Judgment Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. All these appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14 & 15.09.1990 respectively passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No.128/1978 arising out of Nokha P.S. Case No.17 (10) 75 by which all the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further the appellants Dinanath Singh, Rang Bahadur Singh and Bijay Singh have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 342 of the I.P.C. and it has been directed that all the sentences would run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case according to the FIR, in brief, is that Bijendra Prasad Singh (P.W.6) gave his fardbeyan to Sub Inspector M. Prasad (not examined) of Nokha Police Station at State Dispensary, Nokha at 17 hours on 28.10.1975 in presence of his co-villagers Hari Nandan Singh (not examined), Dwarika Singh (not examined), Ramashish Singh (P.W.4) and Yadubans Singh (not examined) that his brother-in-law Binod Kumar Singh (deceased) aged about 25 years was returning to his house on 28.10.1975 at 1.00 P.M. after attending the Shradh ceremony of Jagdish Singh, uncle of the informant. His herdsman Bechu Kahar (P.W.5) and his co-villager Deomuni Pasi (P.W.3) were also accompanying him who had to go to Nokha. At about 2.00 P.M., Bechu Kahar (P.W.5) told the informant that his brother-in-law, Binod Kumar Singh (deceased) boarded on a tractor. There was altercation. The tractor men caught hold of him and took him to Nokha and assaulted him. Thereafter, the informant (P.W.6) with his aforesaid co-villagers went to Nokha by his tractor. It has been further stated that about 2.45 P.M., they came to Nokha bridge after searching the deceased Binod Kumar Singh and saw many persons had assembled in front of the house of Dr. Ambika Singh. The informant and the aforesaid persons went near the house of Dr. Ambika Singh and saw that in front of the motor garage, Rang Bahadur Singh, Dina Nath Singh and Bijay Bahadur Singh, all appellants, the brother of Dr. Ambika Singh and 1-2 unknown persons were assaulting his brother-in-law (Binod Kumar Singh) with iron rod and Lathi and he fell down after receiving injury. Ambika Singh and saw that in front of the motor garage, Rang Bahadur Singh, Dina Nath Singh and Bijay Bahadur Singh, all appellants, the brother of Dr. Ambika Singh and 1-2 unknown persons were assaulting his brother-in-law (Binod Kumar Singh) with iron rod and Lathi and he fell down after receiving injury. Bijay Bahadur Singh and Dina Nath Singh pressed the chest of the brother-in-law (deceased) who became senseless. The informant protested and thereafter the accused confined his brother-in-law in the garage. It has been further alleged that in the meantime, the informant came to know that Kamta Singh (D.W.2), the brother of Dr. Ambika Singh also received injury and he was admitted in the hospital of Dr. T.P. Sinha (D.W.1). Later on, the brother-in-law of the informant was taken to Nokha Hospital, who was senseless and his condition was precarious. The fardbeyan was witnessed by Hari Nandan Singh and Dwarika Prasad Singh (both not examined). On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Nokha P.S. Case No.17 dated 28.10.1975 was instituted against Rang Bahadur Singh, Dinanath Singh and Bijay Bahadur Singh and 1-2 unknown persons for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 326 and 307 of the I.P.C. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the appellants under Sections 148 and 302 of the I.P.C. The cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of sessions. The charges were framed against the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 302/149 and 147 of the I.P.C. to which they denied and claimed to be tried, as such, trial proceeded against them. 3. The defence version is that the deceased Binod Kumar Singh tried to board the tractor of Kamata Singh at 2.00 P.M. near Jakhani bridge. His associates gave Chhura blow to Kamata Singh. On hue and cry, the villagers arrived there and assaulted him brutally. He was taken to Nokha for treatment but he succumbed to his injury. 4. After the trial, the appellants have been held guilty and sentenced as aforesaid. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that P.W.6 is the informant in this case. He has named Rang Bahadur Singh armed with rod, Bijay Bahadur Singh and Dinanath Singh and 1-2 unknown persons armed with Lathi were assaulting the deceased Binod Kumar Singh. His statement has not been corroborated by any other prosecution witnesses. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that P.W.6 is the informant in this case. He has named Rang Bahadur Singh armed with rod, Bijay Bahadur Singh and Dinanath Singh and 1-2 unknown persons armed with Lathi were assaulting the deceased Binod Kumar Singh. His statement has not been corroborated by any other prosecution witnesses. Similarly, P.W.5 has named Triveni Singh, Surendra Sah and Sidheshwar Singh as assailants. His version has also not been corroborated by any witness. Both of them are highly interested witnesses. The evidence of the interested witnesses should be scrutinized carefully. Their version is full of contradictions which go to the root of the case and do not inspire confidence, as such, it can be concluded that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case. 6. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that P.W.5 and P.W.6 are quite natural witnesses and they have supported the prosecution case. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 have been declared hostile but from their evidence also, it appears that Binod Kumar Singh was assaulted and he succumbed to his injuries. The Investigating Officer of this case is dead, as such, he could not be examined. The non-examination of the Investigating Officer does not affect the merit of the prosecution case. 7. Now, this Court is required to reappraise the evidence to consider as to whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate its charge against the appellants beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. 8. The prosecution has examined the following witnesses to prove its charge: P.W.1 Mahabir Prasad, P.W.2 Buddhu Ram, P.W.3 Deo Muni Pasi, P.W.4 Ramashish Singh, P.W.5 Bechu Kahar, P.W.6 Bijendra Prasad Singh, P.W.7 Akhilesh Chandra, P.W.8 Kamala Prasad Singh, P.W.9 Ram Chandra Ojha and P.W.10 Ram Kishun Choudhary. 9. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 have been declared hostile as they have not supported the prosecution case. P.W.3 has been tendered. P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10 are formal witnesses. 10. P.W.8 has stated that the police officer Mahadeo Prasad and Mahendra Prasad died. Dr. S.N. Japhari has gone to Arabian country and there is no hope that he will come to India in near future. 11. P.W.9 has proved the formal FIR (Ext.3), fardbeyan (Ext.4), Seizure list (Ext.5) and inquest report (Ext.6). He has also proved paragraph 1-129 of the case diary (Ext.7), 132-149 (Ext.7/A) and the injury report (Ext.8). 12. Dr. S.N. Japhari has gone to Arabian country and there is no hope that he will come to India in near future. 11. P.W.9 has proved the formal FIR (Ext.3), fardbeyan (Ext.4), Seizure list (Ext.5) and inquest report (Ext.6). He has also proved paragraph 1-129 of the case diary (Ext.7), 132-149 (Ext.7/A) and the injury report (Ext.8). 12. P.W.10 has proved the writing and signature of Surendra Prasad (Ext.9). 13. P.W.5 has stated that Binod Kumar Singh (deceased) had come to his village Baraon in the Shradh ceremony of Jagdish Singh, uncle of Bijendra Prasad Singh (P.W.6). He (P.W.5) and Deo Muni Pasi (P.W.3) had accompanied Binod Kumar Singh. On 28.10.1975 at about 2.00 P.M., they boarded on a tractor. The tractor men objected which led to altercation. 6-7 persons were already boarding on the tractor. The tractor men assaulted Binod Kumar Singh and took him towards Nokha. He (P.W.5) and Deo Muni Paswan (P.W.3) returned to their village and narrated about the occurrence to Bijendra Prasad Singh (P.W.6). Thereafter, Bijendra Singh (P.W.6) with others went to Nokha by a tractor. He has further stated that he identified Surendra Sah (appellant), Kamata Singh (D.W.2), Sidheshwar Singh (appellant) and Triveni Singh (appellant). Triveni Singh asked co-accused to catch Binod Kumar Singh. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has been the herdsman of Bijendra Prasad Singh (P.W.6) prior to the occurrence and he remained at his service. Bijendra Prasad Singh gives him food and other essential and one and half Bigha of land as wages. Binod Kumar Singh succumbed to his injury. From his cross-examination, it appears that Binod Kumar Singh and his companion boarded on the tractor which was objected by the tractor men and told that he did not take the passengers on the tractor, which led to altercation. He and his companion (Deo Muni Pasi, P.W.3) came down but Binod Kumar Singh did not get down. Thereafter, Binod Kumar Singh was assaulted by them. He has stated that he did not see any blood on the tractor. He has further stated that there were 5-7 persons boarding on the tractor, out of them, he identified three of them by name and face and this fact has been stated by him before the Investigating Officer. 14. P.W.6 is the informant and the brother-in-law of the deceased. He has further stated that there were 5-7 persons boarding on the tractor, out of them, he identified three of them by name and face and this fact has been stated by him before the Investigating Officer. 14. P.W.6 is the informant and the brother-in-law of the deceased. He has stated that after the Shradh of his uncle (Jagdish Singh), Binod Kumar Singh (deceased) was returning to his village with Bechu Kahar (P.W.5) and Deo Muni Pasi (P.W.3). Bechu Kahar and Deo Muni Pasi came down from the vehicle. Bechu told him that Binod Kumar Singh was trying to board on the tractor. The tractor men assaulted him and took him towards Nokha. After getting this information, he went towards Nokha to search Binod Kumar Singh (deceased) by tractor with Yadunath Singh (not examined), Dwarika Singh (not examined), Ramashish Singh (P.W.4) and Harinandan Singh (not examined). There was great rush near the narrow gage railway bridge and near the house near the house of Dr. Ambika Singh. He saw that Dinanath Singh, Rang Bahadur Singh and Bijay Bahadur Singh (all appellants) and two other persons were assaulting Binod Kumar Singh