JUDGMENT : This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 06.07.2010 and the order of sentence dated 08.07.2010 respectively, passed by the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Pakur, in Sessions Case No.104 of 2008 whereby the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 of the IPC and a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default, thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, as narrated in the fardbeyan of P.W.6-Sushila Murmu, is that on 04.03.2008, at about 11 a.m., Baburjee Tudu (the gotia of the informant) along with his sons namely Sudhir Tudu, Sailen Tudu, Ramesh Tudu and the wife and daughter of Ramesh Tudu and Babudhan Tudu were fishing in the pond belonging to the informant. The informant and her husband Shibcharan Hembram and bhaisur Kaleshwar Hembrom arrived at the pond. Her husband told the accused persons that the pond was in joint possession of both the parties and asked the accused persons to desist from fishing, whereupon the accused assaulted her husband and bhaisur with arrow and lathi. Due to the assault her husband and bhaisur fell down in the paddy field of Manial Kisku. It is alleged that on the instigation of Raimon Murmu, all the accused persons including Lalji Murmu, Baburam Marandi and Pandu Hansda assaulted Shibcharan Hembram and Kaleshwar Hembram with lathi and killed them by crushing their heads with boulders. 3. On information, the police arrived at the place of occurrence and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant P.W.6 and accordingly Pakuria P.S. Case No.13 of 2008 was registered. 4. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) was filed against the accused persons and cognizance was taken, whereafter the case was committed to the court of sessions. The sessions court read over and explained the charges under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the IPC to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The sessions court read over and explained the charges under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the IPC to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses. P.W.1-Binda Murmu, P.W.2-Santoi Soren and P.W.6-Sushila Murmu are the eye witnesses. P.W.3-Raska Hembram, P.W.4-Naresh Hembram and P.W.5-Basanti Hembram are hearsay witnesses. P.W.6-Sushila Murmu is the informant and wife of deceased Shibcharan Hembram, P.W.7 is the Doctor who conducted post-mortem on the dead bodies of deceased Shibcharan Hembram and Kaleshwar Hembram. He has proved the post-mortem reports, i.e.-Ext.1 and 1/1 respectively. 6. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 IPC. The defence was of complete denial. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court found the appellants guilty of the charges and convicted them by the judgment impugned herein. 7. On perusal of the materials on record it appears that P.W.1-Binda Murmu has deposed that at around 11 a.m., on the day of occurrence, he had brought his buffalo to the pond and, at that time, the accused persons were fishing in the pond, whereafter Shibcharan Hembram and Kaleshwar Hembram came there and objected to the fishing by the accused persons, due to which altercation and scuffle took place between them and the accused persons pushed and dragged Shibcharan Hembram and Kaleshwar Hembram to the field of Boka Kora and assaulted and killed them with boulders. In cross-examination he has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence the fight had already started between the parties. Subsequently, in para-6, he has contradicted his earlier statement and stated that he reached the place of occurrence after the fight was over and he did not inform anyone about the incident. His attention has been drawn to his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that he is related to the deceased persons. 8. P.W.2, Santoi Soren has deposed that the accused persons were fishing in the pond and at that time, Kaleshwar Hembram and Shibcharan Hembram came and objected to the fishing by the accused persons, whereupon the accused persons started assaulting Shibcharan Hembram and Kaleshwar Hembram with lathi and killed them in the plot of land belonging to Boka Kora and Manial Kisku. She has deposed that out of fear, she left the place. In her cross-examination in para-6, she has stated that P.W.5 and other persons were present at the pond. In paras 8 and 9, she has admitted that she is the aunt of the deceased persons. She has stated that the accused persons were present at the pond prior to her arrival and later on, the victims arrived at the pond. In para-5 she has stated that on the day of occurrence, till 10 a.m. she was in her house and she went to the pond after 10 a.m. It takes two hours to reach the pond from her house. In para-7, she has contradicted her earlier statement and stated that the accused persons had arrived at the pond after her. Later on, Kaleshwar and Shibcharan reached the pond and, at that time, sun had not risen. 