Judgment :- P.R. Bora, J. 1. We are, in this case, concerned with the gruesome murder of 21 years old Dalit youth, by name Rohidas Pandit Tupe, for which, the trial court has imposed the sentence of life imprisonment to seven persons, who are appellants before this court. This is a bunch of five criminal appeals arising out of Session Trial No. 191/2009. 2. Criminal appeal No.394/2012 is filed by the State, challenging the acquittal of Accused No.1 to 6 and Accused No.66 for the offences punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act(for short, Atrocities Act). 3. Criminal Appeal No.397/2012 is also filed by State whereby the State has challenged the quantum of punishment awarded to the convicts in the aforesaid Sessions Trial. According to the State, capital punishment ought to have been awarded to the accused instead of punishment of life imprisonment. Thus, this is an appeal for enhancement of the sentence. 4. Criminal Appeal No.646/2012 is filed by original accused Nos.4 & 5, who have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. For life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to suffer S.I. For six months. The original accused No.4 is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 341 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. For one month and to pay fine of Rs.200/, in default to suffer S.I. For two months. Accused No. 4 has challenged the said conviction also. 5. Criminal Appeal Nos.651/2011 and 653/2011 have been respectively filed by the accused Nos.2,3,6, 1 & 66, challenging the said judgment and order of conviction. 6. Since all the five appeals are arising out of one judgment, they are being decided by this common judgment. 7. Before adverting to the contentions raised in the respective Criminal Appeals, it would be appropriate to state brief facts of the case. 8. The incident, which gave rise for initiation of criminal complaint, which was ultimately converted into a Sessions Case, happened on 23.2.2009 at village Pal and more particularly in Shivaji Chowk of said village. It occurred in the period between 12.30 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. Admittedly, it was the day of `Mahashivratri’. In the dreadful incident occurred on that day, a youth belonging to scheduled caste, viz. Rohidas Tupe, was literally lynched. It occurred in the period between 12.30 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. Admittedly, it was the day of `Mahashivratri’. In the dreadful incident occurred on that day, a youth belonging to scheduled caste, viz. Rohidas Tupe, was literally lynched. There was an allegation against said Rohidas that he had committed a mischief with one girl in the village viz. Vaishali. It was the contention of the villagers that deceased Rohidas had attempted to make an attack on said Vaishali with a knife as she was not responding to his love signals. Vaishali could escape the attack, but Rohidas could not and ultimately become prey of the frenzy mob. The moment it was noticed that deceased Rohidas had attempted to make attack on Vaishali, he was caught by three-four youngsters and was beaten. In initial attempt, Rohidas succeeded in escaping from the clutches of said youths. However, Rohidas, after some time returned to the spot and was again apprehended by the infuriated villagers. They dragged him towards Shivaji Chowk of village Pal. The deceased was then tied to an electric pole with his own pant and Baniyan and then he was brutally beaten by the mob assembled at the spot. The assailants made attack on him by sticks, iron rods, fists and kicks. 9. As per the case of the prosecution, chilly powder was rubbed on the injuries caused to deceased Rohidas. Kerosene was also sprinkled on his person. He was also made to drink a dirty and filthy Nali water. Because of continuous and multiple assaults suffered by the deceased all over his body he ultimately died at the spot. 10. As per the prosecution case, the first instance of beating to deceased Rohidas happened in front of the house of Police Patil of village Pal viz. Chagan Ramlal Reshwal. At the relevant time, Police Patil was in his house. Wife of the Police Patil first noticed that the deceased was being beaten by some persons, she informed the Police Patil, where-upon, he came out of the house and witnessed the beating to deceased Rohidas. He tried to intervene, but he was prevented and was also threatened not to intervene. The Police Patil then contacted the Police Officer on the bit and informed him about the incident happened. He tried to intervene, but he was prevented and was also threatened not to intervene. The Police Patil then contacted the Police Officer on the bit and informed him about the incident happened. However, by the time police reached, there had been a huge crowd and the police was prevented from entering in the area, where deceased Rohidas was being brutally beaten. Before the police reach to deceased Rohidas, he had breathed his last. He was removed to the hospital, where he was officially declared dead. Meanwhile, the Senior Police officers also reached to village Pal. Investigation was set in motion. The District Superintendent of Police also reached to village Pal. Considering that the youth from backward class community was lynched, the DSP made all possible efforts to keep law and order situation in control. He met the family members of the deceased and also to the members of the backward class community. He assured them that thorough and impartial investigation will be carried out and whoever will be found responsible for causing death of deceased, would be punished. Simultaneously, the formalities were completed of preparing spot panchanama and inquest panchanama of the dead body of deceased Rohidas. Post moretm on the dead body was also to be performed, however, on request of family members of the deceased, the post mortem was performed on next day of the incident at Ghati hospital, Aurangabad. The persons, who have been found on the spot of occurrence were taken into custody by the police. As is revealing from the record, the persons who were residents of village Pal were segregated from the persons from other villages. FIR was already lodged by the Police Patil at about 18.45 hrs. at Police Station Phulambri and investigation was set in motion. 11. On the next day, post mortem was performed and dead body of deceased Rohidas was handed over to the family members. Last rituals were performed at village Pal. The entire atmosphere in village Pal was obviously tense. As per the prosecution, though several arrests were made, some persons have absconded, but within few days, all of them were arrested. It is the further case of the prosecution that the respective accused then volunteered in giving their statements and in pursuance of their statements, the weapons, which were used in the commission of offence, were recovered. The clothes of deceased Rohidas were already seized. It is the further case of the prosecution that the respective accused then volunteered in giving their statements and in pursuance of their statements, the weapons, which were used in the commission of offence, were recovered. The clothes of deceased Rohidas were already seized. The articles, which were found on the spot of occurrence, were also seized. Sample of Nali water was collected. Knife was also recovered from the spot of occurrence and was seized. Statement of the witnesses were recorded by the investigating officer. In the meanwhile, having regard to sensitivity of the case and in pursuance of the demand made by the persons belonging to community of the deceased, the investigation was handed over to Crime Investigation Department of the State (State CID). After being entrusted with the investigation in the said crime, the investigating officer of the State CID also recorded statements of the witnesses. Statements of some of the witnesses were also got recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Phulambri. The Articles, which were seized and which were required to be sent to Chemical Analyzer for chemical analysis, were sent to Chemical Analyzer, Aurangabad. After completing the investigation in the crime, charge sheet was filed against total 72 accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 302 r/w 149, 341 read with 149, 342 read with 149, 353 read with 149 and 506 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, the Atrocities Act) and also under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 12. After the case was committed to the Court of Session, learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the Charge against all the accused. The record demonstrates that the charge was read over to the respective accused persons and their pleas were recorded. None of the accused pleaded guilty and everyone of them claimed to be tried. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 41 witnesses. The prosecution evidence commenced with testimony of the Police Patil of village Pal, viz. Chagan Ramlal Reshwal. He was the person, who has lodged the FIR, on the basis of which, further investigation was set in motion. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 41 witnesses. The prosecution evidence commenced with testimony of the Police Patil of village Pal, viz. Chagan Ramlal Reshwal. He was the person, who has lodged the FIR, on the basis of which, further investigation was set in motion. The prosecution evidence was concluded with the evidence of one Chetan Shivdas Patil, a mobile company Executive. 13. The prosecution, in the beginning, examined the persons, who according to the prosecution, were the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The prosecution then examined the panch witnesses on various panchanamas. The Medical Officer was examined to prove the injuries on the person of the deceased and to bring on record the cause of his death. Panchas to Inquest panchanamas were also examined. Panchas on each and every memorandum of seizure were also examined. The police officers, who had participated in the process of investigation, also came to be examined. 14. The defence of the accused persons, except accused Nos. 45 and 65, as revealed from mode of cross-examination and their statements recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, was of total denial and false implication. Accused Nos. 45 and 65 had taken defence of alibi. 15. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on his appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, placed before him, convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 66 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment and also imposed fine upon each of them, at Rs. 5,000/, in default to suffer S.I. for six months. The learned Sessions Judge convicted Accused Nos.1 to 4, also for the offence under Section 341 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for one month with fine of Rs.200/each, in default, to suffer S.I. for two months. 16. Accused Nos. 30 and 36 died during pendency of the Sessions Trial. The Sessions Trial therefore, abated against them. All the accused have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 302 read 149, 506 read with 149, 341 read 149, 342 read with 149, 353 read 149 of Indian Penal Code and also of the offences under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act. The Sessions Trial therefore, abated against them. All the accused have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 302 read 149, 506 read with 149, 341 read 149, 342 read with 149, 353 read 149 of Indian Penal Code and also of the offences under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act. All these accused have also been acquitted of the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 17. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, these five appeals are preferred. 18. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that having regard to the brutality in causing death of deceased Rohidas, the only and appropriate punishment would have been the capital punishment and it must have been awarded by the Trial Court. Learned APP further submitted that a lonely person was brutally assaulted jointly by several persons. The learned APP further submitted that the deceased was tied to an Electric pole and after rendering him defenseless, he was mercilessly bashed. Learned APP further submitted that the assailants stoped beating deceased Rohidas only after making it sure that he has died. Learned APP further submitted that the act of rubbing chilly powder on the wounds of the deceased so also pouring kerosene on his person are the instances, which have increased severity of the culpability of the accused persons. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, according to learned APP, the only punishment that ought to have been awarded to the accused persons was capital punishment. The learned APP, therefore, prayed for enhancement of the sentence awarded to original Accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 66. 19. While arguing Criminal Appeal No. 394/2012, learned APP submitted that from the evidence, which has come on record, it is writ-large that deceased Rohidas was mercilessly beaten by several persons at a time only for the reason that he was belonging to scheduled caste, i.e. “Mang”. Learned APP further submitted that the prosecution has proved the caste of the deceased as well as of the accused persons and has also proved that the accused were instigating to kill deceased Rohidas, stating that “Mangate Mazlet”. Learned APP submitted that even the female accused, who have been convicted were also involved in instigating the mob against deceased Rohidas on the basis of his caste. Learned APP submitted that even the female accused, who have been convicted were also involved in instigating the mob against deceased Rohidas on the basis of his caste. In such circumstances, according to learned APP, present was a fit case, wherein accused persons ought to have been punished for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act. Learned APP, therefore, prayed for punishment to the accused for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act. 20. As against it, Shri Ghanekar, learned Counsel appearing for accused No.4 & 5; Shri V.D.Sapkal, learned Counsel appearing for Accused No.2, 3 & 5 and Shri Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for accused No.1 & 66, earnestly urged that the present case is of no evidence against any of the accused and each of them deserves to be cleanly acquitted. It was a common thread in the arguments of all the defence counsel that the much relied evidence of PW 2 and PW 7, is of no use for the prosecution since the evidence of both these witnesses is full of contradictions and omissions. It was further commonly argued by these counsel that after having closely scrutinized the evidence of these two witnesses, the very basic doubt is created regarding the presence of the said witnesses on the spot of occurrence. It was argued that though PW 2 is said to have been an eye witness to the incident and also stated to be present near the spot of occurrence, did not disclose the incident for a pretty long period and did not inform to the police also. Similarly, the statement of PW 7, is also posed to be an eye witness to the alleged incident, was recorded after lapse of about 6 months of the alleged incident. In such circumstances, according to learned Counsel, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of both these witnesses. Learned Counsel further argued that none of panch witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution. It was also argued that even the witnesses, who happen to be relatives of deceased Rohidas, have also not supported the case of the prosecution. There are several lapses in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, apparent on the face of record and in such circumstances, according to learned Counsel; no conviction was possible in the present case. They, therefore, prayed for acquittal of all the accused persons. There are several lapses in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, apparent on the face of record and in such circumstances, according to learned Counsel; no conviction was possible in the present case. They, therefore, prayed for acquittal of all the accused persons. It need not be stated that Criminal Appeals filed by the State have been impliedly opposed by these respective counsel for enhancement of the sentence as well as for punishing these accused persons for offence under the Atrocities Act. 21. Firstly, we would deal with Criminal Appeals filed by the convicted persons for the reason that the fate of the State Appeals depends on decision of these appeals. We reiterate that accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 66 have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Section 302 read 34 of Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/each. These accused have also been punished for the offences under Section 341 read 34 of Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to suffer R.I. for two months and fine of Rs.200 each. Punishment for these offences has already been undergone by all the accused persons. 22. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment. We have also consciously read the entire evidence, which was adduced before the Trial Court. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons though as many as 41 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, most of them have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is also revealed that the conclusion recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge holding the accused persons guilty for the offence under Section 302 read 34 of Indian Penal Code, is mainly based upon the evidence of PW 2 and PW 7. 23. Dattu s/o Pandit Tupe (PW 2) is real brother of deceased Rohidas. As has come on record, this witness was residing at village Pal at the relevant time and was in the village on the date of incident, i.e. 23.2.2009. As deposed by this witness, on 23.2.2009 at about 12.00 noon, his cousin brother viz. Amol Raosaheb Tupe informed him that deceased Rohidas has been tied to electric pole and was being beaten by four boys. As stated by PW 2 in his examination-in-chief, Amol Raosaheb Tupe (PW 6) had also informed names of said boys, viz. As deposed by this witness, on 23.2.2009 at about 12.00 noon, his cousin brother viz. Amol Raosaheb Tupe informed him that deceased Rohidas has been tied to electric pole and was being beaten by four boys. As stated by PW 2 in his examination-in-chief, Amol Raosaheb Tupe (PW 6) had also informed names of said boys, viz. Dyaneshwar Tejrao Jadhav (accused 1); Sachin @ Appa Chandrashekhar Jadhav (Accused No.2); Chotu @ Dnyaneshwar Suryabhan Jadhav (Accused No.3); and Santosh Ambadas Jadhav (Accused No.4). It has further come in the evidence of PW 2 that, after receiving the information, as above, from PW 6 – Amol, he went to the spot of incident, i.e. at Shivaji Chowk. As further deposed by PW 2, he saw that deceased Rohidas was tied to electric pole by means of Baniyan and was being assaulted by accused Nos. 1 to 4 and accused No. 69 viz. Yogesh Bhagaji Jadhav. It has further come in evidence of PW 2 that Accused No.1 was assaulting the deceased by means of iron rod; accused Nos. 2 and 3 by sticks and accused No.4 by slaps and accused No.69 by means of iron rod. PW 2 has further deposed that Anil Muktaram Jadhav (Accused No.68) was assaulting deceased Rohidas by means of iron rod, whereas Baijubai Vitthal Jadhav (Accused No. 5) was rubbing chilly powder on the injuries of deceased Rohidas. It has also come in evidence of PW 2 that Accused No.6 – Rukhamanbai Laxman Jadhav poured kerosene on person of Rohidas. It has also come in his evidence that when Rohidas was asking for water, accused Kusumbai Tanaji Jadhav (Accused No.66) dipped chappal in the Nalli and made Rohidas to drink said dirty water. It has also come in evidence of PW 2 that accused – Indubai Bhagaji Jadhav (Accused No.70) was giving slaps to Rohidas. PW 2 also deposed that the accused were uttering that Rohidas be killed. As has further come in his evidence, there were 100150 persons and they were raising shouts and were provoking the assailants to beat Rohidas. It has also come in evidence of PW 2 that stones were put on all the sides, where Rohidas was tied. PW 2 further deposed that because of this beating, Rohidas fell unconscious after about 2½ hours and then he left the spot and went to his house. It has also come in evidence of PW 2 that stones were put on all the sides, where Rohidas was tied. PW 2 further deposed that because of this beating, Rohidas fell unconscious after about 2½ hours and then he left the spot and went to his house. PW 2 further provided that police then took deceased Rohidas to Ghati hospital, where he was declared to have been died. It has also come in evidence of PW 2 that there is Mahadeo temple in village Pal, which is ancient one at the west side of the village. As has further come on record, there were 200-300 persons in the temple at the relevant time. PW 2 also deposed in his testimony before the court that in village Pal, there are houses of all the persons belonging to backward class, however, about 80% population of village Pal is of Maratha community. PW 2 further deposed that he belongs to Mang community, whereas all the accused persons are of Maratha community. It has also come on record in his evidence that deceased Rohidas was beaten by villagers for the reason that he was having love affair with one Vaishali, who is daughter of Vitthal Jagannath Jadhav (Accused No. 7), who belongs to Maratha community. During the course of his evidence, PW 2 identified almost all the accused persons before the Court. He also identified the iron rods and sticks allegedly used for assaulting deceased Rohidas. He also identified underwear of deceased Rohidas and other clothes on the person of deceased Rohidas. 24. Since evidence of PW 2 and PW 7 has been much relied upon by the prosecution and the entire thrust of the prosecution, so as to prove the guilt of the accused, seems to be on the evidence of PW 2 and PW 7, evidence of both these witnesses will have to be closely and minutely scrutinized. 25. The defence has doubted the very presence of PW 2 on the spot of occurrence. As has been argued by the Defence counsel, the conduct revealed of this witness creates serious doubts about the facts deposed by the said witness in his evidence before the Court. 26. As has been stated by PW 2 – Dattu, he came to know about the alleged beating to deceased Rohidas from his cousin Amol Raosaheb Tupe (PW 6). As has been argued by the Defence counsel, the conduct revealed of this witness creates serious doubts about the facts deposed by the said witness in his evidence before the Court. 26. As has been stated by PW 2 – Dattu, he came to know about the alleged beating to deceased Rohidas from his cousin Amol Raosaheb Tupe (PW 6). In the examination-in-chief, PW 2 – Dattu has stated that at about 12.00 noon, PW 6 – Amol informed him that deceased Rohidas was tied to an electric pole in the village by four boys and was being beaten by them. It has also come in evidence of PW 2 – Dattu that PW 6 – Amol has also disclosed the names of four boys, who had allegedly tied deceased Rohidas to an electric pole. In this background, if we see the evidence of PW 6 – Amol, he has not supported the version of PW 2 Dattu. Though PW 6 Amol was declared hostile and was allowed to be cross-examined by learned APP, even in the cross-examination, no incriminating material has come on record so as to prove complicity of any of the accused in the commission of alleged crime. In such circumstances, though PW 2 – Dattu might have stated that PW 6 – Amol informed him and also disclosed the names of the assailants, who had tied deceased Rohidas to electric pole, no implicit reliance can be placed on such evidence without any corroboration to the said evidence from PW 6Amol. 27. Moreover, the facts which have come on record, in the cross-examination of PW 2, also create serious doubts about the information allegedly provided by PW 6 – Amol to PW 2 – Dattu. In the cross-examination, PW 2 stated that on 23rd February, 2009, Amol (PW 6) had come only once to his house at 11.00 a.m. He has further deposed that he and Amol had talked for about half an hour. He has further deposed that after having talk for half an hour, he did not know where Amol went. He has further deposed that thereafter he and Amol (PW 6) met at 5.30 p.m. at his house. He has further deposed that after having talk for half an hour, he did not know where Amol went. He has further deposed that thereafter he and Amol (PW 6) met at 5.30 p.m. at his house. From the fact that PW 2 – Dattu and PW 6 – Amol were talking to each other for about half an hour, it is obvious that the incident had not occurred till that time, otherwise, both could not have indulged in talk at the house instead they would have to the spot. From the material which has come on record, neither PW 2 – Dattu nor PW 6 – Amol were possessing mobile phones. It is not the case of the prosecution that Amol informed about the alleged incident to PW 2 – Dattu on phone and/or cell phone. It is thus evident that if the version of PW 2 – Dattu is to be believed, PW 6 – Amol must have come to the house of PW 2 – Dattu to inform him about the alleged incident, since no other mode was available for giving such information. The prosecution evidence reveal that the alleged incident had occurred after 12.30 p.m. and more particularly, in between 12.30 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. Thus, if at all any information would have been provided by PW 6 – Amol to PW 2 – Dattu, it could not have been provided before 12.30 p.m. As such, we find it difficult to believe the further information given by PW 2 – Dattu that PW 6 – Amol informed him about the alleged incident and also disclosed the names of the assailants. 