ORDER : 1. These appeals are preferred to question correctness of judgment dated 27.09.1983 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Basti in Sessions Trial No. 331 of 1982. By the judgment impugned learned trial court recorded the conviction of the accused appellants Sami Mohammad, Yaqub, Gayaboo and Haitullah for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life term. 2. Briefly, the prosecution case as set out in the First Information Report is that on 14.09.1982, Safi Mohammad (Ex. Ka-1) had gone to Kadjahava Grant to see his ailing maternal uncle (mama). While he was returning to his village, at about 3.00 p.m., as he reached village Bagahava Grant (where Paddy and Arhar crops were grown in that area). He heard a scream. As he stepped ahead, he saw his father (Dada) Noor Mohammad being assaulted by appellants. He asserted that Noor Mohammad, Sami Mohammad, Mohammad Yaqub and Gayaboo were armed with knives and Haitullah was armed with a Lathi. When he raised an alarm Luddur and Sanaullah, who were coming from Badauti, after getting wheat milled came to the site of the incident ¼vkVk filk dj vk jgs FksA½ On seeing the informant and the other witnesses arriving at the place of incident, the accused persons started to flee away. At this point Sami Mohammad threatened the informant and the other witnesses. He then abused the deceased, cried out that he (deceased) is still alive, and plunged the knife in the stomach of the deceased and escaped with the knife. The lathi carried by appellant Haitullah was left at the spot. The informant's father died immediately. It was then asserted that the deceased and Sami Mohammad had a dispute over a land. It was also alleged that the informant later came to know that Haitullah came to his house before the incident and had taken his father along with him. 3. The First Information Report (Ex. K-3) was lodged on 14.09.1982 at 8.10 p.m., vide Case Crime No. 95/1982 under Section 302 IPC against all the accused-appellants namely Haitullah, Sami Mohammad, Yaqub and Gayaboo at Police Station Dhebarua, District Basti. The investigation was undertaken by the Station Officer Radhey Shyam Dwivedi (PW-8). During the course of investigation, the police is said to have prepared site plan (Ex. The investigation was undertaken by the Station Officer Radhey Shyam Dwivedi (PW-8). During the course of investigation, the police is said to have prepared site plan (Ex. Ka-8), the fard of blood stained soil and plain soil (Ex-Ka-7) and also prepared fard of recovered 'Lathi', 'Spectacles' and one pair of 'sleeper' (EX.Ka-6) on 15.09.1982. The Inquest Report (Ex. Ka-2) was prepared in the morning of 15.09.1982 and the dead body was sent for postmortem. 4. Postmortem of the deceased Noor Mohammad was conducted on 16.09.1982 at about 2.00 P.M. by Dr. K.N. Pandey, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Basti, (P.W.-7). The doctor noticed one abrasion and twenty three incised wounds were as follows:- i. Incised wound 4 cms. x 1 cm x skin deep on the forehead 5 cms. above the root of the nose. ii. Incised wound 3 cms. x 1 cm x skin deep on the left front side of head 6 cms. over the left ear. iii. Punctured wound 2 ½ cms. x 1 cm x cavity deep over the left cheek. iv. Incised would 5 cms. Long having a cut through and through over the left ear. v. Incised wound 2 12 cms x 1 cm x skin deep on the left and back side of head 3 cms. x away from the left ear. vi. Incised wound 5 cms x 1 cm x skin deep on the left and back side of head 2 ½ cms. away from the injury no. 5. vii. Incised wound 1 cm x ½ cm x skin deep on the left side of head 5 cms. above the left ear. viii. Punctured wound 1 ½ cms. x ½ cm x cavity deep over the bridge of nose just below the root. The nasal bone was also found cut. ix. Incised wound 1 cm x ½ cm x skin deep over the nose just below the injury no. 8. x. Incised wound 2 cms. x 1 cm x muscle deep on the left side of lower lip. xi. Incised wound 8 cms. X 2 cms. x muscle deep on the joint of right elbow. xii. Abrasion 2 cms. X 1 cm on the back side of right forearm 5 cms. above the right wrist. xiii. Punctured wound 2 cms. x 1 cm x cavity deep on the right side of chest 15 cms. below the right axilla. xiv. Punctured wound 2 cms. X 2 cms. x muscle deep on the joint of right elbow. xii. Abrasion 2 cms. X 1 cm on the back side of right forearm 5 cms. above the right wrist. xiii. Punctured wound 2 cms. x 1 cm x cavity deep on the right side of chest 15 cms. below the right axilla. xiv. Punctured wound 2 cms. x 1 cm x cavity deep on the joint of abdomen 4 cms. above the umbilicus. xv. Punctured wound 2 cms. x ½ cm x cavity deep over the abdomen 2 cms. above injury no. 14. xvi. Incised wound 3 cms. x 1 ½ cms. x muscle deep on the front aspect of right thigh 15 cms. above the right