Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2021 (JHR)

Bhiku Mian v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2017-11-23

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, H.C.MISHRA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Both these appeals arise out of the same case and as such, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Two of the appellants in Cr.Appeal No. 228 of 1992, viz., Bhutka Mian and Abdul Sattar have died and by order dated 3.01.2017, the said appeal abated with respect to these appellants. Accordingly, the Cr. Appeal No. 228 of 1992 now survives only with respect to two surviving appellants, namely Nawshad Mian and Siddque Ansari. 3. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State in both these appeals. 4. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 30.06.1992 and order of sentence dated 01.07.1992, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Sessions Case No. 44 of 1987, whereby the appellants Nawshad Mian, Siddque Mian, Sattar Mian (since deceased) and Bhutka Mian (since deceased) have been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, while all the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Section 302/149, and the appellants Bhikhu Mian, Karu Mian, Baksu Mian, Naksu Mian and Charku Mian were found guilty and convicted also for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants convicted for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months, while the appellants convicted for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months. No separate sentence was passed against the appellants convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to be run concurrently. 5. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of Safiran Bibi, the mother of the deceased Jabir Mian, which was recorded on 16.11.1986 at 15:30 hours in Referal hospital, Madhupur. 5. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of Safiran Bibi, the mother of the deceased Jabir Mian, which was recorded on 16.11.1986 at 15:30 hours in Referal hospital, Madhupur. She has stated that about 7 to 8 a.m. in the morning, ten accused persons named in the FIR, including the appellants in both these appeals, were taking water from a pond for irrigating their field, which was objected by her son Jabir Mian, stating that fishes in the pond would die. It is alleged that on that objection, suddenly Sattar Mian, Nawshad Mian, Siddque Mian, who were armed with farsa, assaulted her son by farsa on his head and Bhutka Mian, who was having sword in his hand assaulted her son by sword on his leg. On being injured her son fell down. Upon alarm raised by informant, several persons assembled at the place of occurrence. The injured son of the informant was brought to Referral Hospital, Madhupur, for his treatment in unconscious state, where the informant gave her fardbeyan. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Karon P.S. Case No. 34 of 1986 was instituted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the named accused persons. After the death of the deceased, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also added. Upon investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. 6. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the ten accused persons (one of whom, Gaffar Mian died during the pendency of the trial), for the offences under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and charge was framed against the appellants Nawshad Mian, Siddque Mian, Sattar Mian (since dead) and Bhutka Mian (since dead) also for the offence under Sections 148 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and against the rest accused persons for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused persons' pleading not guilty arid claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. 7. In course of trial nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, including the I.O. and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. 7. In course of trial nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, including the I.O. and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Defence has also examined one witness to prove the injuries on two accused-appellants Nawshad Mian and Siddque Mian. 8. PW 3 Safiran Bibi is the informant of the case. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place on a Sunday at about 7 to 8 a.m. in the morning. She was in her house and her son Jabir was also present in the house. They were informed that the ridge of the pond was being cut, whereupon, her son went there. This witness, her husband and her daughter also followed her son to the place of occurrence, where ten accused persons, whom she has named, were present there. Her son objected to the cutting of the ridge, stating that he had invested five thousand rupees in the fish in pond and if the water is drained out, the fishes would die and the pond was being used for drinking water for the animals as well. Whereupon, Sattar Mian gave orders and Sattar Mian, Siddque Mian and Nawshad Mian assaulted her son by farsa on his head. Bhutka Mian also assaulted her son by sword on his leg. Her son fell down and other six accused persons assaulted him by lathi. Upon the alarm raised, several persons reached the place of occurrence and her son was brought to Madhupur Hospital at about 2 p.m., in unconscious state. Her fardbeyan was recorded by the police in the hospital and finding the same true, she put her thumb impression thereon. In the night, at about 11 p.m., her son died. She identified the accused persons in the Court. From the cross-examination of this witness, it is apparent that both the parties are agnates. She has also admitted in her cross-examination that Siddque and Nawshad were also admitted in the hospital, but they were admitted at a separate place. She has also stated that the three accused had assaulted her son by farsa and they made one assault each on the head and he was also assaulted by lathi by the other accused persons. She has stated that there was no sound of bomb at the time of occurrence and no assault was made by bomb. She has also stated that the three accused had assaulted her son by farsa and they made one assault each on the head and he was also assaulted by lathi by the other accused persons. She has stated that there was no sound of bomb at the time of occurrence and no assault was made by bomb. She has denied the suggestion that Nawshad and Siddque were assaulted by bomb, but she has admitted that a separate case was pending in the Court for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for the assault made by bomb. Her attention was drawn towards her statement before the police, and she has stated she had given the statement before the police that when her son fell down, he was assaulted by all the accused persons by lathi She has denied the suggestion of giving the false evidence. 