Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1088 (PAT)

Amrendra Singh v. State Of Bihar

2021-11-24

A.M.BADAR, SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR

body2021
JUDGMENT (CAV) Sunil Kumar Panwar, J. - Heard Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. It would be relevant to mention here that vide order dated 17.09.2019, this appeal stands abated in respect of appellant No. 1 namely Shambhu Singh. However, this appeal is proceeded in respect of appellant No. 2 namely Amrendra Singh. 3. The appellant Amrendra Singh in this appeal has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 23rd of January, 1993 and the order of sentence dated 25th of January, 1993 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in connection with Sessions Trial No. 110/83/35/87, arising out of Aurangabad (M) P.S. Case No. 197(5) of 1981. 4. By the aforesaid judgment dated 23rd of January, 1993, Shambhu Singh and Amrendra Singh have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 5. After hearing the convicts on the point of sentence, vide consequential order dated 25th of January, 1993, the Trial Court sentenced the appellants Shambhu Singh and Amrendra Singh to undergo imprisonment for life for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C and rigorous imprisonment for three years each under Sections 201 of the I.P.C and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Trial Court, however directed that all the sentences awarded against the convicts shall run concurrently. 6. The Sessions Trial in which the impugned judgment and order was passed relates to the First Information Report (in short 'F.I.R') that had been registered on 26.05.1981 in Aurangabad (M) P.S. Case No. 197(5) of 1981 under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C) in respect of the incidence that had taken place at village Chokhara at 5:00 P.M on 25th of May, 1981. 7. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the informant namely Jagarnath Singh, who has alleged that on 24.05.1981, the informant along with his father had gone to the house of Jamuna Singh of village Pidasin for marriage proposal of his sister. 7. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the informant namely Jagarnath Singh, who has alleged that on 24.05.1981, the informant along with his father had gone to the house of Jamuna Singh of village Pidasin for marriage proposal of his sister. On next day i.e. 25.05.1981, they returned from village Pidasin to their own village, but on way, at about 4:00 P.M, they stayed for some time at Deo More where they met co-accused Sheonandan Yadav and at about 5:00 P.M., they reached at Chokhra village. It is alleged that as soon as they reached near the house of Ramchandra Singh, situated in the Gali, the accused persons namely Shambhu Singh, Satnarayan Singh and Amrendra Singh, armed with riffle came from the southern side when co-accused Shambhu Singh is alleged to have fired from his pistol causing gunshot injury on the chest of the father of the informant (P.W. 5). On receiving gunshot injury, he fell on the ground, thereafter, co-accused Satnarayan Singh and Amrendra Singh (appellant) also fired from their pistols to the father of the informant. The informant fled away from the place of occurrence but from the rooftop of his house, he saw that accused Shambhu Singh, Satnarayan Singh and Amrendra Singh (appellant) took away the father of the informant. The informant (P.W. 5) could not go out of his house and save his father because accused Ramashiwan Singh, Subodh Singh, Rambodh Singh, Nand Kumar Singh, Ramprasad Singh, Ramjatan Singh, Sheonandan Yadav and 5-6 unknown persons, armed with lathi, danda and country made pistols had surrounded the house of the informant and made indiscriminate firing in the air. At about 1:00 A.M., the accused persons left the house of the informant. The informant, thereafter went to the police station along with his brother Bishwanath Singh (P.W. 2) and Awadhesh Singh (P.W. 3) and recorded statements. The Police thereafter registered a case and started investigating the matter. On 27.05.1981, a beheaded dead body was found buried near Keshar river situated between village Maya Bigha and Irki. At some distance, the head of the body was also found. The informant(P.W. 5), Bishwanath Singh (P.W. 2), Chowkidar Rambahal (P.W. 7) and witnesses Bishundeo Singh(P.W. 6) and Mungeshwar Singh identified the dead body to be of Ramjanam Singh/father of the informant. Thereafter, the inquest report was prepared and the body was sent for the postmortem. 8. At some distance, the head of the body was also found. The informant(P.W. 5), Bishwanath Singh (P.W. 2), Chowkidar Rambahal (P.W. 7) and witnesses Bishundeo Singh(P.W. 6) and Mungeshwar Singh identified the dead body to be of Ramjanam Singh/father of the informant. Thereafter, the inquest report was prepared and the body was sent for the postmortem. 