JUDGMENT : (PER HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.) 1. These three appeals have arisen out of the common judgement in S.T. No. 405 of 1981. Out of eight accused-appellants, the main assailant appellant-Samaru has passed away. The other assailants namely Hira Lal and Lullur in Criminal Appeal No. 1350 of 1983 and Bodar in Criminal Appeal No. 1353 of 1983 have also passed away and appeals preferred by them have abated vide orders dated 19.10.2012 and 5.5.2017. 2. The prosecution story, as revealed by informant Mahendra Singh in his First Information Report, is deceased Rajendra Singh, brother of informant resident of village Allopur, Police Station-Cholapur, District-Varanasi was going on his tractor bearing No. UT No. 4073 at about 8:00 a.m. from his village to Ram Nagar for bringing Puwal (straw). Two labourers namely Jawahir and Moolchand were also on the tractor alongwith him. While they reached near Lalpur market on Azamgarh-Varanasi road, accused Samaru alogwith his son and other person were standing on road side having few bags kept with them to be taken somewhere. They raised their hands to stop tractor, which was stopped by Rajendra Singh. The accused-appellant Samaru asked him to carry the bags to market on his tractor. On this, Rajendra Singh expressed his inability to lift them as he was in a great hurry. This annoyed Samaru very much and he threatened him saying that the road was the usual road taken by him and it was not in his interest to have refused to carry their goods. Thereupon, deceased Rajendra Singh took the tractor ahead asking them to go away. He also rebuked them by saying that they had no business to see that their goods be laden on the tractor and that in their family, if any one had travelled by tractor, which could not have been used by the person of their status. 3. In the evening, deceased Rajendra Singh was returning back to his village with puwal loaded in trolly, on his way at Pandeypur crossing, Nandlal of his own village and one person of village Imaliya viz. Ram Ugrah Singh also accompanied him on his tractor, at about 6:30 p.m. deceased Rajendra Singh reached at Lalpur Market. 3. In the evening, deceased Rajendra Singh was returning back to his village with puwal loaded in trolly, on his way at Pandeypur crossing, Nandlal of his own village and one person of village Imaliya viz. Ram Ugrah Singh also accompanied him on his tractor, at about 6:30 p.m. deceased Rajendra Singh reached at Lalpur Market. He saw accused Samaru sitting on bench with his Thela alongwith 4 to 5 persons, he paid no heed to him, when tractor reached near pumping set of Lalta Singh, the accused Samaru alongwith his son and several other persons stopped the tractor of Rajendra Singh and started beating Rajendra Singh with rod and also dragged him from tractor. Other persons also started beating him with bricks and stone etc. The tractor was in gear and injured Mahendra Singh and others got down by jumping to the other side, the tractor turned turtle on the pit (khadda) on road side. The informant and others raised alarm and on hue and cry persons of his own locality alongwith Gyanshanker and Sitaram resident of village Imaliya reached there. The deceased was severely beaten by all accused persons. 4. In the torch light, and the tractor light and also in the light coming from pumping set of Lalta Singh, faces of assailants Nandu, Khaderu, Mukundi, Lallur, Basant, Hira and Samaru were seen and recognized by informant. Nandlal and Ram Ugrah also received injuries. The deceased thereupon was taken to the Ayurvedic Hospital but he succumbed to his injuries before he could be given any medical aid for his survival. 5. On the basis of Chik FIR and the entries in the G.D. made by Head Moharir, the investigation was put into motion and accused were arrested. The investigation culminated into charge-sheet being filed against accused-appellants in the Court of competent jurisdiction. The charge-sheet mentioned that accused had committed offence under Section 147, 148, 336, 302 and 323 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as, 'I.P.C.'). 6. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi vide committal order dated 24.10.1981 committed accused persons to the Court of Sessions as it was Session triable case. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and wanted to be tried. Most of the accused-appellants raised the plea of alibi. 7. 6. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi vide committal order dated 24.10.1981 committed accused persons to the Court of Sessions as it was Session triable case. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and wanted to be tried. Most of the accused-appellants raised the plea of alibi. 7. Deceased Rajendra Singh died out of the injuries caused to him and two persons namely Ram Ugra Singh and Nand Lal also got injured in the incident which took place at about 7:30 p.m. on 1.2.1981. 8. So as to bring home the charge levelled, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses in support of the charge framed :- 1. Deposition of Mahendra Pratap Singh 28.2.1983 P.W. 1 2. Deposition of Ram Ugra Singh 2.3.1983 P.W. 2 3. Deposition of Dr. Sunil Kumar 17.3.1983 P.W. 3 4. Deposition of Dr. M.K. Gupta 17.3.1983 P.W. 4 5. Deposition of Gorakh Nath Singh P.W. 5 6. Deposition of Nand Lal Singh 21.3.1983 P.W. 6 7. Deposition of Ali Mohammad Khan 24.3.1983 P.W. 7 9. The prosecution even produced documentary evidence to bring home the charges against the accused, which are as under :- 1. F.I.R. 1.2.1981 Ext. Ka. 7 2. Written Report 1.2.1981 Ext. Ka. 1 3. Recovery memo and Supurdginama of Tractor 3.2.1981 Ext. Ka. 2 4. Recovery memo and Supurdginama of Torch 2.2.1981 Ext. Ka. 3 5. Recovery memo of blood stained Cloth 2.2.1981 Ext. Ka. 17 6. Injury Report of R.U. Singh 2.2.1981 Ext. Ka. 4 7. Injury Report of Nand Lal Singh 2.2.1981 Ext. Ka. 5 8. Postmortem Report 2.2.1981 Ext. Ka. 6 9. Site Plan with Index 2.2.1981 Ext. Ka. 16 . On the prosecution evidence being completed, the accused who pleaded the case of alibi examined about six defence witnesses, which are as follows :- 1. Deposition of Niddhu 3.5.1983 D.W. 1 2. Deposition of Ram Kishun Prasad 3.5.1983 D.W. 2 3. Deposition of Gopal Das 3.5.1983 D.W. 3 4. Deposition of Jhunni 16.5.1983 D.W. 4 5. Deposition of Prem Chandra 16.5.1983 D.W. 5 6. Deposition of Bachanu 17.5.1983 D.W. 6 11. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the Trial Court has misled itself in convicting the accused, though the instrument used in commission of the offence namely Rod has not been recovered till the investigation was over. Deposition of Jhunni 16.5.1983 D.W. 4 5. Deposition of Prem Chandra 16.5.1983 D.W. 5 6. Deposition of Bachanu 17.5.1983 D.W. 6 11. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the Trial Court has misled itself in convicting the accused, though the instrument used in commission of the offence namely Rod has not been recovered till the investigation was over. He further submitted that no labourers, who are on the tractor said to be injured are not examined. The informant though was on the tractor the said fact is not mentioned. It is further submitted that ingredients of Section 147 I.P.C. read with other provisions are absent. The accused-appellant Samaru alleged to have caught then and there as was the evidence led by one witness, whereas the other witnesses opined that Samaru took off others accused and ran away. 12. It is further submitted that the role of other accused is not even mentioned either in F.I.R. or in the oral testimony of witnesses. Learned counsel for appellant further submits that prosecution has failed to proved its case, injuries were caused due to fall from tractor. Injuries according to Doctor were not possible by Rod, which is ascribed to be held by Samaru and used as weapon of incident. All the seven accused are falsely implicated as they are enmical to informant. Learned counsel for appellant has further relied on the following decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in Masalti Munga Ram, Bhagwati, Chandan Sinali, Laxmi Prasad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1965 AIR 202, Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar 2001 (7) SCC 318 ; and Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2016 (3) SCC 37 . 13. It is further submitted by learned counsel for appellants that Samaru was the main culprit and if this Court does not believe the theory of alibi, other surviving accused did not form any unlawful assembly for which they have been convicted. They be acquitted of the charges levelled against them and conviction be upturned. 14. As against this learned A.G.A. submitted that all the accused are named in the F.I.R. The submission that accused were not present is also a myth created by accused. They be acquitted of the charges levelled against them and conviction be upturned. 