JUDGMENT : Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. - Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 365 of 1990 filed on behalf of Ram Nihora Kumhar, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 366 of 1990 filed on behalf of Rambali Koeri @. Rambali Singh. Sheopujan Koeri @ Sheopujan Singh. Ram Pujan Koeri @ Ram pujan Singh. Ram Dangal Koeri @ Ram Dangal Singh. Lallan Koeri @ Lallan Singh. Girdawal Koeri @ Girdawal Singh. Jogendra Koeri @ Yogendra Singh, Sudama Koeri @ Sudama Singh and Ramgovind Koeri @ Ramgovind Singh, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 464 of 1990 filed on behalf of Ram Narayan Koeri @ Ram Narayan Singh. Dhiraj Nath Koeri @ Dhiraj Nath Singh and Rang Bahadur Koeri @ Rang Bahadur Singh and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 465 of 1990 filed on behalf of Sheo Baman Koeri @ Sheo Bachan Singh and Gupteshwar Koeri @ Gupteshwar Singh have been taken up together because all the four appeals have arisen out of a judgment dated 29.8.1990, delivered by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Sessions Trial No. 363/2 of 1983/1984, convicting the accused/appellants Sheo Bachan Singh (Koeri), Ram Narain Koeri, Dhiraj Nath Koeri, Rang Bahadur Koeri and Gupteshwar Koeri guilty under Sections 302, 302/149 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and convicting the appellants Rambali Koeri, Sheo Pujan Koeri, Ram Pujan Koeri, Ram Dangal Koeri, Lallan Koeri, Jogendra Koeri, Sudama Koeri, Ramgobind Koeri, Girdawal Koeri and Ram Nihora Kumhar guilty under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against Rambali Koeri was found not substantiated and he was acquitted from that charge. Sentence of life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, R.I. for seven years for the offence under Section 450 of the IPC and R.I. for five years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act was given to Sheo Bachan Koeri, Ram Narain Koeri, Dhiraj Nath Koeri, Rang Bahadur koeri and Gupteshwar Koeri. Other accused persons namely Rambali Koeri, Sheo Pujan Koeri. Rampujan Koeri, Ram Dangal Koeri, Lallan Koeri, Girdawal Koeri, Jogendra Koeri, Sudama Koeri. Ram Gobind Koeri and Ram Nihora Kumhar were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 of the IPC and five years for the offence tinder Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Other accused persons namely Rambali Koeri, Sheo Pujan Koeri. Rampujan Koeri, Ram Dangal Koeri, Lallan Koeri, Girdawal Koeri, Jogendra Koeri, Sudama Koeri. Ram Gobind Koeri and Ram Nihora Kumhar were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 of the IPC and five years for the offence tinder Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. An occurrence of 11th May, 1993 is before us through these four appeals. On that date Chandradeo Singh-Ex Mukhiya and brother of the informant Kameshwar Singh PW 12 was killed for which fardbeyan (Ext. 4) of Kameshwar Singh was recorded by the S. I. Vindhyachal Singh PW 13 on 11.5.1993 at 9.15 p.m. at the place of occurrence, at Village-Narora by the side of house of Sarju Sah, wherein he has stated that he was at his Chawani along with Sheo Prasad Singh PW 6, Ram Suresh Singh PW 5. Sri Singh (not examined), Sheomuni Prasad PW 8, Saheb Sharma PW 3 and Ghura Ram PW 7. He heard sound of firing at about 3.30 p.m. in the village. The informant rushed with his gun and when he reached by the side of house of. Ramdal Singh (not examined) then he saw Rambali Koeri, Sheo Pujan Koeri, Ram Pujan Koeri, Ram Dangal Koeri, Lallan Koeri, Girdawal Koeri, Jogendra Koeri and Sudama Koeri having country made guns, Ram Gobind Koeri was having one double barrel gun, all of village Narora. One Ram Nihora Kumhar of village Dandwas was present with the single barrel gun. After seeing of the informant the named accused ran upon towards him for killing and Rambali Koeri resorted to firing which caused injury on the left toe of the informant. The informant concealed himself and started retaliating the firing. In the meanwhile, Sheo Prasad Singh PW 6 came with gun and started firing. When the informant started firing then from the house of Sarju Sah. Shea Bachan Koeri with rifle, Ram Narain Koeri with double barrel gun, Dhiraj Nath Koeri with single barrel gun, Ran Bahadur Koeri with single barrel gun all were of village Narora and Gupteshwar Koeri of village Siswar came with rifle and directed the informant to escape otherwise he would be done away in the manner in which Chandradeo Singh was done away. The accused persons started escaping towards East of the village. The informant continued firing and chased the accused persons. The accused persons started escaping towards East of the village. The informant continued firing and chased the accused persons. But the accused persons took their position in Goriya river and continued firing. The firing was retaliated by the informant also. The informant suspected that one of them might have received injury on account of his firing. The informant returned to village Narora and saw the