with iron rod and Lathi indiscriminately. Rang Bahadur Singh was armed with iron rod and remaining persons were armed with Lathi. After the assault, Binod Kumar Singh fell down. Dinanath Singh and Bijay Bahadur Singh pressed the chest of Binod Kumar Singh with legs and he was taken inside the motor garage rejecting his request not to assault Binod Singh. He has further stated that he rushed to the police station but the constable told him that the Officer-in-charge has gone to the house of Dr. Ambika Singh. While he was returning from the police station, he met the Officer-in-charge near the hospital. His fardbeyan was recorded and he has identified his signature (Ext.1/1). His brother-in-law Binod Kumar Singh was lying in the hospital, later on, he succumbed his injuries. He has stated in paragraph 3 that his witnesses have been warned by the accused, as such, they would not depose in the case due to their fear. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know as to whether Surendra, the driver of the tractor has lodged a counter case against Binod Kumar Singh and others. He has stated in paragraph 3 that his witnesses have been warned by the accused, as such, they would not depose in the case due to their fear. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know as to whether Surendra, the driver of the tractor has lodged a counter case against Binod Kumar Singh and others. He has also denied the suggestion of the defence that Sidheshwar Singh, Kamata Singh and the driver Surendra Singh were going on their tractor. When they reached near the Jakhni bridge, his two companions tried to board on the tractor by force, which was protested and led to altercation upon which Binod Singh pointed pistol on Kamata Singh who was made futile by other persons and in course of scuffling, the pistol fell down. In the meantime, the two companions of Binod Kumar Singh assaulted Kamata Singh with Chhura. Triveni Singh came there and raised alarm. The villagers caught hold of Binod Kumar Singh, assaulted him and tied his hands and legs. In the meantime, the pistol was taken by the companion of Binod and fled away. For the same occurrence, a counter case has been lodged. He has admitted that at the place of occurrence, there was no bloodstain. He did not ask about the occurrence from the co-villager of the place of occurrence. He has stated that the occurrence has been witnessed by many people. He has no enmity with them. In paragraph 12, he has stated that he did not see Kamata Singh in injured condition. He did not know whether Kamta Singh was injured and the Officer I/c went to take his statement. He has also stated that he could not know till 10.00 P.M. that Kamata Singh was brutally injured and the doctor advised him to take him to Banaras for further treatment. In paragraph 14, he has stated that when persons were assaulting his brother-in-law Binod Kumar Singh in the garage of Ambika Singh, he came to know that Kamata Singh, brother of Ambika Singh was injured and he was under treatment of doctor T.P. Sinha (D.W.1). 15. In paragraph 14, he has stated that when persons were assaulting his brother-in-law Binod Kumar Singh in the garage of Ambika Singh, he came to know that Kamata Singh, brother of Ambika Singh was injured and he was under treatment of doctor T.P. Sinha (D.W.1). 15. P.W.7 has held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Binod Kumar Singh aged about 25 years brought by constables Sattar Ali and Abdul Khan on 29.10.1975 at 12.05 hours while he was posted as Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Sasaram and found the following ante-mortem injuries : (i) One lacerated wound on the middle of scalp 3” x ½” x ½”. (ii) One lacerated wound on the right side of the forehead 4” x ½” x ¼”. (iii) One lacerated wound on the middle side of the left forearm 3 ½” x 1” x ½”. (iv) Three bruises on the back of left thigh 4” x ½”, 3” x ½”, 2” x ½”. (v) One lacerated wound on the dorsum of left foot 1” x ½” x ¼”, one abrasion on the right shoulder 3” x 1”, one abrasion on the medial side of right forearm near elbow 2” x ½”, six bruises on the back and lateral side of right thigh from above down wards. In the opinion of the doctor, death was within 48 hours. In his cross-examination, he has stated that none of the injuries except injury no.1 was sufficient to cause death although he has not mentioned this fact in his injury report. The injury report has been marked as Ext.2. 16. The defence has examined D.W.1 Dr. Tulsi Prasad Sinha and D.W.2 Kamata Singh. 17. D.W.1 has stated that on 28.10.1975 at 3.00 P.M., he examined Kamta Prasad Singh (D.W.2) and found the following injuries : One penetrating wound 1 ½” x ½” x 5” with clean cut margin and profuse bleeding on the lower and posterior part of the right side of the chest. At the time of examination, profuse bleeding was noticed from the above-noted injury. The condition of the patient was low due to excessive haemorrhage. The haemorrhage was due to injury in the interior organs of the right thoracic cavity. The injury was dangerous to life and grievous in nature caused by sharp pointed weapon with sharp cutting edge such as knife or dagger. The age of the injury was within six hours. The condition of the patient was low due to excessive haemorrhage. The haemorrhage was due to injury in the interior organs of the right thoracic cavity. The injury was dangerous to life and grievous in nature caused by sharp pointed weapon with sharp cutting edge such as knife or dagger. The age of the injury was within six hours. The injury report has been marked as Ext. A. In his cross-examination, he has stated that bleeding may continue till first aid is not given to the patient. The injury may be caused by hard pointed substance. 