I.A.ANSARI, J.:–By the impugned judgment, dated 09.02.2000, and order, dated 14.02.2000, passed, in Sessions Trial No. 532 of 1999/ 396 of 1996, by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, the present two appellants, Brij Kishore Singh and Kamleshwar Giri, stand convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and, following their conviction, as mentioned hereinbefore, the appellants have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, as unfolded, at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under:– (i) The two accused-appellants, namely, Brij Kishore Singh and Kamleshwar Giri, were posted, as Constables of the Railway Police Force, at G.R.P. P.S., Bandhua railway station, and used to live in R.P.F. barrack situated at platform No.1; (ii) Bharat Singh (since deceased), a month before his death, had given loan to Brij Kishore Singh, appellant No.1, and when Bharat Singh started demanding repayment of the said loan, relation between the appellant No.1 and Bharat Singh became strained; (iii) On 20.07.1994, at about 2.00/3.00 A.M., Bharat Singh (deceased) went to Bandhua railway station to receive his brother-in-law, who was to arrive by a passenger train; (iv) On that very day, i.e., 20.07.1994, on hearing hulla, at about 04.45 A.M., Jhulan Singh (P.W.7) received information that his brother, Bharat Singh, had been shot dead at the said railway station. On receiving this information, P.W.7, accompanied by his family members, rushed to the said railway station and found, on arrival there, Bharat Singh lying dead at a Chabutra (i.e., a raised platform), at the R.P.F. barrack, he (Bharat Singh) having been killed on being shot by a fire-arm; (v) Though P.W.7 and his other co-villagers tried to find out some clue as to how Bharat Singh had died, they did not initially receive any clue. P.W.7, then, at about 06.45 P.M, informed, on telephone, Muffasil Police Station. P.W.7, then, at about 06.45 P.M, informed, on telephone, Muffasil Police Station. The oral information, so received, was entered into the station diary of the said police station, the relevant Entry being S.D.E. No. 519, dated 20.07.1994; (vi) As Bharat Singh’s dead body had been found at the said railway station, Kodarma G.R.P. Police Station had also come to know about Bharat Singh having been killed and an entry had already been made, in this regard, at Kodarma G.R.P. Police Station, at 06.45 A.M., the Entry being S.D.E.No. 312, dated 20.07.1994; (vii) Having made the Entry (i.e., S.D.E. No. 519, dated 20.07.1994) aforementioned, Officer-in-Charge, Muffassil Police Station, reached the said railway station and recorded a fardbeyan (Exhibit-5) of P.W.7, brother of the said deceased. Inquest was held over the said dead body and inquest report (Exhibit-6) was prepared; (viii) Since the place of occurrence fell within the jurisdiction of Kodarma G.R.P. Police Station, Kodarma G.R.P. Police Station Case No. 17/94 was registered, on the basis of the said fardbeyan (Exhibit-5), under Section 302 IPC read with Section 27 Arms Act, 1959; (ix) During the course of investigation, Bharat Singh’s dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. Later investigation revealed that the present two accused-appellants had come, on 20.07.1994, at about 1.00 A.M., to the house of Bharat Singh and took him with them to the railway station and, while Bharat Singh was going towards the railway station, in the company of the present two appellants, some witnesses, in the neighbourhood, had seen Bharat Singh proceeding towards the railway station along with Brij Kishore Singh and Kamleshwar Giri; (x) On completing investigation, charge-sheet was laid against as many as six persons under Section 302/34 IPC read with Section 27 Arms Act, 1959. 3. At the trial, when charges, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act, 1959, were framed, all the accused aforementioned pleaded not guilty thereto. 4. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 14 (fourteen) witnesses. The said six accused persons were, then, examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In their examinations aforementioned, all the said six accused 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. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 5. The said six accused persons were, then, examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In their examinations aforementioned, all the said six accused 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. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 5. The learned trial Court has concluded that the deceased was last seen in the company of the present two appellants and having found the present two appellants, Brij Kishore Singh and Kamleshwar Giri, guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, the learned trial Court has convicted them accordingly and passed sentence against them as has been mentioned above. The learned trial Court has, however, acquitted the present appellants of the charge framed against them under Section 27 Arms Act, 1959. The learned trial Court has also held the remaining accused, who had been put to trial, not guilty of the charges framed against them and has acquitted them accordingly. 6. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sentence, which has been passed against them, the two convicts, Brij Kishore Singh and Kamleshwar Giri, have preferred this appeal. 7. We have heard Ms. Fauzia Shakil, learned counsel for the appellant No.1, and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. We have also heard Mr. Neeraj Kumar alias Sanidh, learned counsel, who has appeared as Amicus Curiae. 8. While considering the present appeal, it is necessary to bear in mind that the case against the two appellants is based on circumstantial evidence inasmuch as there is, admittedly, no eye witness to the occurrence of shooting of Bharat Singh by any of the present two appellants. It is also relevant to note that P.W.1 to P.W.7 are relatives of the said deceased inasmuch as while P.W.7 is the brother of the said deceased, P.Ws 1,3,4 and 5 are cousins of the said deceased and P.W.6 is widow of the said deceased. As the said witnesses are relatives of the said deceased, their evidence needs to be cautiously examined and every possibility, of any of the present two appellants having been implicated either on suspicion or falsely, has to be ruled out. 9. As the said witnesses are relatives of the said deceased, their evidence needs to be cautiously examined and every possibility, of any of the present two appellants having been implicated either on suspicion or falsely, has to be ruled out. 9. Learned trial Court has found several incriminating circumstances against the appellants and, having come to the conclusion that these circumstances have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, concluded that the charge of committing murder has been brought home against the two accused appellants. These circumstances are, broadly speaking, as follows:– (i) Bharat Singh met with homicidal death; (ii) Bharat Singh had given a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (thirty thousand), as loan, to accused Brij Kishore Singh and when Bharat Singh demanded repayment of his money, the relation of Bharat Singh with accused-appellant Brij Kishore Singh became strained; (iii) Both the accused-appellants were posted as members of Railway Police Force at Bandhua railway station and used to live in R.P.F. barrack, which was situated at platform No.1 of the said railway station; (iv) Both the accused-appellants were present at their barrack on the night of the occurrence; but when the police visited the place of occurrence, the two accused-appellants were found absconding; (v) Bharat Singh’s dead body was found on a Chabutra, (i.e., a raised platform), at the R.P.F. barrack; (vi) Accused Brij Kishore Singh had sent information to village, Bandhua, through Ram Chander Yadav and Nandu Paswan, that Bharat Singh had died in a railway accident, though Bharat Singh had died on being shot by a fire-arm; (vii) The two accused-appellants, Brij Kishore Singh and Kamleshwar Giri, were on visiting terms with Bharat Singh and Bharat Singh was last seen in the company of the accused-appellants inasmuch as both of them had visited the house of Bharat Singh on 20.07.1994 at 01.00 A.M. and took him to accompany them to Bandhua railway station; (viii) When Bharat Singh was proceeding in the company of the two accused-appellants, he was seen by P.Ws.4, 5 and 6; 10. It is, now, imperative to note that if the conclusion, reached by the learned trial Court, that the said deceased was last seen by P.Ws. It is, now, imperative to note that if the conclusion, reached by the learned trial Court, that the said deceased was last seen by P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 in the company of the present accused-appellants, is found by this Court, in this appeal, to be correct, it would undeniably be an extremely important incriminating circumstance against the two accused-appellants inasmuch as there can be no doubt that if the two accused-appellants were last seen together with the said deceased at about 1.00 A.M. on 20.07.1994 and dead body of the said deceased was found lying at 4.40 A.M. on 20.07.1994, the onus, in the light of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, would lie on the two accused-appellants to explain as to when and how they had parted company with the said deceased. 11. While considering the evidence of the three witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6, it needs to be noted that it has been deposed, at the trial, for the first time, by P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 that the said deceased was seen last in the company of two accused-appellants. In the absence of any statement having been made, in course of investigation, by P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 that they had seen the said deceased going in the company of the present two accused-appellants, the assertions, so made by P.W. 4, 5 and 6, must be regarded as substantial improvements made by them on their previous statements and cannot be safely relied upon unless some convincing explanation for their omission to make any such statement, during investigation, is discernible from the evidence on record. 