dead body of his elder brother which was kept on a cot in the land situated West of the house of Sarju Sah. Land dispute was the motive which resulted in killing of Chandradeo Singh who was karta of the family. The fardbeyan was witnessed by Lallan Singh and Rajendra Prasad Singh (both not examined). The fardbeyan was forwarded to Mohania police station for instituting the case and accordingly Mohania P.S. Case No. 65 of 1983 under Sections 148, 149, 302, 307 and 324 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and a formal FIR (Ext. 5) was drawn up. The post-mortem report (Ext. 2) of the deceased was obtained and the case was investigated into. The case was found to be true and it was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge under Section 302 of the IPC was explained against Sheo Bachan Koeri, Ram Narain Koeri, Dhiraj Nath Koeri, Rang Bahadur Koeri and Gupteshwar Koeri, charge under Section 450 of the IPC was explained to Sheo Bachan Koeri. Ram Narain Koeri, Dhiraj Nath Koeri, Rang Bahadur Koeri and Gupteshwar Koeri, charge under Section 307 of the IPC was explained to Rambali Koeri and charge under Section 302/149 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was explained against all the accused persons who pleaded innocence, so the trial proceeded. 3. Before the trial Court the prosecution examined altogether 13 witnesses they were PW 1 Ram Autar Singh, PW 2 HiraLal Singh, PW 3 Saheb Sharma, PW 4 Surajdeo Singh, PW 5 Suresh Singh, PW 6 Sheo Prasad Singh, PW 7 Ghura Ram, PW8 Sheomuni Prasad, PW 9 Sachidanand Singh, PW 10 B.D. Bhagat, PW 11 Suraj Sah, PW 12 Kameshwar Singh and PW 13 Vindhyachal Singh. Injury report of the informant was brought on record through (Ext. 1), seizure was made and seizure list was brought on record through (EXts. 3 & 3/A), inquest report was marked as (Ext. X) for identification. Injury report of the informant was brought on record through (Ext. 1), seizure was made and seizure list was brought on record through (EXts. 3 & 3/A), inquest report was marked as (Ext. X) for identification. On behalf of defence, Jagrup Ram and Bharat Prasad Singh were examined as formal witnesses. On Complaint Petition No. 192(C) of 1979 filed by Ram Nihora Kumhar against Anapurna Devi in the Court of A.C.J.M., Bhabua was marked as (Ext. A), signature of Advocate on Complaint Petition as (Ext. B), certified copy of order of proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr PC as (Ext. C), certified copy of deposition as (Exts. D to D/4), certified copy of order of chakbandi as (Exts. E to E/2), certified copy of order of the A.C.J.M., dated 4.1.1983 on complaint petition as (Ext. F), certified copy of order Rang Bahadur Singh on complaint petition as (Ext. G). 4. The defence of the accused/appellants was of false implication on account of enmity which has been mentioned in the fardbeyan itself. Their further defence was that Chandradeo Singh was a notorious land grabber and criminal of the area and he used to purchase disputed, litigated land on the strength of force. He was taking possession on several acres of land. He has earned several enemies at several places on account of forcible land occupation and he was killed somewhere else and the informant found the moment appropriate to implicate the accused persons who were not at all related with the murder of Chandradeo Singh. 5. The trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances brought on the record comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges against all the accused persons. 6. This Court has to see as to whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges against the accused persons beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts or not. 7. The witnesses of the case could be classified in different categories. PWs 1 and 2 are witnesses of the inquest and they are not material witnesses. PWs 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12 are named witnesses of the fardbeyan and they have not examined as eye-witnesses. PW 4 has also been examined as a witness of the occurrence. PW 9 has examined the injured and prepared the injury report. PWs 1 and 2 are witnesses of the inquest and they are not material witnesses. PWs 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12 are named witnesses of the fardbeyan and they have not examined as eye-witnesses. PW 4 has also been examined as a witness of the occurrence. PW 9 has examined the injured and prepared the injury report. PW 12 has held the post-mortem upon the dead body and PW 13 is the Investigating Officer. 8. Before taking up the material witnesses it would be appropriate to see the evidence of the doctor PW 9 who had examined PW 12 Kameshwar Singh on 12.5.1983 at 3.30 p.m. and had found two holes on the skin of the left leg of the infom1ant and the injuries were simple. The injury report has been brought on the record through (Ext. 1). 9. As the accused persons have already been acquitted from the charge under Section 307 of the IPC so this is not discussed separately. 