JUDGMENT : S. P. SINGH, J.:–Under challenge, in the present appeals, are the judgment, dated 11.06.2008, of conviction, in Sessions Trial No. 243 of 1997, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Begusarai, and the order, dated 13.06.2008, whereby various sentences have been passed against the accused-appellants. 2. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant, Anil Kumar Mahto @ Kunnan Mahto, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The accused-appellant, Siyaram Mahto, has been, under the impugned judgment, convicted under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the remaining three accused-appellants, namely, Birendra Mahto, Surendra Mahto and Manoj Mahto are concerned, they have been, under the impugned judgment, convicted under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 302 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. For his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused-appellant, Anil Kumar Mahto @ Kunnan Mahto, has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/0 and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and, for his conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, the accused-appellant, Anil Kumar Mahto @ Kunnan Mahto, has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. For his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused-appellant, Siyaram Mahto, has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life and, pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for six months. For his conviction under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused-appellant, Siyaram Mahto, has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. For his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, no separate sentence has been passed against accused-appellant, Siyaram Mahto. For their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the three accused-appellants, namely, Birendra Mahto, Surendra Mahto and Manoj Mahto, have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, and pay fine of Rs. For their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the three accused-appellants, namely, Birendra Mahto, Surendra Mahto and Manoj Mahto, have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for six months. For their conviction under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, the three accused-appellants, namely, Birendra Mahto, Surendra Mahto and Manoj Mahto, have been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. For their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, no separate sentence has been passed against accused-appellants, Birendra Mahto, Surendra Mahto and Manoj Mahto. 3. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be set out as under:— (i) On 29.10.1996, at about 11:00 AM, the informant and his son, Birendra Kumar (since deceased), an Advocate in the Civil Court, Begusarai, were going to lodge a sanha before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, against accused-appellant, Anil Kumar Mahto @ Kunnan Mahto, and others, in respect of an occurrence, which had taken place on the pervious day, i.e. 28.10.1996. When the informant and his son, on their way to the Court, at Begusarai, to lodge a sanha, happened to pass by the west side of the Old Telephone Exchange Building, they were intercepted, on the western side of Veterinary Hospital, by accused persons, namely, (i) Surendra Mahto (ii) Birendra Mahto (iii) Manoj Mahto (iv) Anil Mahto @ Kunnan, and (v) Siyaram Mahto. All the accused persons surrounded the informant and his son and, on being exhorted by accused Siyaram Mahto, accused Anil Kumar Mahto @ Kunnan, who was holding a pistol in his hand, shot at the said deceased. The bullet hit the said deceased below his right ear. On sustaining the bullet injury, the said deceased fell on the ground and died at the spot. The informant raised hulla and on hearing the sound of firing, many people gathered at the place of occurrence and amongst the people, so gathered, were present Geeta Mahto (PW 2), Ram Lakhan Mahto and Rajo Mahto. Then, the accused persons, who were armed with fire-arms, fled away towards west through a lane. The informant raised hulla and on hearing the sound of firing, many people gathered at the place of occurrence and amongst the people, so gathered, were present Geeta Mahto (PW 2), Ram Lakhan Mahto and Rajo Mahto. Then, the accused persons, who were armed with fire-arms, fled away towards west through a lane. (ii) The reason behind the shooting was that in the morning of 28.10.1996, when the informant, along with his son, Birendra Kumar, was sitting at their residence, accused Anil Kumar Mahto @ Kunnan Mahto came there and threatened them by saying that since Birendra Kumar had got cancelled his (Anil Mahto @ Kunnan’s) bail by making pairvi in the Patna High Court, he (Anil Mahto @ Kunnan) should, now, settle the matter; or else, he would be finished. On being so threatened, the informant’s son, Birendra Kumar, replied by saying that