14. As against this learned A.G.A. submitted that all the accused are named in the F.I.R. The submission that accused were not present is also a myth created by accused. He further submits that informant namely P.W. 1 did receive injury and the injury so caused was not grave and medical evidence goes to show that deceased died out of the injury caused by not one person but many and therefore the common object is established from the facts of the case, therefore, decision of Trial Court does not require any interference. He has relied on the decisions of Apex Court in (2014) S SCC (Cri) 380 Jumni and others Vs. State of Haryana and has submitted that these appeals deserve to be dismissed. 15. In light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in R. Shaji v. State of Kerala, AIR 2013 SC 651 , it would be relevant for us to not only refer to testimony of witnesses but to also give our findings on the aspect whether guilt is proved to the hilt or not. In the said decision, the Apex Court held that in matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses but, the quality of their evidence, which is important, as there is no requirement in the law of evidence stating that a particular number of witnesses must be examined in order to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time honoured principle that evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise. 16. This Court is mindful of the fact that in trial for the offence of murder, where the witness is a close relative of victim, it is necessary to examine the evidence given by such witness very carefully and scrutinize the infirmities in that evidence before deciding to act upon it. However, relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is trite law in criminal jurisprudence that version of an eyewitness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that such witness happened to be a relative of the deceased. However, relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is trite law in criminal jurisprudence that version of an eyewitness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that such witness happened to be a relative of the deceased. Where the presence of eyewitness is proved to be natural and the statement given by such witness is nothing but, truthful disclosure of actual facts leading to occurrence, then such statement could not be discarded. 17. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Iqram and another, (2011) 8 SCC 80 , the Apex Court has made the following observations in para 26 therein; "26. Once the prosecution has brought home the evidence of the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime, then the onus stood shifted on the defence to have brought forth suggestions as to what could have brought them to the spot in the dead of night. The accused were apprehended and therefore, they were under an obligation to rebut this burden discharged by the prosecution and having failed to do so, the trial Court was justified in recording its findings on this issue. The High Court committed an error by concluding that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden. Thus, the judgment proceeds on a surmise that renders it unsustainable." 18. While going through the records, it emerges that even if we do not accept the submission of the accused that they were not present and they have tried to prove alibi, this Court will have to go through the ingredients of Section 149 I.P.C. read with Section 225 I.P.C., which was the charge on the surviving accused. The evidence goes to show that deceased was taken to the Ayurvadic Hospital and he succumbed to the injuries before he could be given any medical aid. The evidence of deceased was lodged at 9:10 p.m. G.D. entries were also made and case was registered, therefore, submission that there was delay in lodgement of F.I.R. cannot be sustained. 19. Author of injuries was the accused-Samaru with whom the deceased had altercation. Postmortem conducted by Dr. MK Gupta, P.W. 4 on the next day of accident shows that injuries received by deceased on 1.2.1981 was because of severe beating given to him on different parts of body. There were ten injuries which deceased had sustained. 19. Author of injuries was the accused-Samaru with whom the deceased had altercation. Postmortem conducted by Dr. MK Gupta, P.W. 4 on the next day of accident shows that injuries received by deceased on 1.2.1981 was because of severe beating given to him on different parts of body. There were ten injuries which deceased had sustained. Ram Ugrah Singh, P.W. 2 and Nandlal, P.W. 6 were also injured and were treated at Hospital. Ram Ugrah Singh, P.W. 2 has received four injuries out of which one was lacerated wound 3 x 1 c.m. rest other were contusions and abrasions. The other injured Nandlal, P.W. 6 received an abrasion and contuses swelling 5 x 3 c.m. on his leg, which was caused by blunt object and was found to be fresh at the time of treatment. The injuries were blunt object is the deposition of Doctor. 