JUDGEMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar. J. Harla P.S Case No. 136 of 2007 was lodged on 30.08.2007 under sections 323, 324, 307 and 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC). In his fardbeyan which was recorded at 23:15 hrs. on 29.08.2007 at Ward No. II/A, Bokaro General Hospital, Surendra Pratap Choudhary @ Nakku Choudhary has stated that in the afternoon at about 01:00 PM he got an information at Patel Chowk that Ashok Kumar Ram @ Ashok Ram, Vijay Kumar Ram and Ram Chandra Ram were assaulting his brother, namely, Raghvendra Pratap Choudhary @ Buda and Manish Kumar Singh near Qr. No. 1199, Street-16, Sector IX-B. He had gone running there and tried to save his brother and in the process received sword injury in his finger. He, however, escaped when Ashok Kumar Ram threatened to assault him with sword. After the accused persons left the place he has gone there and found injuries on right hand and head of his brother - he has seen head injury on Manish Kumar Singh also. Thereafter he ran to his house to inform his father and brought his brother on motorcycle to Bokaro General Hospital, however, in Course of the treatment his brother died. Manish Kumar Singh who was also seriously injured was brought to the hospital by his father and there was a bleak chance of his survival. Upon such allegations the appellants were arrested the next day from their house. In Course of the investigation Manish Kumar Singh was examined by the investigating officer who has collected his injury reports prepared by Dr. Manish Kumar and Dr. Anand Kumar. There are two persons, namely, Shiv Shankar Pandey and Mithlesh Kumar Mishra who have made a statement before the investigating officer that they have seen the appellants wielding arms climbing the stairs to their house. Dr. Pramod Kumar who has conducted the postmortem examination has found incised wounds on the left side of the scalp and elbow joint of Raghvendra Pratap Choudhary. He has found the following injuries on the dead body: External Injury : (i) Incised wound on left side of scalp (ii) Incised wound on elbow joint. 2. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons and they have faced the trial on the charge under sections 323, 324, 307 and 302/34 IPC. He has found the following injuries on the dead body: External Injury : (i) Incised wound on left side of scalp (ii) Incised wound on elbow joint. 2. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons and they have faced the trial on the charge under sections 323, 324, 307 and 302/34 IPC. In the trial, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses - Manish Kumar Singh who was the victim was examined as PW-7, however, he has not supported the prosecution case. Shiv Shankar Pandey and his father who were important witnesses for corroborating testimony of the informant were also declared hostile. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge has held that there was enmity between the accused persons and family of the informant and the injured witness turning hostile is not a circumstance of such magnitude so as to disbelieve the prosecution case. He has further held that PW-3 and PW-4 are trustworthy witnesses and minor discrepancies in their testimony has not affected the prosecution case. On appraisal of the materials on record, the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge has returned the following findings: "32. It is pertinent to mention at very outset that PW-3 & 4 are closely related with deceased as his elder brother and father whereas PW-10 is said to be friend of deceased. It is settled principle of law that evidence of close relatives of the deceased cannot be discharged on the ground of their relationships with the deceased. Moreover, the duty caste upon the court to scrutinize their evidence with care and caution. It is also settled principle of law that there is common tendency of all outsiders not to get themselves involved in criminal case and it would be quite natural that no independent witness would come forward to assist the I.O. and prosecution, in case of murder. It is also settled principle of law that there is common tendency of all outsiders not to get themselves involved in criminal case and it would be quite natural that no independent witness would come forward to assist the I.O. and prosecution, in case of murder. It is also settled principle of law that even with regard to the interested witnesses being close relatives, it is duty of the court to separate truth from the falsehood and the chaff from the grain and in view of closed relationship, they would not left out the real assailant and implicated any innocent person and in view of close relationship, the witnesses naturally would have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts but while appreciating the evidence, exaggerated facts are to be ignored, unless it effects the substractum of the prosecution story and while appreciating the evidence of relative witnesses, the approach, must be, where the evidence of witnesses read as whole appears to be have ring of truth. Once the impression regarding ring of truth found then undoubtedly, it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly, keeping in view for deficiency draw back and infirmity pointed out in the evidence, as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence and whether the earlier findings of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies or trivial matters not touching the core of the case, a hyper technical approach in perusal of evidence, should be avoided. 33. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides, I do find that there was enmity between the family members of the informant and accused persons prior to the alleged occurrence and both were on inimical terms on each other. This fact has already been admitted by the accused persons through suggestion given to the prosecution witnesses as well as in statement under section 313 Cr.PC. Therefore, there is legal evidence on record which corroborates the motive and genesis of occurrence of this case. Therefore, the possibility of deceased having been assaulted by some unknown persons at different place is totally ruled out in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, there is legal evidence on record which corroborates the motive and genesis of occurrence of this case. Therefore, the possibility of deceased having been assaulted by some unknown persons at different place is totally ruled out in the facts and circumstances of the case. PW-3 had occasioned to got P.O. after receiving information at Patel Chowk and saw the occurrence, in which he also sustained cut injury in his finger. Although, no injury report has been brought on record. It is true that no other witnesses of the vicinity of the P.O. and any other persons were present at the time of occurrence have taken oath in this case and for this reasons are not very far to seek. PW-7 is said to be one of the injured of the occurrence has not supported the case of prosecution and has stated different story. Therefore, he appears to be gained over witness by accused persons. PW-1, who had examined the injuries on the person of PW-7 has clearly mentioned in his report (Ext-1) history of physical assault by known person at 1:30 p.m. near st-16 of sector-9-B. Therefore, the evidence of PW-7 is not such a magnitude to cast a cloud of suspicion to the very credibility of the prosecution case regarding the murder of deceased as well as attempt to murder to PW-7. Therefore, I do find that materials on record, clearly establish the fact that assault of the deceased have been made in furtherance of common intention of the all accused persons. There is clinching evidence on the record that accused Ram Chandra Ram had given order to his sons to cause the death of deceased and Manish Kumar Singh and accordingly, accused Ashok Kr. Ram gave sword blow upon the deceased, whereas the accused Vijay Kumar gave lathi blow upon the Manish Singh and both after receiving injuries on their persons, lying on the ground of first floor of stair case and thereafter, accused persons fled away to their quarter and injured Manish Singh anyhow took stand and went away at some other place. 34. 34. Thus, after careful and caution scrutiny of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, I find a ring of truth in the evidence of PW-2, 3,4 and 10 which stand materially corroborated by the evidence of medical witnesses (PW-1, 2 and 9) read with Exhibit-1, 1/1 and Ext-5 with objective finding of the I.O. (PW-8 and 11). Therefore, the evidence of informant (PW-3) read with evidence of PW-4 and 10 cannot be brushed aside in this case on any ground. Therefore, the submission advanced on behalf of defence, in respect thereof, has no leg to stand. Hence, I find and hold that prosecution has succeeded to prove the charges u/s 323, 307 and 302/34 of the I.PC. against the accused persons beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Since, accused persons have been found guilty u/s 307 I.PC., therefore, it does not require to hold them guilty under section 324 I.P C." 3. In S.T. Case No. 76 of 2008, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to R.I for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/each under section 302/34 IPC and R.I for seven years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under section 307 IPC - no separate sentence under section 323 IPC was, however, awarded. 4. The initial case of the prosecution was that Surendra Pratap Chaudhary (PW-3), Shiv Shankar Pandey (PW-5), Manish Kumar Singh (PW-7) and Mithilesh Kumar Mishra (PW-10) were the eyewitnesses, however, in the trial PW-5 who has flatly denied any knowledge about the occurrence and PW-7 who would depose in the Court that he was hit by unknown persons were declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. The evidence of a witness who deposes contrary to story of the prosecution and contradicts or resiles from his previous statement given to the police under section 161 CrPC cannot be relied upon by the defence, however, a part of his evidence which supports the prosecution in the examination-in-chief or cross-examination by the prosecution is admissible in