he was not an informant, but only an Advocate and, hence, it was not possible for him to settle the matter. (iv) On being informed about the occurrence, as regards the occurrence, the police arrived at the place of occurrence, on 29.10.1996, at about 12 O’clock, where Rabindra Singh, father of the said deceased, described the occurrence and the information, so given, was reduced into writing in the form of fardbayan. (v) Treating the said fardbayan as First Information Report, Begusarai Town Police Station Case No. 310 of 1996 was registered, under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, against all the said five accused persons, namely, (i) Surendra Mahto (ii) Birendra Mahto (iii) Manoj Mahto (iv) Anil Mahto @ Kunnan, and (v) Siyaram Mahto. (vi) During investigation, police visited the place of occurrence and also held inquest over the said dead body, which was also subjected to post mortem examination, and, on completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid, under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, against accused persons, namely, (i) Surendra Mahto (ii) Birendra Mahto (iii) Manoj Mahto (iv) Anil Mahto @ Kunnan, and (v) Siyaram Mahto a. 4. At the trial, when charges, under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, were framed against all the accused persons, they pleaded not guilty. At the trial, when charges, under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, were framed against all the accused persons, they pleaded not guilty. As against accused Anil Mahto @ Kunnan, when a charge, under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, was framed, he pleaded not guilty thereto. 5. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 9 (nine) witnesses. The accused persons were, then, examined under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, in their examinations aforementioned, the accused persons denied that they had committed the offences, which were alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of denial. The defence adduced evidence by examining six witnesses on its behalf. 6. Having, however, arrived at the finding that accused-appellant, namely, Anil Kumar Mahto @ Kunnan, had been proved guilty of the charges, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, framed against him and, accused-appellant, namely, Siyaram Mahto, had been proved guilty of the charges, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, and, accused-appellants, namely, Birendra Mahto, Surendra Mahto and Manoj Mahto, had been proved guilty of the charges, under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned trial Court also convicted them accordingly. Following their conviction, sentences have been passed against the convicted persons as mentioned above. 7. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences passed against them, all the accused, as convicted persons, have preferred appeals. 8. All these three appeals having arisen out of the impugned judgment of conviction, dated 11.06.2008, and the impugned order of sentences, dated 13.06.2008, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 9. We have heard Mr. Rana Pratap singh, learned Senior Counsel, and Ms. Soni shrivastava, learned Counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Ashwini Kumar Singh and Mr. Shivesh Chandra Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 10. 9. We have heard Mr. Rana Pratap singh, learned Senior Counsel, and Ms. Soni shrivastava, learned Counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Ashwini Kumar Singh and Mr. Shivesh Chandra Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 10. Out of the nine witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution, PW 2 (Geeta Mahto) and PW 6 (Rajo Mahto) have claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW 1 (Ram Naresh sharma) and PW 3 (Dr. Sachidanand Singh) are seizure list witnesses. PW 5 (Mahadeo Sah) and PW 7 (Hari Nandan Ishwar) are witnesses to the inquest report. 11. It is relevant to state here that the informant, the author of the fardbeyan, died during the pendency of the trial and, as such, he was not examined as a witness during trial. 12. Let us, first, deal with the evidence of PW 2 (Geeta Mahto). According to the evidence of this witness (PW 2), on the day of the occurrence, i.e. on 29.1`0.1996, at about 11:00 AM, when he was going to purchase potato seeds along with Rajo Mahto (PW 6) and Ramdeo Mahtom, the said deceased along with his father was going ahead of him (PW 2). When they reached the west side of the old Telephone Exchange, the accused-appellants, all carrying fire-arms, surrounded the said deceased and his father and, on being exhorted by accused Siyaram Mahto, accused Surendra Matho caught hold of the bicycle and accused Birendra Mahto and Manoj Mahto caught hold of the said deceased and accused Anil Mahto fired at the said deceased by the fire-arm, which he was carrying in his hand. 13. It is in the evidence of PW 2 that the bullet hit Birendra Kumar, Advocate, just below his right ear, Birendra Kumar Advocate fell down on the ground and died. It is also in the evidence of PW 2 that on the alarm raised by Rabindra Singh, several persons gathered there and the assailants fled away through the lane in the west side and, thereafter, police arrived and took down the statement of Rabindra Singh in the form of fardbayan. 