JUDGMENT Vijay Lakshmi, J.: - The aforesaid criminal appeals have been directed against the judgment and order dated 22.5.1982 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Non Metropolitan Area, Kanpur, in Sessions Trial Nos. 102 of 1981 (State of U.P. Vs. Ram Bahadur Singh and others) and 309 of 1981 (State of U.P. Vs. Kailash) convicting the appellants under Section 302 /149 I.P.C., holding them guilty for murder of two persons (husband and wife) and sentencing them for life imprisonment separately for both the murders. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. Out of the six appellants, Ram Bahadur Singh, Chandra Pal Singh and Kailash died during the pendency of the appeal. So the appeals preferred by them got abated. 3. The remaining three appellants : - Rajendra Katiyar, Ram Babu Sachan and Ashok Sachan are before us who have challenged the legality of impugned judgment, assailing their conviction as against the weight of evidence on record and against the law. 4. We have heard Shri Dharam Pal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Siddharth Niranjan, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Shri Anand Tewari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records. 5. The brief prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that there were 3 brothers namely Ram Pal Singh alias Babol Singh (deceased victim), Raj Pal Singh and Ganga Singh. Accused Ram Bahadur Singh (the appeal against him has been abated due to his death) was the son of Ganga Singh. Thus, he was the real nephew of the deceased Ram Pal Singh @ Babol Singh. Both the families were residing in the same village and some civil litigation was pending between them regarding the agricultural land. Accused Ram Bahadur Singh had lost that case about a month prior to the occurrence. It has been alleged that since then he had started bearing illwill towards his uncle deceased Ram Pal Singh. It has further been alleged that on 2.1.1981 at about 11.00 P.M. accused Ram Bahadur Singh armed with single barrel gun alongwith co-accused Chandrapal Singh, Ram Babu Sachan, Ashok Sachan, Rajendra Katiyar and Kailash, all armed with country made pistols, reached the house of the deceased Ram Pal Singh. Accused Ram Bahadur Singh called him out but Ram Pal Singh refused to open the door at those odd hours of 11.00 P.M. He raised alarm apprehending some danger. Accused Ram Bahadur Singh called him out but Ram Pal Singh refused to open the door at those odd hours of 11.00 P.M. He raised alarm apprehending some danger. In the meantime accused Ram Bahadur somehow managed to enter into the house by jumping from the roof and he opened the door from inside. Thereafter the remaining 5 accused persons entered into the house. They caught hold of Ram Pal Singh. Accused Ram Bahadur Singh put the barrel of his gun near the left ear of Ram Pal Singh and shot a fire on him. Sustaining gunshot injury, when Ram Pal Singh fell down, the remaining accused persons also opened fire on him. Meanwhile Brijrani, the wife of Ram Pal Singh who was 9 months pregnant at that time came to rescue her husband. Ram Bahadur Singh asked his associates to catch hold of her whereupon she ran and tried to save her life by entering into another room. She tried to close the doors from inside but accused Ram Bahadur Singh, who was chasing her, pushed the door and shot fire on Brijrani too. As a result Ram Pal Singh and Brijrani both died instantaneously. The occurrence was witnessed by two children of the victim couple. Their daughter Km. Ram Murti aged about 14 years and son Surendra aged about 10 years, who were sleeping with them and who got awakened hearing the noise. Both the children (who have been produced as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2) managed to hide themselves behind the wall of a cattle shed and from there they saw the gruesome occurrence in the light of a lantern which was hanging on the wall. Hearing the hue and cry and sound of fire the witnesses Juggi Singh (P.W.3), Iqbal Bahadur Singh, Bhagauti Singh, Lotan Singh, Chhedi Lal Pradhan, Shiv Singh and a number of villagers reached on the spot and saw the accused persons running away from the house alongwith their respective weapons. It has further been alleged that accused Ram Bahadur Singh threatened the people gathered there by shouting that if any one would dare to follow him or his companions he would meet the same fate. Consequently, the witnesses did not dare to follow them and all the accused persons made their escape good after the occurrence. It has further been alleged that accused Ram Bahadur Singh threatened the people gathered there by shouting that if any one would dare to follow him or his companions he would meet the same fate. Consequently, the witnesses did not dare to follow them and all the accused persons made their escape good after the occurrence. According to the prosecution, accused Chandra Pal was the maternal uncle of accused Ram Bahadur Singh while the remaining 4 accused are his friend. 