evidence. In Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, (1980) 1 SCC 30 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that as a legal proposition it is now settled that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected wholesale, merely on the ground that the prosecution has dubbed him "hostile" and cross-examined him. In Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, (1980) 1 SCC 30 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that as a legal proposition it is now settled that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected wholesale, merely on the ground that the prosecution has dubbed him "hostile" and cross-examined him. A glance at the testimony of PW -5 and PW -7 however would disclose that except statement of PW-7 who has stated in his examination-in-chief that there was a marpit in the afternoon of 29.08.2007 there is nothing in the testimony of PW-5 and PW-7 which can be used by the prosecution and, therefore, their evidence is of no use for the prosecution. PW-7 was an injured witness and his evidence would have been of a vital importance for the prosecution but unfortunately for the prosecution he has refrained from implicating the appellants in the occurrence, though he has suffered injuries on 29.08.2007 is established. He was examined by PW-1 and PW-2 on 29.08.2007 and they have deposed in the Court that PW-7 had suffered head injury. Except PW-5, all other material witnesses have also stated that PW-7 had suffered bleeding injury. In the aforesaid circumstances, the case of the prosecution against the appellants has definitely weakened on account of PW-7 turning hostile in the trial. 5. The remaining witnesses can be segregated in two sets. PW-10 is sort of an eyewitness, and PW-4 and PW-6 are hearsay witnesses who have come to the Court to corroborate PW-3 who is the informant. The father of the informant who was examined as PW -4 has stated in the Court that around of 01:00 PM on 29.08.2007 his son Surendra Pratap Choudhary informed him that his brother and Manish Kumar Singh were assaulted by Ashok Kumar Ram and Vijay Kumar Ram near Qr. No. 1199 and thereafter he had rushed to the place of occurrence with his son on a motorcycle. He has found his son Budha unconscious with injuries on his head and right hand. PW-4 has stated that his son when regained conscious told him that Ashok Kumar Ram with a sword and Vijay Kumar Ram with a lathi have assaulted him on extortion of their father. In his cross-examination he has stated that his son told him name of the assailants at about 10:00 PM in the hospital. PW-4 has stated that his son when regained conscious told him that Ashok Kumar Ram with a sword and Vijay Kumar Ram with a lathi have assaulted him on extortion of their father. In his cross-examination he has stated that his son told him name of the assailants at about 10:00 PM in the hospital. The statement made by Raghvendra Pratap Choudhary to his father if proved would be a highly incriminating material against the appellants. An accused can be convicted solely on the basis of a dying declaration and it is not necessary that the dying declaration must be corroborated by other independent evidence. The law on the subject is fairly settled and there is no doubt that the only requirement in law is that the dying declaration should be free from embellishment and inspires confidence of the Court, before a conviction is recorded solely on the basis of a dying declaration. In Jaswant Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 4 SCC 85 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that even on the basis of uncorroborated dying declaration conviction of an accused can be maintained. In the present case the very fact that Raghvendra Pratap Choudhary made a statement before his father in the hospital is in dispute. In his cross-examination, PW-4 has admitted that at the time when his son told him name of the assailants the police was not there and to a Court's question he has stated that no doctor was also present there. From his evidence it is easily gathered that his son was admitted in a General Ward and it is common knowledge that there would be several patients in a General Ward who must have been attended by doctors and nurses round the clock. It is surprising that his other son, the informant, was not present there and it is beyond any pale of doubt that condition of his son was very serious. He has himself stated in his examination-in-chief that when he brought his son to the hospital he was unconscious and it is a matter of record that Raghvendra Pratap Choudhary has died at 10:45 PM. It is highly improbable and quite unbelievable that a person who was unconscious would regain conscious and speak to his father just about 45 minutes before he dies. It is highly improbable and quite unbelievable that a person who was unconscious would regain conscious and speak to his father just about 45 minutes before he dies. The so-called dying declaration of Raghvendra Pratap Choudhary made to his father is surrounded with suspicious circumstances and cannot be relied upon against the appellants. Above all, in the cross-examination PW-4 admits that his statement was recorded by the police at about 02:00 am (in the night of 6th September). He is father of the deceased still has not recorded his statement to the police for about one week. Apparently, PW-4 has tried to support the prosecution by stating untrue facts. 