DHARNIDHAR JHA, J.:–These two appeals, arising out of the judgment dated 30th of March, 1992, have been preferred by the accused persons who had been put on trial by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan in Sessions Trial No.228 of 1982 by which the appellants of Cr.Appeal No.47 of 1992 were held guilty of committing offence under Sections 302/149 IPC and each of them was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, whereas the solitary appellant Ramuna Bind of the other connected appeal was convicted of offence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life on each of the two counts, sentences being directed to run concurrently as against appellant Ramuna Bind. 2. The appellants have come up before this Court to challenge the correctness of the findings and the appropriateness of the sentence which were recorded or passed upon them by the learned trial Judge. 3. P.W.6 Ram Pujan Bind gave his fardbeyan, while hospitalized in Sadar hospital, Siwan on 29.06.1981 at 10 A.M. He stated that he and his family members had, after having taken the dinner, retired to their bed in a Plani created of Phoos (thatch material). At around midnight in the night intervening 28-29th of June,1981, 10-12 persons came carrying Dab, lathi and bombs from north and entered inside the Jhopri and immediately started wielding blows with lathi and cut the throat of his brother, who was named Lahbar. The informant stated that after having slit the throat of Lahbar, the accused persons turned towards him to give blows with Dab but he ran towards east and on account of the darkness all around, fell amidst the Bhang (cannabis) plants when he was when he was given Dab blows on his right hand on its lower side and just below the right knee joint. The informant attempted to ward off the blows which were being given to him and in that process, he received injuries on two fingers of his left hand, on his chin and back also. The nephew of the informant named Bikrama Bind was also sleeping there and he shouted out of fright and when a bomb was thrown on him as a result of which he was injured in his head. The nephew of the informant named Bikrama Bind was also sleeping there and he shouted out of fright and when a bomb was thrown on him as a result of which he was injured in his head. The informant stated that many persons were attracted to the scene of occurrence and had identified appellant Ramashraya Bind who had flashed the torch light as also appellant Ramuna Bind who was carrying the bloodstain Dab and who had killed deceased Lahbar. The informant stated that while coming to the place of occurrence, the villagers were shouting- “catch them” and upon that the accused persons ran way from the scene of occurrence. 4. The doctor was not examined in trial and on the basis of fardbeyan (Ext-5), the FIR of the case (Ext-4) was drawn up and investigation was taken up by the Officer of the concerned police station. It further appears from perusal of Ext-2 series which are the injuries certificates granted by P.W.8 Dr. Anil Kumar after examining P.W.6 Ram Pujan Bind and P.W.2 Bikrama Bind that the investigating officer had issued the requisitions addressed to the Medical Officer who had examined the two witnesses for obtaining the injury certificates in respect of injuries found on the persons of two witnesses. It further appears from the perusal of Ext-7, the inquest report that the investigating officer who was the Sub Inspector of Police of Pachrukhi police station in the district of Siwan, had held inquest upon the dead body in front of the house of the informant Ram Pujan Prasad (Bind) on 29.06.1981 in presence of witnesses and had prepared the report (Ext-7). It may be presumed that the investigating officer had sent the dead body for postmortem examination and accordingly, P.W.9 Dr. Rajendra Singh had held postmortem examination on the dead body and had issued the postmortem examination report (Ext-3). Though the witnesses except P.W.4 stated that they had never made any statement to any police officer during investigation, we find from the record that after completion of the investigation, chargesheet was submitted in the case sending up the appellants for their trial. 5. The defence of the appellants was that in fact there had not been any incidence of the description as was alleged by the prosecution. 