NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J.:–These two appeals by the three appellants arise from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12th May, 1992 passed in Sessions Trial No 301 of 1987 by the Additional Sessions Judge X, Ara. Appellant Dinanath Singh has been found guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for one year respectively for the two derelictions but the sentences are to run concurrently. Appellant Parmeshwar Singh has been convicted under Sections 302/307/148/149 and 379 of IPC. He has further been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act. He has been sentenced to various terms for various offences as aforesaid upto rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellant Parmeshwar Singh @ Ahir has been sentenced under Sections 302/307/149/379 of IPC and has been awarded various sentences upto rigorous imprisonment for life. The sentences are to run concurrently. 2. Heard Ms Shama Sinha, the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court and Shri Ajay Mishra, learned APP at length and perused the records. 3. It may be noted here that initially the trial, upon chargesheet and cognizance and consequential committal, was of four persons that is the three appellants and one Ramanuj Singh who is the father-in-law of appellant Dinanath Singh. Ramanuj Singh died during trial itself. Accordingly, the remaining three were tried and have been convicted. Hence, the appeal by them. 4. The prosecution case is based upon the Fardbayan of Jagarnath Singh (PW 9) as recorded at the State Dispensary, Piro by Nasrullah Khan who is Sub Inspector (SI) of Police of Piro Police Station (PS) and is also the Investigating Officer (IO). The Fardbayan is recorded at 2.30 pm on 24.05.1985. In the Fardbayan, it is alleged that, as usual, the informant, alongwith his son Surendra Singh (victim), had come to his mango orchard to look after it. At about 12.30 in the afternoon, about 12 to 13 persons which included the three appellants and Ramanuj Singh came on a tractor. Ramanuj Singh and Dinanath Singh were carrying double barrel guns. Parmeshwar Singh @ Ahir was carrying a country made pistol and others were also carrying rifle and guns and some had lathi. They all came in the tractor and came down from it and started plucking mangoes. Ramanuj Singh and Dinanath Singh were carrying double barrel guns. Parmeshwar Singh @ Ahir was carrying a country made pistol and others were also carrying rifle and guns and some had lathi. They all came in the tractor and came down from it and started plucking mangoes. A quarrel started on which Ramanuj Singh, who happens to be the son-in-law of informant’s related grandfather stated that he also had a share in the property and they should allow him to pluck mangoes otherwise he would kill everybody. In course of the quarrel, Ramanjuj Singh then fired from the double barrel gun which hit Jogender Singh on the chest. Then Dinanath Singh fired from his double barrel gun injuring Surendra Singh on the chest and neck. Hearing the altercations and firing, a villager Chand Govind Singh (PW 8) came on which Parmeshwar Singh @ Ahir fired from his country made pistol which caused injury on the body of Chand Govind Singh (PW 8) who fell down. The informant hid behind a tree to save his life upon which Ramanuj Singh again fired but did not hit the informant as the bullets struck the tree behind which he hid himself. Upon hearing the firing and altercations, large number of persons including Barmeshwar Singh (PW 7) came and saw the entire incident. Seeing these people, the accused climbed on the tractor and left. As both the informant’s sons were injured as well as Chand Govind Singh (PW 8), they were carried to the State Dispensary, Piro where Surendra Singh died. Jogender Singh, being critical, was referred to Ara for treatment. Chand Govind Singh (PW 8) was being treated at State Dispensary, Piro itself. This Fardbayan was recorded at 2.30 pm and subsequently it was sent to Piro PS where it was registered as a First Information Report (FIR) allegedly at 4 pm on 24.05.1985 but it is received in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ara on 27.05.1985. Upon the Fardbayan being recorded, immediately an inquest report was prepared in respect of Surendra Singh and his body was sent for post mortem there itself which post mortem was conducted at about 4.30 pm on the same day by Dr Birendra Kumar (PW 12). Police, finding Chand Govind Singh (PW 8) injured, referred him for treatment and injury report which was prepared by Dr Ram Bahadur Singh (PW 13) on the same day. Police, finding Chand Govind Singh (PW 8) injured, referred him for treatment and injury report which was prepared by Dr Ram Bahadur Singh (PW 13) on the same day. We will refer to this in greater details as it is very relevant. Police then took up investigation. Jogendra Singh, from Ara, was referred to Patna for treatment but he died on way. The villagers brought him back to Piro and, accordingly, police prepared an inquest report at about 10 pm on the same day and sent the body for post mortem which was done early in the next morning by Dr Kamta Prasad Rai (PW 11). We will discuss this post mortem report later at appropriate stage. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted chargesheet only against four persons that is the three appellants and Ramanuj Singh who died during course of trial, as noted above. Upon chargesheet having been filed and the Court having taken cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Session. The appellants having pleaded not guilty, charges were framed and they were tried. In course of trial, Ramanuj Singh died and the three have been convicted and sentenced, as noted above. Hence, the appeal. 5. Ms Shama Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae submits that though the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses, only 3 have claimed to be eye witness that is PW 2 Sanjay Kumar Singh, who is the grandson of the informant being daughter’s son, the informant Jagarnath Singh (PW 9) himself and the alleged injured Chand Govind Singh (PW 8) though large number of persons have been cited in the FIR itself and in course of evidence as well but none have been examined. One Barmeshwar Singh is mentioned as an eye witness in the FIR but when he is produced as an eye witness in the Court as PW 7, he is declared hostile. It is submitted on behalf of appellant that so far as Sanjay Kumar Singh (PW 2) is concerned, his presence at the site is doubtful in view of the evidences on record. So far as Chand Govind Singh (PW 8) is concerned, his presence, his injuries are all doubtful. The submission is based upon evidence in Court and the injury report. That leaves only the informant Jagarnath Singh (PW 9). So far as Chand Govind Singh (PW 8) is concerned, his presence, his injuries are all doubtful. The submission is based upon evidence in Court and the injury report. That leaves only the informant Jagarnath Singh (PW 9). It is submitted that it is a case of false implication for the obvious reason that Ramanuj Singh had received part of the mango orchard from his father-in-law Hari Darshan Singh as Hari Darshan Singh had no son. The informant and his sons had received about 11 decimals of land of Hari Darshan Singh which was all in about two bighas, eight kathas in one block. This was the bone of contention between the two. A suggestion has been given that the two sons of the informant were killed by extremists and only to settle scores with the appellants Dinanath Singh who is the son-in-law of Ramanuj Singh, Ramanuj Singh and Dinanath Singh were made accused and two of their confidents were joined together. It is further submitted that as per the Fardbayan, there were about 12 to 13 persons who had come on the tractor and left on tractor but the chargesheet is only against four persons without mention of any unknown person. There are other grounds as well taken which we would consider appropriate. 6. On the other hand, learned APP submits that there are three consistent eye witnesses that is PW 2 Sanjay Kumar Singh, PW 9, the informant Jagarnath Singh and PW 8 Chand Govind Singh, the injured. Two sons of the informant have been killed. That being so, the appeal should be dismissed there being ample evidence to convict the appellants. We have to consider. 7. As noted above, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. PW 1 Dasrath Pandey is a formal witness proving the FIR (Exhibit 1). PW 3 is Murat Ram is again a formal witness. PW 4 Indradeo Lal is again a formal witness who proves the handwriting of IO on the inquest. PW 5 Raj Bihari Singh is undisputedly a hearsay witness. PW 6 Tarkeshwar Prasad is an Advocate’s Clerk who proves the signature of doctor on the injury report. PW 7 Barmeshwar Singh has been noted as an eye witness in the Fardbayan but when he comes in the Court, he becomes hostile to the cause of the prosecution. PW 5 Raj Bihari Singh is undisputedly a hearsay witness. PW 6 Tarkeshwar Prasad is an Advocate’s Clerk who proves the signature of doctor on the injury report. PW 7 Barmeshwar Singh has been noted as an eye witness in the Fardbayan but when he comes in the Court, he becomes hostile to the cause of the prosecution. PW 8 Chand Govind Singh who is supposed to be a neighbouring agriculturist who comes on the place of occurrence when the quarrel is going on and is shot at by the appellant Parmeshwar Singh @ Ahir by his country made pistol. There is an injury report (Exhibit 4) produced by him in support of injuries sustained. We will discuss it in detail. PW 9 is Jagarnath Singh, the informant whose two sons Surendra Singh and Jogendra Singh have been killed. PW 10 is Nasrullah Knan, the IO and the SI of Police of Piro Police Station who recorded the Fardbayan. PW 11 is Kamta Prasad Rai, the doctor who conducted the post mortem of Jogendra Singh. PW 12 is Dr Birendra Kumar who performed the post mortem of Surendra Singh and PW 13 is Dr Ram Bahadur Singh who examined the injured PW 8 Chand Govind Singh and gave the injury report (Exhibit 4) upon the requisition of the IO Nasrullah Knan (PW 10). 