Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1523 (JHR)

Anil Mandal v. State of Jharkhand

2015-12-07

PRAMATH PATNAIK, R.R.PRASAD

body2015
JUDGMENT : All these appeals were heard together along with the criminal revision arising out of the same judgment, and are being disposed of by the common judgment. 2. These four appellants, namely, Anil Mandal, Mahendra Mandal, Rito Mandal and Bashki Mandal @ Basuki Mandal along with other accused persons, who are opposite parties nos. 2 to 20 in Criminal Revision, were put on trial on the accusation of committing murder of one Brikodar Singh in furtherance of their common object. Further one Nunlal Mandal (acquitted) and Mahendra Mandal stood charged under Sections 307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. The trial Court while acquitting the accused persons, who are opposite parties nos. 2 to 20 in Criminal Revision of all the charges, found the appellants guilty for committing murder of Brikodar Singh and thereby recorded the order of conviction dated 20.01.2011 under Sections 148, 447/149, 341/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and further the appellant-Mahendra Mandal was convicted under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 and further to undergo imprisonment for three years and also to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and further to undergo imprisonment for simple imprisonment for one month for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 447/149 and 341/149 of the Indian Penal Code respectively and the convict, Mahendra Mandal was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 24.01.2011 and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution, is that, on 23.02.2003 one Chowkidar-Damodar Turi gave information at about 9.15 a.m. before the Officer-in-Charge of Kunda Police Station that several villagers of village Naiyadih and Chitolorhia have assembled at ‘Dayal Garden’ in order to obstruct construction/repair of a boundary wall. On receiving this information Ras Bihari Paswan, S.I of Police (P.W. 11) came to the place of occurrence at about 10.05 a.m where it was informed to him by villagers that Brikodar Singh has been severely injured and has been taken to Sadar Hospital. There the I.O.-Ras Bihari Paswan (P.W. 11) did find the sign of repair/construction of boundary wall over the piece of land known as ‘Dayal Garden’. He also found blood being spilled over the ground. There the I.O.-Ras Bihari Paswan (P.W. 11) did find the sign of repair/construction of boundary wall over the piece of land known as ‘Dayal Garden’. He also found blood being spilled over the ground. It was informed to him by the villagers that at that place the accused persons have assaulted Brikodar Singh. The I.O did collect earth smeared with blood and seized it under seizure-list (Ext. 3). It was also informed that the accused persons had also assaulted one A.S.I-Ram Naresh Singh and after assaulting said Ram Naresh Singh and Brikodar Singh, the accused persons damaged the car bearing no. BR 51 -5443 and one of the accused had taken away briefcase containing Rs. 60,000/-. 4. After getting such information, as has been stated above, the I.O came to Sadar Hospial, Deoghar where he came to know that Brikodar Singh has died. Thereupon, the I.O held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report (Ext. 4). Thereupon, he received a written report (Ext. 1) of the informant-Prabhanjan Prasad Singh (P.W. 7), upon which, a formal F.I.R. was drawn. The I.O. thereafter sent the dead body for postmortem examination, which was conducted by team of doctors, namely, Dr. Rameshwar Mahto (P.W. 8), Dr. Bijay Kumar Agarwal (P.W. 9) and Dr. Anjani Kumar Mishra (P.W. 10). Of them Dr. Rameshwar Mahto (P.W. 8) has given detailed description of the injuries found on the persons of the deceased, which are as follows: “(i). Incised wound 6”X 1/4”X bone deep over the head side of face extending from right ear to right nose. (ii). Incised wound 2- 1/2 “ X 1/2” X bone deep over middle of forehead. (iii). Incised wound 5” X 1/2” X brain matter deep over back of the scalp. (iv). Incised wound 3” X ½”X bone deep over middle of the scalp. (v). Irregular abrasion 4”X 1/2” horizontally placed over middle of abdomen over umbilicus.” On dissection of skull the doctor did find fracture as well as cut of the occipital parietal and frontal bone and right maxillary bone. Brain matter as well as meninges were lacerated. 5. The doctors issued post-mortem examination report (Exhibit-2) with an opinion that death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of above noted ante-mortem injuries, specially injury nos. Brain matter as well as meninges were lacerated. 5. The doctors issued post-mortem examination report (Exhibit-2) with an opinion that death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of above noted ante-mortem injuries, specially injury nos. 1 to 4, which have been caused by sharp cutting weapons such as sword, farsa, spear etc. whereas injury no. 5 was found to have been caused by hard blunt substance. 