Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. – Initially, Cr. Appeal (DB) No.338 of 1990 was filed on behalf of Ram Sagar Rai, Suresh Rai, Bichhu Rai, Ram Sogarath Rai, Jai Nandan Rai, Raj Kumar Rai, Ram Prakash Rai and Sadan Rai and Cr. Appeal (DB) No.412 of 1990 was filed on behalf of Jai Jai Ram Rai and Rameshwar Rai. During the pendency of these appeals, the appellants Ram Sagar Rai, Ram Sogarath Rai and Rameshwar Rai died and as such, this Court abated the appeals against them and now the appeal is confined on behalf of Suresh Rai, Bichhu Rai, Jai Nandan Rai, Raj Kumar Rai, Ram Prakash Rai, Sadan Rai and Jai Jai Ram Rai. Both the appeals have arisen out of the judgment dated 21.08.1990 in Sessions Case No.201/86/55/86 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in connection with Matihani P.S. Case No.9/1986 and as such, both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by one judgment. 2. The appellants were found guilty under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and for that each of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. They have been further held guilty under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and for that they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appellants Jai Nandan Rai, Raj Kumar Rai, Bichhu Rai, Sadan Rai and Ram Sogarath Rai were held guilty under Section 436/149 of the Indian Penal Code and for that they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. However, all the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. The Fardbeyan with regard to occurrence of 2.03.1986 was given on the same day at about 9.00 A.M. at the place of occurrence village by Prem Kumar (P.W.4). It was recorded by S.I. Lalan Pd. Singh (P.W.9). The informant has stated that on 2.03.1986 at about 7.45 A.M. he was standing by the side of the house of Ramchandra Rai. Sri Ram Rai (P.W.7) and Niranjan Kumar Patel @ Heera Rai (deceased) were also there. At that very moment, Jai Jai Ram Rai, Jay Nandan Rai, Raj Kumar Rai, Rameshwar Rai, Bichhu Rai, Sadan Rai, Ram Sagar Rai, Ram Prakash Rai and Suresh Rai variously armed came and started looting in the thatched house of Ram Bharosa Rai (P.W.6). Sri Ram Rai (P.W.7) and Niranjan Kumar Patel @ Heera Rai (deceased) were also there. At that very moment, Jai Jai Ram Rai, Jay Nandan Rai, Raj Kumar Rai, Rameshwar Rai, Bichhu Rai, Sadan Rai, Ram Sagar Rai, Ram Prakash Rai and Suresh Rai variously armed came and started looting in the thatched house of Ram Bharosa Rai (P.W.6). In the meantime, on the order of Rameshwar Rai, Jai Jai Ram Rai set fire to that house of Ram Bharosa Rai and thereafter, all the accused persons set fire to the house of Rameshwar Rai also. The informant and other persons were restraining the accused but the accused persons threatened that the entire village would be burnt. On hue and cry, neighbours Raghunandan Rai, Rajpati Rai, Ishwardhari Rai etc. came. In the meantime, accused Jai Nandan Rai fired from his gun, whereas, Raj Kumar Rai fired from his rifle and Rameshwar Rai also fired from his gun. The firing by accused Rameshwar Rai caused death of Niranjan Kumar Patel (deceased) and firing of Jai Nandan Rai caused injury to Sri Ram Rai (P.W.7). Niranjan Kumar Patel (deceased) died after receiving firearms injury. Some time after the occurrence, the S.I. of Chakia Out Post came and rescued Sri Ram Rai from the side of the house of accused persons where Shri Ram Rai was tied with a guava tree in the injured condition and a pistol with blank cover of bullet were kept in the side of Sri Ram Rai was recovered by the police. The fardbeyan (Ext.3) witnessed by Sri Raghunandan Rai (P.W.5) and Ashok Kumar Rai (P.W.13) resulted into Matihani P.S. Case No.9/1986 dated 2.03.1986 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 380, 436, 324, 307, 341, 342 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 (A)/26/27 of the Arms Act. The formal FIR (Ext.7) was drawn up and investigation commenced. Investigation led to submission of charge-sheet. The case was committed to the court of sessions and the accused persons after appearance were explained charges. The charge under Sections 380 and 148 of the I.P.C. was explained to all the ten accused persons, whereas, charge under Section 302 was explained to Ramashray Rai. The charge under Sections 302/149 was explained to accused persons excepting Rameshwar Rai. The case was committed to the court of sessions and the accused persons after appearance were explained charges. The charge under Sections 380 and 148 of the I.P.C. was explained to all