20. It is proved that death was homicidal and caused with aid of human agency. This takes us to main core question as to whether it was the act of surviving accused, who have caused death. The injuries were such, which were caused by accused persons who were with Samaru. Doctor opined that if any person would fall from tractor, he would sustain injuries, this fact is also recorded by Trial Court. Deceased could not have sustained injuries on falling and therefore he died out of assault by Samaru. Both P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and other injured Nandlal P.W. 6 called themselves to be victim of assault. The injuries sustained by them proved their presence and Doctor Sunil Kumar, P.W. 3 also found injuries to be fresh. This takes us to the issue whether the surviving accused formed an unlawful assembly under Section 147 read with Section 149 I.P.C., which reads as follows :- "147. Punishment for rioting.--Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 149. This takes us to the issue whether the surviving accused formed an unlawful assembly under Section 147 read with Section 149 I.P.C., which reads as follows :- "147. Punishment for rioting.--Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.--If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence." 21. Going through the record, the finding of fact that they had formed an unlawful assembly and the incident which has been said to have occurred belies and the ingredients are absent. Even if we discard the statement of defence witnesses, presence of five alive accused-appellants is very doubtful. 22. It is further proved that manner of the incident as alleged by prosecution to be improbable and all the accused persons could not have participated in the incident. It is also proved that the accused-appellants are of different caste and profession so as to show their lack of common interest and common motive to have caused the said injuries to the deceased. 23. Prosecution in this case has not discharged his burden to prove that the accused persons were the perpetrator of unlawful assembly and of the crime in aid. However, we have disbelieved the defence of alibi raised by accused. 24. The assault by Sumaru on deceased would said to be on account of sudden fight without premeditation, which took place on Tractor on reaching the place of offence. The accused who were alive did not know nor it is proved that there was any pre-meeting of minds and unlawful object are sinequanone for coming to the answer that all the accused in unison had the common object of killing. The evidence of the witnesses conclusively does not prove this. There are many loopholes contradictions in the testimony of P.W. 1, 2 and 6, who were the eye-witnesses. The present accused was not at all armed with any weapon. The evidence of the witnesses conclusively does not prove this. There are many loopholes contradictions in the testimony of P.W. 1, 2 and 6, who were the eye-witnesses. The present accused was not at all armed with any weapon. Had their intention was to commit murder of deceased in aid of Samaru, they would have been armed with weapons, which is not the case. 25. Oral pre view of the facts makes it abundantly clear that the enmity was with Samaru, which originated on account of minor grievance. The appellants are alleged to have come back alongwith Samaru, but they were neither present even in the incident, which took place in the morning. The appellants also sustained certain injuries. The injuries on account of assault by accused to the injured cannot be said to be caused by the present surviving accused-appellants namely Khaderu, Nand Lal, Mukundi and Basant, however the injuries on the body of the injured cannot be said to be so grave, even Doctor has mentioned that same were neither grave nor such which could have caused by pelting of bricks or stone. 26. There are discrepancies and improvement in statement of witnesses. These discrepancies and improvements go to the root of matter, and therefore, the evidence of these witnesses is sifted with lot of precision. Major portion of evidence shows that the evidence does not establish the guilt of the accused. 