10. PW 10 while being posted as medical officer of Bhabua hospital on 12.5.1983, has held the post-mortem upon the dead body of Chandradeo Singh aged about 40 years at 9.35 a.m. and has found the following ante-mortem injuries upon the person : (I) One lacerated wound on the posterior lateral aspect of the left leg 9" from left knee 4" x 3" x bone deep with lacerations of the muscles. (II) Another lacerated wound on medial aspect of the left thigh 4" below the left waist 2-1/2'" x 3/4" x muscle deep with laceration of the muscles. The margins of the wound were blackened and scorched. (III) One perforating wound on the front of the right forearm causing compound fracture of right radius of right ulna of both the bones were broken into several parts 6" x 5" x bone' deep' with lacerations of the muscles and venial and along with blackening and scorching of edges-grievous in nature. (IV) Another perforating wound on the upper part of the lateral aspect of the right thigh with blackening and scorching of the edge 2-1/2" x 1-1/2" x bone deep with lacerations' of the muscles and veinous-grievous in nature. (V) Fracture of' the right femer-grievous in nature. (VI) Multiple pellet wounds on the fuel of the upper part of the right leg with blackening and scorching of the edges 1/4"x 1/4"x tissue deep. (V) Fracture of' the right femer-grievous in nature. (VI) Multiple pellet wounds on the fuel of the upper part of the right leg with blackening and scorching of the edges 1/4"x 1/4"x tissue deep. (VII) Four pellet injuries on the left side of the lower part of abdomen with blackening and scorching of the margins-dark and clotted blood was seen oozing out from the wounds and also blood stains were found round the wound : (i) 1/4" x 1/4" x tissue deep. (ii) 1"x 1/2" x tissue deep. (iii) 1/2" x 1/4" x tissue deep. (VIII) 13 pellet injuries on the right side on the front of the abdomen of the area of 5" round the umbilical with blackening and scorching of edges. (IX) Two wounds on the left side of the front of the abdomen 3" from the umbilical with scorching 3" x 1" x 1/2" simple in nature. (X) Six wounds of burn on the left side of front of abdomen of varying sizes three areas of burn on the medial aspect of the left arm size 1/4" x 1/4" x skin deep, 1/4" x 1/4" x skin deep and 1/4" x 1/4" x skin deep. (XI) Fewer areas of bone on the medial aspect of the left arm 1/4" x 1/4" x skin deep each of the muscle. (XII) Multiple pellet injuries on the lateral aspect of the right thigh of the upper part with blackening and scorching of the edges 1/4" x 1/4" x skin deep each. Large intestine was found perforated and ruptured at a number of places with blackening of the margins of below in the lever was stained left kidney was ruptured. 11. The doctor's evidence coupled with the post-mortem report as established that Chandradeo Singh was killed on account of multiple firearm injuries almost on the date and time of occurrence as suggested by the prosecution. 12. Once it has been established that death was otherwise than in normal circumstances meaning thereby the culpable homicide amounting to murder then it has to be seen whether the prosecution has been succeeded in roping the accused that they and they alone were responsible for causing death or not. 13. Now, the oral evidence has to be looked into and to begin it, the evidence of the informant PW 12 is being considered. 13. Now, the oral evidence has to be looked into and to begin it, the evidence of the informant PW 12 is being considered. The informant has stated that on 11.5.1983 at 3.30 p.m. he was inside his chawani along with Sheo Prasad Singh PW 6, Ram Suresh Singh PW 5, Sri Singh (not examined), Sheomuni Prasad PW 8, Saheb Sharma PW 3 and Ghura Ram PW 7. Gun shot firing was being heard which was coming from southern side. 3-4 filing sounds were being heard. The informant and others came out and proceeded with his gun in the direction where firing was expected to be going on. In that way, the informant rushed by the side of house of Ramdal Singh (not examined) he noticed that 14-15 persons standing West in the house of Suraj Sah PW 11. The informant identified Rambali, Sheo Pujan Koeri, Ram Pujan Koeri. Ram Dangal Koeri, Lallan Koeri, Girdawal Koeri, Jogendra Koeri, Sudama Koeri, Ram Govind Koeri, Ram Nihora Kumhar and others were not identified. All the 15 persons were having guns in their hands. Ram Bali Koeri fired upon the informant side which caused injury on his right leg. The informant took his position behind a wall. In the meantime Sheo Prasad Singh PW 6 also continued firing from the house of Sarju Sah. 10-12 firing shots were heard and five persons were coming seen from his house they were Sheo Bachan Koeri, Ram Narain Koeri, Dhiraj Nath Koeri, Rang Bahadur Koeri and Gupteshwar Koeri were having guns and rifles. Gupteshwar Koeri opened fire and warned the informant and others to be killed as that Chandradeo Singh has been done away. The criminals namely the accused persons started escaping towards East. The informant and his persons chased them up to Goriya river which was situated at about quarter to two post. The firing was continued between both sides. Even at Goriya river the firing was continued for half an hour between two sides. The informant and others returned to Narora and found the dead body of his brother Chandradeo Singh. The informant's family member Brahmdeo Singh (not examined) was present there. When firing was being exchanged near Tinmuhani (triennial) then his family members Surajdeo Singh PW 4 and Chandeshwar Singh (not examined) were present. 