JUDGMENT Amitav K. Gupta, J.–This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.4.2003 and 7.5.2003 respectively passed by IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 156 of 2001/38 of 2002 whereby appellant nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been convicted under Sections 120-B/302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant nos. 2 to 13 have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/149/34 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. The appellant nos. 2 to 4, 7 and 10 to 12 have been convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years. The appellant nos. 5, 6, 8, 9 and 13 have been convicted under Section 147 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years. The appellant nos. 7 and 10 have been convicted under Section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act and they have been sentenced for seven years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. 2. In course of hearing it has been informed that appellant no. 1-Chutari Matha, appellant no. 5-Rajesh Matha and appellant no. 13-Lalu Yadav have died during the pendency of this appeal, accordingly, the appeal has abated against the aforementioned appellants. 3. The case of the prosecution as unfolded in the fardbeyan of the informant Umesh Prasad Yadav (P.W. 6) is that on 11.5.2001 at 8 a.m. the informant along with his brothers viz. Pitamber Yadav and Mahesh Yadav @ Maheshwari Yadav were returning home from Godda on the motorcycle whereby at about 5 p.m. they reached Lilje river bridge and crossed the river by kachhi road. It is stated that on south western corner of the bridge they spotted Kesho Matha (appellant no. 3), Krishna Matha (appellant no. 2) and Karunakar Chaudhary (appellant no. 4) armed with farsa (hatchet), saang (Barchha)-short spear and iron rod respectively and when they proceeded they saw Lalu Yadav, appellant no. 13 (since dead), Rajesh Matha, appellant no. 5, Ram Yadav, appellant no. 6, Buteshwar Yadav, appellant no. 7 and Sitabi Yadav, appellant no. 10 hiding in a ditch towards east of the road who came out running and shouted to encircle them. 13 (since dead), Rajesh Matha, appellant no. 5, Ram Yadav, appellant no. 6, Buteshwar Yadav, appellant no. 7 and Sitabi Yadav, appellant no. 10 hiding in a ditch towards east of the road who came out running and shouted to encircle them. It is alleged that Lalu Yadav, Rajesh Matha and Ram Yadav were armed with pistol whereas Buteshwar Yadav and Sitabi Yadav had jhola (bag) in their hand whereafter, the informant asked his brother Mahesh @ Maheshwar Yadav to stop the motorcycle and they fled away to save their lives. It is stated that in the meantime, he saw Babulal Yadav (appellant no. 9), Mantu Yadav (appellant no. 8), Parmanand Yadav (appellant no. 12) and Sanjay Yadav (appellant no. 11) on the South-Western side of the field armed with katta, pistol, farsa and gadansa respectively. It is said that the informant ran away towards Vast and reached Village-Dumaria and his brothers fled westward from the road. It is alleged that the accused persons were hurling bombs and firing from their pistols while chasing his brothers and they caught and assaulted his brothers with the weapons causing grievous injuries to them. They shouted for help but the people of the vicinity did not come to their rescue as the accused persons are a terror in the area and they are involved in several cases of murder, dacoity and rangdari and some of them have been convicted in the aforesaid case's due to which the people of the locality do not have the courage neither do they dare to oppose them or to testify against them in the court. It is said that the reason and the motive for the alleged occurrence was due to previous enmity and one of the brothers of the informant had lodged a case with the police on 30.4.2001 in which Chutari Matha (appellant no. 1) (since dead) was arrested and remanded to jail and the said Chutari Matha had ordered and directed the accused to kill the informant and his brothers. It is stated that after the accused persons had fled away the informant along with the police went to the place of occurrence and found that his two brothers were brutally killed and their hands and feet had been fractured and they had also bleeding cut injuries. It is stated that after the accused persons had fled away the informant along with the police went to the place of occurrence and found that his two brothers were brutally killed and their hands and feet had been fractured and they had also bleeding cut injuries. On the basis of the fardbeyan Godda (M) P.S. Case No. 132 of 2001 dated 11.5.2001 was registered under Sections 147/148/149/302/323/325/120-B I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act. The police prepared the inquest report and sent the dead bodies for post mortem examination. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants and cognizance was taken whereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After commitment, the case was transferred to the court of IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge for trial and disposal. The accused persons were put to trial and charges were framed to which the appellants pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of his case viz.- P.W. 1-Lobin Mandal (maternal uncle of the Informant) P.W. 2-Pradeep Yadav (maternal brother of the Informant) P.W. 3-Anil Yadav and P.W. 4-Rajendra Yadav are the brothers of Informant. P.W. 5-Arun Kumar Yadav is the cousin of the brother-in-law (behnoi) of the Informant. P.W. 6-Umesh Prasad Yadav is the Informant P.W. 7-Dr. Sudhan Murmu, who along with PW. 9-Dr. Ajay Kumar Jha conducted post mortem over the dead bodies of deceased Pitamber Yadav and Maheshwar Yadav. P.W. 8-Deep Narayan Yadav is the cousin brother of the Informant. P.W. 10-Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sinha has proved the injury reports of the accused/appellantsj viz. Kesho Mahta, Karunakar Choudhury and Rajesh Yadav. P.W. 11-Girija Prasad Sharma is the Investigating Officer of the case. 5. Prosecution has also brought on record the signature of P.W. 2 (Exts.-1 & 1/A) and P.W. 3 (Exts.-2 & 2/A) on the seizure list, signatures of P.W. 4 (Exts. Pradeep Kumar Sinha has proved the injury reports of the accused/appellantsj viz. Kesho Mahta, Karunakar Choudhury and Rajesh Yadav. P.W. 11-Girija Prasad Sharma is the Investigating Officer of the case. 5. Prosecution has also brought on record the signature of P.W. 2 (Exts.-1 & 1/A) and P.W. 3 (Exts.-2 & 2/A) on the seizure list, signatures of P.W. 4 (Exts. 3 & 3/5) and P.W. 8 (Exts.-3/1 and 3/2) on the inquest report; Fardbeyan (Ext.-4), Postmortem reports (Ext.-5 & 5/1) and signature of P.W. 7, injury reports of the accused persons (Ext.-6 & 6/A), inquest report (Ext.-2), seizure list (Exts.-3/3 & 3/4), formal FIR (Ext.-6), seizure list of remnants of bomb (Ext.-8), Ext.-9 is the seizure of blood-stained soil, Ext.-10 is the certified copy of FIR of Godda (M) P.S. Case No. 121/ 2001, Ext.-11 is the certified copy of FIR of Godda (T) P.S. Case No. 84/88, Exts.-12, 13 & 14 are the certified copies of Sessions Register which shows that accused/appellants Chutari Mahta, Kishan Mahta and Kesho Mahta were convicted in the said cases, Ext.-15 is the certified copy of judgment of S.T. Nos. 27 of 1997/128 of 1998 regarding the order of conviction of accused persons including Chutari Mahta, Kishan Mahta and Kesho Mahta in the case lodged by the deceased Pitamber Yadav. Ext.-16 is the sanction order of the District Magistrate, Godda with respect to the offence under Sections 3 & 4 of Explosive Substances Act. On closure of the prosecution case the statement of the appellants was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the defence of the appellant is of complete denial and false implication. 6. On behalf of the defence, certified copy of the judgment of G.R. Case No. 1027/97/T.R. Case No. 75 of 98 has been filed as Ext.-A and the depositions of witnesses of T.R. Case No. 75/98 are Exts.B-B/4. Besides this, Nagnath Pathak, A.S.I., in-charge of Court Hajat, Godda has been examined as D.W. 1 who has proved the details of under trial prisoner entered on the page of hajat register dated 4.5.2001 and marked as Ext.-C. Ext.-D is letter No. 277 dated 21.3.2003 of Dy. Superintendent (Jail), Godda Sub-Jail and Ext.-E is the certified copy of the order sheet dated 4.5.2001 of Sessions Case Nos. 176 of 2001/80 of 2001. Superintendent (Jail), Godda Sub-Jail and Ext.