JUDGMENT (Per:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) 1. All the above three appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment because they have arisen out of one occurrence dated 25.04.1981 wherein Md.Sulaiman was killed. 2. The judgment under challenge was passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga on 22.08.1990 in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 1982/56 of 1987 whereby appellant Md.Farooque was found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and rest appellants namely, appellants Mojibur Rahman, Shafiullah, Mehdi Jan, Shakoor, Yunus, Ghaffar son of Jauhar Ali, Ghaffar son of Abid, Iliyas, Ayub alias Ayum, Suleman alias Baua, Mantu Yadav, Charitar Yadav, Nathuni Yadav, Panchu Yadav, Dhanu Yadav, Ramnath Yadav, Fakira alias Muhi Yadav, Maksudan Yadav and Habibur Rahman except accused Rajgir Yadav, Aziz, Firoz and Mushtaque, were found guilty under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Appellant Md. Farooque was further found guilty under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Appellants Shafiullah, Mehdi Jan and Shakoor were found guilty under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for having voluntarily caused hurt to Md.Zobair (P.W.6) and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months. Appellants Mojibur Rahman, Shafiullah, Mehdi Jan, Shakoor, Yunus, Ghaffar son of Jauhar Ali, Ghaffar son of Abid, Iliyas, Ayub alias Ayum, Sulaiman alias Baua, Mantu Yadav, Charitar Yadav, Nathuni Yadav, Panchu Yadav, Dhanu Yadav, Ramnath Yadav, Fakira awere further found guilty under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. By the said judgment, accused Rajgir Yadav, Aziz, Fioroz and Mustaque were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. The charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code framed against Mojibur Rahman failed because the injured Hafizur Rahman brother of the informant, was not examined. Appellant Yunus, Mehdi Jan and Gaffar were acquitted for offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily caused hurt to injured Yunus as the injured Yunus was not examined. Appellant Saifullah has been acquitted of the charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code for having voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Md.Hashim. The sentences of all the appellants were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Appellant Saifullah has been acquitted of the charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code for having voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Md.Hashim. The sentences of all the appellants were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Fardbeyan (Exty.3) of Md.Mojibur Rahman (not examined) with regard to the occurrence was recorded at 10.30 P.M. on 25.04.1981 by P.W.12 Maheshwar Mahto, S.I. of Keoti police station at his residence wherein he has stated that at preceding 8.30 P.M. he had gone to recite Namaz along with Md. Jan (not examined), Md.Hassan (P.W.2), Md.Hashim (P.W.4), Md.Sulaiman (deceased), Md.Yunus (P.W.8), Saheb Jan (not examined) and Md. Tahir (P.W.1). They were inside the mosque. It was five minute to 8.30 P.M., then two cracker’s sound were heard which were coming from southern side of mosque. The explosion was made by Md.Farooque son of Ghaffar and Ghaffar son of Abid. Just after hearing the sound of explosion, the persons present in the mosque came out and they asked Farooque and Ghaffar son of Abid not to do so. Upon this Ilyas and Ghaffar son of Jauhar Ali flashed their torches and thereafter a mob about 50 in numbers reached there. The informant amongst them identified Shafiullah, Mojibur Rahman son of Jauhar Ali, Habibur Rahman, Yunus, Abid, Mehdi Jan, Ayum and Shakoor armed with swords, gadasa, bhala and lathi. Besides them Mantu Yadav, Charitar Yadav, Nathuni Yadav, Dhanu Yadav, Ram Nath Yadav, Fakira Yadav alias Munni Yadav, Maksudan Yadav, Firoz, Muztaque, Aziz, Sulaiman alias Baua were also there. They were also having traditional weapons like lathi, bhala. Others were also present about whom the informant claimed to give their names later on. Upon informant and others, Ghaffar and Iliyas flashed their torches. Accused Mujibur Rahman gave a garasa blow on the head of Hafizur Rahman. Other members of the mob also assaulted Hafizur Rahman. Ghaffar son of Abid pulled down Md.Sulaiman and thereafter he was caught by others members of the mob. Farooque sat upon the chest of Md.Sulaiman and by means of sword he cut his neck. Sulaiman died on account of cut injury. Md.Hashim tried to intervene but he was assaulted by Md.Shafiullah by lathi which caused