DHARNIDHAR JHA, J.:–The present appeal arises out of judgment dated 5.4.1991 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 321 of 1989 by which the two accused persons, namely, Laloo Yadav (since deceased) and his son, the surviving appellant Ram Naresh Yadav were found guilty of committing offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The surviving appellant Ram Naresh Yadav was held guilty distinctly under Section 302 and Section 27 of the Arms Act and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life as also for two years on the two respective counts. The learned trial Judge directed the sentences to run concurrently. The two accused Laloo Yadav and Ram Naresh Yadav preferred the present appeal together but Laloo Yadav who was aged about 70 years of age on the day of judgment, died during the pendency of the appeal and his appeal stood abated by an order passed today itself leaving the appeal only on behalf of Ram Naresh Yadav. 2. Ext. 5, the fardbeyan of Ram Janam Singh (P.W. 7) was the basis for institution of the case and investigation of the same by P.W. 13, S. I. Venktesh Sharma. It was stated by the informant Ram Janam Singh (P.W7) that he along with his brother deceased Shambhu Saran Singh @ Ram Dayal Singh , Chhotan Prasad (P.W. 5) and Sudeshwar Singh (P.W. 8) started from Masaurhi for their house at village Khainiya. When they had moved ahead of the police station in Masaurhi on the road, his brother deceased Shambhu Saran Singh requested the informant and his companions to stop and wait for sometime as he was required to meet the present appellant Ram Naresh Yadav who was residing in the Sati-Asthan locality. The informant and his companions stopped and waited but finding that the deceased Shambhu Saran Singh did not come and had unduly overstayed, the informant and his companions, as per the story, proceeded to find out as to what was the reason behind it. The informant stated that they went to Sati-Asthan and when they had reached in front of the house of Ram Prasad Singh (not examined), they saw deceased-appellant Laloo Yadav abusing his brother and no sooner Laloo Yadav had seen the informant and his companions he ordered the present appellant Ram Naresh Yadav to kill Shambhu Saran Singh. The informant stated that they went to Sati-Asthan and when they had reached in front of the house of Ram Prasad Singh (not examined), they saw deceased-appellant Laloo Yadav abusing his brother and no sooner Laloo Yadav had seen the informant and his companions he ordered the present appellant Ram Naresh Yadav to kill Shambhu Saran Singh. The present appellant Ram Naresh Yadav, standing on the back side of the deceased, fired a shot which hit the deceased in his back. The deceased fell down on a cot lying nearby, when Laloo Yadav asked the present appellant Ram Naresh Yadav to ensure the death of the deceased by shooting him in his head and accordingly Ram Naresh Yadav fired another shot into the head of the deceased. The two accused seeing the informant and his companions ran to assault them also when they started running away from there and while they were so running they met the Officer-in-Charge (P.W.13) in the way and accompanying him came again to the house of the said Ram Prasad Singh, the landlord to find that his brother had been murdered. 3. P.W. 13 S.I. Venktesh Sharma stated that after recording the fardbeyan (Ext. 5), the case was registered and he took the investigation himself during which course he inspected the place of occurrence and found the dead body lying in one corner of the premises just below the veranda. The surrounding surfaces were bearing copious blood mark and the cot which was lying there was found washed along with the floor of the veranda. But in spite of that, some blood stains were found on one of the legs of the cot indicating that some blood had fallen on it. However, what appears from the evidence of P.W. 13 is that he did not find Ram Prasad Singh, the landlord or any of his family members but found one of the two rooms locked and inspected it where a few books and some utensils to be used in cooking meals were lying. One particular utensil was indicating as if some cooking was under way as some potatoes were found completely roasted to black. P.W. 13 held the inquest upon the dead body and sent it through a Chaukidar and a constable for post-mortem examination and accordingly, the autopsy was held by P. W. 1 Dr. Ram Krishna Prasad Singh. One particular utensil was indicating as if some cooking was under way as some potatoes were found completely roasted to black. P.W. 13 held the inquest upon the dead body and sent it through a Chaukidar and a constable for post-mortem examination and accordingly, the autopsy was held by P. W. 1 Dr. Ram Krishna Prasad Singh. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and after close of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the trial of the two accused who were ultimately convicted. 4. The defecne of the accused persons was of false implication on account of being suspected of having committed the offence. The other limb of the defence of appellant Ram Naresh Yadav was the plea of alibi raised through a letter addressed to the Investigating Officer (P.W. 13) and he along with other officers verified the plea and found it completely untenable and false. 