JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order, dated 27.4.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. North Tripura, Dharmanagar in ST. 43(NT/D) of 2006, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge convicted the above-named appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) for causing the death of Md. Halim Uddin, (hereinafter referred to as the Victim).We have heard Mr. N. Mazumder, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 63/07 and Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 88/07. Also heard Mr. R.C. Debnath learned Special Public Prosecutor in both the appeals. 2. As both the appeals have arisen out of the common judgment and order aforesaid, involving same questions of law and facts, for the sake of convenience, and as agreed to by the learned counsel, appearing for both the parties, we have heard both the appeals together and propose to dispose of the said appeals by this common judgment and order. 3. The prosecution case, as revealed, during the trial, in brief, may be stated as follows:- (i) On 21-8-2005 at about 9-30 p.m. in front of the shop of Md. Aziz Ahmed, at Batarashi, Shabajpur (Madhya Tangibari) under the jurisdiction of Dharmanagar Police Station, the appellants were rebuking Md. Islamuddin (P.W. 5) and his brother Md. Salimuddin (not examined in this case). (ii) The deceased, a shop-keeper of the locality, who was one of the brothers of P.W. 5 and Md. Salimuddin, intervened and asked the appellants not to rebuke his said brothers. On being so intervened by the deceased, the appellants picked up a quarrel with the deceased. As a result of the said quarrel, appellant Abdul Ali caught the deceased in his waist, while Abdul Hannan gave 3 (three) blows on his abdomen and chest with a 'Kirish' (a sharp pointed weapon made of iron). (iii) The occurrence took place in presence of Md. Alkash Uddin (P.W. 1) and Md. Islamuddin (P.W. 5), who were brothers of the deceased, Md. Sahabuddin (P.W. 8) and Md. Amir Uddin (a shop-keeper). (iv) Hearing hue and cry, following the said incident, many people gathered in the place of occurrence. The appellants fled the place of incident, immediately after the occurrence, with the weapon of assault. Alkash Uddin (P.W. 1) and Md. Islamuddin (P.W. 5), who were brothers of the deceased, Md. Sahabuddin (P.W. 8) and Md. Amir Uddin (a shop-keeper). (iv) Hearing hue and cry, following the said incident, many people gathered in the place of occurrence. The appellants fled the place of incident, immediately after the occurrence, with the weapon of assault. The deceased was shifted to the Dharmanagar Hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries on the same night. (v) The Investigating Officer (P.W. 11), upon receipt of the information about the said incident, rushed to the hospital on the same night, making G.D. Entry, i.e., G.D. Entry No. 976, dated 28-5-2005 and found the injured in precarious condition. After his arrival in the hospital he received the written complaint (Ext. 1) from Alkash (P.W. 1) and treated the same as an FIR. On receipt of the said written complaint, police, initially registered a case under Section 326/34, IPC and launched investigation into the matter. At about 11:35 p.m. the Investigating Officer received an information, from the Medical Officer (P.W. 4), regarding death of the deceased. Accordingly the Investigating Officer prepared the inquest report (Ext. 2), in respect of the dead body of the deceased and forwarded the same for post-mortem examination. (vi) During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the witnesses, visited the place of occurrence, prepared a sketch map (Ext. 4) and collected the postmortem report (Ext. 3). At the close of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants under Section 302/34, IPC. (vii) The offence under Section 302, IPC, being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 read with section 34, IPC against the appellants. The charge was read over and explained to the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. (viii) In order to prove its case, prosecution examined, as many as, 13 witnesses, including the medical officers (P.Ws. 4, 9 and 10) and the investigating police officer (P.W. 11). (ix) At the close of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons were examined under 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter, in short, the Cr. P.C.). They denied the allegations, brought against them. The appellants examined five defence witnesses to prove their innocence. 4, 9 and 10) and the investigating police officer (P.W. 11). (ix) At the close of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons were examined under 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter, in short, the Cr. P.C.). They denied the allegations, brought against them. The appellants examined five defence witnesses to prove their innocence. (x) Considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants, as indicated above. Hence, these appeals. 4. Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, namely Md. Abdul Ali in Criminal Appeal No. 63/2007, has submitted that there is no corroboration in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and that the contradictions found in the evidence of the eye-witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1, 3, 5 and 8, regarding the involvement of the appellants, raises serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. It is contended that though the said witnesses claimed to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, none of them stated about the presence of each other, thereby negating their presence, in the place of occurrence and there is contradiction regarding the role played by the appellants. It is also submitted that failure to produce the incriminating weapon also creates doubt about the involvement of the appellants. The learned counsel, referring to the place of occurrence and its topography, has submitted that, as stated by the prosecution witnesses, the occurrence took place near some shops, more particularly, near the shop of Md. Aziz Ahmed, but none of the said shop keepers, including Md. Aziz Ahmed, were examined by the prosecution and as such, failure to examine such vital witnesses including Md. Aziz Ahmed and Mr. Salim Uddin negates the prosecution version. The learned defence counsel has also strenuously argued that the said major contradictions/discrepancies, appearing in the evidence of the eye-witnesses, aforesaid make it doubtful as to whether the said witnesses had seen the occurrence. Adopting the arguments, advanced by Mr. N. Mazumdar, Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 88/07 has submitted that, as revealed by the Investigating Officer i.e. P.W. 11, he proceeded to the hospital, after receipt of an information and making a G.D. Entry, i.e., before receipt of Ext. No. 1. Adopting the arguments, advanced by Mr. N. Mazumdar, Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 88/07 has submitted that, as revealed by the Investigating Officer i.e. P.W. 11, he proceeded to the hospital, after receipt of an information and making a G.D. Entry, i.e., before receipt of Ext. No. 1. The learned counsel has also submitted that, as the machinery of investigation was moved by an information received, in the police station, which was prior to receipt of Ext. No. 1, the earlier information, which moved the police. Should have been treated as the FIR. It is contended that as the prosecution has withheld the said information, it is not known as to what was mentioned or disclosed therein about the occurrence. In view of the above, it is submitted that the said withholding, raises serious doubt towards the truthfulness of the prosecution story revealed during the trial. In tune with the argument, advanced by Mr. N. Majumdar, Mr. Datta learned counsel has submitted that as all the said witnesses, i.e. P.Ws. 1, 3, 5 and 8 claimed to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence, their presence in the place of occurrence should have been corroborated by each other, but none of them whisper anything about the presence of each other. In view of the above, it is contended, by the learned counsel, that this conduct of the said witnesses indicates that they were not present at the time of occurrence. Drawing our attention to the evidence of P.W. 3, who also claimed to be one of the eye-witnesses, the learned counsel has submitted that the said witness clearly stated that at the time of occurrence only three persons i.e. the deceased and the appellants were present and that the said witness stated that all other people arrived in the place of occurrence, hearing hue and cry. In view of the above evidence, given by the P.W. 3, the learned counsel has contended that according to the P.W. 3 none had seen the occurrence whereas P.Ws. 1, 5 and 8 also claimed to have seen the occurrence. Therefore, it is submitted that the evidence of the said witnesses, who claimed to be the eye-witnesses, with regard to their presence in the place of occurrence, is not free from doubt. According to Mr. 1, 5 and 8 also claimed to have seen the occurrence. Therefore, it is submitted that the evidence of the said witnesses, who claimed to be the eye-witnesses, with regard to their presence in the place of occurrence, is not free from doubt. According to Mr. Datta learned counsel appearing for Abdul Hannan prosecution failed to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the appellants had caused the assault, resulting the death of the deceased and as such the learned trial Judge committed error by recording conviction and sentence as indicated above. The learned counsel has also submitted that, as revealed from the prosecution evidence, the appellants, prior to the incident, got engaged in rebuking the brothers of the deceased and the deceased sustained injuries, due to his intervention. Therefore, it is submitted that there is nothing, on record, to show that the appellants had any intention or pre-meditation, not to speak of common intention, to cause the death of the deceased. Therefore, it is submitted that the appellants cannot be held guilty of the offence under Section 302, read with Section 34, IPC, without sufficient corroboration and substantive evidence. The learned counsel, appearing for the appellants, have submitted that the appellants are entitled to be acquitted and set at liberty. In support of his contention Mr. Datta, learned counsel, for the appellant, has relied upon on the decisions held in the case of Hardev Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1975 SC 179 : 1975 Cri LJ 243, Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 1973 SC 501 : 1972 Cri LJ 1296, 2010 Cri LJ 805 (Gau) and Benu Namasudra vs. State of Tripura, reported in 2010 Cri LJ 781 (Gauh). 