). He may prove it by producing a certified copy of the record or proceedings of the alleged previous conviction or acquittal(b), and showing by such copy or by other evi­dence, if necessary, that he has been convicted or acquitted of the same, or practically the same, offence as that on which he has been arraigned (c), or that he might on his former trial have been convicted of the offence on which he has been arraigned(d). The question for the jury on the issue is whether the defendant has previ­ously been in jeopardy in respect of the charge on which he is arraigned(e), for the rule of law is that a person must not be put in peril twice for the same offence. The test is whether the former offence and the offence now charged have the same ingredients in the sense that the facts constituting the one are sufficient to justify a conviction of the other, not that the facts relied on by the Crown are the same in the two trials(f)." 195. In view of the above principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court and the statutory provision, prescribed by Section 300 CrPC, there cannot be two trial against a person for the same offence, if the ingredi­ents of both the offences are found to be same. If the ingredients are same then the trial will be hit by Section 300 CrPC and Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India. 196. In the case in hand, the accused persons i.e the appellants in Criminal Ap­peal Nos. If the ingredients are same then the trial will be hit by Section 300 CrPC and Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India. 196. In the case in hand, the accused persons i.e the appellants in Criminal Ap­peal Nos. 31 of 2005,103 of 2006 and 58 of 2010 and the respondents in Criminal Appeal Nos.45 of 2005 and 46 of 2005 were charged in S.T. No.48/1998 under Sections 302/34, 120 B IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for killing of Bimal Sinha and Bidyut Sinha. They were also charged under Sections 364/34, 120 BIPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act alleging that they being armed with fire arms and hatching a conspiracy had abducted Sri Bikram Sinha. In S.T. No. 100 of 2002 also Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma, appellant/accused in Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2006, Sri Swapan Kumar Debbarma, Sri Hemu Chandra Debbarma alias Honu Ram alias Renu Mohan Debbarma, both respondents in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2006 and Sri Chandra Mohan Debbarma alias Chenrag Debbarma were charged under Sections 364 A/34, 120 BIPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for abducting the same person i.e Sri Bikram Sinha. 197. Therefore, it is clear that Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma, Sri Swapan Kumar Debbarma and Sri Henu alias Honu Ram alias Henu Chandra Debbarma were charged and tried in both the cases i.e S.T. (W/A) 48 of 1998 and S.T. No. 100 of 2002 for the same offences and on same ingredi­ents and despite their acquittal in S.T. (WT/ A) No. 100/2002, the trial in S.T. (WT/A) No.48/1998 continued. Therefore, the trial under Sections 364 A/120 B IPC and Sec­tion 27 of the Arms Act in S.T. (W/A) No.48/1998 was hit by Section 300 IPC and Article 20(2) of IPC. 198. However, the learned trial Judge, of course at the time of delivery of the judgment, noticed the said illegality and observed that the charge framed against the accused per­sons under Section 364A IPC was unneces­sary and prosecution failed to establish the said charge. 199. 198. However, the learned trial Judge, of course at the time of delivery of the judgment, noticed the said illegality and observed that the charge framed against the accused per­sons under Section 364A IPC was unneces­sary and prosecution failed to establish the said charge. 199. In view of the above, as the accused persons, namely, Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma, Sri Swapan Debbarma and Henu Chand Debbarma (who are also the accused persons in S.T. No.48/1998, which has given rise to the present appeals) were al­ready acquitted from the charge of Sections 364 A/120 B IPC and 27 of the Arms Act in S.T No. 100 of 2002, the framing of charges against them for the said offences and their trial in S.T. (W/A) No.48/1998 was non est in the eye of law and hit by Section 300 Cr.P.C. and Article 20(2) of the Constitu­tion of India. The learned trial Judge, though observed that the charges under Section 364 A IPC was unnecessary and that the pros­ecution also failed to establish the said charge, passed no order regarding acquittal of the accused persons from the said charges under Sections 364 A/120 B IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.31 of 2005,103 of 2006 and 58 of 2010 and the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005 are acquitted from the offences, charged under Sections 364 A/34, 120B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act in con­nection with S.T. No.48/1998. 200. In view of what has been discussed above, we find sufficient merit in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2005, Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2006 and Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2010 requiring interference and accord­ingly we allow the said appeals. Conse­quently, the impugned convictions and sen­tences are set aside and quashed and the appellants, namely Sri Premananda Namasudra, Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma and Sri Biswa Dayal Jamatia are acquitted and set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 201. In view of the discussions and the decisions aforesaid, we do not find merit in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2005 and Crimi­nal Appeal No.46 of 2005 and accordingly both the appeals stand dismissed. Lower Court Records be returned.