6. Written report regarding this occurrence (Ext. Ka. 1) was submitted at the police station by the informant Juggi Singh (P.W. 3) early morning the next very day i.e. on 3.1.1981 at 6.15 A.M. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is about 5 miles. Check report (Ext. Ka. 13) was prepared on the basis of the written report (Ext. Ka. 1) by head Constable Babu Ram Awasthi. The case was registered in General Diary, carbon copy of which is Ext. Ka. 31. 7. P.W. 4 J.B. Tiwari, the then S.O. of Police Station Moosaganj was assigned the duty of investigation. He proceeded towards the place of occurrence, conducted the inquest proceedings of both the dead bodies and prepared the inquest reports of the deceased Ram Pal Singh (Ext. Ka. 2) and the deceased Brijrani (Ext. Ka. 3). He prepared the photo lash (Ext. Ka. 5) and challan lash (Ext. Ka. 6) of the deceased Brij Rani and photo lash (Ext. Ka. 8) and challan lash (Ext. Ka. 9) of the deceased Ram Pal Singh. The dead bodies of Ram Pal Singh and Brij Rani were wrapped and sealed and thereafter sent for post-mortem examination alongwith letters (Exts. Ka. 7 and 10). The I.O. also recovered a shawl (Material Ext. 1) from the place of occurrence, found lying near the dead body of Ram Pal Singh (which is alleged to be of accused appellant Ram Babu) and an angauchha (material Ext. IV) belonging to the deceased Rampal Singh. Four empty cartridges and pellets were also recovered by the I.O and their recovery memo (Ext. Ka. 11) was prepared. Blood stained and plain earth was taken from the places where the dead bodies of Ram Pal Singh and Brij Rani were lying. The I.O. recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka. 14). Four empty cartridges and pellets were also recovered by the I.O and their recovery memo (Ext. Ka. 11) was prepared. Blood stained and plain earth was taken from the places where the dead bodies of Ram Pal Singh and Brij Rani were lying. The I.O. recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka. 14). He searched the house of the accused Ram Bahadur Singh but he or any other accused could not be traced out. On 4.1.1981 the accused Chandra Pal Singh was arrested. The process under Sections 82 and 83 were issued against the remaining accused persons. Thereafter co-accused Ram Babu, Ashok and Ram Bahadur surrendered in court against whom chargesheet was submitted by the I.O. (Ext. Ka. 15) The co-accused Rajendra Katiyar and Kailash surrendered lateron so the charge-sheet against them was filed subsequently which is Ext. Ka. 16. 8. P.W. 6 Dr. K.L. Pillai, Senior Surgeon, B.S.I. Hospital, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur conducted the postmortem examination on the dead bodies of Ram Pal Singh and Brij Rani on 4.1.1981 at 11.00 A.M. and 12.00 noon respectively. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased Ram Pal Singh : - 1. Gun shot injury of entry 4 cm x 2 cm x cranial cavity deep on the left side face just in front of left ear. Charring on the would edges and adjoining area of the surface present. Signing of the hairs of the area present. Direction upwards, backwards and inwards. Wound margins are lacerated and inverted. 2. Gun shot injury of exit 19 xm x 15 cm x cranial cavity deep on the left side front of head, left half of forehead and upper part of the left side face including both orbital cavities. The cranial cavity beneath is laid open with multiple fracture and fragmentation of the adjoining cranial bones. Contents of outer and middle cranial fossae are absent. Both eye balls are missing. The upper part of the nose is broken and dismantled. Fracture of both upper and lower jaws present. Dried blood stains present all over the area. Margins of the wound are everted. Injury no. 1 and 2 communicate freely. 3. Multiple rounded abrasion approximately 28 in number on an area of 5 cm x 4 cm of the each abrasion is covered with dried clotted blood. 4. Fracture of both upper and lower jaws present. Dried blood stains present all over the area. Margins of the wound are everted. Injury no. 1 and 2 communicate freely. 3. Multiple rounded abrasion approximately 28 in number on an area of 5 cm x 4 cm of the each abrasion is covered with dried clotted blood. 4. Lacerated wound 1 cm x ½ cm x cranial cavity deep on the right side forehead 1 cm above the middle of right eye brow. 5. Three gun shot injury of entry over an area of 3 cm x 2 cm on the right side front of abd. 4 cm away from umbilicus at 11.00 O'clock. Each would measuring 1 cm x 1 cm x abd. Cavity deep aberrated collar present all around the individual wounds. Direction backwards. Wound margins inverted. Dried clotted blood present around the wound. 6. Multiple abrasion over the back of left elbow. 7. Abrasion 4 cm x 3 cm on the middle of lobe lacerated and punctured through and through. 9. According to the post-mortem report of the deceased Brij Rani, following ante-mortem injuries were found on her person : - 1. Gun shot injury of entry 11 cm x 4 cm x bone deep on the right side face extending from the middle of the right lower jaw to the upper part of right external ear. Wound margins lacerated and inverted. Aberrated collar present. Right side jaws both upper and lower fractured, All the blood vessels of right side neck injured. Dried clotted blood present all round. The post-mortem report further discloses that the uterus was found gravid with a full term female foetus present. 