5. Refuting the said arguments, advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent, has submitted that all the said four eye-witnesses, categorically stated above the involvement of the appellants and that there is sufficient cogent, and reliable evidence to find that the appellants caused the death of the deceased and as such, the learned trial Judge committed no error by convicting and sentencing the appellants as aforesaid. Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecutor has also submitted that, in view of filing of the written FIR (Ext. Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecutor has also submitted that, in view of filing of the written FIR (Ext. 1), failure of the prosecution to prove the G.D. Entry cannot adversely affect the prosecution case. Learned Special Public Prosecutor referring to the evidence of the said eye-witnesses i.e. P.W. Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 8 has submitted that, at time of inflicting the blows with a 'kirish', the co-accused namely, Abdul Ali had caught hold of the deceased to facilitate Abdul Hannan to cause the injuries and as such it has stood established that both the appellants had the common intention to cause the fatal injuries, resulting the death of the deceased. It is also, submitted that, in view of the forceful evidence, given by the said eye-witnesses, the failure to examine the shop keepers, who had their shops at the place of occurrence, cannot be ground to reject the evidence, given by the said eye-witnesses. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has pointed out that P.W. 3, who was one of the eye-witnesses, was also an owner of one of the shops, situated at the place of occurrence and he has supported the prosecution version. 6. Supporting the impugned conviction and sentence, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that, minor discrepancies and omissions, found in the evidence of the eye-witnesses, cannot be ground to discard the forceful evidence given by the said eye-witnesses. In view of the above, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that the impugned conviction and the sentence need no interference. In support of his contention, Mr. Debnath has relied on the decision held in Krishna Mochi vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2002)6 SCC 81 : AIR 2002 SC 1965 : 2002 Cri LJ 2645). 7. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and carefully perusing the materials on record, more particularly, the evidence of the medical officers namely, Dr. Supriya Roy, P.W. 4, Dr. Manindra Malakar, P.W. 9, Dr. Kiran Sankar Chakraborty, P.W. 10, it is found that the deceased succumbed to his injuries, on the night of 21-8-2005 i.e., the date, on which he was admitted in the Dharmanagar Hospital following the occurrence. 8. P.Ws. Supriya Roy, P.W. 4, Dr. Manindra Malakar, P.W. 9, Dr. Kiran Sankar Chakraborty, P.W. 10, it is found that the deceased succumbed to his injuries, on the night of 21-8-2005 i.e., the date, on which he was admitted in the Dharmanagar Hospital following the occurrence. 8. P.Ws. 9 and 10, who performed the autopsy, in respect of the dead body of the deceased, stated that, on 22-8-2005 at about 9:30 a.m. he along with P.W. 10 and another medical officer, namely, Dr. Bimalendu Deb, conducted the post-mortem examination in respect of the dead body of the deceased and found the following three injuries i.e. "(1) Penetrating wound one over left mid axillary line between 9th and 10th ribs. (2) Penetrating injury over left iliac fossa (left part of the lower abdomen) 2 1/2" anterior and medial to left anterior superior iliac spine. (3) Incise wound between left index and middle finger." P.W. 9 opined that the injury Nos. 1(a) and 1(b) might be caused by sharp pointed big knife or dagger, that the injuries No. 1 (a) and 1(b) were grievous in nature and that the cause of death of the deceased was due to massive haemorrhage, as a result of the injury to spleen and its vessels, which were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. 9. The P.W. 10 who was also one of the members of the team of doctors conducting autopsy, in his cross-examination opined that a pointed iron rod might have been used to cause the injury. He opined that accidental fall from a culvert might not be the cause of the injuries, because there was no chance of availability of pointed iron rod, and in that event other abrasion might have been caused. He further stated that the injury No. 1(b) might be caused by sharp pointed weapon having 1" diameter. 10. The investigating officer who deposed as P.W. 11 conducted the inquest in respect of the dead body of the deceased and he exhibited the inquest report as Ext. No. 2. From the above evidence, it is clearly found that the deceased died due to the penetrating injuries sustained by him. 11. Now, the question is who had caused the said injuries? P.W. 10 ruled out the possibility of sustaining the injuries due to falling from the culvert. The defence version is that the injuries were caused due to fall from culvert. 