28. Secondly, it appears quite improbable and unnatural that after having reached at the spot of occurrence and after having seen that his real brother has been tied to an electric pole and is being mercilessly beaten by the mob and more particularly, by accused Nos.1 to 4, he will just quietly watch what was happening without making any attempt to intervene and to further make any effort to restrain and dissuade the assailants from making any further assault on deceased Rohidas. Nothing has come in the evidence of PW 2 – Dattu that any such effort was made by him. As further deposed by him, he eye-witnessed accused Nos. 1 to 4; accused No.69, accused No.68, assaulting deceased Rohidas with wooden sticks and iron rods. Nothing has come in the evidence of PW 2 – Dattu that any such effort was made by him. As further deposed by him, he eye-witnessed accused Nos. 1 to 4; accused No.69, accused No.68, assaulting deceased Rohidas with wooden sticks and iron rods. He had also eye witnessed accused No.5 rubbing chilly powder on the injuries of Rohidas. He had also seen accused No.6 Rukhminibai pouring kerosene on the person of Rohidas. He had also seen and heard that deceased Rohidas was begging for water, whereupon accused Kusumbai (Accused No.66) made him to drink the dirty nali water. Even after having eye witnessed the aforesaid brutalities, PW 2 – Dattu did not make any effort of rescuing his brother from the clutches of the assailants. It is not the case of PW 2 – Dattu that he did not do so because it could not have been possible looking to the fury of the mob. It is also not his case that after he had reached to the spot of occurrence; somebody from the mob had warned or threatened him not to go ahead and not to make any attempt to save his brother. In fact, his natural conduct of Dattu ought to be such that without caring for his own life, he would have immediately surged into the mob and would have attempted to reach to his brother and would have attempted to save him from the brutality of the frantic mob. It appears quite unnatural that PW 2 – Dattu was watching the beating to his brother Rohidas for about 2½ hours by standing in or at the back of the mob. It appears more improbable that even after deceased Rohidas fell unconscious and put his neck down, then also PW 2 – Dattu did not find it fit to rush near him, and on the contrary, preferred to leave for his home. 29. The further conduct of PW 2 – Dattu is equally unbelievable and improbable. It has come in his evidence itself that immediately after the occurrence of the alleged incident, police force had arrived at village Pal and the District Superintendent of Police has also visited the village. It has also come on record that the District Superintendent of Police met the near relatives of deceased Rohidas and in the meeting so held, PW 2-Dattu was very well present. It has also come on record that the District Superintendent of Police met the near relatives of deceased Rohidas and in the meeting so held, PW 2-Dattu was very well present. In such circumstances, it appears difficult to digest that PW 2 – Dattu would not disclose the alleged incident to the police or to the DSP immediately and at the first opportunity and the entire incident would be narrated by him after two days of the incident, i.e. on 25.2.2009. Even if it is accepted that at the relevant time, PW 2 – Dattu was under tremendous fear and was apprehending that he would also be targeted by the mob and hence he did not indulge in making any attempt to save his brother, it is not understood as to what prevented him to disclose the alleged incident immediately to the police and/or to the DSP when an assurance was given to them that all sorts of protection will be given to them and that the culprits will be taken to task. 30. It has come on record through evidence of PW 2 that immediately after occurrence of the alleged incident; police had reached to the spot of occurrence and has started making enquiries. But even then, PW 2 – Dattu did not find it necessary to give his statement to the police or to provide information to the police about the occurrence of the alleged incident when he himself had eye-witnessed everything as stated by him in his testimony before the Court. All the aforesaid facts create serious doubts about the very presence of PW 2 – Dattu on the spot of occurrence. 31. It has further come in evidence of PW 2 Dattu that on 23.2.2009, in the evening, his both the uncles residing at village Pal, his aunts and some persons belonging to his caste, had been to his house. PW 2 has also deposed that Shri Amiteshkumar, District Superintendent of Police had come near his house at Sailani Baba temple, where he informed about death of Rohidas. PW 2 has also deposed that Shri Amiteshkumar was addressing the gathering verbally without making use of loudspeaker. He has also deposed that when Amiteshkumar addressed the gathering, his uncle, aunt and few persons from his caste, all were at his house. PW 2 has also deposed that Shri Amiteshkumar was addressing the gathering verbally without making use of loudspeaker. He has also deposed that when Amiteshkumar addressed the gathering, his uncle, aunt and few persons from his caste, all were at his house. PW 2 has also deposed that, he and other persons in his house being close relatives of deceased Rohidas, Shri Amiteshkumar met them and gave them courage stating that the incident, which had happened was tragic. Amiteshkumar had also told to them that he would do best for them. After having stated the facts, as above, the next fact, which has been stated by PW 2 – Dattu is more material. PW 2 has deposed that none of the persons present in his house made any complaint to Shri Amiteshkumar on the day of incident. Such conduct of PW 2 – Dattu and others, who were allegedly present at his house at the relevant time, raises serious doubts about the presence of PW 2 and the other witnesses at the spot of occurrence and witnessing the alleged incident. 32. Further, it has come in the evidence of PW 2 that after seeing the incident, he did feel that he should report about it to the police. He has further clarified that such thought came in his mind five minutes after he reached to the spot. As stated by PW 2, he remained at the spot of incident for about 2½ hours. PW 2 has further deposed that when he left the spot, he did feel that he should inform about the incident to the police and also to his relatives. PW 2 has also expressed the anxiety in his mind by stating that he was not aware as to on what time the police would come to the spot of incident, so also he was not knowing whether someone has informed the police about the incident or not. In the background of the facts, as aforesaid, stated by PW 2 – Dattu, his conduct has to be analyzed of not making any complaint to Superintendent of Police – Amiteshkumar when he personally met him and his relatives. In the background of the facts, as aforesaid, stated by PW 2 – Dattu, his conduct has to be analyzed of not making any complaint to Superintendent of Police – Amiteshkumar when he personally met him and his relatives. If according to PW 2 – Dattu he was earnestly feeling that he would report the matter to the police and he was also worried to know whether someone has informed about the alleged incident to the police or not, it cannot be believed that he would not make any complaint to the Superintendent of Police Shri Amiteshkumar when he had been to village Pal immediately after the occurrence of the alleged incident and had personally met him and his other relatives. It is significant to note that Raosaheb Tupe (PW 4) Gangadhar Tupe (PW 8), who were also posed by the prosecution to be eyewitnesses of the alleged incident, also did not make any complaint to Superintendent of Police Shri Amiteshkumar, when he had been to village Pal to take stock of the situation. Had they really eye-witnessed the incident, it appears improbable that they still would have remained silent and would not have made any complaint to the Superintendent of Police of the district, more particularly when he had given full assurance to protect interest of the victim and family members of the victim. Serious doubts are, therefore, raised about the fact whether or not the aforesaid witnesses had eye-witnessed the alleged incident. 33. It was urged by learned APP that PW 2 and other witnesses were under tremendous pressure and fear and that was the reason that they did not disclose anything to the police immediately after the occurrence of the alleged incident. However, we find it difficult to accept the arguments so advanced by the learned APP. We may not deny that there was some fear in the minds of PW 2 as well as other relatives of deceased Rohidas and the persons belonging to his caste at the initial stage when the alleged incident happened. However, after the police force reached to the village and the District Superintendent of Police himself not only reached to the spot, but gave assurance that the culprits will be dealt with seriously and full protection will be given to the family members of the deceased, the fear in the mind of all of them ought to have been diminished. However, after the police force reached to the village and the District Superintendent of Police himself not only reached to the spot, but gave assurance that the culprits will be dealt with seriously and full protection will be given to the family members of the deceased, the fear in the mind of all of them ought to have been diminished. It cannot be accepted that after the concrete assurance from Superintendent of Police also the family members of the deceased hesitated to disclose the facts for being under pressure or fear of the assailants. 