knee. xvii. Incised wound 2 cms. x 1 cm x muscle deep on the back side of right thigh 5 cms. above the right knee. xviii. Incised wound 5 cms x 1 cm x muscle deep on the right leg 7 cms. below the right knee. xix. Incised wound 6 cms x 2 ½ cms. x muscle deep on the front side of left elbow. xx. Punctured wound 3 cms. x 1 ½ cms. x cavity deep on the left side of chest 10 cms. below the left nipple. xxi. Punctured wound 2 cms. x 1 cm x cavity deep on the left side of chest 2 ½ cms. below injury no. 20. xxii. Punctured wound 5 cms. 2 ½ cms. x cavity deep on the abdomen 19 cms. below the left nipple. xxiii. Incised wound 3 cms. x 1 ½ cms. x muscle deep on the front aspect of left thigh. xxiv. Incised wound 5 cms. x 1 cm x muscle deep on the back side of left thigh 18 cms. below the left hip joint." 5. As per the postmortem report (Ex-Ka.5), the cause of death of the deceased Noor Mohammad was "due to shock and hemorrhage from the said injuries". The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation, submitted a chargesheet (Ex-Ka-9) against the accused appellants under Section 302 Indian Penal Code on 06.10.1982. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge. On 16.12.1982 the accused-appellants were charged with commission of offences under Section 302/34 I.P.C.. 6. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation, submitted a chargesheet (Ex-Ka-9) against the accused appellants under Section 302 Indian Penal Code on 06.10.1982. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge. On 16.12.1982 the accused-appellants were charged with commission of offences under Section 302/34 I.P.C.. 6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, out of whom Safi Mohammad (son of the deceased) (PW-1), Luddur (PW-2), Sanaullah (PW-3) were cited as eye witnesses, Smt. Jokhana (wife of the deceased) is PW-4, Constable Nand Lal Yadav is PW-5, H.C. Ram Chandra Tiwari is PW-6, Dr. K.N. Pandey (PW-7) and S.I. Radhey Shyam Dwivedi is PW-8. The prosecution has also exhibited several documents (Ex. Ka-1 to Ex. Ka-9). 7. Opportunity was accorded to the accused appellants as per provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the adverse and incriminating circumstances against them in the prosecution evidence. The accused appellants denied the allegations and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity on account of pending land dispute. 8. Defence produced one Head Constable Ram Chandra Tiwari as DW-1 and also filed certain documents relating to litigations in the revenue court between the deceased Noor Mohammad and appellants Haitullah and Sami Mohammad. 9. While pressing these appeals, the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is that the star eye witness of the case PW-1 is not at all reliable, as not only he is a chance witness but even otherwise his testimony does not inspire confidence. The witness lied and gave evasive answers on material facts. On certain material facts his statement is contradictory to the other witnesses. It was, therefore, urged that if other witnesses are to be believed then the PW-1 has to be disbelieved and if PW-1 is disbelieved then the entire prosecution case will have to be disbelieved. It is also submitted that the eye witnesses are not only chance but related, partisan and inimical as well and such their testimony is not worth reliance. 10. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate stated that the eye-witness narrated the entire incident with all confidence, as such there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony. The medical evidence too supported the prosecution story in its entirety, hence the trial court rightly recorded conviction of the accused persons for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. 11. 10. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate stated that the eye-witness narrated the entire incident with all confidence, as such there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony. The medical evidence too supported the prosecution story in its entirety, hence the trial court rightly recorded conviction of the accused persons for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. 11. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and also perused the material on record. 12. Before examining case of other accused persons, we deem it appropriate to first examine the case of accused Haitullah. In the trial he has not been assigned any role, whatsoever, in the commission of the offence. This appellant, according to the F.I.R. version, was armed with lathi and also participated in the assault upon the deceased along with the other appellants, who were armed with knives. However, the postmortem report reveals that there is no lathi injury on the deceased. The prosecution case against appellant Haitullah was failing. Faced with this anomaly, the prosecution changed its F.I.R. version in the trial to save its case against Haitullah. 