JUDGMENT : (Ashutosh Kumar, J.) 1. All the criminal appeals (five in number) have been heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment. 2. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned Advocate has represented the appellants/ Daroga Yadav and Ram Ji Mishra in Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 1381 of 2017 and 1514 of 2017 respectively; Mr. Rohit Kumar Tripathi, learned Advocate has appeared for appellant/ Raju Mishra in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1437 of 2017 and Mr. Apurav Harsh has appeared for the appellants/Banmali Mishra, Nathuni Mishra and Paspat Mishra @ Pasupati Mishra in Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 1455 of 2017 and 1485 of 2017 respectively. The State has been represented by Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned APP. 3. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, vide judgment dated 31.10.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Buxar, in Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2008 arising out of Buxar (M) P.S. Case No. 17 of 2002. By order dated 31.10.2017, they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life each, to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-each, which shall be recovered from the self or ancestral properties, moveable or immovable, of the convicts. 4. The case history is rather queer. Eight persons were made accused in the FIR lodged by P.W. 1/Guput Mishra @ Gupteshwar Mishra, who is the brother of the deceased. 5. A person who was not named in the FIR, viz., Ashok Mishra, was only charge-sheeted and put on trial initially. 6. Against other accused persons who were named in the FIR, no charge-sheet was submitted. After the examination of seven of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution against afore-noted Ashok Mishra, who also stood trial for the second time along with appellants, the Trial Court summoned the seven appellants herein to face trial. 7. A de novo trial began where twelve witnesses were examined at the trial, leaving few of the witnesses who had earlier deposed, viz., Bachan Mishra, who has signed the FIR and some others. 8. The Trial Court, after having examined the witnesses afresh, acquitted Ashok Mishra but convicted the appellants. It may also be noted that Bharath Rai and Akhilesh Mishra, two of the accused persons died during the pendency of the Trial and hence their names were expunged. 9. 8. The Trial Court, after having examined the witnesses afresh, acquitted Ashok Mishra but convicted the appellants. It may also be noted that Bharath Rai and Akhilesh Mishra, two of the accused persons died during the pendency of the Trial and hence their names were expunged. 9. The fardbeyan was lodged by P.W. 1 on 20.01.2002 at about 08:00 AM at the place of occurrence which is village Barkagaon under Buxar Industrial Police Station. 10. It has been alleged that in the previous night when P.W. 1 along with P.Ws. 2, 3 and others were sleeping in the thatched house, Nathuni Mishra (deceased) got up in the night to urinate. He heard the whispering sound of people talking nearby. Out of fear and curiosity, he woke up P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and others and came out of the thatched house. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 also followed him. They did not find anybody in and around the thatched house. Nathuni Mishra (deceased), thereafter, proceeded further despite his being attempted to be restrained by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. Perforce, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 also followed him. After they had travelled for a distance of about two hundred yards, all of them including P.W. 1 saw that eight persons had assembled beneath a tree. Nathuni (deceased) proceeded further when he was caught by the appellants and on the orders of Bharath Rai (since dead), appellant/Ram Ji Mishra fired from his weapon, putting the muzzle of the weapon close to the chest of the deceased, leading to his instantaneous death. The deceased while dying, took the name of Ram Ji Mishra and Bharath Rai. Many persons of the neighbourhood also arrived on the call of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. The cause of occurrence as stated in the fardbeyan was old enmity and conspiracy to kill the deceased. 11. On the basis of the aforenoted fardbeyan/statement of P.W. 1, Buxar (M) P.S. Case No. 17 of 2002, dated 20.01.2002 was registered for investigation for the offences under Sections 302, 120(B), 34 of the IPC. 12. As noted above, the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against some of the persons, but later the appellants were summoned to face Trial along with the known FIR accused/Ashok Mishra (who has since been acquitted) under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. 13. 12. As noted above, the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against some of the persons, but later the appellants were summoned to face Trial along with the known FIR accused/Ashok Mishra (who has since been acquitted) under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. 13. We have heard the learned Advocates for the appellants and learned APP for the State. 