11. Now, the question is who had caused the said injuries? P.W. 10 ruled out the possibility of sustaining the injuries due to falling from the culvert. The defence version is that the injuries were caused due to fall from culvert. As the said Medical Officer did not visit the place of occurrence, his opinion regarding absence of pointed iron rod, below the said culvert, is not acceptable. According to P.W. 5, there was a culvert near the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 11), in his cross-examination stated that he recovered an iron rod, at the time of reaching the incriminating weapon, but, as the same, according to him, was not connected with the offence, he did not seize the said rod. The learned defence counsel has submitted that, 'kirish' is also made of iron. Therefore, as a rod was found in the place of occurrence, the prosecution should have got the same examined by forensic expert, to rule out the existence of human blood on the same. It is contended that, if it was detected that the said rod contained human blood, then it would have been possible to establish that the deceased sustained the injuries due to fall from culvert and that the injuries were caused by the said rod and not at the hands of the appellants. In view of the above, we find force in the contention of the learned defence counsel. Hence, defence version that the deceased sustained the injuries due to fall from the culvert, cannot be ruled out. This view stands fortified by the failure to prove/disclose the contents of the first information i.e. the G.D. Entry coupled with the contradictions found in the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3, 5 and 8, which we will discuss later. 12. The prosecution version is that the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention to cause death, had assaulted the deceased with a pointed weapon namely, 'kirish." 13. The investigating officer (P.W. 11) stated that, prior to receipt of the said FIR Ext. 1, he had received an information about the incident, and after making G.D. Entry No. 976, dated 21-8-2005, he proceeded to the Dharmanagar Hospital, where he found the deceased in serious condition. Therefore, it is found that the machinery of the investigation was moved by a prior information, which was entered as G.D. Entry No. 976, dated 21-8-2005. 14. 1, he had received an information about the incident, and after making G.D. Entry No. 976, dated 21-8-2005, he proceeded to the Dharmanagar Hospital, where he found the deceased in serious condition. Therefore, it is found that the machinery of the investigation was moved by a prior information, which was entered as G.D. Entry No. 976, dated 21-8-2005. 14. In the case of Benu Namasudra v. State of Tripura reported in 2010 Cri LJ 781, a Division Bench of this Court observed that the subsequent written complaint, submitted after arrival of the police in the place of occurrence on the basis of information received prior to the lodging of the written information, cannot be treated as FIR, inasmuch as, such written complaint is received after initiation of the investigation by the police. The Court observed that the contents of the written complaint can be used, at best, as statement of the person making such complaint. 15. In the case of Abdul Sufan vs. The State of Tripura, reported in 2010 Cri LJ 805, a Division Bench of this Court observed that G.D. Entry made, prior to receipt of the complaint is to be treated as the first information report reconcerning the incident. 16. In the case of Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, reported in (2002)6 SCC 81 : ( AIR 2002 SC 1965 : 2002 Cri LJ 2645), it was argued that as the informant was not examined, the first information report cannot be used as substantive piece of evidence, inasmuch as on this ground as well the appellants were entitled to an order of acquittal. The Supreme Court rejecting the said statement, observed, that the said submission was mis-conceived and that, even if the first information report is not proved, it would not be the ground for acquittal as the case would depend upon the evidence laid by the prosecution. The Supreme Court further observed that non-examination of the informant could in no manner affect the prosecution case. The case at hand is not a case of non-examination of the first information. It is a case of non-disclosure of the identity of the informant, who gave the initial information to the police and also non-disclosure of the contents or particulars of information. 17. Section 154 of the Cr. The case at hand is not a case of non-examination of the first information. It is a case of non-disclosure of the identity of the informant, who gave the initial information to the police and also non-disclosure of the contents or particulars of information. 17. Section 154 of the Cr. P.C. provides that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer-in-charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. There is no difficulty in understanding that if the first information, with regard to commission of a cognizable offence, is given to the police at the first point of time, and is entered in the book maintained by the police station for entry of such information, such entry/information is to be treated as the FIR, inasmuch as such information moves the machinery of investigation into the motion. Any subsequent written information cannot be treated as FIR, but such written information can, at best, be treated as written statement, made under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. 