9. P.W.3-Raska Hembram is the father of the deceased persons. He has deposed that on being informed by the villagers about the death of his sons, he reached the place of occurrence where P.W.6 told him about the incident. He has stated that police had come and prepared the seizure list of axe, sword, knife, sabbal and 6 (six) pieces of stones, two arrows and a bow, and he and Joseph Hembram had signed on the seizure list. The police had also prepared the inquest report of the deceased persons. In Para-7 of his cross-examination, he has deposed that the distance between Pratappur and Salgapara is five ‘kosh’ (10 miles). He has property in Pratappur. He has stated that tractor is often used in the locality for transportation of boulders and paddy and villagers are employed and travel as labourers on the tractor. He had reached the place of occurrence at 12 ‘O’ Clock and P.W.6 had told him that the incident had taken place much before his arrival. Subsequently he has stated that he was informed about the occurrence in the afternoon before sunset. 10. P.W.4-Naresh Hembram has stated that the accused person had assaulted and killed Shibcharan and Kaleshwar near the field of Manial Kisku. In para-4 of his cross-examination, he has deposed that he is a para teacher and on the day of occurrence he was in the school when at about 2 p.m., he was informed about the incident. 10. P.W.4-Naresh Hembram has stated that the accused person had assaulted and killed Shibcharan and Kaleshwar near the field of Manial Kisku. In para-4 of his cross-examination, he has deposed that he is a para teacher and on the day of occurrence he was in the school when at about 2 p.m., he was informed about the incident. He has stated that P.W.1 is his uncle and the deceased persons are his brothers-in-law. He has stated that the disputed pond belongs to the accused persons and is in their possession. 11. P.W.5-Basanti Hembram has deposed that, after bathing in the pond, while she was returning home she saw Kaleshwar Hembram and Shibcharan Hembram going towards the pond, where the accused persons were fishing. She has deposed that later on she heard that the accused persons had assaulted and killed Shibcharan Hembram and Kaleshwar Hembram with lathi and boulders. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she reached the pond at 10 a.m. and left for home when the accused persons arrived at the pond. In para-5 she has stated that she had heard about the incident from several persons but she cannot name the said persons. In para-8 she has admitted that Raska (P.W.3), i.e.-the father of the deceased persons, is her father-in-law by relation. 12. P.W.6-Sushila Murmu, the informant and the wife of deceased Shibcharan Hembram)-has deposed that at 10 a.m. the accused persons were fishing in the pond situated in Salga village. Thereafter, she alongwith Kaleshwar Hembram and Shibcharan Hembram came to the pond. Kaleshwar Hembram and Shibcharan told the accused persons that the fish was bred by them, therefore fishing should be done jointly by both the parties. On query by the accused, Shibcharan and Kaleshwar disclosed that they are the sons of Raska (P.W.3), whereafter the accused persons came out of the pond and accused Ramesh, started assaulting Kaleshwar Hembram and Shibcharan Hembram with lathi. Due to the assault Shibcharan Hembram and Kaleshwar Hembram fell down and thereafter all the accused persons assaulted Shibcharan Hembram and Kaleshwar Hembram and smashed their heads with boulders and killed them on the plot of land belonging to Manial Kisku and Boka Kora. On information police had come and recorded her fardbeyan. In cross-examination, she has stated that she was born in Pratappur. On information police had come and recorded her fardbeyan. In cross-examination, she has stated that she was born in Pratappur. She was married to Shibcharan Hembram nine years ago and after her marriage she has been residing in Pratappur, but she has never resided in her husband’s house. She has stated that Pratappur village falls under Maheshpur Police Station and Salgapara comes under Pakuria Police Station. She has stated that she had also objected to the fishing whereupon the accused persons had pushed her. She has stated that the pond was in joint possession of both the parties and accused were told that fishing should be done jointly. In para-13 she has stated that she cannot say the direction in which the disputed pond was situated. She has stated that fishing was done jointly by the parties for two years and dispute arose in the third year. In para-16 she has admitted that litigation relating to land dispute is going on with the accused persons, but she does not know about the plot of land for which the dispute was going on. In para-21 she has stated that on the day of occurrence she was at home. That several persons told her that the occurrence had taken place at 10 a.m., but she does not know the names of the persons or how many people were present at the place of occurrence. She has stated that it was 10 a.m. clock but she has admitted that she cannot tell the time by looking at the watch. She has denied the suggestion of the defence that she is a resident of Pratappur and she does not have any knowledge of the occurrence. 