18. D.W.2 has stated that on 28.10.1975 at 2.00 P.M. he was going to Nokha from Sasaram by vehicle bearing no. BRZ-3085 taking diesel. When he was crossing Jakhani bridge, the vehicle was slow. Three persons were standing there. They tried to board on the vehicle. In spite of his resistance, they boarded on the vehicle. Thereafter, he asked the driver Surendra Prasad to stop the vehicle and he asked all the three to get down from the vehicle. One of them abused and caught hold of his collar. Thereafter, he (D.W.2) got down from the vehicle and thrashed that man. He could not notice and one of them thrashed him knife. Thereafter, he asked his man to apprehend that person and he became senseless. He was taken to Dr. T.P. Singh for treatment. After treatment, he was referred to Banaras for further treatment where he remained for a month. He has further stated that his driver Surendra has lodged a case for this occurrence and police has also taken his statement in that case. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know as to who had undressed him as he was senseless. He regained his sense in the clinic of Dr. T.P. Sinha (D.W.1). In paragraph 9, he has admitted that he had thrashed Binod Kumar on the flank of the road and he (D.W.2) received Chhura blow. In paragraph 10, he has stated that he has deposed in Sessions Trial No.498/77. He has come to know that Deo Muni (P.W.3) was the person who assaulted him with Chhura and whom he had thrashed was Binod (deceased). 19. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that P.Ws. 5 and 6 have supported the prosecution case. He has come to know that Deo Muni (P.W.3) was the person who assaulted him with Chhura and whom he had thrashed was Binod (deceased). 19. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that P.Ws. 5 and 6 have supported the prosecution case. P.W.5 has named Triveni Singh, Surendra Sah and Sidheshwar Singh as assailants, whereas, P.W.6 has named Rang Bahadur Singh, Bijay Bahadur Singh and Dinanath Singh as assailants. The evidence of P.W.5 has not been corroborated with the evidence of P.W.6 so far the assailants are concerned. Similarly, the persons named as assailants by P.W.6 have not been corroborated by P.W.5. The evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 has not been corroborated by any other witness. P.W.6 is the informant and the brother-in-law of the deceased. It appears that after getting the information about the scuffling between the deceased Binod Kumar Singh and the tractor-men, the informant rushed by his tractor with his co-villagers Hari Nandan Singh, Dwarika Singh, Yadubans Singh and Ramashish Singh but out of them only Ramashish Singh has been examined as P.W.4. There is no explanation as to why co-villagers Hari Nandan Singh, Dwarika Singh and Yadubans Singh have not been examined by the prosecution. Even Ramashish Singh (P.W.5) has not supported the prosecution case and he has been declared hostile. P.W.5 is the herdsman of P.W.6. He has tried to support the prosecution case but the evidence of P.W.5 has not been corroborated by P.W.6 so far the names of the assailants are concerned. Similarly the version of P.W.6 has not been corroborated so far the name of the assailant is concerned. After careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6, it appears that their evidence does not inspire confidence and as such, their evidence is not fit to be relied upon. 20. It further appears that the prosecution has also failed to explain the injury caused to D.W.2 for which a counter case was lodged and was pending as Sessions Trial No.498/77 arising out of Nokha P.S. Case No.16 (10)/75 (Ext.B). 21. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, we find and hold that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate its charge beyond all reasonable doubts. The appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubts. 21. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, we find and hold that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate its charge beyond all reasonable doubts. The appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubts. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside. The appellants are acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubts. They are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 22. In the result, these appeals are allowed. 23. Let a copy of the first page and the last page of this judgment be given to Mrs. Shama Sinha, Advocate who appeared in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.467/1990 as Amicus Curiae, who assisted the Court efficiently. She is entitled to get the prescribed fee from the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee. Appeals allowed.