18. In the ease at hand, it is abundantly clear that prior to receipt of the Ext. 1, police had earlier received information about the incident and after entering the said information, in the general diary, as G.D. Entry No. 976, dated 21-8-2005, P.W. 11 i.e. the investigating officer had rushed to the hospital and met the deceased in injured condition. Therefore, the said information, which was entered as G.D. Entry No. 976, dated 21-8-2005, was the FIR. In the present case, the said FIR i.e. the G.D. Entry has neither been proved nor produced for examination. Therefore, it is not known as to what information was furnished to the police regarding the incident and the role played by the appellants. The Ext. No. 1, which was subsequently submitted by PW. 1 was nothing more than a statement made by him under Section 161, Cr. P.C. The withholding of the said first information raises doubt about the prosecution version. The Ext. No. 1, which was subsequently submitted by PW. 1 was nothing more than a statement made by him under Section 161, Cr. P.C. The withholding of the said first information raises doubt about the prosecution version. Therefore, we find sufficient force in the contention of the learned defence counsel that withholding of the said FIR is adverse to the prosecution. 19. Md. Alkash Uddin, who lodged the written complaint (Ext. No. 1), stated that an altercation had taken place between Abdul Hannan and the deceased and consequent upon the said altercation, the appellant had given blows on the abdomen of the deceased with a 'kirish' (sharp weapon). This written complaint has been treated by police as FIR. In the said FIR, no mention has been made regarding involvement of the other appellant i.e. Abdul Ali. The Ext. No. 1 does not indicate that the appellants had rebuked P.W.5 and Salim Uddin. 20. According to P.W. 1, he was present in front of the shop of Mr. Aziz Ahmed and due to previous enmity, the appellants picked up a quarrel with the deceased. He also stated that the appellant Abdul Ali caught the deceased in his waist, while Abdul Hannan gave blow with a 'kirish' on his lower abdomen. He, however, stated that he raised alarm and many people gathered in the place of incident. He has exhibited the complaint lodged, by him as Ext. No. 1. Though he stated that he asked the scribe to mention that Abdul Ali had caught the deceased in his waist, the said scribe did not mention the same in the Ext. 1. This contention of the P.W. 1 that he had asked the scribe to write about the involvement of the Abdul Ali, has been belied by the scribe, who deposed as P.W. 13. P.W. 13 stated that he had written the Ext. 1 as per the version of the P.W. 1 and read over the same, which was admitted to be correct by the P.W. 1. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that he had written the Ext. 1 at Dharmanagar Hospital i.e. after admission of the deceased in the hospital. 21. In view of the above, it is difficult to believe the statement of the P.W. 1 that he had asked the P.W. 13 to write about the involvement of Aziz Ahmed. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that he had written the Ext. 1 at Dharmanagar Hospital i.e. after admission of the deceased in the hospital. 21. In view of the above, it is difficult to believe the statement of the P.W. 1 that he had asked the P.W. 13 to write about the involvement of Aziz Ahmed. Therefore, the statement made by P.W. 1, during the trial, regarding involvement of Abdul Ali, appears to be afterthought version. 22. Carefully perusing the evidence of P.W. 1, it appears that none except he had seen the occurrence and others had arrived there, hearing the alarm raised by him. Therefore, if P.W. 1 is believed then it is to be held that none other than the P.W.1 had seen the incident. As stated by P.W. 1, since prior to the incident, he was present in front of the shop of Aziz Ahmed and he saw the incident therefrom. Therefore, Aziz Ahmed was a very vital witness to lend corroboration in favour of the evidence given by P.W. 1. But for reasons best known to it, prosecution failed to examine Aziz Ahmed. Non-examination of such important witness raises doubt about evidence given by the prosecution version. 23. The prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3, 5 and 8, who have claimed to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. In order to appreciate the rival arguments, advanced by both the parties and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, we feel it appropriate to, briefly, scan the evidence, on record. P.W. Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 8 claimed to be eye-witnesses. P.W. Nos. 6 and 7 appeared in the place of occurrence after the incident. P.Ws. 4, 9 and 10 are the formal official witnesses, being the medical officers, who examined the deceased and performed the autopsy. P.W. 11 is the investigating officer. P.W. 13 is the scribe of the Ext. 1 and P.W. 12 is the witness tendered by the prosecution. 24. We have already discussed the evidence given by P.W. 1. P.W. 2 Md. Samsul Haque stated that he arrived in the place of occurrence after hearing cry of the deceased and found the deceased, lying on the ground in injured condition. He did not see the appellant inflicting the injuries. 