-E is the certified copy of the order sheet dated 4.5.2001 of Sessions Case Nos. 176 of 2001/80 of 2001. On the basis of the evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, accordingly the present appeal is carried to this Court against the impugned judgment. 7. Learned Counsel of the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment inter alia on the grounds that the trial Court failed to appreciate the material contradictions in the testimony of P.Ws. 2 & 6 which reveals that they are not the eye witnesses of the occurrence; that the trial Court did not consider the fact that the prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the accused/appellants; that the witnesses are related and interested and no independent witnesses have been examined in support of the prosecution story; that the post mortem report does not support the prosecution case that the seized material (remnants of the bomb and blood-stained soil) were not sent for chemical or expert examination which creates a doubt regarding the case of the prosecution; that there is inordinate delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Court which proves that there was interpolation in the F.I.R. On the said grounds, it is advocated that the trial Court erred in law and on facts by not appreciating the material contradictions inherent in the prosecution's case and the impugned judgment is against the weight of evidence on record and is fit to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that P.Ws. 2 & 6 are the eye witnesses and they have fully supported the prosecution case; that there is no material contradictions in the testimonies of P.Ws. 2 & 6; that the post mortem report and the inquest report corroborate the manner of occurrence as testified and deposed by P.Ws. 2 & 6. That there was no unreasonable delay in sending the F.I.R. and the evidence is consistent to fasten the charges against the appellants. That the non-sending of the blood-stained soil or the remnants of bomb for expert examination is an irregularity which does not demolish or destroy the prosecution's case and the trial Court has appreciated and analysed the evidence on record. Accordingly, the impugned judgment does not require any interference and the appeal should be dismissed. 9. That the non-sending of the blood-stained soil or the remnants of bomb for expert examination is an irregularity which does not demolish or destroy the prosecution's case and the trial Court has appreciated and analysed the evidence on record. Accordingly, the impugned judgment does not require any interference and the appeal should be dismissed. 9. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsels. On perusal of the evidence and the documents on record, it is necessary to examine the factual and legal issues involved in the case for determining whether the impugned judgment is sustainable on facts and in law? 10. P.Ws. 7 & 9 are the doctors who conducted the post mortem on the dead bodies of both the deceased. As per the autopsy report, the doctors found ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Pitamber Yadav which are as follows :- I. Incised wound 2-1/2" x 1/4" x scalp deep on the left side of the forehead. II. Left eye was crushed. III. Lacerated wound 4" x 2-1/2" x 2" with charring of margin situated over the upper part of the left. Shoulder and back of the shoulder. Foreign body was preserved. IV. Multiple longitudinal bruise over the back in chest and right plank of abdomen. V. Multiple bruise over left thigh and buttock. VI. Lacerated wound 2-1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" over the right forearm posteriorly just below the elbow. VII. Diffused swelling on the right hand with fracture of proximal phalanges of index and middle finger. VIII. Diffused swelling of the lower part of both legs with fracture of tibia and fibula, both legs. On dissection, the skull was intact, brain and meninges were pale, liver-kidney were pale and stomach contained undigested food material about 300 ml. and bladder contained 100 ml. urine. In the opinion of the doctors, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to the aforesaid injuries. Injury No. 1 was caused by sharp cutting weapon and injury no. 3 was caused by explosive substance and other injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance, the time elapsed was within 27 hours. On post mortem of dead body of Mahesh Yadav alias Maheshwari, the following ante mortem injuries were found :- I. Contaminated compound fracture of tibia and fibula of both legs with gross laceration over the lower part of the leg. II. On post mortem of dead body of Mahesh Yadav alias Maheshwari, the following ante mortem injuries were found :- I. Contaminated compound fracture of tibia and fibula of both legs with gross laceration over the lower part of the leg. II. Six incised wounds measuring 3" x 1/2" x scalp deep over the vault. III. Compound fracture of right humerus bone protruding through the skin posteriorly. IV. Bruise over the right forearm 3" x 3" with fracture of the radius and ulna bone. V. Diffused swelling on the left forearm with fracture of the radius and ulna bone. VI. Lacerated wound 4" x 2" x 1/2" over the left side of the forehead. VII. Diffused swelling over the right cheek. VIII. Lacerated wound over the left elbow posteriorly 1" x 2" x 1/4". IX. Multiple longitudinal bruise over the back of the chest. X. Incised wound 6" x 1-1/2" x 1" longitudinally over the median border of right foot. The stomach contained little water and metosal fluid; bladder contained about 300 ml. urine; death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries mentioned above. The doctor opined that injury nos. II and X were caused by sharp cutting weapon and all other injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. 11. Thus, from the post mortem report, it is clear that the deceased died a homicidal death. Now it has to be determined whether the prosecution has been able to establish whether the appellants are guilty for the commission of the crime i.e. the double murder. 12. The contention of the defence is that the witnesses examined by the prosecution viz. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are related to the informant and the deceased and they are interested witnesses. Thus, the legal issue which arises for consideration is whether the evidence of related and interested witnesses should be believed or not. In this context, it is necessary to state that in a catena of decisions, it has been propounded that merely because the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased, their evidence cannot be disbelieved. Thus, the legal issue which arises for consideration is whether the evidence of related and interested witnesses should be believed or not. In this context, it is necessary to state that in a catena of decisions, it has been propounded that merely because the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased, their evidence cannot be disbelieved. In fact, the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated and in case the evidence has a ring of truth in it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should be relied upon as has been held in the case of Bhagaloo Lodh and Others vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 2011 SC 2292 and in the case of Dhari and Others vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 2013 SC 308 . It is also settled proposition of law that related witness is not equivalent to a interested witness and a witness may be called as interested or labelled as interested who wants to derive some benefit out of litigation/case. In the case of Sachchey Lal Tiwari vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 2004 SC 5039 , it has been held in para 7 which reads as follows :- ".......................murders are not committed with previous notice to witness soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passers-by will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or waived with suspicion on the ground that they are mere 'chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance witnesses' is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and everyone must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country where people are less formal and more casual at any rate in the matter explaining their presence." 