14. The informant and others returned to Narora and found the dead body of his brother Chandradeo Singh. The informant's family member Brahmdeo Singh (not examined) was present there. When firing was being exchanged near Tinmuhani (triennial) then his family members Surajdeo Singh PW 4 and Chandeshwar Singh (not examined) were present. 14. The informant was at the place which was situated at some distance and the informant has heard the sound of firing and then he went to the village and saw five persons namely the appellants of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 464 of 1990 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 465 of 1990 coming out from the house who were of the accused persons, were chased by the informant and his persons when the informant returned after exchange of firing then he went to the village and found his brother dead. According to the informant the killing was in the house of Suraj Sah PW 11. The dead body was kept in the western land situated in the West side of the house of Saryu Sah. The informant has stated altogether 15 persons were present near the house of Saryu Sah. The informant has described his relation with the witnesses when he in his cross-examination in para-5 has stated that he was eight brothers. Chandradeo Singh (the deceased), Brahmdeo Singh (not examined), Surajdeo Singh PW 4, Chandeshwar Singh (not examined). Kameshwar Singh (the infom1ant), Sunil Kumar (not examined), Narmdeshwar Singh (not examined) and Ajay Kumar (not examined). The chawani upon which the informant was sitting when firing was heard was obtained by the informant through a register deed of sale by Gulzari and Chandrajyoti Kunwar a year prior to the occurrence. The informant has denied that chawani belong to Dhirajnath. About gun from which the informant was firing, he has stated that it was not standing in his name rather it was standing in the name of Surajdeo Singh PW 4 but the informant was not made retainer of the gun of Surajdeo Singh PW 4. Dhirajnath Singh is cousin of Chandrajyoti Kunwar and Gulzari Devi who were daughters of Ram Prasad. The informant has denied the suggestion that Dukhwanti Kunwar had sold the land upon which the chawani was exist in favour of wife of Rangbahadur and mother of Yogendra. Dhirajnath Singh is cousin of Chandrajyoti Kunwar and Gulzari Devi who were daughters of Ram Prasad. The informant has denied the suggestion that Dukhwanti Kunwar had sold the land upon which the chawani was exist in favour of wife of Rangbahadur and mother of Yogendra. He has admitted that proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr PC was contested between the side of the informant as well as from the side of the accused but the informant was not aware of the result of the proceeding. He has further admitted that a proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr PC was contested between the family of the informant and the accused prior to the occurrence. The informant has stated that he has seen ten persons near the house of Suraj Sah PW 11. He has denied the suggestion that relatives of dead criminals Chhangur Dusadh and Sarvajeet Dusadh were present in the village and they have got the offence committed. He has also denied the suggestion that the offence was committed by unknown criminals who were in unifonns. The informant has been supported almost on all vital aspects of the case by PWs 3 to 8. They have constantly supported that Chandradeo Singh was killed in the house of Suraj Sah PW 11. All the witnesses have stated about the enmity and pendency of cases between two sides. They have stated that they have seen the appellants of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 464 of 1990 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 465 of 1990 coming out from the house of PW 11. Thereafter, they have chased the accused persons. PW 4 in para-14 of his evidence has stated that Chandradeo Singh was accused in some cases but could not detailed as to in how many cases. 