8. The autopsy of the dead body was conducted at 5:45 P.M. on 27th of May, 1981 by Dr. LP. Jaiswal, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Aurangabad. 9. During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses. He visited the place of occurrence. On the place of occurrence, he found scratching mark there. He seized blood stained earth and ten wards of cartridges and prepared map (Ext 6) of the place of occurrence. He also seized umbrella, plastic shoes belonging to the deceased Ramjanam Singh from the place of occurrence. These articles were identified by the informant and his family members. The Investigating Officer, thereafter prepared seizure list of the aforementioned articles seized by him in presence of the witnesses. 10. On 18.07.1981, the Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Ram Niwas Chaubey handed over the charge of investigation to Sub-Inspector, Awadhesh Tiwary. He sent the blood stained earth to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna for examination and thereafter, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. 11. On receipt of the charge-sheet, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad took cognizance of the offences, sent summons to the accused persons and after complying with the statutory requirements of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. 12. The Trial Court explained the charges under Sections 302, 120(B), 302/149, 201, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act to the aforestated accused persons namely Shambhu Singh and Amrendra Singh (appellant) and charges under Sections 147, 120(B), 302/149, 201 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code to the accused persons namely Subodh Singh, Rambodh Singh, Ramjatan Singh, Nand Kumar Singh, Sheonandan Yadav and Ramprasad Singh, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 13. During investigation, altogether ten witnesses were examined in order to prove the charges levelled against the accused persons. 13. During investigation, altogether ten witnesses were examined in order to prove the charges levelled against the accused persons. They are Mala Kumari(P.W. 1), Bishwanath Singh (P.W. 2), Awadhesh Singh (P.W. 3), Ramdeo Singh (P.W. 4), Jagarnath Singh (P.W. 5), Bishundeo Singh (P.W. 6), Rambahal Yadav (P.W. 7), Tapeshwar Pandey (P.W. 8), Dr. Hanuman Ram (P.W. 9) and Mohan Pathak (P.W. 10). 14. The prosecution has also proved the following documents during trial. Serial No. Documents Exhibits 1. Signature of informant Jagarnath Singh on both pages of fardbeyan 1&/l 2. Signature of P.W. 8 Tapeshwar Pandey on three seizure lists 1/2 to 1/4 3. Signature of Mungeshwar Singh on inquest report 1/5 4. Signature of P.W. 6 Bishundeo Singh on inquest report 1/6 5. Postmortem Report 2 6. F.I.R cum Fardbeyan 3 7. Three seizure lists 4 to 4/2 8. Inquest Report 5 9. Map of the place of occurrence 6 10. Different pages of the original case diary 7 to 9 15. On behalf of the defence, no witness has been examined but the defence exhibited the following documents. Serial No. Documents Exhibits 1. Certified copy of deposition of Baijnath Singh recorded in G.O. Case No. 70/81 A 2. Certified copy of judgment passed in Complaint Case No. 110/87 B 3. Certified copy of judgment passed in a case State versus Jagarnath Singh and Others C 16. The Trial Court, after examining ten witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid but acquitted the other six accused persons viz. Ram Prasad Singh, Nand Kumar Singh, Sheonandan Yadav, Subodh Singh, Ramjatan Singh and Rambodh Singh of all the charges. 17. We now proceed to discuss and legally evaluate the prosecution evidence adduced in this case in order to examine as to whether as alleged complicity of the accused person/appellant can be said to be proved by acceptable and reliable legal evidences or not. 18. P.W. 5, Jagarnath Singh, is the informant and star witness of this case. He has admitted that on the alleged date of occurrence, he along with his father (deceased) had gone to village Pidasin for fixing a date for engagement ceremony of his sister but the date could not be fixed since total money was demanded. 18. P.W. 5, Jagarnath Singh, is the informant and star witness of this case. He has admitted that on the alleged date of occurrence, he along with his father (deceased) had gone to village Pidasin for fixing a date for engagement ceremony of his sister but the date could not be fixed since total money was demanded. On next day, they returned back, but on way to their village, at about 4:00 P.M, the informant and his father stayed for a while at Deo More. There they met accused Sheonandan Yadav. As soon as they reached near the Chauraha of the Gali situated near his house, accused Shambhu singh fired at his father which hit on his chest. He fell on the ground. Thereafter, accused Satnarain Singh and Amrendra Singh(appellant) fired from their pistols on the father of the informant. He ran away towards his house and narrated the incident to his other family members. He thereafter climbed