8. From the aforesaid, it would be evident that so far as private witnesses are concerned, they are ultimately only three that is Sanjay Kumar Singh (PW 2), the informant Jagarnath Singh (PW 9) and Chand Govind Singh (PW 8). 9. Let us first see the deposition and the evidence of Sanjay Kumar Singh (PW 2). He is the Nati (grandson) of the informant, nephew of the two deceased brothers. He states that since his childhood, he has been staying with his grandfather (Nana), the informant (PW 9). He studies in High School at Piro itself which is about 5 kilometers away from his village. He states that he was with his grandfather in the orchard when the appellants and others came and altercations took place. He and his grandfather hid themselves behind a big mango tree and he saw how Ramanuj Singh shot Jogendra Singh and Dinanath Singh shooting Surendra Singh. He states that he was with his grandfather in the orchard when the appellants and others came and altercations took place. He and his grandfather hid themselves behind a big mango tree and he saw how Ramanuj Singh shot Jogendra Singh and Dinanath Singh shooting Surendra Singh. He then saw PW 8 Chand Govind Singh coming on the place of occurrence and was shot by Parmeshwar Singh @ Ahir from his country made pistol injuring him and all three fell down gravely injured. He is suggested that he was actually not present which he denies. In this connection, we may now refer to the relevant part of deposition of his grandfather, the informant Jagarnath Singh (PW 9). In categorical terms, PW 9 Jagarnath Singh, the informant stats that he was in the mango orchard with his son Surendra Singh when the incident occurred as per the Fardbayan but in the Court, he states that he was there with his grandson and son Jogendra, the other son came subsequently and, thereafter, the people came in the tractor. Altercations started. In order to save himself and his grandson, he hid with him behind a fat old mango tree. He was then questioned as to what Sanjay Kumar Singh (PW 2) does. He admitted that he studies in the High School. A clear suggestion was given to him that in fact Sanjay Kumar Singh (PW 2) was not present as he was attending school at that time at Piro which is some distance away and it is because of this and because of his absence, there was no mention of him in the Fardbayan. He denies the same. Now the defence brings DW 1 Chandrama Singh. He is the Headmaster of the High School at Piro. He is brought to establish that in fact Sanjay Kumar Singh (PW 2) was at School on that day. In the cross-examination, the Headmaster accepts that being summer, the School was running as morning school between 6 am to 11 am. He produced the attendance register of the relevant date to show that Sanjay Kumar Singh (PW 2) was present in the School upto 11 am. No boy would leave the school before the last bell because gates were opened only thereafter. He produced the attendance register of the relevant date to show that Sanjay Kumar Singh (PW 2) was present in the School upto 11 am. No boy would leave the school before the last bell because gates were opened only thereafter. He also admits that the village where Sanjay Kumar Singh (PW 2) was living with the informant, his grandfather is about 3 miles away (about 5 kilometers). 10. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that on basis of these facts, it is apparent that Sanjay Kumar Singh (PW 2) was not at the place of occurrence at the time when the occurrence took place because had that been so the first thing the informant should have done was to name his grandson because two of them were hiding together saving their lives and they were closely related. It could not be that the informant forgot his name because he remembers the names of half a dozen other persons. How could he forget the name of his grandson? The only explanation, which is corroborated by the evidence of DW 1, is that he was in School and had not yet returned. It is subsequently that he had been roped in as an eye witness when no one else was ready to support prosecution evidence. We fully agree with the submission. It is because of this that the informant Jagarnath Singh (PW 9) was questioned specifically with regard to Sanjay Kumar Singh (PW 2) having gone to School and he categorically replied in the cross-examination that on that day, Sanjay Kumar Singh (PW 2) had not gone to School at all. The record produced by the Headmaster Chandrama Singh (DW 1) proves otherwise. We, therefore, are inclined to agree with the submission of amicus curiae in this regard. Therefore, the evidence of Sanjay Kumar Singh (PW 2) has to be discarded. 