JUDGMENT : Ravindra Nath Kakkar, J. 1. We have heard Shri Abhishek Gupta, Shri Rajrshi Gupta, and Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6.8.1983 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No.304 of 1982 convicting the appellants under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/- to each of the appellants and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three years rigorous imprisonment. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 15.6.1982 at about 7:00 a.m. in the morning Hukum Singh had gone to attend call of nature. In the way accused appellants Manni and Chamel son of Mattar, Santu son of Dheer Singh and Surendra son of Beer Singh came out from a sugarcane field of appellant Surendra. Appellants Manni and Santu were armed with spades, Chamel had a spear in his hand and appellant Surendra had a sickle (Darati). All of them surrounded Hukum Singh and started assaulting him with their weapons. Hukum Singh raised cry for help upon which informant Mooley, his brother Bishambhar, Charan Singh son of Dasrath Singh, Chandrabhan son of Prem Singh and Preetam Singh son of Dalel Singh arrived there and saw the accused brutally assaulting the victim. The informant reached to the victim but he soon discovered that his son had died by the assault caused by the accused appellants with spades, spear and sickle (daranti) on the way near a keekar tree and seeing the informants and other persons coming there, accused persons had run away towards western side leaving two spades and a sickle at the scene of occurrence. One of the spades contained name of accused Santu. Hukum Singh who had sustained multiple injuries was lying dead on the ground. Leaving the dead body on the spot the informant Mooley came to the police station and lodged a case of murder. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by Investigating Officer Badan Singh Yadav. He rushed to the village accompanied with police personnel and reached on the spot. Blood stained and simple mud as well as blood stained clothes were collected by the Investigating Officer. He prepared Fard recovery memos which are Ext. Ka-5 and Ka-6. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by Investigating Officer Badan Singh Yadav. He rushed to the village accompanied with police personnel and reached on the spot. Blood stained and simple mud as well as blood stained clothes were collected by the Investigating Officer. He prepared Fard recovery memos which are Ext. Ka-5 and Ka-6. Similarly, blood stained darati (sickle) and two spades were also recovered by the police and recovery memo was prepared as Ext. Ka-3. The Investigation Officer sealed dead body of Hukum Singh and sent it for post-mortem examination. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against accused appellants Manni, Santu, Chamel and Surendra. 4. All the accused-appellants denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded not guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC charged and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined PW-1 Mooley, the informant, PW-2, Natthu Singh, PW-3 Bishambhar Singh, PW-4 Charan Singh, PW-5 Chandrabhan, PW-6 Sukhveer Singh, PW-7 Nain Singh, PW-8 Dr. V.K. Bhargava, PW-9 Constable Jasveer Singh, PW-10 Constable Jagdeesh Singh, PW-11 S.I. Badan Singh Yadav, PW-12 A.S.I. Sheeshram Sharma, PW-13 Constable Kripal Singh, PW-14 Constable Sarnam Singh and PW-15 Constable Om Prakash. 6. PW-1 Mooley is the father of deceased Hukum Singh. He is an eye-witness of the incident. He proved the first information report (Ext. Ka-1) and stated that he got the report of the incident written by Ram Lal who is an office colleague of the deceased. He further stated that Ram Lal had written the first information report on his dictation. 7. PW-2 Naththu is also an eye-witness of the Incident. 8. PW-3 Bishambhar Singh is the real uncle of deceased Hukum Singh. He is also an eye-witness. 9. PW-4 Charan Singh is also an eye-witness of the incident. He stated that the deceased Hukum Singhh was son of his brother-in-law. 10. PW-5 Chandrabhan is also an independent eye-witness of the incident. Thus the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-5 who are eye-witnesses of the alleged incident. 11. PW-6 Sukhbhir Singh is a formal witness and Pradhan of the village. He stated that one tahmad which was torn into two pieces containing blood stains, two spades, one sickle (daranti), simple and blood-stained mud were taken by the Investigation Officer from the place of occurrence and the Investigating Officer prepared Fard (Ext. Ka-2 to Ext. 11. PW-6 Sukhbhir Singh is a formal witness and Pradhan of the village. He stated that one tahmad which was torn into two pieces containing blood stains, two spades, one sickle (daranti), simple and blood-stained mud were taken by the Investigation Officer from the place of occurrence and the Investigating Officer prepared Fard (Ext. Ka-2 to Ext. Ka-4) in his presence. Ext. Ka-2 is the Fard with respect to recovery of pieces of tahmad. Ext. Ka-3 is in respect of two spades and sickle. Ext. Ka 4 is fard of simple and blood-stained mud. 12. PW-7 Nain Singh is also a formal witness. He stated that one lungi and two bu-shirts were recovered by the police in his presence on the pointing of appellant Manni which were concealed by him in his agricultural field. He also proved recovery memo (Ext. Ka-5 ). 13. PW-8 Dr.V.K. Bhargava on 15.6.1982 conducted post mortem examination of deceased Hukum Singh and found the following injuries on the body of the deceased:- (1) Abrasion 2 cm x 0.5 cm on left side face 2 cm below outer end of eye. (2) Linear abrasion 3 cm long on left side face 3 cm in front of left ear. (3) Incised wound 9 cm x 1 cm x bone cut on face of head 11 cm above the bridged node parallel to the eye brow. (4) Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on left side forehead 8 cm above the left eye brow outer end. (5) Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on left side neck 3.5 cm below the inner angled jaw and 6 cm below the left ear lower end. Horizontally placed. (6) Incised wound 3.5 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on left side neck 1 cm below to injury no.5 parallel tailing 2.5 cm towards right side. (7) Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on neck 1 cm below and parallel to injury no.6 1.5 cm long tailing towards right side. (8) Incised wound 4.5 cm x 1 cm x neck cavity deep tailing 4.5 cm towards left side. Horizontally placed to injury no.7 1 cm below injury no.7. (9) Contusion 7 cm x 4 cm on left side chest just below the left clavical bone. (10) Abrasion 6 cm x 0.5 cm on right side chest 3 cm below injury no.8. Horizontally placed to injury no.7 1 cm below injury no.7. (9) Contusion 7 cm x 4 cm on left side chest just below the left clavical bone. (10) Abrasion 6 cm x 0.5 cm on right side chest 3 cm below injury no.8. (11) Abrasion 7 cm x 0.5 cm on left side abdomen 12.5 cm above umbilicus at 1 O. clock, horizontally placed. (12) Abrasion 5 cm x 0.5 cm on front and middle of abdomen 9 cm above umbilicus at 12 O clock position. (13) Incised wound 0.5 cm x .05 cm x muscle deep on left side abdomen margins 13 cm lean left nipple at 7 O clock position tailing 3.5 cm long towards left side. (14) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep 4.5 cm above umbilicus at 1 O clock position. (15) Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the web of middle and index finger left hand (dorsum). (16) Incised wound 3.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on palmer aspect of right index finger. (17) Incised wound 3.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on palmer aspect of right index finger Rt. hand. (18) Abrasion 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the outer and back of right elbow. 14. PW-8 Dr. V.K. Bhargav proved post mortem report (Ext. Ka-6) and in his examination before the trial court stated that the dead body contained some mud spots. He further stated that all the incised wounds, caused by a sharp-edged weapon, contained clean cut margins. He opined that if the injury had been caused by a weapon containing daranti like margin, the wounds would have been jagged and the margins would not have been clean cut. He further opined that ballam would cause punctured wound. The doctor opined that deceased Hukum Singh died after attending call of nature and the ante mortem injuries were about half a day old. 15. PW-9 Constable Jasvir Singh stated that the complainant Mooley Singh lodged first information report on 15.6.1982. He prepared the check report and made entries in the G.D. He proved the check report (Ext. Ka-7) and the copy of G.D. (Ext. Ka-8). 16. PW-10 Constable Jagdish Singh stated that on 14.8.1987 he was posted as constable in police station Kithore. 15. PW-9 Constable Jasvir Singh stated that the complainant Mooley Singh lodged first information report on 15.6.1982. He prepared the check report and made entries in the G.D. He proved the check report (Ext. Ka-7) and the copy of G.D. (Ext. Ka-8). 16. PW-10 Constable Jagdish Singh stated that on 14.8.1987 he was posted as constable in police station Kithore. He further stated that on the said date he was given a sealed bundle (case property) from Malkhana Meerut to be taken to the Chemical Examiner at Agra which was deposited by him in safe and intact condition and there was no tampering on it so long as it remained in his custody. 17. PW-11 Badan Singh Yadav Inspector Incharge Police Station Kithore who is Investigating Officer of the case, stated that the case was registered at the police station on 15.6.1982 in his presence. He further stated that he took the case in his hand and commenced investigation of the case on the same day. The Investigating Officer stated that he along with police personnel soon proceeded to village Mau Khas and reached on the spot. He recorded statements of complainant Mooley Singh, prepared panchnama of dead body in his own handwriting and signatures in presence of the witnesses which is Ext. Ka-9 and prepared challan Laash and Photo Laash which are Ext. Ka-10 and Ka-11 and handed over the dead body to Constables-1376 Om Prakash and Constable-482 Madan Singh to be carried for postmortem. He further stated that he recorded statements of prosecution witnesses Bishambhar Singh and Chandrabhan also witnesses of panchayatnama and fard Sukhbeer Singh and Dhir Singh. The investigating Officer also inspected the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan of the spot and recovered two pieces of tahmad, two spades and a daranti which were blood stained and prepared recovery memo for the same which are Ext. Ka-2, Ka-3 and Ka-4. He went on to state that raids were conducted to nab the accused-appellant at all probable places in the village and on 18.6.1982 accused appellants Manni and Surendra were arrested by Sub Inspector, Sirohi and on their pointing blood stained clothes, one tahmad, two bushirts were also recovered from a sugarcane field in presence of witnesses Raj Pal Singh and Nain Singh. The Investigating Officer stated that he prepared fard recovery of the same in his own hand writing and signatures on the spot which also contained signatures of above witnesses. Fard recovery is Ext. Ka-5. Statements of Raj Pal Singh and Nain Singh, who happened to be witnesses of recovery of clothes, were also recorded. Further stated that on 30.07.1982, blood-stained clothes were sent to Chemical Examiner at Agra and the statements of Chandra Bhan and Pritam Singh got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet against all the appellants have been submitted in the Court which is Ex. Ka-15. 18. PW-12 A.S.I. Sheesh Ram Sharma, who was Incharge of Sadar Malkhana, stated that on 2.9.1982 Constable Kripal Singh handed over 10 sealed bundles to him at Sadar Malkhana and the seals were found to be intact. These bundles were entered in the Receipt Register of Sadar Malkhana as Goods No. 26182. He further stated that on 4.10.1982 Constable Jagdish Singh of P.S. Kithore took these bundles to Agra for its chemical examination. 19. PW-13 Constable Kripal Singh of Police station Kithore stated that on 9.9.1982 he handed over 10 bundles of case property which was delivered by him in Sadar Malkhana on the same day. 20. Similarly, PW-14 Sarnam Singh filed an affidavit stating that on 2.9.1982 he handed over intact sealed bundles of Case No.131/82 (State vs. Manni and others) under Section 302 IPC of P.S. Kithore to Constable Kripal Singh. 21. PW-15 Constable Om Prakash has also filed an affidavit stating that on 15.6.1982 Inspector Badan Singh Yadav had prepared panchnama of deceased Hukum Singh and after preparing Challan Laash and Photo Laash, the dead body was handed over to him and Constable Padam Singh which was verified and produced before the doctor for conducting post-mortem of the dead body. 22. During the pendency of appeal, appellants Manni and Chamel have died and appeal filed by them stands abated vide order dated 08.12.2016 of this Court and thus the appeal survives only against appellants Santu and Surendra. 23. Learned counsel for the appellants submits in a following manner :- (1) Although, the prosecution case rests on direct evidence but the motive assigned for the commission of crime against the surviving appellants is not established by the prosecution evidence. 23. Learned counsel for the appellants submits in a following manner :- (1) Although, the prosecution case rests on direct evidence but the motive assigned for the commission of crime against the surviving appellants is not established by the prosecution evidence. (2) His next point of contention is that the ocular version does not correspond with the medical evidence. (3) Weapon assigned to accused-appellant Surender is Daranti (sickle) whose injury has not been found in anti-mortem. (4) Spade assigned to accused Santu and Manni and blood is found only on a single spade. Further, there is only one injury of the weapon spade whose spade caused this injury on the deceased is not established by cogent and credible evidence. (5) Next point of contention is that first information report was too prompt to make it under cloud of suspicion. (6) PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are close relative. No independent witness has been produced. All the prosecution witnesses, who are produced, are relatives and interested witnesses. (7) Presence of the eye witnesses at the time of incident is not proved and further there is a contradiction in the evidences of the fact witnesses. 24. Per contra, learned A.G.A. argued that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is based on cogent and credible evidence, the fact witnesses are found to be most reliable and trustworthy. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are based on surmises and conjectures, the prosecution case rests on direct evidence and ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses who have proved the involvement of the accused-appellant in the commission of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and as such the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial judge deserves to be confirmed in this appeal. 25. We have given our considered thoughts and perused the lower court record (paper book) in the light of the arguments raised by both the parties. 26. First information report and statement of complainant PW-1 Mooley Singh shows that accused-appellants Manni and Chamel had enmity with the complainant and his family. So far as the surviving appellants Santu and Surendra are concerned, we find that there is no motive assigned to them for commission of murder of Hukum Singh. 26. First information report and statement of complainant PW-1 Mooley Singh shows that accused-appellants Manni and Chamel had enmity with the complainant and his family. So far as the surviving appellants Santu and Surendra are concerned, we find that there is no motive assigned to them for commission of murder of Hukum Singh. According to the F.I.R. and statements of PW-1 Mooley, who is the father of the deceased Hukum Singh, stated that the reason for committing murder of Hukum Singh is that the accused had enmity with the deceased and his family members. About 14 months prior to the incident accused Manni had damaged daula (med) of complainant's agricultural field and had grabbed some portion of the land in his agricultural plot which resulted into a scuffle between his sons Gurudayal, Kamal Singh and Vedpal and accused-appellants Manni and Chamel etc. and the latter hurled abuses to them and threatened of facing dire consequences. Consequent reason as stated by PW-1 complainant is that houses of the complainant and accused appellants and their roofs are connected to each other and from the staircase of the complainant the accused-appellants have an access also to go to their own roof. It further transpires that a day after breaking the daula, accused-appellant Manni along with some unknown persons went to his roof through complainant's staircase and upon objection being raised by his son Gurudayal, marpit took place between Manni and Gurudayal. In their marpit Parmali, mother of accused Manni tried to intervene and separate them but fell down below the roof on being pushed by Manni, and after four-five days she died. Though, no report was lodged as Hukum Singh got the matter amicably settled between the complainant and the accused-appellants. Since then the accused persons had grudge against the deceased Hukum Singh. The third reason which transpires is that the accused-appellants had enmity with the family of the complainant for some agricultural land in respect of which litigations reached upto High Court and ended only in 1963. Not relevant to mention that it is well settled proposition of law that existence of motive for committing a crime although is not an absolute requirement of law but it is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration by the Court as it renders assistance to the Court in analyzing the prosecution evidence and recognizing guilt of the accused. Not relevant to mention that it is well settled proposition of law that existence of motive for committing a crime although is not an absolute requirement of law but it is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration by the Court as it renders assistance to the Court in analyzing the prosecution evidence and recognizing guilt of the accused. We find that there is no direct enmity between the surviving appellants Santu and Surendra with Hukum Singh. Therefore, we find substantial force in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants that surviving appellants Santu and Surendra had neither motive nor animus to cause death of the deceased Hukum Singh as they had no enmity with Hukum Singh. Further, the litigation with regard to the agricultural land ended in 1963 which is a long passage of time. So far as damaging the complainant's med (daula) of agricultural field and mingling the land in their field that incident is of 14 months back to the incident. 27. Under such facts and circumstances, firstly, there is no motive against the surviving appellants and secondly, the alleged motive, if exists, is of very weak quality. 28. So far as submissions raised by the learned counsel with regard to the ocular testimony viz-a-viz medical evidence, we have perused the records and we find that according to the first information report, appellants Manni and Santu were armed with 'spades', Surendra with 'Daranti' (sickle) and Chamel with spear (Ballam). The prosecution alleges that all the appellants assaulted the deceased with weapon they were armed with. Dr. Bhargava, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body, stated that there were incised wounds on the body of the deceased. The incised wounds contained clean cut margins and he opined that if weapon like daranti was used then the wounds would be jagged, leading to irresistible conclusion that weapon 'daranti' assigned to Surendra had not been used making his presence on the spot as well as his involvement and participation in the commission of crime doubtful. The doctor further opined that ballam will cause punctured or pierced wound injury and the injury found on the person of deceased being incised wound, as such the weapon 'ballam' that was assigned to appellant Chamel has also not been used in assaulting the deceased, also making presence and involvement of accused-appellant Chamel in the commission of offence doubtful. The doctor further opined that ballam will cause punctured or pierced wound injury and the injury found on the person of deceased being incised wound, as such the weapon 'ballam' that was assigned to appellant Chamel has also not been used in assaulting the deceased, also making presence and involvement of accused-appellant Chamel in the commission of offence doubtful. In these circumstances, use of ballam and sickle by the appellants in the commission of crime creates a doubt and makes a prosecution story not worthy of credence. It is also relevant to mention here that weapon 'spades' assigned to accused Manni and Santu and the name of the latter found to be inscribed on one of the spades that was recovered from the spot also renders prosecution story wholly unreliable and untrustworthy. From the recovery memo of the alleged 'spades' it transpires that one of the spades contained blood stains which was contradicted from the statements of PW-1 who stated that blood was found on both the spades recovered from the spot which was further bolstered by the report of the chemical examiner (Ex. Ka16) which specifically mention that no blood was found on the large spade and the blood was found only on the small spade. Further, we would like to mention here that only one lacerated wound was found on the body of the deceased which could have been caused by spades which were assigned to accused-appellant Manni and Santu. Now of the two who caused this injury and on whose spade blood was found remain unanswered. Further to add that accused Manni has died and appeal filed by him stands abated. In such a situation, the presence and involvement of appellant Manni and Santu in the murder of the deceased is also overshadowed with doubt. Further accused Chamel has been assigned with spear (ballam) and Surendra with the sickle (daranti) at the time of assault and no injury of 'ballam' and 'daranti' was found on the person of the deceased as discussed above. In view of this, the only conclusion that can be drawn with regard to these two surviving appellants is that their presence on the spot and participation in the murder of Hukum Singh appears to be doubtful. Further, motive or intention to kill Hukum Singh does not find favour under the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of this, the only conclusion that can be drawn with regard to these two surviving appellants is that their presence on the spot and participation in the murder of Hukum Singh appears to be doubtful. Further, motive or intention to kill Hukum Singh does not find favour under the facts and circumstances of the present case. Regard may also be had to the fact that nothing incriminating material especially weapons assigned to the accused was recovered on their pointing out. It is un-natural that accused would leave two spades and a sickle on the spot which were used by the appellants in the commission of ghastly murder of Hukum Singh and that would prove their involvement and participation in the alleged murder especially the spade which contain the name of the accused Santu found to be inscribed. That goes to render the prosecution story wholly unreliable and untrustworthy. So, we find substantial force in the argument of learned counsel for the surviving appellants as raised with regard to the eye version account viz-a-viz medical evidence, weapon assigned and the manner and mode of assault which creates fair and reasonable doubts on prosecution version. 