13. In view of the above, it can be said that natural witnesses may not be labelled as interested witness and their deposition cannot be discarded or disbelieved merely on the grounds of being closely related to the victim/deceased. This being the legal position and given the fact that the witnesses examined are related to the informant and the deceased their evidence has to be scrutinised with caution. 14. This being the legal position and given the fact that the witnesses examined are related to the informant and the deceased their evidence has to be scrutinised with caution. 14. In this case, the prosecution story, as per the fardbeyan of P.W. 6, is that while he was returning along with his brothers on the motorcycle, they were accosted/intercepted by the accused persons who killed his two brothers. P.W. 6 has testified that while they were returning home from Godda, they reached Dumaria Chowk, where they met P.W. 2 and stopped and talked to him for 2-3 minutes and when they proceeded, they met P.W. 8 on the northern bank of Lilji river and they had talks with him for a minute. That when they crossed the river, on the west adjacent to the bridge, they saw appellant-Kesho Mahta armed with farsa, Kishan Mahta had a barchha in his hand and Karunakar Choudhry was armed with an iron rod. When they proceeded further, they saw appellant Rajesh Yadav, Lalu Yadav and Ram Yadav armed with pistol and appellant Buteshwar Yadav and Sitabi Yadav had a bag containing bombs, who came out from the ditch in which they were hiding situated towards the east of the road, and shouted to kill and encircle the informant and his brothers whereupon he told his brothers to stop the motorcycle as they apprehended danger to their lives. That the motor cycle fell down. At that time from the south-western corner appellant Babulal Yadav, Mantu Yadav, Parmanand Yadav and Sanjay Yadav came out from behind the ridge of the field. Babulal and Mantu were armed with pistol, Parmanand Yadav was armed with farsa and Sanjay Yadav was holding a gadasa and they surrounded them from 3 sides. Pitambar and Maheshwari fled westwards and P.W. 6 fled eastwards. According to P.W. 6 no one chased him but the accused persons threw bomb in the direction of his fleeing brothers. That he saw the occurrence from a nearby distance. He has deposed that his brothers fell down due to attack of the bomb 200/300 yds. from the place the motorcycle had fallen. P.W. 6 shouted for help but none came and he did not see in which direction P.W. 2 was present at the place of occurrence, but he witnessed the occurrence clearly. He has deposed that his brothers fell down due to attack of the bomb 200/300 yds. from the place the motorcycle had fallen. P.W. 6 shouted for help but none came and he did not see in which direction P.W. 2 was present at the place of occurrence, but he witnessed the occurrence clearly. That after the occurrence the, accused persons went away in the south-east direction whereafter he came and saw his brothers lying dead. That someone had informed the police and the police came there and P.W. 2 also came and thereafter family members and his brothers, P.Ws. 3 and 4 respectively and his father too came there. The Police recorded his statement at the place of occurrence and the statement was read over to him and he signed the said statement and his brother P.W. 4 also signed on the statement. He has stated that the occurrence took place as there is enmity between the appellant and his family and that in 1991 also the appellant had hurled bombs on them for which a case was lodged but he is unable to tell the case no. That on 30.4.2001 when he and his deceased brother Pitambar were returning from Godda then accused Rajesh and Lalu Yadav had fired upon them with firearms for which Godda (M) P.S. Case No. 121 of 2001 was lodged. It was due to this that the appellant had committed the alleged crime. In cross-examination, in paras 26 to 34, he has stated that when the motorcycle stopped, appellant nos. 1, 2 and 4 were on the north-western corner at a distance of 15-20 hands and appellant nos. It was due to this that the appellant had committed the alleged crime. In cross-examination, in paras 26 to 34, he has stated that when the motorcycle stopped, appellant nos. 1, 2 and 4 were on the north-western corner at a distance of 15-20 hands and appellant nos. 5, 6 and 13 were on east and south corner at a distance of 50 hands and the other 4 appellants were at a distance of 30-40 hands in the south-western side; that when they stopped and got down from the motorcycle whereafter he saw which of the appellants had what arms; that the ditch in which some of the appellants were hiding is situated 10 yards east from the place where they stopped the motorcycle and he had shown the daroga the ditch; that as soon as they got down from the motorcycle, the appellants who were in the ditch started approaching them from the northeast direction and other 3 appellants came running from south-east direction and other appellants ran towards east and north; that on seeing the accused persons, he ran eastwards for 10-12 ft. and then ran north and crossed the Lilji river but he did not reach Dumaria Chowk. That after crossing Lilji river, he stopped and stood and saw the occurrence and no one else was present where he was standing; that he went to Dumaria Chowk, after witnessing the occurrence, where he met a lot of persons whose names he can tell but none will come to depose in the Court; that he met P.W. 2 at Dumaria Chowk and had talks with him and asked him to accompany him to see how the accused/appellants had killed and assaulted his brothers. That he along with the Police and P.W. 2 came to the place of occurrence and after 10-15 minutes a lot of people came. 15. Similarly, P.W. 2 has also claimed himself to be an eye witness but he has not been named as a witness by the informant in the fardbeyan. P.W. 2 has testified that at about 5 p.m. he had met informant and his brothers (deceased), who were on the motorcycle. That the informant and his brothers left on the motorcycle. Thereafter, he met P.W. 8. P.W. 2 has testified that at about 5 p.m. he had met informant and his brothers (deceased), who were on the motorcycle. That the informant and his brothers left on the motorcycle. Thereafter, he met P.W. 8. That he proceeded from Dumaria Chowk towards Ranitikar village and reached near Lilji river where he saw 12 persons coming from the east and they were shouting to kill the 3 brothers; that they chased the 3 brothers. It is apparent that P.W. 6 has clearly stated that no one chased him. According to P.W. 2, P.W. 6 ran northwards and his brothers ran westwards and he witnessed the occurrence from this side of the river. That the accused persons hurled 3-4 bombs and also assaulted the brothers of the informant with lathi, farsa and gadasa; that he identified all the appellants who fled away after assaulting. That after the accused persons fled away they had gone and seen the deceased and the police arrived after a short while. The police prepared the seizure list of the zarda can and strings, the ring and the keys of the motorcycle was also found and the said articles were seized by the Police and he signed on the seizure list. That blood-stained earth was also seized. He has stated that his statement was recorded at 5:30 p.m. It is to be noticed that the fardbeyan of P.W. 6 was recorded at 6:00 p.m. and P.W. 6, has stated that the fardbeyan was recorded on the spot which was signed by P.W. 6 and P.W. 4 but surprisingly name of P.W. 2 or his presence has not been mentioned nor has P.W. 2 signed as a witness on the fardbeyan. In cross-examination, in para 11 he has stated that when he was on this side of the bridge he sighted the informant and his brothers going on the motorcycle who were on the bed of the river; that it is an open space and he saw 12-4 persons, who came running from the east and he saw them at a distance of 4-5 hands from the motorcycle when the appellants/accused surrounded the motorcycle. P.W. 2 has testified that appellants had not caught Pitambar, Maheshwari or the informant. P.W. 2 has testified that appellants had not caught Pitambar, Maheshwari or the informant. If P.W. 2's statement as an eyewitness is believed, then the statement of P.W. 6 that some appellants came from south-eastern side and some from the eastern side and some from the northeastern side is contradicted as P.W. 2 has stated that he had seen all the 12 appellants coming from the eastern side. P.W. 2, in cross-examination, in para 13, has stated that first Pitambar was attacked with bomb, thereafter with farsa and gadasa and subsequently with bhala. P.W. 