injury upon his hand. Md.Hashim was assaulted by the mob by means of bhala on the right thigh. Farooque sat upon the chest of Md.Sulaiman and by means of sword he cut his neck. Sulaiman died on account of cut injury. Md.Hashim tried to intervene but he was assaulted by Md.Shafiullah by lathi which caused injury upon his hand. Md.Hashim was assaulted by the mob by means of bhala on the right thigh. Md.Yunus was assaulted on his head by Abid Mian by means of garasa and upon his head Sulaiman alias Baua assaulted with lathi. Mehdi Jan also assaulted him by lathi. The villagers came for rescue but they were chased and stones were pelted upon them. The informant saw the entire occurrence by concealing himself near the mosque. The fardbeyan was forwarded for institution of the case. Thereafter Keoti P.S.Case No. 0040 dated 26.04.1981 for the offences under Sections 147,148,323, 341, 325, 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Inquest report (Ext.2) of the dead body was prepared. The injured were sent for treatment and the dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem. The post mortem report (Ext.4) was obtained. The place of occurrence was inspected and statements of witnesses were taken by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer found the case to be true so chargesheet was submitted. Thereafter cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions where charge under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against accused Farooque, charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Mojibur Rahman, charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Shafiullah, Mehdi Jan, Shakoor, Yunus, Ghaffar, charge under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code against all the 24 accused persons, charge under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code against 20 accused persons excluding Farooque, Yunus, Shafiullah and Mojibur Rahman, charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Shafiullah and charge under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Farooque, Shafiullah, Mojibur Rahman and Yunus. Charges were explained to the accused persons. They pleaded innocence. So trial proceeded. 4. The defence of the accused persons was that they have been implicated on account of series of litigations. Further defence was that the implication was imaginary as there was no scope to identify a number of persons at or around 8.30 P.M. 5. Charges were explained to the accused persons. They pleaded innocence. So trial proceeded. 4. The defence of the accused persons was that they have been implicated on account of series of litigations. Further defence was that the implication was imaginary as there was no scope to identify a number of persons at or around 8.30 P.M. 5. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. They are: P.W.1 Md.Tahir, P.W.2 Md.Hassan, P.W.3 Md.Taiyab, P.W.4 Md.Hashim, P.W.5 Harish Chandra Jha, P.W.6 Md.Zubair, P.W.7 Radha Krishna Jha, P.W.8 Md.Yunus, P.W.9 Dr.Nawal Kishore Thakur, P.W.10 Dr.Rabindra Kumar, P.W.11 Rajendra Singh, P.W.12 Maheshwar Mahto and P.W.13 Dr.Hem Chandra Lal Karna. Simultaneously exhibits were also marked. 6. P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 8 are named witnesses of the fardbeyan. P.W.6, though he is an injured but his name is not mentioned in the fardbeyan. P.W.2 and 4 were other injured witnesses. P.W.3 has proved the recovery of blood stains iron blade of pharsa from the shop of Md.Abid, recovery of lathi fitted with Gundi from the house of accused Ghaffar son of Jauhar Ali, recovery of empty cover of the sword from the house of accused Ghaffar son of Abid, recovery of blood stained half shirt from the room of accused Mehdi Jan, recovery of some brick bats from the house injured Yunus and seizure of the blood stained lungi and shirt of Hafizur Rahman at Darbhanga medical College Hospital and seizure list of those articles have been marked as Exts. 1 to 1/5 respectively. P.W.5, a constable, has proved the carbon copy of inquest report as Ext.2. P.W.7, an Advocate’s clerk, has proved the writings and signature of Maheshwar Mahto S.I. on fardbeyan which has been marked as Exts.3 and 3/1. P.W.8 though a named witness in the fardbeyan has been tendered. P.W. 11 is a Havildar who along with Chaukidar had carried away the dead body of the deceased to the Hospital for post mortem and identified the dead body. The investigating Officer has been examined as P.W.12. P.Ws.9, 10 and 13 are the doctors. 7. On behalf of the defence, two witnesses were examined.D.W.1 has stated that one daughter of Md.Tahir has been married in the village itself about 12 years earlier whereas D.W.2 has stated that accused Mustaque was married with the daughter of Md.Hassan about 12/13 years earlier. 