11. Now we come to the evidence of PW 8 Chand Govind Singh. As per the Fardbayan, he is a neighbouring agriculturist who, seeing the quarrel, the altercations, the firing also came on the land and tried to intervene and was shot by Parmeshwar Singh @ Ahir from his country made pistol injuring him grievously on the back and causing him to fall to the ground. From the evidence on record, it is pointed out to us that this witness deposes that though he was shot, he did not bleed there. From the evidence on record, it is pointed out to us that this witness deposes that though he was shot, he did not bleed there. This witness (PW 8) as well as the informant (PW 9) deposed in Court that this witness Chand Govind Singh (PW 8) was in a condition to walk to the State Dispensary at Piro. When we come to the IO (PW 10), he states that on the spot where this witness Chand Govind Singh (PW 8) allegedly dropped after being shot, there was a lot of blood. It is not understandable how he could say so. Surely, one of them is not speaking the truth. We then have a more interesting situation. In the Fardbayan, as we have noticed which was recorded at 2.30 pm at the State Dispensary, Piro, it was stated that Chand Govind Singh (PW 8) was injured and he is receiving treatment at the State Dispensary. We then have the deposition of Chand Govind Singh (PW 8) stating that at the State Dispensary, he was examined by doctor and injury report was prepared. The IO (PW 10) then admits that he had made a requisition for injury report to the doctor at the State Dispensary and the injury report was prepared but he received the injury report on 07.06.1985 though the injury report was made on 24.05.1985 itself. Learned Amicus Curiae draws our attention to the injury report which is Exhibit 4. The requisition by the police is of 24.05.1985. The time is material. The police is requisitioning at 2.15 pm on the said date that is even before the Fardbayan is recorded but what is more surprising is that the doctor’s report on the back of this requisition itself which is part of Exhibit 4 that injury report is of 24.05.1985 and is prepared at 1.30 pm that is even before requisition was made and long before the Fardbayan. That creates a grave doubt about the authenticity of injury report. If we see these three dates and events, that is, the time of requisition, the time of preparing of injury report and its receipt by IO (PW 10) almost after 10 days, the entire prosecution evidence becomes doubtful. Then we come to the evidence of the doctor who prepared the injury report that is PW 13 Dr Ram Bahadur Singh. If we see these three dates and events, that is, the time of requisition, the time of preparing of injury report and its receipt by IO (PW 10) almost after 10 days, the entire prosecution evidence becomes doubtful. Then we come to the evidence of the doctor who prepared the injury report that is PW 13 Dr Ram Bahadur Singh. He is asked about the injuries and he says in the Court that there were several pellet injuries. He admits in the cross-examination that there were some pellets still embedded which he extracted. He states that he had sealed the same and sent it to the Police. The IO (PW 10) had received no sealed pellet. He is also confronted that these facts are not noted and he admits that he forgot to note in the injury report. This, in our view, destroys the entire credibility of this evidence or the so-called injury upon the person of Chand Govind Singh (PW 8). We will show later that apparently all these were being manipulated at convenience. Thus, the very presence of this witness (PW 8) becomes doubtful. That leaves us only with a solitary eye witness that is the informant (PW 9). 12. We now come to the evidence of the solitary eye witness left that is PW 9 Jagarnath Singh who is the informant. First, we may notice that in the Fardbayan, which was the earliest recorded version of the incident, the informant clearly mentions that accused Ramanuj Singh was the son-in-law of his grandfather but when he comes before the Court, he makes all efforts to deny any relationship with accused Ramanuj Singh or, for that matter, his son-in-law appellant Dinanath Singh. He, first in his examination-in-chief, vaguely asserts that they are distant agnates. He then states that he does not know to whom the two bighas eight kathas orchard belongs. He admits that he is interested only in eleven decimals from that plot and in his plot, there are only about 6 to 7 mango trees though on the entire plot, there are more than 60 mango trees and other fruit bearing trees as well. When we will come to cross-examination, he is directly confronted that he knew the deceased accused Ramanuj Singh and the appellant Dinanath Singh well as they were closely related. He denies. When we will come to cross-examination, he is directly confronted that he knew the deceased accused Ramanuj Singh and the appellant Dinanath Singh well as they were closely related. He denies. He is then asked whether there is any case as between the parties. He vaguely admits that there is a title suit instituted by the daughter of Hari Darshan Singh in which he was one of the defendants. He