the ten accused persons, whereas, charge under Section 302 was explained to Ramashray Rai. The charge under Sections 302/149 was explained to accused persons excepting Rameshwar Rai. The charge under Sections 307/149 was explained to Jai Nandan Rai, Jai Jai Ram Rai, Raj Kumar Rai, Bichhu Rai, Sadan Rai, Suresh Rai, Ram Sagar Rai, Ram Prakash Rai and Ram Swarath Rai. The charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C. has been explained to Jai Nandan Rai and Raj Kumar Rai. The charge under Section 436 of the I.P.C. has been explained to Jai Jai Ram Rai, whereas, accused Jai Nandan Rai, Raj Kumar Rai, Rameshwar Rai, Bichhu Rai, Sadan Rai and Ram Sogarath Rai were charged under Sections 436/149 of the I.P.C. The accused persons were pleaded innocence, so the trial proceeded. 4. The defence of the accused persons is of false implication on account of land dispute. 5. Before the trial court, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. They are Ram Badan Rai (P.W.1), Ishwardhari Rai (P.W.2), Raj Pati Rai (P.W.3), Prem Kumar Rai (P.W.4), Raghunandan Rai (P.W.5), Ram Bharosa Rai (P.W.6), Sri Ram Rai (P.W.7), Dr. Shiv Bhushan Pd. Sinha (P.W.8), Lalan Pd. Singh (P.W.9), Dr. B.K.Setty (P.W.10), Upendra Pd. Sinha (P.W.11), Banarsi Rai (P.W.12) and Ashok Kumar (P.W.13). 6. P.W.4 is the informant and uncle of the deceased. P.W.5 is the attesting witness of the FIR. P.W.7 is the injured witness. P.W.8 has conducted the autopsy upon the dead body of Niranjan Kumar (deceased). P.W.9 is the first Investigating Officer, whereas, P.W.11 is the second Investigating Officer who has investigated into the case. P.W.10 Dr. B.K. Setty has examined the injured Sri Ram Rai (P.W.7). P.W.12 is a formal witness. P.W.13 is the attesting witness of the FIR as well as the seizure list. The seizure list has been brought on the record as Ext.1. The inquest report has been exhibited as Ext.4. The post-mortem report has been brought on the record as Ext.5. The injury report has been brought on the record as Ext.8. 7. The defence has examined Shyamal Kishor Prasad as D.W.1 and Chalitar Rai as D.W.2 and has brought some documents on the record through Exts. A and B. 8. The inquest report has been exhibited as Ext.4. The post-mortem report has been brought on the record as Ext.5. The injury report has been brought on the record as Ext.8. 7. The defence has examined Shyamal Kishor Prasad as D.W.1 and Chalitar Rai as D.W.2 and has brought some documents on the record through Exts. A and B. 8. The trial court after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after going through the records and hearing the submission came to the opinion that the prosecution has been proved the charge against the accused persons beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. The accused persons being aggrieved from the order of the trial court has preferred these appeals. This Court is required to see as to whether the judgment passed by the trial court is correct or not. 9. Before discussing the evidence of other witnesses, it would be proper to discuss the evidence of the informant (P.W.4). P.W.4 has stated that deceased Niranjan Kumar @ Heera Rai was killed at about 7.45 A.M. on 2.03.1986. At that time, the informant was standing by the side of the house of Ramchandra Rai alongwith Sri Ram (P.W.7) and deceased Niranjan Kumar. The villagers Rameshwar Rai, Jai Jai Ram Rai, Jai Nandan Rai, Bichhu Rai, Sadan Rai, Ram Sagar Rai, Suresh Rai, Raj Kumar Rai, Ram Sogarath Rai and Ram Prakash Rai were having guns and rifles came and they started looting in the house of Ram Bharosa Rai (P.W.6). It was a thatched house in which Ram Bharosa Rai was living with family members. After looting the house, Jai Jai Ram set ablaze the house at the behest of Rameshwar Rai. Thereafter, the accused persons burnt another hut which was constructed one day prior to the occurrence forcibly by Rameshwar Rai. The informant and his persons tried to persuade the accused persons against burning the house but persuasion did not any result, rather it invited wrath and accused Rameshwar Rai, Jai Nandan Rai, Bichhu Rai, Raj Kumar Rai and Jai Jai Ram Rai started firing. Firing of accused Rameshwar Rai struck Niranjan (deceased) to go to the house of Ramchandra Rai and dropped down and died. Firing of accused Rameshwar Rai struck Niranjan (deceased) to go to the house of Ramchandra Rai and dropped down and died. The accused persons tried to carry away the dead body of Niranjan but it was protested by Sri Ram Rai upon which Jai Nandan Rai fired upon which Sri Ram Rai fell down on the