8. P.Ws.9, 10 and 13 are the doctors. 7. On behalf of the defence, two witnesses were examined.D.W.1 has stated that one daughter of Md.Tahir has been married in the village itself about 12 years earlier whereas D.W.2 has stated that accused Mustaque was married with the daughter of Md.Hassan about 12/13 years earlier. 8. The trial court after considering the entire evidence on record and after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties opined that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against twenty accused persons beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts and has passed the order of conviction and sentence against them and gave the benefit of doubt to four accused persons namely, Rajgir Yadav, Aziz, Mustaque and Firoz and acquitted them of the charges, as stated above. 9. This Court is required to reappraise the evidences on record and to see as to whether there were materials on record to prove the charges against the appellants beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts or not. 10. Before entering into evidence of material witnesses, it would be appropriate to go through the medical evidence. Firstly we deal with the evidence of P.W.9 Dr. Nawal Kishore Thakur who on 26.04.1981 was posted as Medical Officer in Forensic Medicine at DMCH. On that date he held post mortem over dead body of Md.Sulaiman and found following ante mortem injuries: (i) One incised wound 4½”x3” up to the posterior of the trachea in front of the neck over the lower part. The weapon, which the doctor said right be a sword, had after cutting the skin, cut the trachea and adjacent muscles and vessels. The cut margin of the skin were found bruised at several places through out its length with tailing at the right side and few irregular cuts near the margin indicating a see-saw movement of the weapon before final withdrawal from the right side. (ii) One incised wound 3”x2”x1/2” obliquely situated on the left side of front of neck at its not just below injury No.(2) mentioned above. The underlying muscles and vessels were found cut. The whole area was found deeply infiltrated with blood. (iii) One incised wound 1”x½” up to mandible obliquely situated over right side of the chin. (ii) One incised wound 3”x2”x1/2” obliquely situated on the left side of front of neck at its not just below injury No.(2) mentioned above. The underlying muscles and vessels were found cut. The whole area was found deeply infiltrated with blood. (iii) One incised wound 1”x½” up to mandible obliquely situated over right side of the chin. There was partial curt of the skin with tailing of the wound directed downward and left from above on the left upper part of chest. This injury was in the same direction to that of wound of the chin indicating that possibly the victim was lying at the back and the weapon, possibly sword, after producing the injury over the chin, was withdrawn from the left of the victim down through the upper part of the chest. The mandible was found cut up to ½” of its width. (iv) one bruise with abrasion rounded in appearance with 1” diameter over side of the forehead. (v) several bruises of elongated shave having various sizes were found over right of the chest. Injury Nos. (i) and (ii) were caused by some sharp cutting weapon and injury no.(iii) by sharp cutting pointed weapon. These three injuries might be caused by same weapon. Injury no.1 was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injury nos. (ii) and (iii) were grievous in nature. Injury nos. (iv) and (v) may be caused by hard and blunt substance. They were simple in nature. The death was due to shock and haemorrhage. The time of death was within 12 to 24 hours from the time of post mortem examination. Though some suggestions were given to the doctor but the evidence remained in tact. Md.Sulaiman was killed by sharp cutting weapon and it has been proved and established by the prosecution. The death of that Md.Sulaiman was on the date and time as alleged by the prosecution. 11. P.W.10 Dr.Rabindra Kumar was posted as Resident Surgeon in DMCH on 25.04.1981 and on that date, he examined Hafizur Rahman and found following injuries on his person : (i) Incised wound 2 ¼”x ¼”x scalp deep over head. (ii) Incised wound 2½” x 1/4”x scalp deep. The age of injuries were within 12 hours from the time of examination. The injuries were simple in nature and were cut by sharp cutting weapon. (ii) Incised wound 2½” x 1/4”x scalp deep. The age of injuries were within 12 hours from the time of examination. The injuries were simple in nature and were cut by sharp cutting weapon. The doctor has stated that the assailant has not used full force. 