13. In the trial, all the prosecution witnesses deposed that Haitullah remained standing with a lathi and only the other appellants assaulted the deceased. Clearly the prosecution took inconsistent stands, at different points in time. In our view this changed version of the prosecution in the trial creates a reasonable doubt regarding participation of this appellant in the crime. 14. Moreover, even if the substantive evidence against this appellant is considered, he cannot be legally convicted by the aid of section 34 IPC, inasmuch as, according to the prosecution evidence he did not participate in the criminal acts of other appellants. From the evidence of the witnesses, it is clearly evident that no overt act has been assigned to this appellant during the commission of the crime. His mere presence when other appellants were giving knife blows to the deceased would not connect him with the commission of the crime allegedly committed by the other appellants. There is no evidence at all that this appellant shared common intention with other appellants for committing the crime. 15. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased left his house at the bidding of Haitullah from the latter's house to district Basti, where they were needed to negotiate a compromise between the parties. There is no evidence at all that this appellant shared common intention with other appellants for committing the crime. 15. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased left his house at the bidding of Haitullah from the latter's house to district Basti, where they were needed to negotiate a compromise between the parties. Haitullah was present at the place of incident when the crime was committed. According to learned AGA these facts clearly suggest that he shared common intention with other appellants in the commission of the crime. The aforesaid contention of learned counsel cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the alleged conduct of this appellant wherein he encouraged the deceased to arrive at a compromise with the opposite party and accompanied him to the place where the compromise was to be negotiated, in itself does not manifest criminal intent in any manner. This is not sufficient evidence to permit the court to infer that this appellant shared common intention with other accused in killing of the deceased. 16. The law is well settled that totality of circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion that the accused had a common intention to commit the offence. This aspect of the matter has been completely over-looked by the learned trial judge and therefore, the conviction of this appellant is not sustainable with the aid of Section 34 IPC. 17. Now reverting to the contention raised with regard to the issue of related, partisan and inimical characteristic of the eye witnesses are concerned, it is stated that the evidence shows that the three eye witnesses PWs-1, 2 and 3 (i.e., Safi Mohammad, Luddur and Sanaullah) belong to one and the same village, named, Gorua Jot Grant. PWs 1 and 2 are collaterals, although PW-1 in his deposition in the trial court tried to hide this relationship by giving evasive reply in this regard. He deposed that he did not know whether Luddur (PW-2) is his collateral and in the same breath he also stated that Luddur might be knowing about it. PWs 1 and 2 are collaterals, although PW-1 in his deposition in the trial court tried to hide this relationship by giving evasive reply in this regard. He deposed that he did not know whether Luddur (PW-2) is his collateral and in the same breath he also stated that Luddur might be knowing about it. However, to overcome such an evasive reply and prove the fact clinchingly, the appellants filed in defence before the trial court the extracts of khataunis of 1381 to 1383 Fasli and 1387 to 1392 Fasli where the name of PW-2 Luddur stands recorded along with the deceased Noor Mohammad in the ancestral landed properties, which proves the fact that PWs 1 and 2 are collaterals. So far as the third eye witness PW-3 Sanaullah is concerned, the evidence shows that his real brother Muneef had been a close associate of the deceased father of PW-1. 