JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. The matter has been heard at length with the consent of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the same is being disposed of. However, none represented the respondents. 2. The instant appeal preferred by the State-appellant is against the judgment of acquittal dated 08.08.1994 passed in Sessions Trial No.140 of 1987 by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad. 3. This Court before scrutinizing the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of acquittal, deems it fit and proper to refer the prosecution story in brief as per the statement made by the informant in the fardbeyan, wherein, it has been reported that on 22.05.1985 at 10:00 a.m., the informant along with his son Md. Anjar and his companion Md. Nasiruddin, were going to bring medicine for his ailing daughter. They were passing through Kawaripatti Mohalla. When they reached in the said Mohalla near the book shop of Sri Jauhar, the family members of Md. Hafiz and his men all of a sudden fell upon them. Among them, the informant could identify Md. Tarique @ Romi, Hanif both sons and brother respectively of Md. Hafiz, Sahabuddin @ Sahab, Bhagna of Md. Hafiz, Naim Alam son-in-law of Md. Hafiz, Mustaque, Intiyaz Khan, Istier Khan, Tulsi Pd. Singh, Laxman Chourasia, Md. Hasim, Md. Reyaz, Asraf and Md. Mustque. It has been alleged that all the accused persons all of a sudden caught hold of Md. Anjar and accused Tarique @ Romi pressed the neck of Md. Anjar. Some of the assailants got upon the chest of Md. Anjar and started jumping upon his chest. The informant and Md. Nasiruddin after seeing the seriousness of the situation had run away to hide themselves. At the time of assault, the assailants were saying that this was the person, who had shot at Md. Hafiz, Ward Commissioner, by a pistol and identified the Md. Anjar to be the assailant. It has been stated that two hours thereafter, the informant could understand clearly the situation and started searching of his son going to the Kawaripatti. Then, he learnt that the aforesaid assailants had committed murder of Md. Anjar by pressing the neck and jumping over his chest and the dead body was taken away by the Police to Sadar Hospital. The informant also came to know when the Police lifted the dead body, Md. Then, he learnt that the aforesaid assailants had committed murder of Md. Anjar by pressing the neck and jumping over his chest and the dead body was taken away by the Police to Sadar Hospital. The informant also came to know when the Police lifted the dead body, Md. Anjar had breathed his last before reaching to the Hospital. When the informant reached to the Sadar Hospital, the Police had already sent the dead body for post mortem. It has been alleged that another son of the informant, namely, Asgar was murdered by one Samim, the nephew of Md. Hafiz with the help of some associates and as such, there was old enmity. The assailants had suspected that the brother of Asgarh might take revenge and therefore, were in a look out to kill Md. Anjar, brother of Md. Asgarh. The informant thereafter had alleged that he learnt that someone had shot at Md. Hafiz and when he was taken to Hospital, he saw the informant, his son and companion and called his men to assault. Therefore, the informant claimed that his son was killed by Tarique @ Romi and others as named above at the instigation of Md. Hafiz. The aforesaid statement has subsequently been registered as First Information Report before the Dhanbad Police Station being Dhanbad P.S. Case No.243/85. The matter was investigated and charge-sheet for commission of offence under Sections 147, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted against the accused persons, namely, Md. Tarique @ Romi, Reyaz Ahmed, Md. Masruf, Tulsi Prasad Singh, Laxman Pd. Chourasia, Md. Hanif, Md. Mustaque, Md. Istier Khan, Md. Hafiz, Naim Alam, Imteaz Khan, Md. Hasim and Shabuddin @ Sahab. The case was committed to the Court of Session. The accused persons have denied all the charges and pleaded not guilty. The trial Court had framed against the accused persons except accused Tarique @ Romi and Sahabuddin, who died before framing of charge as also Md. Hasim, who did not turn up and his case had been split for separate trial. The accused persons have denied all the charges and pleaded not guilty. The trial Court had framed against the accused persons except accused Tarique @ Romi and Sahabuddin, who died before framing of charge as also Md. Hasim, who did not turn up and his case had been split for separate trial. The trial Court has proceeded and on the basis of the testimony of witnesses (four in number) and exhibits, i.e., FIR, Post mortem report, had found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and as such, found the appellants not guilty of the charge levelled against them and they have been acquitted and discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. The State, being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, is before this Court. 4. Mr. Satish Prasad, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State-appellant, has argued the case at length and has taken the ground that the impugned judgment is not fit to be sustainable since the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the deposition of the eye witness, namely, P.W. 1 Md. Nasiruddin and the informant P.W. 2, Saiyed Md. Akhter who in specific words have given the name of the appellants while they were committing the murder. It has been submitted that the learned trial Court has discarded the testimony of the eye witnesses only on the ground that the dead body was not identified. The testimony of informant P.W. 2 Saiyed Md. Akhter has also been discarded by considering the conduct of the informant to be unnatural, since informant did not rush to the Police Station to report about the occurrence nor he take any step to save his son nor raised alarm to attract the people to save his son. It has been submitted that even accepting that the dead body has not been identified and on the basis of that, the testimony of the eye witnesses cannot be discarded since the learned trial Court has not given any finding that there was no death of the deceased. It has further been submitted that even the P.W. 2 (informant), namely, Saiyed Md. Akhtar has corroborated the version of P.W. 1 Md. It has further been submitted that even the P.W. 2 (informant), namely, Saiyed Md. Akhtar has corroborated the version of P.W. 1 Md. Nasiruddin but even though, the version of P.W. 2 has been discarded merely on the ground that the dead body has not been identified and considered the conduct of the family members and the informant to be unnatural. It has further been submitted that the injury shown in the post mortem report also corroborates the commission of murder of the deceased, since, it would be evident from the post mortem report that the injury shown therein, has been caused due to pressing of neck and chest of deceased. 5. Learned A.P.P. in the backdrop of the aforesaid ground has submitted that the trial Court ought to have taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter but having not done so and merely on the ground that the dead body has not been identified and claimed, has considered the conduct of the family members including the informant to be unnatural, which cannot be said to be justified finding recorded by the trial Court and therefore, the judgment impugned requires interference and as such, the instant appeal. 6. We have heard the learned Add. Public Prosecutor. 7. The issue which has been raised on behalf of the State-appellant regarding the testimony of P.W. 1 Md. Nasiruddin & P.W. 2 Saiyed Md. Akhter where the commission of murder has been corroborated by medical evidence and as such, this Court requires to consider the testimony of P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 along with the post mortem report so as to assess the legality and propriety of the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. 8. P.W. 1, namely, Md. Nasiruddin in his testimony has stated that the occurrence was taken place on 22.05.1985 at about 10:00 a.m. He, along with the deceased, namely, Anjar and his father, namely, Saiyed Md. Akhtar was going towards the medicine shop and when they reached near the book shop of Jauhar and at that time, they have seen the appellants, namely, Mudalehkis Khan, Hanif Khan, Nakum Alam, Tulsi Pd. Singh, Md. Tarique @ Romi, Sahabuddin @ Sahab, Mustaque Ahmed, Istier, Imteaz, Musaraf, Laxman Chaurasia and Md. Hasim. Akhtar was going towards the medicine shop and when they reached near the book shop of Jauhar and at that time, they have seen the appellants, namely, Mudalehkis Khan, Hanif Khan, Nakum Alam, Tulsi Pd. Singh, Md. Tarique @ Romi, Sahabuddin @ Sahab, Mustaque Ahmed, Istier, Imteaz, Musaraf, Laxman Chaurasia and Md. Hasim. The accused Hafiz Khan had instigated by identifying the deceased, namely, Anjar that he was the younger brother of the deceased Asgar and as such, let it be killed. As such, the accused person, namely, Romi had started throttling the neck of the said Anjar and some of the accused persons had tied his hand and pressed his chest by sitting over there. Thereafter, Romi and other accused persons had dragged the deceased towards the road side and assaulted him. Among the aforesaid accused persons, one of the accused persons was said that the deceased was the same person who assaulted the Ward Commissioner, namely, Hafiz Khan. He has further stated that the accused Romi had died. The accused Hasim has been declared to be absconder and the accused Sahabuddin had also died. He has stated that all the accused persons were standing in the dock and he had identified all of them. He has thoroughly been cross-examined and therein, it has been stated by him that he was the Ward Commissioner for last two years. It has been stated at paragraph-14 that he knew the accused Hafiz Khan who had sustained the bullet injury and he had not gone to see him, reason being that, he was not the Ward Commissioner during the relevant time. He has further stated that at the time when Anjar was assaulted, he came to know from one of the accused about the bullet injury having been sustained by the said Hafiz. He has stated that one of the accused had stated that it was Anjar who had shot Hafiz but even after knowing the aforesaid fact, he had not gone to see the Hafiz. In paragraph-15 & 16, he has stated that he was accused in two criminal cases. In one of the cases, the owner of the Jyoti Enterprises was the petitioner but so far as the second case is concerned, he did not know that who had lodged the case against him. In paragraph-15 & 16, he has stated that he was accused in two criminal cases. In one of the cases, the owner of the Jyoti Enterprises was the petitioner but so far as the second case is concerned, he did not know that who had lodged the case against him. He has also stated that the father of the deceased Anjar is the maternal uncle and is present in the Court. He has stated at paragraph-19 of the cross-examination that he has given statement before the Police that there was enmity in the family of Asgar and Samim. Only the accused Romi was throttling the neck of the deceased and he had not tried to rescue him. None had tried to rescue him. He had not raised the alarm for rescuing the deceased. No one has raised the alarm to rescue the deceased. He has stated at paragraph-21 that none was over the chest of the deceased. No blood was found on the place of occurrence. He has stated that he had seen the sign of blood over the body of the deceased. But he had not seen the blood oozing from the body of the deceased. The blood was moving from the mouth and there was blood in the right side of the rib. He has also stated that the blood was not oozing from the rib. He had seen the sign of injury in the neck and head of the deceased. He had not seen any sign of injury, save and except, the aforesaid injury over the body of the deceased. He had seen the injury over the head. He had seen the mark of finger over the neck of the deceased. He has further stated that at that time, the other accused persons were assaulting the deceased from lathi and stone. He has also stated that he could not say that who were the persons armed with the lathis. He also could not say whether the deceased had sustained injury with lathi and stone. He has stated at paragraph-25 that he has informed the Police about the incident and at that time, the Anjar was lying there in unconscious condition. He has stated at paragraph-26 that he has not carried the deceased to Hospital rather he was carried to Hospital by the Police. He has stated at paragraph-25 that he has informed the Police about the incident and at that time, the Anjar was lying there in unconscious condition. He has stated at paragraph-26 that he has not carried the deceased to Hospital rather he was carried to Hospital by the Police. He has also stated at paragraph-27 that he had not seen the recovery of the stone by the Police. At paragraph-28, he has denied the question that due to enmity in between the informant and the family of the deceased, the instant case has been instituted. It has also been stated at paragraph-31 that it is not in his memory that after taking over the dead body from the Police Station whether any paper was prepared or not. He has further stated that he had received the dead body by an order of the Officer, namely, Upadhyay Ji. He has also stated that the dead body was carried to the house of Saiyed Md. Akhter at about 6:00 p.m. in the evening and it is not like that he had not made signature at the time of taking the body from the Police Station. Saiyed Md. Akhter was examined as P.W.2, the informant. He has stated that he, his son (Anjar) and Nasiruddin were going to medicine shop and at that time, he had seen the accused persons including the appellants who started assaulting the Anjar and dragged him towards the house of Hafiz Mian. The accused Tarique started pressing the neck of Anjar. Accused Hanif and his brother started pressing his chest. He has further stated that he cannot say that why his son was assaulted. He has also stated that in order to save his life, he had hidden himself and after one and a half hour, when he came out and started searching his son, and did not find his son at the place of occurrence. Then he came to know that his son was carried by the Police for conducting post mortem. He had rushed to the Sadar Hospital but had not seen his son there. He came to know about his son that the dead body of his son was carried for the purpose of conducting post mortem. Then he came to know that his son was carried by the Police for conducting post mortem. He had rushed to the Sadar Hospital but had not seen his son there. He came to know about his son that the dead body of his son was carried for the purpose of conducting post mortem. He has stated that he has given his statement in the Hospital which has been noted down by the Police and read over and thereafter, he has put his signature upon the same. He has put his signature on the FIR, which is marked as Exhibit/1. He was cross-examined, wherein, at paragraph-5 he has stated that in order to rescue he had not raised any alarm. He has stated that apart from him about 100-50 persons had seen the occurrence. He has also stated that amongst the lookers, none had come forward to rescue the life of his son. He has also stated that the accused persons had not tried to kill him. Subsequently, he himself said that the accused persons had not identified him. He has stated that he has managed to hide himself in a place where the accused persons could not have been seen. He has also stated that the place where he hidden himself, there was a shop and the house and there was number of shops just adjacent to the place of occurrence. He has also stated that Nasiruddin, was his son-in-law and he is the maternal uncle. He has stated that at paragraph-14 that the deceased Anjar has done nothing at the place of occurrence, even in the hidden condition he was watching the occurrence. He has stated at paragraph-15 that he cannot say as to whether there was a bullet shot on Hafiz at about 10:00 a.m. on 22.05.1985. He has further stated at paragraph-16 that he has put his signature in the fardbeyan in the Hospital itself. He has also stated that how much time in the postmortem was taken, he cannot say. He has also stated that Nasiruddin and Salahuddin, one of the relatives have come with the dead body after post mortem. He has also stated that he has stayed about half an hour in the Sadar Hospital. He has also stated that how much time in the postmortem was taken, he cannot say. He has also stated that Nasiruddin and Salahuddin, one of the relatives have come with the dead body after post mortem. He has also stated that he has stayed about half an hour in the Sadar Hospital. It has further been stated at paragraph-19 & 20 that the dead body was brought to the house which was covered with the bed-sheet and the dead body was uncovered by him and the dead body was taken to graveyard. He has also stated that none of the local people of the concerned mohalla has gone to the graveyard. He has stated by denying the suggestion that due to enmity, he has instituted the aforesaid case against the accused persons including the appellants. Kanhaiya Upadhyay was examined as P.W. 3 and during the relevant time, he was posted as Officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station. He has identified the fardbeyan which was in the signature of the Sub-inspector, namely, Abhilash Rai. He has stated at paragraph-3 that the dead body was sent by the Sub-inspector for conducting post mortem. He has also stated that there was murder of one, namely, Md. Anjar. He has stated that inquest report was prepared by Abhilash Rai which has been marked as Exhibit/4. He has also stated that he is the person who has conducted investigation of the offence. He has identified the place of occurrence as per the information furnished to him by the informant. It has been stated by him at paragraph-9 that he has not visited the Patliputra Nursing Home prior to visiting the place of occurrence. He was knowing about the bullet injury sustained by Hafiz Khan and for that the case was also instituted. He has stated at paragraph-11 that he has not recorded in the case diary about furnishing the inquest report. He has stated that he has brought the dead body but subsequently, he himself said that the dead body was brought by his son but the same was not recorded in the case diary. He has also stated that the dead body was handed over to the petitioner in the Police Station but was not recorded in the case diary. He has stated at paragraph-12 that there was enmity in between the Babla, Asgar, Nasaruddin etc. He has also stated that the dead body was handed over to the petitioner in the Police Station but was not recorded in the case diary. He has stated at paragraph-12 that there was enmity in between the Babla, Asgar, Nasaruddin etc. and to that effect the record is available in the Police Station. He has stated at paragraph-14 that he had not lifted the blood from the place of occurrence. He has stated that when he was rushed to the place of occurrence, the deceased was not dead. His statement was also recorded on recall of his examination by the prosecution as would appear from the deposition to that effect made at paragraph-16 thereof, wherein, it has been stated by him that after conducting the post mortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased but there was no entry made for the same in the case diary. In paragraph-18, he has stated that he has not recorded the statement of Raghubir Pandey. In paragraph-19, it has been stated that he has not made any entry in the case diary for whom, he came to know about the name of the deceased. He has stated at paragraph-20 that he came to know about the name of the deceased prior to the receipt of the post mortem report. He has also stated that he had not prepared the inquest report. Dr. D.K. Dhiraj was examined as P.W. 4 who has conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased and has found altogether 10 injuries which were found to by him as ante mortem in nature, i.e., (i) Black eye lids of both eyes with ecchymosis underneath. There was a lacerated wound 3/4’’ x 1/4’’ x the skin deep over upper outer right eye lid. (ii) Abrasion 2’’ x 2’’ on right chick surrounded by smaller abrasions upto 1’’ x 1/6’’. (iii) Three abrasions over left side of the face 2’’ x 1/2’’, 1’’ x 1/4’’ and 1/2’’ x 1/4’’. (iv) Abrasions over right side of forehead in an area of 3’’ x 2’’. (v) Abrasion 1 ½ ’’ x 3/4’’ over left side and tip of the nose. (vi) Multiple abrasions of various sizes 1/3’’ to 3’’ x 1/6’’ to 1/2 ’’ on right side of the whole neck. (iv) Abrasions over right side of forehead in an area of 3’’ x 2’’. (v) Abrasion 1 ½ ’’ x 3/4’’ over left side and tip of the nose. (vi) Multiple abrasions of various sizes 1/3’’ to 3’’ x 1/6’’ to 1/2 ’’ on right side of the whole neck. (vii) Multiple abrasions 1/2’’ to 2” x 1/4’’ to 1’’ on left side of upper chest in an area of 4’’ x 4’’. (viii) Multiple abrasion less than 1’’ x 1’’ in an area of 6’’ x 2 1/2’’ on the back of right forearm and elbow. (ix) Abrasion 1 ½ ’’ x 1’’ over back of left elbow. (x) Abrasion 1/2’’ x 1/4’’ over outer aspect of the right big toe. The doctor has opined the cause of death by asphyxia due to air way occlusion by external agency operative from the front of the neck. The time of death was shown to be 6 plus minus 3 hours. Nature of death is homicidal. It has been stated at paragraph-9 that after post mortem, he has handed over the dead body to the Constable no.83, namely, Raghubir Pandey. It is thus, evident from the testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, Saiyed Md. Akhter happens to be the informant that the narration about commission of offence has been furnished by the informant as also by the P.W. 1-Nasuriddin. It has been stated by them that the accused persons including the appellants had caught hold the deceased and started assaulting by pressing the neck and chest. It has also been stated by them that they had hidden in a place in order to rescue themselves and from there he had seen the occurrence. But subsequently, it has been stated by them that the persons who had inflicted the injury, they had not seen. 9. The trial Court, on the basis of the deposition and on its consideration, has given finding after taking into consideration the testimony of P.W. 1-Nasiruddin & P.W. 2 Saiyed Md. Akhter to the effect that these witnesses had not seen the occurrence as made out in the FIR, as would appear from the finding recorded to that effect at paragraph-6 to the impugned judgment. The learned trial Court has considered the deposition of P.W. 3, namely, Kanhaiya Upadhayay, Investigating Officer who has proved the FIR, which has been marked as Exhibit/2. The learned trial Court has considered the deposition of P.W. 3, namely, Kanhaiya Upadhayay, Investigating Officer who has proved the FIR, which has been marked as Exhibit/2. It has been stated by him that Abhilash Rai, Sub-inspector had already sent the dead body for post mortem. It has also been discussed that he sent the fardbeyan to the Officer-in-charge, Dhanbad for registering the case. As such, the learned trial Court had reached to the conclusion that the FIR was recorded at Sadar Hospital, Dhanbad, when the dead body of Anjar was not before the informant. The Investigating Officer has proved the inquest report as Exhibit/4 but does not mention the name of the deceased but states that it was the dead body of an unknown Muslim male. It has also been discussed at paragraph-7 of the impugned judgment, wherein, it has been stated by the Investigating Officer that the place of occurrence where the deceased was killed is a katcha road of Kawaripatti Mohalla. The learned trial Court has also considered the statement made by the P.W. 3, the Investigating Officer that there was book shop of Jauhar @ Hoha Kahn besides the pitch road running from north to south. It was told to him that the accused persons had caught the deceased near the shop of Jauhar on pitch road. The testimony of P.W. 3, the Investigating Officer as has been made at paragraph-5 to the effect that on the aforesaid katcha road of Kawaripatti Mohalla, he found the body of Md. Anjar taking last breath and he was told that a crowd assaulted Anjar Mian. He has stated in his cross-examination at paragraph-9 that he had reached at the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence and again went there with the informant at 2:00 p.m. He also states that he had first reached to Bhuli More on receiving the information that bomb was blasted there. He has clarified that in the case diary, he has not narrated that he has gone to the place of occurrence but had gone to Bhuli More. The trial Court, on the basis of the aforesaid statement has come to conclusion that the testimony of P.W. 3 clarifies that he has no information about the occurrence before he went to the place of occurrence. The trial Court, on the basis of the aforesaid statement has come to conclusion that the testimony of P.W. 3 clarifies that he has no information about the occurrence before he went to the place of occurrence. The trial Court has also considered the statement made by the Investigating Officer at paragraph-14, wherein, it has been stated by him that he has not recorded in the case diary that the persons who was taking last breath was alive and that, it was Md. Anjar but he still claims that it was the body of Md. Anjar who was lying unconscious. The trial Court, therefore, has considered the testimony of Investigating Officer that he has not conducted the investigation to gather evidence to ascertain that the injury upon the person who was taking last breathe at the place of occurrence was actually Md. Anjar. The learned trial Court has also considered the statement made by him which was made on recall by the prosecution that the post mortem report of the deceased was received by him on 22.05.1985 at 10:00 p.m. and then he handed over the dead body to Raghubir Pandey, who took the dead body to Bank More P.S. and from there the relatives of the deceased were given the dead body. The Investigating Officer has stated that he has not recorded in the case diary that the dead body was given to Raghubir Pandey and then to the relatives of the deceased at P.S. Bank More. The learned trial Court, therefore, reaches to the conclusion that the Investigating Officer has never tried to identify the dead body from the witnesses and as such, considers his evidence as not a substantive piece of evidence to clarify that the dead body involved in the case was actually that of Md. Anjar. The trial Court has considered the deposition of the Doctor P.W.-4, wherein, it has been stated by him that the post mortem was conducted on 22.05.1985 at 4:00 p.m. on the dead body of an unknown Muslim male aged about 25 to 30 years and the dead body was identified by Constable Raghubir Pandey. But the said Raghubir Pandey has not produced to give his evidence and as such, the identity of the dead body has not been established. But the said Raghubir Pandey has not produced to give his evidence and as such, the identity of the dead body has not been established. The consideration has also been made by the trial Court about the testimony of the Doctor P.W. 4 so far as it relates to sign of injuries which were found 10 in number on the dead body. In the opinion of the Doctor P.W. 4, the deceased had died of asphyxia due to air way occlusation by external agencies operative on the front of the neck. However, in the cross-examination, it has been deposed by him that the identity of the deceased cannot be ascertained from his report and held post mortem on unclaimed body and there was none to tell the name of the deceased. 10. The question as has been raised by the learned counsel for the State-appellant that the testimony of P.W. 2 Saiyed Md. Akhtar and P.W. 1 Md. Nasuriddin should not have been discarded by the learned trial Court since the occurrence having been seen by the eye witnesses, who in order to rescue their life have hidden themselves in a safe place and from there they have seen the occurrence. 11. The question herein is that even accepting that the death is there but death of whom and by whom is required to be considered before convicting the person for the commission of a crime. The trial Court, on consideration of that aspect of the matter, has taken into consideration the conduct of the informant and the family members who, however, subsequent to commission of post mortem have given entirely different picture about receiving of the dead body to his house but as would appear from the testimony of the Investigating Officer and the Doctor who has given entirely different picture and the Doctor, in his deposition has stated in clear words that the post mortem was conducted of an unidentified body. 12. The question further would be that when the informant has seen the occurrence and after 1 ½ hour when he came out, he has not found the dead body of the deceased, then what would be the normal behaviour of the relative more particularly herein the informant being the father of deceased. 12. The question further would be that when the informant has seen the occurrence and after 1 ½ hour when he came out, he has not found the dead body of the deceased, then what would be the normal behaviour of the relative more particularly herein the informant being the father of deceased. The trial Court has considered that aspect of the matter and while considering the same, the trial Court has reached to the conclusion that not claiming the dead body or even not identifying the dead body at the time of post mortem or even the testimony of P.W. 4, the Doctor has been considered to be unnatural conduct of the informant and the other family members. 13. The said consideration given by the learned trial Court, according to our considered view, cannot be said to be having no infirmity, reason being that if the kith and kin of the family members are being murdered in an open day, herein at 10:00 a.m. in the morning and even accepting that the father, namely, Saiyed Md. Akhter, P.W. 2 and P.W. 1 Md. Nasiruddin who happens to be the close relative of the deceased has not tried to save the life of the deceased by making no alarm to the local people while it has come in the deposition that the area where offence took place was thickly populated and has also been stated that about 150 peoples had gathered at the place of occurrence. 14. It is also very surprising and not acceptable so far as the prosecution story is concerned that in a commission of murder, none of the independent witness has been examined by the Investigating Agency. The trial Court has also considered the conduct of P.W. 1 Md. Nasiruddin and P.W. 2 Saiyed Md. Akhter who themselves had deposed that they did not accompany with the dead body and as such, the said conduct has also been considered to be unnatural. It is evident from the testimony of Investigating Officer P.W. 3 that whatever inquest report was prepared, the same has not been entered in the case diary and for whom the inquest report was prepared and there is no reference of the name of the deceased. It is evident from the testimony of Investigating Officer P.W. 3 that whatever inquest report was prepared, the same has not been entered in the case diary and for whom the inquest report was prepared and there is no reference of the name of the deceased. It is the Investigating Officer P.W. 3 who has deposed in his testimony that only after conducting the post mortem, he came to know about the occurrence but he did not know the name of the deceased. 15. This Court, after having discussed the testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, the close relative and the father respectively and the Investigating Officer, P.W. 3 and the Doctor P.W. 4, have reached to the conclusion that the trial Court has considered and appreciated the testimony and while doing so, the trial Court has considered the foremost principle to take the liberty of a person by passing the judgment of conviction. The trial Court, therefore, has considered the issue as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charges beyond all shadow of doubt and that is the foremost parameter to pass the judgment of conviction. 16. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention here that there is no straight jacket formula on the basis of which the guilt of the accused is said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, there is no way to determine objectively, the reasonability of the doubt that the court might have. So it depends solely on the court to say whether he is convinced by the arguments of the prosecution or that there still remains a degree of reasonable doubt so as to impart the judgment in favour of the defense. This follows from the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved to be guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. In criminal cases, the guilt should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a reasonable man with ordinary prudence can have. There should be no doubt whether the accused is guilty or not. In criminal cases, the guilt should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a reasonable man with ordinary prudence can have. There should be no doubt whether the accused is guilty or not. If there is slightest doubt, no matter how small it is, the benefit will go the accused, in this regard reference may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Administration vs. Shri Om Prakash reported in (1972) 1 SCC 249 , wherein at paragraph 7, it has been held which reads as under : “7. While it is not the function of this Court to determine who other than the person who has been charged with the murder had committed it, the line which the defence adopted was to establish that the witnesses referred to above had an interest in implicating the accused or at any rate to create uncertainty and doubt sufficient to give the benefit to the accused. It is not beyond the ken of experienced able and astute lawyers to raise doubts and uncertainties in respect of the prosecution evidence either during trial by cross-examination or by the marshalling of that evidence in the manner in which the emphasis is placed thereon. But what has to be borne in mind is that the penumbra of uncertainty in the evidence before a court is generally due to the nature and quality of that evidence. It may be the witnesses as are lying or where they are honest and truthful, they are not certain. It is therefore, difficult to expect a scientific or mathematical exactitude while dealing with such evidence or arriving at a true conclusion. Because of these difficulties corroboration is sought wherever possible and the maxim that the accused should be given the benefit of doubt becomes pivotal in the prosecution of offenders which in other words means that the prosecution must prove its case against an accused beyond reasonable doubt by a sufficiency of credible evidence. The benefit of doubt to which the accused is entitled is reasonable doubt — the doubt which rational thinking men will reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy — though unwittingly it may be — or is afraid of the logical consequences, if that benefit was not given. The benefit of doubt to which the accused is entitled is reasonable doubt — the doubt which rational thinking men will reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy — though unwittingly it may be — or is afraid of the logical consequences, if that benefit was not given. Or as one great Judge said it is “not the doubt of a vacillating mind that has not the moral courage to decide but shelters itself in a vain and idle scepticism”. It does not mean that the evidence must be so strong as to exclude even a remote possibility that the accused could not have committed the offence. If that were so the law would fail to protect society as in no case can such a possibility be excluded. It will give room for fanciful conjectures or untenable doubts and will result in deflecting the course of justice if not thwarting it altogether. It is for this reason the phrase has been criticised. Lord Goddard, C.J., in Rox v. Kritz, [1950 (1) KB 82 at 90] said that when in explaining to the juries what the prosecution has to establish a Judge begins to use the words “reasonable doubt” and to try to explain what is a reasonable doubt and what is not, he is much more likely to confuse the jury than if he tells them in plain language. “It is the duty of the prosecution to satisfy you of the prisoner's guilt”. What in effect this approach amounts to is that the greatest possible care should be taken by the Court in convicting an accused who is presumed to be innocent till the contrary is clearly established which burden is always in the accusatory system, on the prosecution. The mere fact that there is only a remote possibility in favour of the accused is itself sufficient to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. This then is the approach.” Likewise, in the case of Rang Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 454 , the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 22 has held as under : “22. The amount of doubt which the Court would entertain regarding the complicity of the appellants in this case is much more than the level of reasonable doubt. The amount of doubt which the Court would entertain regarding the complicity of the appellants in this case is much more than the level of reasonable doubt. We are aware that acquitting the accused in a case of this nature is not a matter of satisfaction for all concerned. At the same time we remind ourselves of the time-tested rule that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits. We really entertain doubt about the involvement of the appellants in the crime.” The trial Court on critical examination of testimony of informant P.W. 2, the father of the deceased and P.W. 1, one of the close relatives and after taking into consideration the deposition of the Investigating Officer P.W. 3 and the Doctor P.W. 4, as per the discussion made hereinabove has reached to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond all shadow of doubt. 17. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that while reaching to such conclusion, the learned trial Court has committed no error. 18. The argument which has been advanced on behalf of the State appellant that the testimony of P.W. 1 Md. Nasiruddin and P.W. 2 Saiyed Md. Akhter ought not to have been discarded but the question is that when the P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 themselves have been in contradictory picture and as such, has been brought on record by virtue of testimony of P.W. 4, the Doctor that the father, P.W. 2 has not claimed the dead body and the post mortem was conducted of an unidentified body. The same has been considered to be unnatural conduct of the father as also the other conducts, i.e., after coming out from the hidden place after half an hour, there was no endeavour from the father P.W. 2 and P.W. 1 to get it reported the incident to the concerned Police Station by disclosing the name of the deceased and has taken no endeavour even to know the whereabouts of the deceased. However, it is their own testimony, they have rushed to the Sadar Hospital and the Hospital where the post mortem was conducted. But the post mortem was conducted upon unknown person because none was there to identify the dead body. 19. This Court has posed the pin pointed question upon the learned A.P.P. that the prosecution has tried to made out a case of commission of murder by attracting the ingredients available under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and whether merely on the basis of the testimony of the father and the close relative, i.e., P.W. 2 and P.W. 1 respectively and being not corroborated by the Investigating Officer and the Doctor who had conducted the post mortem, the conviction can be attracted for commission of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. 20. Learned A.P.P. in all fairness has submitted that it cannot be. 21. He has explained the reason for establishing the conviction for the commission of offence under Section 302, the entire chain is required to be connected including the testimony of witnesses, herein, the interested witnesses with the testimony of the Investigating Officer and the Doctor who had conducted the post mortem. 22. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the ground upon which the instant appeal has been preferred appears not to be sustainable, accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. 23. This Court, after having answered the aforesaid ground and after going through the testimony of the witnesses and the finding recorded by the trial Court is of the view that there is no error in the judgment of acquittal as impugned. 24. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 25. Let this order be communicated to the trial Court and the Lower Court Records be returned back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.