is then confronted more specifically and he is forced to admit that in fact the title suit was filed by Hari Darshan Singh and he was defendant No 1 and he had also filed his written statement and the suit was pending. He admits that the deceased accused Ramanuj Singh, the father-in-law of appellant Dinanath Singh was the son-in-law of Hari Darshan Singh. He then is forced to admit that even the 11 decimals of land, that he had secured in the said plot of two bighas and eight kathas, were given to him by none else than Hari Darshan Singh. These statements clearly show that the informant was consciously and deliberately trying to conceal the true relationship and the litigating terms between the parties to avoid finding of false implication. 13. Then we may come to the aspect of PW 2 Sanjay Kumar Singh, his grandson. As noted earlier, in the Fardbayan, there is absolutely no mention of Sanjay Kumar Singh (PW 2) being present. In his examination-in-chief, this witness states that he was all along with his grandson Sanjay Kumar Singh and both hid behind an old mango tree and were saved by it when they were fired upon still his name was not mentioned in the FIR though name of several other persons were mentioned. He is confronted with this situation and he states that Sanjay Kumar Singh was present in the orchard. He had not gone to the School at all on that day. Here, we may notice, as noticed earlier, DW 1 is the Headmaster of the Government High School at Piro who has produced the attendance register of the School maintained in ordinary course showing that Sanjay Kumar Singh (PW 2) was duly present on that day in the School from 6 am to 11 am. His testimony stands and remains unshaken. 14. His testimony stands and remains unshaken. 14. In that view of the matter, we have no option but to hold that the informant is concealing and/or misleading more than what he disclosed. He is given a suggestion that it may be Naxalites who had killed his sons and only because of pre-existing dispute, the appellants have been named. Obviously, he denies the suggestion. 15. For the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to take the words of the informant (PW 9) as complete truth in the manner much less for implicating the appellants. 16. We may also deal with the IO (PW 10). He is supposed to have recorded the Fardbayan at the State Dispensary, Piro at about 2.30 pm on 24.05.1985. Before doing so, he had already referred one of the injured that is Chand Govind Singh (PW 8) for medical examination which we have already discussed being medical report (Exhibit 4). Learned amicus curiae has submitted that if the evidence is seen in the correct perspective, it would appear that probably the IO (PW 10) has not even visited the place of occurrence. We think she is correct. The first thing to be noticed is that the incident took place at about 12 – 12.30 pm. The Fardbayan was recorded at 2.30 pm. The IO should have then rushed to the place of occurrence. The informant (PW 9), in his cross-examination, is not certain whether the IO (PW 10) had visited the place of occurrence or not which is surprising because if the IO (PW 10) had visited the place of occurrence, surely he should have had the informant with him because he was the only witness at that time who could show him the place of occurrence. The rest were either dead or injured. Thus, it is clear that the IO (PW 10) did not take the help of the informant to visit the place of occurrence. Then when the IO (PW 10) is confronted, he states that he had seen the tyre prints of tractor in the mango orchard to corroborate the fact that the appellants had come on the tractor but he admits that he had failed to make note thereof in the case diary. Then when the IO (PW 10) is confronted, he states that he had seen the tyre prints of tractor in the mango orchard to corroborate the fact that the appellants had come on the tractor but he admits that he had failed to make note thereof in the case diary. He then states that where Chand Govind Singh (PW 8) had fallen, he had found a lot of blood but when we see the evidence of Chand Govind Singh (PW 8), he states that he was not bleeding where he fell down. The IO (PW 10) then admits that he had not seized blood-stained mud from the place of occurrence though three people were shot all of whom had extensive bullet injuries. It could not be that none of them were bleeding there for IO (PW 10) admits seeing blood at different places but had made no record thereof nor collected blood-stained mud for forensic examination. On the place of occurrence, he had not collected any empty cartridges which must have been there if several shots were fired. He is unable to explain why, though the allegation is 12 to 13 people had come on a tractor, he could not file chargesheet against all except just four persons? Were the allegations, as made, initially false? These questions remained unanswered. No effort was made to recover any firearm even though the police had information immediately upon occurrence and the accused persons were named. Thus, we find that the investigation leading to the chargesheet and consequential trial of the appellants does not inspire confidence. 