6. PW-6 is the father of Manish Kumar Singh. He has stated that Sanjeev Kumar Jha informed him that his son was lying injured on Street No. 15 at Sector-IX. He has taken his son who was unconscious to Jharkhand Nursing Home for treatment and on advise of the doctor brought him to Bokaro General Hospital. He has stated that his son was admitted in the hospital for about 15 days. He has further deposed that in the occurrence another boy was injured who was admitted in Ward No.2 died the same night. PW-10 is a friend of the informant. He has stated that in search of the informant he had first gone to his house but did not find him there and then came to Patel Chowk where he heard hulla that Raghvendra Pratap Choudhary and Manish Kumar Singh were being assaulted by some persons. He had gone towards Block No. 16 and found the informant running away from Qr. No. 1199 on Block No.16 and Raghvendra Pratap Choudhary and Manish Kumar Singh were lying injured near the staircase. He has further deposed that he has seen the appellants climbing the stair to their house and at that time Ashok Kumar Ram was carrying a sword and Vijay Kumar Ram a lathi. 7. The evidence of PW-10 is of some importance for the prosecution and therefore it requires closure scrutiny. He is not an eyewitness is his own statement, for he admits In his cross-examination that he reached at the place of occurrence about 10 minutes after mar pit. He has further admitted that he has not seen anyone assaulting Raghevendra Pratap Choudhary and Manish Kumar Singh. He is not an eyewitness is his own statement, for he admits In his cross-examination that he reached at the place of occurrence about 10 minutes after mar pit. He has further admitted that he has not seen anyone assaulting Raghevendra Pratap Choudhary and Manish Kumar Singh. He fairly admits that it was the informant who has told him about assault by the appellants, however, in his examination-in-chief he has stated that he has seen the appellants on the stairs moving towards their house. In the first place, it is quite unusual that the appellants would have remained at the place of Occurrence for about 10 minutes even after marpit and secondly, presence of PW -10 immediately after the occurrence near Qr. No. 1199 is doubtful for the reason that there is serious inconsistency in the statement of PW-3 and PW-10 in respect of their presence. PW-3 has stated that when he was running away from the place of Occurrence on the way he met PW -10 and told him about the assault by the appellants. On the contrary, PW-10 has stated that when he reached near Qr. No. 1199 he has seen PW-3 running down from the stairs. PW-10 is a friend of PW-3. Inspite of the admissions of PW-3 about his own criminal antecedent and his family members, PW -10 has professed that he has no information about the Court cases on his friend and his family members. PW-10 has rendered himself an unreliable person whose testimony cannot be referred to for seeking corroboration to the evidence of the informant. 8. Now we would examine how reliable is evidence of the informant and whether it is sufficient to convict the appellants for committing murder of Raghvendra Pratap Choudhary and attempt to murder Manish Kumar Singh. He has supported the Occurrence and reiterated his statement made in the fardbeyan. In the Court he has stated that he has seen the appellants assaulting his brother and Manish Kumar Singh - Ashok Kumar Ram with a sword and Vijay Kumar Ram with a lathi and their father, namely, Ram Chandra Ram was extorting them to kill. He has further stated that Ashok Kumar Ram when in tended to assault him he ran away and after sometime again went to the place of Occurrence where he has found his brother and Manish Kumar Singh in injured condition. He has further stated that Ashok Kumar Ram when in tended to assault him he ran away and after sometime again went to the place of Occurrence where he has found his brother and Manish Kumar Singh in injured condition. He has affirmed that his statement was recorded by Md. Alimuddin Ansari, officer-in-charge of Harla P.S in the hospital. In a criminal trial, testimony of a solitary witness can form the basis for conviction if it is found cogent and credible. In Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar) (1996) 1 SCC 614 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court can convict an accused on the basis of evidence of a solitary eyewitness provided his credibility is not shaken by any adverse circumstance and at the same time the Court is convinced that he is a truthful witness. In Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus: "3. Indeed, conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sale witness passes the test of reliability. So long 'as the single eyewitness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the