24. We have already discussed the evidence given by P.W. 1. P.W. 2 Md. Samsul Haque stated that he arrived in the place of occurrence after hearing cry of the deceased and found the deceased, lying on the ground in injured condition. He did not see the appellant inflicting the injuries. He stated that he heard from the people, who had gathered there, that the appellant had caused injuries. Therefore, his evidence is not better than hear say evidence. 25. Md. Amiruddin, one of the shop-keepers, deposed as P.W. 3. He stated that while proceeding toward his house, after closing his shop, he found Abdul Hannan rebuking Islamuddin and Salimuddin, both brothers. According to this witness the deceased, who was also one of the brothers of Islamuddin and Salimuddin protested the rebuking and Abdul Hannan stabbed him on the lower part of the abdomen and other parts of his body with 'kirish'. He stated that with Abdul Hannan another person was also present, but he could not recognize him. This witness did not say anything about the role played by the other person, whom he could not identify. As he (P.W. 3) claimed to have seen the occurrence, from a close distance i.e. from 30 to 35 cubits i.e. about 45 feet, there has no difficulty for him to see the role played by each of the culprits. His evidence indicates that no role was played by Abdul Ali. P.W. 1 also claimed to have seen the occurrence from the shop of Aziz Ahmed and that Abdul Ali had caught the waist of the deceased. From P.W. 3's evidence, it is found that the said shop was situated at a distance of 15/16 cubits i.e. about 24 feet from the place of occurrence. As both P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 saw the occurrence from almost the same distance, such discrepancy should not have occurred in their evidence. 26. That apart, P.W.1 did not state that Abdul Hannan was found rebuking Islamuddin (P.W. 3) and Salimuddin whereas P.W. 3, who saw the occurrence from a little distance, stated regarding rebuking. As P.W. 1 was present nearer to the occurrence, than the P.W. 3 there was no difficulty for him to notice rebuking, if any, on the part of Abdul Hannan. The evidence of P.W. 1 negates the evidence of P.W. 3 regarding rebuking. As P.W. 1 was present nearer to the occurrence, than the P.W. 3 there was no difficulty for him to notice rebuking, if any, on the part of Abdul Hannan. The evidence of P.W. 1 negates the evidence of P.W. 3 regarding rebuking. On the other hand, P.W. 5 Islamuddin one of the brothers of the deceased, contradicting the evidence of P.W. 1, stated that, at the time of occurrence he was standing on the side of the culvert of the road near the shop of Aziz Ahmed and that Abdul Hannan and Abdul Ali were rebuking him and his brother Salimuddin. According to this witness, as their brother Halimuddin asked them not to rebuke his brothers, Abdul Ali had caught the waist of the deceased, white Abdul Hannan had given some blows with a 'kirish'. From the evidence of this witness it is found that he was also present near the shop of Aziz Ahmed i.e. the place where P.W. 1 was available. Though P.W. 5, in tune with P.W. 3 stated regarding rebuking. P.W. 1 was silent in this regard. This witness denied the suggestion, put to him, that due to quarrel, a scuffle had taken place between Abdul Hannan and Abdul Halim as a result of which the deceased had fallen down from the culvert and sustained the injuries. The evidence of P.W. 5 indicates the existence of a culvert, at the place of occurrence. Therefore, the defence plea regarding falling from the culvert, cannot be brushed aside. That apart, from the evidence of I.O. (P.W. 11) it appears that a piece of iron rod was found in the place of occurrence. This witness who also claimed to be one of the eye-witnesses did not say anything regarding presence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3. 27. Md. Kabir Ahmed, who deposed as P.W. 6 stated that, hearing cry, he rushed to the place of occurrence and found that the deceased was shifted to the hospital. He also did not see the occurrence. Md. Abdul Kuddus who deposed as P.W. 7 stated that he saw Abdul Hannan fleeing towards the south with a weapon in his hand and that, on being asked regarding the cause of running, he did not make any reply. This witness rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased in injured condition. Md. Abdul Kuddus who deposed as P.W. 7 stated that he saw Abdul Hannan fleeing towards the south with a weapon in his hand and that, on being asked regarding the cause of running, he did not make any reply. This witness rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased in injured condition. From the evidence of this witness it is found that the appellant, Abdul Hannan was found running towards the south. This witness did not indicate that the said appellant was running from the place of occurrence. Therefore, though, the P.W. 7 saw the said appellant running towards the south it does not lead to the conclusion that he had caused the injuries. 