earth. Sri Ram Rai was carried by the side of the Rameshwar Rai and the accused persons also took the articles from the house of Ram Bharosa Rai. Some times after the occurrence, Officer-in-charge, Chakia O.P. came and the informant and others detailed about the occurrence. Sri Ram Rai was found tied behind the house of Rameshwar Rai and he was untied. One pistol was kept near the person of Sri Ram Rai, which was seized and seizure list (Ext.1) witnessed by the informant and Raghunandan Rai (Ext.2 and 2/1) respectively were prepared. Sri Ram Rai after being rescued was brought to the place of occurrence. The fardbeyan of informant was taken down. The body of deceased was inspected and inquest report prepared. Officer-in-charge seized the bloodstained soil and its seizure list was prepared. Other witnesses of the occurrence are P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. 10. P.W.1 has supported the contention of the informant and has stated that there was enmity between two sides which has resulted in a proceeding under Section 148 Cr.P.C. He has also stated that brother of Sri Ram Rai has lodged another case with regard to the occurrence of the same date and there was enmity between both the sides. 11. P.W.2 has also supported the contention of the informant and has stated that all the accused persons are of own family and has stated that after being hue and cry he has reached the place of occurrence and he has seen the place of occurrence. 12. P.W.3 has also supported the informant and has stated that all the accused persons having common object arrived. He has stated that after receiving firearms injury, Niranjan did not fall down rather he entered into the house of Ramchandra Rai. He stated that after receiving injury Niranjan travelled to a distance of 2 laggas and fell down inside the house. He later on has stated that in paragraph 7 of the judgment Niranjan was injured inside the Angan of Ramchandra Rai. 13. He stated that after receiving injury Niranjan travelled to a distance of 2 laggas and fell down inside the house. He later on has stated that in paragraph 7 of the judgment Niranjan was injured inside the Angan of Ramchandra Rai. 13. P.W.5 has supported the version of the informant and has stated that after receiving injury Niranjan survived on half an hour but no treatment was made available to him. 14. P.W.6 is the person whose house is set at fire. He has stated that his house was burnt by Nago Rai. This version has come from the first time in the deposition of P.W.6 as no witness has stated about any role of Nago Rai as the house belonging to P.W.6 and he was present then his evidence cannot be drawn away and if his evidence is taken into consideration then it is apparent that P.W.6 has given incorrect discussion or version. The evidence of P.W.6 creates doubt with regard to manner of putting the house on fire by the accused persons and it is difficult to reconcile two types of evidence so far as it relates to putting the house on fire. P.W.6 in Para 7 has claimed himself to be the first informant of the case. He has stated that firstly his statement had taken by the police and thereafter statement of P.W.4 was recorded. The prosecution version is otherwise and it shows that P.W.4 is the informant. Therefore, it is not clear that actually who was the first informant either P.W.6 or P.W.4. 15. The prosecution witnesses have been able to prove that Niranjan was killed on account of use of firearms. In that background, the doctor’s evidence has to be discussed. 16. P.W.8 while being posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Begusarai on 2.03.1986 held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Niranjan at 3.00 P.M. and found the ante-mortem injuries that firearms injury ½” in diameter inverted margin situated on the back and kullin occipital reason. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock. The death was within 24 hours of the examination. The eye witness’s account goes to show that firing was at about 8 A.M. and the post-mortem was at 3 P.M. meaning thereby it was hardly after about eight hours of the occurrence. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock. The death was within 24 hours of the examination. The eye witness’s account goes to show that firing was at about 8 A.M. and the post-mortem was at 3 P.M. meaning thereby it was hardly after about eight hours of the occurrence. In cross-examination, P.W.8 has stated that the death was beyond 12 hours. He has also stated that if the person received injury with Niranjan has received injury then he would die at once. 17. P.W.9 is the first person who has gone to the place of occurrence and has started taking statement etc. but in the meanwhile P.W.12 has arrived and he has taken up the investigation and has observed paraphernalia. 