JUDGMENT : Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J. As both the aforesaid criminal appeals have cropped up from the same judgment and order of conviction and sentence, hence, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard Sri Kanhiya Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Pratik Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 522 of 2013), Sri Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 594 of 2013) as well as Sri Ajay Mishra and Sri Satya Narayan Prasad, learned Addl. Public Prosecutors in both the appeals. 3. The aforesaid two criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.04.2013 and order of sentence dated 26.04.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Naugachia in Sessions Trial no. 826 of 2011 arising out of Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 150 of 2011 whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused Mukul Choudhary of the charges levelled against him and convicted the accused Bipul Choudhary and Amul Choudhary for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further convicted Bipul Choudhary for the offence punishable under Section 27(i) of the Arms Act and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for life and also slapped them with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced convict Bipul Choudhary to undergo R.I. for three years and also slapped him with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months under Section 27(i) of the Arms Act. All the sentence were directed to run concurrently. 4. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months under Section 27(i) of the Arms Act. All the sentence were directed to run concurrently. 4. The factual matrix of the case is that Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 150 of 2011 was instituted under Sections 302/34 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against Bipul Choudhary, Amul Choudhary and Mukul Choudhary on the basis of fardbeyan of Ranju Devi W/o Late Subhash Sah recorded by S.I. Rajesh Kumar S.H.O. P.S. Gopalpur on 25.05.2011 at 05:15 PM near Mandal tea shop at Sindhiya Makandpur Chowk with the allegation, in succinct that on 25.05.2011 at around 04:00 PM, husband of the informant had gone to see his under construction house located in the vicinity of Makandpur Chowk. She was also proceeding to her aforesaid house along with her daughter after making purchasing from the market. On the way at around 04:15 PM, she spotted her husband taking tea at the tea shop of Mandal located towards east of Makandpur Chowk. As soon as she arrived near the shop of Mandal along with her daughter, she witnessed a motorcycle halted near the Mandal shop and Bipul Choudhary and Amul Choudhary alighting from the motorcycle arrived at the tea shop and Bipul Choudhary resorted firing upon the temple of her husband from the point blank range by means of pistol and Amul Choudhary uttered that the victim has been eliminated and thereafter both made good their escape on the motorcycle. Then she started screaming along with her elder daughter. Her husband sustaining bullet injury near his temple started writhing and succumbed to his injury after a while on the spot. The bone of contention is said to be that her husband had got the land of the house registered from Uday Choudhary around one year four months back which was protested by Mukul Choudhary. Said Mukul Choudhary has surrendered in the Naugachia court two days back. He happens to be a person of criminal antecedent and due to aforesaid grudge Mukul Choudhary got eliminated her husband by Bipul Choudhary and Amul Choudhary by hatching conspiracy. 5. The aforesaid case was investigated by the police and on conclusion of the investigation, I.O. submitted charge sheet against the aforesaid accused persons. 6. He happens to be a person of criminal antecedent and due to aforesaid grudge Mukul Choudhary got eliminated her husband by Bipul Choudhary and Amul Choudhary by hatching conspiracy. 5. The aforesaid case was investigated by the police and on conclusion of the investigation, I.O. submitted charge sheet against the aforesaid accused persons. 6. On receiving the charge-sheet and the case diary and perusing the same, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of sessions, and after commitment and on transfer finally the case came in seisin of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Naugachia for trial. 