Dharnidhar Jha, J. – The ten appellants, comprising the array of the two appeals presently in our hand, were put on trial by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai by being charged under Sections 302/34 (as in the case of eight appellants of one appeal) as also under Sections 201 I.P.C. By judgment dated 30.09.1992 delivered in Sessions Case No.210 of 1988, the learned trial Judge convicted the eight appellants of Cr. Appeal (DB) No.437 of 1992 under Sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C., while the two appellants of the other appeal were convicted under Sections 302 of I.P.C. as also under Section 201 I.P.C. The appellants were heard under Section 235 Cr.P.C. on 1.10.1992 and each of the ten appellants was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34 or 302 I.P.C. as also rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 201 I.P.C. The sentences passed upon all the appellants were directed to run concurrently. 2. The appellants are before this Court through two appeals to challenge the correctness of the finding in respect of their guilt as also the appropriateness of the sentences passed upon them. 3. Jai Singh Yadav, the deceased of the case, happened to be the uncle of the informant Vijendra Yadav (P.W.11). It was stated by P.W.11 Vijendra Yadav that at about 8:00 P.M. on 22.03.1988, he was asked by his uncle, deceased Jai Singh Yadav, to accompany him up to dera with the dinner which was to be taken there. Dera is an out house in a village which is generally located away from the rural habitat of the people of a village and which is generally used for housing cattle as also as a place of retirement of men-folk of the family. The informant stated that he accompanied his uncle and when he was very much in the village moving on the road, four appellants, namely, Triveni Yadav, Munnilal Yadav, Sakaldev Yadav and Bauku Yadav who had hidden themselves emerged from their hiding pounced upon the deceased and caught him. Appellants Jitan Yadav and Prakash Yadav also joined them and each of the two, i.e, Jitan Yadav and Prakash Yadav, fired two shots each to kill the deceased. Appellants Jitan Yadav and Prakash Yadav also joined them and each of the two, i.e, Jitan Yadav and Prakash Yadav, fired two shots each to kill the deceased. It was a melee which attracted the villagers, like, Kapildeo Yadav (P.W.2), Jaijairam Yadav @ Jajo (P.W.6), Deoki Yadav (P.W.1), Yogeshwar Yadav (P.W.5) and many more villagers in presence of whom the above-named six accused persons along with other appellants, like, Param Lal Yadav, Ganeshi Yadav, Nageshwar Yadav and Shital Yadav started dragging the dead body towards south. The villagers, as also the informant, objected to the act of taking away the dead body, but the appellants were not to pay any heed to their objections and instead threatened the villagers and the witnesses of being shot dead and indeed fired shots blank so as to scaring them away. The informant stated that the shots pushed them back so as to retreating from there. 4. The above story was put down by the informant in his fardbeyan, which was recorded by the investigating officer, P.W.15 Amarnath Das, who had come to his village at about 1:15 A.M. in the night intervening 22-23rd of March, 1988. It appears that P.W.15 S.I. Amarnath Das took up the investigation and during that course, he could not find out the dead body in the very night of the occurrence and rather could find a dead body floating in a nala sometime on the next day of the occurrence, which was identified by P.W.7 Domini Devi, who happened to be the wife of the deceased. The dead body was not a complete human corpse; it was without its head, it was without some of its limbs and it was in an advanced stage of decomposition, as may appear from the evidence of Dr. A.R.K. Prasad examined as P.W.14 in the present case, who opined that the man had been murdered somewhere in between 7-14 days of the medico legal examination held on 26.03.1988, thus, raising a probability as if the dead body which had been produced in a highly decomposed stage before the P.W.14 Dr. A.R.K. Prasad might not be that of Jai Singh Yadav (deceased). 5. At any rate, P.W.15, during the course of investigation, recorded the statements of witnesses, seized the blood-stained earth and other articles found at the place of occurrence. A.R.K. Prasad might not be that of Jai Singh Yadav (deceased). 5. At any rate, P.W.15, during the course of investigation, recorded the statements of witnesses, seized the blood-stained earth and other articles found at the place of occurrence. He also found some dragging marks indicating as if the dead body had been dragged and finding the material sufficient, sent up the ten accused for their trial, which ultimately ended in their conviction. 6. The defence of the appellants was that they had serious enmity with the deceased as also P.W.11 and most of the witnesses and finding no clue as to how the deceased Jai Singh Yadav, who himself happened to be one of the terrors of the elaka, had been killed. The informant and his witnesses had come together to weave out the story so as to put initially before the police, and thereafter before the trial court so as to obtaining an order of conviction against the appellants. 7. We have heard Smt. Fauzia Shakil, learned counsel appearing in the appeals, as also Sri Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of some of the appellants. We have also heard Dr. Mayanand Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and after having gone through the evidence and some part of the judgment what we find is that the two appeals lie in a very narrow compass. The learned trial Judge in paragraph 23 of his judgment has himself disbelieved all the witnesses except P.W.11 and has thereafter gone on to analyze the evidence of P.W.11 in paragraph 24 onwards to record a finding that he appeared to him a trustworthy witness and trusting his evidence had recorded the finding of guilt as against the present appellants. Thus, what was required of us in the present appeals is to find out as to whether indeed the finding of the learned trial Judge that P.W.11 was a wholly reliable witness was a correct finding appearing on the basis of own evidence. 