JUDGMENT : CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J. 1. The appellants have preferred these appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 30.06.2015 and the order of sentence dated 04.07.2015 passed by the learned ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhagalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 342 of 2014/T.R. No. 527 of 2014 arising out of Bhagalpur Kotwali (Vishwavidalaya) P.S. Case No. 675 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Piko Yadav the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 611 of 2015 Conviction under Section Sentence Imprisonment Fine (Rs.) In default of fine Under Section 302/34, of the IPC Imprisonment for life 10,000/- SI for one year Under Section 27 of the Arms Act Simple Imprisonment for 3 years 2,000/- SI for Five Months Raju Yadav @ Rajesh the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 620 of 2015 Under Section 302/34, of the IPC Imprisonment for life 10,000/- SI for one year Under Section 27 of the Arms Act Simple Imprisonment for 3 years 2,000/- SI for Five Months Sikandar Yadav the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 747 of 2015 Under Section 302/34, of the IPC Imprisonment for life 10,000/- SI for one year Under Section 27 of the Arms Act Simple Imprisonment for 3 years 2,000/- SI for Five Months 2. The fardbeyan of the wife of the deceased Rani Devi recorded by Station House Officer of Lalmatia Police Station on 11.11.2018 at about 7:30 am at the house of the deceased is the basis for the registration of Bhagalpur Kotwali (Vishwavidalaya) P.S. Case No. 675 of 2013 at 10:30 am on the said date. The informant alleged in her fardbeyan that on the date of occurrence at about 5:00 am when she and her husband Ramdev Yadav (the deceased), as usual, opened the door of their house, the accused persons, namely (i) Raja Yadav, (ii) Ranjit Yadav (iii) Piko Yadav all sons of Sikandar Yadav, (iv) Sikandar Yadav and Raju Yadav (Son-in-law of Sikandar Yadav) who were waiting outside to ambush suddenly entered into their house variously armed with deadly weapons and started firing upon her husband Ramdev Yadav (the deceased), consequent upon which he died on the spot. After committing the offence the accused persons left the place issuing threats. After committing the offence the accused persons left the place issuing threats. Upon hearing the sound of gunshots, the informant’s son Bikram Yadav and Lalu Yadav also came who saw the accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence after having committed the crime. 3. The police upon completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. 4. It is noteworthy that the said Bhagalpur Kotwali (Vishwavidalaya) P.S. Case No. 675 of 2013 gave rise to two trials i.e. Sessions Trial No. 342 of 2014/T.R. No. 527 of 2014, against the accused persons Raju Yadav, Sikandar Yadav and Piko Yadav and, Sessions Trial No. 448 of 2015/Trial No. 213 of 2018 against the accused Raja Yadav. Co-accused Ranjit Yadav remained elusive at the investigation and the trial. Whereas, by the impugned judgment in the present set of appeals, the appellants came to be convicted by the trial court for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, in the other trial i.e. Trial No. 213 of 2018 co-accused Raja Yadav has been acquitted of the charge by a judgment and order dated 20.05.2019 passed by learned 7th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 448 of 2015/2013/2018. An appeal has been preferred by the informant against acquittal of Raja Yadav giving rise to Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 448 of 2015. Though, all these appeals and the said Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 448 of 2018 have been heard together all of which have arisen out of the same Kotwali (Vishwavidalaya) P.S. Case No. 675 of 2013, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 849 of 2019 is being disposed of by a separate judgment. 5. Be that as it may, in the present case, the trial court framed charges for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The accused persons pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly they were put on trial. 6. 5. Be that as it may, in the present case, the trial court framed charges for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The accused persons pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly they were put on trial. 