JUDGMENT : SHREE CHADRASHEKHR. J. Nala PS Case No. 09 of 2009 was lodged on 21.01.2009 against Kham Murmu and unknown for committing murder of Sk. Mohsin and causing disappearance of his dead body. In course of investigation, the witnesses stated about complicity of Sk. Farid and Ravilal Soren in the occurrence and therefore a charge-sheet was submitted against all three. The fardbeyan of Sk. Alijan who is uncle of Sk. Mohsin was recorded at 11:00 AM by B.P. Raut, officer-in-charge of Nala police station near the wheat fields of Naren Murmu at village Bhandarbera. In his fardbeyan Sk. Alijan has stated that at about 05:00 PM on 20.01.2009 his nephew statted for village Bhandarbera and did not come back home in the night ext day morning Phocho Besra came and informed him that the dead body of Sk. Mohsin was lying in the field of Naren Murmu, whereupon along with Mukhiya and other villagers he had gone there. He has seen several sharp cut injuries on the dead body, lot of blood was spilled on the ground. He has further stated that his nephew had illicit relation with Sevika Besra of village Bhandarbera; his nephew used to visit her frequently, and; sometimes his nephew would stay back in the house of Sevika Besra in the night. The informant has said that on inquiry Sevika Besra told him that few days back Kham Murmu had quarreled with Sk. Mohsin and threatened him not to visit the village else he would kill him. The informant has seen the bicycle of his nephew near the telephone booth of Raju Rakshit and he expressed his apprehension that his nephew was killed at some other place and the accused have thrown his dead body in the wheat fields of Naren Murmu. Lakhikant Dey, Pipul Dey and Sk. Fatik stated before the Investigating Officer that in the night of 20.01.2009 they had seen the accused quarreling with Sk. Mohsin. The witnesses spoke about split between Sevika Besra and Kham Murmu, second marriage of Sevika Besra and animosity between Sk. Farid and Sk. Alijan. The doctor who conducted the postmortem examination on 22.01.2009 has found seven sharp cut and one lacerated wounds of varying dimensions over different parts of the body of Sk. Mohsin. 2. Mohsin. The witnesses spoke about split between Sevika Besra and Kham Murmu, second marriage of Sevika Besra and animosity between Sk. Farid and Sk. Alijan. The doctor who conducted the postmortem examination on 22.01.2009 has found seven sharp cut and one lacerated wounds of varying dimensions over different parts of the body of Sk. Mohsin. 2. In the trial, a common charge under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against Kham Murmu, Sk. Farid and Ravilal Soren and to prove the charges the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses. PW1- Lakhikant Dey, PW2-Pipul Dey and PW4- Phocho Besra are the co-villagers. PW3-Sk. Alijan, PW6- Sk. Fatik, PW7- Lalu Ali, PW8-Pakija Bibi, PW9-Sk. Ahsan and PW10- Sk. Sahjahan ar closely related to Sk. Mohsin. The learned trial Judge has found the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW6 credible and held that involvement of the accused in the Occurrence was established. The learned trial Judge has further held that minor contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses were natural, the evidence on last-seen-together has remained intact, and the defence has failed to suggest a reason for false implication of the accused. 3. The learned District & Sessions Judge-Ist Jamtara has appreciated the prosecution evidence in the following manner: "9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after thorough scrutinising the oral and documentary evidences of the parties, it appears that it is the case of the prosecution that accused Kham Alurmu, Ravilal Soren and Sk. Farid committing the alleged offence of murder by intentionally causing death of Sk. Mohsin and also disappear certain evidences connected with the offence of murder with intention to screen the offender from legal punishment. According to the prosecution, there were two occurrence committed by the accused persons with deceased Sk. Mohsin. In first occurrence, the accused persons were caught the deceased Sk. Mohsin and brutally assaulted him and took away towards Bhandarbera. On the next day, the dead body of Sk. Mohsin was found in the wheat crop field of Naren Murmu which is the 2nd place of occurrence. In this context, the evidence of PW1 Lakhikant Dey, PW2 Pipul Dey and PW6 Sk. Fatik are very relevant and they are most competent witnesses of this case. The aforesaid witnesses are the eye witnesses of the first occurrence. Mohsin was found in the wheat crop field of Naren Murmu which is the 2nd place of occurrence. In this context, the evidence of PW1 Lakhikant Dey, PW2 Pipul Dey and PW6 Sk. Fatik are very relevant and they are most competent witnesses of this case. The aforesaid witnesses are the eye witnesses of the first occurrence. These witnesses categorically stated in their depositions that how and under which manner, the accused persons caught the deceased Sk. Mohsin, beaten him and look away towards Bhandarbera. PW1 and PW2 clearly stated that they saw this occurrence in the light of torch, thereafter on the next day the dead body of Sk. Mohsin was found in the wheat crop field of Naren Murmu. At this point of juncture, the "theory of last scene before death" applicable as because the PW1 Lakhikant Dey, PW2 Pipul Dey and PW6 Sk. Fatik saw that accused Kham Murmu, Ravilal Soren and Sk. Fatik caught and beaten Sk Mohsin and they look away him towards Bhandarbera where on the next day, in the wheat crop field of Naren Murmu, the dead body of Sk. Mohsin was found by PW4 Phocho Besra who after seen the dead body informed the family members of the deceased. This witness (PW4) has also clearly stated in his deposition that about one year two months ago, a scuffle has been done between Kham and Mohsin and Kham Murmu threatened the Mohsin not to come Bhandarbera otherwise he killed him. This 'witness has further stated in his deposition that when he was proceeding to inform this matter to the house of Mohsin, he met with Sk. Farid, he told him about the matter, then Sk. Farid replied that he has no concerned with it. But PW7 Lalu Ali has stated in his deposition that about one year 7-8 months ago, at 6:a.m. when he went to pond, he saw that the sister-in-law of Sk. Farid wash the clothes, on being asking, she replied that the stains are not blood stains rather these are the stains of colour The I.O. has not record the statement of the sister-in-law of Sk. Farid nor he seized the said cloth which was washed by sister-in-law of Sk. Farid. but prima facie it connect the implicity of Sk. Farid in this occurrence. Farid nor he seized the said cloth which was washed by sister-in-law of Sk. Farid. but prima facie it connect the implicity of Sk. Farid in this occurrence. So far as the implicity of accused Kham Murmu and Ravilal Soren are concerned PW1, PW2 and PW6 saw them at the place of occurrence under scuffle with deceased Sk. Mohsin. It is came out from the depositions of prosecution witnesses that deceased Sk Mohsin had an illicit relation with Sevika Besra who is/was wife of Kham Murmu and the prosecution witness clearly stated that Kham murmu already threatened the deceased regarding this matter. Inspite of that the deceased visited the house of Sevika Besra. Ravilal Soren is the son-in-law of Sevika Besra, therefore, the motive of murder against Kham murmu and Ravilal Soren is clew; however the motive of Sk Farid is not clear but as discussed above his implicity in the said occurrence is explicit Might be he associated with other accused person to commit the murder or deceased Sk. Mohsin due to friendship or any other hidden motive, but his participation is explicit. Admittedly, the informant Sk Alijan (PW3) is nor the eye witness of the alleged occurrence, and he gave his fardbeyan as he saw at the lime when his statement was recorded by police al the place of occurrence. So far as, the evidence of I.O. Bishnu Prasad Raut (PW11) is concern, though this witness has categorically staled about his investigation that how he went to the place of occurrence, record the statement (fardbeyan) of Sk. Alijan, prepared the inquest report of the dead body of Sk Mohsin and record the statement of other witnesses and after investigation, he submitted his charge sheet. On behalf of defence, it has been pointed out that this witness (PW11) has stated that he reached the place of occurrence at 10:30 hours and at eleven hours, he record the fardbeyan and start his investigation and at 9:30 hours he started writing of his case diary. At l5 hours, the FIR has been lodged and prior to this he started writing his case diary. According to the defence, this type of evidence of PW11 is makes the entire case doubtful, because according to this 'witness (PW11) prior to lodging FIR he started writing the case diary. At l5 hours, the FIR has been lodged and prior to this he started writing his case diary. According to the defence, this type of evidence of PW11 is makes the entire case doubtful, because according to this 'witness (PW11) prior to lodging FIR he started writing the case diary. After thorough scrutinizing the deposition of PW11 and on perusal of FIR and case diary, it clearly reveals that the date and time of receiving information at Nala police station was on 21.1.09. at 9:30 hours and FIR lodged at l5 hours on the same date i.e. on 21.1.09. According to case diary as per page-I, it-has been mentioned therein that on 21.1.09. at 15 hours the case diary has started written and at para-l of case diary shows that after register the FIR, the investigation was started by I.O. Bindeshawari Prasad Raut Sub- inspector, Nala P.S. who already registered the FIR prior to written the case diary. In such circumstances, why the I.O. (PW11) gave the confusing deposition at para-2 of his evidence, the reason best known to him. However, mere only on the basis of such confusing deposition PW11 the entire prosecution case can