7. Charge against the accused Bipul Choudhary, Mukul Choudhary and Amul Choudhary was framed under Sections 302/34, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(2) of the Arms Act. Further charge against accused Bipul Choudhary was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge was read over and explained to them by the court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. To substantiate its case, in ocular evidence, the prosecution has examined altogether eleven prosecution witnesses namely, Fudo Sah as PW-1, Guriya Kumari @ Bebi as PW-2, informant Ranju Devi as PW-3, Raj Kishore Sah as PW4, Mantu Mandal as PW-5, Kumar Rabindra as PW-6, Uday Kishore Choudhary as PW-7, Dr. Basudeo Prasad Mandal as PW-8, Raj Kumar Sah as PW-9, Arbind Sah as PW-10 and I.O. Rajesh Kumar as PW-11. Out of the aforesaid witnesses, PW-1 and PW-5 turned hostile while PW-9 happens to be formal witness, who has proved his signature on the inquest report of the deceased. The prosecution has also filed and proved several documents by way of documentary evidence in the case. 9. The statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The case of the defence is complete denial of the occurrence. The accused persons have neither adduced any ocular nor documentary evidence in buttress of their case. 10. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence as detailed in the earlier paragraph. 11. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the convict Bipul Choudhary and Amool Choudhary have preferred Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 594 of 2013 and Cr. 11. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the convict Bipul Choudhary and Amool Choudhary have preferred Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 594 of 2013 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 522 respectively. 12. The point for consideration in this case is, as to whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge levelled against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts or not. 13. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that all the material witnesses examined by the prosecution barring PW-2 (Guriya Kumari), who happens to be daughter of the informant and informant PW-3 (Ranju Devi) are hearsay witnesses of the case. PW-2 and 3 are also not the eye witness of the occurrence rather they had arrived at the place of occurrence after culmination of the occurrence as PW-2 has stated in paragraph 11 of her cross-examination that after the occurrence, she had wept cuddling her father, his cadever was cold and stiff. She has further categorically stated that she had witnessed her father after sustaining bullet injury. The aforesaid statement of PW-2 indicates that at the time of cuddling her father by the said witness, his cadever was cold and stiff meaning thereby rigor mortis had already started and rigor mortis generally starts after 4-5 hours of the death, which means that PW-2 had arrived at the place of occurrence much after the occurrence and had not witnessed the occurrence. Moreover, she has categorically stated in her cross-examination that she had witnessed her father after sustaining bullet injury meaning thereby that she had arrived at the place of occurrence after culmination of the occurrence. Though, PW-3 claims herself to be eye witness of the occurrence, but brother of the deceased, namely, Arbind Sah (PW-10) has ruled out her presence at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence rather her arrival there after around 35 minutes of the occurrence as the said witness in paragraph 3 of his cross-examination has stated that listening the firing sound, he had arrived at the place of occurrence 10-15 minutes later and 20 minutes later to his arrival, his sister-in-law (informant) Ranju Devi had arrived there. As per the prosecution case and witnesses account, both PW-2 and 3 had arrived together at the place of occurrence, but as per the aforesaid account of PW-10, if the informant had arrived at the place of occurrence around 35 minutes later to the occurrence, her daughter PW-2 must have also arrived at the place of occurrence around 35 minutes later to the occurrence and had not witnessed the occurrence of assault upon the deceased by the appellant Bipul Choudhary. It is further submitted that as per the fardbeyan itself, Bipul Choudhary resorted firing upon the temple of the victim from point blank range by means of pistol, but doctor has not found any charring or blackening mark on the wound of the deceased and PW-2 and 3 have stated that hair, cloth or any part of the person of the deceased was not burnt. Thus, aforesaid ocular evidence of PW2 and 3 also does not stand corroborated by the medical evidence. It is further submitted that PW-2 and PW-7 have stated in their respective cross-examination, the land dispute is pending between PW-7 and Mukul Choudhary. Thus, PW-7 happens to be inimical to the appellants. It is also submitted that PW-3 has stated that her husband had lodged Sanha No. 559/10 against the appellants over the land dispute and PW-6 has stated that the aforesaid Sanha was lodged one year preceding to the occurrence. Thus, there is animosity between the appellants and the deceased and the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case by the informant due to aforesaid animosity. Thus, the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to substantiate the prosecution case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing trustworthy, convincing and reliable evidence. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the learned trail court is liable to be set aside and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 14. On the other hand, learned APP advocating the correctness and validity of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence submitted that the informant and her daughter PW-2 have supported the prosecution case in toto and other material witnesses examined by the prosecution have also corroborated the prosecution case. 14. On the other hand, learned APP advocating the correctness and validity of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence submitted that the informant and her daughter PW-2 have supported the prosecution case in toto and other material witnesses examined by the prosecution have also corroborated the prosecution case. The consistent ocular evidence of the prosecution also stands corroborated by the medical evidence and learned trial court correctly appreciating the facts and evidence on record has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence which is liable to be upheld and these appeals are shorn of merit and are liable to be dismissed. 15. From perusal of record, it appears that to substantiate its case, in ocular evidence, the prosecution has examined nine material witnesses in the case. Out of them, PW1 (Fudo Sah) and PW-5 (Mantu Mandal) have turned hostile while PW-9 (Raj Kumar Sah) happens to be formal witness of the inquest report of the deceased. Thus, only six material witnesses are left to be examined. Out of the aforesaid witnesses, PW-2 (Guriya Kumari) happens to be daughter of the informant and deceased, PW-3 (Ranju Devi) is the informant and wife of the deceased, PW-4 (Raj Kishore Sah) is the brother of the informant, PW-6 (Kumar Rabindra) is the nephew of the informant, PW-7 (Uday Kishore Choudhary) is the vendor of the land sold out to the deceased and PW-10 (Arbind Sah) happens to be brother of the deceased. 16. From perusal of testimony of PW-4, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-10, it appears that they are not eye witnesses of the occurrence rather hearsay witnesses. As PW-4 (Raj Kishore Sah) has stated in paragraph 1 of his examination-in-chief that on 25.05.2011 at around 04:15 PM, he was proceeding to Makandpur Chowk from the house of his sister Ranju Devi and as soon as he arrived near Bajrangbali Asthan, his niece Guriya Devi informed him on mobile that her father has been shot dead and called him there hurriedly. He rushed at the tea shop of Mantu Mandal and witnessed three motorcycle borne criminals escaping towards east. Out of them, Bipul Choudhary was armed with deadly weapon. He rushed at the tea shop of Mantu Mandal and witnessed three motorcycle borne criminals escaping towards east. Out of them, Bipul Choudhary was armed with deadly weapon. The aforesaid statement of said witness eloquently indicates that he had arrived at the place of occurrence after culmination of occurrence and had not witnessed the occurrence and he had also not witnessed the accused persons at the place of occurrence as as per the prosecution case, the accused persons had decamped on motorcycle immediately after the occurrence. The statement of the aforesaid witness is also not admissible in the evidence even as a hearsay witness as in paragraph 1 of his examination-inchief, he has stated that he had got knowledge of death of the deceased on his mobile by his niece Guriya Devi and when he arrived at the place of occurrence, his sister Ranju Devi cuddled him and divulged him that his brother-in-law has been shot dead by Bipul Choudhary and Amool Choudhary was uttering that work assigned by Mukul bhaiya has been completed. But, the aforesaid Guriya Devi (PW-2) and Ranju Devi (informant) have not corroborated the factum of divulgence of the aforesaid aspect of the case to the said witness and thus the aforesaid statement of the said witnesses remains uncorroborated and is not admissible in evidence even as a hearsay witness for want of corroboration. 17. Pw-6 (Kumar Rabindra) has stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of his examination-in-chief that at the time of occurrence, he was in Purnea. His cousin Anupma informed him on his mobile about gunning down her father, namely, Subhash Sah at Makandpur Chowk. On getting the said information, he arrived at Makandpur Chowk at 07:00 PM by bike and found the crowd there. He witnessed blood near the chair in the tea shop. The people in the crowd were uttering that Mukul Choudhary, Bipul Choudhary and Amool Choudhary have gunned down Subhash Sah. In paragraph 4 of his examination-in-chief, he has further stated that when he arrived at the house of the his aunt Ranju Devi (informant), she divulged him that his uncle Subhash Sah had purchased the property from some Choudhary and Mukul, Amool and Bipul were creating hindrance in construction of the house over the said land since very beginning. A Sanha was also lodged regarding the same in the court one year preceding to the occurrence. A Sanha was also lodged regarding the same in the court one year preceding to the occurrence. She also divulged him that she had arrived Makandpur Chowk to see her under construction house along with her daughter Guriya. In the meantime, three