17. Before closing, we would like to observe one more thing. From the sequence of events, it appears that first Surendra Singh, the son of the informant dies at State Dispensary, Piro. The incident had occurred at about 12.30 pm and the Fardbayan is recorded at 2.30 pm by when Surendra Singh is already dead. His body is sent for post mortem and post mortem was performed by PW 12 Dr Birendra Kumar at about 4.30 pm, the same day. He admits that rigor mortis was present but when we come to the second son of the informant that is Jogender Singh, he is said to have died later in the evening when being taken to Patna for treatment. He admits that rigor mortis was present but when we come to the second son of the informant that is Jogender Singh, he is said to have died later in the evening when being taken to Patna for treatment. Inquest is prepared at 10 pm and his body is sent for post mortem and the post mortem is performed by PW 11 Dr Kamta Prasad Rai at Jagdishpur State Dispensary and not at State Dispensary, Piro though, as apparent from the inquest report, his body is handed over to the police just outside the Piro Police Station. This is itself surprising. The post mortem is performed at about 7 am which would be about 12 hours after the death yet the doctor maintains that there was no rigor mortis found. This is indeed surprising. It is established part of medical jurisprudence that rigor mortis set in in phases after two hours of death and covers the entire body in due course but then it starts rescinding and the body is completely free of rigor mortis after about 24 hours. In the middle, that is 12 hours after death, it is ordinarily expected that the body would be in full state of rigor mortis but the doctor does not find any signs of rigor mortis. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that either the finding of the doctor is wrong or the time of death has wrongly been set up. In this connection, we may also note the deposition of the informant (PW 9) himself. He states that from State Dispensary, Piro, Jogender Singh had been taken by villagers to Ara and from there again by the villages, he was being taken to Patna when he died on way. He had injured at about 12.30 pm and the inquest is prepared at 10 pm. Therefore, death must have taken place somewhere between this period and if that be so then it is impossible not to find rigor mortis. Prosecution has not explained the same. There is yet another issue that arose out of the post mortem report apart from rigor mortis on which the doctor was questioned. It is that the doctor had recorded charring, entry wound of bullet and the doctor gave his expert opinion that charring occurs when a person is shot from a distance of 50 yards. There is yet another issue that arose out of the post mortem report apart from rigor mortis on which the doctor was questioned. It is that the doctor had recorded charring, entry wound of bullet and the doctor gave his expert opinion that charring occurs when a person is shot from a distance of 50 yards. We are afraid even though the doctor says that he had the authority of Modi Medical jurisprudence to support him, he does not produce anything. We may only note that this is absolutely wrong. Charring occurs only when the shot is fired from a close range not exceeding five yards. Charring occurs because of carbon deposit and the heat carried by the bullet. From a distance of 50 feet, by the time it strikes the body, the bullet loses its temperature, its velocity and in transit, it loses the carbon deposit thereof. There cannot be charring if the shot is fired from a distance of 50 yards. This raises another question. The evidence of the informant (PW 9) is that Jogender Singh was shot from some distance in the orchard. Then how was there a charring injury. If we couple the two facts with regard to rigor mortis and this charring injury, the prosecution has to explain the time of death and the close range shot fired at the deceased. No attempt has been made in this regard to explain the situation. We are, thus, doubtful whether Jogender Singh was in fact shot in the manner, as alleged by the prosecution. 18. Thus seen, we have virtually no credible and reliable evidence in support of the prosecution as against the appellants. They are, thus, entitled to benefit of doubt and are, thus, acquitted. The appeal is allowed and the appellants are freed from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 19. We must record our appreciation to Ms Shama Sinha, amicus curiae who had taken pains to go through the voluminous paper book and thoroughly assist us with great competence. We, accordingly, direct the Patna High Court Legal Aid Committee to remunerate her for two days of hearing with a total professional fee of Rs 7,500/-. ?