29. With regard to the interested and related testimony and non-production of independent witness as raised by learned counsel for the appellants, we have gone through the lower court record as well as the paper book. We find that PW-1, Mooley is the father of the deceased Hukum Singh. PW-3 Bishambhar Singh is the real uncle of the deceased and PW-4 Charan Singh is also related to Mooley. Further, Nathu Singh, PW-2 was not named in the first information report and PW-5 Chandrabhan, in an oral statement has not named accused Santu in his statement before the Court. PW-5, Chandrabhan, who is said to be an independent witness stated that:- ^^eSaus ns[kk fd eqfyte eUuh pesy] lqjsUnz Fks vkSj dksbZ vkneh esjh ifgpku esa ugha vk;kA pesy ds gkFk esa cYye] eUuh ds gkFk esa QkoM+k] lqjsUnz ds gkFk esa njkrh FkhA ;g gqDe flag dks ekj jgs FksA eqyfteku ekj dj Hkkx x,A eSusa rhu gh vkneh Hkkxrs ns[ksA gqDe flag ej pqdk FkkA mlds [kwu ilfy;ksa vkSj isV ij FkkA mlds 'kjhj ij pksVsa FkhA gqDe flag ej pqdk FkkA** 30. A perusal of the statements of Chandrabhan makes it evident that he had named only the three accused persons namely, Manni, Chamel and Surendra without naming Santu as an accused in the murder of Hukum Singh. Therefore, the presence and involvement of the accused-appellant Santu at the scene of occurrence is not worthy of credence. 31. So far as promptness of lodging the FIR and making it under cloud of suspicion as contended by learned counsel for the appellants, we have perused the record and found that the time of the incident is 7:00 A.M. Report was lodged at 8:15 A.M. by the father of the deceased and the distance is 10 km from the place of occurrence. It also transpires from record that FIR was written by one Ram Lal, who is colleague of deceased Hukum Singh. Pertinent to mention that the informant first went to the bus station and thereafter reached to the police station and lodged the report. Meaning thereby sometime must have been consumed in reaching the police station from the place of occurrence. 32. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out certain incongruities and contradictions in the statements of the witnesses about the time when the informant left the place of occurrence for the police station. Importantly, the FIR was lodged in police station within 1 hours and 15 min. Further with regard to the presence of witnesses on the spot at the time of incident, we find that PW-1 Mooley stated in his evidence that he was about 80 steps away from the place of occurrence and had witnessed the accused-appellants collectively inflicting injuries to his son Hukum Singh near the keekar tree and running away after his death towards the west and south through the field. PW-2 Nathu Singh stated that all the accused-appellants after killing the deceased ran away towards the south direction. PW-3 Bishambhar Singh stated that he was 80-90 steps behind the scene of occurrence near keekar tree where accused had assaulted and killed Hukum Singh and thereafter they went off from the scene leaving two spades and one daranti towards the west direction. PW-4 Charan Singh stated that he was at a distance of 80-90 steps from the scene of occurrence where accused assaulted and killed the deceased and ran away towards west and south direction. PW-4 Charan Singh stated that he was at a distance of 80-90 steps from the scene of occurrence where accused assaulted and killed the deceased and ran away towards west and south direction. PW-5 stated that he was about 250-300 yards away from the place of occurrence when he heard shrieks of Hukum Singh who was being badly assaulted and beaten by the accused-appellants. He further stated that the accused had run away before he reached at the scene of occurrence. So, we find that the eye version account as stated by all the fact witnesses, their presence as to witness the incident appears to be highly improbable as having contradiction on material point. 33. In view of the above discussions, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the surviving appellants Santu and Surendra beyond a reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has erred in relying upon the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Thus, judgment and order dated 06.08.1983 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 304 of 1982 convicting the surviving appellants under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment with fine is not legal and deserves to be set aside. 34. Consequently the appeal succeeds and is allowed and the accused appellants Santu and Surendra are acquitted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 35. Let a certified copy of the judgment and order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for compliance report under Section 437A Cr.P.C. The lower court records be sent back for compliance.