5. The defence of the appellants was that in fact there had not been any incidence of the description as was alleged by the prosecution. It was also suggested by the defence to the informant as may appear from page-60 of the paper book that in fact he and his witnesses had never identified any of the criminals who had perpetrated the offence and on account of his enmity with the accused persons he had falsely implicated them in the case. 6. The prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses during trial, out of whom, P.W.1 Janki Devi was the wife of P.W.6 Ram Pujan Bind, the informant, P.W.2 Bikrama Bind was the nephew of the informant. P.W.3 Shiv Pujan, the brother of the informant, P.W.4 Laxaman Bind, another nephew of the informant and the deceased and P.W.6 Ram Pujan Bind, the informant himself came in support of the prosecution charges as eye witnessed by claiming that they were very much sleeping in the same Palani in the fateful night. P.W.5 Uttim Bind was tendered for cross-examination and we have already noted that P.W.8 Dr. Anil Kumar and P.W.9 Dr. Rajendra Singh were two doctors who had examined the injured and held autopsy on the dead body respectively for issuing Exts-2 series and Ext-3. P.Ws.11 and 12 were formal witnesses who had proved the writings of the fardbeyan and the protest petition. 7. The defence had also examined as many as four witnesses who gave evidence on enmity as also on the alibi of a couple of appellants. 8. After considering the evidence both of the prosecution and the defence witnesses, the learned trial Judge passed the impugned judgment. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has taken us through the evidence of the witnesses and has submitted that as regards the prosecution story the very fardbeyan confined the allegation regarding the participation in commission of the offence only to two appellants, Ramashraya Bind and Ramuna Bind, but when it came to deposing in Court even the informant was sailing in the same boat with other witnesses when they were stating not only the names of each and every accused but were also assigning specific roles at least to four persons. It was submitted that it was not the end of the matter, rather not being satisfied after having implicated the accused persons by assigning specific roles to some of them, the informant had implicated some more persons who appeared having not even been named before the police officer investigating the case. This is more evidently clear from the fact that the informant had filed a protest petition in which he had implicated at least seven persons, namely, Banaras Bind, Shambhu Bind, Sheoji Bind, Ramuna Bind, Chandirka Bind, Amerika Bind @ Ambika Bind and Sitaram Bind. Contention was that this improvement from one stage to the other of the case indicated that it was never safe for the Court to place reliance upon the evidence of these witnesses. It was, lastly, contended that in the very fardbeyan it was stated that appellant Ramashraya Bind had flashed torch light and in that light the informant had seen that it was appellant Ramuna Bind who had slit the throat of the deceased by giving a Dab blow. But in spite of sufficient light at the scene of the occurrence, the informant had not named the remaining eight accused persons who are presently in the array of appellants before this Court. As soon as the witnesses became conscious of this fact, they introduced not only the story of flashing of torch in their evidence but also stated that a lantern was also burning at the scene of occurrence and they had identified the accused persons in the sufficiency of the light available at the place of occurrence. Submission was that in spite of all these improves in the prosecution story, the prosecution still failed to explain as to how the informant could not name other accused persons than Ramashraya Bind and Ramuna Bind, their very co-villagers in spite of having identified the two out of ten. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 6, i.e., Bikrama Bind and Ram Pujan Bind has to be accepted by the Court because they were undeniably injured which fact appears from the evidence of P.Ws.8. Dr. Anil Kumar. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 6, i.e., Bikrama Bind and Ram Pujan Bind has to be accepted by the Court because they were undeniably injured which fact appears from the evidence of P.Ws.8. Dr. Anil Kumar. They had given a vivid detail of the occurrence and, as such, even if the Court was going to reject the evidence other witnesses, like, P.Ws.1,3 and 4 it should act upon the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 6 to uphold the conviction of the appellants and the sentence passed upon them. 11. Before take up other submissions for our scrutiny in the light of the evidence which is available to us on the records of the lower court, we first want to examine the submission of Sri D.K.Sinha, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the merits of the evidence of two injured witnesses. Merely because witnesses were injured in the same incident, Courts generally accord respect to the evidence of such witnesses. Such witnesses are treated with quite some respect by the Court and a lot of value and sanctity is attached to the evidence of such injured witnesses. The reason behind looking at an injured witnesses with respect and sanctity is that their presence on account of being injured at the place of occurrence is very difficult to