14. After having perused the records in some detail, it appears that none of the three witnesses who claimed to have seen the occurrence, viz.,P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have made any correct statement before the Trial Court. The FIR itself discloses that the occurrence had not taken place in the manner in which it has been narrated. If the appellants had gathered beneath a tree at about two hundred yards from the thatched house where P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 were sleeping, their talk would not be heard by somebody sleeping in thatched house. That the appellants were not near the visible distance from the thatched house is also clear from the deposition of the witnesses as also in the FIR. 15. If this were so, there was no necessity of moving further deep in the village unarmed. The movement of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, therefore, appears to be a story spun by the prosecution in order to make the aforesaid witnesses as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. 16. Later during the trial, the same thing was repeated by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, P.W. 2 being the brother of the deceased whereas P.W. 3, a nephew of the deceased. P.Ws. 2 and 3 also followed suit and saw the deceased being fired at by appellant/Ram Ji Mishra. 17. The aforenoted witnesses have not spoken of either having retreated or challenging the accused persons or about chasing them. There is long-standing enmity between the parties. The enmity is not directed against one particular individual, much less against the deceased. The entire family was within the firing distance of the appellants. If enmity was the reason for the occurrence, the appellants would not have been content by firing one shot, killing the deceased. It is not the case of the prosecution that the P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 hurried back or hid themselves or pleaded with the appellants not to harm them. If enmity was the reason for the occurrence, the appellants would not have been content by firing one shot, killing the deceased. It is not the case of the prosecution that the P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 hurried back or hid themselves or pleaded with the appellants not to harm them. If they are to be believed, they remained there at the P.O. and the appellants after executing the murder of Nathuni, moved away. 18. The occurrence is said to have taken place at 10:30 in the night. On being specifically questioned, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have said that they did not inform any one of the neighbours for the reason of night and there being no apprehension of any mishap. 19. This is understandable as the witnesses did not arm themselves before coming out of the thatched house. 20. The story has another fault-line. If the appellants had assembled somewhere near the house where the deceased along with others were sleeping, they would not have waited there, expecting the target and the witnesses to arrive near them. 21. Were they waiting for the opportune time to attack? 22. If that be so and if the witnesses are believed, then perhaps the deceased himself took up the gauntlet of challenging the appellants or else, there would have been no reason for all of them to go near the firing range of the appellants who were spotted from a distance and some of them had noticed that they were armed to the teeth. 23. This fault line makes the prosecution version absolutely doubtful. 24. To be more specific, (I) the congregation of the appellants at a place which is two hundred yards away from the house; (II) the appellants not coming forward but waiting in ambush; (III) the witnesses hearing the whispering sound when nobody was in and around the house and absolute confidence that nothing untowards is to happen and (IV) P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 led by the deceased, moving out of the house unarmed, make the entire story unbelievable. 25. To top it up, without any challenge, only the deceased was shot at. Nobody else was hurt even in a minor way. They did not even run away for their lives. 26. What does all this signify? 27. 1, 2 and 3 led by the deceased, moving out of the house unarmed, make the entire story unbelievable. 25. To top it up, without any challenge, only the deceased was shot at. Nobody else was hurt even in a minor way. They did not even run away for their lives. 26. What does all this signify? 27. The only inference, the learned Advocates have argued is that an occurrence had taken place in which the deceased had died of gun-shot. However, who had killed him was not known to anyone of the witnesses, much less the informant. 28. For coming to this conclusion, the learned Advocates have pointed out that there is nothing on record to indicate that the police was informed about the occurrence in the night. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 claim to have stayed back at the P.O. with the dead body lying in the open field. One of the witnesses has said that the local chowkidar was informed about the occurrence in the night but the chowkidar informed the police only in the next morning. There is nothing on record also to come to any definite finding that chowkidar had communicated this fact to the police. 29. Whether the police came on its own on learning that a dead body is lying in the field in a particular village or was specifically informed about the occurrence in which the name of the assailants were known, remains completely in dark. 30. Unfortunately, the chowkidar who was examined in the first instance was left out and he has not been examined as a witness in the present case. 31. Did the chowkidar actually know about the name of the assailant(s)? This could have been known only if chowkidar would have come to the witness-stand. 