motorcycle borne criminals arrived near the tea shop and Bipul Choudhary gunned her husband Subhash Sah down by means of gun and Amool Choudhary was uttering that work assigned by his brother has been completed. She also divulged him that Mukul Choudhary had surrendered in the court in connection with a simple case a day proceeding to the occurrence and got her husband eliminated by hatching conspiracy. In paragraph 6 of his cross-examination, he has candidly stated that he had not witnessed the occurrence. Neither Guriya Kumari nor informant nor any person from the crowd has corroborated the factum of divulgence of the occurrence to the said witness. Thus, the aforesaid statement of the said witness also does not appear to be admissible in the evidence even as a hearsay witness for want of corroboration. 18. Pw-7 (Uday Kishore Choudhary) in paragraphs 1 and 2 of his examination-in-chief has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was at his house located on the flank of N.H. near Makandpur Chowk. He listened hulla about gunning down Subhash Sah. Responding the said hulla, he arrived at the tea shop of Mantu Mandal and found Subhash Sah dead sustaining bullet injury. There was a huge crowd there. The daughter of Subhash Sah cuddled him and weepingly divulged that three motorcycle borne criminals arrived there and the pillion rider alighted from the motorcycle. Bipul Choudhary gunned Subhash Sah down while Amool Choudhary was uttering that work assigned by Mukul Choudhary has been completed, then he regressed to his house. In paragraph 6 of his cross-examination, he has categorically stated that he did not witness the occurrence. The aforesaid statement of the said witness regarding the occurrence also does not appear to be admissible in the evidence even as a hearsay witness of the case as the Guriya Devi (PW-2) has not corroborated the factum of divulgence of the occurrence by her to the said witness. 19. Pw-10 (Arbind Sah) in paragraph 1 of his examination-in-chief has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was at his house. 19. Pw-10 (Arbind Sah) in paragraph 1 of his examination-in-chief has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was at his house. Responding the firing sound, he arrived at Makandpur Chowk and found Subhash Sah dead sustaining bullet injury. In paragraph 3 of his cross-examination, he has further stated that he had arrived at the place of occurrence 10- 15 minutes later to listening the firing sound. The aforesaid statement of the said witness indicates that he has also not witnessed the occurrence rather had arrived at the place of occurrence after culmination of occurrence. 20. From perusal of testimony of PW-2 (Guriya Devi), who happens to be daughter of the informant and deceased and PW-3 (Ranju Devi), who happens to be informant and wife of the deceased, it appears that though the aforesaid witnesses have made an abortive bid to support the prosecution case by stating in their respective examination-in-chief in consonance to the prosecution case that at the time of occurrence, PW-3 had arrived Makandpur Chowk along with her daughter (PW-2) to see her under construction house. Her husband, namely, Subhash Sah was taking tea at the tea shop of Mantu located at Makandpur Chowk. In the meantime, three motorcycle borne criminals arrived there. Out of them two alighted from the motorcycle, who were identified by them as Bipul Choudhary and Amool Choudhary. Bipul Choudhary resorted firing on the right temple of Subhash Sah by means of pistol which traversed through the left temple. Thereafter, Amul Choudhary uttered that work assigned by Mukul Choudhary has been completed. Then the aforesaid three accused persons left the scene on motorcycle. But, from perusal of the cross-examination of the said witnesses, it appears that they do not happen to be eye witnesses of the occurrence. As PW-2 (Guriya Devi) has stated in paragraph 11 of her cross-examination that after the occurrence, she had wept cuddling her father. His cadaver was cold and stiff. It was also bleeding. In paragraph 12 of her cross-examination, she has further stated that she witnessed her father after sustaining bullet injury by him. The aforesaid statement of the said witness eloquently indicates that she had not witnessed the occurrence rather she had arrived at the place of occurrence after culmination of the occurrence and decamping of the accused persons and found the deceased dead sustaining bullet injury. The aforesaid statement of the said witness eloquently indicates that she had not witnessed the occurrence rather she had arrived at the place of occurrence after culmination of the occurrence and decamping of the accused persons and found the deceased dead sustaining bullet injury. As as per the aforesaid statement of PW-2, after the occurrence, when she cuddled her father, his cadaver was cold and stiff, which means rigor mortis had started by that time and rigor mortis generally commences after 4-5 hours of death. The aforesaid aspect of the case also goes to indicate that the said witness had arrived at the place of occurrence much after culmination of the occurrence and found the victim dead and had not witnessed the occurrence. 21. Pw-10 (Arbind Sah), who happens to be brother of the deceased and brother-in-law of the informant in paragraph 3 of his cross-examination has stated that he had arrived at the place of occurrence responding the firing sound 10-15 minutes later to the listening of the firing sound and his sister-in-law, namely, Ranju Devi had arrived there 20 minutes later to his arrival, which means that informant (Ranju Devi) had arrived at the place of occurrence after 35 minutes of the occurrence i.e. after the culmination of the occurrence and decamping of the accused persons from the place of occurrence and had not witnessed the occurrence. As as per the prosecution case and account of PW-2 and 3, both had arrived at the place of occurrence at the same time while as per the account of PW-10 (Arbind Sah), the informant had arrived there around 35 minutes later to the occurrence, so PW-2 (Guriya Devi) must have also arrived at the place of occurrence around 35 minutes later to the occurrence and she must have also not witnessed the occurrence. Hence, the testimony of the aforesaid two witnesses appears to be wholly unreliable and untrustworthy and it cannot be based upon to hold the conviction of the appellants. 22. From perusal of the fardbeyan of the informant, it appears that as per the fardbeyan, Bipul Choudhary resorted firing upon the temple of the deceased by means of pistol from point blank range. But, from perusal of testimony of Dr. 22. From perusal of the fardbeyan of the informant, it appears that as per the fardbeyan, Bipul Choudhary resorted firing upon the temple of the deceased by means of pistol from point blank range. But, from perusal of testimony of Dr. Basudeo Prasad Mandal (PW-8), who had conducted autopsy of the cadaver of the deceased and from the postmortem report, it appears that the doctor has not found any charring or blackening mark on the wound of the deceased as in paragraph 8 of his cross-examination, he has categorically stated that if there is short range firing, the injury will be charring or burning, but he did not find any charring or burning on the body of the deceased. Informant PW-3 (Ranju Devi) in paragraph 13 of her cross-examination has stated that neither hair nor cloth nor anything else of her husband was burnt. PW-2 has stated in paragraph 12 of her cross-examination that no part of the person of her father was burnt. The aforesaid testimony of the said witnesses and postmortem report goes to indicate that there was no charring or blackening mark on the wound of the deceased. As per the text book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology authored by MODI, if a firearm is discharged very close to the body or in actual contact, subcutaneous tissues over an area of two or three inches around the wound of entrance are lacerated and the surrounding skin is usually scorched and blackened by smoke and tattooed with unburnt grains of gunpowder or smokeless propellant powder. The adjacent hairs are singed, and the clothes covering the part are burnt by the flame. If the powder is smokeless, there may be a greyish or white deposit on the skin around the wound. Blackening is found, if a firearm like a shotgun is discharged from a distance of not more than three feet and a revolver or pistol discharged within about two feet. Hence, not finding of charring and blackening mark on the wound of the deceased creates serious doubt about the prosecution case of gunning down the deceased by resorting firing on his temple from point blank range. Thus, the aforesaid untrustworthy and unreliable ocular evidence of the prosecution also does not stand corroborated by the medical evidence. 23. Hence, not finding of charring and blackening mark on the wound of the deceased creates serious doubt about the prosecution case of gunning down the deceased by resorting firing on his temple from point blank range. Thus, the aforesaid untrustworthy and unreliable ocular evidence of the prosecution also does not stand corroborated by the medical evidence. 23. From perusal of testimony of PW-6 (Kumar Rabindra), it appears that the said witness in paragraph 6 of his cross-examination has stated that after postmortem, they took the dead body of his uncle to his house in the night. His aunt and they were sitting and wailing near the dead body over night. Her aunt (informant) used to faint and become senseless in the course of wailing and they used to make her regain sense. From perusal of aforesaid testimony of the said witness, it appears that after the occurrence, the mental status of the informant was very upset and disturbed seeing the occurrence and dead body of her husband and she used to faint and become senseless time and again and people used to make her regain sense and she must not have been in the mental state to give any fardbeyan. But, from perusal of the fardbeyan of the informant, it appears that the said fardbeyan which was recorded on the date of occurrence at 5:15 PM i.e. within one hour of occurrence contains the graphic statement of the occurrence. In my considered opinion, a person of such upset and disturbed mental state cannot give such a graphic statement of the occurrence. The aforesaid aspect of the case creates serious doubt about the aforesaid fardbeyan and prosecution case. 24. From perusal of testimony of the I.O. (PW-11) as given by him in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of his examination in-chief, it appears that in the aforesaid examination-in-chief, he has stated that he recorded fardbeyan of informant (Ranju Devi) and after lodging the FIR, he took charge of investigation of the case and visited the place of occurrence and arriving at the place of occurrence, he prepared the inquest report of the deceased Subhash Sah and after preparing the inquest report, he sent the dead body for autopsy through Chowkidar preparing the dead body challan. The aforesaid testimony of the said witness eloquently indicates that after recording the fardbeyan of the informant, he took charge of the investigation and visiting the place of occurrence prepared the inquest report of the deceased and thereafter he sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem preparing the dead body challan. In carrying out the aforesaid process, he must have taken at least one hour after recording the fardbeyan of the informant. From perusal of record, it appears that the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by the said witness on 25.05.2011 by 05:15 PM, so the dead body of the deceased would have been sent for postmortem on 25.05.2011 at around 06:15 PM. But, from perusal of the postmortem report of the deceased marked as Ext-3, it appears that the dead body for the postmortem was received by the doctor conducting autopsy of the cadaver of the deceased at 04:50 PM and postmortem was conducted by him at 04:55 PM on 25.05.2011 i.e. even preceding to the recording of the fardbeyan of the informant. The aforesaid aspect of the case creates serious doubt about the sanctity of the aforesaid fardbeyan, postmortem report and prosecution case. 25. Pw-3 (Ranju Devi) informant in paragraph 3 of her examination-in-chief has stated that bone of contention is that her husband had purchased land from Uday Choudhary through sale deed. Her husband was constructing house on the said land and Mukul Choudhary, Amool Choudhary and Bipul Choudhary used to extend threatening of dire consequences in case of construction of the house over the said land. Her husband had lodged Sanha No. 559/2010 in the court regarding the aforesaid threatening on 28.05.2010 which has been exhibited as Ext-2. PW-6 (Kumar Rabindra) has stated in paragraph 4 of his examination-in-chief that his aunt Ranju Devi divulged him that his uncle Subhash Sah had purchased the land from some Choudhary and Mukul Choudhary, Amool Choudhary and Bipul Choudhary were creating hindrance in the construction of the house since very beginning. Regarding the aforesaid hindrance, a Sanha was lodged in the court one year preceding to the occurrence and I.O. PW-11 has stated in paragraph 12 of his examination-in-chief that on 12.06.2011 informant accorded him a copy of the Sanha No. 559/10 lodged in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Naughachia against accused persons. Regarding the aforesaid hindrance, a Sanha was lodged in the court one year preceding to the occurrence and I.O. PW-11 has stated in paragraph 12 of his examination-in-chief that on 12.06.2011 informant accorded him a copy of the Sanha No. 559/10 lodged in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Naughachia against accused persons. The aforesaid account of the said witnesses eloquently indicates that there is animosity between the appellants and the prosecution party. Animosity cuts both the edges. But, in view of the want of any eye witness of the occurrence, non-corroboration of unreliable and untrustworthy ocular evidence by the medical evidence, doubt about sanctity of fardbeyan and the postmortem report and prosecution case, false implication of the appellants at the hand of the prosecution party due to aforesaid animosity cannot be ruled out. 26. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I find and hold that the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to substantiate the prosecution case and complicity of the appellants in the occurrence beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing convincing, cogent, consistent and worth credence evidence. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court against the appellants is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. As the appellant Amool Choudhary of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 522 of 2013 is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds while the appellant Bipul Choudhary of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 594 of 2013 is in custody, he is directed to be released forthwith from the custody, if not wanted in any other case. Accordingly, the aforesaid two Criminal Appeals are allowed.