12. P.W.13 Dr.Hem Chandra Lal Karna was posted as Medical Officer at Keoti State Dispensary on 25.04.1981 and on that date he examined Md.Zubair (P.W.6) and found following injuries on his person: (i) Swelling with echomosis over on back of right arm size 2”x3”. (ii) Swelling with echomosis over on thiner aspect of left hand. (iii) An abrasion on the lateral aspect of the left thigh 2”x3”. (iv) Swelling with echomosis over the left knee 2”x3”. All the injuries were simple in nature caused by some hard and blunt substance such as by lathi. The injuries were caused within three hours from the time of examination. On the same date, this witness examined Yahya (not examined in this case) at 10.30 A.M. and found following injuries on his person: (i) A lacerated wound over the middle of skin of the left leg 1x1/2”. (ii) Swelling over the lower part on the right forearm medial aspect 2”x1”. (iii) An abrasion over the back on the right elbow 2”x1”. All the injuries were simple in nature caused by some hard and blunt substance such as lathi etc. caused within three house from the time of examination. On the same date, this witness examined Md. Yunus (P.W.8), who was in drunken state, and found following injuries on his person: (i) A lacerated wound 2”x1/2” scalp deep on the left parietal occipital region. (ii) An abrasion over the right parietal region. Both the injuries were simple in nature and caused by some hard and blunt substance such as lathi caused within three hours from the time of examination. On the same date, this witness examined Md.Hashim (P.W.4), who was in drunken state, and found following injuries on his person: (i) A lacerated wound on the front of right thigh lower part 2 ½”x 1” muscle deep within pieces of bamboo while it was being cleared up. (ii) A swelling with tenderness over the lower part of the left fore-arm 2”x1½”. (iii) Irregular abrasion over the back left wrist and elbow joint. (ii) A swelling with tenderness over the lower part of the left fore-arm 2”x1½”. (iii) Irregular abrasion over the back left wrist and elbow joint. The injury no.1 and 3 were simple in nature, The Opinion was reserved about injury no.2 till receipt of radiological report. Caused by some hard and blunt substance such as lathi and within three house from the time of examination. On the same date, this witness examined Naseer (not examined in this case), who was in drunken stage, and found following injury on his person: (i) An abrasion on the right side of the scalp with parietal region 2”x1”. Injury was found simple in nature and caused by some hard and blunt substance such as lathi. The age of injury was within three house from the time of examination. All the five injury reports have been marked as Exts. 6 to 6/4. Some injured were found in drunken state by P.W.13. Suggestion was given that the bruises and abrasion on the persons can be easily manufactured, the doctor replied in affirmative if a person can take risk of pain. 13. The informant of this case has not been examined. The material witnesses examined by the prosecution are P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.6. Their evidences can unfold the manner of occurrence and it is necessary to scan the same. 14. P.W.1 Md.Tahir is an F.I.R. named witness. This witness has stated that the village Khirma Pathra is also known as Khirai Pathra. This witness has stated that he knew Md. Sulaiman (the deceased) as he was his villager. Md.Sulaiman was murdered on 25.04.1981 at 8 or 8.30 P.M. It was Saturday. This witness was in village mosque where he had gone to offer Namaz. At that time, Some other villagers were also present in mosque for offering Namaz. Md.Sulaiman, Hafizur Rahman, Mojibur Rahman, Mohammad Jan, Mohammad Hassan, Saheb Jan were also there. On hearing hulla, this witness came out from the mosque and saw that Sulaiman was lying down flat. While Farooque was sitting on his chest, Iliyas was flashing his torch at the body of Suilaiman. Accused Ghaffar was flashing his torch there and others came out from the Mosque. Accused Farooque cut the throat of Sulaiman who died instantaneously. This witness further stated that accused Shafiullah who was having garasa in his hand chased Hafizur Rahman in order to kill him. Accused Ghaffar was flashing his torch there and others came out from the Mosque. Accused Farooque cut the throat of Sulaiman who died instantaneously. This witness further stated that accused Shafiullah who was having garasa in his hand chased Hafizur Rahman in order to kill him. This witness due to fear returned to mosque which was