JUDGMENT A.K. LAL, J. Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 278 of 2005 has been filed by Parsuram Mandal and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 335 of 2005 has been filed by Bhudeo Yadav against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.3.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F. T. C. –V, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 249 of 1997, Trial No. 408 of 2002 by which both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 IPC. The appellant Bhudeo Yadav has further been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act and both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Babar Ali (P.W. 2) had purchased fruits of mango orchard from Siyasharan Chaudhari situated at Mouza Kishanpur and appointed the informant (P.W. 6), his father Lattu Mandal (deceased), his cousin brother Ram Bilas Mandal (P.W. 7) and Anik Mandal (P.W. 5) to look after the orchard. On 27.5.1995 the workers of Babar Ali (P.W. 2) were plucking mango, in the meantime at about 1 p.m. Bhudeo Yadav, Parsuram Mandal (both appellants), Arun Mandal and Pappu Yadav came to Orchard and asked the informant and others to get paid the ransom of Rs.5000/- from their master. The watchman (informant) and others told them to ask money from the owner of orchard which infuriated the accused persons. Parsuram Mandal (appellant) made scuffling with Lattu Mandal, the father of the informant and other accused pointed out their pistol out of them Bhudeo Yadav (appellant) shot fire at Lattu Mandal which caused injury in his chest and he fell down and succumbed to the injury. After this firing all the accused went towards northern side. The occurrence was witnessed by the watchmen (informant) and others and also by the workers. The fard beyan (Ext. 4) of the informant was recorded by the Inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge of Nathnagar police station on 27.5.1995 at 5 P.M. at village Kishanpur. 3. On the basis of this fard beyan (Ext. 4) Nath Nagar P. S. Case No. 100 of 1995 was instituted under Sections 302/34 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act against the appellants and two others, namely, Arun Mandal and Pappu Yadav. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. On the basis of this fard beyan (Ext. 4) Nath Nagar P. S. Case No. 100 of 1995 was instituted under Sections 302/34 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act against the appellants and two others, namely, Arun Mandal and Pappu Yadav. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 27 of the Arms Act against Bhudeo Yadav and under Section 302/34 IPC against the appellant Parsuram Mandal to which they denied and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the trial proceeded against both the appellants. After trial both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 4. The defence of the accused is complete denial of the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. 5. Now this Court is required to reappraise the evidence to see as to whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate its charge beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. 6. The prosecution has examined altogether 14 witnesses to prove its charge :- they are P. W. 1 Tarini Prasad, P. W. 2 Md. BabarAli, P. W. 3 Fantoos Kumar Mandal, P. W. 4 Bhaggo Tanti, P. W. 5 Anik Lal, P. W. 6 Ravindra Kumar, P. W. 7 Ram Bilas Mandal, P. W. 8 Murari Tanti, P. W. 9 Chandragupta Mandal, P. W. 10 Nand Kishore Mandal @ Nanda, P. W. 11 Dr. Nagendra Narain Bhagat, P. W. 12 Bhardwaj Mandal, P. W. 13 Pramod Mandal, and P. W. 14 Md. Shakoor. No witness has been adduced on behalf of the defence. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution has not examined independent witnesses. P. W. 6 the informant, is the son of the deceased. P. W. 10 is also another son of the deceased. They are interested witnesses and their evidence has not been corroborated by any independent witness. The Investigating Officer has also not been examined which has caused prejudice to the appellants. It has further been submitted that there is no evidence on the record to suggest that the appellants had shared the common intention to commit the murder of the deceased as such the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC is not sustainable against the appellants. 8. The Investigating Officer has also not been examined which has caused prejudice to the appellants. It has further been submitted that there is no evidence on the record to suggest that the appellants had shared the common intention to commit the murder of the deceased as such the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC is not sustainable against the appellants. 8. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that the prosecution is not required to examine all the witnesses although P. W. 6 and P. W. 10 are the sons of the deceased and certainly they are interested witnesses but on this ground alone their evidence cannot be thrown out. Non-examination of Investigating Officer has not caused any prejudice to the appellants. 9. P. W. 1, P. W. 3, P. W. 4, P. W. 5, P. W. 7, and P. W. 8 have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution. P. W. 9 is a formal witness who has proved inquest report and the seizure list. P. W. 12 is also formal witness who has proved the seizure-list. His signature on the seizure-list is Ext. 1/B. P. W. 13 is also a formal witness who has proved inquest report. His signature has been marked as Ext. 1/C. P. W. 14 is also a formal witness who has proved the fardbeyan as Ext. 4 and formal FIR as Ext. 4/1. He has also proved paragraphs 1 to 97 and 98 to 187 of the case-diary as Ext. 5, inquest report as Ext. 5/1 and seizure list as Ext. 6. 10. P. W. 2 has stated that at the time of occurrence he has gone to the market to take money. He came to know that Lattu Mandal, the watchman of Orchard was killed. The criminals had come to demand rangdari from Lattu Mandal. On denial he was killed. 11. P. W. 6 has stated that the occurrence is of 27.5.1995 at about 1 p.m. At that time he was watching Mango orchard. In the meantime, Bhudeo and Parsuram Mandal (both appellants), Arun Mandal and Pappu Yadav came there and asked for a ransom of Rs.5000/-. He asked them to talk to the owner of the orchard. In the meantime, Parsuram Mandal became angry and started scuffling with his father and others took out pistol. In the meantime, Bhudeo and Parsuram Mandal (both appellants), Arun Mandal and Pappu Yadav came there and asked for a ransom of Rs.5000/-. He asked them to talk to the owner of the orchard. In the meantime, Parsuram Mandal became angry and started scuffling with his father and others took out pistol. Bhudeo Yadav shot fire at his father which caused injury in his chest and he died. After firing all the accused fled away towards northern side. He has identified both the appellants. In his cross-examination he has admitted that his father Lattu Mandal was convicted in the murder of Shivakant Mandal. His father was acquitted by Patna High Court. In that case his uncle Chhattu Mandal was also an accused and he was also convicted by the sessions court. He has also admitted that Ram Bilash Mandal (P.W. 7) is his cousin brother and he was also accused in several cases. He has also stated that Babar Ali (P.W. 2) had employed four persons, namely, Lattu Mandal (deceased), Ram Bilas Mandal (P.W. 7), Manish Mandal (P.W. 5) and him ( P.W.6) on monthly wage of Rs.600/-. Babar Ali purchased orchard from Siyasaran Chaudhari, Nawal Mandal, Rupal Mandal and nephew of Siyasaran Chaudhari. They also used to come to orchard. He has further stated that the place of occurrence is orchard of Siyasaran Chaudhari. He has submitted that 10 days prior to the occurrence the accused were demanding ransom. At 5 p.m the police came to orchard at his instance. He has been cross-examined at great length but the defence has failed to demolish his evidence. 12. P. W. 10 Nand Kishore Mandal is also the son of the deceased. He has stated that on the date and time of the occurrence he was in orchard. He heard the sound of firing and saw that his father received fire injury in his chest. Bhudeo Yadav, Parsuram Mandal, Arun Mandal and Pappu Yadav all accused were there. He saw that Bhudeo Mandal shot fire which hit his father. Thereafter, there was stampede and all the four persons fled away towards northern side. The accused were demanding Rs.5000/- as rangdari from his father. After receiving fireshot injury his father died there. He has identified Bhudeo Yadav and Parsuram Mandal. In his cross-examination he has stated that on the date of occurrence Mango were plucking. Thereafter, there was stampede and all the four persons fled away towards northern side. The accused were demanding Rs.5000/- as rangdari from his father. After receiving fireshot injury his father died there. He has identified Bhudeo Yadav and Parsuram Mandal. In his cross-examination he has stated that on the date of occurrence Mango were plucking. He had come to Orchard at 12 O’clock. He had met his father, brother and Ram Bilash Mandal (P.W. 7). By the time of occurrence 3 to 4 thousand mangoes had been plucked and were lying in the orchard. He has also been cross-examined at length but the prosecution has not been able to demolish his evidence. He appears to be eye witness of the occurrence. 