34. The conduct of PW 2 of straightway going to his home from the spot of occurrence also appears quite improbable. Real brother would have never gone to home after such incident. Ordinarily and most probably, he would have tried to meet his relatives to share his grief with them and to decide what shall be done further. After knowing that deceased Rohidas was being taken to the hospital, PW 2 was naturally expected to be eager to know about the condition of deceased Rohidas. There is nothing on record to show that PW 2 – Dattu did make any effort to know as to what happened to his brother Rohidas. Such conduct on the part of PW 2Dattu appears quite unnatural and unbelievable. Serious doubts are, therefore, created as to whether, in fact, PW 2 was aware of the alleged incident or not. 35. It has been submitted on behalf of the defence counsel that most of the incriminating facts stated by PW 2 in his evidence before the Court, were not stated by him to the police when his statement was recorded. Our attention was invited to paragraph 18 of cross-examination of PW 2. We have carefully perused the said part of cross-examination of PW 2 – Dattu and also the statement recorded of PW 2 – Dattu by the police under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure along with supplementary statement recorded of the said witness. We find substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of learned defence Counsel. It appears true that most of the incriminating facts stated by PW 2 in his evidence before the Court have come on record by way of omission. We find substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of learned defence Counsel. It appears true that most of the incriminating facts stated by PW 2 in his evidence before the Court have come on record by way of omission. As submitted by learned defence Counsel, all the omissions are appropriately got proved through evidence of PW 38 – Prabhakar Pundlikrao Shelke (Investigating Officer) in his cross-examination. It is a matter of record that the statement of PW 2 was also recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Our attention was invited to the relevant portion of evidence of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Shri Gupta (PW 40). The material on record show that even in his statement before the Magistrate, majority incriminating facts were not stated by PW 2. All these omissions have also been duly proved by the defence. 36. As stated earlier, alike PW 2 – Dattu, testimony of PW 7 – Sominath @ Samadhan Bhagaji Tupe also needs to be analyzed in detail. According to case of the prosecution, Sominath is an eyewitness of the alleged incident. In his testimony before the Court, Sominath has deposed that on 23.2.2009, which was the day of `Mahashivratri’, he had been to Mahadeo Temple for Darshan along with his friend Rahul Navture at about 11.30 a.m. He has further deposed that at that time, he saw that deceased Rohidas was being assaulted in front of the house of Police Patil by Sachin (Accused No.2); Chotu (Accused No.3); Santosh (Accused No.4); and Dnyaneshwar (Accused No.1) by means of fist blows, kicks and belt. He has further deposed that all of them dragged Rohidas towards the stand. It has also come in his evidence that deceased Rohidas attempted to escape, however, he was chased by aforenamed accused persons and they caught hold of him and hauled him to the Chowk near Shivaji Statue. Sominath has also deposed that deceased Rohidas was then tied to an electric pole by the aforenamed four accused persons and was barbarously beaten by them. It has also come in his evidence that Rohidas was tied to the electric pole by his baniyan and pant. It has further come in his evidence that the afore-named four accused persons assaulted Rohidas by means of iron rods an sticks. It has also come in his evidence that Rohidas was tied to the electric pole by his baniyan and pant. It has further come in his evidence that the afore-named four accused persons assaulted Rohidas by means of iron rods an sticks. He has further deposed that chilly powder, salt and kerosene were sprinkled on the person of Rohidas. As stated by him, accused Chotu (A-3) rubbed chilly powder on person of deceased Rohidas and then some women also rubbed the chilly powder on the injuries of deceased Rohidas. It has also come in his evidence that Accused No.66 Kusumbai made Rohidas to drink dirty Nalli water by means of chappal. As further stated by him, Accused No.66 – Kusumbai was instigating by saying “Mangte Mazlet, Tyana Marun Taka”. It has also come in his evidence that accused Tanaji Jadhav (Accused No.47) also instigated the mob to beat deceased Rohidas. Sominath has further deposed that after witnessing the callous beating to deceased Rohidas he got frightened and hence went to his field and he told to his mother and sister about beating to deceased Rohidas by accused Sachin, Chotu, Dnyaneshwar, Santosh and other villagers. It has also come in his evidence that he told his father about the alleged incident after his father returned to home in the evening from the field. As has come in the evidence of Sominath, deceased Rohidas was his cousin brother. Sominath has further deposed that on the next day, dead body of deceased Rohidas was brought in the village and funeral was performed. It has also come in his evidence that after funeral, he went to village Harsul, where his sister was residing since he was under tremendous fear. As further stated by him, he returned village Pal after reopening of the school. When examinationinchief of PW 7 – Sominath was recorded, accused Nos. 1 to 4 were not produced from the jail. However, the defence did not challenge identification of the said accused by PW 7 – Sominath. He identified the other accused viz. Kusumbai; Bijubai; Rukhmanbai and also accused Tanaji. PW 7 – Sominath identified Baniyan and pant of deceased Rohidas; sticks, iron rods and chappal allegedly used while making assault on deceased Rohidas. 37. The trial court has found the evidence of PW 7 to be trustworthy and dependable. He identified the other accused viz. Kusumbai; Bijubai; Rukhmanbai and also accused Tanaji. PW 7 – Sominath identified Baniyan and pant of deceased Rohidas; sticks, iron rods and chappal allegedly used while making assault on deceased Rohidas. 37. The trial court has found the evidence of PW 7 to be trustworthy and dependable. As has been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, PW 7 did not attempt to unnecessarily implicate all the persons, who were accused in the trial, but named only those persons and identified them, who had played incriminating role in the commission of alleged crime. We, however, find it difficult to subscribe the observations of learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned trial Judge has ignored the very material fact that statement of PW 7 – Sominath was recorded on 27.8.2009, i.e. after the period of more than six months from the date of alleged occurrence. Some effort has been made to explain the delay, which has occasioned in recording the statement of this witness. It seems to be the case of the prosecution that after attending the funeral of deceased Rohidas, PW 7 – Sominath left village Pal and went to Harsul at the house of his sister. It is the further case of the prosecution that Sominath returned to village Pal on reopening of the academic year and this was the reason, according to the prosecution, that the statement of PW 7 – Sominath could not be recorded immediately after the alleged occurrence. 38. Learned APP has invited our attention to Para 2 of the Examination-in-chief of the said witness, wherein he has stated that after funeral, he went to village Harsul and after re opening of the school, he returned to village Pal. However, in the light of the facts stated by PW 7-Sominath in his examination-in-chief, when we went through cross-examination of the said witness, it is clearly revealed that Sominath was in village Pal itself till his examination of 7th Std. was over and the results of it was declared. As answered by PW 7 – Sominath, he gave examination of 7th Std. in the month of April-May and the results of the said examination were declared one month thereafter. It is thus evident that at least up to 1st May 2009, PW 7 – Sominath was in village Pal. was over and the results of it was declared. As answered by PW 7 – Sominath, he gave examination of 7th Std. in the month of April-May and the results of the said examination were declared one month thereafter. It is thus evident that at least up to 1st May 2009, PW 7 – Sominath was in village Pal. Further, the said witness has disclosed that he was in village Pal till he took admission in 8th Std. Though there is no specific mention as to in which month he took admission in 8th Std., a judicial note can be taken that in ordinary course, admissions in the school are being done in the month of June of every academic year. Thus, as per his own version, PW 7 was in village Pal till June 2009. On conjoint reading of examination-in-chief and cross-examination of this witness, a serious doubt is raised whether, in fact, said witness has gone out of village Pal at any point of time. Even if it is accepted at some time for few days PW 7 might have gone to village Harsul, as unambiguously stated by him, he was in village Pal till his examination of 7th Std., which was held in April May 2009. In such circumstances, there appears no reason for not recording statement of Sominath till August 2009. Inordinate delay occasioned in recording the statement of PW 7 – Sominath, who is projected as an eyewitness of the alleged incident, and a feeble attempt made to explain the said delay, cast serious doubts about the facts deposed by said witness in his evidence before the Court. 39. Moreover, the conduct of PW 7, as is revealed through his examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination, also raises serious doubts about his very presence on the spot of occurrence and also his eye-witnessing the alleged incident. In cross-examination of PW 7-Sominath it has come on record that he did not raise shouts when deceased Rohidas was being beaten. It has also come on record that PW 7 – Sominath did not feel it necessary to inform about the alleged incident to his uncles, who were residing at village Pal itself. In paragraph 5 of the cross-examination, it has come on record that Sominath did not feel it necessary to tell elderly persons about the incident of Rohidas. It has also come on record that PW 7 – Sominath did not feel it necessary to inform about the alleged incident to his uncles, who were residing at village Pal itself. In paragraph 5 of the cross-examination, it has come on record that Sominath did not feel it necessary to tell elderly persons about the incident of Rohidas. So also he did not feel it necessary to take help of elderly persons. It is not the case that PW 7 – Sominath was confined by the accused and other persons in the mob and hence, he could not inform his real uncles or elderly persons in his family about the alleged incident. As has further come on record, friend of PW 7 viz. Rahul Navture was with him, however, Sominath did not tell to said Rahul to go and call some elderly persons. It was argued by the learned APP that PW 7 was under the remendous fear at the relevant time and that was the reason that he could not inform elderly persons in his house or to his uncles about the alleged occurrence. However, contention of learned APP cannot be accepted for many reasons. Sominath (PW 7) could have very well asked his friend Rahul to go and call his uncles or elderly persons in his family. As stated by PW 7 himself, Rahul was not frightened. PW 7 has, in answer to one question in the cross-examination, stated that he cannot tell any reason why he did not tell Rahul to go and call elderly persons. Further, even if we accept that on 23.2.2009, there may be fear in the mind of PW 7 – Sominath, however, there is nothing on record to show as to what prevented him thereafter to disclose the facts, which he had eye-witnessed. We need not to repeat that immediately after the occurrence of alleged incident, police persons in large number had reached to village Pal. Even the District Superintendent of Police immediately had been to village Pal. As stated by PW 7, on the next day of the incident, Home Minister Shri Nitin Raut also had been to village Pal along with police officers. As further deposed by him, the Minister had called all persons of his community and talked to them and he also caused an inquiry in respect of the incident. As stated by PW 7, on the next day of the incident, Home Minister Shri Nitin Raut also had been to village Pal along with police officers. As further deposed by him, the Minister had called all persons of his community and talked to them and he also caused an inquiry in respect of the incident. It has also come in his evidence that the Minister had assured all of them not to worry and even told them that he also belongs to backward class. As such, there was no reason for PW 7 not to disclose the facts pertaining to alleged incident, which he has actually seen, on the next day of the incident or within few days after the alleged incident, when police persons were constantly stationed at village Pal. It has come in the evidence of PW 7 that police were in village Pal till 13th day of death of deceased Rohidas. He has also deposed that all their relatives had been to village Pal to attend the rituals of deceased Rohidas. It is significant to note that said witness has further deposed that police used to come daily to them and make inquiries. Sominath (PW 7) however did not disclose to the police in the said period that he had eye-witnessed the alleged incident. Such conduct of PW 7 – Sominath creates serious doubts regarding his presence on the spot of occurrence and eye-witnessing the alleged incident. Prudently, an eyewitness is supposed to disclose the facts within his knowledge at the earliest point of time. Delay caused in such disclosure creates doubts about it veracity. If there is inordinate delay in making such disclosure, it is very unsafe to base conviction on the basis of such statements. We reiterate that the statement of PW 7 is recorded after the period of more than six months of the alleged incident and there is no plausible explanation for the delay so caused. We, therefore, find it very unsafe to base the conviction on the basis of such unreasonably delayed statement. 