Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 101 (MP)

Kallu @ Kammod Rawat @ Kalyan v. State of M. P.

2017-01-19

ANAND PATHAK, N.K.GUPTA

body2017
JUDGMENT Gupta, J. -- 1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 20.11.1998 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in S.T. No.88/1995, whereby all of the appellants have been convicted of offence under section 302 read with section 34 (two count) of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- on each count of charge. Default sentence in lieu of payment of fine was also prescribed. 2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that the deceased Lokendra Singh was facing a trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra that he abducted wife of appellant No.3 Preetam and committed rape upon her. On 13.2.1995 the deceased Lokendra along with the deceased Parmal Singh went to attend the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra and on that day, they stayed at Dabra in the night, thereafter on 14.2.1995 deceased Lokendra Singh, Parmal Singh along with the witness Parashram (PW13) went to the house of Manju and appellant No.3 Preetam to have a talk of compromise. They reached village Girwani at about 4 to 5 p.m. in the evening and they took dinner in the house of appellant No.3 Preetam and stayed in the night. When they talked about the compromise then appellants No.2, 3 and 4 have replied that compromise should be dependent upon appellant No.1 Kallu @ Kammod and, therefore, appellant No.4 Pappu @ Shivraj Singh was sent to village Amrol to bring the appellant No.1 Kallu @ Kamood. On 15.2.1995 at about 10:00 a.m. in the morning deceased Lokendra Singh, Parmal Singh and witness Parashram (PW13) were seated in a room in the house of appellant No.3 Preetam then Preetam told about the arrival of the appellant Kallu @ Kammod and Shivraj. Thereafter, all of the accused persons had a talk in a separate room. Again at about 10:30 a.m., the appellants came inside the room and held Parashram (PW13) and thereafter the accused persons held Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh and tied their hands on their back and, thereafter they took them on the public way by beating them. Various villagers gathered at the spot thereafter the appellants Kallu and Preetam assaulted the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh by axes, whereas Shivraj assaulted with a heavy wooden log and Ramjilal assaulted with a stick to the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh. Various villagers gathered at the spot thereafter the appellants Kallu and Preetam assaulted the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh by axes, whereas Shivraj assaulted with a heavy wooden log and Ramjilal assaulted with a stick to the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh. In the meantime, Ramjilal held witness Parashram. After beating when Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh fell down on the ground, Kallu gave a blow of axe to the deceased Lokendra Singh causing injury on his jaw. The appellant Preetam gave a blow of axe on the head of Lokendra Singh as well as Parmal Singh. Lokendra Singh died at the spot whereas Parmal Singh dragged for a short distance and thereafter he died. Parashram (PW13) thereafter had escaped and ran towards the forest. He was chased by the appellants but he could not be caught. Ultimately Parashram went to the Police Station Govardhan at about 2:10 p.m. and lodged the FIR Ex.P-20 before the SHO R.P. Mishra (PW16). SHO R.P. Mishra visited the spot and took the dead bodies of the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh for their post-mortem and their bodies were sent for post-mortem. Dr. A.K. Morya (PW1) performed the post-mortem on the bodies of the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh and gave his report Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 respectively. Four injuries were found on the deceased Lokendra Singh. Out of them, two were incised wounds found on the mandible area, whereas one contusion was found below the left eyelid and one contusion was found on the parietal portion of the head. The deceased Lokendra Singh died due to various injuries caused to him. Dr. Morya gave a report Ex.P-2 relating to Parmal Singh. He found three contusions on him. Out of them, one contusion was on his head and the deceased Parmal Singh died due to head injury. Thereafter the appellants were arrested and various weapons were recovered from them. However, no forensic science laboratory's report was filed before the trial Court till the disposal of the case. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Pohari who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri. 3. The appellants abjured their guilt. They took a plea that they were falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity, however, no defence evidence was adduced. 4. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Pohari who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri. 3. The appellants abjured their guilt. They took a plea that they were falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity, however, no defence evidence was adduced. 