13. P. W. 11 Dr. Nagendra Narayan Bhagat while posted as Assistant Professor in the department of Forensic Medicine, Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Bhagalpur did the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Lattu Mandal aged about 55 years on 28.5.1995 at 11 a.m. and found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person:- (i) Fire arm wound of entry 1 cm in diameter margin inverted in epigastric region, tattooing in 4” of area around the wound. (ii) Wound of exit 1.5 cm. in diameter margin everted ½” left of mid spinal line, 12” below survical prominence. Both the wounds were found communicating projectile traversed through wound of entry through liver abdominal aorta, muscles and vertebra and out through wound of exit. There was presence of blood in abdominal cavity. In his opinion, injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by fire arm weapon which caused death due to shock and haemorrhage of the above injury. Time elapsed since death was within 24 hours. The post-mortem report has been proved as Ext. 2. In his cross-examination he has stated that he found two injuries caused by firearm. The fire was shot from front. There was no other injury on the person of the deceased. 14. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record it appears that the occurrence has taken place during day time in the mango orchard, the deceased and others were watching mango orchard where the appellants and others came and demanded ransom. When the demand was not fulfilled appellant Parsuram Mandal started scuffling with the deceased. When the demand was not fulfilled appellant Parsuram Mandal started scuffling with the deceased. It appears that there was no meeting of mind among the accused for causing the death of the deceased. Bhudeo Yadav shot fire at the deceased which caused injury in his chest and proved fatal causing his death at the time of occurrence itself. The evidence of P. W. 6 and P. W. 10 stands corroborated by the medical evidence of P. W. 11 (doctor) who has held post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and has found fireshot injury in the chest of the deceased which travelled through different organs of the deceased and came out from behind. The doctor has found injuries entry and exit of fireshot injury. The doctor has not found any other injury on the person of the deceased. P.W. 6 and P. W. 10 have stated that Parsuram Mandal was making scuffle with the deceased but this part of their evidence has not been corroborated by the medical evidence thus not found any other injury on the person of the deceased except the firearm injury as such we find that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate its charge against the appellant Parsuram Mandal beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. Parsuram Mandal is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. 15. No doubt P. W. 6 and P. W. 10 are interested witnesses. It is settled principle of law that the evidence of interested witnesses should not be discarded rather it should be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. After careful scrutiny of the evidence of P. W. 6 and 10 it appears that both of them have seen the occurrence and their evidence is quite natural and convincing. Their evidence stands corroborated by the medical evidence of P. W. 11 (doctor). The causing of death of the deceased by firearm has not been disputed by the appellants. It appears that attempts have been made for examination of the Investigating Officer but the Investigating Officer has not been examined. From the facts and circumstances of this case it appears that non-examination of the Investigating Officer has not caused any prejudice to the appellants. The ocular evidence stands corroborated by the medical evidence. 16. For proving prosecution case there is no legal requirement of multiplicity of witnesses. Evidence of witnesses, truthful, consistent and inspiring confidence is sufficient for maintaining conviction. 17. The ocular evidence stands corroborated by the medical evidence. 16. For proving prosecution case there is no legal requirement of multiplicity of witnesses. Evidence of witnesses, truthful, consistent and inspiring confidence is sufficient for maintaining conviction. 17. The prosecution has failed to substantiate its charge against the appellant Parshuram Mandal as discussed above. His conviction and sentence is set aside. Thus, Cr. Appeal (D. B.) No. 278 of 2005 is allowed. Parsuram Mandal is acquitted from the charge and he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. The judgment of conviction and sentence is upheld so far appellant Bhudeo Yadav is concerned. Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 335 of 2005 filed by Bhudeo Mandal is dismissed. 18. Let a copy of the first and last page of the judgment be handed over to the appointed Amicus Curiae Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate who has assisted the Court satisfactorily and he will get the prescribed fees from the High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna. Appeal 278/05 allowed. Appeal 335/05 dismissed.