18. PW-1 stated in his deposition that Muneef and his father were together on the one side in the pending litigation under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act in the revenue court and both of them were contesting against appellant Sami Mohammad. He also deposed that another brother of PW-3, named Ziaul had contested election of Gram Pradhan against appellant Sami Mohammad. Thus, PW-3 being a close associate of the father of PW-1 is a natural ally of PW-1. Besides it, this witness is also inimically deposed against appellant Sami Mohammad, as he, along with the father of PW-1 were litigating the said title suit against appellant Sami Mohammad. It is evident that the three eye witnesses are related and partisan. Further, they are inimical to the appellants. However, merely on account of these attributions, they do not become unreliable, nor do their testimonies deserve to be rejected out-rightly. Instead, we are conscious of the settled legal position that the testimony of such witnesses should be evaluated with caution and care and we propose to do so while assessing their evidence in our later discussion. 19. We now come to the next question whether the said three eye witnesses are chance witnesses and whether they are reliable. 20. The question as to who is a chance witness is not res-integra. A chance witness is the one who should not normally be where and when he professes to have been. 19. We now come to the next question whether the said three eye witnesses are chance witnesses and whether they are reliable. 20. The question as to who is a chance witness is not res-integra. A chance witness is the one who should not normally be where and when he professes to have been. The Supreme Court in the case of Rana Pratap Vs. State of Harayana, reported in AIR 1983 SC 680 , has succinctly dealt the subject of chance witness in the following words:- "Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a brothel, prostitutes and paramours are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passersby will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that that they are mere chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance witnesses' is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and every one must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is a most unsuitable expression in a country whose people are less formal and more casual. To discard the evidence of street hawkers and street vendors on the ground that they are 'chance witnesses' even where murder is committed in a street is to abandon good sense and take too shallow a view of the evidence." 21. In view of the judgment referred above it may be concluded that a witness whose presence is by chance, and not natural, at the place and time of the occurrence, is a chance witness. Thus, in deciding whether a witness is a natural or chance the site or place of occurrence with its topographical characteristics, besides other, has a determinative role to play. 22. For appreciating the topographical characteristic of the place of occurrence we have examined the evidence of witnesses and also the site plan (Ex.Ka-8). The evidence shows that place of occurrence lies within the limits of village Bagahwa. The incident had taken place inside the agricultural field of one Manraj where Paddy and Arhar crops had grown to sufficient height. The Arhar crop had grown to a height of 5 feet and Paddy crop had grown to 3 feet high. The evidence shows that place of occurrence lies within the limits of village Bagahwa. The incident had taken place inside the agricultural field of one Manraj where Paddy and Arhar crops had grown to sufficient height. The Arhar crop had grown to a height of 5 feet and Paddy crop had grown to 3 feet high. There is a narrow pathway about two feet wide, running towards east-west, inside the field and on both sides of this pathway the crops of Arhar and Paddy were sown in the fields. This place is nearly two furlongs away from the abadi of village Bagahwa and except village Bagahwa there is no other village nearby it. Evidence also shows that the place of occurrence is not only away from the village abadi but is even other-wise a lonely place. PW-1 stated that there was no movement on the pathway. The relevant portion of the testimony is quoted below: ^^13- ?kVuk ds le; ml ixM.Mh ij esjs vykok vkSj dksbZ vkenjkQr ugh FkhA ?kVukLFky ls igys ml jkLrs esa dqN yksx dgha dgha feys FksA jkLrs esa tgkW tgkW xkWo iM+rs FksA ogkW jkLrs ij yksx fey tkrs FksA dRy dh txg ls esjs ekek dk ?kj 2 fdehŒ ds Qklys ij FkkA tc ls eS vius ekek ds ?kj ls pyk ogkW ls ?kVukLFky rd igWqpus ds jkLrs esa eq>s dgh dksbZ jkgxhj ugha feykA^^ 23. He deposed that even on the main pathway, which is away from the place of occurrence, there was hardly any movement. The evidence also shows that the place of occurrence is one Kilometer away from the village where eye witnesses reside. From these facts, it is evident that the eye witnesses cannot be said to be natural witnesses, as in the normal circumstances they could not have been present at the place of occurrence. 