a pacca building in the centre of the village. A pitch road is running from Darbhanga to Jainagar by the side of the mosque. There is some cutchcha road approaching pitch road. The mosque has boundary wall and boundary wall is about three to three and half feet high. Sulaiman was murdered about 25 cubits south of the mosque. The place where Sulaiman was murdered belongs to Hafizur Rahman who has got his Kela Bari there. This witness further stated that there is rasta on all sides of mosque. This witness has seen accused Mojibur Rahman, Ghaffar son of Jauhar Ali, Ghaffar son of Abid, Shafiullah, Ayub, Qayam, Shakoor, Abid, Mantoo Yadav, Ramnath Yadav, Pachu Yadav, Maksoodan Yadaav, Chalitra Yadav and some others assaulting Yunus (P.W.8) Md.Hashim (P.W.4), Hafizur Rahman (not examined), Zobair (P.W.6) and Yahiya (not examined) by lathi and Garasa. When this witness came out from the mosque, he found Hashim, Yunus, Hafizur Rahman, Zobair and Yahiya in injured condition. Though this witness has been cross-examined at length but no such contradiction could be pointed out which may compel this Court to presume that he was not there. His evidence discloses that for the first time he saw accused Farooque sitting on the chest of Sulaiman. From the evidence of this witness, it is established that Farooque cut the neck of Sulaiman. 15. P.W.2 Md.Hassan was also in the mosque for the purpose of performing Namaz which was yet to start. So many persons were also in the mosque. As there was an explosion of crackers, Mojibur Rahman, Hafizur Rahman, Sulaiman and some others came out of mosque. This witness also came out and saw a mob of about 40 to 50 persons outside the mosque. At that time he saw accused Ghaffar son of Abid throwing Sulaiman on the ground and thereafter Farooque sat at the chest of Sulaiman and the members of the mob instigate Farooque to kill Sulaiman. On hearing so Farooque cut the neck of Sulaiman with a sword. At that time he saw accused Ghaffar son of Abid throwing Sulaiman on the ground and thereafter Farooque sat at the chest of Sulaiman and the members of the mob instigate Farooque to kill Sulaiman. On hearing so Farooque cut the neck of Sulaiman with a sword. This witness identified accused persons in the torch lights which was being flashed by the accused persons. Though this witness has been cross-examined at length and suggestion was given that he had not witnessed the occurrence but his credibility could not be shattered and his evidence is that as soon as came out from mosque after hearing the explosion of crackers, he found Ghaffar son of Abid was pushing Sulaiman on the ground and when Sulaiman fell down on the ground, Farooque sat at the chest of Sulaiman and cut his neck with sword. Thus, it is established that Sulaiman was killed by Farooque after being thrown on the ground by accused Ghaffar son of Abid. 16. P.W.4 Md.Hashim has stated in his evidence that when he was going to offer Namaz and as soon as he reached at the door of mosque he heard sound of explosion of three to four crackers. He went towards that direction from where sound is coming and there he saw Farooque and Ghaffar son of Abid exploding crackers. Some persons also came from the mosque and requested Farooque and Ghaffar not to explode the crackers because it was the time of offering Namaz. On forbidding, there was some exchange of hot words between the persons who came out from the mosque and those two accused namely Farooque and Gaffar son of Abid. Thereafter a mob of 40 to 50 persons came having traditional weapons. This witness further stated that accused Farooque cut the neck of Sulaiman with the sword and when this witness went to rescue Sulaiman, accused Shafiullah assaulted him and some more persons assaulted this witness. Thereafter this witness went to his house to save his life. One suggestion of defence regarding enmity with regard to land between Abid and witness Hafizur Rahman has been admitted by this witness. So far manner of assault by Farooque is concerned, his evidence has wholly remained intact and he remained consistent in his evidence that Farooque cut the neck of Sulaiman. One suggestion of defence regarding enmity with regard to land between Abid and witness Hafizur Rahman has been admitted by this witness. So far manner of assault by Farooque is concerned, his evidence has wholly remained intact and he remained consistent in his evidence that Farooque cut the neck of Sulaiman. The suggestion given that he had not been examined by the police has been admitted by this witness stating that at that time he was suffering from pain. 17. P.W.6 Md.Zubair who is son of the deceased Sulaiman had been named as a witness