10. According to the post-mortem report both Ram Pal Singh and Brij Rani had died due to shock, haemorrhage and coma as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 11. In order to prove its case the prosecution has produced 7 witnesses in all, out of whom only 3 witnesses are of facts and 4 are formal in nature. 12. P.W. 1 is Km. Ram Murti, the daughter of the deceased couple. She is a child witness who was aged about 14 years at the time of her statement in court. Her statement has been recorded after about one year from the date of occurrence on 17.2.1982. The occurrence is of 2.1.1981. 13. P.W. 2 is Surendra Singh, the son of the deceased couple. Ram Murti, the daughter of the deceased couple. She is a child witness who was aged about 14 years at the time of her statement in court. Her statement has been recorded after about one year from the date of occurrence on 17.2.1982. The occurrence is of 2.1.1981. 13. P.W. 2 is Surendra Singh, the son of the deceased couple. He is also a child witness and was aged about 10 years at the time of his statement in court. His statement has also been recorded on 17.2.1982. 14. P.W. 3, Juggi Singh is the brother-in-law (Bahnoi) of the deceased Ram Pal Singh. He is informant of the case. He has been produced as an eye witness who is said to have seen the accused persons while they were running away from the spot after the occurrence. 15. P.W. 4 J.P. Tiwari is the I.O. of the case. 16. P.W. 5, Ram Babu Awasthi is Head Moharrir of Police Station Moosa Nagar who had prepared the check F.I.R. and had made necessary entries in the G.D. 17. P.W. 6 is Dr. K.L. Pillai who had conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased Rampal Singh and Brijranj. 18. P.W. 7 is Brijmohan Singh. He is son in law of the deceased Ram Pal Singh. He has identified the signature of the deceased Ram Pal Singh on the two typed complaints given earlier to police by deceased against accused Ram Bahadur. 19. Besides it, the affidavits of two formal witness namely Con. Prem Shankar and Pratipal Singh (Ext. Ka. 39 and Ext. Ka. 40) have been filed by the prosecution. The report of Chemical Examiner (Ext. Ka. 37) and report of the Serologist (Ext. Ka. 38) have also been tendered in evidence by the prosecution. 20. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence the statements of all the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. All the accused persons denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. They further pleaded that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. Accused Chandra Pal Singh stated that his brother Udai Narayan had appeared as a witness from the side of the accused Ram Bahadur Singh. Besides it he had also made a complaint against the police for registering a case of theft instead of dacoity committed at his house therefore he has been falsely roped in. Accused Chandra Pal Singh stated that his brother Udai Narayan had appeared as a witness from the side of the accused Ram Bahadur Singh. Besides it he had also made a complaint against the police for registering a case of theft instead of dacoity committed at his house therefore he has been falsely roped in. The accused Kailash has stated that his brother-in-law Ram Swaroop had sold an engine to Juggi Singh (the informant) and there was a quarrel between them regarding its price. It is for this reason Juggi Singh got him involved falsely in this case. The accused Ram Babu Sachan stated that earlier he had a maarpeet with Juggi Singh over a water dispute on account of which he has been wrongly implicated. Accused Ashok also stated that he was a witness from the side of the accused Ram Bahadur Singh in a land dispute case due to which he has been falsely implicated. The accused Rajendra Katiyar stated that he had lodged a report against one Ras Bihari in connection with the murder of his uncle and for this reason Ras Bihari had got him implicated in this case falsely. 21. The defence has not produced any witness but it has filed the extracts of the statements earlier given by the witnesses to the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ext. Kha 1 to Ext. Kha. 6) to highlight the contradictions between the two. 22. The learned trial court after an elaborate discussion and appreciation of the evidence available on record passed the impugned judgment of conviction of the accused persons holding them guilty under Section 302 /149 I.P.C. for committing the double murders i.e. of Rampal Singh and Smt. Brijrani. 