24. The question then would arise as to whether the explanations offered by the three eye witnesses for their presence at the time and place of occurrence are liable to be believed. The evidence, with regard to the presence of PW-1 at the place of occurrence, is that PW-1 had gone to village Kandjahava Grant to see his ailing maternal uncle and while returning, as he reached near the place of occurrence, he heard screams. As he stepped forward he witnessed the incident. The evidence, with regard to the presence of PW-1 at the place of occurrence, is that PW-1 had gone to village Kandjahava Grant to see his ailing maternal uncle and while returning, as he reached near the place of occurrence, he heard screams. As he stepped forward he witnessed the incident. The evidence for the presence of PW-2 and PW-3 at the place of occurrence is that these two witnesses had gone to a flour mill at village Bahuti which is nearly two and half Kms. away from their village for grinding of wheat of PW-2. Both of them were returning after having got the wheat grounded. On their return journey when they reached the border of village Bagahwa they heard alarms of PW-1 and when they moved towards the side of alarm they witnessed the incident. Thus, from the explanations that the eye witnesses have given for their presence are full of chance factors. Inasmuch as, is it not a chance that all the eye witnesses belong to the village of the deceased, which is one Km. away from the place of occurrence; it is not a chance that the PW-1 was returning from his maternal uncle's place and reached the place of occurrence at that very point of time when the incident was happening. Is it not a mere chance that PW-2 had a need of grinding of his wheat on the date of the incident and was it also not a chance that he was returning from the flour mill and reached the place of occurrence at the time when the incident of murder was being committed. And above all, why did PW-3 go along with PW-2 to the flour mill at village Bahuti which is nearly two and half kms. away from his village? Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of the argument that grinding of wheat was the need of PW-2, for which he had to go to flour mill at village Bahuti, but the question that remained unanswered is that for what reason PW-3 would accompany PW-2 to the flour mill. Thus, if the presence of PW-3, at the time and place of occurrence, were to be disbelieved then the presence of all other eye witnesses will have to be disbelieved. Thus, if the presence of PW-3, at the time and place of occurrence, were to be disbelieved then the presence of all other eye witnesses will have to be disbelieved. We are thus of the definite view that the explanations given by the three eye witnesses for their presence at the place of occurrence are not worth credence. However, we proceed to make a more closure scrutiny of their testimonies. 25. While scrutinizing the testimony of the eye witness we noticed a material evidence of the case, which completely demolishes the prosecution case and creates a reasonable doubt about the presence of the eye witnesses at the place and time of occurrence. This material evidence though consist of events that are post incident but they are quite relevant as they are so connected with the incident that they cannot be excluded from consideration. We find from the evidence of PW-1 that after the incident this witness went to his village and informed his mothers (he has two mothers; one real and other step) about the incident and thereafter he got the F.I.R. scribed. After having got the F.I.R. scribed he, along with his both the mothers, proceeded to the place of incident. The relevant portion of his testimony is quoted below:- ^^16- ?kj tkdj eSusa vius nksuks ekrkvksa ls dgk fd ^^okfyn dks ekj MkykA^^ ;g lqurs gh esjh nksuksa ekrk,s ikxy gks xbZA dqN nsj ckn ;kuh ,QŒvkbZŒvkjŒ fy[kkus ds ckn esjh nksuksa ekrk,s ekSdk ij xbZ FkhA bl gknls ds ckn eSa vius ?kj 4 1@2 cts igqWpk Fkk vkSj ?kj ls djhc 5 cts esjh nksuksa ekrk,s okfyn dh yk'k ns[kus ds fy, jokuk gqbZ FkhA eS Hkh mu nksuksa ds lkFk x;k FkkA^^ 26. However, PWs-2, and 3 have given different versions on this fact. PW-2 stated that after the incident he and PW-3 went to their houses leaving PW-1 at the place of occurrence. PW-2 further stated that he alone went to the house of PW-1 to inform about the incident to his family members and when he informed them about the incident the ladies and family members started crying and they immediately rushed towards the place of occurrence. PW-2 further stated that he alone went to the house of PW-1 to inform about the incident to his family members and when he informed them about the incident the ladies and family members started crying and they immediately rushed towards the place of occurrence. This part of the evidence of PW-2 is extracted below:- ^^eqtfyeku ds Hkkx tkus ij ge yksx uwjeksgEen ds ikl x;sA muds cnu ds ikl ixM.Mh ij [kwu fc[kjk