27. We have apprised ourselves as to the extent of evidence, which is not admissible. We have ignored the minor discrepancies, but at the end presence of all these accused and place of offence itself causes a big doubt. In this case the version of eye-witnesses coupled with a medical evidence, which has been believed by the Trial Court so as to punish the present appellants is giving rise to the fact that the circumstances narrated and omissions and improvements by the witnesses go to show that the appellants have been robed into due to certain inimicalness towards them by different witnesses including P.W. 1, 2 and 6. 28. The investigation also shows certain lapses. The intention which normally is based on inference, the accused cannot be said to have any motive to cause any injury or death of the deceased, which shows that motive goes absent. The evidence cannot be said to be such which is totally corroborated by medical evidence. 28. The investigation also shows certain lapses. The intention which normally is based on inference, the accused cannot be said to have any motive to cause any injury or death of the deceased, which shows that motive goes absent. The evidence cannot be said to be such which is totally corroborated by medical evidence. It is a principle evolved that whether there is ocular version available, motive will not play a very significant role, but in this case it will play a role and the principle that suspicion howsoever strong cannot cumulative to punishment. Can the accused be said to have committed an offence by becoming member of unlawful assembly and whose prosecution was death and injury of the others. 29. It is true that causing injury or not causing injury is not very matter as held by Apex Court in case of State of Haryana Vs. Shakuntla (2012) 5 SCC 171 . While going through the statement of P.W. 4, there is contradiction in his statement and that of the other prosecution witnesses, death caused was due to over turning of the tractor. This fact that tractor was so damaged. Theory that tractor dashed with the handcart of Samaru cannot be overlooked. The factum of injuries and the version of each witnesses is non-corroborating each other more particularly P.W. 2 and P.W. 6. Their presence is not doubted, but they have nowhere stated as to what was the common object or whether all the accused had gathered and made unlawful assembly with an intention to beat them and therefore the presence of accused itself doubtful, hence accused cannot be held guilty offence under Section 147 I.P.C. read with Sections 323 and 302 I.P.C. 30. In the facts of the case the injuries were not caused by the present accused, who are surviving nor can it be said that evidence brings home their guilt as while appreciating the F.I.R. one thing emerges that deceased had refused to lay the goods of Samaru on the tractor in morning and when deceased reached the pumping set, Samaru come with many people of village alongwith his son and stopped the tractor, deceased applied breaks, Samaru caught hold of the deceased and brought him down from tractor is the version the presence of appellants namely Khaderu, Nand Lal, Mukundi and Basant is not established. 28. 28. It is very difficult to believe that the person who brought down any person can also hold bricks or stone in his hand and at the same time was even holding a rod. The tractor infact according to F.I.R. fell in the ditch and so called Gyanshanker and Sitaram, who have been immediately reached the place of offence have not conveniently examined by the prosecution. According to him there were many people and he only recognize the present appellants raises doubt about the veracity of his improvement in the ocular version. His brother and he tried to take the deceased to Ayurvedic Hospital, but in the F.I.R. nowhere it is mentioned. 29. According to P.W. 2 Ram Ugrah Singh and P.W. 6 Nand Lal Singh, it was free fight. These witnesses also got injured. Site plan is also defective. While appreciating the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6, who are said to be present at the place of offence, there are lot of contradictions in their versions. The persons namely Jawahar and Mool Chand going with him have not been examined. The version that on returned journey accused Samaru saw the deceased a lot of anger, the tractor was in motion, this is a new version that his brother was beaten by Samaru by rod and then he was dragged down from tractor. In his oral testimony, he used these phrase :- ^^eqyfte lksek: us ml le; ge yksxksa dks ?kwj dj ns[kk ysfdu ge