15. PWs 3 to 8 have not seen the occurrence and the occurrence was witnessed by PW 11, as the murder has taken place in his house therefore he is the most relevant witness and his evidence requires to be scrutinized. PW 11 has stated that on 11.5.1983, at about 3.30 p.m. he was at the place of occurrence, which was his house at that time many women were purchasing clothes. PW 11 has stated that on 11.5.1983, at about 3.30 p.m. he was at the place of occurrence, which was his house at that time many women were purchasing clothes. At that very time Chandradeo Singh-Ex Mukhiya (the deceased) came and demanded water the informant took him to his house and made him to sit at a stone bench and gave water at that very time one Dalpati (not examined) was sitting there, that Dalpati was not known to PW 11 at that time wife of Sheobachan (not examined) was also there and demanded money from mukhiyaji which was her arrear of price of seeds. At that very time firing took place and the mukhiya fell down and entered inside the house, PW 11 also followed him. This witness concealed himself. Mukhiyaji also concealed but five persons approached him into the room they were Sheobachan Singh with rifle, Gupteshwar Singh with rifle, Ramnarain Singh with double barrel gun and Dhirajnath Singh and Rangnath Singh @ Rangbahadur Singh with single barrel gun. As soon as they entered inside the house they started firing altogether 7-8 shots were fired. Ramnarain Singh gave a butt blow to PW 11 and asked him to escape. The firing was taken place outside of the house also so PW 11 could not escape. After killing the accused persons escaped. These witnesses went to Chandradeo mukhiya who was alive he was put on a cot and give water. The injured was taken by Nanak Sah (not examined), Umanath Singh (not examined), Sadhu Sharma (not examined), Mahendra Singh (not examined) and others for catching a bus but no inmates from the house of mukhiyaji came. Mukhiyaji was made to sit on the bus and PW 11 returned but soon he knew that mukhiyaji was dead. The tractor driver told that mukhiyaji has died. This witness has not seen others who were present. On the next morning his statement was taken by the officer-in-charge. It has come that one Nirmal Kumhar was the Dalpati who was sitting at the time of occurrence in the house of PW 11 but that Nirmal Kumhar was not examined. Another inmate present in the house was the mother of PW 11 but she was also not examined. 16. It has come that one Nirmal Kumhar was the Dalpati who was sitting at the time of occurrence in the house of PW 11 but that Nirmal Kumhar was not examined. Another inmate present in the house was the mother of PW 11 but she was also not examined. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that all the witnesses in the case were highly interested and motivated and their appearance was anyhow to implicate the, accused persons. PW 3 in para-4, PW 5 in paras-6, 7 & 8, PW 6 in paras-2, 3 and 4, PW 7 in para-3, PW 8 in para-3 and PW 12 in para-9 has stated and described the extent of enmity which is enough to presume and believe that the degree of enmity was intense and the informant and his men were adamant to properly framed the accused persons in the murder. It has also been submitted that the prosecution has withheld the neutral and material witnesses and there is no explanation as to why they were not examined. Besides the Nirmal Kumhar (the dalpati), mother of PW 11 was also in the house, wife of Sheobachan was also present in the house but they were not examined so it has been submitted that the prosecution was adamant to withheld the independent witnesses. 17. It has also been submitted that all the witnesses are thoroughly interested and for the first time they have named the accused persons before the trial Court. PW 11 in para-1 has stated that Nanhak Sah, Umanath Singh, Sadhu Sharma and Mahendra Singh were present and they have taken mukhiyaji up to bus but there is no reason as to why none of them were examined. Tractor driver and bus driver were other independent witnesses but they were also not examined. Though it has come in the evidence of the I.O. that there was blood and it was seized but there is no explanation as to why the blood was not chemically examined and this could have at least indicated that as to whether the seized blood was of human being or not. It has also been submitted that the I.O. PW 13 in para-1 has stated that he got information through Tileshwar Prasad Singh which led to making one sanha entry but neither Tileshwar Prasad Singh was examined nor was sanha entry produced. It has also been submitted that the I.O. PW 13 in para-1 has stated that he got information through Tileshwar Prasad Singh which led to making one sanha entry but neither Tileshwar Prasad Singh was examined nor was sanha entry produced. PW 13 in para-24 has explained that PW 3 has not named Sheopujan Singh, Yogendra Singh, Ramgovind Singh and Gupteshwar Singh in his statement before police. PW 4 has not named any of the accused in the investigation. PW 5 has not named Ramnarain Koeri, Dhirajnath Koeri, Sheopujan Koeri and Gupteshwar Koeri when the statement was taken. It has also been submitted that PW 5 Suresh Singh has not described Sheobachan Singh as the person who was coming from the house. PW 6 has not stated during investigation that he has identified Rambali Singh. Ramdangal Singh. Lallan Singh. Girdawal Singh. Yogendra Singh. Sudama Singh. Ramgovind Singh. Sheopujan Singh. Rampujan Singh and Ramnihora Kumhar outside of the house. PW 7 has not stated before the I.O. that he has seen Sheobachan Koeri coming out from the house of PW 11. PW 8 has not stated before the I.O. that when firing was going on then Surajdeo Singh and Chandeshwar Singh arrived there. PW 11 has stated about presence of Nirmal Kumhar and has further stated that ten persons have entered into the house amongst whom Ramnarain, Sheobachan, Rangbahadur. Gupteshwar and Dhirajnath were also present. He has further stated that other 4-5 unknown persons in khaki uniform have also entered into the house. PW 12 has stated that relatives of Changur Dusadh and Sarvajeet Dusadh were present in the village of the informant. 