ns[kk FkkA ixM.Mh ds mŸkj vkSj nf[ku nksuks rjQ vjgj dh Qly Fkh tks fd djhc rhu QhV ÅWph FkhA eqyfteku ds Hkkxus ds ckn ge yksx ?kVukLFky ij #ds ugh] ?kj pys vk;sA ge yksx 'kQh eksgEen dks ekSds ij gh NksM+dj vk x;s FksA eSus 'kQh eksgEen ds ?kj tkdj ;g [kcj nh Fkh fd uwjeksgEen dks ekj MkykA esjs dgrs gh uwj eksgEen dh vkSjrs vkSj ?kj okys jksrs fpYykrs ekSds dh rjQ pys x;sA lkjk xkWo gh muds lkFk py fn;k FkkA vkVk ?kj esa j[kdj EkS vkSj lukmYykg Hkh nksckjk ekSds ij x;s FksA vkSjrsa eq>ls 2&4 ch?kk vkxs fudy pqdh FkhA tc ge ykSVdj ekSds ij igqWps rks lQh eksgEen ekSds ij ekStwn FksA vius cki dh yk'k ds ikl cSBs FksA vkSjrs 'kke rd ogha cuh jghA eS vkSj 'kQh eksgEen Hkh ‘kke rd ogha cus jgsA 27. PW-3, however, contradicted not only PW-1 but on some facts he also contradicted PW-2. According to PW-3 he and PW-2 together had gone to the house of PW-1 to inform his family members and thereafter both of them went to their respective houses. He also stated that before them (PWs 2 and 3) female members of the house of PW-1 had not gone to the place of occurrence. According to PW-3 he and PW-2 together had gone to the house of PW-1 to inform his family members and thereafter both of them went to their respective houses. He also stated that before them (PWs 2 and 3) female members of the house of PW-1 had not gone to the place of occurrence. The relevant part of the statement PW-3 is extracted below:- ^^3- eq>s ;kn ugh fd eqyfteku ml le; D;k diM+s igus Fks ysfdu muds diM+ks esa [kwu yx x;k FkkA eqyfteku ds Hkkxus ds ckn eSa vkSj yqn~nqj 5&10 feuV ekSds ij :ds FksA fQj xkao dks py x;sA 2&3 ch?kk vkxs cढ+us ij dqN pjokgs gesa jkLrs esa feys FksA mu pjokgks ls eq>ls dksbZ ckrphr ugha gqbZ FkhA eSus vkSj yqnnqj us xkWo igqWpdj bl ?kVuk dh [kcj uwj eksgEen ds ?kj igqWpk;h vkSj fQj vius&vius ?kj pys x;sA uwj eksgEen ds ?kj esa igWpk;h vkSj fQj vius vius ?kj pys x;sA uwj eksgEen ds ?kj esa mldh vkSjr vkSj cPpksa ls ?kVuk ds ckjs esa crk;k FkkA ;g dgk Fkk fd uwj eksgEen ekj fn;s x;s gSA vkSjrs gekjs lkeus ?kj ls ekSds ds fy, ugh fudyh] ckn esa xbZ gksxhA 28. From the aforesaid deposition of PW-3 it is evident that this witness contradicts PW-2 on two important facts. One of contradictions lies in the fact that according to PW-2 he alone had gone to the house of PW-1 to give information of the murder but PW-3 stated that he had also gone to the house of PW-1 along with PW-2. Another contradiction lies in the fact that according to PW-2, on being informed by him of the murder, the ladies of the house of PW-1 proceeded to the place of occurrence before him but PW-3 stated otherwise. His statement is that ladies did not go the place of occurrence before him. These material contradictions in the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are not reconcilable. These contradictions are such that if PW-1 were to be believed then other witnesses will have to be disbelieved and the vice-versa as well. Besides the fact that the eye witnesses are chance witnesses, their testimony are even otherwise not credible. 29. There is yet another material contradiction in the testimonies of the eye witnesses. PW-1 testified under cross examination that a large crowd had gathered at the incident site after the incident. Besides the fact that the eye witnesses are chance witnesses, their testimony are even otherwise not credible. 29. There is yet another material contradiction in the testimonies of the eye witnesses. PW-1 testified under cross examination that a large crowd had gathered at the incident site after the incident. He did not speak to anyone in the crowd. To the contrary, under the cross examination PW-3 deposed before the trial court that there was no one present at the place of incident apart from the eye witnesses. No one reached the incident site even after the accused had fled upon the commission of the crime. Similarly PW-2 under cross examination also stated that apart from eye witnesses no other persons came to the place of incident. 30. Reliance on the testimonies of three witnesses who have been found to be interested, partisan and whose testimonies are beset with material contradiction vitiates the judgment of the trial court. 31. In light of whatever stated above, we are of considered opinion that a reasonable doubt exists in accepting the prosecution story. 32. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. The judgment dated 27th September, 1983 is set aside. The accused-appellants Sami Mohammad, Yaqub, Gayaboo and Haitullah are acquitted from the charge relating to commission of offence under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. The conviction recorded under the judgment aforesaid and the sentence awarded too are set aside. The accused are availing bail, let the bonds and sureties furnished by them be discharged.