40. The prosecution evidence does not disclose as to what prompted PW 7 to state about the alleged incident to police after six months of the alleged incident when prior to that, as stated by said witness himself, he did not feel necessary at any point of time to state before the police about the alleged incident. 40. The prosecution evidence does not disclose as to what prompted PW 7 to state about the alleged incident to police after six months of the alleged incident when prior to that, as stated by said witness himself, he did not feel necessary at any point of time to state before the police about the alleged incident. It has also come on record that PW 7-Sominath had disclosed about the alleged incident to his mother as well as to his father. Why mother and father of PW 7 also did not disclose the said fact to the police, is also not explained by the prosecution. According to us, no reliance can be placed on evidence of such witness. It would be very unsafe to base conviction of the accused on the strength of such doubtful evidence. We cannot accept that a person, eye witnessing the alleged incident, will remain silent for a long period of six months in disclosing the said fact to the police. We also cannot accept that father and mother of said witness, assuming that the said witness being minor, was unable to disclose the facts at his own to the police, would also keep quite. Had PW 7 really eye-witnessed the alleged incident and informed about it to his father, it appears quite improbable that the latter would have kept quite and would not have informed about it to the police and more particularly when he happens to be a close relative i.e.uncle of deceased Rohidas. Admittedly, father of Sominath (PW 7) has not given any information to the police. 41. After having carefully scanned the evidence of PW 7 – Sominath, there are serious doubts in our mind as to whether, in fact, PW 7 had witnessed the alleged incident, as deposed by him. We reiterate that no reliance can be placed on such evidence. Admittedly, father of Sominath (PW 7) has not given any information to the police. 41. After having carefully scanned the evidence of PW 7 – Sominath, there are serious doubts in our mind as to whether, in fact, PW 7 had witnessed the alleged incident, as deposed by him. We reiterate that no reliance can be placed on such evidence. Moreover, several material facts, for example (i) accused Santosh Ambadas Jadhav (Accused No.4) and accused Dnyaneshwar Tejrao Jadhav (Accused No.1) were beating deceased Rohidas by iron rods and stick; (ii) accused Kusumbai Tanaji Jadhav (Accused No.66) was beating Rohidas by Chappal and made Rohidas to drink dirty Nali water by means of chappal and was uttering, “ Mangate Mazlet, Tyana Marun Taka”; (iii) that, accused Tanaji Madhavrao Jadhav (Accused No.47) instigated the mob to beat deceased Rohidas, were stated by PW 7 for the first time before the Court and are not appearing in his police statement recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure. All these omissions have been duly got proved by the defence in the cross-examination of PW 32 – Pundlik Bapurao Pawar, Police Inspector, State CID. For this reason also, evidence of PW 7 cannot be depended upon. 42. FIR in the case has been lodged by one Chagan Ramlal Reshwal. He was the Police Patil of village Pal at the relevant time. Said Chagan Reshwal was the first witness examined by the prosecution. It is a matter of record that learned APP was required to seek permission to cross-examine said Chagan Reshwal, stating that he was not supporting the case of the prosecution. In his testimony before the court, though PW 1 – Chagan has disclosed the names of Accused Nos. 1 to 4, he has not attributed any specific overt act on the part of these accused persons nor anything has been stated by the said witness about these accused making assault on deceased Rohidas by iron rod or wooden stick. Moreover, there are material contradictions noticed in the evidence of this witness. If the contents of FIR are produced, it is revealed that wife of PW 1 Chagan had informed him that some persons are beating one boy on the road; whereas in the evidence before the Court, PW 1 – Chagan has stated that his wife informed him that 100150 persons had gathered near Mahadeo Temple. If the contents of FIR are produced, it is revealed that wife of PW 1 Chagan had informed him that some persons are beating one boy on the road; whereas in the evidence before the Court, PW 1 – Chagan has stated that his wife informed him that 100150 persons had gathered near Mahadeo Temple. In the examination-in-chief only PW 1 has further deposed that crowd of 1500-2000 had gathered near the statue hence he did not go there. He has also deposed that he did not remember, who were present there. On perusal of evidence of PW – 1 Chagan, it is apparently noticed that there are two parts of alleged incident; one event has occurred in front of the house of the Police Patil and the subsequent event had occurred near Shivaji statue. From the evidence of PW 1, it is clearly revealed that after occurrence of earlier incident, which had occurred in front of his house, deceased Rohidas had escaped from the said place. Some reference has come in the evidence of PW 1 in that regard. PW 1 has stated that, ” someone told me that Rohidas was sitting in a jeep and has gone in the village.” We need not to make detail reference of the facts, which have come in the cross-examination of the witnesses. Suffice it so say that sufficient material has come on record to suggest that after occurrence of the first incident, sometime thereafter deceased Rohidas again attempted to enter into the village and at that time, he was trapped by the mob, was dragged to Shivaji statue and was lynched. What appears from the evidence of PW 1Chagan is that, he was stating about the first incident which happened in front of his house. In so far as second incident is concerned, it appears that he could not even enter into the crowd and obviously, therefore, could not see as to what was happening at the Shivaji statue. This is what has been precisely stated by PW 1 in his evidence before the Court. It is thus evident that though in the FIR lodged by PW 1, he has mentioned names of accused Nos.1 to 4 that has reference with the first incident. This is what has been precisely stated by PW 1 in his evidence before the Court. It is thus evident that though in the FIR lodged by PW 1, he has mentioned names of accused Nos.1 to 4 that has reference with the first incident. Moreover, looking to the material contradictions and omissions, which have come on record through evidence of PW 1, we find it very unsafe to rely upon evidence of such witness to base the conviction of the accused. 43. PW 4 – Raosaheb s/o Bhimrao Tupe is also posed to be en eyewitness of the alleged incident and the trial court to some extent has relied upon the evidence of PW 4 also to base the conviction. PW 4 is real brother of the father of deceased Rohidas. He is residing at village Pal. As stated by the said witness, on 23.2.2009, at about 12.00-12.30 p.m., when he was sitting in his house, his brother Gangadhar came to him in a frightened condition and he informed him that Rohidas was being beaten by the villagers at Shivaji chowk. After having received said information from Gangadhar, as deposed by PW 4, he went to one Ganesh Grocery shop, where there was coin-box PCO and he phoned Raju Tupe (PW 3) at Aurangabad. As further stated by him, he informed Raju that the villagers are beating Rohidas. As further deposed by PW 4, he then proceeded to Shivaji statue, where he has stated that there was a huge crowd. He has further deposed that he tried to enter into crowd, but he was not allowed to enter. It has further come in his evidence that he heard shouts of Rohidas begging for water. He has further deposed that he saw accused Kusumbai giving water to Rohidas. He has also deposed that he also saw accused Rukhmanbai Jadhav standing there and he further saw that one can was in her hand and was smelling of kerosene. He has further deposed that then he fell down out of fear. It has further come in his evidence that thereafter he went in front of the school and then returned to Shivaji Chowk. It has further come in his evidence that he again heard shouts from Rohidas, uttering “Save Save”. He has further deposed that then he fell down out of fear. It has further come in his evidence that thereafter he went in front of the school and then returned to Shivaji Chowk. It has further come in his evidence that he again heard shouts from Rohidas, uttering “Save Save”. PW 4 has further deposed that he was very much frightened and he, therefore, went his house from backside of the school ground. It has also come in the evidence of PW 4 that he had seen Dattu Tupe (PW 2) at Shivaji chowk. He has further deposed that Dattu was also raising shouts as “Save my brother, Save my brother”. 44. The material on record show that APP was required to seek permission to cross-examine this witness also, since according to learned APP, he had not fully supported the case of the prosecution. 45. We have carefully gone through examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination of PW 4. Though there is lengthy cross-examination, we would like to refer to only material part of his cross-examination, wherein said witness has candidly admitted, and we quote the said version as it is, which reads thus: “We all relatives then had only information or knowledge that some villagers had assaulted Rohidas as a result of which he died. Shri Amitesh Kumar gave us courage that they would find out the culprits and asked us not to worry. As we relatives had no knowledge about the assailants and, therefore, there was no question to lodge report. After having talk with Shri Amitesh Kumar, we all relatives went to our houses. Thereupon, all our relatives and friends started coming to us and causing inquiry as to how did the incident take place. We informed that police have assured that they would find out the culprits and we shall come to know about it.” 46. It has further come in his cross-examination that when police had come to record his statement, he had informed that and we would like to quote the said portion also as it is,- “I know that the villagers have killed Rohidas. When police started asking as to how did the incident take place to which I told them that I know that the villagers have killed Rohidas and do not know other particulars”. 47. When police started asking as to how did the incident take place to which I told them that I know that the villagers have killed Rohidas and do not know other particulars”. 