5. During the trial of the case 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom as we have just noted, that P.W. 1 was the doctor who had performed the autopsy on the dead body and had prepared the post-mortem examination report (Ext. 1). P.W. 2 was constable Shambhu Singh who had produced the case diary of a particular case and had also produced some material exhibits and report before the trial Court. Yet another constable Bindeshwari Singh was examined as P. W. 3 who had produced station diary entries showing the receipt of some telephonic information at the police station by P.W. 13 due to which P.W. 13 and others moved to go to the place where the dead body was lying where the fardbeyan of the informant was also recorded. P.W. 4 Jai Ram Singh was a formal witness who had given evidence which was at all no material for the purposes of the trial of the case. P.W. 5 Chhotan Prasad, P.W. 7 the informant Ram Janam Singh and P.W. 8 Sudeshwar Singh were witnesses who had given eye witness account of the occurrence by claiming their presence at the scene of occurrence on account of accompanying the informant from Masaurhi/ Taregana Railway Station for going to village Khainia. P.W. 5 Chhotan Prasad, P.W. 7 the informant Ram Janam Singh and P.W. 8 Sudeshwar Singh were witnesses who had given eye witness account of the occurrence by claiming their presence at the scene of occurrence on account of accompanying the informant from Masaurhi/ Taregana Railway Station for going to village Khainia. P.W. 6 Bhikhari Singh was tendered for cross-examination, whereas P.W. 9 Ram Sewak Sinha was the brother of the deceased who stated that he and the deceased had traveled in the same bogie of the train from Patna to Taregana when P.W. 9 Ram Sewak Sinha was going to Gaya but his deceased brother alighted from the train at Taregana Station . P.W. 10 Dharamshila Devi was the wife of the deceased who deposed on the motive part of the occurrence that the accused Lalo Yadav had filed a false case in respect of kidnapping of his son and had requested the deceased to depose to the fact that he had lent some money to accused Ram Naresh Yadav for paying up the ransom money which was refused by the deceased and he had handed over to P.W. 10 a written statement to that effect. P.W. 11 Mohan Ram was the Officer-in-Charge of Masaurhi Police Station who had investigated the case in part with P.W. 12 Arvind Kumar Singh yet another Officer-in-Charge of the same police station. Likewise, P.W. 14 Shiv Prakash Singh had also done some part of investigation of the case. 6. The defence had examined seven witnesses, all speaking on one part of the plea of alibi or the other. 7. Sri Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, the learned Senior Counsel took us through the evidence of witnesses and submitted that there does not appear any tangible and convincing reason assigned by P.Ws. 5 and 8 as why they should remain present at the Taregana Station. It was contended that they were mere chance witnesses and their evidences do not inspire confidence. Submission was that P.W. 7 Ram Janam Singh was also giving one particular reason for going to Taregana, but when he had already the information that his brother was coming to his house then the reason does not appeal to us and it appears that he was also not present at the scene of the occurrence. 8. Submission was that P.W. 7 Ram Janam Singh was also giving one particular reason for going to Taregana, but when he had already the information that his brother was coming to his house then the reason does not appeal to us and it appears that he was also not present at the scene of the occurrence. 8. Sri Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri Durgesh Nandan, advocate appearing on behalf of the informant were very tenaciously submitting that the witnesses were reliable and the reason assigned by them for their presence was acceptable. The oral evidence was supported by medical evidence as regards the manner of occurrence and there was no particular reason for any of the witness to implicate the accused persons falsely. It is further contended that the charges stood proved and, as such, there was no need by this Court to interfere with the judgment of conviction. 9. There are varying views of Courts as regards the evidence of a chance witness. The general view was that if a witness is a chance witness then his evidence is not necessarily false rather it is proverbially unsafe to rely upon [Guli Chand & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1974 SC 276 ] and that a conscious and close scrutiny of evidence of such a witness should inform the approach of the Court (kindly see Harjinder Singh alias Bhola Vs. State of Punjab 2004 Cr.L.J. 3854). However, the Apex Court took into account the Indian lifestyle of casualness and pointed out that the expression “chance witness” is borrowed from countries where every man?s home is considered his castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country where people are less prompt and more casual, at any rate in matter of explaining their presence. ( AIR 