14. PW 2 identified the accused persons, namely, Surendra, Siyaram and Anil Kumar Mahto, who were present in the dock. PW 2 also claimed to know the accused, who were not present in Court. 15. 14. PW 2 identified the accused persons, namely, Surendra, Siyaram and Anil Kumar Mahto, who were present in the dock. PW 2 also claimed to know the accused, who were not present in Court. 15. In his cross-examination, PW 2 had admitted that his brother, Rajo Mahto, had lodged a case against the accused persons for committing murder of one of his brothers, wherein Narendra, who happened to be the second son of the informant (Rabindra Singh), had deposed from his side. PW 2, in his cross-examination, has denied of having any land dispute with accused persons. In the cross-examination, he stated that the deceased was his co-villager and his house is situated at the distance of 100 poles from the house of PW 2. Further, in his cross-examination, PW 2 has admitted that he was an accused in Barauni Police station Case No. 42 of 1992 filed by Anil Mahto, along with Rabindra Prasad Singh (the informant) and his brother, Rajo Mahto. 16. Coming to the evidence of PW 6 (Rajo Mahto), who also claims to be an eye witness to the occurrence, we notice that according to PW 1, on 29.10.1996, he (PW 6) had left his village Parbandha along with his brother, Geeta Mahto (PW 2), for purchasing potato seeds. Ramdeo Mahto and Ram Nandan Mahto (not examined) were also with them. When they reached near western side of Telephone Exchange, they saw Birendra Kumar and Rabindra Prasad Singh (the informant) going together and they (Birendra Kumar and Rabindra Kumar) were 10-20 steps ahead of PW 2 and PW 6. As soon as Rabindra Prasad Singh, along with his son, reached north of Veterinary Hospital and behind the Telephone exchange, all the accused-appellants, armed with pistol, came from the western lane and surrounded the informant and his son. Surendra Mahto caught hold of the bicycle of Birendra Kumar, whereas Birendra Mahto and Manoj Mahto held him. Siyaram Mahto exhorted them to kill the enemy, whereupon Anil Kumar Mahto opened fire on Birendra Kumar, Advocate, which hit his right ear. Birendra Kumar, immediately, fell on his back and died. They, too, along with Rabindra Prasad Singh, father of the victim, raised alarm. On hearing sound of firing, people gathered there, but, in the meantime, accused persons fled in the western direction. The police officer reached the place of occurrence and also recorded his statement on the spot. 17. Birendra Kumar, immediately, fell on his back and died. They, too, along with Rabindra Prasad Singh, father of the victim, raised alarm. On hearing sound of firing, people gathered there, but, in the meantime, accused persons fled in the western direction. The police officer reached the place of occurrence and also recorded his statement on the spot. 17. In his cross examination, PW 6 has stated that he had come to Begusarai by the Tata bus from the Pakthaul and he was going, along with his brother, to the shop of Devi Lal Maskara for purchasing potato seeds. 18. PW 6, in his cross examination, has stated that after arriving at Begusarai Bus stand, he took tea and when he proceeded from the tea shop, he did not see Birendra Kumar, Advocate, around. At one stage, he stated that he does not remember whether the Sub Inspector of police recorded his statement at the same time or not, but soon thereafter states that his statement was recorded after the statement of Rabindra Prasad Singh. He has further stated, in the cross-examination, that there are a number of houses on either sides of the road near the place of occurrence. He feigned ignorance as to whether potato seeds are available at Birpur Bazar, which place could be nearer to his house. He stated that the blood was oozing out and some blood had also dropped around the place of occurrence and that the police arrived within half-an-hour of their arrival. 19. PW 1 (Ram Naresh Sharma) and PW 3 (Dr. Sachidanand Singh) are witnesses to the seizure of blood stained earth, chappal, etc., which was prepared in their presence and they had identified their signatures on the seizure list. 20. PW.5 (Mahadeo Sah) and PW 7 (Hari Nandan Ishwar) are witnesses to the inquest report. They had identified their signatures on the inquest report, which has been marked as Exhibit-3. 21. Bearing in mind the ocular evidence on record, which we have discussed above, when we come to the evidence of the doctor (PW 4), who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Birendra Kumar, we notice that the doctor (PW 4) had found as follows.