single eyewitness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eyewitness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect. It is in the fight of these settled principles that we shall examine the testimony of PW 3 Ajoy." 9. Having closely scrutinized the testimony of the informant and other prosecution witnesses, we are of the definite opinion that the informant was not truthful to the Court. He has not truthfully disclosed the actual manner of occurrence and in view of serious inconsistencies in the evidence of the informant viz-a-viz other material prosecution witnesses it would not be safe and proper to convict the appellants on the basis of his testimony. He has not truthfully disclosed the actual manner of occurrence and in view of serious inconsistencies in the evidence of the informant viz-a-viz other material prosecution witnesses it would not be safe and proper to convict the appellants on the basis of his testimony. The evidence tendered by the informant in the cross-examination is so unsatisfactory and at times suspicious that he must be held not trustworthy, His tatements in the following paragraphs of the cross-examination are sufficient to hold him not a trustworthy witness: 5- eS vktrd fdrus ds'k 5 ;k 10 fdruk ds'k esa xokgh fn;k gSa] ;kn ugha gSA eSa fdrus ds'k esa eqnkyg gwWa ;g Hkh ;kn ugha gSA vHkh orZeku esa esjs f[kykQ fdruk ds'k py jgk gS] ;g Hkh ;kn ugha gS nks rhu ckj tsy x;k gwWa A ;s lHkh ds'k ekjihV dk FkkA og ds'k dkSu fd;k Fkk] [;ky ugha gS] ml ds'k esa vxyk rkjh[k dc iM+k gS] ;g ;kn ugha gSA 6- eq> ij pksjh dk ,d Hkh ds'k ugha gSa lsDVj 9 esa vofLFkr lksus pkanh ds nwdku esa gq, pksjh dh ?kVuk esa dqRrs ds vk/kkj ij eq>s idM+dj tsy Hkstk x;k FkkA 7- eSa pkj HkkbZ rFkk N% cgu gwWaA esjh cgu dqekjh egs'ojh ,d ekjihV ds ds'k esa tsy x;h Fkh] ;g dguk xyr gS fd iVuk;d lkgc rRdkyhu ,0Mh0ts0 dk ckM+hxkMZ lR;sUnz flag dks nsoh flusekgky esa tkuysok geyk ds eqdnesa esa tsy xbZ FkhA ml ds'k esa esjh cgu ds lkFk dkSu &dkSu tsy x;k Fkk mldk uke ;kn ugha gSA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10- ?kVukkLFky ds pkSgnh es iM+us okys DokVZj es jgus okyksa dk uke eSa ugha dg ikÅaxkkA eq>s ryokj ls pksV yxus ds ckn eSaA ?kj ugha x;k cfYd ogha ls gVdj jksM+ ij vk x;s vkSj iqu% 10 feuV ckn eaS ogkWa x;k rc rd eqnkyg Åij vius DokVZj 1199 esa pys x;s FksA eSa ogka x;k rks ns[kk fd esjk HkkbZ fxjk gqvk Fkk rFkk euh”k fxjrs iM+rs nf{k.k rjQ Hkkx x;k mldk lj QVk gqvk FkkA mlds ckn firkth dks tkdj ?kVuk ds ckjs esa crk;kA jkLrs esa tkrs oDr fefFkys'k feJk o f'ko'kadj ik.Ms; feys Fks ftUgsaA ?kVuk ds ckjs esa crkrs gq, x;k FkkA ;s nksuksa ?kVukLFky ij eq>s ugha feys FksA firkth dks ysdj tc ?kVukLFky ij igqapk ml le; ml locality dk dksbZ vkneh ogkWa Fkk fd ugha] mruk ;kn ugha gSaA 10. The informant has stood to his grounds In his cross-examination that he has seen assault on his brother but at the same time he says that on hulla whether any neighbour came there or not he does not remember - though he does not claim that on seeing assault on his brother he has raised hulla. He is a resident of a neighbouring block for last 10 to 15 years but he has failed to give name of anyone residing in the quarters around the place of occurrence. He says that after receiving assault he did not run to his house rather he was standing at a distance and after about 10 minutes he has again gone near Qr. No. 1199 where he has found his brother in injured condition. If his evidence has to be believed, it has remained unexplained by the prosecution why for the next 10 minutes after he has seen assault on his brother he did not raise hulla or called anyone in the neighbourhood. It is the case of the prosecution that after sustaining head injury Manish Kumar Singh was lying near Qr. No. 1199, but quite contrary to that, in paragraph no.10 the informant has stated that when he went there the second time he found Manish Kumar Singh running away towards southern side. At one stage he says that when he was going home on the way he met PW-5 and PW -10 to whom he narrated the incident, but as noticed above these witnesses have given contradictory evidence. PW-10 is his partner and as we have seen PW-10 has come to the Court to support him, albeit by tendering untruthful evidence. PW-4, his father has also given such evidence that presence of the informant at the time of occurrence has become doubtful. PW-4 has stated that he has seen the appellants on the stairs going towards their house when he reached the place of occurrence, but as per his own testimony he had gone to the place of occurrence alongwith the informant when everything was over. 11. From the prosecution evidence a suspicion would arise against the appellants that atleast two of them have also assaulted the injured persons. 