4. Initially Shri Prabal Solanki, Advocate was engaged for all of the appellants but in the meantime when no one was appearing for the appellants, Shri R.P. Singh, Advocate was appointed from the side of High Court Legal Services Committee for the appellant No.1 Kallu @ Kammod. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 6. First of all, it is to be considered as to whether the death of the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh was homicidal in nature. In this connection, evidence given by Dr. A.K. Morya (PW1) may be considered. Dr. Morya performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Lokendra Singh and gave a report Ex.P-1. He found the following injuries to the deceased Lokendra Singh : "1. Ante-mortem incised wound : size 10cmx1cmx1cm clean cut margin extent horizontally muscle clean cut, on dissection left side mandible fractured, situated left side chin lower part. 2. Ante-mortem incised wound : size 6cmx1cmx1cm clean cut margin, deep tissue clean cut, ext horizontally, on dissection fracture of middle upper part of mandible. 3. Contusion ante-mortem : bluish colour size 5cmx2cm, on dissection haematoma present situated at lower part of left eye lower lid. 4. Contusion ante-mortem : size 8cmx2cm blue colour, rod shape swelling, on dissection haematoma present, there is compess comminuted fractured both parietal bones, internal subdural, sub-archnoid, inter-cerebral haemorrhage present loceration of parietal lobe of brain present." On opening of the body, compressed comminuted fracture of parietal bone was found and the deceased died due to head injury. According to Dr. Morya, death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. Similarly, he performed the post-mortem on the bodty of the deceased Parmal Singh and gave a report Ex.P-2. He found the following injuries to the deceased Parmal Singh : "1. According to Dr. Morya, death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. Similarly, he performed the post-mortem on the bodty of the deceased Parmal Singh and gave a report Ex.P-2. He found the following injuries to the deceased Parmal Singh : "1. Ante-mortem contusion : size 10cmx4cm bluish dark colour pulpy swelling at right side temporal region of scalp, on dissection sub temporal region of scalp contain dark blood, there is comminuted fracture of right temporal bone present, this fracture caused laceration of temporal lobe of cerebral right side with cerebral haemorrhage. 2. Contusion ante-mortem : size 6cmx4cm bluish dark colour, over right maxillary region of face. On dissection right side subcutanious haematome present, there is fracture of right maxilla, right zygomatic profess. Both cornu of right mandible. 3. Contusion ante-mortem : diffuse bluish dark colour swelling at lower part of left hand arm, on dissection there is complete fracture of left lower part of humor bone with haematoma muscale tender torn." There were three contusions found to the deceased Parmal Singh. Out of them, one was on the head and below that injury there was a comminuted fracture of temporal bone and brain below that portion was found lacerated. According to Dr. Morya, the deceased died due to head injury and death of the deceased Parmal Singh was also homicidal in nature. There is no reason to doubt on the opinion given by Dr. Morya about the death of Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh. Hence, the trial Court has rightly found that the death of the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh was homicidal in nature. 7. The main object in the case is as to whether the appellants assaulted the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh causing their death. In this connection, various eye-witnesses were examined and some of the eye-witnesses were given up. Eye-witnesses Ramdayal Yadav (PW3) and Ramswaroop (PW4) have turned partly hostile. They did not claim that those were the eye-witnesses, however, Parashram (PW13) has stated about the entire incident, as to how the appellants killed the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, Parashram was a planted witness and he was not the actual eye-witness in the case. Various submissions are made by the learned counsel for the appellants to show that Parashram was not at all an eye-witness in the case. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, Parashram was a planted witness and he was not the actual eye-witness in the case. Various submissions are made by the learned counsel for the appellants to show that Parashram was not at all an eye-witness in the case. Some of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants relating to the testimony of witness Parashram are acceptable. Hence, the evidence of Parashram should be examined with caution. Evidence of Parashram was dully corroborated by Jagat Singh (PW14) who has stated that in early morning, the appellant Shivraj met him at village Amrol asking the address of appellant Kallu @ Kammod, whereas Lakharam (PW15) has stated that at about 6:00 a.m., when he was coming from answering the call of nature, he saw the appellant Kallu and Shivraj going on motorcycle towards the village Girwani. The statement of Parashram was duly corroborated by the FIR Ex.P-20. The document Ex.P-20 indicates that the incident took plalce at about 10:40 a.m., whereas the FIR was lodged at about 2:10 p.m. The reason of delay shown by Parashram is that when he escaped himself from the clutches of the appellants, he went into the forest and thereafter he could not trace then the way out and, therefore, he could not reach the Police Station Govardhan within reasonable time though Police Station Goverdhan was hardly three kilometers away from the spot. 8. First of all as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, evidence of Parashram is examined vis-a-vis with medical evidence as proved by Dr. A.K. Morya (PW1) then it would be apparent that Parashram has stated that the appellants Kallu and Preetam assaulted the deceased Parmal Singh with an axe, whereas according to the post-mortem report Ex.P-2 proved by Dr. Morya (PW1), no injury was found on the deceased Parmal Singh, which could be caused by sharp cutting weapon like axe. Similarly, it is stated by Parashram that Parmal Singh dragged for a shorter distance, however, no such indication of dragging was found by Dr. Morya in the post-mortem report Ex.-2. Similarly, according to him, Kallu and Preetam gave blow of axes to the deceased Lokendra Singh for so many times but only two incised wounds were found by Dr. Morya in the post-mortem repoort Ex.P-1 of Lokendra Singh and both the wounds were on the mandible region around face. Morya in the post-mortem report Ex.-2. Similarly, according to him, Kallu and Preetam gave blow of axes to the deceased Lokendra Singh for so many times but only two incised wounds were found by Dr. Morya in the post-mortem repoort Ex.P-1 of Lokendra Singh and both the wounds were on the mandible region around face. According to Parashram, appellant Shivraj assaulted Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh with a heavy log and Lokendra Singh sustained an injury of that heavy log on his back, however, Dr. Morya did not find any injury on the back of the deceased Lokendra Singh. Hence, if Parashram was an eye-witness then as to how, his description does not match with the medical evidence. Looking to the post-mortem report as given by Dr. Morya, evidence of eye-witness Parashram comes under the clouds of doubt. In this context, judgment passed by the apex Court in case of Lallu Manjhi and another v. State of Jharkhand [ AIR 2003 SC 854 ], may be referred, in which it is held that if evidence of sole eye-witness who was interested being relative of the deceased cannot be accepted if it is contradictory with the medical evidence and not fully corrobiorated by the medical evidence. It is held that no reliance on such witness can be placed. 9. One Jagat Singh (PW14) has stated that he saw the appellant Shivraj who was tracing for the house of Kallu at village Amrol. Since there were two ways, the appellant Shivraj asked him about the correct way. The witness Jagat Singh has accepted that in relation, the deceased Lokendra Singh was his grandson and, therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that being an interested witness, he has stated a falsehood. If his statement is considered with the statement of Lakharam (PW15) then Lakharam has accepted in his cross-examination that after marriage of Manju, Shivraj was regular visitor to the house of Kallu and, therefore, there was no need with the appellant Shivraj to ask about the address of Kallu from the witness Jagat Singh (PW14). Hence, the claim of the witness Jagat Singh cannot be accepted that he saw the appellant Shivraj at that particular day when he was trying to find appellant Kallu. Hence, the claim of the witness Jagat Singh cannot be accepted that he saw the appellant Shivraj at that particular day when he was trying to find appellant Kallu. Similarly Lakharam (PW15) has accepted that he was real brother of one Bhajan Singh fater of Parmal Singh and, therefore, he could state against the appellants because his nephew Parmal Singh was killed in the incident. Hence, the support of evidence given by Jagat Singh and Lakharam has no much value in relation to the evidence given by Parashram that the appellant Shivraj went to village Amrol and took the appellant Kallu @ Kammod with him and, thereafter the appellants assaulteld the various victims. 