18. P.W.10 while being posted as Surgeon I/c at Najarath Dispensary on 2.03.1986 at 12.15 P.M. examined and admitted Sri Ram Rai and has found the following injuries : – (i) Cut wound 2” x ½” on the right parital region of scalf. (ii) Cut wound 1” x ½” on the left parital area. (iii) Lacerated wound 1.1/2” x ½” on right eyebrow. (iv) Laceration 1” x ½” on left area. (v) Laceration small on the dorsum of right hand. (vi) Two small lacerations on the right leg, 1” x ½” and ½” x ½”. (vii) Laceration ½” x ½” on the left knee. (viii) Lineal bruise 2” x 1” on the left glutial area. Injury no.v is found grievous caused by hard and blunt object. 19. The evidence of witnesses that P.W.7 remained unconscious for about ten days cannot be believed in view of the nature of injury which has been received by him. P.W.7 itself in para 10 of his deposition has stated that he remained in sense after about 10-11 days but it is difficult to believe it. 20. It appears that there is grave contradiction between the eye witness’s account as well as doctor’s version. It has also been pointed out that the post-mortem was held just within eight hours of the occurrence but the doctor has asserted that the death was beyond 12 hours. It further appears that the occurrence was not witnessed by any person and the accused persons were framed on account of enmity. It has also been pointed out that the post-mortem was held just within eight hours of the occurrence but the doctor has asserted that the death was beyond 12 hours. It further appears that the occurrence was not witnessed by any person and the accused persons were framed on account of enmity. It has also been pointed out that a person aggrieved from burning as described Nago as the person who has put the house on fire but his version has not been corroborated by other witnesses and so it has been stated that the contradictions are vital in nature and it does not fit the story being propounded by the prosecution. 21. The first version given by the informant which was recorded just after one hour of occurrence was that P.W.7 has received firearms injury. The doctor did not find any firearms injury, so subsequently the version was changed and all the witnesses later on cooked up another version that injuries to P.W.7 was caused by firearms. Therefore, doubt has created since beginning of the occurrence. P.W.9 has immediately gone to the place of occurrence and he has not found any bloodstained. 22. The finding of charring and burning injury by the doctor creates doubt as to whether any witness has seen the occurrence or not. Any charring and burning injury can take place when firing is resorted at a considerable distance which has been stated by the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to reconcile its story as propounded by the oral witness and has found by the doctor. The contradiction appears to be major. In view of these vital contradictions, it would be difficult to uphold the judgment of conviction. 23. Not only with regard to manner of occurrence so far as firing and injury of deceased is concerned rather the first version of firing causing injury to P.W.7 has also created another doubt. 24. Not only that there are some procedural lapses also though there is identical evidence that all the accused persons have set the house on fire but evidences were not explained to the accused persons and as such evidence cannot be taken into account for their conviction. The benefits arising out of the contradictions have passed to the accused. 25. 24. Not only that there are some procedural lapses also though there is identical evidence that all the accused persons have set the house on fire but evidences were not explained to the accused persons and as such evidence cannot be taken into account for their conviction. The benefits arising out of the contradictions have passed to the accused. 25. In the background of the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the appellants at all. All the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the charges. They are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 26. One supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of Sadan Rai that he is juvenile. 27. In view of the fact that the accused has not been found guilty, the learned counsel for the appellant is not pressing this supplementary affidavit.