6. At the trial, the prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses which included widow of the deceased i.e. the informant Rani Devi (PW-7), brother of the deceased, Sahdeo Yadav (PW-1), sons of the deceased Lalu Yadav (PW-2) and Bikram Yadav (PW-4), nephew of the deceased and son of PW-1 namely Mithun Yadav (PW-3). The daughter of the deceased Chanda Kumari deposed as PW-6. It is worth noticing that two sons of the deceased, his daughter, his brother, the brother’s son and his wife claimed to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence at the trial. The Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination was examined as PW-5, the Station House Officer who had recorded the informant’s fardbeyan came to be examined as PW-8. The Investigating Officer to whom the investigation was handed over soon after the registration of the FIR namely, Rajesh Kumar was examined as PW-9. Amarnath Tiwari (PW-10) was posted as Inspector of police at Bhagalpur police station who proved the seizure list and the inquest report. Another police officer of Tilkamanjhi police station namely, Ranjan Kumar came to be examined as PW-11, who also proved the seizure list and the inquest report. The prosecution also adduced exhibited documentary evidence at the trial which were marked as exhibits read as under: S. No. Document By whom Exhibit No. 1 Fardbeyan PW-1 1 2 Signature on the fardbeyan PW-2 1/1 3 Signature on the fardbeyan PW-3 1/2 4 Signature on the fardbeyan PW-8 1/3 to 1/6 5 Signature on the Search-cum-Seizure list PW-2 2 6 Signature on the Search-cum- Seizure list PW-9 2/1 7 Post mortem report PW-5 3 8 Signature of the Officer-In-Charge of the FIR PW-8 4 9 Handwriting of the FIR PW-9 4/1 10 Charge-sheet PW-9 5 11 Inquest Report PW-9 6 12 Handwriting of inquest PW-11 6/1 7. Upon the closure of the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses, the appellants were questioned by the Court under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The appellants answered the questions in negative. Upon the closure of the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses, the appellants were questioned by the Court under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The appellants answered the questions in negative. We deem it proper to reproduce at this juncture, the examination of the appellants facing trial, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. keeping in mind the submissions which have been advanced on behalf of the appellants asserting improper compliance of the true requirement of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. ^^jktw ;kno Á’u%& vkius xokgksa dk C;ku lquk gS\ mRrj%& th gkaA Á'u% vkids fo:) lk{; gS fd fnukad 11-11-2013 dks djhc 5%00 cts lqcg lkfdu&lkgscxat] Fkkuk&fo'ofo|ky; vksŒihŒ ftyk&Hkkxyiqj esa jkenso ;kno ds ?kj esa ?kqldj ,d jk; gksdj gfFk;kj ls yS'k gksdj jkenso ;kno dks xksyh ekjdj gR;k dj fn;s Fks] D;k dguk gS\ mRrj%& ughaA Á'u%& lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ mRrj%& eSa funksZ"k gwaA fldUnj ;kno Á’u%& vkius xokgksa dk C;ku lquk gS\ mRrj%& th gkaA Á'u% vkids fo:) lk{; gS fd fnukad 11-11-2013 dks djhc 5%00 cts lqcg lkfdu&lkgscxat] Fkkuk&fo'ofo|ky; vksŒihŒ ftyk&Hkkxyiqj esa jkenso ;kno ds ?kj esa ?kqldj ,d jk; gksdj gfFk;kj ls yS'k gksdj jkenso ;kno dks xksyh ekjdj gR;k dj fn;s Fks] D;k dguk gS\ mRrj%& ughaA Á'u%& lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ mRrj%& eSa funksZ"k gwaA fidks ;kno Á’u%& vkius xokgksa dk C;ku lquk gS\ mÙkj%& th gkaA Á'u%& vkids fo:) lk{; gS fd fnukad 11-11-2013 dks djhc 5%00 cts lqcg lkfdu&lkgscxat] Fkkuk&fo'ofo|ky; vksŒihŒ ftyk&Hkkxyiqj esa jkenso ;kno ds ?kj esa ?kqldj ,d jk; gksdj gfFk;kj ls yS'k gksdj jkenso ;kno dks xksyh ekjdj gR;k dj fn;s Fks] D;k dguk gS\ mÙkj%& ughaA Á'u%& lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ mÙkj%& eSa funksZ"k gwaA** 8. The defence got examined on its behalf seven defence witnesses. The trial court, after having analyzed the evidence of the prosecution and defence witnesses, has held the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and has sentenced them accordingly to life imprisonment with fine as has been noted at the outset. 9. We have heard Mr. Surendra Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 611 of 2015 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 747 of 2015. Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 620 of 2015. 9. We have heard Mr. Surendra Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 611 of 2015 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 747 of 2015. Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 620 of 2015. 10. Mr. Surendra Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the prosecution’s witnesses who have claimed themselves to be the eyewitnesses are not trustworthy. Given the place of alleged occurrence i.e. the room where the dead body was found lying in the background of the description of the place of occurrence suggested by the prosecution witnesses in their evidence, it was impossible for the eye witnesses to have seen the occurrence, he contends. He has submitted that all the eyewitnesses have introduced improvements in the prosecution’s case while deposing at the trial. Referring to the deposition of the Investigating Officer (PW-9), he has submitted that the witnesses for the first time at the trial deposed that they had either seen the occurrence being committed by these appellants or that the deceased having disclosed them about the occurrence having been caused by these appellants, though such facts were not disclosed to him (the I.O.) during the course of investigation. He has further argued that though it is the specific case of the prosecution that multiple shots were fired at the deceased leading to his death in the room where his dead body was found, no bloodstained clothes or bloodstained plaster or other articles were seized by the police. He has also argued that according to the prosecution’s case, the occurrence had taken place on 11.11.2013 at about 5:00 am when it was still dark. No source of light for identification of these appellants has been disclosed and, therefore, evidence of witnesses claiming to be the eye witnesses deserve to be disbelieved. In support of his submission, he has relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in case of Ashoksinh Jayendra Sinha vs. State of Gujarat, (2019) 6 SCC 535 and Ram Narain Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1727 . 11. In support of his submission, he has relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in case of Ashoksinh Jayendra Sinha vs. State of Gujarat, (2019) 6 SCC 535 and Ram Narain Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1727 . 11. He had added that the prosecution has suppressed the initial version of the reporting of the occurrence for the reason that the fardbeyan was recorded by Gyan Bharti (PW-8) who was posted as officer In-charge of Lalmatia O.P. under Nathnagar police station whereas the place of occurrence falls under Bhagalpur Kotwali (Vishwavidalaya) police station. Further, the prosecution has apparently suppressed the facts as to what time and of what nature of the information received was by the police pursuant to which PW-8 had reached the house of the deceased after the occurrence and recorded fardbeyan of PW-7. He contends that suppression on the part of the prosecution of the nature of the initial information received by the police pursuant to which the police reached the place of occurrence is fatal to the prosecution's case. 12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State per contra has submitted that it is manifest from the evidence of PW-7, the informant, that the occurrence had taken place in the room where they lived, in the house premises. He contends that she is the eyewitness to the occurrence who has fully supported the prosecution’s case. He has further argued that the prosecution’s witnesses have deposed at the trial that the deceased was alive for nearly 5 to 10 minutes after the occurrence and had disclosed to the witnesses as to who had killed him and therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court. He has argued that the evidence of the witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence which is also a reason why this Court may decline to interfere with the impugned finding of the trial court. 13. We have perused the impugned judgment and order of the trial court as well as the lower court’s record and we have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, as noted above. 13. We have perused the impugned judgment and order of the trial court as well as the lower court’s record and we have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, as noted above. In the facts and circumstances of the present case we deem it proper, after having noticed the prosecution’s case as disclosed in the fardbeyan of PW-6 to refer to the evidence of PW-8 who had recorded the fardbeyan, first. 14. It is manifest from her evidence, which fact is not in dispute, that the place of occurrence was within the territorial jurisdiction of Bhagalpur Kotwali (Viswavidyalya) police station whereas PW-8 was posted at Lalmatia O.P. under Nathnagar police station which has an adjoining territorial jurisdiction. In her evidence, she deposed that she had reached the place of occurrence on the telephonic instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Rajesh Kumar and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mrs. Veena Kumari. She also deposed that Kotwali (Vishwavidalaya) police station was 0.5-1 kilometer from the place of occurrence. According to her when she reached the place of occurence, no other police officer had reached, however, after few seconds other police officers also reached. She further deposed that when she was recording the fardbeyan of PW-7, other persons namely Lalu Yadav (PW-2), Mithun Yadav (PW-3) and Sahdeo Yadav (PW-1) were present. Evidence of PW-10 who was posted as the officer in-charge of the police station on the date of occurrence is of great significance. He deposed that Sahibganj mohalla, where the occurrence had taken place was within the jurisdiction of Viswavidyalya sub-police station under Kotwali police station, Bhagalpur. Distance from the place of occurrence to Vishwavidalaya sub-police station was 1/2-3/4 kilometers and Kotwali police station, 2 to 2½ kilometers. Responding to a query as to why the fardbeyan was recorded by Gyan Bharti who was not concerned with Kotwali police station, he expressed his inability to explain the reason. 15. PW-11 was posted as Officer-in-charge of one Habibpur Police Station who deposed in his evidence that he had prepared the search-cum-seizure list and the inquest report. He also deposed that he had received the information at about 7:00 am from the superior officials to the effect that because of the occurrence of murder under Kotwali (Vishwavidalaya) Police Station law and order problem had arisen and accordingly he was directed by his superior official to reach there. He also deposed that he had received the information at about 7:00 am from the superior officials to the effect that because of the occurrence of murder under Kotwali (Vishwavidalaya) Police Station law and order problem had arisen and accordingly he was directed by his superior official to reach there. He was not able to disclose the name of the senior officer who had asked him to proceed to the place of occurrence. In his cross-examination, he also deposed that Habibpur Police Station and Kotwali (Vishwavidalaya) Police Station were independent of each other. It is evident from his evidence that he had to proceed to the place of occurrence under the instructions of his senior police officials to contain the law and order problem arising out of the murder. It has remained a mystery, however, as to who had received the information regarding the occurrence. 16. It is not difficult thus, to infer from the evidence of PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11 that the prosecution did not bring on record the foremost version of the occurrence which was reported to the police consequent upon which the police had reached to the place of occurrence more than 2½ hours after the occurrence had taken place, though there was hardly any distance The distance of Kotwali (Vishwavidalaya) P.S. (1/2 to 3/4 kilometers) from the place of occurrence. Further, PW-10 who was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Kotwali (Vishwavidalaya) Police Station deposed that no bloodstained article, soil or plaster was seized in his presence. He proved the inquest report (Exhibit-6) according to which the clothes which the deceased was wearing were soaked with blood. The clothes were, however, not seized by the Police Officials. 17. After having noticed the evidence of PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11 the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses, namely, PW-7 the wife of the deceased and the informant; PW-2 and PW4, sons of the deceased; PW-6, the daughter of the deceased; PW-1, brother of the deceased and PW-3, nephew of the deceased in the court’s opinion need to be read with the evidence of the Investigating Officer in the wake of the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that they attempted to prove and introduce improvements in the case at the stage of the trial. 18. 18. The informant PW-7, the wife of the deceased deposed that the deceased and she were there in the same room and the moment she opened the door of the room, the accused persons Raja, Ranjeet, Piko and Sikandar entered into the room and started firing. Two shots hit the deceased and one hit at the floor of the room. She deposed that after sustaining fire arm injuries, the deceased was alive for five minutes. In the meanwhile, Lalu Yadav (PW-2), Sahdeo Yadav (PW-1) and Mithun Yadav (PW-3) came, to whom the deceased disclosed that the accused persons, namely, Raja, Ranjeet, Piku and Sikandar had shot at him. It is important to note that PW-1 in his examination-in-chief while supporting the case of the prosecution deposed that after the deceased sustained the injuries he went to him when he was alive, and told him that the accused persons had shot at him. 10 to 15 minutes thereafter he died. PW-3, the son of PW-1 and nephew of the deceased deposed that soon after hearing the sound of firing when he reached in the room of the informant he found all the accused persons shooting at the deceased. The deceased was alive for five minutes. 19. PW-4, another son of the deceased claimed to be an eye witness of having seen the accused persons shooting at the deceased. 