10. Parashram has stated that he along with Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh visited the house of Preetam on 14.2.1995 in the evening and they had shown their wishes for compromise, therefore, the appellants No.2, 3 and 4 namely Ramjilal, Preetam and Pappu @ Shivraj permitted them to reside in the house. They served the dinner and thereafter on next day morning, appellant Shivraj went to bring the appellant Kallu @ Kammod from village Amrol. On the other hand, Parashram has accepted in the cross-examination that after lodging of the case of rape against the deceased Lokendra Singh, parents of Manju could not settle her marriage in nearby areas among their caste-fellows and, therefore, marriage of girl Manju was performed with Preetam at distant place and he did not attend that marriage. Such statement indicates that husband and brothers of husband of Manju did not know about that story of rape committed upon Manju and, there was no possibility that if the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh would have visited directly to the house of Preetam for a proposal of compromise, they would have greeted or permitted to reside in the house. It was unnatural for these persons to visit the house of Manju for compromise when marriage of Manju was settled with difficulty with Preetam then certainly proposal of the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh could be a news for the appellant Preetam and his brothers and, hence, Parmal Singh and Lokendra Singh could not be permitted in the house of Preetam, therefore, the story as told by Parashram is totally unnatural. 11. 11. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has mentioned the submission made by the learned defence counsel before him that the deceased persons Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh went to village Girwani. They held the prosecutrix Manju in the morning when she was going to answer the call of nature and thereafter the various villagers assaulted the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh and killed them. Investigation Officer R.P. Mishra has accepted in para 7 of his cross-examination that when he visited the village Girwani, he found that 40% of the houses in the village were locked and various villagers were not present in the village. Hence, possibility cannot be ruled out that those villagers were responsible for the death of the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh and, therefore, having guilty conscious they absconded. Under these circumstances, the story prepared by Parashram appears to be unnatural and it is not possible that Lokendra Singh, Parmal Singh and Parashram would have permitted to reside in the house of appellant Preetam in the entire night and they would have served with a dinner. 12. Second unnaturality, which is visible in the story that Lokendra Singh was prosecuted for offence of rape along with one Nawab and, therefore, there was no reason for the appellants to kill the deceased Parmal. If they would have killed the deceased Parmal because he was companion of the deceased Lokendra Singh then on the same analogy, they would have killed the witness Parashram (PW13). It is surprising that appellants assaulted the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh brutally but they did not touch the witness Parashram (PW13). Ramjilal was participating in assaulting the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh that is unnatural and impossible allegation as made by Parashram, if Ramjilal would have held Parashram then he could not have participated in beating Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh. It is not claimed by Parashram that he was in uniform of constable at that time and, therefore, if the appellants would have beaten the deceased Parmal Singh being a friend of the deceased Lokendra Singh then Parashram would also have been killed at the spot by the appellants. It is surprising that the witness Parashram (PW13) did not have a single injury of assault caused upon him. It is surprising that the witness Parashram (PW13) did not have a single injury of assault caused upon him. He could not show any reason as to why he was spared by the appellants, whereas the deceased Parmal Singhw as killed by them without any reason. There was no overt act of Parmal Singh so that ghe would be killed by the appellants due to enmity. Lakharam (PW15) etc. could not show any enmity of the deceased Parmal Singh with any of the appellants and, therefore, by that reason, testimony of the witness Parashram (PW13) appears to be doubtful. 13. If conduct of Parashram (PW13) and Investigation Officer R.P. Mishra (PW16) is considered then it would be apparent that R.P. Mishra along with constable Parashram who was relative of the deceased Lokendra Singyh cooked a nice story to implicate all of the appellants. That cooking of the story is apparent by non-compliance of provision under section 157 of the CrPC. The FIR is shown to be written at about 2:10 p.m. on 15.2.1995. In this connection, Head Constable Devi Singh (PW12) has stated that counter of FIR was sent to the concerned JMFC and dispatch register Ex.P-18 and dak book receipt is Ex.P-19. According to the dak book receipt Ex.P-19 counter of the FIR was received by the concerned Magistrate on 16.2.1995. When the report was lodged at 2:10 p.m. then counter could be communicated to the concerned Magistrate on the same very day. If dispatch register is perused then it appears that there is an interpolation of date in the dispatch register. Serial No.276 is shown to be an entry relating to dispatch of counter of FIR to the JMFC concerned, whereas entry No.279 indicates that rojnamcha entry