12. It is in the evidence of P.W.4 that on 19.07.1994, at about 1.00 O’clock night (i.e., on 20.07.1994 at about 1.00 A.M.) while he was sleeping in his Dalan (courtyard), he heard sound of some persons walking and, by means of a torch light, he saw Bharat Singh, in the company of Kamleshwar Giri and Brij Kishore Singh, walking towards station and, in the morning, he (P.W.4) found Bharat Singh’s wife (P.W.6) crying and saying that Brij Kishore Singh and Kamleshwar Giri had killed Bharat Singh. 13. 13. While appreciating the above evidence of P.W. 4, it is pertinent to note that P.W.7, brother of the said deceased, is the informant and the fardbeyan, which has been treated as First Information Report, was signed not only by P.W. 7, but also by P.W.4, who had, in fact, signed the First Information Report as a witness. 14. It is imperative to note that it was suggested to P.W.4 by the defence, in the cross-examination, that P.W.4 had not stated before the police that he had seen Bharat Singh going towards station along with Brij Kishore Singh and Kamleshwar Giri. Though P.W.4 has denied the suggestion and asserted that he did not make such a statement, what is immensely important to note is that the statement of P.W.4 was recorded on 23.07.1994, i.e., on the 4th day of the occurrence, and the Investigating Officer, posted at Kodarma R.P.F. Police Station, has admitted that no such statement, as indicated hereinbefore, was made by P.W.4 during investigation. 15. Thus, even on the 4th day of the occurrence, the statement, made by P.W.4, did not reveal that he had seen Bharat Singh going, in the company of Brij Kishore Singh and Kamleshwar Giri, towards railway station at 1.00 O’clock night, as has been, now, claimed by P.W.4. 16. Consequently, the evidence so given, for the first time, at the trial, by P.W. 4 claiming to have seen Bharat Singh going in the company of the two accused-appellants, on 20.07.1994 about 1.00 A.M., ought not to have been believed by the learned trial Court, particularly, when no explanation has been offered by the witness (P.W.4) for his omission to state before police that he had seen Bharat Singh going, as he has claimed now, towards station along with Brij Kishore Singh and Kamleshwar Giri. 17. Coupled with the above, P.W.4 has also claimed that he had reported to P.W.7 (informant) the fact that he had seen Bharat Singh along with Brij Kishore Singh and Kamleshwar Giri going towards railway station. However, the fardbeyan (Exhibit-5), lodged by P.W.7 and treated as the First Information Report, does not mention name of any of the two accused-appellants as person(s), who were suspected to be involved in the occurrence or had been seen last in the company of the two accused-appellants. 18. However, the fardbeyan (Exhibit-5), lodged by P.W.7 and treated as the First Information Report, does not mention name of any of the two accused-appellants as person(s), who were suspected to be involved in the occurrence or had been seen last in the company of the two accused-appellants. 18. It is, thus, clear that the evidence of P.W. 4 that he had seen, on 20.07.1994, at about 1.00 A.M., the said deceased going towards the railway station in the company of the present two accused-appellants ought not to have been believed in or relied upon. No different is the quality of evidence of P.W.5, who, too, is a relative of the said deceased, inasmuch as P.W.5 has claimed, in his evidence, that on 19.07.1994, at about 1.00 O’clock at night (i.e., on 20.07.1994, at 1.00 A.M.) while he was sleeping in his house, he woke up and saw, with the help of torch light, Bharat Singh going along with Brij Kishore Singh and Kamleshwar Giri and when he (P.W.5) was going towards school, he was told by Nandu Paswan that Bharat Singh had died in an accident. 19. While considering the evidence of P.W. 5, it is noteworthy that in his previous statement, recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, P.W.5, too, had made no such statement. 20. The evidence of P.W.5, thus, stands on the same footing as does the evidence of P.W.4 and, hence, none of these two witnesses, for the reasons we have indicated above, can be believed in or relied upon. 21. Coming to the evidence of P.W.6, widow of the said deceased, it may be noted that though she has claimed, at the trial, that on the night of the occurrence, at about 1.00 A.M., the two accused-appellants had come to her house and asked her husband, Bharat Singh, to accompany them to the railway station and though she had asked her husband not to go with the two accused-appellants, her husband had told her that since he had given Rs. 30,000/- (thirty thousand), as loan, to Brij Kishore Singh, he had to take that money from him and, in the morning, she was informed that her husband had been found dead. 30,000/- (thirty thousand), as loan, to Brij Kishore Singh, he had to take that money from him and, in the morning, she was informed that her husband had been found dead. The Investigating Officer has, however, confirmed that in her previous statement, recorded during the investigation, P.W.6 had made no statement that the two accused-appellants had come to her house at about 1.00 O’clock night and taken away her husband, along with them, to railway station. 