on the rooftop of his house and saw that dead body of his father was being carried away by accused Shambhu Singh, Satnarain Singh and Amrendra Singh(appellant). He has further stated that accused Ramshiwan Singh, Subodh Singh, Rambodh Singh, Ramjatan Singh, Nandkumar Singh, Ramprasad Singh and Sheonandan Yadav armed with lathi, pistol and gun surrounded his house till 12:00 A.M and thereafter he along with his brothers viz. Bishwanath Singh (P.W. 2) and Awadhesh Singh (P.W. 3) went to the Police Station and recorded their statements before the Police. The informant admits some land dispute between the parties as in his cross-examination he has admitted that his family was living on Tarka. The informant has also admitted that in the murder case of Lallu Singh, who happens to be the son of Ramshiwan Singh, the brother of the informant viz. Bishwanath Singh (P.W. 2) and Awadhesh Singh (P.W. 3) have been made accused and since the accused persons had serious doubts about the involvement of his father in the murder of Lallu Singh, he has been killed. He has also admitted that after the incidence of murder of his father, accused Satnarain Singh was also murdered. Bishwanath Singh (P.W. 2) and Awadhesh Singh (P.W. 3) have been made accused and since the accused persons had serious doubts about the involvement of his father in the murder of Lallu Singh, he has been killed. He has also admitted that after the incidence of murder of his father, accused Satnarain Singh was also murdered. It is further submitted that accused Shambhu Singh had filed an arson case in which Bishwanath Singh (P.W. 2) and Awadhesh Singh (P.W. 3) were made accused and accused Ramjatan Singh, Nand Kumar Singh and Satyanarain Singh were the witnesses on behalf of Shambhu Singh in arson case. 19. P.W. 1, Mala Kumari is the daughter of Ramjanam Singh (deceased) and she has supported the prosecution version. However, she has admitted that her brother Jagarnath Singh (informant) told her that her father has been murdered. She has further stated that her house was surrounded by the accused persons and she could come out of her house only at 12 O' clock in the night and thereafter her brothers went to the police station. In her cross-examination, She has admitted that there was previous enmity between the parties. 20. P.W. 2, Bishwanath Singh is the son of Ramjanam Singh (deceased). He is a hearsay witness and at the time of occurrence, he was engaged in thrashing work in his field. He has stated that on hearing gunshot firing, he came at the place of occurrence and found the dead body of his father lying there. Accused Shambhu Singh, Satyanarayan Singh and Amrendra Singh (appellant) were armed with country mad pistol and they fired at his father. They also took away the dead body of his father towards the southern side of his house. The accused persons surrounded his house and stayed there till 1:00 A.M. Thereafter, he along with Jagarnath Singh (P.W. 5) and Awadhesh Singh (P.W. 3) went to the Police Station at about 5:00 A.M and recorded their statements before the Police. In his cross-examination, at para 15, he has admitted that after happening the occurrence, he went towards his house where Jagarnath Singh (informant) informed that his father has been murdered. At that time, Awadhesh Singh (P.W. 3) was also present. 21. P.W. 3, Awadhesh Singh is also the son of Ramjanam Singh (deceased) and he has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was at his house. At that time, Awadhesh Singh (P.W. 3) was also present. 21. P.W. 3, Awadhesh Singh is also the son of Ramjanam Singh (deceased) and he has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was at his house. He heard the sound of gunshot firing. He came out of his house and witnessed that accused Shambhu Singh, Satnarayan Singh and Amrendra Singh (appellant) were armed with riffles and they have taken away the dead body of his father with them. He also stated that other F.I.R named accused persons and 4-5 unknown accused persons, armed with lathi, danda, riffle surrounded his house till 12:00 A.M in the night. At about 1:00 A.M, he along with his brothers Jagarnath Singh (P.W. 5) and Bishwanath Singh (P.W. 2) went to the Police Station and recorded their statements before the police. In his cross-examination, at para 17, he has admitted some land dispute between the parties. 22. P.W. 4, Ramdeo Singh is Samdhi of the deceased Ramjanam Singh. He says in his evidence that after getting information about murder of Ramjanam Singh, he came to the house of Ramjanam Singh. He put his L.T.I on the seizure list. 23. P.W. 6, Bishundeo Singh is a witness who identified the decomposed dead body of Ramjanam Singhand proved his signature on the inquest report (Ext-1/6). 