6. Meanwhile, the I.O. recorded the statements of the witnesses. On completion of investigation, when the charge-sheet was submitted against these appellants and also against the persons, who have been impleaded as opposite parties nos. 2 to 20 in Criminal Revision, the Court took cognizance of the offence against them. In due course, when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, all the aforesaid accused persons, were put on trial. 7. During trial, the prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether twelve witnesses. Of them, P.W. 1-Ganpati Singh, P.W. 2-Deepak Kumar Swarnakar, P.W. 3-Birat Bikram Singh (the nephew of the deceased), PW. 4-Prashant Vikram Singh (maternal grandson of the deceased), P.W. 5Ranvijay Prasad Singh (son-in-law of the deceased), P.W. 6-Umakant Singh (son-in-law of the deceased) and P.W. 7-Prabhanjan Prasad Singh (son-in-law of the deceased) are the eye witnesses. According to them on the day of occurrence while construction/repairing work of the boundary wall at ‘Dayal Garden’ was going on, Brikodar Singh came over there and was having talk with P.Ws. 5, 6, and 7 regarding the work, which was going on. Meanwhile, number of persons including the appellants and the persons, who have been made opposite parties nos. 2 to 20 in Criminal Revision, came variously armed and started abusing the deceased and the witnesses. Upon it, Ram Naresh Singh, A.S.I along with police party, who were deputed there, tried to pacify them but the accused persons assaulted as a result of which, he became injured. Thereupon, the accused persons assaulted Brikodar Singh. It has been stated by them that the appellant-Anil Mandal, Bashki Mandal @ Basuki Mandal and Mahendra Mandal inflicted sword injury, whereas, Rito Mandal inflicted bhala injury and Bhairo Mandal (who died during trial) assaulted the deceased with Iron rod. Thereupon, the accused-Chandrakant Mandal damaged the car and the Mahendra Mandal took away the briefcase containing Rs. 60,000/-. 8. It has been stated by them that the appellant-Anil Mandal, Bashki Mandal @ Basuki Mandal and Mahendra Mandal inflicted sword injury, whereas, Rito Mandal inflicted bhala injury and Bhairo Mandal (who died during trial) assaulted the deceased with Iron rod. Thereupon, the accused-Chandrakant Mandal damaged the car and the Mahendra Mandal took away the briefcase containing Rs. 60,000/-. 8. After closure of the prosecution case, when the appellants were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C about the incriminating evidences appearing against them, they denied. 9. Thereupon, the accused persons in their defence examined as many as 13 defence witnesses. Of them, D.W. 1-Sunil Kumar Mandal, D.W. 2-Pradeep Kumar Gupta, D.W. 3-B. Mandal and Mahendra Mandal, who himself has examined as D.W. 4, did depose that at the time of occurrence the appellant Mahendra Mandal was working in the office of D.W. 3-B. Mandal with whom Mahendra Mandal was working as junior counsel. D.W. 5-Harihar Karmakar and D.W. 10 – Chattu Sahu were examined to prove the case of alibi for the accused Bishun Deo Prasad Sah. So far as D.W. 6-Nadan Pandey, D.W. 7Yogesh Kumar Jha and D.W. 11-Madan Pandey are concerned they are on the point of alibi of Chhedan Mandal. Similarly D.W. 8-Prafulla Chandra Rai and D.W.9-Prem Shankar Rai have come to depose that on the day of occurrence the accused Puran Mandal was not at the place of occurrence rather he was elsewhere. DW. 12-Raja Ram Thakur is on the point of alibi so far it relates to accused-Bihari Prasad Mandal. D.W. 13 – Damodar Turi is the Chowkidar, who had given information to the I.O that some trouble arose at ‘Dayal Garden’ when construction work was going on, as the labourer, by assembling there, were demanding the wages. 10. Thereupon, the trial Court, having placed its implicit reliance on the testimonies of witnesses, P.W. 1 to 7, did find the appellants guilty, whereas other accused persons were acquitted after taking into account the defence taken for alibi and also on the ground that they did not participate actively in the commission of the murder of the deceased and thereby came to the conclusion that they were not sharing the common object. 11. 11. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the aforesaid four appeals were filed, whereas, Criminal Revision was filed on behalf of informant against the persons who were acquitted of all the charges. 12. Heard Mr. B.M. Tripath and Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsels and Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants. 13. It was submitted on behalf of appellants that seven witnesses, who claimed to be present at the place and time of occurrence, may be present there but they were not acquainted with the accused persons. In spite of that they have named the accused persons though they had no occasion to meet them nor they were acquainted with them still they claimed to have identified the appellants and thereby their versions can be taken as afterthought and concocted. Learned senior counsel in this regard submits that P.W 1 is the supplier of stone-chips and as per his evidence, he was present there and saw the accused persons committing murder, but, this witness was not knowing these appellants, which is evident from his statement made under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, as has been confirmed by the I.O. Similar is the situation with P.W. 2, who has himself testified that he had never stated before the police that he had