22. Thus, the circumstance of the said deceased having been seen last in the company of two accused-appellants must be held to have not been proved and the contrary finding, reached in this regard, by the trial Court, is wholly erroneous. 23. Let us, now, turn to the medical evidence on record. It may be noted that the doctor (P.W. 12), who had conducted post mortem examination, on 20.07.1994, at 11.30 A.M., on the dead body of Bharat Singh, found as follows:– “(i) One wound of entry ½”x1/4”x cranial cavity deep over upper part of left eye, causing laceration of eye-lid. Left eye ball was perforated and arbital plates were found fractured. No blackening or tattooing was found at the margin of wound. Abrasion caller was found on the margin of wound. (ii) One exit wound 1 ¼”x ½”x cranial cavity deep was found over the left side of occipital region. The margin of inner coat was clean cut while the outer coat was bevelling. No blacking, tattooing or abrasion colour was found around the wound. Both the injuries were intercommunicating and intervening cranial tissues and membranes were perforated. Cranial cavity was filled with blood and blood clots. No bullet or pellet was found.” 24. The doctor has opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage arising out of injuries caused by fire-arm, which was sufficient, in ordinary course of nature, to cause death of a person and the time elapsed since death was 24 hours. The doctor (P.W.12) has proved the relevant post mortem report as Exhibit-2. 25. The doctor has opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage arising out of injuries caused by fire-arm, which was sufficient, in ordinary course of nature, to cause death of a person and the time elapsed since death was 24 hours. The doctor (P.W.12) has proved the relevant post mortem report as Exhibit-2. 25. Considering the fact that the evidence, given by the doctor (P.W.7), has not been shaken in any manner coupled with the fact that we do not find the doctor’s evidence suffering from any inherent falsity, incorrectness or improbability, we do hold that Bharat Singh died due to shock and haemorrhage caused by bullet fired from a fire-arm and the injury so sustained was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death of a person. 26. When the evidence of P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 are read together, it transpires that the material evidence, given by these three witnesses, are to the effect that the two accused-appellants had come to the house of the deceased on the night of the occurrence i.e. 20.07.1994, at about 1.00 A.M., and taken the said deceased with them to the railway station and that P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 had seen, around the same time (i.e., about 1.00 A.M., on 20.07.1994) the said deceased going, in the company of the two accused-appellants, and, thereafter, between 4.00 A.M. and 5.00 A.M. on 20.07.1994, the dead body of the said deceased was found lying at platform No. 1 of the said Railway Station. 27. Inasmuch as none of the two witnesses, namely, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 had, according to their previous statements, made under Section 161 Cr.P.C., stated that they had seen the said deceased going along with the two accused-appellants, their evidence to this effect given, at the trial, for the first time, cannot, if we may reiterate, be safely believed in or relied upon. No different is the position of the evidence of P.W. 6, widow of the said deceased, inasmuch as she, too, had not stated, in her previous statement, during investigation, that the two accused-appellants had come to her house on 20.07.1994 at about 1.00 A.M. and had taken her husband, Bharat Singh, away with them to the railway station, where Bharat Singh’s dead body was found lying between 4.00 A.M. and 5.00 A.M. on 20.07.1994. 28. 28. Situated thus, it is clear that the evidence given by P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6, for the first time at the trial, projecting that the said deceased had gone to the railway station along with the present two accused-appellants or had been seen going, in the company of the two accused-appellants, towards the railway station cannot at all be believed in or relied upon, more particularly, when we notice that contrary to the assertion of P.W. 4 that he had informed P.W.7 that he had seen the two accused-appellants accompanying, as mentioned hereinbefore, Bharat Singh, going, in the company of the present two appellants, towards the railway station, the fardbeyan (Exhibit-5) did not mention the said fact. 29. Coming to the alleged motive, it is the prosecution’s case that the said deceased had given a loan of Rs. 30,000/- (thirty thousand) to the Appellant No. 1, Brij Kishore Singh, and since the Appellant No. 1 had failed to repay the amount, the entire occurrence, leading to the killing of Bharat Singh, had taken place. 