2 has stated that bomb was hurled on Maheshwari who fell down due to the bomb attack and thereafter he was attacked with farsa, bhala, gadasa and lathi. P.W. 2 has specifically described on which part of the body of Maheshwari, the blows of gadasa, bhala, farsa and lathi were delivered. The evidence of P.W. 2 of attack by bomb on deceased Maheshwari is falsified by the fact that the doctor did not find any explosive substance injury on the body of the deceased, Maheshwari neither any piercing wound was found on the thighs or any part of the body of both the deceased. Thus, the statement of P.W. 2 that the appellants had assaulted the deceased-Maheshwari with bomb and spear is not corroborated by the post-mortem report. P.W. 2, in para 14, has stated that P.W. 6 ran northwards, whereas P.W. 6 has stated that he ran eastwards. P.W. 2, para 14, has again stated that when the deceased were being assaulted, P.W. 6 had run past him and gone 20-25 hands ahead whereas P.W. 6 has deposed that he did not see in which direction P.W. 2 was standing; P.W.6's evidence is that there was no one nearby when he had witnessed the entire occurrence. P.W. 6 has deposed that after the appellants had gone, he had gone near his brothers and seen them lying dead; that the police, on being informed by someone, had reached there and after sometime P.W. 2 had also came there. P.W. 6 has deposed that after the appellants had gone, he had gone near his brothers and seen them lying dead; that the police, on being informed by someone, had reached there and after sometime P.W. 2 had also came there. From the deposition of P.W. 2 it is apparent that he was witnessing the occurrence from a place nearer than the place where P.W. 6 was standing and P.W. 6's statement in the fardbeyan is that the appellants had fired from the pistol and hurled bomb but P.W. 2 has not stated about use of firearms by the appellants. If P.W. 6's deposition is believed to be true that he ran shouting for help but none came to rescue then it is surprising that he did not notice P.W. 2, who was standing on the same side of the bank of the river. P.W. 2 has deposed that P.W. 6 had run past him. P.W. 6 has vividly described as to which accused assaulted with what weapon but P.W. 2 has deposed that he saw the accused persons throwing 3-4 bombs and also deposed regarding assault with farsa, lathi, gadasa and he identified 5 appellants i.e. appellant no. 3, Kesho Mahta, appellant no. 2-Kishan Mahta, appellant no. 5-Rajesh Mahta, appellant no.6-Ram Mahta and appellant no. 13-Lalu Yadav but he was unable to say which of the five appellants assaulted with what weapon and who threw the bomb whereas P.W. 6 in his deposition has specifically stated that appellant no. 5-Rajesh Mahta, appellant no. 13-Lalu Yadav and appellant no.6-Ram Yadav were armed with pistol which has not been testified by P.W. 2. P.W. 2, in para 15 of his cross-examination, has stated that when the appellants had fled away, he came to Dumaria Chowk and P.W. 6 also came at the Chowk and he was asking the people to accompany him as his brothers had been killed. But P.W. 6, as discussed above, has deposed that after the accused/appellants went away, he had gone near his brothers, who were lying dead. If this statement of P.W. 6 is correct, then he should have met or seen P.W. 2, who was standing near the place of occurrence. But P.W. 6, as discussed above, has deposed that after the accused/appellants went away, he had gone near his brothers, who were lying dead. If this statement of P.W. 6 is correct, then he should have met or seen P.W. 2, who was standing near the place of occurrence. P.W. 6 has not whispered that P.W. 2 had gone near the dead body rather P.W. 2 during cross-examination, in para 15 stated that the Police vehicle arrived and he along with P.W. 8 and P.W. 6 went to the place of occurrence. P.W. 2 has stated that 6-7 persons of Dumaria village had come to the place of occurrence but P.W. 6 has not stated about the presence of 5-6 persons at the place of occurrence nor narrated this in the fardbeyan. The evidence in the deposition of P.W. 2 is not consistent with the testimony or the fardbeyan of P.W. 6. 16. P.W. 6 and P.W. 2 have stated that they had met P.W. 8 at Dumaria Chowk and P.W. 8 is a resident of Dumaria and is the own cousin of P.W. 6. P.W. 8 has deposed that at about 5/5:30 p.m. he had come to Dumaria Chowk on his bullock-cart where he had met P.W. 2 and thereafter he returned home. After that he had heard hullah and went near Lilji river where he saw the dead bodies of Pitambar and Maheshwari. That the Police came afterwards in his presence and the Police prepared the inquest report of the dead bodies and he had signed as a witness on the said inquest report. Prosecution has declared him hostile but his deposition reveals that P.W. 6 and P.W. 2 were not present when he had reached the place of occurrence, in fact the Police came after he arrived. In cross-examination, in para 5, he has stated that he left his house at about 6:30 p.m. and there were about 50-100 people of Dumaria and its vicinity at the place of occurrence where the dead bodies were lying. 17. P.W. 3 is the brother of the informant and he has stated that a person came on bicycle and informed him that his brothers had been killed near Lilji river and he, along with his brother Rajendra Yadav-P.W. 4 and father left for the place of occurrence. 17. P.W. 3 is the brother of the informant and he has stated that a person came on bicycle and informed him that his brothers had been killed near Lilji river and he, along with his brother Rajendra Yadav-P.W. 4 and father left for the place of occurrence. That when they crossed Motia village and reached the temple, they saw the appellants armed with lathi, gadasa, bhala, iron-rod and two persons had a jhola (bag) coming towards Motia village. This fact has also been parroted verbatim by P.W. 4. That P.W. 6 and P.W. 2 and the Police had arrived at the place of occurrence and had disclosed the names of the appellants, who had killed his two brothers. In cross-examination he has stated that he does not know the name of the person who had given him information regarding the killing of his brothers. That while they were going, the people of Dumaria and the other villagers were also going to the place of occurrence and the appellants were 20-25 hands away on the north side. The villagers had also seen them. P.W. 4, in his cross-examination, has stated that his agnates who are residents of the village had also come running to the place of occurrence and when he reached he saw about 8-10 persons there. He saw P.W. 8, Vijay Yadav, Satyanarayan Yadav, Jyotish Laia, Sitaram Laia, Huro Yadav, Ghanshyam Yadav and his family members including his mother and sister and the Police officials. In para 5 of the cross-examination he has stated that when he along with his brothers P.W. 3 and father reached there then by that time the Police had recorded the statement of P.W. 6 and P.W. 2. This testimony of P.W. 4 is contrary to the deposition of P.W. 3, who has stated that P.W. 2's statement was recorded after recording of his statement and P.W. 4 has contradicted the statement of P.W. 6 made in the fardbeyan. 18. This testimony of P.W. 4 is contrary to the deposition of P.W. 3, who has stated that P.W. 2's statement was recorded after recording of his statement and P.W. 4 has contradicted the statement of P.W. 6 made in the fardbeyan. 18. In the fardbeyan, it has been specifically mentioned by P.W. 6 that his statement was recorded in the presence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 4 has signed as a witness in the fardbeyan, which is alleged to have been written at about 6:00 p.m. P.W. 4, in cross-examination, has stated that when he received information regarding the death of his brothers, then they suspected that the appellants must have killed his brothers; that he did not see any gun-shot injury on the body of his brother, Pitambar whereas in the fardbeyan on which P.W. 4 has signed as a witness it has been specifically stated that the appellants had fired pistol shots and this creates a doubt as to whether P.W. 6 had witnessed the occurrence and is actually an eye witness to the occurrence. 