23. As mentioned earlier only three witnesses of facts have been produced by the prosecution to support his case out of which P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are child witnesses. P.W. 3 is informant Juggi Singh. The record shows that while appreciating the evidence, the learned sessions judge has not placed any reliance on the testimony of P.W. 3 Juggi Singh and has totally discarded it by observing as under : - 24. P.W. 3 Juggi Singh, who is the brother-in-law (Bahnoi) of the deceased Rampal Singh, is claimed to have reached the house of Ram Pal Singh when the accused persons were running away from the spot after the occurrence. P.W. 3 Juggi Singh, who is the brother-in-law (Bahnoi) of the deceased Rampal Singh, is claimed to have reached the house of Ram Pal Singh when the accused persons were running away from the spot after the occurrence. P.W. 3 Juggi Singh has stated that he had seen the accused persons in the light of torches and had recognized them. The house of P.W. 3 is at a distance of about 100-150 steps away from the house of the deceased Rampal Singh. The entire occurrence has lasted for about 2 - 3 minutes. Under these circumstances it is doubtful for this witness (Juggi Singh) to have really reached at the scene of occurrence before the departure of the assailants. After hearing the alarm or sound of gun shot, he must have taken some time to understand the situation as to what has happened. After composing his mind he would have left his house. All this must have taken more than 2 or 3 minutes for him to have reached the house of the deceased. 25. On the aforesaid ground the learned sessions judge disbelieved and ignored the testimony of Juggi Singh. 26. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and after a careful analysis of the statement of P.W. 3 Juggi Singh, we are of the view that the learned trial court has rightly discarded the testimony of P.W. 3 because from the facts of the case it is clearly evident that P.W. 3 Juggi Singh reached the spot after everything was over. P.W. 3 has admitted that the distance between the house of the deceased Ram Pal Singh and his house is about 100-125 paces. He has also admitted the fact that the night was dark. He is unable to recollect the names of villagers who had gathered on the spot despite the fact he is a resident of the same village. Although he has stated that when he was at the doorstep of deceased Ram Pal Singh, he heard the sound of fire, however, during cross examination, when he was confronted by his earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he has stated that he can not assign any reason as to why the I.O. has not written these facts in his earlier statement. Personal enmity between P.W. 3 Juggi Singh and accused Ram Bahadur Singh is also apparent from the facts of the case, which show that Jiledar Singh, elder brother of Juggi Singh, and his son Rajendra Singh were accused in the case of murder of the father of accused Ram Bahadur Singh. So Juggi Singh due to previous enmity might have strong motive to falsely implicate Ram Bahadur Singh. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 3 Juggi Singh cannot be relied on and learned sessions Judge has rightly discarded it. 27. Learned Sessions Judge has also not placed any reliance on the evidence of P.W. 7 (who has formally proved the signature of the deceased Rampal Singh on the complaints sent by him to higher authorities against accused-appellant Ram Bahadur) by observing that no document can be read into evidence without complying with the procedure prescribed by the Evidence Act. As both these letters were photo copies, the learned lower court discarded these letters. There appears no reason to disagree with the view of learned trial judge on the point keeping in view the provisions of Evidence Act. So the testimony of P.W. 7 is also of no use to the prosecution. 28. Now the only evidence remains in proof of the complicity of the appellants in the gruesome murder of Rampal Singh and Brijrani, is of the two children, both of whom have been produced as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. 29. Learned counsel for the appellants has strongly contended that except the testimonies of the child witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 there is no other evidence to show that the present appellants were involved in the occurrence. He has argued that the testimony of a child witness should be read with greatest caution and circumspection as per the law laid down in the Apex Court in a plethora of judgments. In this regard learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on ALD(CRI)-2011-1-527; Rajulapadu Rambabu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and 1995 Crl. L.J. 1432 State of Maharashtra Vs. Prabhu Barku Gade. 30. In Rajulapadu's (supra) case a division bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has laid down as follows : "The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. State of Andhra Pradesh and 1995 Crl. L.J. 1432 State of Maharashtra Vs. Prabhu Barku Gade. 30. In Rajulapadu's (supra) case a division bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has laid down as follows : "The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored." 31. Earlier in Prabhu Barku Gade's case (supra) also the Supreme Court had observed as under : "It is common knowledge that children can be dangerous witnesses because they live in a world of make-belief are prone to imagine things, even if they have not seen them and on account of fear or reward they can be tutored to depose false facts." 