identified the accused persons either by name or by face. So far P.W. 3 is concerned, he though claimed to have identified the accused persons, but, he never identified the accused persons, who were on dock, one by one and he had also no occasion to go to the village of the accused persons or to see them before the occurrence and in that view of the matter any claim made by this witness to have identified the accused persons does not inspire confidence to be believed. In this regard, learned senior counsel further did point it out that almost all the witnesses claimed to have identified the accused persons by taking a plea that they had occasion to see the accused persons when they had visited the deceased for demanding money but the prosecution has failed to establish the said fact that it was the appellants who had visited the place to put forth demand of rangdari and if these facts remain unfolded then any claim made by the witnesses to have identified the accused persons at the time of occurrence is unfounded. It was further submitted that P.W. 4 is the resident of Bhagalpur and has candidly accepted before the Court that he cannot identify the accused persons, who were on dock, individually. Further, version of P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 also cannot be accepted as from their evidences it does appear that the accused persons were not known to him from before. Similar is the case with informant-Prabhanjan Prasad Singh (P.W. 7), who though has claimed to have identified the accused persons but taking into account the other facts and circumstances appearing in this case his version cannot be accepted. In this regard, it was pointed out that it is the case of the prosecution that the police party consisting of one Jamadar and four Police constables had been deputed under the order of Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and had been stationed at the place of occurrence with arms. On the day of occurrence, when the accused persons, who were allegedly in aggressive mood came, one Ram Naresh Singh, Jamadar tried to pacify them but in that course, he was assaulted, as a result of which, he became injured and thereby he could be the best independent witness for the prosecution to examine to prove the charges, but, the prosecution without there being any explanation withheld that witness perhaps for the reason that true state of affairs may not be brought to light and under the circumstances the case of the prosecution, as has been projected, be seen from suspicious eyes. Further, submission made on behalf of appellants is that admittedly the investigation got started before the written report was lodged and even the seizure of the blood-stain earth was effected and inquest was held on the dead body. In that event, the F.I.R loses its sanctity. Further, submission made on behalf of appellants is that admittedly the investigation got started before the written report was lodged and even the seizure of the blood-stain earth was effected and inquest was held on the dead body. In that event, the F.I.R loses its sanctity. Learned senior counsel, in this regard referred to a decision rendered in the case of Balaka Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1975 C 1962). Further submission advanced on behalf of appellants is that statements of all the witnesses were recorded by the I.O admittedly after 10-12 days which certainly makes a dent over the veracity of the statements made by the witnesses. Not only that even the F.I.R was sent before the Court after two days of the lodgment of the case. All these facts go to cast suspicion over the case of the prosecution. In this regard, learned senior counsel has referred to a decision rendered in the case of Mehraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. as reported in 1994 SCC (Cri) 1391 and in the case of Gayadin Vs. State of M.P. as reported in (2005) 12 SCC 267 . Thus, it was submitted that in the facts and circumstances, stated above, serious doubt is cast over the prosecution case and thereby keeping in view all these aspects of the matter and also the point relating to the identification of the accused persons, the trial Court should not have recorded the order of conviction and sentence but the trial Court did not take into account all these aspects of the matter in right perspective and recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which in the facts and circumstances appearing in this case is fit to be set aside and the appellants deserve to be acquitted. 14. Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for appellants-Mahendra Mandal and Rito Mandal submits that both the appellants according to the witnesses are said to have assaulted the deceased with the weapon which they were holding. 14. Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for appellants-Mahendra Mandal and Rito Mandal submits that both the appellants according to the witnesses are said to have assaulted the deceased with the weapon which they were holding. According to all the witnesses, Mahendra Mandal gave sword blow over the waist of the deceased and Rito Mandal gave spear blow over the face causing injuries right from the cheek to right eye but corresponding injuries are never there, which is evident from the evidence of the doctor as the doctor nor did find any injury on the waist nor any piercing injury over the face which goes up to the eye and thereby false implications of those appellants are evident. 15. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the Bashki Mandal @ Basuki Mandal has also taken somewhat the same ground by taking a plea that Bashki Mandal @ Basuki Mandal, according to witnesses, gave sword blow over the neck but no such corresponding injury has been found by the doctor rather the injury was found over the back of scalp, which can never be taken to be the neck and under the circumstances, it can be said that the appellants never participated in the occurrence and at the same time it can also be said that none of the witnesses had any occasion to see the occurrence. 16. As against this, learned counsels appearing for the State submit that submission has been advanced on behalf of appellants that motive, as has been assigned by the prosecution, has not been proved by the prosecution simply for the reason that demand was never put forth by the appellants in presence of the witnesses but right from the year 2001 appellants were putting forth demand and for which even a First Information Report has been lodged but unfortunately that document could not be brought on the record. Further it was submitted that submission which was advanced on behalf of appellants that the witnesses who had named the appellants to be the assailants were not knowing the appellants from before but this submission has been advanced on the premise that the witnesses had never visited the residences of the appellants, which could not be a valid ground as the witnesses had had occasion to see the appellants when they had come to put forth the demand of money from the deceased and thereby, the submission made on behalf of appellants in this respect never appear to be convincing for upsetting the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Further it was submitted that plea is being taken on behalf of appellants that some of the appellants did not commit any overtact in the commission of the murder of the deceased but that submission appears to be without any substance as the appellants have been convicted on the principle of constructive liability wherein even if one person commits overtact and others does not participate actively, they can be held guilty, if it is proved by the prosecution that all the accused persons were sharing common object. Here, in the instant case since all the appellants came with various arms along with other accused persons, who have wrongly been acquitted and surrounded the deceased go to establish that all the accused persons were sharing common object and thereby the trial Court did not commit any illegality in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which never warrants to be interfered with by this Court. 17. In the same sequence, Mr. P.C. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in Revision Application submits that opposite party nos. 2 to 20, who have been acquitted, were also sharing the common objects as they had come to the place of occurrence along with appellants variously armed and surrounded the deceased whereby the deceased was assaulted by some of the appellants and not by all but that cannot be a valid ground for recording acquittal as sufficient evidences are there to establish that all were sharing the common object and thereby the trial Court did commit illegality in acquitting them of all the charges. 18. 18. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, it does appear that the deceased-Brikodar Singh had come in possession over the piece of land, which were in two parts and named as 'Dayal Garden'. Upon coming to possession, attempts were made to raise boundary wall, which seems to have been objected by the villagers, which fact is evident from Exhibit-7, which is First Information Report lodged on 05.07.2002 by one Darbari Mandal, wherein reference of construction of boundary wall over the same land is given. Subsequently, in the year 2003 when villagers seems to have taken objection over raising boundary wall, matter was reported to Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, who according to the case of the prosecution itself made deputation of the police party consisting of one Jamadar and four constables, all armed. That apart, one Circle Officer had also been deputed as a Magistrate presumably for the reason that they may handle the situation upon objection being raised by the villagers over the matter relating to raising of boundary wall around that piece of land. It further appears that work relating to repair/construction of the boundary wall got started from 18.02.2003 which went on till 22.02.2003. Till that date, no trouble, according to the witnesses, arose. However, on 23.03.2003, the villagers assembled over there, information of which was given by D.W. 13Damodar Turi to the Kunda Police Station. The I.O (P.W.11) on getting such information, proceeded to the place of occurrence and reached at the place of occurrence at about 10.05 a.m. where he was informed by the villagers that Brikodar Singh, on being assaulted by the accused persons, became severely injured and has been removed to hospital. The I.O. without going to the hospital to record