dated 14.2.1995 was dispatched to the SDO(P) concerned. It indicates that in that page of dispatch register, the entry was started from 273 and date was 14.2.2015 and up to entry No.279, the concerned police official did not repeat the date but only mark of "ditto" (--"--) was given against each entries from 274 to 279 and thereafter such mark was overwritten with the date 15.2.1995, whereas the entries from 277 to 279 were not the entries of 15.2.1995 but such were the entries of 14.2.1995. Similarly on station delivery book Ex.P-19, there is no entry that the counter of FIR was received by the Magistrate on 15.2.1995. Similarly on station delivery book Ex.P-19, there is no entry that the counter of FIR was received by the Magistrate on 15.2.1995. It is surprising that only single entry was proved by the prosecution that counter of FIR was received in the Court of JMFC on 16.2.1995. When the merg intimation Ex.P-21 was recorded on the same very day then as to why a dispatch No.281 was given to that merg entry which was to be sent to the SDM immediately. It clearly indicates that an interpolation is done and entry No.276 is shown on the page which was pre-occupied by the entries dated 14.2.1995 and that interpolation in the dispatch register clearly indicates that no compliance under section 157 of CrPC was done by the Investigation Officer to ensure that the FIR was not written ante-timne or ante-date. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants placed his reliance upon the judgments passed by the apex Court in cases of Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 1982 SC 839 ], and Sudarshan and another v. State of Maharashtra [ (2014)12 SCC 312 ]. In both the cases, the apex Court has appreciated the evidence and found that the FIR was written ante-time or ante-date and, therefore, such FIR was not relied upon. In this connection, the evidence given by Lakharam (PW15O) may be considered. Lakharam has accepted in para 2 of his statement that on the evening of 15.2.1995, police sent to the village Amrol and police had an apprehension that the dead bodies found by the police were of Lokendra Singh and Nawab who were the accused of that rape case and when the witness Lakharam went to the spot then he identified the second dead body as of Parmal Singh. If Parashram had accompanied, Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh from very beginning then there was no need to Lakharam to identify the dead body of the second person and whereas police was claiming it to be a dead body of one Nawab who was co-accused with Lokendra Singh in the rape case. Hence, by statement of Lakharam, it would be apparent that the police, i.e., Investigation Officer R.P. Mishra (PW16) had no knowledge about the death of the deceased Parmal Singh and he thought that it was the dead body of Nawab, who was the co-accused of deceased Lokendra Singh. Hence, by statement of Lakharam, it would be apparent that the police, i.e., Investigation Officer R.P. Mishra (PW16) had no knowledge about the death of the deceased Parmal Singh and he thought that it was the dead body of Nawab, who was the co-accused of deceased Lokendra Singh. Hence, named FIR could not be lodged at about 2:10 p.m. claiming the death of the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh. Till the evening police was in doubt that dead bodies were of Lokendra Singh and Nawab. Hence, it is apparent that SHO R.P. Mishra (PW16) had recorded the FIR in this case much after the time which is shown in the FIR and, therefore, it was written ante-time. 15. SHO R.P. Mishra (PW16) has stated about the various rojnamchas, in which interpolation was found, hiowever, the trial Court did not take the rojnamchas on record and no photocopy of such rojnamchas is available on record, however, he has claimed that the counter of the FIR was timely sent to the JMFC concerned but looking to the receipt on station delivery book Ex.P-19, the counter was received on 16.2.1995, i.e., next day of the registration of the FIR. Hence, it cannot be said that the counter of the FIR was timely dispatched to the concerned Magistrate. 16. In this connection, the judgment passed by the apex Court in cases of Ishwar Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [ AIR 1976 SC 2423 ], and Datar Singh v. The State of Punjab [ AIR 1974 SC 1193 ], may be perused, in which it is held that non-compliance of provision under section 157 of CrPC indicates that FIR could be written ante-time or ante-date. 17. On considering the statement of Lokharam, it would be apparent that the Investigation Officer R.P. Mishra calleld the Constable Parashram, who was relative of the deceased Lokendra Singh who claimed himself to be an eye-witness otherwise if Parashram was with the deceased persons then he would have sustained injuries or he could immediately state as mentioned in the FIR Ex.P-20 that the dead bodies were of Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh and there was no possibility of any confusion that the second dead body was of Nawab of Parmal Singh. In this connection, the judgment passed by