be ruled out. But, this could not be always the case that while examining the evidence of injured witnesses, the Court could be finding it carrying the same respect and sanctity in its heart for witnesses who had some injuries allegedly inflicted to them in the course of the same incident. As against the injured witnesses, a witness who is related to the informant or the deceased is viewed with the some lesser amount of sanctity because the Courts generally presume that they might have certain purpose or they might be acting under some psychological pressure on account of having lost one of their very near and dear ones to come forward in support of the case at the trial taken up for the murder of such near and dear ones and they may often be found telling certain facts which may be distracting the belief of the Court in such witnesses. This Court had the opportunity of examining this issue in the case of Shailendra Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2009(2) PLJR 753 . This Court had the opportunity of examining this issue in the case of Shailendra Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2009(2) PLJR 753 . One of us writing the judgment had dilated upon the issue, which was also agitated in Shailendra Singh, in paragraph-22 of the judgment and we can do no better than to extract the relevant part of that paragraph:— “22. Thus, their interestedness could be inferred not because they are related to each other by blood, but because they had an interest in the result of the present case also as they could be impelled by an urge within them to see that the accused persons were convicted and sentenced. This situation of interestedness is not sufficient in itself to reject their evidence in its entirety rather the Court is required to appreciate their evidence with care and caution and to search for some such features in the evidence which could stand them out as truthful witnesses. There could be many parameters for evaluating the value of the evidence of the interested witnesses and holding them truthful or untruthful. Being injured makes their presence probable; which never makes them truthful witnesses. Truthfulness of evidence of a particular witness has always to be judged on other parameters, like, the very facts narrated by the witness, could render him untruthful or some other circumstances appearing from his evidence in that behalf, like implicating a man who could never have been implicated under any circumstance and that too for a graver charge. The other circumstances could be that the witness has taken a complete u-turn to come up with a completely new story which could be different from the basic prosecution version or whose evidence does not inspire the confidence of the Court. A witness whose presence is doubted by the court, could also be an untruthful witness. These are some of the illustrative circumstances which could not be exhaustive.” 12. A witness whose presence is doubted by the court, could also be an untruthful witness. These are some of the illustrative circumstances which could not be exhaustive.” 12. Thus, what appears from the above observation of this Court is that if the witnesses are found introducing something very unusual in their evidence or if there presence appears doubtful or in spite of their presence being shown, as may be the case with an injured witness, if such a witness is found introducing altogether a new story which could be surprising the defence and for that matter to the Court also, then in that case it may not be safe to place reliance upon such witnesses. 13. Keeping the above principles laid down by this Court in Shailendra Singh, we have proceed to examine the evidence of witnesses. While proceeding to scan the evidence of prosecution witnesses, we want further to point out that in criminal trials the value of the initial version of the prosecution case had often be highlighted by this Court and the Supreme Court. In a number of cases, this Court has noted down that the FIR and/or fardbeyan as in the present case, is of immense value as regards the initial prosecution story and other factors, like, as to who were witnesses who had been named in the FIR. The value of the FIR or the fardbeyan has been pointed out by this Court in some of the decisions to be of such a weapon which could be in the hands of the defence so as to challenging the very veracity of the story of the prosecution which had been introduced through the evidence in Court and then showing to the Court that the evidence of witnesses had to be rejected. Following that principle, what we find is that as per the fardbeyan the names only of two persons were noted down on account of being identified in the flash of torch light. They were appellants Ramashraya Bind and Ramuna Bind. As may appear from the evidence, except the two accused Amerika Bind @ Ambika Bind and Chandirka Bind, i.e., appellants no.3 and 2 