not be said to be doubtful, neither on this basis the entire prosecution case can be thrown out. While the other eye witnesses of the first occurrence and the other witnesses of the prosecution who saw the dead body of Sk. Mohsin had described the injuries seen by them on the dead body which corroborated by the postmortem report (Exl.2). The prosecution witnesses are clearly stated about the occurrence as they saw PW1 Lakhikant Dey, PW2 Pipul Dey and PW6 Sk.Fatik are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. The value of evidences of these witnesses depends on nature of circumstances and specially these witnesses are appears to be unbiast, not even remotely inimical to the accused persons and in respect of these witnesses nothing is brought out by the defence which make lend to indicate that they may had any attributing and untruthful statement to the accused persons. The depositions of most of the prosecution witnesses are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused Kham Murmu, Ravilal Soren and Sk.Farid in connivance with each other in common intention preparator of such heinous crime of murder and nothing is omitted by these witnesses which make militate against it. The depositions of most of the prosecution witnesses are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused Kham Murmu, Ravilal Soren and Sk.Farid in connivance with each other in common intention preparator of such heinous crime of murder and nothing is omitted by these witnesses which make militate against it. Specially after subjecting the evidences of PW1, PW2 and PW6 to a rigorous test on a touch stone of credibility the testimony of these witnesses can be basis of conviction on theory of "last scene." Further on the basis of the depositions of most of the prosecution witnesses, the involvement of accused persons in this occurrence is explicit. Since, the defence has not shown that the prosecution witnesses had any enemity with the accused persons or had some any other reason to falsely implicate them, therefore, it is clear that this is a case of murder and the entire circumstances point to the guilt of the accused person who commit this occurrence in common intention. The defence also failed to establish any previous enemity between the prosecution witnesses and the accused persons and also failed to show that they had any enemity against the accused persons or had any reason for making a false statement in the court. Therefore, in the light of above findings, it is clear that the prosecution has shown cogent and sufficient reason for convicting the accused persons. The learned counsel for defence pointed out some contradictions between the evidences of prosecution witnesses. In this regard, the learned counsel for prosecution denied about the contradictions. However on perusal of record, it appears that though there are some minor contradictions appears in the evidences of the witnesses, but such contradictions are in my opinion are natural. Moreover it is settled preposition of law that minor discrepancies could not be termed as major contradictions. Further the depositions of prosecution witnesses are clearly proved that accused Kham Murmu, Ravilal Soren and Sk. Farid brutally beaten the deceased Sk. Mohsin and lying his body in the field of Naren Murmu in order to disappear certain evidence connected with the offence of murder with intention to screen the offence from legal punishment and due to such injuries, the deceased Sk. Mohsin was died." 4. In Sessions Trial No.4 of 2010, Kham Murmu, Sk. Farid brutally beaten the deceased Sk. Mohsin and lying his body in the field of Naren Murmu in order to disappear certain evidence connected with the offence of murder with intention to screen the offence from legal punishment and due to such injuries, the deceased Sk. Mohsin was died." 4. In Sessions Trial No.4 of 2010, Kham Murmu, Sk. Farid and Ravilal Soren were convicted and sentenced to RI for life under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for seven years under section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Mrs. Bandana Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant Ravilal Soren @ Robilal Soren and Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, the learned Amicus who appears for the appellant Kham Murmu would contend that the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW6 would lose its sting on account of the delay in recording their statement by the investigating Officer and moreover the prosecution has failed to offer a plausible explanation for their unnatural conduct in not trying to save Sk. Mohsin and informing anyone including their family members about the occurrence. 