2005 SC 1142 and AIR 1983 SC 680 ). But some other views of the Apex Court also emerged which pointed out that if a witness appears a chance witness then the court must find out as to whether the reason assigned by him for remaining present on or around the scene of occurrence was inspiring its confidence and if it found that the reason was really acceptable then the witness ceased to be a chance witness and his evidence could very well be relied upon. (Bahal Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 2032 ). (Bahal Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 2032 ). Here in the present case, two witnesses or if we are permitted to say so, all the three witnesses, namely, P.W. 5 Chhotan Prasad, P.W. 7 Ram Janam Singh and P.W. 8 Sudeshwar Singh appear to be chance witnesses as regards their presence at Taregana Railway Station. P. W. 5 Chhotan Prasad stated that he met P.W.7 Ram Janam Singh in Masaurhi bajar quite ahead of the time when deceased Shambhu Saran Singh was to arrive by train there and they had a long chat together in the market place and while P.W.7 Ram Janam Singh was leaving to go to the Railway Station, he requested P.W.5 to accompany him as his brother Shambhu Saran Singh was likely to arrive by the train and he had to sell some grains and P.W.5 should meet him as he was a dealer in grains. We were putting a very categorical question to Shri Durgesh Nandan, the learned counsel appearing for the informant as to why P.W.5 should go to meet deceased Shambhu Saran Singh when the very head of the family P.W.7 himself was enjoying his company. Sri Nandan attempted to impress upon us by pointing out that the deceased had four brothers and everyone had his own independent farm and agricultural operations and as such there was need for P.W.5 to meet the deceased. But when we scanned the evidence of P.W.5 more cautiously then what we found was that the contention of Shri Nandan could not be tenable. P.W.5 had stated in paragraph 5 of his deposition as to how he met Ram Janam Singh (P.W.7) and when Ram Janam Singh (P.W.7) requested him to go to the Railway Station with him so as to meeting the deceased who was to sell some grains. In the whole plethora of evidence, we could not find out a single line that the deceased, who might have four brothers, was separate from each of his brothers in mess and business and was carrying on his agricultural operations separate from his brothers who were also engaged in agricultural operations independently of P.W.7 rather the line of evidence which appeared in paragraph 5 of P.W.5 convinced us that the head of the family was P.W.7 Ram Janam Singh. P.W.5 stated that P.W.7 was looking after the whole family affairs of his family. P.W.5 stated that P.W.7 was looking after the whole family affairs of his family. P.W.5 has used the word “Grihasthi” which was being looked after by P.W.7 and as we understand the import of this word it partakes into itself all affairs of a joint family including the agricultural operations. P.W.7 was looking after the “Grihasthi” of the family, as such, where could be the occasion for a junior member, like, the deceased Shambhu Saran Singh, who was himself employed as an Overseer to take up agricultural operations and sell grains. Should not we be justified in holding, thus, that this story as regards the reason for which P.W.5 was to see the deceased, was a mere invention by the prosecution to justify the presence of P.W.5 of remaining present through out so as to seeing the occurrence with his own eyes. We are not inclined to buy the story and the theory and as such, we refuse to place reliance upon the evidence of P.W.5. 10. Coming to the evidence of P.W.8 Sudeshwar Singh, he was as good a chance witness as P.W.5 besides holding some interest in the prosecution, for, „blood is thicker than water?. P.W.8 was a co-villager of the deceased. He had claimed that he had come to Patna the other day for purchasing some brass material and when he was pursued in cross-examination as to what was that material which he had purchased and after which he had returned by train, he said that it was a brass ball bearing to be used in some machinery. Our little knowledge of machines very clearly informs us that there could not be any ball bearing of brass, it is always a steel material which runs a machine. There might be some bush bearing which might be of brass but P.W.8 was very categorical that it was ball bearing so that probability is completely eliminated. Moreover, the co-incidence was so synchronized that P.W.8 arrived at the same time by when train of the deceased, had arrived so that his elder brother P.W.7 and the grain dealer P.W.5 were all together standing at the platform of Taregana station so that P.W.8 could join the group to start from there for Khainia. Moreover, the co-incidence was so synchronized that P.W.8 arrived at the same time by when train of the deceased, had arrived so that his elder brother P.W.7 and the grain dealer P.W.5 were all together standing at the platform of Taregana station so that P.W.8 could join the group to start from there for Khainia. The deceased, his brother P.W.7 and P.W.8 Sudeshwar Singh a co-villager may have the reason for