JUDGMENT Hon’ble Akhtar Husain Khan, J.—Above three appeals have been filed against same judgement and order dated 6.2.1988 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in S.T. No. 64 of 1986 (State v. Het Ram and others), under Sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C., P.S. Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad. Therefore, these three appeals have been taken together and are being decided by a common judgement. 2. Aforesaid Criminal Appeal No. 322 of 1988 has been filed by accused-appellants Jageshwar, Rajvir and Smt. Sonwati, aforesaid Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 1988 has been filed by accused-appellants Het Ram, Manohar and Ramvir and aforesaid Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 1988 has been filed by accused-appellants Chhakku Lal and Dr. Shiv Kumar against aforesaid judgement and order dated 6.2.1988 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad. Vide aforesaid impugned judgement and order, learned Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad has convicted accused-appellants Het Ram, Jageshwar, Manohar, Ramvir, Rajvir and Smt. Sonwati for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 201 I.P.C. and has sentenced each of them thereunder for said offences to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for three years respectively. Vide aforesaid impugned judgement and order, learned Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad has convicted accused-appellants Chhakku Lal and Dr. Shiv Kumar for offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. and has sentenced each of them thereunder to rigorous imprisonment for three years. Learned Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge has directed that both sentences of accused-appellants Het Ram, Jageshwar, Manohar, Ramvir, Rajvir and Smt. Sonwati shall run concurrently. Aforesaid accused-appellant Chhakku Lal has expired during pendency of appeal. Therefore, Appeal No. 476 of 1988 stands abated in respect of him. 3. Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla and Sri Radhey Shyam appeared for accused-appellants in appeal No. 322 of 1988 and 329 of 1988. Sri Virendra Saran and Shyam Kumar Srivastava appeared in appeal No. 476 of 1988 for surviving accused-appellant Dr. Shiv Kumar. Learned AGA appeared in all the three appeals for respondent-State. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. Report (Ex. Ka-1) has been lodged by complainant P.W. 1 Kishan Kali in police station Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad on 25.9.1984 ten days after incident. In brief, according to F.I.R. (Ex. Shiv Kumar. Learned AGA appeared in all the three appeals for respondent-State. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. Report (Ex. Ka-1) has been lodged by complainant P.W. 1 Kishan Kali in police station Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad on 25.9.1984 ten days after incident. In brief, according to F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) story of prosecution is that the complainant Kishan Kali and her cousin sister Kalpana were married with accused Rajvir and Ramvir respectively. The marriage of Kalpana with accused Ramvir was solemnized six month earlier to the incident in the month of “Fagun”. At the time of marriage Ramvir made demand of “Baja” (musical instrument), watch and cycle but father and brother of complainant could not fulfil his demand due to which members of in-laws family used to subject complainant as well as her cousin sister Kalpana to cruelty. Babu Lal cousin brother of complainant went to take his both sisters from their in-laws house, four or five days before Rakshabandhan. At that time members of in-laws family of his sisters asked him to bring “Watch, Cycle and Baja (musical instrument) before taking Bidai of his sisters. At the same time complainant as well as her sister Kalpana told Babu Lal about cruelty which were being faced by them in their in-laws house. Babu Lal brother of complainant went back to his house, thereafter, members of in-laws family continued subjecting to complainant and her cousin sister to cruelty and they were making threat to kill them, thereafter, 10 days before 25.9.1984, the date of F.I.R. (Ex. Ka.