47. From the evidence of PW 4 Raosaheb, which we have reproduced as it is herein above, it is abundantly clear that none of the relatives of deceased Rohidas was having any information or knowledge as to who were the persons, who had assaulted deceased Rohidas and consequently caused his death. As stated by PW 4, all the relatives of deceased Rohidas were having the only information and knowledge that some villagers had assaulted Rohidas, as a result of which, he died. 48. Though there is a lengthy evidence recorded of PW 3 – Raju tupe, after having gone through the said evidence, we do not find that it can be of any help to the prosecution for connecting the accused with the alleged crime. At the relevant time, PW 3 was at Aurangabad and as deposed by him, PW 4 – Raosaheb and PW 2 – Dattu informed him about the alleged incident and also informed him the names of the assailants. We have already discussed that no such facts have been stated by PW 2 – Dattu and also by WW 4 Raosaheb. In so far as the incident in question is concerned, all the facts stated by this witnesses before the court have come on record by way of omissions. All these omissions have been duly brought on record by the defence in para 13 of the cross-examination of the said witness. Moreover, the conduct of such accused is also noticed to be unnatural and unbelievable. 49. In the evidence of PW 5 – Pandit Bhimrao Tupe also, nothing incriminating has come on record so as to prove the culpability of the accused in commission of the alleged crime. Moreover, majority facts stated by him are hearsay. In his evidence also, several omissions and contradictions have been brought on record, however, we do not find it necessary to refer them. Moreover, majority facts stated by him are hearsay. In his evidence also, several omissions and contradictions have been brought on record, however, we do not find it necessary to refer them. In so far as the evidence of PW 6 – Amol and PW 8 – Gangadhar is concerned, we may not burden the judgment for the reason that both these witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and though learned APP was permitted to cross-examine these witnesses, even in their cross-examination, nothing incriminating has come on record. The defence was even not required to cross-examine these witnesses. Thus, whatever incriminating evidence has come on record is of PW 2, PW 7 and to some extent of PW 4. We have discussed the evidence of aforesaid witnesses in detail herein above and have also recorded our reasons for not believing their evidence. 50. Contradictions and omissions play a vital role in criminal trials. There may be direct contradictions or contradictions by commissions. A witness may improve his version about the incident in order to support prosecution case. The contradictions arise between the evidence given on oath at the trial and the statement recorded by the police during investigation under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Contradictions are to be proved, which can be done by cross-examining police officer, who recorded the statements during the course of investigation. 51. In the instant case, the defence counsel have brought to our notice several contradictions and omissions which have been brought on record in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and have urged that such type of evidence cannot be relied upon to base the conviction of the accused. We find substance in the submissions so made by learned defence counsel. Though we may not refer to the minor contradictions, which may not be that significant and may not have any material bearing on the merits of the prosecution case, we would certainly refer to some of the contradictions and omissions, which are having material bearing on the prosecution evidence. First we would like to refer evidence of PW 2 – Dattu Tupe, who, we reiterate that is posed to be an eyewitness of the alleged incident. Para 18 of his cross-examination is material, wherein most of the omissions have been brought on record by the defence. First we would like to refer evidence of PW 2 – Dattu Tupe, who, we reiterate that is posed to be an eyewitness of the alleged incident. Para 18 of his cross-examination is material, wherein most of the omissions have been brought on record by the defence. We find it necessary to reproduce herein below some of the material facts, which PW 2 has stated before the court, but had not stated in his statement given by him to the police and also before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. which are thus,- I stated before the police that,- (i) accused Santosh and Dnyaneshwar started beating Rohidas by means of iron rods and sticks. (ii) accused Chotu sprinkled chilly powder on the person of Rohidas; (iii)Rohidas was asking for water and accused Kusumbai made him to drink nali water by means of Chappal; (iv) I stated before the police that accused Kusumbai was saying “Mangate Mazlet, Mangtyana marun taka”; (v) accused Rukhmanbai had assaulted Rohidas by slaps. (vi) accused No.2 Sachin assaulted Rohidas by means of stick; (vii) Accused No.4 Santosh assaulted Rohidas by slaps; (viii) Accused No.3 Chotu assaulted Rohidas by stick; (ix) Accused Bijubai, rubbed chilly powder on the injuries of Rohidas and that she assaulted by chappal; (x) Accused Rukhmanbai poured kerosene on person of Rohidas; (xi) when Rohidas was asking for water, accused Kusumbai dipped the chappal in nali water and made Rohidas to drink it; (xii) after dead body of Rohidas was brought to the house, I saw injuries on his person; (xiii) Rohidas was beaten as he had love affair with Vaishali; 52. After having stated the above facts, PW 2 has further stated that he is unable to assign any reason why all the aforesaid facts do not appear either in his police statement or the statement recorded by the Magistrate. If the aforesaid facts are excluded from the evidence of PW 2 given before the Court, nothing remains in his evidence on the basis of which any of the accused can be held guilty. All these omissions have been duly got proved by the defence Counsel through evidence of PW 38Prabhakar Shelke, Investigating Officer, who had recorded statement of PW 2. 53. Similar contradictions and omissions are brought on record in the evidence of PW 7 – Sominath, the another witness, stated to have eye-witnessed the alleged incident. All these omissions have been duly got proved by the defence Counsel through evidence of PW 38Prabhakar Shelke, Investigating Officer, who had recorded statement of PW 2. 53. Similar contradictions and omissions are brought on record in the evidence of PW 7 – Sominath, the another witness, stated to have eye-witnessed the alleged incident. According to us, the facts which have come on record by way of omissions, if are excluded from the evidence of PW 7, the only inference, which may emerge would be that the said witness has seen nothing and he cannot be said to be an eyewitness to the alleged incident. 54. We do not wish to burden the reasonings by reproducing the contradictions and omissions brought on record in the evidence of other witnesses. Suffice it to say that the prosecution evidence is full of contradictions and omissions. We are surprised to note that the learned Trial court has not even touched to the aspect of contradictions and omissions brought on record in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. We reiterate that contradictions and omissions play vital role in criminal trial. The effect of the proof of contradictions is to discredit the witness as being unreliable as substantive evidence in the court is contrary to what he told the police. In such case, the only option before the Court will be to hold the substantive evidence of the said witness in the Court as unreliable. Having regard to the contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and more particularly, PW 2 and PW 7, we find it very unsafe to rely on such evidence to base conviction of the accused. 55. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has also relied upon the evidence of recovery and seizure of the weapons of the offenses allegedly at the instance of the accused persons. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in this regard, has believed the evidence of the Police witnesses. We are, however, unable to subscribe the observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the inferences drawn by him. It is the matter of record that none of the witnesses on the memorandum or seizure has supported the case of the prosecution. One and all such witnesses have, unambiguously stated that though their signatures appear on such Panchnamas, they are not aware of the contents of the said Panchnamas. It is the matter of record that none of the witnesses on the memorandum or seizure has supported the case of the prosecution. One and all such witnesses have, unambiguously stated that though their signatures appear on such Panchnamas, they are not aware of the contents of the said Panchnamas. All the memorandums and seizure Panchnamas have been eventually proved through the evidence of Police witnesses. When none of the independent witnesses has supported the alleged seizures, we are afraid, to what extent such evidence can be relied upon. The very purpose of requiring a Panch to witness the recovery is to see that independent witnesses vouchsafe for the fact that a particular thing was recovered from a place where the prosecution alleges it was found. Unless a Panch witness positively states that he has eye-witnessed the alleged recovery, his mere signature on such recovery Panchnama becomes useless in proving the recoveries. 56. Moreover, all the recoveries have been made from respective houses of the accused persons where their families are residing. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the said articles were in exclusive possession of the said accused and they came to be recovered only on the information furnished by them. Nextly, the articles which were recovered are all common articles like iron rod, wooden stick, kerosene can, Chappal, etc, not holding much value, and it does not seem rational that the accused persons would keep such incriminating articles, connecting themselves with the crime, in their house. 57. Most of the recoveries have been proved through the evidence of Police Inspector Mahesh Waghmare (PW 29). It is significant to note that PW No.29 who is stated to have recorded memorandum statement of accused No.3 Dnyaneshwar @ Pappu Suryabhan Jadhav, in pursuance of which the said accused is stated to have recovered stick from his house, could not identify the said accused before the Court and he pointed out his finger to accused Sachin Jadhav i.e. accused no.2. It is significant to note that PW 29 Police Inspector Waghmare identified the stick recovered at the instance of accused no.3 before the Court, but could not identify the accused. It is significant to note that PW 29 Police Inspector Waghmare identified the stick recovered at the instance of accused no.3 before the Court, but could not identify the accused. Thus, the evidence in regard to recovery is not at all inspiring confidence and, as we have earlier noted, the recovery made of general articles like iron rod and stick from the house of the respective accused, has a very less evidential value and such type of evidence cannot be a base for conviction of the accused persons. 58. So far as recovery of chilly powder and kerosene can is concerned, these items are also generic items, normally available at the house of common man. No much importance can be attached to such type of recovery. A wooden stick is also stated to have been recovered at the instance of accused no.4 from his Pan stall on 12.7.2009 i.e. five months after occurrence of the alleged incident. No reliance can be placed on such belated recovery; that too, of a common item. We must further record that evidence of recovery cannot be stretched to an assumption of culpability of the accused in the commission of alleged crime if no such convincing evidence is brought on record. 