respectively of Cr.Appeal No.47 of 1992, the other appellants were the very co-villagers of the informant. They were appellants Ramashraya Bind and Ramuna Bind. As may appear from the evidence, except the two accused Amerika Bind @ Ambika Bind and Chandirka Bind, i.e., appellants no.3 and 2 respectively of Cr.Appeal No.47 of 1992, the other appellants were the very co-villagers of the informant. As regards Amerika Bind @ Ambika Bind and Chandirka Bind, the above noted two appellants, were admittedly residents of village-Korma as appears from the evidence of P.W.6, the informant himself in paragraph-14 (xiv) at page-46 of the paper book. It has further been stated by P.W.6, the informant that Korma village was at a distance of three kosh, which when converted to miles, would come to six miles and that Amerika Bind @ Ambika Bind and Chandirka Bind, were the sons of the sister of appellants Ramashraya Bind. We do not doubt that Amerika Bind @ Ambika Bind and Chandirka Bind could be known to the informant and his family members. We start from this assumption that the two appellants were very well known to the informant and his family members. However, what we want to poin out is that if there was clear and sufficient light at the place of occurrence so as to facilitating the identification of two accused persons, namely, Ramashraya Bind and Ramuna Bind, we fail simply to appreciate as to how the informant could miss picking up the identities of the remaining eight appellants. What we find from the fardbeyan is that the informant had not even whispered that any one among the accused persons had taken any precaution of concealing his identity. In fact P.W.3 Shiv Pujan who happened to be the brother of the deceased has stated in paragraph-12 of his deposition that the accused persons had not put anything around there head so as to concealing or to camouflaging their identification. If this was what was the appearance of the accused persons, then we simply could not convince ourselves as to for what reason the informant could not name all the accused persons in his fardbeyan. 14. If this was what was the appearance of the accused persons, then we simply could not convince ourselves as to for what reason the informant could not name all the accused persons in his fardbeyan. 14. The other part of the evidence which touches upon the present discussion comes from the very informant P.W.6 when he stated that he had filed a protest petition and in addition to the two appellants, namely, Ramashraya Bind and Ramuna Bind, he had implicated others, like, Banaras Bind, Shambhu Bind, Sheoji Bind, Amerika Bind @ Ambika Bind and Chandirka Bind and this evidence had appeared during cross-examination of P.W.6 in paragraph-XXIV at page-57 of the paper book. Thus, what appears to us is that not only the witnesses had implicated some persons who had not been named initially in the fardbeyan, but the informant had filed a protest petition also with some additional names as accused persons by alleging that the police had left noting down the names of those persons during investigation which necessitated the filing of the protest petition. The protest petition supports that fact that while it was filed those names had appeared in the column of accused and, as such, we entertain a doubt that the prosecution witnesses were never fair and honest in coming to the court to depose in the case. 15. We have already noted, while pointing out as to who were the witnesses who came in support of the prosecution that P.W.1 Janki Devi was the wife of P.W.6, whereas P.W.2 was his nephew. P.W.3 Shiv Pujan was his full brother while P.W.4 Laxaman Bind was yet another nephew of P.W.6. In the very fardbeyan, it has been stated that many villagers had come and they had not only come but had come shouting ‘catch the criminals’ but when it came to deposing in Court both P.Ws.3 and 6 stated that no villagers had come after the incident at the place of occurrence. We do not want to say much except that the prosecution was very much conscious of the fact that there was no independent support to the occurrence and it were the family members of the informant only who were inclined to support the prosecution charges. We do not want to say much except that the prosecution was very much conscious of the fact that there was no independent support to the occurrence and it were the family members of the informant only who were inclined to support the prosecution charges. The place of occurrence and the situation in which the occurrence had taken place might have made the prosecution witnesses very competent to depose as the prosecution story itself indicated that the informant with all his family members was sleeping in the fateful night in the very Palani wherein the occurrence had taken place. But, we have the evidence of at least two persons which came on record during cross-examination. P.W.7 Krishna Prasad, a co-villager