-1) on Sunday that was day of market of Kothi, at about 6.00 p.m., complainant was cooking vegetable and his sister Kalpana was filtering flour. Accused Het Ram, Jageshwar, Manohar, Ramvir and Smt. Sonwati, mother-in-law of complainant caught hold of Kalpana and took her into Kotha. Complainant also went behind them to rescue her sister but accused Jogeshwar and Smt. Sonwati dashed Kalpana to fell down and accused Het Ram, Manohar and Ramvir caused strangulation to Kalpana by putting Lathi on her neck. At that time accused Jogeshwar was also pressing mouth of Kalpana. Complainant forbade them and raised alarm whereupon her husband Rajvir shut her mouth with his hands and threatened her that if she reveals incident with any one, she shall also face same consequence like her sister Kalpana. At that time accused Jogeshwar was also pressing mouth of Kalpana. Complainant forbade them and raised alarm whereupon her husband Rajvir shut her mouth with his hands and threatened her that if she reveals incident with any one, she shall also face same consequence like her sister Kalpana. Thereafter at about 8.00 p.m. in the night accused Chhakku Lal Pradhan and Dr. Shiv Kumar went to the in-laws house of complainant and advised that dead body should be removed immediately. Then accused Jageshwar and Manohar cut the dead body of Kalpana in pieces with “Banka” and put them in a bag which was carried by accused Manohar, thereafter complainant was detained in house and was being beaten. She was burnt by hot iron rod on both thighs. She was beaten by lathi also. She was being kept in surveillance and was prevented from meeting any one. Thereafter, on 25.9.1984, Ram Chandra, father of complainant Kishan Kali and her uncle Pooran as well as Babu Lal and Bheekha came from her father’s house. They set free complainant with the help of villagers, thereafter, complainant Kishan Kali got report (Ex. Ka-1) written by Vinod Kumar and presented the same in police station Jahanganj on 25.9.1984 at 17.30 p.m. whereupon Crime No. 162 of 1984, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against accused Het Ram, Jageshwar, Manohar, Ramvir, Kishan Kali, Rajvir, Chhakku Lal Pradhan and Dr. Shiv Kumar. Investigation was started by police and complainant Kishan Kali was sent to District Mahila Hospital, Fatehgarh for medical examination where her medical examination was conducted on 26.9.1984 at 9.00 a.m. Police completed investigation without recovery of dead body of Kalpana and after having completed investigation submitted charge-sheet against accused appellants Het Ram, Jageshwar, Manohar, Ramvir, Rajvir, Smt. Somvati, Chhakku Lal and Dr. Shiv Kumar for offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act whereupon concerned Magistrate took cognizance and after having complied provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of session for trial Court of all accused. Thereafter, Session Trial No. 64 of 1986 (State v. Het Ram and others), under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., P.S. Jahanganj, District Fatehgarh was registered in Session Court of Farrukhabad at Fatehgarh. Thereafter, Session Trial No. 64 of 1986 (State v. Het Ram and others), under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., P.S. Jahanganj, District Fatehgarh was registered in Session Court of Farrukhabad at Fatehgarh. Later on said session trial was transferred to the Court of Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, who framed charges against accused Het Ram, Jageshwar, Manohar, Ramvir, Rajvir and Smt. Somvati for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and 201 I.P.C. and against accused Chhakku Lal and Dr. Shiv Kumar for offence under Section 201 I.P.C. All accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Prosecution examined P.W. 1, complainant Kishan Kali, P.W. 2 Ram Chandra, P.W. 3 S.I., Angne Lal and P.W. 4, Dr. R. Jaglani. After prosecution evidence, statements of all accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused stated that they have been falsely implicated. 6. D.W. 1, Ganga Prasad was examined as defence witness on behalf of accused. 7. Learned Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge heard the arguments of parties and passed impugned judgement and order dated 5/6.2.1988 whereby he has convicted and sentenced accused-appellants as mentioned above. 8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that conviction and sentence recorded by trial Court is against law as well as against evidence. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that whole story narrated by prosecution is false and concocted. Accused have never demanded dowry or have never subjected complainant Kishan Kali or Kalpana to cruelty. Truth is that complainant Kishan Kali and Kalpana were not liking their husbands. Both had eloped from house of their husbands twice earlier. Kalpana eloped for the third time and could not be traced again. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that it is apparent from statement of P.W. 2 Ram Chandra and telegram (Ex. Ka-1) as well as statement of complainant P.W. 1 Kishan Kali made in cross-examination that complainant Kishan Kali narrated whole story to her brother-in-law Kishore thereafter, Kishore sent telegram to P.W. 2 Ram Chandra and after having received telegram, P.W. 2 Ram Chandra came from Punjab. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that first information of incident was given by complainant Kishan Kali to Kishore much before arrival of P.W. 2 Ram Chandra, father of complainant Kishan Kali but F.I.R. was not lodged by Kishore or any other person. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that first information of incident was given by complainant Kishan Kali to Kishore much before arrival of P.W. 2 Ram Chandra, father of complainant Kishan Kali but F.I.R. was not lodged by Kishore or any other person. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that Kishore is a very material witness but prosecution has not examined him and no reason has been assigned for his non-examination. Therefore, adverse inference shall be drawn against prosecution for non-examination of Kishore. Learned counsel for the accused appellant further contended that P.W. 1, complainant Kishan Kali is not a reliable and trustworthy witness to convict accused-appellants on his solitary statement. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants further contended that P.W. 1 complainant Kishan Kali was not liking her husband Rajvir and she has concocted a false story for getting rid of him. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants further contended that dead body of deceased Kalpana has not been recovered and there is no evidence on record about her homicidal death. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that P.W. 1, complainant Kishan Kali has stated in cross-examination made by defence that she did not know Chhakku Lal and Dr. Shiv Kumar. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants prayed that above appeals filed by surviving accused-appellants should be allowed and they should be acquitted from charges levelled against them. 9. Learned AGA contended that conviction recorded by trial Court against accused-appellants is based on evidence and is in accordance with law. He contended that P.W. 1, complainant Kishan Kali is a natural witness of occurrence and there is nothing on record to discard her testimony. 10. Learned AGA further contended that evidence on record is sufficient to hold accused-appellants Het Ram, Jageshwar, Manohar, Ramvir, Rajvir and Smt. Somvati guilty for offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 201 I.P.C. and accused-appellant Dr. Shiv Kumar for offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. Learned AGA contended that appeals filed by surviving accused-appellants have no merits and should be dismissed. 11. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Out of four witnesses examined by prosecution P.W. 1, complainant Kishan Kali is solitary witness of occurrence. Shiv Kumar for offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. Learned AGA contended that appeals filed by surviving accused-appellants have no merits and should be dismissed. 11. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Out of four witnesses examined by prosecution P.W. 1, complainant Kishan Kali is solitary witness of occurrence. P.W. 1, complainant Kishan Kali has stated in her statement on oath that accused Het Ram, Jageshwar, Manohar, Ramvir, Smt. Somvati and Rajvir committed murder of deceased Kalpana by throttling and thereafter they caused disappearance of dead body by cutting it into pieces at the instigation of accused Chhakku Lal Pradhan and Dr. Shiv Kumar. 12. In F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1), P.W. 1 complainant Kishan Kali has stated that since the date of incident till her father P.W. 2 Ram Chandra came, she was being beaten inside house. She was burnt with hot iron rod on both thighs and was beaten with lathi. She was kept in surveillance and was not permitted to meet any one. Relevant portion of F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) is reproduced below : ^^vc rd eq>s /kj ds vUnj ekjihV djrs jgs rFkk yksgs dh yfc;k xje djds esjs nksuks jkuks esa yxk;k Fkk rFkk ykBh ls ekjk vkSj fuxjkuh esa jD[kk vkSj u fdlh ls feyus fn;k rFkk dgk fd bl ckr dk ftdj fdlh ls er djuk k^^ 13. P.W. 1, complainant Kishan Kali has stated in her statement on oath that she also was being burnt with hot iron rod. After ten days her father came. 