32. In the wake of the above-mentioned legal position the crucial question that is required to be adjudicated upon is as to whether the evidence of both the child witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, who are the only factual witnesses in the present case inspire confidence ? To arrive at a correct conclusion in this regard, a close and careful scrutiny of the statements of both the child witnesses Km. Ram Murti (P.W. 1) and Surendra Kumar (P.W. 2), appears necessary. 33. We have perused the entire deposition of both the child witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 on whose testimonies the entire case in hand rests upon. There cannot be any dispute that if the evidence of a child witness is found to true and trustworthy and not an outcome of tutoring or prompting by any relative, it could be acted upon but since children are prone to tutoring, much care and cautions should be taken in appreciating the evidence of a child witnesses. 34. P.W. 1, Km. Ram Murti, who was aged about 13 years at the time of occurrence has stated that the accused Ram Bahadur is her cousin brother. She is the eldest amongst her three sisters and one brother. Her mother was pregnant at the time of occurrence. A litigation was pending between his father and accused Ram Bahadur in which a date was fixed on the next day after the occurrence. She is the eldest amongst her three sisters and one brother. Her mother was pregnant at the time of occurrence. A litigation was pending between his father and accused Ram Bahadur in which a date was fixed on the next day after the occurrence. On the date of the occurrence, at about 11.00 - 11.30 P.M. when she alongwith her parents, brother and sisters was sleeping inside the northern room of her house and a lantern was burning. Ram Bahadur called out to her father. Her father asked as to who was there. Ram Bahadur told his name. Her father heard the voices of 2 or 4 more persons so he refused to open the door. Her father informed his wife and children that Ram Bahadur has come alongwith miscreants. Thereafter they started raising alarm crying for help. Meanwhile Ram Bahadur managed to enter inside the house by jumping over the wall and opened the door from inside. After that accused Chandrapal Singh, Ram Babu Sachan, Ashok Sachan, Rajendra Katiyar and Kailash entered inside the house. Ram Bahadur had a gun with him and the rest of the accused were armed with country made pistols. All the accused persons had torches with them. Her father ran away inside the house. The accused persons brought him to the courtyard. Thereafter accused Ram Bahadur shot a fire after putting the gun near the left ear of her father. The other accused persons also opened fire on him causing his death. Her mother ran away and tried to enter in another room. But accused Ram Bahadur Singh followed her upto the door of that room and shot her dead. P.W. 1 Ram Murti has further stated that she and her younger brother Surendra managed to hide themselves inside the cattle shed which is adjacent to the courtyard. Accused Ram Bahadur Singh caught hold of Surendra and took him into the courtyard. He asked his companions to shoot Surendra but the other accused persons persuaded him not to do so, as Surendra was a child. She has further stated that when all the accused persons were going towards the East after the occurrence, her Phoopha Juggi Singh (P.W. 3) and other villagers had reached there. She had informed her Phoopha about the entire occurrence. 35. She has further stated that when all the accused persons were going towards the East after the occurrence, her Phoopha Juggi Singh (P.W. 3) and other villagers had reached there. She had informed her Phoopha about the entire occurrence. 35. P.W. 2 Surendra who was aged about 9 years at the time of occurrence has stated that the deceased Rampal Singh was his father and Brij Rani was his mother. About one year has passed since their murder. He has 3 sisters. On the date of occurrence he alongwith his 3 sisters and his aunt (Mausi) were sleeping with their mother and father inside the room. Ram Bahadur knocked the door and called his father. He asked his father to open the door. His father heard the voices of 4 or 5 persons so he denied to open the door in the night. His father informed his mother that Ram Bahadur has come with some miscreants. His father and mother went to the courtyard and raised an alarm. Meanwhile Ram Bahadur entered inside the house by jumping from the wall and opened the door. All the miscreants thereafter entered into the house. He and his sister ran away to the eastern room while his father ran towards the northern room. But the accused persons dragged his father to the courtyard and Ram Bahadur shot a fire on him. When his father fell down sustaining a gun shot injury, the other accused persons also fired on him. When his mother came to rescue his father, Ram Bahadur killed her too. Thereafter Ram Bahadur caught his hand and asked his companions to shoot him but the other accused persons said that he is a child so he should be spared. P.W. 2 has further stated that the accused Ram Babu had left his shawl on the spot. 36. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the statements of both the child witnesses and after a careful appreciation of their statements we are of the view that both the child witnesses have corroborated the prosecution story by their statements so far as the time, place and manner of the occurrence is concerned and there appears no such material contradiction in their statements which may cause a shadow of doubt regarding the time, place and manner of occurrence. Although they are unable to specify about the motive behind the occurrence but it is immaterial as a child witness cannot be expected to be aware of the reasons or the guiding force behind such a heinous offence like murder. It is also well settled legal principle that the where an eye witness account of the occurrence is available, the motive loses its importance. Both the child witnesses are throughout cogent and consistent about the complicity of Ram Bahadur who being their first cousin brother could have been easily identified by them even in the dark night. 37. The only question which creates a doubt in our minds and which makes the deposition of both the children doubtful, relates to the complicity of the other appellants in the occurrence without their proper identification by both the child witnesses. Admittedly it was a dark night. As P.W. 2 Surendra has stated that stars were shining in the sky. The prosecution case is that a lantern was kept burning throughout the night in the house of Rampal Singh as Rampal had an apprehension and a feeling of fear due to some litigation pending between him and accused Ram Bahadur. Both the child witnesses have stated that they had seen the assailants in the light of that lantern which was hanging on the wall. P.W. 2 has also admitted that he could not see the murder of his mother. 38. There is no doubt that even in the dark night or dim light the accused may be easily identified by the voice or by his body language if he is already acquainted with the witness. 39. In the present case, the main assailant is Ram Bahadur. The involvement of Ram Bahadur in this case cannot be doubted on the ground of insufficient light at the place of occurrence as he being a close relative could have been easily recognized by the children by his voice and body language even in the dim light of lantern. But so far as the involvement of the other accused persons is concerned, there is no such reliable evidence on record to show that they could have been properly identified by the children. There is no credible evidence regarding the fact that any of them had prior acquaintance with P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. But so far as the involvement of the other accused persons is concerned, there is no such reliable evidence on record to show that they could have been properly identified by the children. There is no credible evidence regarding the fact that any of them had prior acquaintance with P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants while drawing the attention of this Court towards the statements of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 has argued that both the child witnesses have, during their cross-examination, admitted the fact that except Ram Bahadur they were not acquainted with any of the accused persons since prior to the occurrence. Both the child witnesses have also admitted the fact that they do not know the names of any friend of their father, phoopha or mausa. They do not even know the names of any friend of their neighbour. Learned counsel for the appellants have argued that in the wake of these admissions the statement of P.W. 1 mentioning in detail, not only the names of all the accused persons but also their place of residence, appears suspicious. It clearly shows that she (P.W. 1) has been tutored before her deposition in court and she must have learned by rote, the names of all the other appellants, otherwise what could have been the reason that she, who was unable to tell the names of any friend of even his father or relative or neighbour, has easily mentioned the names of all the appellants with their villages. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that under these circumstances, even for the sake of argument, if the prosecution story is believed to be true, except accused Ram Bahadur, the involvement of the remaining accused persons is wholly doubtful. 40. Per contra learned A.G.A. has submitted that a proper test identification parade was held in this case in which witnesses Chhedi Lal, Lotan, Iqbal Bahadur Singh, Bhagawati Singh and Juggi Singh identified the accused appellant Rajendra Singh Katiyar. Moreover, identification parade is not a necessary requirement in all criminal cases and the prosecution version cannot be discarded due to reason that the prosecution has failed to get the accused persons identified by holding a test identification parade. 