6. The material witnesses, such as, PW3, PW6, PW7, PW8, PW9 and PW 10 were closely and intimately related to Sk. Mohsin and therefore their testimony needs to be examined with a little more care. 7. In "Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan" (2008) 8 SCC 270 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that when the witnesses are stated to be interested and inimically deposed towards the accused it has to be remembered that they would not shield the real culprit and rope in innocent person. We would also keep in mind that in a catena of judgments including the one in "State of Rajasthan v. Kalki & Anr" (1981) 2 SCC 752 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in the deposition of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. 8. The prosecution has produced PW1, PW2 and PW6 to establish that Sk. Mohsin was last seen alive in the company of the accused. 9. Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, the learned Spi. 8. The prosecution has produced PW1, PW2 and PW6 to establish that Sk. Mohsin was last seen alive in the company of the accused. 9. Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, the learned Spi. PP who appears for the State has referred to the following judgments: (i) Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh (2017) 11 SCC 195 (ii) Deepak Chandrakant Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 151 (iii) State of U.P. v. Desh Raj (2006) 9 SCC 278 (iv) Madhu v. State of Karnataka (2014) 12 SCC 419 (v) Manivel v. State of TN. (2008) 12 SCC 748 (vi) Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana (2012) 10 SCC 464 (vii) Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King-Emperor- AIR 1925 PC 1 (viii) Janak Singh V. State of U.P (2004) II SCC 385 (ix) Sunny Kapoor v. State (UT of Chandigarh) (2006) 10 SCC 182 (x) Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2003) 11 SCC 367 (xi) Ashok v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 4 SCC 393 10. PW1 and PW2 are the shopkeepers who have deposed in the Court that in the night of 20.01.2009 the accused dragged away Sk Mohsin assaulting him. In his evidence PW1 has stated that Sk. Mohsin was standing near STD booth, it was 9 Q’clock in the night and two person came there. PW2 has stated that it was around 08:30 PM in the night, he was in his shop and Sk Mohsin was standing with a bicycle near TO booth. About five minutes thereafter son-in-law of Kham Murmu and Sk. Farid came there tied the mouth of Sk. Mohsin and dragged away while assaulting him. A glance at the examination-in-chief of PW1 reveals that three persons were involved in assaulting and dragging Sk. Mohsin whereas PW2 has spoken about only two persons. PW1 is the cousin brother of PW2 and from their evidence it transpires that their house was also nearby. The defence has challenged their presence in the shop at around 08:30 PM - 09:00 PM in the night and in their cross-examination these witnesses have admitted that in the winters they would close their shops early. PW 1 has stated in the cross-examination that 5-6 days after the occurrence the police brought them in the Court and with the help of an advocate they sweared affidavits in the Court. PW 1 has stated in the cross-examination that 5-6 days after the occurrence the police brought them in the Court and with the help of an advocate they sweared affidavits in the Court. PW 1 has further admitted that the day on which the dead body was recovered the police took him to the police station where he was kept whole night. PW2 has also admitted in the cross-examination that he had filed an affidavit in the Court and on the night of the occurrence STD booth was closed. PWI and PW2 both ha e stated that they saw the accused in the torch light but they have not produced the torch before the Investigating Officer. PW6 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. He has deposed in the Court that he had seen Sk. Mohsin and the accused persons quarreling with each other, near Bhandarbera More. At that time he was coming home from village Tes Juria after visiting his daughter and in the cross-examination he has stated that it was around 09:00 PM in the night when he saw the accused quarreling with Sk. Mohsin. 11. In the evidence of PW 1 and PW2, we find serious inconsistencies which according to the learned trial Judge were quite natural - the learned trial Judge was wrong. 12. Mrs. Bandana Sinha the learned counsel has referred to the judgment in "Rai Sandeep alias Deepu vs. State (NCT of Delhi)" (2012) 8 SCC 21 to contend that before reliance can be placed on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who have tendered evidence on last-seen-together the Court must be satisfied that their testimony is of sterling quality. 13. In "Kuriya and Anr v. State of Rajasthan" (2012) 10 SCC 433 the Hon'ble supreme Court has observed that use of the expression "sterling worth" in the context of criminal jurisprudence would mean a witness worthy of credence, one who is reliable and truthful. 