19. P.W. 11, the Investigating Officer has stated that on 11.5.2001 he received a telephonic information at 17:15 hours that on the road going south from Village-Dumaria, 2 persons, who were riding a motor cycle, have been murdered. The deposition of P.W. 11 shows that 2 persons who were riding a motorcycle had been killed as P.W. 11 has not stated that he had received information that out of the 3 persons riding a motorcycle 2 had been killed and this statement of P.W. 11 goes to show that P.W. 6 was not riding the motorcycle along with his brothers. P.W. 11 has deposed that for verification of the information he along with the armed force and police personnel came near the bridge of Dumaria village and at that time P.W. 6 joined him. That he recorded the fardbeyan of P.W. 6 and started the investigation. He has deposed that formal FIR had been drawn earlier and the formal FIR has been marked Ext.-6. On perusal of Ext.-6, the time of occurrence is noted as 5:00 p.m. and the information was received at 18:00 hours. The distance of place of occurrence is mentioned as 12 Kilometer east of the P.S. The fardbeyan is written in two pages bearing meticulous details of the entire occurrence. On perusal of Ext.-6, the time of occurrence is noted as 5:00 p.m. and the information was received at 18:00 hours. The distance of place of occurrence is mentioned as 12 Kilometer east of the P.S. The fardbeyan is written in two pages bearing meticulous details of the entire occurrence. It is apparent that in writing the fardbeyan, the Investigating Officer must have taken at least half an hour thus it is surprising that the Investigating Officer had drawn the FIR at 18:00 hours itself. P.W. 11's deposition is that F.I.R. was drawn earlier and this creates a shadow of doubt regarding recording of fardbeyan at the given time. Moreover it goes to show that P.W. 11 was carrying the F.I.R. book with him which is not the normal practice by the police. P.W. 11 has nowhere stated that on the basis of the information received on the telephone he had made any entry in the station diary. In cross-examination, he has stated that the person who gave information on the telephone did not disclose his name and he had left the Police Station within 5 minutes and had reached the place of occurrence 7 minutes before 6:00 p.m. He has stated that it took 25-30 minutes in inspecting the dead bodies and preparing the fardbeyan and the inquest report. In para 8 of his cross-examination he has stated that 2 Chowkidars, namely, Shankar Hazra and Bhujdev Paswan were standing at a distance near the dead bodies. That he did not record the statement of Chowkidars. namely. Shankar Hazra and Bujdev Paswan, who were present at the place of occurrence prior to his arrival. 20. It is important to point out that the presence of the two Chowkidars near the dead bodies has not been stated by P.W. 6 and P.W. 2 or any other witnesses and the non-examination or not recording the statement of the Chowkidars by the Investigating Officer goes to show that the prosecution has not come out with clean hands as to the genesis of the entire prosecution case. 21. 21. From the testimony of the Investigating Officer and the deposition of P.W. 6 and P.W. 2 and the deposition of other witnesses, the question looms large whether the fardbeyan was recorded immediately or the fardbeyan was recorded much after the occurrence and suggestion has been given by the defence to P.W. 6 and other witnesses that the present case has been foisted after due deliberations of 3 to 4 days in connivance with the police with an intention to wreak vengeance against the appellants on account of long standing enmity. Suggestion has also been given to P.W. 6 that he was not accompanying his brothers on the fateful day and neither had he gone to Godda with his brothers and in fact, his brothers were coming from elsewhere and the appellants have been dragged or named in this case on the basis of suspicion. 22. On perusal of the F.I.R. and the fardbeyan, it is evident that the fardbeyan was recorded on 11.5.2001 and it, was sent to the Court and seen by the C.J.M. on 15.5.2001. In this context P.W. 11 has been cross-examined and it has been suggested to him that since he harboured ill-will against the family of the appellants and he did not get any leads regarding the double murder whereupon he prepared the fardbeyan and concocted the story in collusion with the informant. P.W. 11 has deposed that he did not send the First Information Report to the Court immediately after entering it in the diary. It is apparent from the endorsement of the C.J.M. as well as the statement of P.W. 11 that the FIR was not sent immediately to the Court and it has emerged from the deposition and evidence of the informant and other witnesses who have been very particular about the time of recording their statement and the fardbeyan from which it can be gathered that the sequence of events had not actually taken place as narrated in the fardbeyan. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mehraj Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in (1994)5 SCC 188 wherein it has been held in para 12 by the Hon'ble Apex Court that FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed including the name of the actual culprit and the parts payed by them, the weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the witness, if any. It has been observed in para 12 of the aforesaid decision that delay in lodging the FIR often results in the embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. With a view to determine whether the FIR was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the Courts generally look for certain external checks. One of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the Magistrate, if this report is received by Magistrate, late it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in dispatching or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate. 23. The prosecution has led no evidence to explain the delay despite specific question put to P.W. 11 on this aspect by the defence. 23. The prosecution has led no evidence to explain the delay despite specific question put to P.W. 11 on this aspect by the defence. In the decision cited (supra) in para 12 it has been held that the second external check equally important is the sending of the copy of the FIR along with the dead body for post mortem and its reference in the inquest report even though the inguest report, prepared under Section 174 Cr.P.C., is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the prosecution case, the details of the FIR and gist of statements recorded during inquest proceedings, get reflected in the report. The absence of those details is indicative of the fact that the prosecution story was still in an embryonic state and had not been given any shape and that the FIR came to be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and was then ante timed to give it the colour of a promptly lodged FIR and it was held that on account of the infirmities noticed in the said case the FIR had lost its value and authenticity and it appears that the same was ante timed and had not been recorded till the inguest proceedings were over at the spot. 24. Keeping in view the settled legal proposition as elucidated in the aforesaid decision and on perusal of the inquest reports, Exts. 2 and 3 it is apparent that the FIR no. has been left blank and the said inquest report of deceased, Pitambar Yadav and Mahesh Yadav was prepared at 18:30 to 18:40 hours i.e. after the registration of the FIR and recording of the fardbeyan at 6:00 p.m. and the non-mentioning of the FIR no. in the inquest report lends credence to the testimony of P.W. 8 who has stated in cross-examination that he left home at 6:30 hours and reached the place where he saw the dead bodies of the brothers and 50-100 people of Dumaria and surrounding areas were present. In his cross-examination he has stated that the Police reached the place of occurrence after him and prepared the inquest report on which he had signed. On perusal of the inquest report of deceased, Pitambar Yadav, it has been mentioned by the Investigating Officer that the injury was caused due to bomb and bullet. In his cross-examination he has stated that the Police reached the place of occurrence after him and prepared the inquest report on which he had signed. On perusal of the inquest report of deceased, Pitambar Yadav, it has been mentioned by the Investigating Officer that the injury was caused due to bomb and bullet. P.W. 6 has stated about firing of pistol shots by the appellants which has not been corroborated by P.W. 2 neither any empty or spent cartridges were found at the place of occurrence. Neither the FIR no. nor the Crime no. or Case no. is mentioned in the inquest report or the post mortem report. It deserves to be noticed that the names of the accused persons have not been mentioned in columns 8 and 9 of inquest report neither does it contain the name of the witnesses nor the gist of the statement of the eyewitnesses. 25. In the case of Sunil Kundu vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2013)4 SCC 422 [: 2013(3) JLJR (SC)28], it has been held as per paras 22 and 23 that considering the main inconsistency regarding incident of firing with medical evidence, which did not reveal any firearm injury on the person of the deceased and the fact that no bullet or empty cartridges were recovered from the scene of occurrence, inconsistencies found in the statement of the eye witnesses was held not to be minor, particularly, when there is deep-rooted enmity between the accused persons and the deceased persons. It was further held that major lacuna in this case is that use of fire-arms by the accused is not proved as no firearm injuries were found on the deceased. It was held that it is true that when there is cogent eye witness account, the medical evidence recedes in the background, however, when the eye witness account is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence and there is reason to believe that improvements are made in the Court to bring the prosecution case in conformity with the post mortem notes, it is a cause for concern. In such a situation, it is difficult to say that one must believe the tainted eye witness account and keep the medical evidence aside. In such a situation, it is difficult to say that one must believe the tainted eye witness account and keep the medical evidence aside. In para 29 it was held "........it is true that acquitting the accused merely on the ground of lapses or irregularities in the investigation of a case would amount to putting premium on the deprecable conduct of an incompetent investigating agency at the cost of the victims which may lead to encouraging perpetrators of crimes. The Court has laid down that the lapses or irregularities in the investigation could be ignored subject to a rider. They can be ignored only if despite their existence, the evidence on record bears out the case of prosecution and the evidence is of sterling quality if the lapses or irregularities do not go to the root of the matter, if they do not dislodge the substratum of prosecution case, they can be ignored.........." In the said case the seized articles were not sent to the court along with the charge-sheet neither the seized articles was sent to the forensic science laboratory and no explanation was offered by the Investigating Officer about the Sanha entries. The clothes of the deceased were not seized and the blood group was not ascertained to link it with the blood found on the seized articles and the evidence of the eye witness did not inspire confidence and it was held that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof and the accused were acquitted. 26. In the instant case, the Investigating Officer-P.W. 11, as discussed above, admitted that prior to their arrival, chowkidars viz; Shankar Hazra and Bhujdev Paswan were standing near the dead body but he did not record their statement. He has also stated that he did not prepare the seizure list of the motorcycle neither did he inspect the dickey of the motorcycle nor informant disclosed or told him that anything was kept in the dickey of the motorcycle. P.W. 6, the informant, in cross-examination, in para 22, has stated that he along with his two brothers had gone to Godda for marketing and other work and they had bought sugar, tea, soap, surf and other articles which had been kept in the dickey. P.W. 6, the informant, in cross-examination, in para 22, has stated that he along with his two brothers had gone to Godda for marketing and other work and they had bought sugar, tea, soap, surf and other articles which had been kept in the dickey. P.W. 6 has given an evasive answer that he does not remember the name of the shopkeeper from whose shop the articles were purchased neither did he tell the police about the shop nor the statement of the shopkeeper was recorded by the police. The conduct of the Investigating Officer in not enquiring from the informant as to for what purpose they had gone to Godda is rather strange and not preparing the seizure list of the motorcycle is a deviation from the normal conduct of an Investigating Officer. The investigating officer has stated that the motorcycle was taken away by the family members of P.W. 6. It has come in the deposition of witnesses that a key ring and keys were seized but P.W. 11 has not given any explanation regarding the keys whether they were of the motorcycle or some other keys. In para 3 of his cross-examination, he has stated that P.W. 6 came walking from Dumaria Chowk and joined them with the motorcycle. This statement of P.W. 11 indicates that there is a probability that P.W. 6 was riding another motorcycle. P.W. 11 has stated that he did not record the statement of any person of Godda regarding the visit by the informant and his deceased brothers to Godda. He has also stated that he did not record the statement of any witnesses of Dumaria as none of the persons of Dumaria were willing to give their statement and suggestion has been given by defence that since P.W. 6 was not a rider on the said motorcycle that is why he did not record the statement of any independent witnesses. 27. P.W. 11 has admitted in his cross-examination that P.W. 6 did not show him the ditch in which some of the appellants were hiding which has been deposed by P.W. 6. P.W. 11 has deposed that he had seized a 'zarda dabba' (can) and strings and he recovered broken key-ring and also seized blood-stained earth. The said zarda can was not sent for expert examination to confirm whether it contained traces of explosive substance. P.W. 11 has deposed that he had seized a 'zarda dabba' (can) and strings and he recovered broken key-ring and also seized blood-stained earth. The said zarda can was not sent for expert examination to confirm whether it contained traces of explosive substance. P.W. 11 deposed that he did not send the can for examination to the forensic science laboratory as the doctor, in his postmortem report, had opined that the injury was caused by explosive substance. P.W. 7, the doctor has stated that foreign body was found on the dead body of Pitambar which was preserved and sealed and the does not know whether the same was sent to the Investigating Officer and he cannot say for what purpose the foreign body was preserved. 28. The seized alleged remnants of bomb have not been produced by P.W. 11 in the Court. If the can contained explosive materials and was used for exploding the bomb, then in such circumstances the can would not have remained intact as the explosion would have torn the can to pieces and there is evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 that bombs were hurled by the appellants meaning thereby that more than one bomb was hurled by the appellants, but P.W. 11 has not stated that he had recovered pieces or remnants of other bombs or cans or empty cartridges from the place of occurrence. P.W. 7 had found only one lacerated injury with charring of margins situated in the upper part of the left shoulder and back of the shoulder on the dead body of Pitambar Yadav whereas P.W. 2, as discussed earlier, has deposed that the bombs were first hurled at deceased Pitambar Yadav and thereafter, at deceased Mahesh Yadav. As per para 13 of his cross-examination, P.W. 2 has stated that Pitambar Yadav fell down after he was assaulted by gadasa and Maheshwari fell down on being attacked by bomb whereas P.W. 6, in para 3, has stated that due to the bomb attack both his brothers fell down. In cross-examination, in para 39, he has stated that he cannot say from what distance the bomb was hurled. In cross-examination, in para 39, he has stated that he cannot say from what distance the bomb was hurled. In para 4 he has said that he had not seen the deceased falling but he had seen the accused catching hold of the deceased and taking them to a short distance whereafter the accused assaulted the deceased and the accused had splintered into groups while assaulting the deceased. The evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 are contrary to each other regarding the manner of occurrence. No doubt, it is not always easy for an eye witness to a ghastly murder to recollect in a precise manner, the heart rending spectacle especially when the witness has seen his near and dear one being murdered in a brutal manner. But, in the instant case, the conduct of P.W. 6 is rather unnatural as he himself has stated that he ran eastwards to save himself and he has admitted that some of the appellants were hiding in the ditch situated east at a distance of 10-15 hands and in cross-examination he has stated that he ran 10 yards east and then turned north and he has admitted that the accused persons were moving in a south and west direction. Thus, if he was running in the northeast direction, he would have been directly in line of attack of the accused who were armed with pistols, bombs etc. at a distance of 10-15 hands and there was remote possibility of P.W. 6 escaping the cordon of the appellants when he has specifically stated that the appellants were bent on killing him and his brothers on account of prior enmity. The conduct of P.W. 6 in not noticing P.W. 2 is rather strange given the fact that he was shouting for help and if P.W. 2's testimony is believed then it was natural for P.W. 2 to join him as he was present at that place. Moreover, it is admitted by the witnesses that some of his family members reside at Dumaria Chowk then there was no reason as to why the agnates did not come to their help at such a critical juncture. 29. Moreover, it is admitted by the witnesses that some of his family members reside at Dumaria Chowk then there was no reason as to why the agnates did not come to their help at such a critical juncture. 29. P.W. 11 has not examined any independent witnesses and considering the fact that P.W. 11 in the inquest report has mentioned, one of the injuries on deceased Pitambar Yadav of being caused by bomb and with 'bullet' the word 'bullet' has apparently been added subsequently which is indicative of the fact that the fardbeyan of P.W. 6 was recorded later on and the recital of firing of pistol shots by the appellants was added to suit the prosecution's case. The omissions and contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 6 have been drawn in the examination of the witnesses which has also been supported by P.W. 11 whose attention has been drawn to the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made by P.Ws. 2 and 6. 30. The prosecution has also tried to develop the case on the basis of a conspiracy theory and in support of its case on this aspect, it has examined two witnesses i.e. P.W. 1, Lobin Mandal and P.W. 5, Arun Kumar Yadav. P.W. 1 has testified that on 4.5.2001 he had gone to meet his lawyer for getting the date of his case and while he was standing under the peepal tree, he heard appellant, Chutari Mahta telling his grandson and his daughter that Pitambar Yadav and Maheshwari Yadav were after him and he asked them to tell appellant/accused, Kesho Mahta and Kishan Mahta to kill them. P.W. 1 has admitted that the deceased were his bhagina (nephews). That he had gone out of station regarding a marriage and returned home on 10.5.2001 whereafter he was informed regarding the murder of Pitambar and Maheshwari by P.W. 2 and Shambhu. In cross-examination he has stated that his statement was recorded by the police on 12.5.2001. He has stated that he is unable to say the case no. for which he had gone to meet his Advocate, Pankaj Babu. That the police were present near the haajat where the accused Chutari Mahta was brought but he did not inform the police regarding the plan of Chutari but he told his Advocate. He did not inform his bhaginas about this. for which he had gone to meet his Advocate, Pankaj Babu. That the police were present near the haajat where the accused Chutari Mahta was brought but he did not inform the police regarding the plan of Chutari but he told his Advocate. He did not inform his bhaginas about this. P.W. 1 is the maternal uncle of the deceased and non-disclosure of the plan of the appellant immediately to his bhaginas is against the normal human conduct, in not sharing such vital information, with any of his near and dear ones. On this point the prosecution has tried to build up its case further by examining P.W. 5. Though P.W. 11 has stated that he is an independent witness but P.W. 5 has disclosed that the informant's sister is married to his cousin. P.W. 5 has deposed that he was in Godda Jail from August 2000, and he was released from jail on 19.5.2001. That appellant-Chutari Mahta was brought to the jail on 4.5.2001 and the family members of Chutari used to meet him and he heard Chutari telling his family members that Pitambar has sent him to jail as such accused/appellants-Kishan and Kesho should kill Pitambar and meet him in the jail. In cross-examination he has stated that he does not remember the Case no. in which he was sent to jail. That Chutari's family had come to meet him on 4.5.2001. The visiting time in jail is between 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. He had heard Chutari telling a lady, who had come with a small child, regarding the killing which was at around 2:30-3:00 p.m. He has further stated that the visitors used to sign on the register in the jail. P.W. 11, in cross-examination in para 11, has admitted that he did not verify from the jail as to who were the persons who had come to visit Chutari as he did not think it necessary to verify the same. P.W. 5 has deposed that on that day one Dhananjay Yadav and some other persons had come to meet him but he did not tell them that appellant-Chutari Mahta was conspiring to murder Pitambar Yadav. That he was released from jail on 19.5.2001 and he was informed of the murder of Pitambar and Maheshwari on 12.5.2001. That on 19.5.2001 he did not go to Rani Tikar. That he was released from jail on 19.5.2001 and he was informed of the murder of Pitambar and Maheshwari on 12.5.2001. That on 19.5.2001 he did not go to Rani Tikar. That he had talked to Pitambar's sister, who is his cousin bhabhi (sister-in-law), who told him that the bada-babu (the officer-in-charge) had called him whereafter he was called by the Police after 4-5 days and he went and gave his statement. 31. P.W. 11 has stated that he did not record the statement of independent witnesses as none were willing to give their statement whereas P.W. 2, in para 16 of his cross-examination, has stated that 6-7 persons were present at the place of occurrence when the Police was recording the statement and P.W. 3 has stated that people of his village and some of Motia village were going to the place of occurrence. Likewise, P.W. 4, in para 4 of his cross-examination, has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence there were about 8-10 persons present there and he has given the names of those persons. P.W. 6 has also stated in para 35 of his cross-examination that after the arrival of Police, a lot of people had reached the place of occurrence. P.W. 8 has stated in his cross-examination, in para 5, that when he reached the place there were about 50-100 people of Dumaria and nearby villages. In such circumstances, the testimony of P.W. 11 that independent witnesses were not willing to give their statement is unbelievable. 32. It is evident that P.W. 11 has gone to the extent of recording the statement of P.W. 5 after nearly 20 days of occurrence and as noticed above it is admitted by P.W.5 that sister of the informant had told him that bada-babu was looking for him and this exposes the biased conduct of P.W. 11-the Investigating Officer who was interested in knitting a case showing the involvement of the appellants on the basis of conspiracy. P.W. 11-the Investigating Officer did not think it worthwhile to check the jail register to verify the list of visitors who met the appellant-Chutari Yadav on 4.5.2001. P.W. 1, as discussed above, has also stated that Chutari Mahta was present in the Court premises on 4.5.2001 and had asked his grandson and his daughter to convey to appellants-Kesho and Kishan to kill the deceased. P.W. 1, as discussed above, has also stated that Chutari Mahta was present in the Court premises on 4.5.2001 and had asked his grandson and his daughter to convey to appellants-Kesho and Kishan to kill the deceased. If Chutari Mahta was present in jail on 4.5.2001 as per P.W. 5, then he could not have possibly been present in the Court premises. This only goes to shows that P.W. 11 has played an active role in customizing the story to suit the case of the prosecution. 33. It has been accepted in various decisions that there can hardly be direct evidence of conspiracy as conspiracy by its very nature is secretly planned and the existence of conspiracy can be inferred by the conduct of the various accused prior to and subsequent to the conspiracy and there should first be a prima facie evidence that the persons have conspired by their acts or conduct implicating them as conspirators. From the facts, as marshalled out in the deposition of P.Ws. 1 & 5 and the manner in which P.W. 11 has picked and chosen the witnesses to support the prosecution case does not establish the charges against appellant-Chutari Mahta of having entered into a conspiracy with other co-accused in commission of the murder of deceased-Pitambar and Maheshwari. The statement of the informant regarding the appellants having conspired for murdering his brothers is apparently manufactured story created after deliberations and consultations with P.W. 11 and suggestions have been given to the witnesses, especially P.W. 6 that the case was lodged after due deliberations and consultation on account of prior enmity. 34. P.W. 10 is the doctor who examined the accused-Kesho Mahta on 19th May. He has stated that on 19th May, he had also examined accused Karunakar Chaudhary and he found lacerated injuries which were in the stage of healing and he opined that he could not assess as to how the injuries were caused. He has further stated that on 16th June, 2001 he received a letter from the Court of C.J.M. to give a definite opinion regarding the injuries and he deposed that on 19.5.2001, accused-Karunakar Choudhary and Rajesh Yadav did not complain about anything. He has further stated that on 16th June, 2001 he received a letter from the Court of C.J.M. to give a definite opinion regarding the injuries and he deposed that on 19.5.2001, accused-Karunakar Choudhary and Rajesh Yadav did not complain about anything. However, when he examined them on 25.5.2001, he found lacerated wounds on their bodies which were in the process of healing; that these wounds could have been caused by hard and blunt substance; that when the local Police approached him he had advised to get the injuries examined by the medical board. In cross-examination he has stated that as the prisoner had injuries, so as the jail doctor he examined Kesho Mahta on 19th May, 2001 and in view of the direction of C.J.M., he examined accused-Karunakar Choudhary and Rajesh Yadav on 25th May, 2001. P.W. 11, in cross-examination, has stated that in course of investigation, on 12.5.2001, local people had told him regarding the bleeding injuries seen on the person of appellants-Karunakar Chaudhary, Rajesh Yadav and Kesho Mahta but he has also made a contrary statement that no named witnesses had told him regarding the injuries. The accused persons were arrested on 12.5.2001 and there is no explanation as to why their injury was examined by the doctor on 19.5.2001 and subsequently on 25.5.2001. The doctor did not find that the injury was caused by any sharp cutting weapon or explosive substance and he also did not give a definite opinion regarding the cause of injury. 35. It is evident that the prosecution has not been able to explain the injuries on the person of accused and in the case of Amarjeet Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (2009) 16 SCC 649 it has been observed in para 22 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "...... the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain injuries on the person of accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses................. " As is apparent, the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested and they are related to the deceased and are on inimical terms with the accused/appellants and their family. Neither P.W. 6 nor P.W. 2 or P.Ws. " As is apparent, the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested and they are related to the deceased and are on inimical terms with the accused/appellants and their family. Neither P.W. 6 nor P.W. 2 or P.Ws. 3 and 4 have stated they had seen any injury on the accused/appellant and the Investigating Officer has also admitted that no named witnesses had stated about the injury on the person of accused/appellant. 36. In the backdrop of the legal issues involved and the facts as marshalled out and upon careful consideration and perusal of the evidence on record this Court finds that the prosecution evidence is full of glaring contradictions. As per the prosecution's case, it has been stated that shots were fired from the pistol and the Investigating Officer, in the inquest report, as noticed above, of Pitambar Yadav has stated about the cause of injury by bomb or bullet but no spent cartridges were recovered from the place of occurrence neither firearm injury was found on the dead body of the deceased, as per the postmortem report. The Zarda can and the strings seized by the Police were not sent for forensic analysis. P.W. 11 has not stated that he found any burn sign on the clothes of the deceased. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 6 is not consistent rather there are material contradictions regarding the manner of occurrence and their conduct is not above board. As noticed it is admitted by P.W. 11 that two Chowkidars were present prior to their arrival which has not been deposed by P.Ws. 2 and 6 whereas P.W. 8 has admitted in his cross-examination that when he reached the place of occurrence, 50-100 people had assembled and the Police came after that and prepared the inquest report. 37. As has been discussed in the foregoing paragraphs that in the inquest report, the Case no. or FIR no. has not been mentioned. At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to indicate that as per the FIR, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at 17:00 hours and the information was received at the Police Station at 5:15 p.m. and the Police arrived at the scene of crime, which is situated 12 kms. or FIR no. has not been mentioned. At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to indicate that as per the FIR, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at 17:00 hours and the information was received at the Police Station at 5:15 p.m. and the Police arrived at the scene of crime, which is situated 12 kms. from the Police Station within 15 minutes and the fardbeyan was recorded at 6:00 p.m., meaning thereby that the formal FIR was registered prior to the recording of the fardbeyan which is admitted by P.W. 11. Investigating Officer (P.W. 11) has given an evasive reply by stating that he does not know the name of the person who gave information of the crime. The First Information Report was prepared on 11.5.2001 and it reached the Court on 15.5.2001 and there is no explanation for the delay neither the column bearing the date of dispatch of FIR is filled by the Investigating Officer. The evidence on record shows that the FIR was ante-timed and the prosecution story was created after due deliberations and consultation. All the witnesses are related and interested witnesses and it is admitted that there is a long outstanding enmity between the parties. 37. In view of the discussions and broad features and contours of the prosecution case and the judicial pronouncements, this Court finds that the case is tailor-made to suit the prosecution case on the basis of suspicion. It is settled principle of law that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of legal proof. Thus, in the facts and circumstances there is grave doubt regarding the genesis of the prosecution case. 38. In the result, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is not sustainable on facts or in law and is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. 39. It appears that appellant no. 2, namely, Kishan @ Krishna Mahta, appellant no. 3, namely, Kesho Mahta, appellant no. 4, namely, Karunakar Choudhary, appellant no. 11, namely, Sanjay Yadav and appellant no. 12, namely, Parmanand Yadav are in custody. Thus, they are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. It further appears that appellant no. 6-Ram Yadav; appellant no. 7-Buteshwar @ Butan @ Manoj Yadav; appellant no. 8-Mantu Yadav; appellant no. 9-Babu Lal Yadav and appellant no. 11, namely, Sanjay Yadav and appellant no. 12, namely, Parmanand Yadav are in custody. Thus, they are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. It further appears that appellant no. 6-Ram Yadav; appellant no. 7-Buteshwar @ Butan @ Manoj Yadav; appellant no. 8-Mantu Yadav; appellant no. 9-Babu Lal Yadav and appellant no. 10-Sitabi Yadav are on bail. They are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Prashant Kumar, J.-I agree.