the apex Court in cases of Jagir Singh v. The State (Delhi Administration) [ AIR 1975 SC 1400 ], and Govind Narain and another v. State of Rajasthan [ AIR 1993 SC 2457 ], may be referred, in which the apex Court appreciated the evidence and found that the testimony of the sole eye-witness was highly doubtful and the apex Court discarded that testimony of the eye-witness on the ground that he was not present at the spot. In the light of the judgments passed by the apex Court in the aforesaid cases Jagir Singh (supra), and Govind Narain (supra), it appears that the testimony of Parashram (PW13) was wrongly accepted by the trial Court. Parashram was not at all an eye-witness. He was the cooked witness cooked by Investigation Officer R.P. Mishra (PW16). Hence, after deleting the testimony of Parashram, there is no eye-witness in the case and it is the duty of the Court to consider the circumstantial evidence which is against the appellants. Investigation Officer R.P. Mishra (PW16) has claimed that various weapons were seized from the appellants. However, since no forensic science laboratory report was filed during the trial, an adverse inference shall be drawn against the Investigation Officer that he knew that there was no blood or human blood on those weapons, which were seized from the appellants. Hence, seizure of the weapons has no evidentiary value against the appellants. 18. As discussed above, that testimony of witness Jagat Singh (PW14) and Lakharam (PW15) is not acceptable and being relative of the deceased Lokendra Singh, they claimed themselves to be witnesses relating to transit of Shivraj and Kallu, hence, discarding their evidence, there is no evidence of last scene against the appellants to connect them with the crime. Except the fact that the dead bodies of the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh were found at village Girwani, there is no reason to blame the appellants Ramjilal, Preetam, Pappu @ Shivraj that they were interested to kill the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh. 19. It is established that there was enmity between Kallu @ Kammod and the deceased Lokendra Singh because Lokendra Singh had kidnapped Manju sister of appellant Kallu @ Kammod and committed rape upon her and he was facing a trial. 19. It is established that there was enmity between Kallu @ Kammod and the deceased Lokendra Singh because Lokendra Singh had kidnapped Manju sister of appellant Kallu @ Kammod and committed rape upon her and he was facing a trial. Therefore, Kallu had a motive/enmity to kill the deceased Lokendra Singh,l however, it is nowhere proved that the appellants had any enmity with the deceased Parmal Singh so that he could be killed. Possibility cannot be ruled out that Preetam etc. did not know about the pendency of rape case lodged against Lokendra Singh and thereafter Lokendra Singh along with Parmal Singh went to the village Girwani to pressurize the prosecutrix so that she would not take step against them. However, the judgment cannot be passed on the basis of any suspicion. Suspicion never takes the shape of evidence. Under these circumstances, chain of circumstantial evidence is broken. There is no circumstance proved by the prosecution by which it can be said that the appellants were the persons who killed the deceased Lokendra Singh or Parmal Singh. 20. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, neither any acceptable ocular evidence was present in the case nor chain of circumstantial evidence is complete. Prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the appellants have participated in killing the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh. They could not be convicted of offence under section 302 of IPC or any inferior offence of the same nature either directly or with help of section 34 of IPC. The trial Court has committed an error in convicting them for two count charges of section 302 or 302 read with section 34 of IPC. 21. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants namely Kallu @ Kammod Rawat @ Kalyan, Ramjilal, Preetam and Pappu @ Shivraj appears to be acceptable and consequently, the same is hereby allowed. Conviction as well as the sentence recorded by the trial Court on two count charges of offence under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC is hereby set aside. All the appellants are acquitted from the aforesaid charges. They would be entitled to get the fine amount back if they have deposited the same before the trial Court. 22. Appellants are on bail. Their presence is no more required before this Court and, therefore, it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged. All the appellants are acquitted from the aforesaid charges. They would be entitled to get the fine amount back if they have deposited the same before the trial Court. 22. Appellants are on bail. Their presence is no more required before this Court and, therefore, it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged. 23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Court below along with its record for information and compliance.