— “On external examination : (i) Lacerated injury 2” x 1½” x chronial cavity, situated below right ear with inverted and charred margin. (ii) Margin of right pinna was lacerated. (ii) Margin of right pinna was lacerated. On dissection :- Underlying soft tissues and vessels are lacerated, the base of the skull at right side was fractured with an irregular whole of 1” diameter. On interior dissection, the meninges, brain with its vesels in posterior chronial fossas are lacerated. On further examination, there is fracture of left occipital bone and a bullet was recovered from the adjacent brain matter.” 22. The doctor (PW 4) has opined that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from injury no. 1. The inquest report also corroborates medical evidence that the deceased sustained gunshot injury around his right ear. All these facts, undisputedly, prove that the death of Birendra Kumar was homicidal in nature. The factum of murder is, in fact, not disputed by the defence. 23. PW 8 (Shyamakant Jha), Officer-in-charge of Town Police Station, Begusarai, recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Rabindra Prasad Singh, who after reading the same, had put his signature on it, which has been marked as Exhibit-4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, formal First Information Report was registered, which is in the pen of Premchand Mishra and under the signature of Sideshwar Prasad. He handed over the charge of investigation to Narendra Singh, PW 9, a Sub Inspector of Police, at the place of occurrence itself. Around the same time, he (PW 9) seized blood stained earth, some pebbles and stones, an old bicycle, a pair of leather chappal and prepared seizure list in presence of PW 8, which has been marked as Exhibit-6. He, again, took up the supplementary investigation of the case on 19.04.1997. He submitted supplementary charge sheet against Siyaram Mahto and kept the investigation open against the appellant, Anil Kumar Mahto, as he had been absconding. He arrested Anil Kumar Mahto @ Kunnan and submitted charge sheet against him as well. 24. In his cross-examination, PW 8 stated that on receiving information about an incident, he reached Tilak Nagar, which was the place of occurrence. A dead body was lying on the ground (road). He does not remember the width of the road, where the dead body was lying. He does not remember the clothes, which the deceased was wearing. After recording of fardbeyan, PW 9 (Narendra Sah) prepared inquest report. A dead body was lying on the ground (road). He does not remember the width of the road, where the dead body was lying. He does not remember the clothes, which the deceased was wearing. After recording of fardbeyan, PW 9 (Narendra Sah) prepared inquest report. He did not seal the container, wherein the seized articles were kept, nor did he put any special identification mark on it. He stated, in his cross-examination, that he did not record the statement of any witness after taking charge of supplementary investigation. 25. In his examination-in-chief, PW 9 (Investigating Officer) has stated that, on 29.10.1996, he was posted at Town Police Station Begusarai, he heard rumor about some incident and after entering Sanha, bearing No. 934 dated 29.10.1996, he started for the place of occurrence, along with PW 8, Shyamakant Jha, the Officer-in-Charge of the Town Police Station. The occurrence had taken place on the adjacent north of the Animal Husbandry Hospital at a distance of one kilometer north to the police station. He prepared inquest report and recorded the fardbeyan of Rabindra Prasad Singh, he prepared the inquest report (Exhibit 7). The dead body was sent to Sadar Hospital, Begusarai for, post mortem. He seized the blood stained earth, a bicycle and a pair of chappal, the seizure list having been marked as Exhibit 8. He recorded the statements of the informant and inspected the place of occurrence. He recorded the statement of witnesses, namely, Ram Lakhan Mahto, Ram Deo Mahto and Ram Nandan Mahto (all of them not examined). He completed the investigation and found the case to be true against the accused persons, namely, Surendra Mahto, Manoj Mahto and Birendra Mahto under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. He continued the investigation against Anil Kumar Mahto @ Kunnan and Siyaram Mahto. He handed over the charge of investigation to Shyamakant Jha, who submitted supplementary charge sheet against Siyaram Mahto and Anil Kumar Mahto. 26. In his cross-examination, PW 9 has admitted that he did not mention the time of recording of the information in the station diary. He started preparing inquest report at 1:00 PM; whereas the fardbeyan was recorded at 12 noon. The time of making of inquest is mentioned, in Column-1 of the inquest report, is 13.00 hours, on 29.10.1996. 