9. PW 4 Janiab Khatoon is the sister of the deceased, PW 5 Nasiran Bibi is the wife of the deceased, PW 7 Ajij Mian is the father of the deceased and PW 8 Mumtaz Ansari is the brother of the deceased. Mumtaz Ansari is not the eyewitness to the occurrence, but he has stated that his brother was admitted in the hospital after being injured in the occurrence, where he died. He had brought the dead body of his brother for postmortem. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had reached Madhupur Hospital at about 7 p.m. and he has also admitted that there was a counter case for the same day, lodged by the accused Nawshad for assault made by bomb, in which he was also an accused. He has stated that Nawshad and Siddque were also treated for injury in different hospital. The other aforesaid PWs, who are the family members of the deceased, have also, supported the prosecution case as eye-witness to the occurrence. In his cross-examination, however, PW 7 Ajiz Mian, the father of the deceased, has denied the knowledge that there was a counter case for the same day; in which, there was allegation of assault by bomb. He has admitted that there was a case pending on him at Deoghar Court, but he had denied the knowledge, whether it was still pending or the case had ended, but he has stated that he was sent to jail in connection with the case. He has admitted that there was a case pending on him at Deoghar Court, but he had denied the knowledge, whether it was still pending or the case had ended, but he has stated that he was sent to jail in connection with the case. This witness had admitted in his cross-examination that the pond, due to which the occurrence had taken place, is a joint property of both the sides and both the parties used to take water from the pond for irrigating their field. This witness has also specifically denied in his cross-examination, the presence of any injury on the accused Siddque Mian and Nawshad Mian, stating that he had not seen any injury on them, but has stated that they had lodged a case, bribing the police. He has denied the suggestion of giving any false evidence. 10. PW 1 Abbas Mian and PW 2 Jabbar Mian are the co-villagers and they have also supported the prosecution case as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Though PW 1 Abbas Mian has supported the prosecution case as given in the fardbeyan, stating that Sattar. Siddque and Nawshad had assaulted the deceased by farsa on his head, but he has stated that he had not seen whether Bhutka had assaulted the deceased or not but the other accused persons assaulted the deceased by lathi after he fell down. Whereas PW 2 Jabbar Mian has stated that when he went to the pond he saw that Bhutka Mian and Naksu Mian were assaulting the deceased and no one else was assaulting the deceased. Thus the evidence of PW 2 Jabbar Mian is not in the lines of the other prosecution witnesses. PW 1 Abbas Mian has stated in his cross-examination that Kabir is the brother of the deceased, on whom there were more than twenty cases of bomb, dacoity, murder and even rape and he has absconded. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that both parties are agnates of each other and pond in question is joint property between both the parties. This witness has also stated in his cross-examination that he had not heard the sound of bomb at the place of occurrence and he had not seen the bomb injuries on Siddque and Nawshad. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that both parties are agnates of each other and pond in question is joint property between both the parties. This witness has also stated in his cross-examination that he had not heard the sound of bomb at the place of occurrence and he had not seen the bomb injuries on Siddque and Nawshad. He has denied the knowledge that a counter case was field for causing injuries by bomb for the occurrence of the same day by Siddque and Nawshad, and he has also denied the knowledge that all his four sons are accused in the said case. 11. PW 6 Dr. Narendra Kumar Singh had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 18.11.1986 at 9 a.m. and had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased : (1) Two oblique stitched incised wounds 4" x 1/2" x bone deep and 3" x 1/2" x bone deep on the scalp; (2) Lacerated wound on chin 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4"; (3) Lacerated wound on left leg 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4"; (4) 25 bruises on the back varying from 4" to 8" long and 1/2" to 1" wide. On opening the skull blood and blood clots were found under the skin, fracture of frontal and parietal bone of left side of skull and a triangular piece of bone 10" x 8" x 2" was depressed inside the brain causing haematoma. Plura and lungs pale. Heart chambers empty and pale. Stomach was empty, Liver, Spleen and kidney were pale. He has stated that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of above noted injuries, specially injury No.1, caused by sharp cutting weapon, such as, farsa and the other injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance, such as, lathi. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit -1. 12. PW 9 Prem Chandra Malviya is the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that on 16.11.1986, he was posted as office in-charge in Karon Police Station. He had visited Madhupur Referral Hospital, where he found the deceased Jabir Mian in unconscious state. 12. PW 9 Prem Chandra Malviya is the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that on 16.11.1986, he was posted as office in-charge in Karon Police Station. He had visited Madhupur Referral Hospital, where he found the deceased Jabir Mian in unconscious state. He recorded the fardbeyan of' his mother Safarin Bibi, which was read over and explained to her and finding the same to be true, she put her thumb impression on it. He has identified the fardbeyan to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-2. He has also proved the formal FIR and the same was marked Exhibit-3. He recorded the re-statement of the informant and he visited the place of occurrence. He has given the details of the place of occurrence and has stated that he found the blood stains at the place of occurrence and he also found two tin boxes of the bomb at the place of occurrence. He has stated that there was a counter case being the case No. 33 of 1986, in which, the place of occurrence has been detailed by him. He also recorded the statements of other witnesses and when the deceased died, the inquest report was prepared by ASI Ramchandra Baitha, which, he had identified and the same was marked Exhibit-4. Thereafter he gave application for adding Section 302, IPC in the offence. He received the postmortem report and after completing the investigation, submitted the charge-sheet. In his cross-examination, this witness has proved the fardbeyan of Karon P.S. Case No. 33 of 1986, to be in his pen and signature, which was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of Siddque Ansari, an accused in this case, which was marked Exhibit-A. He has stated that Siddque Ansari and Nawshad Mian were injured and they were also undergoing treatment in Referral Hospital, out of whom, Nawshad Mian had suffered bomb injury. He has stated that the counter case Karon P.S. Case No. 33 of 1986 was instituted against 13 accused persons and charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused persons. He has also stated that Sabbir Mian, an accused in Karon P.S. Case No. 33 of 1986, is the brother of the deceased and he had absconded. There were 16 criminal cases including the case under Section 395 of the IPC against the said Sabbir Mian. He has also stated that Sabbir Mian, an accused in Karon P.S. Case No. 33 of 1986, is the brother of the deceased and he had absconded. There were 16 criminal cases including the case under Section 395 of the IPC against the said Sabbir Mian. Some contradictions from the evidence of the witnesses were taken from the I.O, in which he has stated that PW 3 Safiran Bibi had not stated before him that when the deceased fell down all the other accused also assaulted him by lathi. 13. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC, wherein they have denied the evidence against them. 14. The defence has also examined one witness, who is DW.1 Dr. Harihar Prasad Mandal, who had examined the accused Siddique Mian on 16.11.1986 and had found the following injuries on him :- (1) One incised bleeding injury in occipital region of the scalp of 4" x 1/2" x bone deep; (2) One incised bleeding injury on the middle of the left hand of 3" x 1/2" x bone deep; (3) One incised wound on the right scapular region of 3" x 1/2" x l". He has stated that the injuries were simple in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon. On the same day, he had also examined Naushad Mian and found the following injuries on his person : (1) One bleeding and incised injury 3" x 1 "x bone deep surrounded by tattoo marking of fracture of radius of right hand (confirmed by X-ray) within an area of 4" x 4" patachial haemorrhage; (2) One bruise of 6" x 1" on the back of the right chest. He has stated that the injury No. 1 was grievous, which was caused by sharp cutting weapon, such as tangi and tattoo was caused by some explosive substance and injury No.2 was caused by hard and blunt substance. He has stated that he had sent the injury reports to the police, and identified the photostat copies of the injury reports of both these accused, which were marked exhibits with objection. 15. On the basis of the evidence on record, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as aforesaid. 16. He has stated that he had sent the injury reports to the police, and identified the photostat copies of the injury reports of both these accused, which were marked exhibits with objection. 15. On the basis of the evidence on record, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as aforesaid. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. It is submitted that the accused Sattar Mian and accused Bhutka Mina, against whom, there was allegation of assaulting the deceased by Jarsa and sword respectively, have already died. There are now two surviving appellants namely Nawshad Mian and Siddique Mian, on whom there is allegation of assault, upon the deceased by farsa. However, both these appellants were injured in the same occurrence for which, the counter case being Karon P.S. Case No. 33 of 1986 was instituted, and one of the appellant Nawshad Mian was also found to have been assaulted by bomb. Learned counsel has submitted that it is an admitted fact that both the parties are agnates of each other and the pond in question is the joint property of both the parties and both the parties used to take water from the pond for irrigating their field. It has been submitted by learned counsel that in view of the case and counter case between the parties, there appears to be free fight between both the parties, but it is not clear as to which party was the aggressor." However, the fact remains that both the appellants Nawshad Mian and Siddique Mian were also