24. P.W. 7, Rambahal Yadav is the Chaukidar of the village, who has stated that on the alleged date of occurrence, he had gone to Sheoganj market and returned at 9:00 P.M. When he came to know that some dispute has arisen between Jagarnath Singh (deceased) and Ramshiwan Singh, he came to the house of Jagarnath Singh and called the members of the house but no one came out of the house. He heard the sound of crying from inside the house. He also visited the house of Ramshiwan Singh but there also, no one responded on his call. P.W. 7, however found blood stains on earth near the eastern corner of the house of Jagarnath Singh. He has also stated that dead body of Ramjanam Singh was recovered from the river. In his cross-examination, in para 6 of the case diary, he has specifically stated that he visited the house of Ramjanam Singh (deceased) at about 9 to 10 P.M and he had not found the house of Ramjanam Singh to be surrounded by any person. 25. In his cross-examination, in para 6 of the case diary, he has specifically stated that he visited the house of Ramjanam Singh (deceased) at about 9 to 10 P.M and he had not found the house of Ramjanam Singh to be surrounded by any person. 25. P.W. 8, Tapeshwar Pandey is Dafadar of Circle No. 8 and he has proved his signature on the seizure lists which have been marked as Exts. 1/2 to 1/4. 26. P.W. 9, Dr. Hanuman Ram is a formal witness who has proved the postmortem report (Ext-2). On inspection and dissection of the dead body, he found the following ante-mortem injuries:- "Be headed dead body in process of decomposition, erasing of skin after rupture blisters in process to decomposition except the skin of hands and feet which was shrunken. The dead body was covered partially with sand and dust. Scortun and penis greatly swollen. One oval punctured wound 3"x2" diameter on left side of chest in the mid axillary line at the level of 4th to 6th ribs, perforating stomach portion of it was out of wound, large intestine (transverse colon) diaphragm left side, gall bladder, pleura, left lung, pencardiun of both sides of heart. One large size pellet was recovered from the stomach, one from transverse colon and three from gall bladder. The dead body was beheaded at the level of 3rd and 4th cervical vertebrae. Most of portions of the head was eaten up by animals, both eyes, both ears and both cheeks were lost. Mandible was completely detached from rest portion of head and it did not contain any flashy matter. Mandible contained six intact teeth, three in each side. The upper jaw had 10 intact teeth. A portion of scalp was intact". 27. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of injury was firearm and sharp cut weapon and cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock. 28. P.W. 10, Mohan Pathak is a formal witness, who has proved the F.I.R (Ext-3), three seizure lists (Exts. 4 to 4/2, Inquest report (Ext-5), Map of P.O.(Ext-6) and different pages of original case diary(Ext 7 to 9). He is a hearsay witness and stated that the Investigating Officer viz. Ramniwas Chaubey has died. 29. After thoroughly examining the exhibits produced by the defence, it has been established that prior to the occurrence, the parties were on inimical terms. 30. Mr. He is a hearsay witness and stated that the Investigating Officer viz. Ramniwas Chaubey has died. 29. After thoroughly examining the exhibits produced by the defence, it has been established that prior to the occurrence, the parties were on inimical terms. 30. Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior advocate for the appellant has submitted that the informant 's side and the appellant's side were on inimical term from before. As per the own assertion of the informant, the incidence happened at 5:00 P.M. in the evening in front of his house, but no independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution version whereas the evidences of informant (P.W. 5), Mala Kumari (P.W. 1), Bishwanath Singh (P.W. 2) and Awadhesh Singh (P.W. 3) cannot be relied to prove the prosecution case since they are interested witnesses. 31. Mr. Sharma, learned senior advocate has further contended that the Investigating Officer of this case and the doctor who has conducted the postmortem of the deceased have not been examined. Hence, prejudice has been caused to the appellant and he should be given advantage of the benefits of doubt. 32. It is also contended that it is the specific case of the informant's side that accused Shambhu Singh, Satnarain Singh and Amrendra Singh (appellant) made gunshot firing on the father of the informant, but the postmortem report reveals that only one firearm injury on the chest of the deceased was found and some ribs were affected. There is contradiction between medical testimony and alleged eye witnesses regarding fatal injuries of the deceased. 33. It has next been contended that the informant (P.W. 5) in his further evidence in para 19 has stated that after taking meal from the village Pidasin at 2:00 P.M, they proceeded towards Deo More and then to their village, but the postmortem report reveals that the stomach of the deceased was found empty which suggests that the occurrence took place somewhere else but since the informant was on inimical term with the appellant's side from before, hence, taking it as an opportunity, the appellant's side have been made accused in the murder case of informant's father. 