yksx fcuk dqN /;ku esa j[ks vius xkWo dh rjQ vkrs jgsA tc ge yksxksa dk Vz~SDVj lM+d ls ykyrk flag ds ifEiax lsV ds ikl igqapk rks eqyfte lksek: vkSj mlds xkWo ds vkSj cgqr ls yksx lkbfdy o eksVj lkbfdy ls ogkW vk x;s vkSj Vz~SDVj ds lkeus vkdj Vz~SDVj jksdok fn;kA Vz~SDVj ml le; xs;j gh esa FkkA blh chp lksek: us esjs HkkbZ jktsUnz flag dks jkM ls ekjk vkSj Vz~SDVj ij mUgsa uhps [khp fy;k vkSj mUgs jkM o bZV ds v)s ls ekjus yxsA^^ He conveniently given the names of people, who had inimical relations with deceased. In cross-examined he said :- ^^'kke dks tc ge yksx Vz~SDVj ls ykSV jgs Fks rc ml le; Hkh lksek: mlh LFkku ij Bsyk yxk;s feysA ge yksx Vz~SDVj ij pqipki tk jgs FksA eSa lksek: dh vksj ns[k jgk FkkA Vz~SDVj ds lHkh yksx lksek: dks ugha ns[k jgs FksA esjs xkao ls ykyiqj cktkj djhc 5 ehy dh nwjh ij gSA esjs xkWo o ykyiqj cktkj ds chp csyok cktkj gSA ;g cktkj esjs xkWo ls djhc pkj ehy dh nwjh ij gSA esjs xkWo ls pksykiqj cktkj esjs xkWo ls mRrj djhc 5 ehy dh nwjh ij gSA ,slk ugha gS fd og djhc 2&1@2 ehy dh nwjh ij gSA esjs xkWo ls jke uxjh djhc 12&14 fdyksehVj dh nwjh ij gSA jke uxj xaxk ml ikj iM+rk gSA ogkW ekyoh; fczt ls Åij tkuk iM+rk gSA eSa jke uxj ls vius xkWo dh nwjh ugha crk ldrk gks ldrk gS fd og 25&30 fdyksehVj dh nwjh ij gksA xkWo ls jke uxj ge yksx djhc 2&2&1@2 ?kaVs esa igqapsA-------------ge yksx ogha [kk;s vkSj vkjke fd;A bl chp esa eq>s ml O;fDr dk uke ugha ekywe gqvk ftldk iqvky fy;k x;kA D;ksafd esjs HkkbZ ekfyd Fks vkSj ogh tkurs FksA jke mxzg flag xokg esjs fj'rsnkj ugha gS] nksLr ugha gS vkSj u muds lkFk ge yksxksa dk dksbZ dke /ka/kk ;k [ksrhckjh gSA uUnyky flag ls Hkh dksbZ fj'rsnkjh ;k nksLrh ugha gS vkSj u muds lkFk dksbZ dke gksrk gS ;s esjs xkWo ds jgus okys gSA blh rjg ';ke lqUnj o lhrkjke ls Hkh esjh dksbZ fj'rsnkjh] nksLrh ;k dksbZ dke /ka/kk lkFk esa ugha gS-------A** 30. There are lot of contradictions in the statement of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6. There are lot of contradictions in the version given by Nand Lal. According to Doctor :- ^^eSus Vz~SDVj ns[kk gSA Vz~SDVj ij cSBs gq;s vkneh dks Vz~SDVj dks 10 QhV x<~ pksV ua0 4&l[r tehu ds jxM+ ls vk ldrh gSA pksV ua0 5&fxjus ls vk ldrh gSA pksV ua0 8&fxjus o NviVkus ls vk ldrh gSA pksV ua0 6] 9] 10& fxjus ls o jxM+ ls vk ldrh gSA pksV ua0 7& Vz~SDVj ds Lvs;fjax ls vk ldrh gSA** 31. Thus, it appears that the deceased died due to falling from tractor. Evidence of P.W. 6 also causes certain doubts. Thus, it appears that the deceased died due to falling from tractor. Evidence of P.W. 6 also causes certain doubts. As per version of P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 injuries were of simple in nature and could have been caused by brick and the injuries were fresh. In that view of the matter it cannot be said they had formed unlawful assembly to kill the deceased and inflict fatal injuries to other injured. 32. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Court below while convicting the accused-appellants is palpably wrong and the findings recorded by the Court below are perverse, erroneous and can not stand the scrutiny of law. In our considered opinion the reasons given by the Trial Court are not sufficient to convict the accused-appellants. 33. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence led by the parties renders the origin and genesis of the occurrence doubtful and as such the accused-appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal. 34. On the basis of aforesaid discussion in our considered opinion and also applying the rule of caution, conviction of the accused-appellants namely Khaderu, Nand Lal, Mukundi and Basant can not be sustained and is liable to be set-aside and in the circumstances of the case, the accused-appellants deserves acquittal. 35. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.5.1983 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Varanasi in S.T. No. 405 of 1981 is set-aside and the appellants namely Khaderu, Nand Lal, Mukundi and Basant are acquitted of the charges levelled against them and their conviction and sentence are hereby quashed and set-aside. The appellants namely Khaderu, Nand Lal, Mukundi and Basant are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their personal and surety bonds are hereby cancelled and sureties are discharged from their liability. 36. In the result, we find and hold that the present appeals have got merit and the appeals are allowed. 37. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial court record be sent to the court concerned for compliance.