in the FIR and has supported the version. He is another injured witness and his version was that Farooque cut the neck of his father Sulaiman. He had seen the deceased and the accused. He heard the sound of explosion of crackers and thereafter he was proceeding towards that direction and at that very time, he had seen his father being done away brutally by accused Farooque. He described that his father’s neck was cut by sword by Farooque. This witness has claimed to have received injury by garasa used by accused Abid but injury of garasa was not found by the doctor on his person. The doctor found injury on the person of this witness caused by hard and blunt substance. Thus from the evidence of this witness, it is established that Sulaiman was killed by Farooque. 18. Though there are some inconsistency in the evidence of the witnesses but they remained intact so far as the charge of killing of Sulaiman by Farooque is concerned. Although the witnesses were extensively cross-examined with regard to manner of assault which led to killing of Sulaiman but the witnesses have consistently and unequivocally supported that it was the conduct of Farooque who had caused death of Sulaiman after being pushed down by Ghaffar son of Abid. Therefore, the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have remained intact to their version made before the Investigating Officer which has been confirmed by P.W.12, the Investigating Officer, that on 25.04.1981 at about 8.30 P.M. Md.Sulaiman was pushed down by Ghaffar son of Abid and thereafter Farooque sat upon the chest of Sulaiman and he cut his neck with sword which proved fatal. 19. 19. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that though there is mention about the source of torch light at the time of occurrence but those were neither seized nor produced. Once the source of identification is doubted, then it can be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove or establish its case regarding proper identification of the accused. Thus, it has been vehemently argued that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case against the accused persons beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts and once doubt is created, then the benefit of that should be given to the accused persons. It has come in evidence that the occurrence was of the night and identification of the accused was difficult. The source of light was not established, so it was not possible that the accused persons could have been identified. 20. In the present case, the evidence is that the accused persons are of the same village and same locality as that of the prosecution witnesses. The witnesses were knowing the accused since prior to the occurrence. It has come that the torches were used by the accused persons. The occurrence is of the night and the place of occurrence is the village of the witnesses and the accused persons, then in that circumstances it can be held that the villagers have accustomed themselves of seeing in the night even in the light shed by the lantern and their eyesight gets conditioned and become accustomed to the situation. (See AIR 1983 SC 957 : Machhi Singh and others Vrs.State of Punjab). The villagers and the persons of the neighbourhood in the village had claimed identification and the identification as claimed by them has given various role to the accused persons. Identification of the accused under the circumstances is well established. 21. Learned counsel for the appellants has further pointed out that the statements of the witnesses were taken after long lapse of time, as such it could not be accepted. 22. Almost all the witnesses, except one, were examined soon after the occurrence. One witness was examined after three weeks and he has given reason of his delayed statement before the Investigating Officer. 22. Almost all the witnesses, except one, were examined soon after the occurrence. One witness was examined after three weeks and he has given reason of his delayed statement before the Investigating Officer. The delay in examination of eye witnesses indicates and suggests unfair practices and makes the prosecution case suspicious and credibility of eye witnesses becomes doubtful but each case has to be considered at its own. It has come that the witnesses were injured and were treated. The delayed statement of eye witnesses does not necessarily frustrate the prosecution if the explanation is there and then it can be held that the delay was not intentional nor it was intended for fabrication. The delayed statement is well explained. The materials available on the record show that most of the witnesses were examined promptly and if one witness was not examined just after occurrence then it does not make the prosecution version false. 