14. As can be seen from the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW6, their evidence cannot be said to be of sterling quality and therefore we would now see whether there are other independent corroboration to their evidence. But before that, we would examine the contention that conduct of these witnesses was so unnatural to place reliance on their evidence to convict the appellants. PW1 has stated that he has seen the accused assaulting Sk. But before that, we would examine the contention that conduct of these witnesses was so unnatural to place reliance on their evidence to convict the appellants. PW1 has stated that he has seen the accused assaulting Sk. Mohsin and on seeing that he was bleeding he thought that now they would kill him. However, in the cross-examination he admits that he did not raise hulla, or informed Sevika - not even his family members. PW2 has also stated that he did not inform anyone in his family about the occurrence. He further says that he has stated about the assault upon Sk. Mohsin about 2-3 days after the occurrence. There is no set rule of natural reaction and how a person may react in a particular situation cannot be predicted. The conduct of a witness is examined in the context of facts and circumstances of the case, and unnatural conduct of a witness per se is not a ground to discard his evidence. But in a criminal trial the prosecution must indicate the circumstances which were probable cause for the unnatural conduct of a witness. Leaving aside the conduct of PW1 and PW2 who did not intervene to save Sk. Mohsin or informed anybody, what is more surprising is the conduct of PW6 who is no other than brother-in-law of Sk. Mohsin. PW6 has also stated that he has seen the accused persons and Sk. Mohsin fighting with each other but next he says that he had gone home. If we have to believe these witnesses in whose evidence we find a reference about bitter relation between Sk. Mohsin and Kham Murmu it is highly unnatural conduct of these witnesses that they did not raise hulla or informed any other person - not even the police; and waited till a news came that the dead body of Sk. Mohsin was lying in the wheat fields of Naren Murmu. 15. In "Maruti Rama Naik v. State of Maharashtra" (2003) 10 SCC 670 a witness, who was a close relative of Krishna Mahada Naik, was going to board a bus to reach the factory where he was working. On the way he saw assault on the Krishna Mahada Naik by the assailants including the appellants. But having noticed the incident, he did not go to anyone of his relatives or the police to inform about the attack in question. On the way he saw assault on the Krishna Mahada Naik by the assailants including the appellants. But having noticed the incident, he did not go to anyone of his relatives or the police to inform about the attack in question. He went to the factory, worked there for a while and thereafter gone home. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Court would be hesitant to place any reliance on his evidence. 16. Mrs. Bandana Sinha, the learned counsel has contended that the prosecution has not imputed any motive on the part of Ravilal Soren to commit murder of Sk. Mohsin and Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, the learned Amicus would contend that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it can be easily inferred that they had animus towards the accused and out of grudge they have tendered evidence against them. 17. There is a reference of inimical relationship between k. Alijan and Sk. Farid who have unfortunately passed away. In the cross-examination of these witnesses there is no hint about a possible reason for these witnesses to falsely implicate the accused except their statement that they were not on visiting terms with Kham Murmu. The defence of the accused is that only on suspicion they were implicated in the case. The witnesses have stated that Sevika Besra was married to Kham Murmu but later on he split with her. PW 1 has stated that Sk. Mohsin used to drink in the village and in the house of Sabi (Sevika Besra) as well. She was divorced (chutta-chutti) before 15 years back, she got married again and she had one daughter with the second marriage. He has further stated that Sk. Mohsin had illicit relation with Sevika Besra. PW2 has stated that Sk. Mohsin had no quarrel with anyone in the village and he never saw him taking drinks. He has also stated that Kham Murmu was married to Sevika Besra. From the prosecution evidence there may appear a motive on the part of Kham Murmu to commit murder of Sk. Mohsin but the inconsistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses that Kham Murmu had no relation with Sevika Besra, she got remarried and had a daughter from the second marriage are such facts which create doubt whether Kham Murmu or for that matter others had any motive to commit murder. Mohsin but the inconsistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses that Kham Murmu had no relation with Sevika Besra, she got remarried and had a daughter from the second marriage are such facts which create doubt whether Kham Murmu or for that matter others had any motive to commit murder. In a criminal trial, we need to always keep in mind that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of legal evidence and only on the basis of suspicion an accused cannot be convicted and that too for a serious crime like murder. 