28. Md. Sahabuddin, who deposed as P.W. 8, also claimed to be one of the eye-witness. He also stated that, at the time of occurrence, he was near the shop of Aziz Ahmed i.e. the place from where P.W. 1 claimed to have seen the occurrence. Supporting the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 5, this witness stated that Abdul Hannan was rebuking Salimuddin and his brother Islamuddin and in the meantime the deceased, coming out from his shop, protested the rebuking of his brothers. According to this witness, an altercation had taken place between the appellant Abdul Hannan and, the deceased for a few minutes and thereafter, Abdul Hannan gave blows at the lower abdomen and chest of the deceased. This witness also did not whisper anything regarding presence of P.Ws. 13 and 5 and regarding presence or involvement of Abdul Ali. 29. Carefully scrutinizing the evidence of the said witnesses, who claimed to be eyewitnesses, it is found that all of them claimed to have seen the incident from close distance, but none of them indicated the presence of each other, in the place of occurrence. As claimed by P.W. 1 and P.W. 8. both of them were near the shop of Aziz Ahmed, so, if they had seen the incident, then there was no reason, on their part, not to indicate the presence of each others. That apart, if P.W. 1 and P.W. 8 had really seen the occurrence, then there could not occur discrepancy, in their evidence, regarding the role played by the appellant Abdul Ali. Because according to P.W. 1 Abdul Hannan had given blows, while Abdul Ali had caught the deceased. But according to P.Ws. That apart, if P.W. 1 and P.W. 8 had really seen the occurrence, then there could not occur discrepancy, in their evidence, regarding the role played by the appellant Abdul Ali. Because according to P.W. 1 Abdul Hannan had given blows, while Abdul Ali had caught the deceased. But according to P.Ws. 3 and 8, it was only Hannan, who had committed the offence. P.W. 8 does not whisper anything about Abdul Ali, thereby negating the presence of Abdul Ali. P.W. 3 who also claimed to be one of the eye-witnesses, though stated about the rebuking and presence of another person with Abdul Hannan did not speak anything about the role played by the said unknown person. On the other hand, P.W. 1 and P.W. 5, who were the brothers of the deceased indicated the involvement of Abdul Ali. From the evidence of P.W. 5, it is found that he and his brother Salimuddin were present since prior to the incident, i.e. from the time of rebuking them by Abdul Hannan. But P.W. 5 did not say anything regarding presence of his brother P.W. 1. According to P.W. 3. P.W. 5 and P.W. 8, the deceased raised objection with regard to the rebuking his brothers, i.e. P.W. 5 and Salimuddin, but P.W. 1 did not state anything regarding the rebuking. 30. In our opinion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as revealed from the prosecution evidence, the said discrepancies amount to major contradictions making it doubtful as to whether the said witnesses had really seen the incident. Therefore, the said contradictory evidence, given by the P.Ws. 1, 3, 5 and 8, raises serious doubt about the involvement of the appellants. 31. Though the defence examined 5 (five) witnesses, no substantive evidence could be laid, the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution required to prove its case, beyond all reasonable doubt. Once the prosecution case is proved, then only the burden shifts to the accused person to prove his innocence. It is also established principle that in a criminal case if two views are possible, on the evidence adduced in the case. i.e., one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, then the view, which is favourable to the accused is to be accepted. The paramount consideration is to ensure that mis-carriage of justice is prevented. i.e., one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, then the view, which is favourable to the accused is to be accepted. The paramount consideration is to ensure that mis-carriage of justice is prevented. Conviction of innocent persons is no doubt, result in miscarriage of justice. To avoid miscarriage of justice, the Court is required to rely on cogent, reasonable and trustworthy evidence, which undoubtedly lead to the only conclusion that none, other than the accused committed the alleged act. 32. As revealed from the above discussed evidence, the failure of the eye-witnesses to corroborate each others evidence, raises doubt about the truth of their evidence. If P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 are believed then it must be held that Abdul Ali had caught, while Abdul Hannan had given the blows to the deceased. On the other hand, if P.W. 3 and 5 are believed, then, it must be held that no role was, in fact, played by Abdul Ali and it was only Abdul Hannan, who had given the blows. From the evidence of the said witnesses, it transpires that all of them were present and they had seen the incident, almost from near the place of occurrence. But none of them indicated presence of each others. It is not a case that they had seen the occurrence from different angles and from various locations. From their evidence, it appears that the occurrence took place on the road, near the shop of Aziz Ahmed and they saw the incident from near the shop of Aziz Ahmed. In view of the above, there cannot be such discrepancy, in their ocular evidence if they had really seen the incident. 