32. Testing the prosecution case with another lens, we have also found that the Investigating Officers have been absolutely brief about the occurrence, in their examination-in-chief. One of the Investigating Officers, who perhaps had investigated the case for a long time, did not even care to go to the place of occurrence or confront other villagers who had seen the dead body for eliciting correct information. 33. One of the Investigating Officers, who perhaps had investigated the case for a long time, did not even care to go to the place of occurrence or confront other villagers who had seen the dead body for eliciting correct information. 33. Additionally, it appears to be rather surprising that if the occurrence had taken place in the night somewhere below a tree in an open field, one would always care to know about the source of light for identifying the appellants. 34. According to the claim of the prosecution, it was a moon-lit night and the deceased and P.W. 1, both, were armed with torches. Those torches were never asked for nor did P.W. 1 hand those over to the investigating agency. Apart from this being a major lapse in the investigation, it also suggests that nothing of the kind as narrated by P.W. 1 had ever happened. 35. It is difficult to digest the fact that the dead body would be allowed to be kept in the open in the night and the police would arrive only at 08:00 A.M. in the next day when the fardbeyan of P.W. 1 was recorded in great detail. 36. The place of occurrence perhaps is the field of Bachan Mishra, who had counter-signed the FIR. Very conveniently, he has not been made a witness in this case. It clearly gives an impression that the dead body was spotted in the field of Bachan Mishra and, therefore, he also proceeded along with P.W. 1, to lodge a fardbeyan blaming the appellants for the reason of the old enmity. 37. The witnesses have spoken about the enmity running between the families since 2001 when the members of the prosecution party were made accused in a murder case and there was a counter version of the occurrence as well. 38. If the allegations were correct, the appellants would have faced the trial in the first instance. They have been summoned to face the trial only after seven witnesses were examined when only one person, viz., Ashok Mishra with no charge against him, so far as FIR is concerned, also having been put on trial. 39. The learned Advocates, therefore, urge that the story is absolutely different. 40. A very strong suggestion was given to all the witnesses that the deceased, in the past, was charged of cattle duffing. 39. The learned Advocates, therefore, urge that the story is absolutely different. 40. A very strong suggestion was given to all the witnesses that the deceased, in the past, was charged of cattle duffing. In fact, there is a specific charge of the appellant having charged Rs.10,000/-for returning a cow which he had stolen from one Badri Mishra. 41. Was the deceased killed in that transaction? In that case, the allegation should have been directed towards Badri Mishra and not the appellants. But since P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 had not seen the occurrence, they in a concerted way have chosen to remonstrate by blaming the appellants, especially Ram Ji Mishra. 42. With only P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 claiming to be the eyewitnesses, we are absolutely surprised at the prosecution not bringing up any independent person of the village who would have seen the dead body and would have known about any rumour about the occurrence. 43. On the contrary, the father-in-law of the deceased and a friend of his father-in-law have been examined at the trial as P.Ws. 4 and 5, who have been candid enough to state that they have come to know about the occurrence only through the mouth of P.W. 1. 44. As noticed by us and referred to above, the three Investigating Officers have nothing else to provide except that they had recorded few paragraphs of the case diary and that no specific efforts were made by any one of them to come to the truth. 45. If out of eight persons named in the FIR, only one person (not named in the FIR) was put on trial and later, he was acquitted and the appellants having faced the trial on being summoned under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., the investigation definitely appears to be bizarre. 46. That no clothes were seized; the weapon of assault was not seized; the appellants are villagers and neither the chowkidar having been examined nor the I.O. recording the fardbeyan giving any clue as to what was the information received in the police station for them to arrive at the place of occurrence, the entire story remains under wraps and the truth has not been unravelled. 47. It is really unfortunate that such a casual and cavalier approach has been adopted by the Investigators, as a result of which, the attempt of P.Ws. 47. It is really unfortunate that such a casual and cavalier approach has been adopted by the Investigators, as a result of which, the attempt of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 to anyhow frame the appellants in this case has became successful. This is highly lamentable. We need not say any further. 48. The appellants are required to be given benefit of doubt. 49. For the reasons aforenoted, the judgment is set aside and all the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 50. The appeals stand allowed. 51. Since all the appellants are on bail, their liabilities under the bail bonds are cancelled. 52. Let a copy of this judgment be dispatched to the Superintendent of the concerned Jail forthwith for compliance and record. 53. The records of this case be returned to the Trial Court forthwith. 54. Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stand disposed off accordingly.