34. Further, Mr. Sharma has argued that if the evidence of the informant and other witnesses have not been relied upon for convicting the other accused persons of the same occurrence then how their evidences can be relied upon for convicting the appellant. 34. Further, Mr. Sharma has argued that if the evidence of the informant and other witnesses have not been relied upon for convicting the other accused persons of the same occurrence then how their evidences can be relied upon for convicting the appellant. 35. It is the prosecution case that in two parts, the occurrence occurred, firstly, it is in respect of murder of Ramjanam Singh in the Gali and secondly, the allegation of surrounding the house of the informant by the accused persons namely Ram Prasad Singh, Nand Kumar Singh, Sheonandan Yadav, Subodh Singh, Ramjatan Singh and Rambodh Singh with deadly weapons. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the above trial facing six accused persons giving reasons as mentioned in para 28, page 14 of the impugned judgment. ..................." in this connection evidence of P. I/I/. 7 Rambahal Yadav who is Chaukidar of the concerned village and also resident of the same village is very relevant. He has stated clearly in his evidence that on the relevant day of occurrence he had gone to Sheoganj Market. At 9:00 P.M, after getting knowledge of the fact that some dispute has taken place between Jagarnath Singh and Ramshiwan Singh, he went to the house of informant Jagarnath Singh (P. I/I/. 5). He called the members but no response came from that house. In this connection, P. W.s 1, 2, 3 and 5 have categorically stated that the aforesaid seven accused persons remained at their house till 12 O' of clock in the night. In the cross examination, P. I/I/. 7 has clearly stated that he visited the house of Ramjanam Singh in between 9-10 P.M. According to this witness, who is admittedly independent villager, had not seen any body there at the house of deceased Ramjanam Singh during that period. This being the position this part of the prosecution evidence that the above mentioned six accused armed with deadly weapons surrounded the house of deceased Ramjanam Singh till 12 O' clock in the night, becomes doubtful." 36. After scrutinizing the evidences of P.W. 7 and other witnesses namely Pws. This being the position this part of the prosecution evidence that the above mentioned six accused armed with deadly weapons surrounded the house of deceased Ramjanam Singh till 12 O' clock in the night, becomes doubtful." 36. After scrutinizing the evidences of P.W. 7 and other witnesses namely Pws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 in respect of acquittal of above named six accused persons, it is clear that when the learned Sessions Judge found unbelievable evidence in respect to the complicity of those accused persons, why on the basis of that prosecution evidence, other accused persons be held responsible for the offences for which they have been framed. 37. The learned Court below committed an error in holding guilty to accused Shambhu Singh and Amrendra Singh (appellant) on the basis of same evidence by which the other accused persons have been acquitted. 38. We are affirmed to hold that on the same evidence, some person cannot be held guilty and another person be held innocent. The prosecution evidence will be treated for taking any inference of fact as a whole not partly. 39. We find force in the contention raised by the learned senior advocate for the appellant. If the prosecution witness has not been relied upon for convicting the other accused persons of the same occurrence then this evidence cannot be relied upon for convicting the appellant. 40. All prosecution witnesses i.e. P.Ws 1, 2, 3 and 5 are interested witnesses. After scrutinizing their evidences with care and caution, we find that they suffer from infirmities. There is no consistency in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses with respect to the place of occurrence, time and the manner of occurrence. 41. After considering the materials available on record and the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State, it has been established that the parties were on inimical terms from before. Non-examination of the Investigating Officer of the case and the doctor who has conducted the postmortem report in the present case is a serious infirmity resulting in prejudice being caused to the accused. 42. On behalf of the appellant, to controvert the prosecution version, a reliance, 1980 CRI. LJ. 1298has been placed in which it has been observed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide para 13 and 16 which reds as follows:- "13. 42. On behalf of the appellant, to controvert the prosecution version, a reliance, 1980 CRI. LJ. 1298has been placed in which it has been observed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide para 13 and 16 which reds as follows:- "13. As here, there also it was contended that this version of P. I/I/. 