20. PW-6, fifteen years old daughter of the deceased also deposed at the trial that after hearing the clamps of the footsteps she had came out of her room when she saw the accused persons shooting at her father. When she reached near the deceased, the deceased told her that the accused persons had shot at him. 21. It is evident from the depositions of these prosecution’s witnesses that according to them the deceased was alive after having sustained fire arm injuries for 5 to 15 minutes and had disclosed to the witnesses the names of the accused persons who had shot at him. The Investing Officer in his deposition has mentioned that Lalu Yadav (PW-2) had not disclosed to him that he had seen the accused persons entering into the house and shooting at the deceased and that the deceased had told him after having sustained injuries that the accused persons including these appellants had shot at him. The Investing Officer in his deposition has mentioned that Lalu Yadav (PW-2) had not disclosed to him that he had seen the accused persons entering into the house and shooting at the deceased and that the deceased had told him after having sustained injuries that the accused persons including these appellants had shot at him. Similarly, in the cross-examination the I.O. deposed that PW-6 had never stated during the course of investigation that when she reached near the deceased, soon after having sustained the fire arm injuries, the deceased had disclosed the names of the persons who had shot at him. The I.O. also deposed that informant (PW-7) had not stated during the course of investigation that the deceased was alive for five minutes after having sustained the injuries thereafter Sahdeo Yadav (PW-1) and Mithun Yadav (PW-3) had come to him. The deceased had disclosed the names of the persons who had shot at him. 22. From the evidence of these prosecution’s witnesses and the Investigating Officer, we find substance in submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution’s witnesses have introduced improvements in the prosecution’s case by stating at the trial that the deceased soon before his death had disclosed to them the names of the accused persons who had shot at him, which fact for the first time came at the stage of the trial and was not disclosed to the police. From the evidence of I.O. we find that the evidence of these witnesses at the trial is materially at variance with their statements recorded by I.O. during investigation. Further, PW-1 in his cross-examination deposed in the trial that the deceased was a CPI (ML) leader. PW2, PW-3, and PW-4 also endorsed in their deposition that the deceased was a CPI (ML) leader. They, however, denied the suggestion that the deceased had animosity with so many persons because of his association with CPI (ML) and that was the reason why he was killed in his political rivalry. 23. An argument has been advanced by Mr. PW2, PW-3, and PW-4 also endorsed in their deposition that the deceased was a CPI (ML) leader. They, however, denied the suggestion that the deceased had animosity with so many persons because of his association with CPI (ML) and that was the reason why he was killed in his political rivalry. 23. An argument has been advanced by Mr. Surendra Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, that taking into account the description of the House and the location of the room, in the said house, the body of the deceased must have obstructed the vision of PW-7, at the time of occurrence as she could not have had the opportunity to see the persons standing in the corridor of the house. He has submitted that according to the evidence of the Investigating Officer, it was a doubled storeyed house where the occurrence had taken place in one of the rooms on the ground floor. The room in which the deceased was found dead was second of the three rooms on the left-side having dimension 10 x 10 ft. On the right-side, also there were three rooms in between the rooms located on the left-side and on the right there was a narrow corridor. We find merit in this submission after having appreciated the evidence of the I.O. and the prosecution witnesses disclosing description of the house and room where the occurrence according to the prosecution, had taken place. 24. Further, the Investigating Officer deposed that PW7, the informant, had told him that the deceased after rising in the morning had taken water from the hand-pump after opening the grill of the main entrance of the house and had thereafter, gone out to ease himself from the rear gate of the house. On return, the deceased was sitting on the ground in the room after shutting the door. Apparently, thus, the informant had told the Investigating Officer that before the deceased was shot dead in the room, he had gone out of the house for fetching water from the hand pump and had thereafter, had gone to ease himself. On return, the deceased was sitting on the ground in the room after shutting the door. Apparently, thus, the informant had told the Investigating Officer that before the deceased was shot dead in the room, he had gone out of the house for fetching water from the hand pump and had thereafter, had gone to ease himself. The case of the prosecution that the moment, the informant and the deceased opened the room, the accused persons, who had hidden themselves there before, entered into the room and killed the deceased, become doubtful for the reason that they had the opportunity to kill him when he was alone, outside the house. It is the consistent case of the prosecution as is evident from the deposition of the witnesses that there was a title suit pending between the deceased and the appellant Sikander Yadav. The appellant Piko Yadav is the son of Sikander Yadav whereas, appellant Raju Yadav is son-in-law of said Sikander Yadav. It is thus, the case of the prosecution that the appellant Sikander Yadav with his son Piko Yadav and son-in-law Raju Yadav committed the crime because of the pending land dispute. It has also come in evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses (e.g. Lalu Yadav, PW-2) that the deceased and the appellant Sikander Yadav were co-brothers. The prosecution’s witnesses have, however, denied the suggestion put by the defence that the accused persons were falsely implicated because of the land dispute with the deceased Ramdev Yadav who was in fact killed by unknown criminals because of his association with terrorists group of CPI(ML). 25. On close scrutiny of the evidence addueced at the trial we are of the considered opinion, based on the prosecution’s witnesses who claimed to be the eye-witnesses are not truthful, there being manifest contradictions between what they had stated to the police during the course of investigation and what they had deposed at the trial. In the aforesaid background, the false implication of these appellants because of land dispute cannot be ruled out. 26. We have quoted hereinabove, the questions which were put to the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. It is manifest that the questions were put to the appellants in a casual and mechanical manner and all the circumstances were not duly put forth explained by the trial court to the persons facing the trial. 27. 26. We have quoted hereinabove, the questions which were put to the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. It is manifest that the questions were put to the appellants in a casual and mechanical manner and all the circumstances were not duly put forth explained by the trial court to the persons facing the trial. 27. Further, the failure on the part of the prosecution to seize bloodstained plaster, soil and clothes from the place of occurrence i.e. the room, is a major lacunae to conclusively establish the place of occurrence. Furthermore, as has been noticed above, we find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution withheld the initial version of the case, inasmuch as, the prosecution failed to clearly state as to what information was received by the police and through whom which made PW-8, a police officer of Lalmatia O.P. under Nathnagar Police Station to reach the place of occurrence at about 7:30 am which Police Station did not have the territorial jurisdiction over the place of occurrence and why no information was received by the concerned Kotwali (Viswavidalaya) Police Station, 1/2 Km away from the place of occurrence. 28. Cumulative effect of all these circumstances taken together, create considerable doubt over the prosecution’s case that these appellants had killed the deceased in the manner and at the place as asserted by the prosecution’s witnesses. The prosecution, in our considered opinion, could not be said to have established the charge against these appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. We do not consider it safe to uphold the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court as in our opinion the appellants deserve to be given benefit of doubt. 29. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 30.06.2015 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 342/14/TR No. 527/15 for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, is hereby, set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the said charges by giving them benefit of doubt. Consequently, the impugned order of punishment dated 04.07.2015 passed by the learned trial court is also set aside. 29. All these appeals are accordingly, allowed. 30. The appellants are in custody. Let them be released forthwith if not required in any other case.