26. In his cross-examination, PW 9 has admitted that he did not mention the time of recording of the information in the station diary. He started preparing inquest report at 1:00 PM; whereas the fardbeyan was recorded at 12 noon. The time of making of inquest is mentioned, in Column-1 of the inquest report, is 13.00 hours, on 29.10.1996. The dead body was lying on the north direction and adjacent to the wall. The detail of the position of dead body has not been mentioned in the inquest report. 27. Six witnesses were also examined on behalf of the defence. DW 1 (Sanjeet Kumar), and DW 2 (Ranjeet Kumar), are the witnesses on the point of absence of PWs. 2 and 6 from the place of occurrence. DW 1 has deposed that PW 2 and PW 6 were not present at the place of occurrence at the time, when the occurrence had taken place. To the same effect is the evidence of DW 3 and DW 4. DW 5 has stated that there is political rivalry between the informant and the accused and that PWs. 2 and 6 were not present at the relevant time at the place of occurrence. DW 6, Ullah Mahto, too, tried to explain that the informant could not have been present at the place of occurrence. All the six defence witnesses are co-villagers of the accused. 28. Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, learned Senior counsel, while making the leading argument, on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants have not committed the crime and have been falsely implicated in this case. The prosecution case is based on evidence of PWs. 2 and 6, who claim to have seen the occurrence inasmuch as the other eye witness, i.e. the informant of this case, died during trial and, thus, PWs. 2 and 6 are the only material witnesses, who claim to have witnessed the occurrence. Mr. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, submits that PWs. 2 and 6 are highly interested witnesses inasmuch as PW 2 has, admittedly, filed case against the accused for the murder of his brother, wherein his brother, Rajo Mahto (PW 6), who was wounded in the occurrence, is a witness. In the said case, one Narendra, son of Late Rabindra Prasad Singh (the informant of the instant case), was also a witness. In the said case, one Narendra, son of Late Rabindra Prasad Singh (the informant of the instant case), was also a witness. He next submits that as per the First Information Report, the informant, along with his deceased son, was going to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Court, Begusarai, to lodge a Sanha, but the inquest report shows that the deceased was wearing a green under-wear (a small under garment), which makes the prosecution case doubtful that Birendra Kumar, himself being an advocate, would proceed to lodge Sanha, in a Court, wearing a janghia. 29. He next argued that as per the prosecution’s case, the occurrence took place at 11 AM, whereas post mortem examination was conducted on the same day at 4.30 PM, i.e., between five-and-a-half hours of the death. PW 4, the doctor, who conducted post mortem on the said deceased, found rigor mortis present all over the body. The appellants argue that this phenomenon occurs only after 8 to 10 hours of death and not within five-and-a-half hours. 30. Further-more, PWs. 2 and 6 are chance witnesses, who have tried to build a story to establish their presence at the place of occurrence, because they are on litigating terms with the accused persons. 31. On the other hand, Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that PWs 2 and 6 have given vivid description of the occurrence and only because they have inimical terms with the accused, their evidence ought not to be brushed aside. 32. There can be no dispute that PWs. 2 and 6 happen to be chance witnesses. The crucial issue is: whether they can be safely believed to have seen commission of occurrence, which is alleged to have taken place about 11 AM. The case of the defence is that the witnesses have not seen the actual commission of murder. The statement of PW 8 would establish that PWs. 2 and 6 were present at the place of occurrence, at least, at 12 noon, when the statement of the informant was being recorded by him if not earlier. The Investigating Officer has not recorded the time of his arrival at the place of occurrence. Further-more, the station diary entry, about the time, when PWs. 8 and 9 received information about the incident at the Police station, which is 1 (one) kilometer away from the place of occurrence, is silent too. 33. The Investigating Officer has not recorded the time of his arrival at the place of occurrence. Further-more, the station diary entry, about the time, when PWs. 8 and 9 received information about the incident at the Police station, which is 1 (one) kilometer away from the place of occurrence, is silent too. 33. The question still remains whether PWs. 2 and 6 were present, when murder took place, at about 11:00 AM, on 29.10.1996. 34. PWs. 2 and 6 are full brothers and are admittedly, on litigating terms with the accused persons (appellants herein) so much so that PW 2 (Geeta Mahto) had instituted a case against accused persons for committing murder of his brother, wherein the other brother, PW. 6 (Rajo Mahto), is a witness along with the informant. Thus, there cannot be any dispute that PWs. 2 and 6 are holding animus against the appellants and cannot be said to be impartial and independent witnesses. 