the fardbeyan started inspecting the place of occurrence, during which, he did find blood being spilled over the ground and thereby, he collected earth-smeared with the blood and seized it. Thereupon, the I.O. proceeded to Sadar Hospital where he did find that the deceased has died. On finding him dead, the I.O got the inquest report prepared but by that time written report had not been submitted by the informant-Prabhanjan Prasad Singh (P.W. 7). However, he received written report of P.W.7 at about 12.15 p.m., upon which, F.I.R. was lodged. Thereupon, the I.O. proceeded to Sadar Hospital where he did find that the deceased has died. On finding him dead, the I.O got the inquest report prepared but by that time written report had not been submitted by the informant-Prabhanjan Prasad Singh (P.W. 7). However, he received written report of P.W.7 at about 12.15 p.m., upon which, F.I.R. was lodged. It is significant to note that occurrence took place at 9.15 a.m whereas written report was submitted to the I.O at 12.15 p.m. In the written report one would find that name of the accused persons with permanent address has been given. It is not known as to on what basis names and parentage and even the address of 14 accused persons, barring few, have been given. However, this matter would be discussed later on. P.W. 7, a resident of Bhagalpur, happened to be one of the sons-in-law of the deceased. He along with others sons-in-law of the deceased were looking after the work relating to the repair/construction of the boundary wall. P.W. 7 has claimed in his evidence to have been knowing the appellants from before as they used to come over that piece of land for demanding money. Nothing appears to be there on the record to find out that ever such complain was made either by P.W. 7 or any of the persons including the deceased regarding illegal demand being made by the accused persons rather one document Exhibit 7 is there which does simply indicate that objection was being raised by the villagers against raising of boundary wall but in that document name of accused persons never finds figure. In that view of the matter, any claim made by P.W. 7 of identifying the accused persons for the reason that he had occasion to see them coming there to demand money does not appear to be believable. 19. In that view of the matter, any claim made by P.W. 7 of identifying the accused persons for the reason that he had occasion to see them coming there to demand money does not appear to be believable. 19. Likewise, the other witnesses, P.W. 1 to P.W. 6, who all did testify that while the deceased was taking with P.W. 3, 5 and 6 regarding the matter relating to construction/repair of the boundary wall, appellants came and assaulted Ram Naresh Singh causing injury and then the appellants, Anil Mandal and Bashki Mandal @ Basuki Mandal gave blow over the head and neck whereas Rito Mandal gave spear blow causing piercing injury right from the cheek to right eye and then Mahendra Mandal gave sword blow over the waist of the deceased and then the accused Bhairo Mandal (dead) assaulted with rod do not appear to be trustworthy. 20. P.W. 1, according to his evidence, was present at the place of occurrence as he used to supply the stone-chips to the deceased. He in his evidence has claimed to have identified all the appellants. But that identification in view of the statement made under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C appears to be after-thought as he according to I.O (P.W. 11), had heard that Ram Naresh Singh has also been assaulted by accused persons. This witness has also claimed to have identified the appellants as they in presence of him had earlier came to 'Dayal Garden', This piece of evidence does not appear to be worth acceptance for the reason that this witness as per his testimony given in paragraphs 13 and 39 was not even knowing the informant-Prabhanjan Prasad Singh. Thus, it appears that he was occasional visitor of the place for supplying stone-chips. It never appears convincing from his evidence that on earlier two occasions the appellants had come over the plots for taking rangdari money when this witness was present. If that would have been so the matter would have been different but here it seems to be a bald claim that he was knowing the appellants from before. Under the circumstances his evidence regarding the identification of the accused appears to be quite doubtful. 21. If that would have been so the matter would have been different but here it seems to be a bald claim that he was knowing the appellants from before. Under the circumstances his evidence regarding the identification of the accused appears to be quite doubtful. 21. Similarly P.W. 2, also claims to have seen the appellants assaulting the deceased but keeping in view the statement made by him under Section 161 Cr.P.C., confirmed by the I.O in his evidence at paragraph 38, he does not appear to have been knowing the appellants from before. In that event, his testimony also does not inspire confidence to be believed. 