59. What has transpired from the entire material on record is the fact that, in a mob attack, deceased Rohidas Tupe lost his life. The question arises, why for the mob had become so furious and revengeful against the deceased. The answer is there in the charge-sheet itself. The summary noted of the alleged incident in the charge-sheet filed in the matter filed by the Sub Divisional Police Officer on 20th may, 2009, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Fulambri, district Aurangabad, reveals that prior to about three years of the alleged incident and, more particularly, on 21.8.2006, deceased Rohidas had made assault on one Kumari Vaishali Vitthal Jadhav with the aid of knife and had injured her. He had made two assaults on back of said Vaishali by coming from her behind. Obviously, the complaint was filed in that regard in Police Station at Phulambri which was registered as Crime No.90/2006 initially for an offense under Section 326 of IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against deceased Rohidas for offense under Section 307 of IPC. It was filed on 17.7.2007 and was registered as Criminal Case No.178/2007 on 23.7.2007. Obviously, the complaint was filed in that regard in Police Station at Phulambri which was registered as Crime No.90/2006 initially for an offense under Section 326 of IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against deceased Rohidas for offense under Section 307 of IPC. It was filed on 17.7.2007 and was registered as Criminal Case No.178/2007 on 23.7.2007. Since, at the relevant time, deceased Rohidas was below 18 years of age, he was treated as a juvenile. 60. The information in the charge-sheet further reveals that even after registration of an offense under Section 307 of IPC against him, deceased Rohidas used to roam around the house of said Kum.Vaishali and in that circumstances, the father of said Vaishali was required to again file one more complaint with Police whereupon a Chapter case was initiated against deceased Rohidas bearing Chapter Case No.171/2008. In the said case, deceased Rohidas was freed on his executing bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/. The said Chapter case was registered on 14.10.2008. On 31.10.2008, father of said Vaishali was again required to make a written application to the Police Station at Phulambri mentioning therein that deceased Rohidas made phone calls to his daughter Vaishali and he talked indecently on the telephone and that he used to drop chits at his house. On such complaint being made, another Chapter case bearing No.20/2008 was registered against deceased Rohidas and in the said matter, deceased Rohidas was subjected to remain in Aurangabad Prison for three days and was ultimately released on bail of Rs.10,000/. 61. Sufficient evidence has come on record in the instant case also showing that on the day of the incident, deceased Rohidas had again attempted to make assault on Kum. Vaishali by knife, however, that was an unsuccessful attempt and Kum. Vaishali could escape from such attack, however, deceased Rohidas could not escape from the clutches of the villagers. As we have stated earlier, the villagers caught hold of deceased Rohidas and gave him a beating. Evidence on record further shows that deceased Rohidas, at that time, left that place. The evidence on record further shows that some times thereafter, deceased Rohidas again entered into the village, however, at that time, he was grabbed by the furious mob and was ultimately killed. 62. Evidence on record further shows that deceased Rohidas, at that time, left that place. The evidence on record further shows that some times thereafter, deceased Rohidas again entered into the village, however, at that time, he was grabbed by the furious mob and was ultimately killed. 62. From the facts which have come on record, it can be visualized that, initially, there may be very few persons who actually accosted deceased Rohidas but, gradually, number of persons in the mob went on increasing. It has come on record in the evidence of almost all the witnesses that there was a huge crowd; though number of persons varies in the evidence of every witness, it can be safely said that the mob may be of around 300 to 400 persons, and thereafter, what had happened was the awful result of mob violence. It is said that one dog may bark at you but, it is more likely that, the pack will attack you. Same is with the mob. What we might not do as an individual, we may do as a part of crowd. People lose control of their usual inhibitions as their mentality becomes that of the group and larger the group, the more magnified the violence. When a group of people assemble because they are emotional and angry about something, as in the instant case the people were angry against Rohidas because of mischief played by him with Kum. Vaishali, it only takes one act of violence to whip the crowd into fury. When people think themselves anonymous, they behave in anti social ways because they believe that they cannot be singled out among the crowd and be evaluated. In such a situation, one can well imagine that a member of such group loses one's self. Experts in Criminology often express, when there is a collective action, as in the case of mob, there is diminished individual responsibility. However, it has also been noticed by us that the acts attributed to the mob, of which the accused persons, including appellants before this Court, were alleged to be the members, cannot be stated to be a result of any organized systematic activity eventually leading to death of Rohidas. 63. However, it has also been noticed by us that the acts attributed to the mob, of which the accused persons, including appellants before this Court, were alleged to be the members, cannot be stated to be a result of any organized systematic activity eventually leading to death of Rohidas. 63. To the extent that the mob wanted to teach stern lesson to deceased Rohidas, there was some organization; but, in that design, they did not consider that Rohidas should be annihilated which is a redeeming feature. It was an amorphous group of persons which had come together to teach lesson to deceased Rohidas. No doubt, subsequently such group became violent, however, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the group was predetermined and cohesive in causing death of deceased Rohidas. The cause of death of deceased was thus the result of a temporary frenzy. 64. We reiterate that after having carefully and consciously scanned the entire evidence on record, we do not find that the prosecution has brought on record any conclusive evidence in order to prove the culpability of accused Nos. 1 to 4, accused No.6 and accused No.66 so as to hold them guilty for an offense under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. From the material on record, we have no doubt in our mind that after occurrence of such ghastly incident, though considerable Police force was deployed at village Pal and the District Superintendent of Police himself was monitoring the situation the Police force was quite clueless in regard to the assailants. Whatever preliminary inquiries were made by the Police persons immediately after the alleged occurrence, the fact which was revealed to them was only to the extent that deceased Rohidas was mercilessly beaten by the mob of more than 300 to 400 persons and in the said beating Rohidas died. Had there been eye witnesses to the alleged incident, in any case, either said witnesses would have approached to the Police or Police would have reached them for recording their statements. Admittedly, on the day of incident neither Dattu (PW 2), nor Sominath (PW 7) nor Raosaheb (PW 4) nor Gangadhar (PW 8) nor Amol (PW 6) gave any information to the Police and disclosed the names of accused persons to be main assailants. 65. Admittedly, on the day of incident neither Dattu (PW 2), nor Sominath (PW 7) nor Raosaheb (PW 4) nor Gangadhar (PW 8) nor Amol (PW 6) gave any information to the Police and disclosed the names of accused persons to be main assailants. 65. It is significant to note that though the incident is stated to have happened in between 12.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. and though the First Information Report of the same was lodged at 6.45 p.m. and though huge Police force was deployed at village Pal at the relevant time, no statement came be recorded of any witness on 23rd of February, 2009. The record shows that only statement recorded on 23rd February, 2009, was of a Police person which is innocuous. Even on 24th of February, 2009, though the investigating officer has recorded statement of more than 15 Police persons, no statement of any independent witness except Raosaheb Tupe (PW 4) was recorded by the Police. We have elaborately discussed hereinbefore the evidence of said PW 4 which was only to the extent that he had the only information or the knowledge that some villagers had assaulted deceased Rohidas as a result of which he died and nothing more than that. The statement of Dattu (PW 2) came to be recorded on 25th of February, 2009. There is no explanation from the side of the prosecution as to why so much of delay was caused in recording statement of Dattu when, according to prosecution, he was an eye witness of the alleged incident. The statement of eye witnesses are expected to be recorded immediately or with least possible delay. Delay caused in recording statement of PW 2 has raised serious doubts about the prosecution case. 66. We have also elaborately discussed hereinbefore the conduct of PW 2 in not informing to the Police immediately about the alleged incident when, according to him, he was an eye witness to the alleged incident. Delay caused in recording statement of PW 2 has raised serious doubts about the prosecution case. 66. We have also elaborately discussed hereinbefore the conduct of PW 2 in not informing to the Police immediately about the alleged incident when, according to him, he was an eye witness to the alleged incident. It does not appear to us that the fear element can be much stressed in defense of delay caused in recording statement of PW 2 Dattu for the reason that though at the relevant time, there may be some pressure or fear, the same must have been eliminated or considerably reduced when large number of Police persons had reached to the village and were constantly assuring the public and relatives of Rohidas and so also persons belonging to his caste, not to be afraid of telling truth to the Police and was further assuring that Police will definitely find out the real culprits. We have also discussed that the District Superintendent of Police himself had met the relatives of deceased Rohidas, including PW 2 Dattu, however, none of them made any complaint to the Superintendent of Police at that time. We get the answer as to why such complaint was not made in the testimony of PW 4 Raosaheb which we have reproduced as it is hereinbefore. 67. It appears to us that the names of the accused who have been convicted by the learned trial Court came to be implicated only for the reason that amongst all, accused nos. 1 to 4 were found to be more aggressive in restraining the Police persons from entering into the village and / or to reach the spot of occurrence. Names of accused nos. 1 to 4 have been stated by almost all the Police witnesses for obstructing them from entering into the village. However, merely because in restraining the Police persons, accused nos. 1 to 4 were more aggressive, no further inference can be drawn that they had caused death of deceased Rohidas. In so far as female accused are concerned, their names have been disclosed by PW 2 and PW 7, however, if the role attributed to the female accused is concerned, we are afraid, even if entire version of these witnesses is accepted, how these accused can be held responsible for causing death of deceased Rohidas. In so far as female accused are concerned, their names have been disclosed by PW 2 and PW 7, however, if the role attributed to the female accused is concerned, we are afraid, even if entire version of these witnesses is accepted, how these accused can be held responsible for causing death of deceased Rohidas. We want to make it clear that even so far as involvement of the female accused i.e. accused no.5, accused no.6 and accused no.66 is concerned, there is no cogent and sufficient material so as to prove culpability of the said accused in commission of the alleged crime. In absence of such evidence, they also cannot be held guilty of the offense alleged against them. 68. We may further record that the prosecution witnesses are not corroborating the evidence of each other. Though, according to the case of the prosecution, PW 2 Dattu and PW 7 Sominath; both are eye witnesses to the alleged incident, these witnesses have not