Order Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the State and also learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. The appellants Siyavar Singh, Dabal Singh @ Dawal Singh, Mohan Singh and Alok Singh @ Munna @ Alok Kumar Singh have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 27 of the Arms Act, whereas the appellant-Sanjay Singh and Dhirendra Singh have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code for causing murder of one Shyam Bihari Singh. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that it is the case of the prosecution that the informant (P.W-2), his son namely Shyam Bihari Singh (deceased) and one Ramdheni Singh (P.W-1) came to the shop of Bigan Mahto (P.W-7). The informant came inside the shop for making purchase of certain articles, whereas his son remained 20 yards away from the shop. The informant came inside the shop for making purchase of certain articles, whereas his son remained 20 yards away from the shop. There these appellants came riding on two motorcycles and the appellants-Siyavar Singh, Alok Singh @ Munna @ Alok Kumar Singh, Mohan Singh and Dabal Singh @ Dawal Singh fired shots upon Shyam Bihari Singh causing injuries resulting into his death but the prosecution has failed to establish its case as P.Ws-1 and 7, who had claimed themselves to be the eye witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution, rather turned hostile and that P.W-10 examined on behalf of the prosecution, has given entirely a different version, wherein he has deposed that one Rajesh Tiger had asked for ransom from the deceased and when the demand was not fulfilled, he killed the deceased and thus only witness who has allegedly supported the case of the prosecution is the informant (P.W-2) but his testimony cannot be relied upon for the reason that there was no adequate source of light as only one 'dhibri' was burning in the shop, whereas the spot where the son of the informant was shot dead, was 50 yards away and there was dark all around and that as per case of the prosecution the occurrence took place near the shop of Bigan Mahto (P.W-7), who has never supported the case of the prosecution and that the occurrence is said to have taken place near the shop but it is strange to note that the dead body was found lying in the house of P.W-2, for which the prosecution has not come forward with any cogent explanation and thereby the case of the prosecution is susceptible to doubt and that had the dead body would have been brought from the place of occurrence to the house, the I.O. must have found the trail of blood but in the instant case, it is absent and therefore entire prosecution case is surrounded with doubt. 4. So far as appellants Sanjay Singh and Dhirendra Singh are concerned, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that admittedly they are not the assailants and only with aid of section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, they have been convicted. 5. 4. So far as appellants Sanjay Singh and Dhirendra Singh are concerned, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that admittedly they are not the assailants and only with aid of section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, they have been convicted. 5. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the informant and also the State, submitted that as per the version of the informant P.W-2 made in the FIR, six persons came on motorcycles and out of them, four appellants namely Alok Singh @ Munna @ Alok Kumar Singh, Mohan Singh, Dabal Singh @ Dawal Singh and Siyavar Singh shot the deceased dead. The informant in his evidence did testify the same thing and thereby his evidence gets corroboration from the statement made in the FIR and that ocular evidence gets corroboration from medical evidence as the doctor has found gun shot injuries over the person of the deceased . 6. However, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that no charring was found around the injury though the claim has been made by the eye witness that the appellants fired shot upon the deceased from a very close range. 7. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to release the appellants namely Alok Singh @ Munna @ Alok Kumar Singh, Mohan Singh, Dabal Singh @ Dawal Singh and Siyavar Singh, on bail. Their prayer for bail is, accordingly, rejected. 8. However, appellants namely Sanjay Singh and Dhirendra Singh in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 100 of 2014, are admitted to bail, during pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Judicial Commissioner, VI, Ranchi, in connection with S.T. Case No. 189 of 2012. Ordered accordingly.