13. P.W.7-Dr. Sanjay Kumar Jha conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased, namely, Kaleshwar Hembram and Shibcharan Hembram and found the following injuries on the body of the deceased persons:- (A) Injury found on deceased Shibcharan Hembram as under, 1. External on appearance Average built fair complexes, rigor mortis present in all four limbs, face and skull/completely crushed, brain matters coming out. 2. Internal on dissection (i) Hyoid bone fractured clinically rib bilateral fractured 2 to 6. (ii) Brain- Pale, and crushed brain matters comes out. (iii) Heart- All chambers empty. (iv) Lungs – Bilateral pale. (v) Liver – Pale. (vi) Spleen – Pale. (vii) Stomach– Liquid material present. 2. Internal on dissection (i) Hyoid bone fractured clinically rib bilateral fractured 2 to 6. (ii) Brain- Pale, and crushed brain matters comes out. (iii) Heart- All chambers empty. (iv) Lungs – Bilateral pale. (v) Liver – Pale. (vi) Spleen – Pale. (vii) Stomach– Liquid material present. (viii) Small and large intestine – full with liquid and gasses. Time elapsed since death at the time of P.M. examination 24 to 36 hours. (B) Injury found on deceased Kaleshwar Hembram as under, 1. External on appearance Rigor mortis present in all four limbs, multiple abrasion over whole body. Skull completely crushed posteriorly, Brain matters coming out. 2. Internal on dissection (i) Rib – fractured clinically left side 2 to 4. (ii) Heart – All four chamber empty. (iii) Lungs – Bilateral pale. (iv) Liver – Pale. (v) Spleen – Pale. (vi) Stomach – Liquid material present. (vii) Small and large intestine – full with liquid and gasses. (viii) Bladder – Empty. (ix) Bain – Pale and crushed completely. (x) Time elapsed since death at the time of P.M. examination 24 to 36 hours. Cause of death of the both deceased were Hemorrhage and shock due to crushed injury of skull by the hard and blunt substances. In cross-examination, on suggestion of the defence he has stated that the injuries on the deceased could be caused due to running over by a boulder laden tractor. 14. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP. 15. On examination and analysis of the evidence on record, it is amply clear that the prosecution case is primarily founded on the testimony of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6, alleged to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. 16. On going through the testimony of the witnesses, it is evident that P.W.6 has testified that she alongwith her husband-Shibcharan Hembram (since deceased) and her bhaisur-Kaleshwar Hembram (since deceased) had gone to the pond and objected to the fishing in the pond by the accused persons whereupon the accused persons assaulted and killed her husband and her bhaisur, by crushing their heads with boulders. However, P.W.1 has not testified about the presence of P.W.6 at the place of occurrence or having seen P.W.6 in the company of her husband and bhaisur (the deceased persons). However, P.W.1 has not testified about the presence of P.W.6 at the place of occurrence or having seen P.W.6 in the company of her husband and bhaisur (the deceased persons). Likewise, P.W.2-the aunt of the deceased persons-has also not testified that P.W.6 had come to the pond or was present at the place of occurrence. P.W.5 is a hearsay witness and she has admitted that, P.W.3, i.e. the father of the deceased, is her father-in-law by relation. P.W.5 has categorically stated that while she was returning home she had seen Shibcharan Hembram and Kaleshwar Hembram going towards the pond. P.W.5 has not stated that she had seen P.W.6 accompanying the deceased persons to the pond. 17. P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief, has stated that he had seen the accused persons assaulting the deceased, however in cross-examination he has made a contradictory statement that he reached the pond after the occurrence. P.W.1 has denied the suggestion of the defence that he is related to the deceased, whereas P.W.4 has admitted that P.W.1 is his own uncle and the deceased persons were his brothers-in-law. In fact, P.W.4’s testimony establishes that P.W.1 is related to the deceased persons. It is abundantly clear that P.W.1 has deliberately suppressed his relationship with the deceased persons and has blatantly lied to the suggestion given by the defence, about his relationship with the deceased persons. 