9. Let us note that enmity between the parties is not disputed. Thus, what was required of us in the present appeals is to find out as to whether indeed the finding of the learned trial Judge that P.W.11 was a wholly reliable witness was a correct finding appearing on the basis of own evidence. 9. Let us note that enmity between the parties is not disputed. The evidence of P.W.11 in paragraph 9 and onwards may indicate that there were series of criminal cases of murder, attempted murder and even of dacoity, which were lodged by one party against the other and most of the witnesses who had deposed in the trial court other than P.W.11 had equally been parties to those proceedings. The enmity which appears from the evidence of P.W.11 as also from P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 appears never-ending and rather appears creating some sort of rivalry in between the parties so as to purchasing litigations through purchase of a particular land which, as per P.W.11, was measuring one bigha and three kathas. P.W.11 has himself admitted that his uncle, he himself and P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5, besides his father Jaijai Ram Yadav @ Jajo Yadav (P.W.6), who was declared hostile by the prosecution had together purchased that particular land and there was a dispute for that particular land also between the deceased, informant and the witnesses on the one side and the accused persons on the other. In cross-examination of P.W.11, it was put to him that after purchasing the land, he had applied for mutation of the names of the vendees into the revenue records and the Circle Officer had rejected the application and the appeal had also been dismissed by the D.C.L.R. We have put theses facts in a very asserted way only to highlight that criminal cases were not the only illustrative examples of inherent enmity which was present between the parties, rather that particular enmity had crystallized into such a form as to purchasing litigation by purchasing some disputed land. The rivalry and its height could be perceived by the evidence which was coming from P.W.11. 10. It was in this background that the learned trial Judge was considering the evidence of P.W. 11 and held him as a trustworthy witness. We have only one circumstance to consider out of the evidence of P.W. 11, which is not very lengthy. The rivalry and its height could be perceived by the evidence which was coming from P.W.11. 10. It was in this background that the learned trial Judge was considering the evidence of P.W. 11 and held him as a trustworthy witness. We have only one circumstance to consider out of the evidence of P.W. 11, which is not very lengthy. It was a very short deposition and one line of it probably determines him to be not a wholly reliable witness. The evidence of P.W. 11 indicates in cross-examination that he had found his uncle caught by four appellants, namely, Triveni Yadav, Munni Lal Yadav, Sakaldeo Yadav and Bauki Yadav who emerged from the darkness to catch him. He also saw the remaining two appellants, namely, Jitan Yadav and Prakash Yadav present there, each of whom fired two shots each to kill his uncle. This all happened in darkness and the circumstances were so frightening to P.W. 11 that he was running away from the scene of occurrence to secure a safe place, like, a kansar which is a cluster of earthen ovens created by professionals of kanu-caste in rural Bihar which is always in a hut always situated at a deserted place. The informant had, as appears from his evidence, secured himself by getting to such a safe place. We have already noted that it was dark all around. There is no evidence to indicate that even a ray of light was coming from a distant place to the place of occurrence. The darkness was intervening between the assailed and assailants and the eye witness, P.W. 11. If he had gone to hide himself so as not to be seen by his enemies by disappearing into a kansar in darkness, and thus to save himself, then how was it possible for him to have seen and identified them and further to state as to who had fired how many shots. This is one aspect of the improbability of evidence of P.W. 11. The other aspect of the evidence of P.W. 11 appears extremely absurd making it fit to reject his claim of being a witness to the occurrence. P.W. 11 has stated in paragraph 16 at page 68 of the paper book that after he had secured himself by hiding in the kansar of one Sundar Sah, he was still raising a hulla. P.W. 11 has stated in paragraph 16 at page 68 of the paper book that after he had secured himself by hiding in the kansar of one Sundar Sah, he was still raising a hulla. We could not persuade ourselves to accept this line of evidence of P.W. 11 that a man who was frightened so deeply as to run away from his uncle who was deeply in the claws of peril to save himself could be raising hulla from a safer place as it was definitely to expose himself to the danger of his enemy killing him. This simple reason and absurdity appearing in the evidence of P.W. 11 itself was sufficient to reject his evidence as not that of a trustworthy witness. 11. The learned trial Judge has given very sound reasons for not relying on the evidence of other witnesses, but he at the same time had recorded equally unacceptable and absurd reason for treating P.W. 11 as a trustworthy witness. We are not inclined to treat him as such. He could never have seen the occurrence, as we have already noted, in the cover of darkness. We are of the opinion that P.Ws. 3, 4 and other persons of the village had emerged from the respective deras after picking up the sound of gun shots with other villagers much after the criminals were gone. There could be a probability that P.W. 11 had also reached there the same way the other witnesses had. This appears stated by P.W. 4 in his cross-examination and that lends assurance to our views that P.W. 11 was never a trustworthy witness. 12. Having held as above, we find that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Judge could not be sustained because of the frailty we have just noted in the evidence of P.W. 11. The two appeals as such appear meritorious and the same are allowed. The appellants of the two appeals are acquitted of the charges they had been found guilty of by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed upon them. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.