41. Moreover, identification parade is not a necessary requirement in all criminal cases and the prosecution version cannot be discarded due to reason that the prosecution has failed to get the accused persons identified by holding a test identification parade. 41. After hearing the rival contentions of learned counsel for both the parties and after a close scrutiny of the statements of both the child witnesses we are of the view that so far as the identity of accused Ram Bahadur is concerned, as he was the real nephew of the deceased Rampal Singh and first cousin brother of witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, there could have been no difficulty for both the children to identify him. He being a near relative and neighbour could have been easily identified by his voice or by his body language even in the darkness. But in our considered view the prosecution has miserably failed to successfully prove the complicity of other appellants except Ram Bahadur, in this case. 42. Admittedly it was a dark night, although a lantern is said to have been hanging on a wall near the place of occurrence, in a lighted condition, but it cannot be said that the light of a lantern is sufficient to enable a person seeing from a distance to properly recognize an unknown person. Moreover, the lantern is usually kept in a dim condition in the night before the people go to sleep. Both the children have stated that they had hidden themselves inside the cattle shed. P.W. 2 has stated that the lantern was kept at a distance of about 10-12 paces from the place where they were hiding. He has admitted that he had not seen the murder of his mother. P.W. 2 when cross-examined by learned counsel for the appellants has categorically stated that only Ram Bahadur had followed his mother to her room, the other accused persons had not gone there. P.W. 2 has admitted that except the accused persons he did not know any other friend of Ram Bahadur. He has admitted that he saw Ram Babu on the date of occurrence for the first time but he has stated that Ram Babu used to wear that type of shawl which was recovered by the I.O. from the place of occurrence, which statement appears wholly unreliable. 43. He has admitted that he saw Ram Babu on the date of occurrence for the first time but he has stated that Ram Babu used to wear that type of shawl which was recovered by the I.O. from the place of occurrence, which statement appears wholly unreliable. 43. P.W. 1 Ram Murti has stated that except the accused persons she does not know any friend of Ram Bahadur as none of his friend, used to visit her home. She has stated that no Katiyar family resides in her village, no relative of her family resides at Budhauli. Accused Rajendra has no relative in her village. But she has stated that she knows the name of Rajendra Katiyar. She has stated that she had never gone to the village of accused Kailash. She does not know what type of clothes appellant Ram Babu used to wear. She is unable to remember the colour of the shawl of Ram Babu and whether the shawl was old or new. She is also unable to recollect about the particular clothes the other miscreants were wearing. She has admitted that she does not know about any person living in the house of Ram Babu. She does not know whether Ram Babu had any tractor or agricultural land or not. She does not know whether Ram Babu had any relative living in her village but she for the first time in court has stated that she had informed the I.O. about the fact that Ram Babu had left his shawl at the place of occurrence because Ram Babu used to wear a shawl like that. Moreso, when she was confronted with her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has stated that she cannot assign any reason as to why the I.O. has not written these facts it in the case diary. 44. Obviously, the above-mentioned statements of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 having several improvements, embellishments and discrepancies creates a reasonable doubt in our minds making their statements insufficient and unworthy of credit so far as the complicity of other appellants except Ram Bahadur is concerned. 45. These aspects of the case have not been considered by the trial court in the right perspective. 45. These aspects of the case have not been considered by the trial court in the right perspective. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of all the other appellants (except Ram Bahadur) beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore they are entitled for acquittal by giving them benefit of doubt. The case against Ram Bahadur has been abated due to his death 46. The appeals of Chandrapal Singh and Kailash have also stood abated due to their deaths. 47. The appeals of Rajendra Katiyar, Ram Babu Sachan and Ashok Sachan are allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to them by the trial court is set aside. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are hereby discharged. Let a copy of this order alongwith the lower court record be sent to the concerned District Judge for its onward transmission to the court concerned forthwith.