33. That apart, according to P.W. 3, initially Abdul Hannan was rebuking Islamuddin (P.W. 5) and his brother Salimuddin and thereafter, when the deceased had intervened he was assaulted by Abdul Hannan. P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 8 stated that, before assaulting the deceased Abdul Hannan was rebuking P.W. 5 and Salimuddin. P.Ws. 5 and 8 were also near the shop of Aziz Ahmed, which was at a distance of about 24 feet from the place of occurrence. P.W. 1 also claimed to be present in front of the shop of Aziz Ahmed. P.Ws. 5 and 8 were also near the shop of Aziz Ahmed, which was at a distance of about 24 feet from the place of occurrence. P.W. 1 also claimed to be present in front of the shop of Aziz Ahmed. Therefore, considering the distance of place from where the P.W. 1 saw the occurrence, it is surprising to note that P.W. 1 did not whisper anything about the rebuking. 34. In our considered opinion, this is a major contradiction found in the evidence of the witness, which raises doubt about the presence of P.W. 1 in the place of occurrence. Both P.W. 8 and P.W. 5 saw the occurrence from near the shop of Aziz Ahmed. According to P.W. 5 Abdul Ali had caught the waist of the deceased while Abdul Hannan gave the blows, but P.W. 8 did not state anything regarding involvement of Abdul Ali. A careful reading of the evidence of P.W. 8 does not even indicate the presence of Abdul Ali. The said contradiction found in the evidence of P.W. 5 and P.W. 8 also raises doubt about their presence in the place of occurrence. In view of the above, it is doubtful as to whether the said witnesses could see the occurrence. Therefore, their evidence regarding involvement of the appellants is not free from reasonable doubt. This doubt is fortified by the withholding of the original first information, which given rise to G.D. Entry aforesaid. 35. Non-examination of Aziz Ahmed, in front of whose shop the occurrence had taken place, is a major lapse on the part of the prosecution. From the evidence of P.W. 5 and P.W. 8, it transpires that Salimuddin, who has the younger brother of P.W. 5 and the deceased, was also present with the P.W. 5 at the time of occurrence, in as much as, P.Ws. 3, 5 and 8 stated that Abdul Hannan was rebuking P.W. 5 and Salimuddin. Therefore, both Aziz Ahmed and Salimuddin were vital witnesses in this case. No explanation has been put forward for their withholding. In the case of Krishna Mochi AIR 2002 SC 1965 : 2002 Cri LJ 2645 (supra) the Supreme Court observed that in a given case non-examination of material witness may affect the prosecution case. 36. Therefore, both Aziz Ahmed and Salimuddin were vital witnesses in this case. No explanation has been put forward for their withholding. In the case of Krishna Mochi AIR 2002 SC 1965 : 2002 Cri LJ 2645 (supra) the Supreme Court observed that in a given case non-examination of material witness may affect the prosecution case. 36. In the case of Thulia Kali AIR 1973 SC 501 : 1972 Cri LJ 1296 (supra), the Supreme Court observed that failure to examine the material witnesses would make the Court to draw inference against prosecution. In the light of the above, we find sufficient force in the contention of the learned counsel, appearing for the appellants, that had Aziz Ahmed and Salimuddin been examined a different story might have come out thereby negating the prosecution version. In the case of Hardev Singh AIR 1975 SC 179 : 1975 Cri LJ 243 (supra) the Supreme Court, referring to provisions of Section 34 of the IPC observed that the common intention must be to commit the particular crime, although the actual crime may be committed by any one sharing the common intention. 37. Though the learned trial Judge has convicted both the appellants with the aid of Section 34, IPC, there is nothing on record to show that they had shared common intention to cause the death of the deceased. P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 stated about the involvement of Abdul Ali but P.W. 3 and P.W. 8 did not state anything against the Abdul Ali. Of course P.W. 3 stated that there was another person with Abdul Hannan, but he could not identify the said person. However, he did not state about the role played by the said unknown person. In view of the above, there is no material to show that the appellants had com. The above discussed contradictions and discrepancies do not inspire confidence to believe that P.Ws. 1, 3, 5 and 8 had seen the occurrence. The presence of the said witnesses being disbelieved, there remains nothing substantive against the appellants. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention of causing death had assaulted the deceased. 1, 3, 5 and 8 had seen the occurrence. The presence of the said witnesses being disbelieved, there remains nothing substantive against the appellants. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention of causing death had assaulted the deceased. We are inclined to hold that the appellants are entitled to get the acquittal, on benefit of doubt, therefore, we find sufficient merit in these appeals, requiring interference with the impugned judgment and order. The appeals are allowed. Consequently, the impugned conviction and sentence are set aside, the appellants are acquitted. They be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeals allowed.