injured in the occurrence, in which; Nawshad Mian had sustained grievous injury by bomb, but this part of the occurrence has been cancelled by the prosecution witnesses. It has been submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses claiming to be the eye-witness to the occurrence, have stated that there was hurling of bomb at the place of occurrence, and in fact, witnesses have tried to conceal the injury on both these appellants. It has been submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses claiming to be the eye-witness to the occurrence, have stated that there was hurling of bomb at the place of occurrence, and in fact, witnesses have tried to conceal the injury on both these appellants. Learned counsel has submitted that except the accused appellants Nawshad Mian arid Siddique Mian, there is no allegation of any assault on any of the other surviving appellants and the allegation that they assaulted the deceased by Lathi is only the improvement made by the witnesses on the prosecution case. It is submitted that in the FIR, there is allegation of assault only against the two deceased-accused namely Sattar Mian and Bhutka Mian and two surviving accused-appellants namely Nawshad Mian and Siddique Mian and there is no allegation of assault on any other accused, though PW 3 Safiran Bibi in her evidence has staged that after the deceased fell down, the other accused persons also assaulted him by lathi, but this statement was not given by Safinm Bibi before the police as is apparent from her fardbeyan and also the evidence of PW 9 Prem Chandra Malviya, the I.O. of the case. Indeed PW 2 Jabbar Mian has stated that only Bhutka Mian and Nashku Mian had assaulted the deceased and no other accused had assaulted the deceased and he is also the eye-witness to the occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the prosecution case has been supported only by the highly interested witnesses, in as much as, PW 3 Safiran Bibi is the mother of the deceased, PW 4 Jainab Khatoon is the sister of the deceased, PW 5 Nasiran Bibi is the wife of the deceased, PW 7 Ajiz Mian is the father of the deceased and PW 8 Mumtaz Ansari is the brother of the deceased. These witnesses have tried to conceal the injury on the accused persons but PW 3 Safitan Bibi and PW 8 Mumtaz Ansari have admitted that two accused persons were also admitted in the hospital. PW 1 Abbas Mian is also an interested witnesses in the case, in as much as, all his four sons are accused in the counter case, being karon P.S. Case No. 33 of 1986. PW 1 Abbas Mian is also an interested witnesses in the case, in as much as, all his four sons are accused in the counter case, being karon P.S. Case No. 33 of 1986. Though, he has denied the knowledge about the same, the fardbeyan of the said case has been proved as Exhibit-A by the I.O. of the present case, PW 9 Prem Chandra Malviya. The I.O. has clearly stated that at the place of occurrence. he had found two tins of bombs, which he had seized and he also stated that two of the accused persons, namely, Siddique Mian and Nawshad Mian were also injured in the same occurrence and they were undergoing treatment in the hospital, out of whom, Nawshad Mian had suffered bomb injury. The fact that these two accused had suffered the injuries including grievous injury the bomb, is also supported by the evidence of DW -1 Dr. Harthar Prasad Mandal. Placing reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394 , learned counsel submitted that since the injury on the accused persons have not been explained by the prosecution, rather the prosecution has tried to conceal it, it is clear that the origin and genesis of the occurrence had been deliberately suppressed by the prosecution, which leads to irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has not come out with the true version of the occurrence. Learned counsel has also place reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kasi Rai and others v. State of Bihar, reported in 1994 (1) East Cr C 113 (SC). wherein, it has been held that in a case of free fight between the parties, the assailants should be liable' for their individual acts and it may be unsafe to convict all of them by applying Section 149 of the IPC for the offence committed by any of them. Placing reliance on these decisions, learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction arid order of sentence cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 17. Placing reliance on these decisions, learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction arid order of sentence cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 17. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that PW 1 Abbas Mian, PW 3 Safiran Bibi, PW 4 Jainab Khatoon PW 5 Nasiran Bibi and PW 7 Ajiz Mian are the eye-witness to the occurrence, who have fully supported the case, stating that all the accused persons were forming unlawful assembly at the place of occurrence and in the prosecution of the common object of all, the accused Sattar Mian, Nawshad Mian and Siddque Mian had assaulted the deceased by Jarsa and the accused Bhutka Mian had assaulted the deceased' by sword. Ocular evidence of these witnesses have been fully supported by PW.6 Dr. Narendra Kumar Singh, who had found the injuries on the dead body of the deceased, which were sufficient to cause of death of the deceased in the normal course. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction - and order of sentence passed by the trial Court below. 18. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the eye-witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case. Though, the other eye-witnesses have stated that the deceased was assaulted by farsa by the accused persons Sattar Mian, Nawshad Mian and Siddque Mian and by sword by the accused Butaka Mian, but PW 2 Jabbar Mian has stated that when he went to the pond, he saw that Bhutka Mian and Naksu Mian were assaulting the deceased and no one else was assaulting the deceased. The material prosecution witnesses are highly interested witnesses being the near relatives of the deceased and PW 1 Abbas Mian has four sons, and all of them are accused in the counter case. It is apparent from the evidence on record that both the parties are close agnates and pond in question is the joint property of both the parties and both the parties used to irrigate their fields from the said pond. It is apparent from the evidence on record that both the parties are close agnates and pond in question is the joint property of both the parties and both the parties used to irrigate their fields from the said pond. It is also apparent that there was a free fight between the parties, in which, both the sides were injured, but the prosecution has suppressed the very origin and genesis of the prosecution case, as it is apparent that two accused persons, namely, Nawshad Mian and Siddque Mian were themselves injured, in which, one of them had also received grievous injury by bomb and it is alleged that these two appellants had assaulted the deceased by farsa. The I.O. has found the remnants of the bomb at the place of occurrence and has also stated that these two appellants were undergoing treatment in the hospital for the injury received by them in the same occurrence. The counter case relating to occurrence was instituted earlier and the present case was instituted later. It is apparent from the record that the prosecution witnesses have tried to conceal the fact about the counter case, denying the knowledge about the counter case, but it is admitted by the PW 3 Safiran Bibi, the mother of the deceased and PW 8 Mumtaz Ansari, the brother of the deceased that two accused persons Siddque and Nawshad were also hospitalized and were undergoing treatment. PW 7 Ajiz Mian, the father of the deceased, has denied the knowledge that there was a counter case for the same day, in which, there was allegation of assault by bomb, he has admitted that there was a case pending on him at Deoghar Court, but he had denied the knowledge, whether it was still pending or the case had ended, but he has stated that he was sent to jail in connection with the case. This clearly shows that the witnesses are not coming to the Court with clean hands and they have purposely concealed and suppressed the very origin and genesis of the occurrence. Indeed PW 3 Safima Bibi has even tried to make improvement in her earlier version, as is apparent from her fardbeyan and the evidence of the I.O. of the case. 19. Indeed PW 3 Safima Bibi has even tried to make improvement in her earlier version, as is apparent from her fardbeyan and the evidence of the I.O. of the case. 19. In Laxmi Singh's case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, the law has been laid down as follows :– "12.................In these circumstances, therefore, it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to give a reasonable explanation for the injuries sustained by the accused Dasrath Singh in the course of the occurrence. Not only the prosecution has given no explanation, but some of the witnesses have made a clear statement that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused. Indeed if the eye-witnesses could have given such graphic details regarding the assault on the two deceased and Dasain Singh and yet they deliberately suppressed the injuries on the person of the accused, this is a most important circumstance to discredit the entire prosecution case. It is well-settled that fouler the crime, higher the proof, and hence in a murder case where one of the accused is proved to have sustained injuries in the course of the same occurrence, the non-explanation of such injuries by the prosecution is a manifest defect in the prosecution case and shows that the origin and genesis of the occurrence had been deliberately suppressed which leads to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has not come out with a true version of the occurrence........." (Emphasis supplied) In our considered view, the facts of this case are fully covered by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision and the non-explanation of injuries of the two accused in the present case and concealment of the fact that the bomb was also used in the occurrence, clearly show that the genesis of the occurrence had been deliberately suppressed by the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution has not come out with the true version of the occurrence. Indeed, these concealments make the depositions of the prosecution witnesses absolutely untrustworthy and the conviction and sentence of the appellants on the basis of the depositions of these witnesses cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Indeed, these concealments make the depositions of the prosecution witnesses absolutely untrustworthy and the conviction and sentence of the appellants on the basis of the depositions of these witnesses cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 'We are of the considered view that even though the witnesses are fully supported by the prosecution case, but in the facts of this case all the surviving appellants are entitled at least to the benefits of doubt and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court are fit to be set aside. 20. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 30.06.1992 and order of sentence dated 01.07.1992, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Sessions Case No. 44 of 1987; are hereby set-aside. The appellants Bhiku Mian, Karu Mian, Baksu Mian, Naksu Mian and Charku Mian in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 210 of 1992 (P). and the appellants Nawshad Mian and Siddque Ansari in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 228 of 1992 (P), are hereby, given the benefits of doubt and they are acquitted of the charges. All the appellants are on bail and they are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 21. Both these appeals are accordingly allowed. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment. Appeals allowed.