of the informant, stated in cross-examination that while had gone to the place of occurrence after the incident, he had signed the seizure memo which had been prepared for the seizure of Gamacha, bloodstain Dhoti, two bloodstains bed-sheets and underwear. During cross-examination, he stated that he was at his house in the night and he was attracted to the scene of occurrence, i.e., Darwaja of P.W.6 Ram Pujan Bind on Hulla and saw that deceased was lying dead there and P.W.2 Bikrama Bind was also injured. There were many villagers present there, like, appellant Ramashraya Bind, Ramuna Bind, Ram Ekbal Bind, Sitaram Bind, Sheoji Bind and Ibrahim Mian. Ganga Sagar Chaudhary (P.W.10) who was the Chaukidar of the village was also there with Mukhiya of the Panchayat, namely, Balkila Choudhary and that P.W.7 inquired from the family members of the deceased as to who had perpetrated the offence and they could not name any person there. This is not the solitary evidence. An independent person, like, Ganga Sagar Chaudhary (P.W.10) who was the Chaukidar of the village was also examined by the prosecution as its witness and what we find from his evidence is that on hearing the sound of explosion of a bomb, he went to the place of occurrence and found that Labhar had been beheaded and that Ram Pujan (P.W.6) and Bikrama Bind (P.W.2) had also been injured. He was handed over the dead body of the deceased for taking it to Siwan for postmortem examination and he along with a constable brought the dead body to Siwan which was identified by him and a constable before the doctor also. He was handed over the dead body of the deceased for taking it to Siwan for postmortem examination and he along with a constable brought the dead body to Siwan which was identified by him and a constable before the doctor also. In cross-examination P.W.10 stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, he found P.W.6 and the two injured there and there were huge number of other villagers who had assembly there which included D.W.1 Indar Bind, Siariya, Ramashraya Bind (appellant no.9), Ram Ekbal Bind (appellant no.4) and Ramuna Bind (solitary appellant in the other appeal) with almost whole of the village having assembled there. P.W.10 stated that he asked Ram Pujan Bind as to how he had had been injured, which questioned was also asked by the Mukhiya and at that time P.W.6 Ram Pujan Bind did not give any details or names of having identified any one. Likewise, his family members were also not naming any one as the perpetrator of the crime. P.W.10 stated that he had given this statement to the police and had also informed the police station about the incident. Thus, what appears is that we have evidence from two independent person, like, P.W.7 Krishna Prasad and P.W.10 Ganga Sagar Choudhary indicating as if just after the incident no one exactly had known as to who had perpetrated the offence and no one was naming any one as the accused who had been identified during the occurrence. As against the above, what appears from the evidence of these two persons is that some of the appellants were very much present at the scene of occurrence and in spite of their presence and enquiries made by at least two persons in the presence of the villagers neither the informant nor any of his family members were giving out the name of persons who were subsequent arrayed as accused in the case. These are some of the reasons upon which we have serious reservations to act on the evidence of P.W.6 Ram Pujan Bind and P.W.2 Bikrama Bind. Merely because they were injured, they did not appear truthful witnesses to us. 16. We have considered the evidence of these witnesses and we find that it could never be safe to place reliance upon them. There are many other reasons, which we find, very clearly coming from their evidence. Merely because they were injured, they did not appear truthful witnesses to us. 16. We have considered the evidence of these witnesses and we find that it could never be safe to place reliance upon them. There are many other reasons, which we find, very clearly coming from their evidence. P.W.1 Janki Devi appears a witness who was quite confused and did not know as to what for she was to depose in this case. The deceased Lahbar was the full brother of her husband and as such her Dewar, who had been murdered. There could not be any dispute about it, but she stated that she had in her mind that it was P.W.3 (Shiv Pujan) who had been murdered. She stated that she did not see P.W.3 (Shiv Pujan) because he had been despatched to the hospital and she did not go to see him there and that subsequently, she learnt that her husband and other family members including Bikrama Bind (P.W.2) had also been injured. But in spite of that, she did not go to Siwan or even proceeded out of her house to have a glance of the two injured persons. The conduct of P.W.1 and her deposition indicate as if she were