30. With regard to the above, the evidence, given by P.W. 6, is that the said amount was given to the Appellant No. 1 by the said deceased a month before the occurrence; whereas P.W. 7 claims that the said deceased had told him that he had given the said amount, as loan, to the Appellant No. 1, in the month of June, 1993, i.e., almost a year before the occurrence. None of the two witnesses, namely, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 had seen the said deceased giving any money, as loan, to the Appellant No. 1; hence, their evidence, as to what the said deceased had informed them, in this regard, is nothing but hearsay and could not have been treated as admissible, because the information, which the said deceased had given to P.W. 6 and/or P.W. 7, did not fall within the ambit of Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act. 31. 31. However, even if one treated the said evidence, as regards giving of loan, by the said deceased to the Appellant No. 1, as admissible in evidence, the fact remains that the evidence, given, in this regard, by P.W. 6 and P.W. 7, is not at all creditworthy inasmuch as P.W. 6 claims, as we have indicated above, that the loan was given a month before the occurrence had taken place; whereas P.W. 7 claims that the loan was given to the Appellant No. 1 by the said deceased almost a year before the occurrence had taken place. 32. When the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 7 are found to be suffering from reconcilable inconsistency with regard to the loan, which had allegedly been given by the said deceased to the Appellant No. 1 Brij Kishore Singh, no credence can be given to the evidence of the brother (P.W. 7) and widow (P.W. 6) of the said deceased that a loan of Rs. 30,000/- (thirty thousand) had been given to the accused-appellant No. 1 Brij Kishore Singh. 33. Thus, the motive, which had been alleged against the two accused-appellants for causing death of Bharat Singh, cannot be treated to have been satisfactorily and convincingly proved. 34. Moreover, though motive is a relevant consideration for the purpose of determining guilt of an accused, particularly, when the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the fact remains that motive alone, in the absence of any other convincing, cogent, reliable, trustworthy and credible evidence, proving an accused as the only perpetrator of the crime, cannot be of any avail to the prosecution. 35. Yet another circumstance, alleged against the accused-appellants, is that they had absconded soon after the occurrence. With regard to this aspect of the prosecution’s case, it is worth noticing that the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 clearly shows that when the police party visited the place of occurrence, both the appellants were present there. In fact, according to the evidence of P.W. 9, who is Station Master of Bandhua Police Station, both the appellants were present, on duty, till 21.07.1994. In fact, according to the evidence of P.W. 9, who is Station Master of Bandhua Police Station, both the appellants were present, on duty, till 21.07.1994. Added to the evidence so given by the Station Master (P.W. 9), the Investigating Officer (P.W. 13) has himself admitted, in his evidence, that having come to know from Gajandhi R.P.F. Post that the two appellants had been asked to report, at Dhanbad, by their department, he recorded the statements of both the appellants on duty. In the face of these pieces of evidence, it is well-nigh impossible to infer, far less confidently hold, that the two appellants had absconded soon after the occurrence. 36. Coupled with the above pieces of alleged incriminating circumstances, the learned trial Court has also relied on the evidence given by P.W. 5 (Krishna Singh) to the effect that while P.W. 5 was going towards Middle School, on 20.07.1994, between 4.00 A.M. and 5.00 A.M., he met Nanhku Paswan and Ram Chandra Yadav, who told him (P.W.5) that Brij Kishore Singh (i.e., the present appellant), had informed them (Nanhku Paswan and Ram Chandra Yadav) that Bharat Singh had been dashed against by train. To the same effect is the evidence of the informant (P.W.7) that he, too, had been told, on 20.07.1994, at about 5.00 A.M., by Krishna Singh (P.W.5) that Ram Chandra and Nanhku Paswan had given him (P.W.5) the information that Bharat had died in a train accident and that the said information had been given to P.W.5 (Krishna Singh) by accused Brij Kishore Singh. 37. We may, at this stage, pause here and point out that the alleged information, given by Nanhku Paswan and Ram Chandra Yadav, that Bharat Singh had died, in a railway accident, was nothing, but hearsay inasmuch as there is no evidence on record to show that the accused-appellant, Brij Kishore Singh, had reported to Nanhku Paswan and Ram Chandra Yadav and/or to P.W. 5 (Krishna Singh) that Bharat Singh had died in a railway accident. 