35. This Court, not even for a moment, would like to give an impression that evidence of interested witness, in no situation, can be relied upon. But if the consideration is to be based solely on the evidence of interested or partial witnesses, then, such evidence must be unflinching in its character and must not admit of any inconsistency, contradictions and/or must not be improbable. 36. In the instant case, we find that the evidence of PWs. 2 and 6 are in conflict with post mortem report as well as inquest report. The doctor, conducting the post mortem examination, has found rigors mortis present all over the body. As per prosecution’s case, the occurrence took place just after 11 AM and the post mortem examination was conducted at 4.30 PM, i.e., within five-and-a-half hours. Generally, as per medical jurisprudence, rigor mortis is found present after 8 to 10 hours depending upon the physique of a person and the season in which the death has occurred. In summer, rigor mortis develops faster than in winter. The incident took place, on 29.10.2009, at the onset of the winter season during which period rigor mortis develops slowly. As such, it is very difficult to hold that rigor mortis would be present all over the body of a dead person, at the end of October, within 5 ½ hours. 37. The incident took place, on 29.10.2009, at the onset of the winter season during which period rigor mortis develops slowly. As such, it is very difficult to hold that rigor mortis would be present all over the body of a dead person, at the end of October, within 5 ½ hours. 37. As per the prosecution’s case, informant and the deceased were going to the Court (Kutchery) to lodge a Sanha against the accused persons. It would appear from the inquest repot that the deceased was wearing a green janghia (a small under garment). No prudent person can even visualize that an advocate would proceed to a Court, wearing a janghia, to lodge a Sanha or to file a petition. All such materials make the evidence of PWs. 2 and 6 shaky and doubtful. 38. Coupled with the above, though PW 2 and PW 6 have claimed that Birendra Kumar was shot dead, while he was proceeding on the road along with his father, who is the informant of this case, PW 9 (Investigating Officer) has deposed that he found the dead body lying adjacent to the wall. Thus, the description of the occurrence, which PW 2 and PW 6 have given, do not tally with the findings of the Investigating Officer inasmuch as his findings, recorded in the inquest report, show that the dead body was found adjacent to the wall. 39. Taking totality of circumstances that PWs. 2 and 6 are highly interested witnesses nursing animus against accused coupled with the fact that they are chance witnesses and their evidence also do not find support from post mortem report and inquest report, we do not find it safe to convict the appellants on the evidence of such highly interested witnesses. 40. Besides this, we find that the materials, seized in the investigation, were not produced before the court in the trial. The Sanha entry does not disclose the time, when police reached the place of occurrence. PWs. 2 and 6, at one place, state that their statements were recorded at the place of occurrence; but, at other moment, state that the same was recorded later on. 41. In view of the circumstances discussed above, we do not find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all the reasonable doubt. 42. PWs. 2 and 6, at one place, state that their statements were recorded at the place of occurrence; but, at other moment, state that the same was recorded later on. 41. In view of the circumstances discussed above, we do not find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all the reasonable doubt. 42. Situated thus, we are clearly of the view that in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, the appellants ought to have been accorded, at least, benefit of doubt. 43. In the result and for the forgoing reasons, we allow these appeals. The impugned conviction of the accused-appellants and the sentences passed against them by the judgment and order, under appeal, are hereby set aside. The accused-appellants are held not guilty of the offences, which they stand convicted of, and they are hereby acquitted of the same under benefit of doubt. 44. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Anil Kumar Mahto, be set at liberty, forthwith, unless he is required to be detained in connection with any other case. 45. So far as accused-appellants, namely, Surendra Mahto, Birendra Mahto, Manoj Mahto and Siyaram Mahton, are concerned, they are already on bail. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled and their sureties shall stand discharged. 46. Registry shall, forthwith, send a copy of this judgment and order to the learned trial Court along with the Lower Court Records. I. A. ANSARI,J.:–I agree. ?