moving to Khainia together but what for P.W.5 could be moving with them. He was not a resident of Khainia and he did not have any purpose of going to Khainia. It is yet another reason for discarding the evidence of P.W.5 and the reason which was assigned by P.W.8 Sudeshwar Singh for his presence there along with the purpose of going to Patna and travelling back to Taregana again has been very curious in our opinion which merits rejection of his evidence. After having rejected the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 8 as those of mere chance witnesses, we have the solitary evidence of P.W.7 Ram Janam Singh. We examined the evidence of Ram Janam Singh but we did not find him sailing in a better boat than was occupied by P.Ws. 5 and 8. He assigned a reason for his presence at the Railway Station which was nonetheless curious than assigned by P.Ws. 5 and 8. P.W.7 stated that he had the information that his younger brother the deceased was to arrive at his village on 12.3.1988 and, as such, he thought it proper that he should go himself to receive his brother at the Railway Station. We could have very well accepted the story but his cross-examination evidence indicates that never before that day he had ever gone to receive his brother and when he had already the information that his brother was arriving at his village then considering the previous conduct of P.W. 7, we do not see any plausible reason for him to move out of his house to go to Masaurhi for receiving his brother. It appears yet another ploy invented by the prosecution so as to making the presence of P.W.7 acceptable to the Court. Besides the above reason, what we find is that there are other defects in the prosecution evidence which could not be explained by the learned counsel for the informant or the State. It appears yet another ploy invented by the prosecution so as to making the presence of P.W.7 acceptable to the Court. Besides the above reason, what we find is that there are other defects in the prosecution evidence which could not be explained by the learned counsel for the informant or the State. We were very much anxious to know from them as to why Ram Prasad Singh the landlord in whose house the present appellant had put in as a tenant was never examined by the police nor he was produced by the prosecution during trial. We also wanted to know as to what was the evidence to indicate that it was the house of Ram Prasad Singh in which the accused persons were living as tenants and that it was the same house where the deceased had been shot dead. The Investigating Officer was very candid in stating that he never examined Ram Prasad Singh. Indeed he stated that he never attempted to trace him out or find him out so as to questioning him. We have very carefully considered the evidence of P.W.13, the Investigating Officer and we came to note that there was no single word in his evidence which could convince a reasonable man that the house which was inspected by him could be said to be that of Ram Prasad Singh. If he was inspecting the house by entering inside the room and was finding many books and copies and other articles, his evidence does not indicate that any book or articles were seized so as to pointing out the occupation of that particular premises by anyone, least to talk of by the accused persons. If this was so which appears from the evidence then it remains yet to be explained by the prosecution as to why it could say that it was the two accused persons who were occupying that particular house and that it were the two accused or the present appellant Ram Nareash Yadav who had committed the offence. 11. Shri Durgesh Nandan, the learned counsel appearing for the informant did not leave any stone unturned to convince us that the very defence evidence could be suffice to hold that it were the accused persons who had committed the offence and their conduct of formulating and fabricating different documents was as strongly suspicious as to pointing out to their guilt. Shri Durgesh Nandan, the learned counsel appearing for the informant did not leave any stone unturned to convince us that the very defence evidence could be suffice to hold that it were the accused persons who had committed the offence and their conduct of formulating and fabricating different documents was as strongly suspicious as to pointing out to their guilt. We want to note that if we are going to accept the submission of Shri Durgesh Nandan to proceed to uphold the conviction, then it will be upturning the principles of criminal jurisprudence when only defence evidence could be notified to convict an accused or to acquit him. It needs no reiteration that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it has to establish the charge by cogent and admissible evidence. If the evidence appears suspect or derelict, infirm or insufficient or deficient then in that case charges have to be held not proved. That appears the case after we had considered the evidence of the witnesses. 12. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellant Ram Naresh Yadav is acquitted of the charges he had been found guilty of. The appellant is on bail. He shall stand discharged from the liability of his bail bond. ?