18. It has also been submitted that two types of evidences has come on the record. PW 11 has contradicted other eyewitnesses namely PWs 3 to 8 and 12. If PW 11 is believed then others depositions become irrelevant and we further are believed then the evidence of PW 11 becomes immaterial and purposeless. 19. Learned APP has submitted that conviction can be sustained even on deposition of one witness. 20. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsels, it is apparent that offence was committed when only PW 11 was present in the house. Therefore, the case is based upon the testimony of single witness and it has to be analyzed accordingly. PW 11 had described the role of only five persons in the occurrence. 20. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsels, it is apparent that offence was committed when only PW 11 was present in the house. Therefore, the case is based upon the testimony of single witness and it has to be analyzed accordingly. PW 11 had described the role of only five persons in the occurrence. It has also come in his deposition that some other persons were present in the house when occurrence was committed and they were mother of PW 11 as well as Dalpati. But it is not clear as to why those persons who could have unfolded the truth and have given some liability to the prosecution case were not examined. It has also come in evidence that the offence was committed in the house of PW 11, but no persons from the house of Chandradeo Singh came to carry him for treatment which should have been given to him. It has come in the evidence that the informant had a big family and was eight brothers. Those brothers were also not examined. PW 1's statement has not been corroborated by any other witness and it is not clear as to why despite presence of independent witnesses they were not examined. The I.O. has received the information through Tileshwar Prasad Singh who was also not examined. The seizures were made, but for what purpose, it was not clear. In a case depending upon single witness, caution has to be taken and it has to be seen that the witness remain intact and his evidence is not fractured. If the single witness remains intact and his evidence appears to be worth accepting then the order of conviction can be made but evidence of PW 11 has left many questions unanswered. For example other persons were present in the house and they were not examined and there is no explanation as to why they were not examined. The enmity is established from all angles and it is apparent that the accused were on litigating terms. It has come that the deceased himself was a person of questionable character and he was involved in taking forcible possession of the land. Taking in view of the conduct of the deceased as well as the informant, some corroboration of the evidence of PW 11 was required. It has come that the deceased himself was a person of questionable character and he was involved in taking forcible possession of the land. Taking in view of the conduct of the deceased as well as the informant, some corroboration of the evidence of PW 11 was required. The case is not that Chandradeo Singh was taken to bus for carrying him to hospital, but that has not been corroborated and there is no other witness except PW 11 to support this. Though, other witnesses were present but they were not examined and it is not clear as to why the independent witnesses were withheld. The situation could have been otherwise if the independent witnesses were not present then the evidence of PW 11 was fit to be exhibited in the present case. It has come that a number of independent witnesses were present and they were not examined. The prosecution has to play all the cards which it had. No doubt it is the choice of the prosecution to bring a particular witness before the Court, but the choice is not to be sent in a direction which favours the prosecution. Non-examination of the independent witnesses have left many questions unanswered and a doubt has been created as to whether the prosecution has come with clean version or not. Once a doubt is created then the benefit of doubt has to be passed to the accused/appellants and accordingly the benefit of doubt is passed on to the accused. 21. In the result, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside. The appeals are allowed. The appellants are already on bail. They are acquitted of the charges and discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Appeals allowed.