11. From the prosecution evidence a suspicion would arise against the appellants that atleast two of them have also assaulted the injured persons. But then, what is important to note is that it is the consistent case of the prosecution that the prosecution witnesses have heard hulla at Patel Chowk which is not the place of occurrence and there was a large crowd gathered near the place of occurrence where the marpit was committed. There IS inconsistency in the place of occurrence and the time of occurrence. Given the fact that the prosecution has suppressed the manner in which the incident took place and the partisan character of the prosecution witnesses, such discrepancies were bound to happen. The informant has a criminal history and in his cross-examination he has admitted about criminal antecedent of other members of his family. The deposition of PW-7 who was accompanying the deceased would disclose that he was also in jail at the time when his evidence was recorded in the Court. From the materials on record it appears that a street brawl had taken ugly turn and Raghvendra Pratap Choudhary and Manish Kumar Singh were severely battered. It is also relevant that the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge has found that there was past enmity between the appellants and the family of the deceased. Section 155 of the Evidence Act provides the manner in which a witness can be impeached during the trial. It is well-accepted that testimony of a witness can be impeached also through his conduct and character. In Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that where the witnesses have poor moral fiber and have to their discredit a load of bad antecedents which would indicate their having a possible motive to harm the accused, it would be hazardous to accept testimony of such witnesses without corroboration on crucial points from independent Sources. The credibility of the informant is seriously shaken by his admissions and professed ignorance about certain fundamental facts of the case. 12. The aforesaid circumstances In the case, criminal antecedent of the informant, his family members and his friend, and non-examination of an independent witness inspite of presence of a large crowd at the place of occurrence, create a serious doubt on the manner of occurrence as set up by the prosecution. 12. The aforesaid circumstances In the case, criminal antecedent of the informant, his family members and his friend, and non-examination of an independent witness inspite of presence of a large crowd at the place of occurrence, create a serious doubt on the manner of occurrence as set up by the prosecution. The appellants have taken a defence that Raghvendra Pratap Choudhary was a man of bad character and in the afternoon of 29.08.2007 he was trying to extort money from Ashok Kumar Ram and in the ensuing scuffle he suffered injuries. Ashok Kumar Ram has lodged Sector IV (S.C/S.T) P.S Case No. 31 of 2007 on the same day against the informant and we have no doubt in our mind that this report also does not contain true facts, for it is not a case set up by the appellants that they have received injuries at the hands of the deceased or Manish Kumar Singh though one person has died and another one has suffered grievous injuries. On over all assessment of the materials on record, we come to a conclusion that the prosecution has suppressed the true manner of Occurrence and the informant and other material witnesses have not truthfully deposed in the Court and, therefore, we are inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellants. 13. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 01.06.2010 and the order of sentence dated 03.06.2010, against the appellants, namely, Ashok Kumar Ram @ Ashok Ram, Ram Chandra Ram and Vijay Kumar Ram for the offence under sections 323, 307 and 302/34 IPC passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in S.T. Case No. 76 of 2008, are set-aside. 14. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned APP states that Ashok Kumar Ram @ Ashok Ram is in custody and Ram Chandra Ram and Vijay Kumar Ram are on bail. 15. Accordingly, the appellant, namely, Ashok Kumar Ram @ Ashok Ram [in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 665 of 2010] who is in custody, shall be set free forthwith if not wanted in connection to any other case. The appellants, namely, Ram Chandra Ram and Vijay Kumar Ram [in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 591 of 201 of who are on bail, shall stand discharged of liability of the bail-bonds furnished by them. 16. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 665 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal (DB) of 591 of 2010 are allowed. The appellants, namely, Ram Chandra Ram and Vijay Kumar Ram [in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 591 of 201 of who are on bail, shall stand discharged of liability of the bail-bonds furnished by them. 16. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 665 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal (DB) of 591 of 2010 are allowed. 17. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, the learned Amicus, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned APP. 18. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus as per Notification dated 23.11.2017. 19. Let the lower-Court records be sent to the Court concerned forthwith. 20. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned and concerned Jail Superintendent. Appeal allowed.