38. We may also point out that according to the evidence of P.W. 2, who is also a relative of the said deceased, on hearing the sound of crying, on 20.07.1994, he went to Bharat Singh’s house, where Bharat Singh’s wife (P.W. 6) was wailing and saying that Brij Kishore Singh and Kamleshwar Giri had killed her husband. 38. We may also point out that according to the evidence of P.W. 2, who is also a relative of the said deceased, on hearing the sound of crying, on 20.07.1994, he went to Bharat Singh’s house, where Bharat Singh’s wife (P.W. 6) was wailing and saying that Brij Kishore Singh and Kamleshwar Giri had killed her husband. However, it is interesting to note that P.W. 2 does not claim to have informed anyone as to what Bharat Singh’s wife had allegedly said. 39. No wonder, therefore, that fardbeyan does not even express suspicion on any of the two accused-appellants. The above inference gets strengthened from the fact that it was after two days of the occurrence that P.W. 2, for the first time, disclosed to the police that Bharat Singh’s wife had been naming the two accused aforementioned as assailants of her husband. 40. In the circumstances indicated above, apart from the fact that no credence can be given to the evidence of P.W. 2, it is also important to note that his evidence, even if believed, does not advance the case of the prosecution inasmuch as merely naming of the two accused-appellants, as assailants, by the widow of the said deceased, cannot be taken to have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the two accused-appellants or any of them had killed Bharat Singh and, hence, no conviction could have been founded on this kind of claim. 41. So far as P.W. 3 is concerned, his evidence is that the informant, Jhulan Singh (P.W.7), and Krishna Singh (P.W. 5), had informed him (P.W.3) that Brij Kishore Singh, Kamleshwar Giri, Nanhku Paswan, Ram Chandra Yadav, Anil Yadav and Budhua Pagala had killed Bharat Singh. 42. Inasmuch as P.W.7 does not claim that he had reported any such thing to P.W.3 nor does Krishna Singh (P.W.5) claims that he had informed P.W.3 that Bharat Singh had been killed by Brij Kishore Singh and Kamleshwar Giri, the evidence, given by P.W. 3, can be treated nothing more than hearsay. 43. 42. Inasmuch as P.W.7 does not claim that he had reported any such thing to P.W.3 nor does Krishna Singh (P.W.5) claims that he had informed P.W.3 that Bharat Singh had been killed by Brij Kishore Singh and Kamleshwar Giri, the evidence, given by P.W. 3, can be treated nothing more than hearsay. 43. So far the informant (P.W.7), brother of the said deceased, is concerned, his deposition is that on 20.07.1994, at about 5.00 A.M., Krishna Singh (P.W.5) had informed him about the death of his brother, Bharat Singh, as a result of railway accident, whereupon he, accompanied by Permanand Singh (P.W. 4) and Krishna Singh (P.W.5), went to Bandhua railway station and found Bharat Singh’s dead body lying there. 44. Though P.W.7, too, claims that Bharat Singh’s wife told him that her husband had been killed by Brij Kishore Singh and Kamleshwar Giri and that the two accused-appellants had taken Bharat Singh on the night of the occurrence with them, no evidence has been given by P.W.6 (widow of the said deceased) that she gave any such information to P.W. 7. 45. Thus, apart from the fact that what P.W. 7 has deposed is nothing but hearsay, it is also noteworthy that we have already held the evidence of P.W. 6 unsafe to place reliance upon that her husband had gone, along with Brij Kishore Singh and Kamleshwar Giri, to railway station. 46. What crystallizes from the above discussion is that none of the incriminating circumstances, which the learned trial Court has relied upon, could be proved legally and convincingly. 47. In a situation, such as the one we have described above, the evidence, given by the prosecution witnesses, could not have been made basis for conviction of any of the accused-appellants and the two accused-appellants ought to have been acquitted by the learned trial Court. 48. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction of the two accused-appellants and the sentence passed against them by the judgment and order under appeal. Both the accused-appellants are held not guilty of the offence, which they stand convicted of, and they are acquitted of the same. 49. Bail bonds of the accused-appellants are hereby cancelled and their sureties shall accordingly stand discharged. 50. Both the accused-appellants are held not guilty of the offence, which they stand convicted of, and they are acquitted of the same. 49. Bail bonds of the accused-appellants are hereby cancelled and their sureties shall accordingly stand discharged. 50. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned Court below with a copy of this judgment and order. V.N.SINHA, J.:–I agree.