14. Perusal of injury report (Ex. Ka-8) as well as statment of P.W. 4 Dr. R. Jaglani shows that following injuries were found on the body of P.W. 1 complainant Kishan Kali on medical examination done on 26.9.1984. (i) Blackened scar about 4 cm x 2 cm on right thigh 3" below the injuinal ligament on medical side, caused by burn. (ii) Multiple scars of healing of boils all over body. (iii) Stye on left lower eyelid. In injury report (Ex. Ka-8) duration of injury No. 1 has been mentioned more than 15 days. P.W. 4 Dr. R. Jaglani has stated in her statement also that duration of injury No. 1 was more than 15 days. She has further stated that this injury might have been caused 11 days before examination also and by hot iron rod also. Ka-8) duration of injury No. 1 has been mentioned more than 15 days. P.W. 4 Dr. R. Jaglani has stated in her statement also that duration of injury No. 1 was more than 15 days. She has further stated that this injury might have been caused 11 days before examination also and by hot iron rod also. Description of injuries of complainant P.W. 1 Kishan Kali shows that her injury No. 1 is blackened scar and P.W. 4 Dr. R. Jaglani has stated in cross-examination that blackening of scar appears between 7 to 14 days and it starts to fade after one month. 15. In Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Edition published in 2005, following principles regarding age of burn injuries have been mentioned at page 638 : “Pus forms in two to thee days but not before 36 hours. Superficial sloughs separate out usually from the fourth to the sixth day and deep ones within a fortnight. After this period, granulation tissue begins to cover the surface of the burn. The last result is the formation of a cicatrix and deformity after several weeks or even months, depending upon the amount of suppuration, sloughing and depth and extent of the burn.” Considering whole statement of P.W. 4 Dr. R. Jaglani as well as injury report (Ex. Ka-8), and principles laid down in Modi’s Jurisprudence, it is highly doubtful that injury No. 1 of complainant P.W. 1 Kishan Kali has been caused on the day of occurrence alleged or subsequent thereto. In this context, it is also relevant to mention that P.W. 1 complainant Kishan Kali has mentioned in F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) that she was burnt by hot rod on both thighs. But no injury or scar has been found on her left thigh. 16. Neither in F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) nor in statement of P.W. 1 complainant Kishan Kali, it has been mentioned that she was burnt all over body with hot iron rod or other object. In F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) she has made specific mention that she was burnt with hot iron rod on her both thighs. Injury No. 2 of complainant is multiples scars of healing boils all over body. Apparently, this injury No. 2 is scars of healing boils. In cross-examination P.W. 4, Dr. In F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) she has made specific mention that she was burnt with hot iron rod on her both thighs. Injury No. 2 of complainant is multiples scars of healing boils all over body. Apparently, this injury No. 2 is scars of healing boils. In cross-examination P.W. 4, Dr. R. Jaglani has stated that hot blunt object does not cause boil and in this case there might have boils which have healed. 17. In view of version of F.I.R. and statement of complainant P.W. 1 Kishan Kali as well as statement of P.W. 4, Dr. R. Jaglani and injury report (Ex. Ka-8), it is doubtful that injury No. 2 is scars of burn injury. Injury No. 3 is stye and it is not an inflicted injury. In injury report (Ex. Ka.-8) duration of injury Nos. 2 and 3 has not been mentioned. In view of above, it is highly doubtful that injuries mentioned in injury report (Ex. Ka-8) have been inflicted to complainant P.W. 1 Kishan Kali at the time of alleged incident or thereafter. In F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1), it has been mentioned that since date of incident complainant was being beaten till her father came. In statement on oath complainant P.W. 1 Kishan Kali has stated that she was being burnt with hot iron rod. But no injury has been found on her body except scars of injuries. In view of discussion made above, it is apparent that statement of P.W. 1 complainant Kishan Kali is not corroborated by medical evidence. 18. In cross-examination, P.W. 1 complainant Kishan Kali has stated on page 9 (Page 21 of paper book) as follows : ^^dYiuk ds ekjs tkus ds ckn 10 fnu rd eS llqjky es jgh FkhA firkth dks rkj nsdj cqyk;k x;k FkkA fd'kksj esjs cguksbZ gSA fd'kksj fldUnjiqj es ukSdjh djrs gSA mudh eka dkyst essa ukSdjh djrh gSA eSus fd'kksj dks iwjk fdLlk crk;k rc rkj fn;kA ^^ P.W. 2 Ram Chandra has stated in his statement that after having received telegram (Ex.-1) sent by his son in law Kishore, he came on 24.9.1984 to his village Sikandarpur from Punjab and then went on 25.9.1984 to husband’s house of his daughter complainant Kishan Kali in village Habbapur. Telegram material Ex.-1 has been sent on 20.9.1984 by Kishore to P.W. 2 Ram Chandra. Telegram material Ex.-1 has been sent on 20.9.1984 by Kishore to P.W. 2 Ram Chandra. In this telegram message has been written as follows : ^^dYiuh;k ej xbZ rqjUr vkvks^^ 19. After having gone through statements of P.W. 1 complainant Kishan Kali and her father P.W. 2 Ram Chandra as well as Telegram material exibit-1, it is apparent that complainant P.W. 1 Kishan Kali had told full story of incident to her brother-in-law Kishore on or before 20.9.1984. But no F.I.R. was lodged either by Kishore or by Babu Lal cousin brother of complainant Kishan Kali, who according to P.W. 2 Ram Chandra had born expenses of marriage of Kalpana (deceased). No explanation has been given by prosecution as to why F.I.R. was not lodged by said Kishore and Babu Lal. As mentioned above P.W. 1 complainant Kishan Kali has stated in cross-examination that he had told whole story of occurrence to her brother-in-law Kishore whereupon Kishore sent telegram to her father, then her father P.W. 2 Ram Chandra came. Thus, first information of incident has been given by complainant Kishan Kali to her brother-in-law Kishore. Therefore, Kishore is very material witness for prosecution to prove as to what first information was given by complainant Kishan Kali regarding incident. Kishore has not lodged F.I.R. and prosecution has not examined Kishore. No reason has been given by prosecution for his non-examination. 20. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that non-examination of Kishore leads to draw adverse inference against prosecution. It is apparent from discussion made above that complainant P.W. 1, Kishan Kali had told whole story to his brother-in-law Kishore whereupon Kishore sent telegram to P.W. 2 Ram Chandra on 20.9.1984. Therefore, statement of P.W. 1 complainant Kishan Kali appears against thruth that after alleged occurrence she was being kept in surveillance and was not being permitted to meet any one till her father came. 21. Admittedly, dead body of deceased has not been recovered and there is no medical evidence or circumstantial evidence to show homicidal death of Kalpana. Weapon alleged to have been used for cutting parts of dead body of Kalpana has also not been recovered. Any other incriminating article also has not been recovered from possession of accused or from their house. 22. In F.I.R. (Ex. Weapon alleged to have been used for cutting parts of dead body of Kalpana has also not been recovered. Any other incriminating article also has not been recovered from possession of accused or from their house. 22. In F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) as well as in statements of P.W. 1 complainant Kishan Kali and P.W. 2 Ram Chandra, it has been mentioned that Ramvir husband of Kalpana had made demand of Baja, Watch and Cycle. In F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-1) as well as in statements of said two witnesses, names of other persons who made demand of Baja, Cycle and Watch have not been disclosed. Therefore, allegation of demand of dowry and cruelty in pursuance of demand of dowry is quite vague and cannot be relied. In view of discussion made above motive or cause of murder of Kalpana alleged by prosecution cannot be said to have been proved. 23. In cross-examination defence has given suggestion to P.W. 1 complainant Kishan Kali that Kalpana has eloped. P.W. 1 complainant has denied the suggestion but defence has examined D.W. 1 Ganga Prasad, who has stated that Kalpana eloped for the third time. Het Ram and Ramvir searched but could not trace her. D.W. 1 Ganga Prasad is resident of same village to which accused belong. Learned trial Court has referred in its impugned judgement, affidavits of prosecution witnesses Smt. Malti, Kripal, Smt. Ram Janki, Ghasiram, Ram Sanehi and Smt. Radha in which they have stated that Kalpana died due to Cholera, they had seen her during illness and they had participated in her last rites. Trial Court has mentioned that said witnesses have filed affidavits at the instance of accused. Therefore, trial Court has drawn inference on the basis of affidavits of said witnesses that accused had spred news of death of Kalpana due to Cholera. 24. It is apparent from the impugned judgement of learned trial Court that said witnesses had filed affidavits before Magistrate Court. In case triable by session after having taken cognizance, Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take evidence through affidavit. During police investigation also Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take evidence through affidavit. Therefore, affidavits filed before Magistrate by said witnesses are against provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and these affidavits may not be admitted in evidence unless proved before trial Court in accordance with provisions of evidence Act. 25. During police investigation also Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take evidence through affidavit. Therefore, affidavits filed before Magistrate by said witnesses are against provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and these affidavits may not be admitted in evidence unless proved before trial Court in accordance with provisions of evidence Act. 25. Perusal of impugned judgement of trial Court shows that these affidavits have not been proved before trial Court in accordance with provisions of evidence Act. Therefore, these affidavits are inadmissable in evidence and trial Court has committed illegality by admitting these affidavits in evidence. 26. Affidavits have been filed by said witnesses of prosecution. There is nothing on record to show that said witnesses have filed these affidavits at the instance of accused. Therefore, presemption drawn by trial Court that these affidavits have been filed at the instance of accused is not legal and justified and on the basis of these affidavits filed by said witnesses it cannot be said that it was version of defence (accused) that Kalpana died due to Cholera. As mentioned above defence has given specific suggestion to P.W. 1 complainant Kishan Kali that Kalpana has eloped and has examined D.W. 1 Ganga Prasad on this point. In statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also accused has not admitted death of Kalpana. Therefore, in view of stand taken by defence in cross-examination and statement of D.W. 1 Ganga Prasad it cannot be said that death of Kalpana is admitted to defence. In view of discussion made above no adverse inference should be drawn against defence on the basis of affidavits filed by aforesaid witnesses before Magistrate. 27. In the case of Tika v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 155 , Hon’ble Apex Court has held that prosecution is to establish his own case beyond doubt. Falsity of defence is immaterial. In view of discussion made above, we are of the view that P.W. 1 complainant Kishan Kali is not a reliable witness and her statement is not free from doubt. Statement of P.W. 1, complainant Kishan Kali is not corroborated by any other evidence. 28. In view of discussion made above after having gone through entire evidence and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that solitory statement of P.W. 1 complainant Kishan Kali is not sufficient to convict accused-appellants. Statement of P.W. 1, complainant Kishan Kali is not corroborated by any other evidence. 28. In view of discussion made above after having gone through entire evidence and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that solitory statement of P.W. 1 complainant Kishan Kali is not sufficient to convict accused-appellants. Learned trial Court has committed error in placing reliance on solitary statement of P.W. 1 complainant Kishan Kali to convict accused-appellants. Section 304-B of I.P.C. has been enacted subseqnent to occurrence alleged by prosecution. Section 304-B I.P.C. as well as Section 113-B of Evidence Act is not applicable in this case. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt and accused-appellants are entitled to benifit of doubt. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that conviction and sentence recorded by trial Court against all surviving accused-appellants are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Appeals filed by surviving accused-appellants deserve to be allowed. All the above mentioned criminal appeals are allowed accordingly and impugned judgement and order passed by trial Court in S.T. No. 64 of 1986 (State v. Het Ram and others), under Section 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. is set aside. All surviving accused-appellants are acquitted from charges levelled against them. Bail bonds of all accused-appellants are cancelled and sureties are discharged. ——————