stated anything about each other's presence on the spot of the occurrence. Nothing has come on record in the evidence of PW 2 Dattu suggesting that PW 7 sominath was present on the scene of occurrence nor anything has come in the evidence of PW 7 Sominath indicating presence of Dattu on the spot of the occurrence. This cannot be said to be an insignificant aspect and cannot be ignored while assessing the evidence on record. Similarly, though PW 4 Raosaheb has deposed that he had seen Dattu in the mob and he had also heard Dattu shouting for help, and making appeal to save his brother, PW 2 Dattu himself has not deposed anything about it. Likewise, though it is the contention of PW 2 Dattu in his evidence before the Court that PW 6 Amol disclosed names of assailants to him, in his evidence before Court, PW 6 Amol has not spoken anything about that. So also, in his evidence PW 3 though had stated that PW 2 was in his constant contact, and had disclosed names of the assailants to him, PW 2 has not stated any such fact before the Court. Same is the case of the facts stated by PW 4 Raosaheb that PW 8 Gangadhar came to him and informed about the alleged incident, when in his evidence before the Court, Gangadhar has not at all corroborated the said fact. Same is the case of the facts stated by PW 4 Raosaheb that PW 8 Gangadhar came to him and informed about the alleged incident, when in his evidence before the Court, Gangadhar has not at all corroborated the said fact. The question arises can such evidence be believed to base conviction of the accused. The answer is emphatically no. 69. The law is well-settled that where a Criminal Court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offense involving large number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is usual to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or three or more witnesses who give consistent account of the incident. In the instant case, as we have noted hereinabove, there is no consistent account of the alleged incident. No conviction, therefore, can be based on such evidence. 70. Though the behaviour of the witnesses, or their reactions would differ from situation to situation, and individual to individual, if the behaviour is absolutely unnatural, the testimony of the witnesses does not deserve credence and acceptance. At the cost of repetition, we state that the conduct of PW 2 and PW 7, as is revealed from the prosecution case, is contrary to normal human behaviour. Conduct of both these witnesses is so unnatural, and not in accord with acceptable human behaviour that their testimony has become questionable and, therefore, cannot be relied upon. 71. For the reasons elaborately discussed herein above, we have reached to the conclusion that the conviction awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the appellants in the present appeals for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 72. In so far as offence under Section 341 read with 34 of IPC is concerned, we find that sufficient evidence has come on record proving culpability of the accused for the said offence. Almost all the police witnesses, who had reached at the spot of occurrence on the day of alleged incident, had deposed that they were prevented and obstructed from entering in the village and to reach at Shivaji Chowk in the village, where the alleged incident is said to have happened. Almost all the police witnesses, who had reached at the spot of occurrence on the day of alleged incident, had deposed that they were prevented and obstructed from entering in the village and to reach at Shivaji Chowk in the village, where the alleged incident is said to have happened. Though we may not refer the evidence of each and every such witness, it is necessary to refer to the evidence of some of such witnesses. 73. It has come in the evidence of PW 10 – Sangita Wasadikar, who was lady police Naik, attached to police station Phulambri, that she and other police persons were restrained from entering in village. As stated by her, she and the other police force had reached to village Pal at about 4.15 p.m. The said witness has specifically stated the names of Accused Nos. 1, 5 and 6. PW 10 also identified the said accused before the court. PW 11 – Vasant Tattu has also stated that Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and Accused No.8 were the persons, who restrained the police force from reaching to the spot. The said witness also identified the said accused before the court. PW 14 – Sheshrao Patilba Pise, Police Head Constable, attached to police station, Phulambri, has also deposed before the court that in the group of persons gathered on the spot, there were accused No.1 to 4, he also identified all these accused before the court. He has deposed that the aforesaid persons had placed stones across the road and did not allow the police force to enter in the village. It has come in the evidence of PW 15 – Babasaheb Kamble, Police Constable attached to LCB, Aurangabad that accused No.4, accused No.1, accused No.3 and others, obstructed the policemen from entering the village. Same fact is deposed by PW 16 Sanjay Ghuge, another police constable attached to LCB, Aurangabad that police were not allowed to enter in the village and the active members from the mob, who obstructed the police were Accused Nos. 1 to 4. The said witness has also deposed that Accused No.1 took away mobile handset from police constable Mazhar and after removing card from the said mobile, threw the said mobile and ran away. 1 to 4. The said witness has also deposed that Accused No.1 took away mobile handset from police constable Mazhar and after removing card from the said mobile, threw the said mobile and ran away. It has come in the evidence of PW 17 – Sanjay Patil police inspector, attached to ACB, Aurangabad that when they reached village Pal at about 4.30 p.m., the persons in the mob were shouting. He has further deposed that in the mob, accused Nos. 1 to 4 were more aggressive and they obstructed the policemen from entering in the village. He has also corroborated the fact of snatching of mobile by accused Dnyaneshwar from police constable Mazhar. The Police constable Mazhar (PW 19) has also deposed similar facts as were deposed by earlier witnesses about snatching of his mobile hand set by accused No.1 Dnyaneshwar. There are certain other witnesses also, who have stated about the obstructions by accused Nos. 1 to 4 to the police force in entering the village. We, therefore, find that the trial court has rightly convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 4 holding them guilty for an offence under Section 341 read with 34 of IPC. The impugned judgment to that extent, therefore, does not require any interference and needs to be confirmed. 74. In view of the fact that we have set aside the conviction recorded by the trial court for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC, the appeal filed by the State, bearing Criminal Appeal No.394 of 2012, seeking enhancement of the sentence, is impliedly rendered redundant and thus is liable to be dismissed. 75. The other appeal (Criminal Appeal No.397/2012) is filed by the State, for seeking conviction of the accused, convicted under Section 302 of I.P.C. also for an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act. Under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act, a person can be punished with imprisonment for life and with fine, who, not being a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, commits any offence under IPC, punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe or such property belongs to such member. Since we have set aside the order of conviction in Sessions Case No.191/2009, in so far as it relates to offence under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC, no question arises of awarding them any punishment under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act. This appeal is also therefore liable to be dismissed. 76. Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that, we are not unmindful of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the family of the victim in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like murder goes unpunished, but then the law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. It is the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. Evidence in the present case, tested on the anvil of the principles laid down, as above, falls short in proving the culpability of the accused in the commission of alleged crime. We have examined the entire material in relation to these appellants and have come to the conclusion that there is no material evidence on record to convict and sentence the appellants. We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in so far as it relates to offence under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC. 77. In the result, the following order,- ORDER 1. Criminal Appeal No.394/2012 is dismissed without any order as to costs. 2. Criminal Appeal No.397/2012 is dismissed without any order as to costs. 3. (i) Criminal Appeal No.646/2011 is partly allowed. The order of conviction dated 29.11.2011 passed in Sessions Case No.191/2009 by Additional Sessions Judge2, Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C., is quashed and set aside; (ii) Appellant No.1 – Santosh s/o Ambadas Jadhav (original accused No.4) and Appellant No.2 – Bijubai w/o Vitthal Jadhav (original accused No.5) are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. (iii) Conviction of Appellant No.1(original Accused No.4) for the offence under Section 341 r/w 34 of IPC is maintained. He has already undergone the sentence awarded for the said offence. (iv) Appellant No.1 is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other crime or case. (v) Bail bond of Appellant No.2 stands cancelled; (vi) Fine amount, if any paid by the appellants so for as offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC, is concerned, be refunded to the appellants. (vii) No order as to costs. 4. (i) Criminal Appeal No.651/2011 is partly allowed. The order of conviction dated 29.11.2011 passed in Sessions Case No.191/2009 by Additional Sessions Judge2, Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C., is quashed and set aside; (ii) Appellant No.1 – Sachin @ Appa s/o Chandrashekhar Jadhav (original accused No.2); Appellant No.2 – Dnyaneshwar alias Chhotu S/o Suryabhan Jadhav (original accused No.3) and Appellant No.3 – Rukhmanbai w/o Laxman Jadhav (original accused No.6) stand acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC; (iii)Conviction of Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 341 r/w 34 of IPC is maintained. Both have already undergone the sentence imposed for the said offence; (iv) Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are in jail. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other crime or case; (v) Bail bond of appellant No.3 stands cancelled. (vi) Fine amount, if any paid by the appellants for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC, be refunded to them. (vii)No order as to costs. 5. (i) Criminal Appeal No. 653/2011 is partly allowed. The order of conviction dated 29.11.2011 passed in Sessions Case No.191/2009 by Additional Sessions Judge-2, Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C., is quashed and set aside; (ii) Appellant No.1 – Dnyaneshwar Tejraj Jadhav (original accused No.1) and Appellant No.2 – Kusumbai Tahnaji Jadhav (original accused No.66) are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC; (iii)Conviction of Appellant No.1 for the offence under Section 341 r/w 34 of IPC is maintained. He has already undergone the sentence imposed for the said offence. (iv) Appellant No.1 is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other crime or case; (v) Bail bond of Appellant No.2 (original Accused No.66) stands cancelled. He has already undergone the sentence imposed for the said offence. (iv) Appellant No.1 is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other crime or case; (v) Bail bond of Appellant No.2 (original Accused No.66) stands cancelled. (vi) Fine amount if any paid by the appellants for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC be refunded to them. (vii) No order as to costs.