18. The dead body of Sk. Mohsin was found the next day with several injuries which would suggest that he was brutally murdered. PW5-Dr. Vinod Kumar Saha has found the following injuries on the dead body of Sk. Mohsin: i. A sharp cut wound 1 1/2" x 1/2" x bone deep on the right side of from of scalp with blood clot. ii. One sharp cut wound 1" x 1:" x bone deep on front of calp with blood clots. iii. One sharp cut wound 2" x 1/2" x bone beep on left side of calp on back part with blood clots. iv. One sharp cut wound 1 1/2" x 1/2"x bone deep on the occipital region with blood clots. v. One sharp cut wound ½” x ¼” x ¼” on back of left arm With blood clots. vi. One sharp cut wound ¼ " x ¼" on right arm with blood clots. vii. One sharp cut wound ¼ " x ¼" on right leg near right knee joint with blood clots. viii. One lacerated wound ¼ "x ¼" on the face in front of right ear with blood clots. 19. The doctor has rendered an opinion that the death was caused within 48 hours from the postmortem examination and therefore hi evidence corroborates the prosecution story that Sk. Mohsin was murdered in the night of 20.01.2009. But what creates doubt on the prosecution case against the appellants is that due to objectionable relationship between Sk. Mohsin and Sevika Besra the villagers were also angry. The dead body of k. Mohsin was found lying near the house of PW1 and P 2 and the house of Sevika Besra was also nearby. But what creates doubt on the prosecution case against the appellants is that due to objectionable relationship between Sk. Mohsin and Sevika Besra the villagers were also angry. The dead body of k. Mohsin was found lying near the house of PW1 and P 2 and the house of Sevika Besra was also nearby. It has also come on record that there are several houses in the village but no one has come forward to ay that they have seen the accused committing murder of Sk. Mohsin, and to make it further doubtful Sevika Besra was not produced during the trial. 20. In a criminal trial the evidence of last-seen-together if proved would be a highly incriminating material against the accused, however, there must be something more, to say that, some other independent evidence to corroborate the theory of last-seen-together. In the present case the witnesses who came to depose about the last-seen-together story arc not trustworthy and there is no independent corroboration to their testimony. 21. In "Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P" (2006) 10 SCC 172 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "27. The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case the courts should look for some corroboration." 22. In a later judgment, in "Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan" (2014) 4 SCC 715 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "12. The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of the appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant." 23. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to lead cogent and consistent evidence on complicity of the appellants in committing murder of Sk. Mohsin; PW1, PW2 and PW6 are not reliable witnesses; and, therefore, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of doubt. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to lead cogent and consistent evidence on complicity of the appellants in committing murder of Sk. Mohsin; PW1, PW2 and PW6 are not reliable witnesses; and, therefore, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of doubt. 24. Accordingly, conviction of the appellants in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2010 for committing murder of Sk. Mohsin is set-aside. 25. Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, the learned Spl.PP states that Ravilal Soren @ Robilal Soren who is the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 310 of 2012 is in custody while Kham Murmu who is the appellant in Cr. (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 297 of 2012 was released on bai1. 26. Accordingly, Ravilal Soren @ Robilal Soren who is the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 310 of 2012 shall be set free forthwith if not wanted in connection to any other case. 27. Kham Murmu who is the appellant in Cr. (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 297 of 2012 shall be discharged of liability of the bail bonds furnished by him. 28. In the result, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 310 of 2012 and r. (Jail) Appeal (DB) o. 297 of 2012 are allowed. 29. Let lower Court records be transmitted to the Court concerned, forthwith. 30. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned through 'FAX'. 31. We appreciate the able assistance rendered by Mrs. Bandana Sinha, the learned counsel; Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, the learned Amicus, and' Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, the learned Special P.P.