18. Though P.W.6 has testified that there were other persons present at the pond but she has stated that she does not know the names of those persons. P.W.2 has stated that P.W.5 and other persons were present at the pond prior to her arrival and the deceased persons arrived later on, whereas P.W.5 has deposed that when the accused persons arrived at the pond, she left for home and on the way she saw Shibcharan and Kaleshwar going towards the pond. It is evident that P.W.5 has contradicted the testimony of P.W.2 that the accused were present at the pond prior to the arrival of P.W.2. It is evident that P.W.5 has not testified about the presence of P.W.2 at the place of occurrence. P.W.2 during cross-examination, has made contradictory statement that the accused persons were fishing in the pond prior to her arrival but subsequently she has stated that the accused persons had arrived at the pond after her. It is evident that P.W.5 has not testified about the presence of P.W.2 at the place of occurrence. P.W.2 during cross-examination, has made contradictory statement that the accused persons were fishing in the pond prior to her arrival but subsequently she has stated that the accused persons had arrived at the pond after her. In cross-examination P.W.2 has admitted that it takes two hours to reach the pond from her house and she left her house at 10 a.m. She has also admitted in her cross-examination that sun had not risen at that time. If P.W.2’s testimony is considered in its entirety then it appears that either she reached the pond at around 12 o’clock in the afternoon or she was at the pond before sunrise. P.W.5 has stated that she had gone for bathing in the pond at 10 a.m. and she left the pond when the accused persons arrived at the pond, and P.W.1 has stated that the occurrence had taken place at 11 a.m. P.W.3 has stated that he had reached the pond at 12 o’clock and P.W.6 had told him that the incident had taken place much before his arrival, and at the same time he has made a contradictory statement that he was informed about the occurrence in the afternoon just before sunset. 19. P.W.6, in para 21, has stated that on the day of occurrence she was at home but she cannot say till what time she was at home. She has stated that as per the watch, the time of occurrence was 10 a.m. but she has also admitted that she does not know how to tell the time by looking at the watch. P.W.6 has stated that several persons had told her that the incident had taken place at 10 a.m., but she could not tell the names of those persons who told her about the time and about the identity of the persons present at the place of occurrence. 20. It appears that P.W.6 has deliberately given an evasive reply by stating that she does not know till what time she was in her house. It is admitted by P.W.6 that she resides at Pratappur and P.W.3 has stated that Pratappur is situated 5 ‘kos’ (10 miles) from Salgapara. 20. It appears that P.W.6 has deliberately given an evasive reply by stating that she does not know till what time she was in her house. It is admitted by P.W.6 that she resides at Pratappur and P.W.3 has stated that Pratappur is situated 5 ‘kos’ (10 miles) from Salgapara. Thus considering the distance of Salgapara from Pratappur it would take a minimum of two to three hours walk to reach Salgapara from Pratappur. On meticulous examination and analysis of the testimony of the witnesses it is evident that there is inconsistency in their testimony with respect to the time of the occurrence. 21. From the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6, it appears that initial assault on the deceased persons took place at the pond and thereafter the deceased persons were dragged to the plot of land belonging to Boka Kora and Manial Kisku and killed by crushing their heads with boulders. P.W.3 has stated that the police had come and seized ‘Sabbal’ (a sharp cutting weapon), axe, sword, knife, 6 pieces of stones, two arrows and bow, but perusal of Ext.1 and 1/1, i.e., the post-mortem reports, reveal that the Doctor, P.W.7, did not find any sharp cutting injuries on the body of the deceased persons. None of the eye witnesses have stated that the accused persons were armed with various sharp-cutting weapons and bow and arrows. Though in the fardbeyan P.W.6 has narrated that the accused had assaulted with arrow and lathi, but in her deposition she has stated that they assaulted her husband and bhaisur with lathi and boulders. P.W.6’s narration in the fardbayan that the accused struck the deceased with arrow is not supported by the medical evidence as no penetrating or piercing wound was found on the body of the deceased person. 