1 and P. I/I/. 2 regarding the injury of the deceased being the result of three separate blows stood contradicted and falsified by the evidence of the medical officer (P.W. 10). While noting that there was a clear contradiction between medical testimony and the alleged eye-witnesses on this vital fact, the High Court brushed aside the evidence of P.W. 10 in regard to this pivotal fact, with the convenient remark that "the opinion of the doctor on this aspect of the matter is merely an opinion and not a fact found by him." In the opinion of the High Court "the length of the injury, its width and its extent would indicate that ordinarily such an injury may not be possible by one blow alone". With respect, we are unable to appreciate this approach adopted by the High Court. Dr. K.M. Jain was a medical expert. He had performed the postmortem examination and noted the nature and dimensions of this wound. He has given clear, irrefutable reasons founded on physical facts noted by him at the autopsy-which we have noticed earlier in this judgment-in support of his firm opinion that the only external injury found on the body of the deceased could not be the result of two simultaneous blows. In the ordinary course of human events and experience also, it was extremely improbable, if not altogether impossible, that three blows simultaneously given by three different persons from directions with sharp-edged weapons would land with such precision and exactitude so as to cause a single wound of such clean-cut margins and such dimensions and other characteristics as those at the external would found by Dr. Jain (P.W. 10) on the head of the deceased. The version of P. I/I/. 1 and P. I/I/. 2 with regard to the vital fact was inherently improbable and intrinsically incredible. It could not be accepted in preference to the evidence of the medical expert. 16. In sum, the ocular account of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 had been falsified by the medical evidence on two vital points. Moreover, P. I/I/. 1 and P. I/I/. 2 with regard to the vital fact was inherently improbable and intrinsically incredible. It could not be accepted in preference to the evidence of the medical expert. 16. In sum, the ocular account of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 had been falsified by the medical evidence on two vital points. Moreover, P. I/I/. 1 was one of those persons who was being prosecuted for the murder of the son of Badri appellant, and P. I/I/. 2 was the brother of P. I/I/. 1. P.W. 1, who is the star witness of the prosecution, was an anathema to the accused. Had he been present in the company of the deceased, he could not have been allowed by the accused to escape unscathed. The same remarks apply to a lesser degree to P. I/I/. 2". 43. We have gone through the entire prosecution evidence. It is the specific case of the informant that three accused persons including the appellant have made gunshot firing on the father of the informant but in the postmortem report, only one gunshot injury has been found on the body of the deceased. So we find much force in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant/convict that there was variation between medical and ocular evidence. The informant's assertion that before death, his father has taken meal but the postmortem report reveals empty stomach, creates serious doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution version. 44. It is the explicit evidence of the prosecution that the informant (P.W. 5) was proceeded along with his father (deceased) and not a single minute he was separate from his father's company. The accused persons fired at the deceased before the eye of the informant. It is candid that accused persons were on inimical term from before with the informant, deceased and their family. The informant was also bitter enemy of the accused persons. We find no possibility that he (informant) could have been allowed by the accused persons to escape unscathed from the place of occurrence for becoming the star witness of the prosecution case. 45. The informant was also bitter enemy of the accused persons. We find no possibility that he (informant) could have been allowed by the accused persons to escape unscathed from the place of occurrence for becoming the star witness of the prosecution case. 45. In that view of the matter and for the reasons aforesaid, the judgment of conviction dated 23rd of January, 1993 and order of sentence dated 25th of January, 1993 passed in Sessions Trial No. 110/83/35/1987, arising out of Aurangabad (M) P.S. Case No. 197(5) of 1981 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad is set aside. 46. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. 47. Since the appellant has been released on bail, he is therefore, discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds.