DHARNIDHAR JHA, J.:–The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.05.1991passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Case No.16 of 1990 by which the present set of appellants were convicted of charge under Section 302/34 IPC as also that under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Yadu Yadav, the younger brother of the deceased Krishna Kumar Yadav @ Nakchhedi, had picked up the sound of gun shots and he had also heard some villagers raising alarm by shouting that Krishna Kumar Yadav @ Nakchhedi had been murdered at village-Hemra. On this information, he rushed to the place of occurrence which was a village path way going from village-Hemra to village-Kaithma and when he had reached near the boring (tube-well) of one Kari Singh, he found that the dead body of his brother was lying there. The cycle which was used by the deceased was also found lying there and it was further found that a rope was tied around the neck of the deceased. The informant raised alarm which attracted the villagers named in the FIR. 3. Initially, there was no name of accused in the FIR and the police was groping in the dark for most of the days and probably for 18-19 days. No one came forward to tell the police as to why the murder of deceased Krishna Kumar Yadav @ Nakchhedi had been committed. What happened was that after 18-19 days of the occurrence two persons, i.e., P.W.1 Biran Thakur and P.W.2 Ashok Yadav came forward to tell the police that they were the real eye witnesses who had seen the murder being committed in the torch light flashed by one of them, i.e., P.W.2 Ashok Yadav as also in the electric light which was emanating from the electric bulb burning on the top of the tube-well. The police found the two witnesses telling it the truth and, as such, submitted chargesheet for trial of the present set of the appellants which ended in the impugned judgment. 4. While going through the impugned judgment as also the paper book, what appears admitted by two witnesses, i.e., P.W.1 and 2 was that they were old enemies of the present set of appellants on account of criminal case having been cropped up between the two parties. 4. While going through the impugned judgment as also the paper book, what appears admitted by two witnesses, i.e., P.W.1 and 2 was that they were old enemies of the present set of appellants on account of criminal case having been cropped up between the two parties. It further appears that the two witnesses in spite of having seen the occurrence in the torch light and from very close range did not chose to disclose the fact to any of the villagers, though P.W.1 stated that he had gone to the house of the deceased to inform his family members. Not only that what appears further from the record is that the witnesses had not stated that any electric bulb was burning, flashing sufficient light to facilitate identification of the accused persons during the investigation. 5. This statement was made by them for the first time during trial. 6. The learned trial Judge countenanced these vital contractions as could be immaterial as at the fringes of the central theme of the case, and did not highlight the most material demerit in the evidence of the two witnesses as to why since the occurrence being committed within their vision they should maintain a strong silence minimum silence for 18-19 days in spite of having met with the police officers who was investigating the case on several occasions in their village. This appears disturbing to us that the witnesses were not ready to divulge the details which they stated before the trial Court at the earliest opportunity they had, on account of meeting the investigating officer. Enmity which was admitted by the witnesses appears a motive for false giving evidence by them. It was very unsafe for the trial Court and that continued equally for us also, to place reliance on such evidence. They were never reliable on account of reasons we have just noted and convicting the present set of appellants considering that very evidence, in our opinion, was extremely dangerous to the interest of justice. 7. In the result, what we find is that there was no evidence in support of the prosecution charge. Further there was no independent trustworthy witness. They were never reliable on account of reasons we have just noted and convicting the present set of appellants considering that very evidence, in our opinion, was extremely dangerous to the interest of justice. 7. In the result, what we find is that there was no evidence in support of the prosecution charge. Further there was no independent trustworthy witness. It was true that deceased Krishna Kumar Yadav @ Nakchhedi was brutally slain but merely finding his dead body bearing injuries including homicidal death could not be a proof of culpability of a person unless that culpability was established by acceptable and admissible evidence which lacks in the present case. 8. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the charges they had been found guilty of. The appellants were on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 9. Sri Animesh Kumar Mishra, Amicus Curie has assisted the Court quite satisfactorily and the Court directs that he should be paid one fee of hearing by the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee and for that purpose let copies of first and last pages be made over to him. ?