22. Admittedly P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are related to each other but surprisingly they have not stated that they had seen each other at the place of occurrence. P.W.6 has stated that several persons were present at the place of the occurrence but she could not name or identify the persons. The inconsistency in the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses creates a doubt regarding their presence at the place of occurrence. P.W.6 has stated that several persons were present at the place of the occurrence but she could not name or identify the persons. The inconsistency in the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses creates a doubt regarding their presence at the place of occurrence. In this context, it is pertinent to state that in Jaishree Yadav v. State of U.P., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that for judging the credibility of a witness, the main criterion would be whether their physical presence at the place of occurrence was possible and probable. In Hari Obula Reddy v. State of A.P (1981) 3 SCC 675 , it has been observed that in evaluating the evidence of an interested or even a partisan witness, it is useful as a first step to focus attention on the question, whether the presence of the witness at the scene of the crime at the material time was probable. In the instant case as discussed above, the presence of PW-6, the informant has not been testified by P.W.1 and P.W.2. It is noticed that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have contradicted their own statement in cross-examination by the defence. 23. It is settled law that the discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found not to be minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with the evidence available or with a statement that has already been recorded, then in such a case, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances the court is required to scrutinize the evidence and the circumstances for determining as to how far and to what extent the prosecution has been able to establish its case. 24. At this juncture it is pertinent to point out that in a plethora of decisions, it has been observed by the Apex Court, that the conviction of the accused is justified when the evidence of the witnesses are consistent and have a ring of truth. To test the credibility and reliability of a witness, the status of the witness is immaterial and what is relevant is the truthfulness of such witness or witnesses which has to be evaluated by considering the testimony in its entirety, right from the examination in-chief to cross-examination. To test the credibility and reliability of a witness, the status of the witness is immaterial and what is relevant is the truthfulness of such witness or witnesses which has to be evaluated by considering the testimony in its entirety, right from the examination in-chief to cross-examination. The statement of the witnesses should be consistent and there should not be any prevarication in the version and the witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination, and in any circumstance should not give any room of doubt as to the factum of occurrence as well as the sequence of it. For this purpose the statement of the witnesses will have to be considered along with other corroborating evidence and independent circumstances so as to come to a conclusion that the contradiction in the statement of a witness is an embellishment by the witness of such a nature which renders the testimony of the witness untrustworthy and unreliable. On analysis of the testimony of the witnesses especially of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6, it is evident that there are omissions and contradictions in their testimonies, as such their testimonies does not inspire confidence and cannot be relied upon. 25. It is relevant to point out that the testimony of P.W.6 that the pond was in joint possession of both the parties and fishing was done jointly by them, has not been corroborated by P.W.1 and P.W.2. In fact, P.W.3 the father-in-law of P.W.6, has not testified that the pond was in joint possession of both the parties. P.W.3-has stated that he has property in Pratappur and has not stated that he has property in Salga village, i.e. the place of occurrence. P.W.4, the brother-in-law of the deceased persons has admitted in cross-examination that the pond belonged to the accused persons and they were in possession of the pond. P.W.6 has admitted that after marriage she never lived in her in-laws house. She has stated that she does not know in which direction the pond was situated in Salga village. It is evident that P.W.6 does not have any idea about the direction or location of the pond and her testimony that the pond was in joint possession of both the parties, has not been supported or corroborated by P.W.3, the father-in-law and P.W.4, the brother-in-law. Thus the assertion of P.W.6 that the pond belonged to her family is not believable. 26. Thus the assertion of P.W.6 that the pond belonged to her family is not believable. 26. It is noticed that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) has not been examined and no plausible explanation has been given by the prosecution for non-examination of the I.O. It is evident that the witnesses have stated that initially the accused assaulted the deceased at the pond and thereafter, they pushed and dragged them to the land of Boka and Manial and killed them by smashing their heads with boulders. In view of the evidence on record, the Investigating Officer would have been the best person to testify and establish the exact place of occurrence by bringing on record the objective findings made by him during investigation. In view of the exposited facts and evidence on record, the examination of the I.O. was essential for the prosecution to prove the case. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravishwar Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand, (2008) 16 SCC 561 has observed at para-27 as under: “27. The investigating officer in a case of this nature should have been examined. His examination by the prosecution was necessary to show that there had been a fair investigation. Unfortunately, even no site plan was prepared. There is nothing on record to show as to the exact place where the occurrence had taken place. It is stated that the house of the parties is divided by a road. If that be so, it was all the more necessary to pinpoint the exact place of occurrence to ascertain who the aggressor was.” 27. As per P.W.3’s testimony the police had seized an axe, sword, knife, sabbal, arrows and bow from the place of occurrence, however as per the post-mortem report P.W.7 (the Doctor) did not find sharp cut injuries on the body of the deceased, neither have the witnesses testified about assault by sharp-cutting weapons. The witnesses have not stated that the accused persons were armed with sharp-cutting weapons. P.W.3 and PW-4 have stated that tractors are used in their village for transportation of boulder and paddy and some villagers work as labourers on the tractors. P.W.7, the Doctor, has not denied the suggestion given by the defence that the injuries on the deceased could be possible due to being run over by a tractor loaded with boulder. 28. P.W.3 and PW-4 have stated that tractors are used in their village for transportation of boulder and paddy and some villagers work as labourers on the tractors. P.W.7, the Doctor, has not denied the suggestion given by the defence that the injuries on the deceased could be possible due to being run over by a tractor loaded with boulder. 28. P.W.6 has admitted about the litigation with respect to land dispute going on between the accused persons and her husband’s family. P.W.3, the father-in-law has deposed that a person from Salga village had informed him about the death of his sons and in cross-examination in para-8, has stated that one Suresh and the Doctor had informed him at Pratappur about the occurrence. P.W.3 has not stated that the said persons had disclosed the names of the culprits who had killed his sons. There is no explanation by the prosecution for non-examination of the persons as named by P.W.3. It is evident that P.W.6 is a highly interest witness moreover her testimony is not reliable. The prosecution has failed to bring on record the seizure of the weapons and articles used in the commission of the crime. In fact, the I.O. was the best person to testify about the seizure of the weapons and the exact place of occurrence. The non-examination of the I.O. is a lacuna which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Taking into account the material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses, a grave doubt is created regarding the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and P.W.6 at the place of occurrence. The contradictions in their testimony strikes at their creditworthiness and reliability. In fact, the testimony of the witnesses does not inspire confidence and cannot be relied upon. 29. The non-examination of the I.O. has resulted in non-determination of the exact place of occurrence and raises serious doubt regarding the prosecution case. In view of the testimony of P.W.7 the possibility cannot be ruled out that the death of the deceased persons might have taken place in some other manner at some other place by other mode and puts a big question mark on the genesis of the occurrence. 30. In view of the testimony of P.W.7 the possibility cannot be ruled out that the death of the deceased persons might have taken place in some other manner at some other place by other mode and puts a big question mark on the genesis of the occurrence. 30. In the emergent broad features of the case and the discussions made hereinabove, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Sections 148, 302/149 of IPC against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, accordingly the appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the charges. Consequent to the findings as recorded above, the judgment dated 6.7.2010 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-1, Pakur in Sessions Case No.104 of 2008 is, hereby, set aside. 31. Since the appellant, namely, Malti Murmu @ Maloti Murmu, is already on bail, she is discharged from the liability of her bail bonds and the appellants, namely, Babudhan Tudu, Sailen Tudu, Sudhir Tudu and Ramesh Tudu are directed to be released forthwith from jail custody, if not wanted in any other case. In the result, the appeal is, hereby, allowed.