22. Going further in the matter, P.W. 3, the resident of Deoghar, has also claimed to have identified the appellants who, according to him, did assault the deceased as they used to come earlier also for demanding money. But he has failed to give any specific date when they had come to put forth demand. At the same time, he has also testified that he had never visited the place of the accused persons and is also not acquainted with the residences of the village Chitolorhia to which the appellants are the residents. This witness in his cross-examination has admitted that he can not identify the accused persons, who are there on the dock, one by one by indicating them. Under the circumstances, it becomes also suspicious as to whether P.W. 3 was in position to identify the appellants. 23. Coming to the evidence of P.W.4, a resident of Bhagalpur, his evidence straightway is liable to be rejected in view of his evidence, as recorded in paragraph 27, wherein he has admitted that he can not identify any of the accused persons by catching hold of his hand. 24. Similar is the case with P.W. 5, again a resident of Bhagalpur, who has also claimed to have identified the appellants but he had nothing to do with any of the accused persons nor he was in visiting term nor he was introduced by any of the persons. He has admitted that his statement was recorded after twelve days of occurrence. 25. He has admitted that his statement was recorded after twelve days of occurrence. 25. Coming to the evidence of P.W. 6, he has testified that since 2001 the accused persons had been putting forth demand of money but no case of extortion seems to have been lodged rather one case has been lodged in the year 2001 by way of Exhibit 7, which never does indicate that that case was lodged on account of illegal demand being made rather case was lodged as accused persons were not allowing to raise wall as there had been a land dispute. Therefore, any claim made by him that he identified the accused persons as they used to come over the place of occurrence invariably does not inspire confidence to be believed. 26. Above all, the case of the prosecution gets very much suspicious as the prosecution has withheld the Jamadar-Ram Naresh Singh, who along with police party had been stationed at the place of occurrence and when the accused persons came they also assaulted him making him severely injured and was made to fall on the ground. He seems to be the independent witness apart from two chowkidars, namely, Prahalad and Ganesh Mridha and also the mason and other labourers, who were present at the place of occurrence, but, none of them has been examined by the prosecution. The prosecution has not come with any explanation for not examining them though they appears to be most vital witness, being independent and an injured witness, which fact gets reflected from the written report (Ext. 1) itself, wherein the informant has categorically stated that he had brought not only the deceased to the hospital but also the other injured persons. Though the informant has not disclosed about the name of the injured, those injured may be Ram Naresh Singh, the Jamadar and other could be P.W. 3-Birat Bikram Singh, but as per the statement made in the F.I.R, he had also received injuries on his back by Garasan but the I.O at that time, who was also present in the hospital neither did record the statement of those two persons immediately nor did take care to get him examined by the doctor. This is not the only laches seems to be on the part of I.O but the I.O admittedly recorded the statement of all the witnesses after 9-10 days of the occurrence and the explanation, which has been given by him is that the informant never produced the witnesses before him which explanation can never be accepted as plausible as it was duty of the I.O to record statement as early as possible so that any attempt made by the prosecution party to improve its case or concoct be ruled out. Further we do find that all the witnesses have claimed to be present at the place of occurrence not far from the deceased where he was assaulted. Apart from the witnesses, the police party, who was armed, was also there and the persons who were working such as mason, labourer were also present but none seems to have come to rescue of the deceased. Even the police party, who was armed, had been deputed at the place of occurrence did not resort to firing. The question automatically does arise as to why the police party did not resort to firings. Had the story, as has been made by the prosecution, is true, the police certainly would have resorted to firing. Not resorting to firing gives rise to a suspicion to a great extent as to whether the occurrence ever took place in the manner, as has been projected. All these aspects of the matter were never taken into account by the trial Court in right perspective and thereby without taking into account all these vital aspects did record the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, hence is hereby set aside. 27. Under the circumstances, the appellants deserve the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, they are acquitted of all the charges and hence, they are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 28. In the facts and circumstances, as stated above, we do not find any illegality with the order under which opposite party nos. 2 to 20 have been acquitted. 29. In the result, all the appeals stand allowed whereas the Criminal Revision stands dismissed. Appeal allowed. Cr. Revision dismissed.