living in her own paradise of thought and belief that it was Shiv Pujan (P.W.3) and not Lahbar, who had been murdered. Not only the above aspect of the matter, what we find is that she was implicating some of the accused persons by naming them on account of having identified them during the course of incident and then again she was specifying allegations of committing some overt-act or the other, at least against four persons. P.W.1 stated that it was appellant Sitaram Bind who had caught the legs of the deceased Lahbar while his head had been held by appellant Ram Ekbal Bind. Ramuna Bind had given blows with Dab in order to slit his throat. While the above incident was going on appellant Ramashraya Bind was flashing the torch light so as to providing sufficient light for facilitating the commission of the offence. We have already noted that the importance of the FIR is immense in a criminal trial. Ramuna Bind had given blows with Dab in order to slit his throat. While the above incident was going on appellant Ramashraya Bind was flashing the torch light so as to providing sufficient light for facilitating the commission of the offence. We have already noted that the importance of the FIR is immense in a criminal trial. These facts, if were known to any of the family member as regards the individual participation of any of the accused persons while the offence was being committed, then we could safely assume that those facts must have been narrated by that particular family member to the person who had lodged the report. It is not the evidence only of P.W.1 which had specified specific overt-acts against the above noted four persons rather P.W.3 (Shiv Pujan) was also stating that it was appellant Ram Ekbal Bind who had held the head of the deceased while appellant Sitaram Bind had caught his legs while appellant Ramuna Bind was giving blows to cut his throat and at that time appellant Ramashray Bind had flashed the torch light to produce the sufficient light so as to facilitating the commission of the offence. P.W.3 also stated that while he himself, with P.W.6 Ram Pujan Bind, P.W.2 Bikrama Bind, P.W.5 Uttim Bind and P.W.4 were all sleeping together at that particular place, had seen with his own eyes the offence being committed in the manner as stated by him. Except P.W.5 who was tendered for cross-examination, P.Ws.2, 4 and 6 had narrated the same sequence of participation of the individual four appellants, namely, Ram Ekbal Bind, Sitaram Bind, Ramuna Bind and Ramashray Bind as was stated by P.Ws.1 and 3. The curious part of the evidence of these witnesses was that they were put a direct questions as to whether there had ever met the informant Ram Pujan Bind (P.W.5) either outside the hospital or in the hospital and the witnesses replied that they had never met informant Ram Pujan Bind either in the hospital or before he had been admitted in to the hospital. This false statement was not the statement only of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4 but also of P.W.6 Ram Pujan Bind, who was stating that in spite of being admitted together with P.W.2 Bikrama Bind in the hospital and lying on two adjacent beds, he did not talk to P.W.2 about the details of the incident. We find ourselves completely at a loss as to how to react to such blatantly false statements coming from witnesses as both of them were not only claiming to be eye witnesses but undeniably both of them were injured in the same incident. This is utterly impossible and unbelievable that the family members would not huddle up together after the incident for two purposes. The first purpose will be as to whether, besides deceased Lahbar any one had been assaulted and injured and whether if any one had been injured what is his state of health. The other aspect which could be discussed incidentally in such situations could be as to had any one identified any of the miscreants or criminals who had really participated in the commission of the offence. Probably the witnesses were living in a world where they thought them immense from making any statement, however absurd it may be. The four witnesses as also the 5th, the informant himself, were making completely false statement when they were refusing to budge from their position that they had not talked to each other after the incident and may be many times after that incident. This appears to us impossible and improbable that the family members who were the witnesses examined in the case in support of the charges would never share their knowledge about the incident. If P.W.1 had known and identified each and every accused, like, P.Ws.2,3,4 and had picked up the identities of each and every accused, then they were supposed to have shared that information with the informant. The informant himself claims that he had identified the accused persons in the very night in the light of lantern and the flash of the torch which was in possession of appellant Ramuna Bind. The informant himself claims that he had identified the accused persons in the very night in the light of lantern and the flash of the torch which was in possession of appellant Ramuna Bind. The solitary question which was commonly applicable to the evidence of the witnesses including the informant is that if the accused persons had really been identified, what precluded the informant and other witnesses from naming them either in the fardbeyan or just after the incident to the informant himself as regards the other witnesses, so that their names ought to have appeared in the fardbeyan. This conduct of the witnesses is as serious as to justify our rejection of their evidence as those of untrustworthy witness. 17. As regards the claim of the prosecution on sufficiency of light available for identification of the accused persons, we again have serious doubt that the light was sufficient or even available at the place of occurrence. P.W.3 in paragraph-5 has stated that it was a dark night and he could not see in darkness. P.W.1 Janki Devi stated that it was a moon lit night but on account of overcast conditions, it was darkness all around making it impossible to see anyone. P.W.6 in his fardbeyan had stated that it was a dark night and pursuant to that statement and his consciousness about the fact that he had to produce the evidence of identifying the accused persons, he was stating that he had identified them in a lantern which was burning there as also in the flash of the torch light of appellant Ramashraya Bind. But his unconscious statement in cross-examination in paragraph-22 at page 54 of the paper book as regards the visibility at the place of occurrence, P.W.6 stated that it was dark outside and, as such, he fell down amidst the bhang plants. Initially, there was no story of lantern in the fardbeyan and it was a subsequent thought, in our belief that the prosecution finding it difficult to convince the judicial mind regarding the sufficiency of light at the place of occurrence had introduced the story of the flash of torch or burning of a lantern. 18. The occurrence had taken place in the night of 28-29th June,1981. 18. The occurrence had taken place in the night of 28-29th June,1981. The FIR had also been instituted on 29th of June,1981 but what appears is that it could reach the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan on the 2nd of July,1981. The dispatch of the copy of the FIR to the nearest Magistrate has to be forthwith as per the provisions of 157 Cr.P.C does not occupy our mind. What we have inferred is that the delay in dispatch may entail a probability that the FIR might not have been drawn up on 29.06.1981, rather it was brought into existence subsequently after due deliberation and consultations and this was probably the reasons that the story of a torch being flashed by appellant Ramuna Bind was introduced in the prosecution story with deliberately to convince the trial court and this Court also on the availability of sufficient light at the place of occurrence. We have sufficient reasons to hold that in fact there was no light available at the place of occurrence and there was darkness all around and probably the witnesses were spinning out the story, being conscious of the fact that if no light was introduced at the place of occurrence, their story might not be getting credit worthy. 19. We have, while considering the evidence of witnesses, come across that the two sides were inimically disposed towards each other. P.W.3 in paragraph-17 at page-31 of the paper book has admitted that there was enmity between him and the appellants. Likewise, P.W.6 the informant himself has admitted in paragraph-25 at page-59 of the paper book that there was some enmity between his family member and those of the accused persons. What we find is that after having come across the gruesome murder of one of his family members and infliction of injuries to others, the witnesses were probably creating imaginary situations and spinning out stories so as to putting it before the police in a convincing manner. After they had thought out a false story, they lodged the report after implicating initially two accused persons and then all accused persons were implicated by filing the protest petition. 20. After they had thought out a false story, they lodged the report after implicating initially two accused persons and then all accused persons were implicated by filing the protest petition. 20. These are some of the reasons upon which we find that the prosecution has failed to bring the charges home against the accused persons as the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses appear not only false but in most of its parts unacceptable, as a result of which, the two appeals are allowed. The appellants of the two appeals are hereby acquitted of the charges by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.