23. There are some material contradictions with regard to roles attributed to other accused persons excluding Farooque and Ghaffar son of Abid. About accused Iliyas it has been stated by P.W.6 that it was he who flashed the torch light when throat of Sulaiman was being cut. His identification was supported by P.Ws. 2 and 4. Regarding accused Mujibur Rahman, identification was claimed by P.Ws.1, 2 and 6. Accused Mehdi Jan was identified by P.Ws. 2,4 and 6 as members of the mob. One half shirt allegedly soaked with blood was recovered from his house on the next day by the Investigating Officer. Accused Yunus has only one identication and that by P.W.4. Accused Mehdi Jan has been identified by P.Ws. 2,4 6. Accused Ayum has been identified by P.Ws. 1,2,4 and 6. Accused Shakur, Mantu Yadav, Panchu Yadav, Ram Nath Yadav and Shafiulla h were identified as members of the mob by P.Ws. 1,2,4 and 6. Accused Charitra Yadav has been identified by P.Ws. 1, 4 and 6 as member of the mob. Accused Nathuni Yadav, Dhannu Yadav and accused Sulaiman alias Baua have been identified by P.Ws. 2 and 6 as members of the mob. Different roles have been attributed to the aforesaid persons so far as the participation in the crime is concerned. No doubt, presence of these accused persons have also been proved but no specific or consistent role has been attributed to them. 2 and 6 as members of the mob. Different roles have been attributed to the aforesaid persons so far as the participation in the crime is concerned. No doubt, presence of these accused persons have also been proved but no specific or consistent role has been attributed to them. There are vital contradictions in the evidences so far it relates to other accused persons than Farooque and Ghaffar son of Abid. The witnesses are consistent that accused Ghaffar son of Abid had pushed Sulaiman on the ground and thereafter his neck was cut by accused Md.Farooque. Regarding presence of other persons, it can be presumed that they were of the same villager and it was the time of Namaz, they might have been there either for offering Namaz or for moving in the village and in the melee, it was not possible to attribute the exact roles of the accused persons and the roles attributed to them are not consistent by the witnesses. Even no role has been given to them so far as the charge of killing of Sulaiman is concerned. Therefore, their cases are completely different from the cases of Md. Farooque and Ghaffar son of Abid. 24. From the discussions made above we make it clear that there were materials on record to prove the guilt of appellants Farooque and Ghaffar son of Abid and the prosecution has proved beyond the shadow of all reasonable that in the late evening of 25.04.1981 Sulaiman was pushed on the ground by accused Ghaffar son of Abid and in that position Md.Farooque went upon the chest of Sulaiman and brutally cut his neck which proved fatal. Thus, the conviction and sentence of these two appellants are upheld. 25. So far as other appellants are concerned, no consistent role has been attributed against them and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses against them are not fully reliable. Therefore, they deserve to be acquitted. 26. In the result, Cr.Appeal (DB) Nos. 345 of 1990 and 414 of 1990 are allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded against the appellants of these two appeals are set aside. The appellants of both the appeals are acquitted and are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 439 of 1990 is dismissed. 26. In the result, Cr.Appeal (DB) Nos. 345 of 1990 and 414 of 1990 are allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded against the appellants of these two appeals are set aside. The appellants of both the appeals are acquitted and are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 439 of 1990 is dismissed. As the appellants of this appeal namely, Md.Farooque and Ghaffar son of Abid, are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the court below to serve out remaining part of sentence. The court below is also directed to take coercive step to take these two convicts into custody. 27. As none was appearing on behalf of all the appellants, Mr.Neeraj Kumar, Advocate was appointed Amicus Curiae to assist the court on behalf of the appellants and he has argued well. We appreciate the assistance given by Mr.Kumar. 28. Let a copy of the first page and the last page of the judgment be given to Mr.Neeraj Kumar, Advocate so that he may get his prescribed fee from High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna.