JUDGMENT : Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. These four criminal appeals are arising out of the judgment and order of sentence dated 02.04.2014 and 03.04.2014 respectively passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge- III, Kaimur at Bhabua (hereinafter referred to as the “learned trial court”) in Sessions Trial No. 126/305 of 2013(State vs. Surendra Yadav and Others). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial court has been pleased to hold the appellants guilty for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) and Section 27 of the Arms Act and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they will further have to undergo imprisonment for one year. All the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 148 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Section 27 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months each. All the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. As per the prosecution story, on 23.07.2012, the informant along with his elder brother Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Munmun Singh was preparing his land in Bhankhanpur Mauja for ‘Ropani’ (sowing of paddy crops). With him, his co-villagers Kashi Singh (PW-4) and Ishwar Dayal Singh (PW-6) were also present. His brother Munmun Singh (deceased) was at a distance of 50 yards North to the canal (nahar) in the field. The informant (PW-7) along with PW-4 and PW-6 was near the canal (nahar). In the meantime, at 05:45 P.M., from the Bhankhanpur village side, the accused persons, namely, (1) Bablu Yadav, (2) Surendra Yadav, (3) Mahendra Yadav, (4) Ram Awadh Yadav @ Neta, (5) Dau Yadav, (6) Dharmendra Yadav and (7) Tun Tun Yadav along with three unknown persons came at Bhankhanpur fall and crossed the fall. He got suspicious. It is alleged that Ram Awadh Yadav and Dau Yadav were having big weapons in their arms and others have katta in their hands. It is further alleged that Surendra Yadav and Mahendra Yadav tried to catch hold of Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Munmum Singh, his brother tried to save himself. He got suspicious. It is alleged that Ram Awadh Yadav and Dau Yadav were having big weapons in their arms and others have katta in their hands. It is further alleged that Surendra Yadav and Mahendra Yadav tried to catch hold of Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Munmum Singh, his brother tried to save himself. At this moment, all the accused persons started firing indiscriminately as a result whereof Rakesh Kumar Singh sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. Thereafter, the accused persons went away shouting that they had taken revenge of the killing of Bindu Yadav. They went to the Bhankhanpur Kalisthan where they bowed down in Kali Mandir. The informant has stated in his fardbeyan that he and other persons working in the field came there and found that his brother had died. 3. The case was registered as Mohaniya P.S. Case No. 246 of 2012 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation, the police submitted a chargesheet whereupon cognizance was taken under the aforementioned Sections of IPC and Arms Act. On 13.03.2013, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions whereafter on 04.04.2013, charges were framed under all the abovementioned Sections under the IPC and the Arms Act. The appellants were read over and explained the charges in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution Witnesses 4. Prosecution examined altogether 14 witnesses. PW-1, Surendra Rai , PW-2, Kamlesh Kumar Singh are the witnesses of the inquest report (Exhibit ‘7’) marked with objection. They have proved their respective signatures on the inquest report marked as Exhibits ‘1’ and ‘2’ respectively. 5. PW-3, Satyendra Kumar Rai claims that he was driving the tractor of the deceased when the alleged occurrence took place, he claims himself an eye-witness. 6. PW-4, Kashi Singh @ Bahadur Singh, PW-5, Niranjan Kumar Rai and PW-6, Ishwar Dayal Singh are the other eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Shailendra Singh @ Banarsi Singh (PW-7) is the informant of the case and he is one of the brothers of the deceased. Dr. Anil Kumar Singh (PW-8) was posted at Sadar Hospital Bhabua as Medical Officer and he had stated that the postmortem was done in his presence by Dr. Vinod Kumar. Dr. Vinod Kumar has been examined as PW-9. Shailendra Singh @ Banarsi Singh (PW-7) is the informant of the case and he is one of the brothers of the deceased. Dr. Anil Kumar Singh (PW-8) was posted at Sadar Hospital Bhabua as Medical Officer and he had stated that the postmortem was done in his presence by Dr. Vinod Kumar. Dr. Vinod Kumar has been examined as PW-9. He has proved the signatures of the senior Medical Officers and his own signature as Exhibits ‘4’, ‘4/1’ and ‘4/2’ respectively. Bhudeo Das (PW-10) was the Investigating Officer (I.O.), Dhananjay Kumar Singh (PW-11) is the another I.O., Dr. Jaishankar Mishra (PW-12) conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Munmun Singh (deceased). He has proved the postmortem report as Exhibit ‘9’. 7. Paras Nath Singh (PW-13) and Saroj Kumar Singh (PW-14) are the seizure list witnesses. PW-13 has proved his signature on the seizure list marked as Exhibit ‘10’ and PW-14, has proved the whole seizure list marked as Exhibit ‘11’. 8. Defence has not examined any witness in this case. From the pattern of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, it would appear that the case of the defence is that the PWs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are not eye witnesses to the occurrence. They belong to a particular caste/community and they are inimical to the defence side. Bindu Yadav a resident of village Bhankhan had been killed in the year 2011 and in the said case, the brothers of PW-4 and PW-7 are accused. There is no independent witness to corroborate PW-3 to PW-7. The defence has also taken a plea that the place of occurrence in this case is not duly established by the prosecution. 9. The learned trial court has concluded that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the charges levelled against all the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 and 120B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act have been established. The trial court, however, found that the circumstance in which offences were committed and the seriousness and gravity of the same, the case does not come within the purview of the rarest of the rare cases. Submissions on behalf of the Appellants 10. The trial court, however, found that the circumstance in which offences were committed and the seriousness and gravity of the same, the case does not come within the purview of the rarest of the rare cases. Submissions on behalf of the Appellants 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted as under:- (i) The initial version of the prosecution story which was recorded in the form of Sanha which was numbered as 575 dated 23.07.2012 by the Investigating Agency has been suppressed and never been brought on the record. (ii) All the witnesses including inquest report witnesses are the agnates of the deceased and the informant, hence, they are related and interested witnesses in this case. (iii) The occurrence has taken place at a different place and in a different manner. (iv) The PWs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 who claim themselves to be eye witnesses have never actually seen the occurrence as all have given a different version of the entire occurrence. (v) There has been a delay in recording Section 161 CrPC statement of the witnesses. PW-3 has stated in paragraph ‘11’ of his deposition that his statement was not recorded before the police. PW- 4 has stated that he had given his statement before police at about 02-02:30 A.M. on the night of the occurrence. PW-5 who claimed to be an eye witness recorded his statement after a delay of two days despite his presence at the place of occurrence when the I.O. (PW- 10) had arrived. PW-6 has stated that his statement was recorded on the next day of the occurrence at 10:00 A.M. He admits in paragraph ‘8’ that he happens to be son-in-law of Munmun Singh. (vi) The allegation of the prosecution was of indiscriminate firing by the accused party but at the place of occurrence, PW-10 and PW-11 did not find any bullet shells or empty cartridges. PW-10 who was the I.O. of the case has stated that he did not find any bullet shell at the place of occurrence. (vii) The I.O. did not find any blood stained soil at the place of occurrence even though PW-2 has stated that he had fallen on the ground. (viii) The clothes of the deceased which was blood stained would have been a very important piece of evidence but the same was never seized. (vii) The I.O. did not find any blood stained soil at the place of occurrence even though PW-2 has stated that he had fallen on the ground. (viii) The clothes of the deceased which was blood stained would have been a very important piece of evidence but the same was never seized. The other witnesses who would have carried the deceased, their clothes would have also been stained by blood but there is no such cloth brought on the record. (ix) The Investigating Agency has not recovered any incriminating article from the place of occurrence. The witnesses are not consistent about the vehicle in which the deceased was taken from the so-called place of occurrence and there has been inconsistency about the time when the police had arrived at the place of occurrence. 11. PW-7, who is the brother of the deceased and informant of the case, claimed to have arrived at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence, he has showcased a very unnatural human conduct as he and other witnesses did not try to save the deceased nor had they taken the deceased to the hospital after the occurrence. They had not informed about the occurrence to the police. No FSL report has been brought on record with regard to bullet which was seized from the ‘ganji’ of the deceased. Submission on behalf of the State 12. On the other hand, learned Addl. PP for the State has opposed the present appeals. The submission is that the prosecution witnesses have proved the date and time of occurrence, the manner of occurrence and the place of occurrence and there is no contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. 13. It is further submitted that the motive behind the occurrence was that the murder of the brother of the accused had occurred in the village of the informant in the year 2011 and the brother of the informant is an accused in that case. Thus, the motive behind the occurrence has been categorically proved. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Addl. P.P. for the State as also on perusal of the records, this Court would proceed to take a view on the materials available on the records vis-a-vis findings of the learned trial Court. Analysis of the Evidences 15. Thus, the motive behind the occurrence has been categorically proved. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Addl. P.P. for the State as also on perusal of the records, this Court would proceed to take a view on the materials available on the records vis-a-vis findings of the learned trial Court. Analysis of the Evidences 15. PW-1 has stated that the inquest report was prepared in carbon copy and it was done in his presence at Badhar of Mauja Bhankhanpur. He proved his signature as Exhibit ‘1’. According to him, when the inquest report was being prepared, darkness was progressing. The inquest report was prepared on the bonnet of the tractor. According to this witness, the said land was not irrigated, though the neighboring lands had been irrigated. In paragraph ‘5’ of his cross-examination, he has stated that the deceased was related to him as gotiya. In paragraph ‘6’, he has stated that police had not recorded his statement about the alleged occurrence. 16. PW-2 is another witness of the inquest report. He has proved his signature on the said report as Exhibit ‘2’. In his cross- examination, he has stated that when the police inspected the dead body, at that time the dead body was kept at a ‘Dhaura’ which was 7- 8 feet in width. The deceased was wearing a ‘payjama’, ‘kurta’ and ‘ganji’. This witness had not seen any hole in the ‘ganji’, the ‘kurta’ was in a torn condition from the backside, he had not seen any hole in the ‘ganji’ and the ‘payjama’. The Dead body was loaded on tractor with clothes. 17. PW-3, Satyendra Kumar Rai has stated that he was driving the tractor in the field of the deceased, he had seen that 8-10 persons came from the direction of Nahar fall and moved towards the deceased. They were all from village Bhankhanpur, he identified Ram Awadh Yadav and Dau Yadav and he claimed that he can identify the others on seeing them. According to this witness, Ram Awadh Yadav and Dau Yadav started firing on the deceased, thereafter, other accused persons also fired. Munmun Singh fell down. PW-3 claims that he started fleeing away towards North and after running to a distance 100-150 feet, he stood at a medh and saw that the accused persons were fleeing away, they went to Kali Mandir in Bhankhanpur. Munmun Singh fell down. PW-3 claims that he started fleeing away towards North and after running to a distance 100-150 feet, he stood at a medh and saw that the accused persons were fleeing away, they went to Kali Mandir in Bhankhanpur. PW-3 reached at the place where Munmun Singh had fallen down. He has stated that Kashi Singh, Ishwar Dayal Singh, Niranjan Rai and Banarsi Singh, PWs-4, 5, 6 and 7 reached there whereas PW-7 has stated in his fardbeyan (Exhibit ‘5’) recorded by PW-11 that he was with his brother Munmun Singh and was getting prepared his land for ‘Ropani’. He found that Munmun Singh had died. 18. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had been engaged by Munmun Singh to work as driver on daily wages during the season only. He was working as driver of Munmun Singh for about 15 days prior to the alleged occurrence and was getting Rs. 250/- per day. He has stated that when the occurrence took place, the deceased was sitting at a distance of 100-150 yards South and he was siting alone. He had not shouted or raised hulla on hearing the firing. He came down from the tractor and started fleeing towards village Tekari in the North direction. He has stated that when he reached near the dead body, he found that the leg side of the body was lying inside the field and the top side was on Aar (medh) which was 6-8 inch width. When he reached at the place of occurrence, 3-4 persons reached there but no one was there from before. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he and Munmun Singh (deceased) are from the same caste. In paragraph ‘11’ of his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not made any statement before the police. 19. PW-4 has stated that on 23.07.2012 at about 5:45 P.M, he was going to visit his land in Bhankhanpur Mauja. With him, Ishwar Dayal (PW-6) and Banarsi Singh (PW-7) were also going. They saw from a distance of 150 feet before Bhankhanpur Nahar Fall that 10 persons were coming from Bhankhanpur side. They hurriedly crossed Nahar Fall, three person stood there at the bank of of the Nahar whereas seven persons started moving towards north side. All the persons were carrying arms. They saw from a distance of 150 feet before Bhankhanpur Nahar Fall that 10 persons were coming from Bhankhanpur side. They hurriedly crossed Nahar Fall, three person stood there at the bank of of the Nahar whereas seven persons started moving towards north side. All the persons were carrying arms. Ram Awadh Yadav and Dau Yadav were carrying big sized arms and others were carrying small arms. Big sized arm was rifle and the small size arms were katta. All the seven persons went near Munmun Singh(Deceased). This witness identified all the seven persons as Ram Awadh Yadav, Dau Yadav, Tuntun yadav, Bablu Yadav, Mahendra Yadav, Surendra Yadav and Dharmendra Yadav. He has stated that when Mahendra and Surendra tried to catch hold of Munmun Singh, Munmun Singh tried to save himself, at the same time Ram Awadh Yadav, Dau Yadav and Bablu Yadav fired from their respective weapons, thereafter, all other persons fired upon Munmun Singh, as a result whereof Munmun Singh fell down. PW-4 claims that they were afraid. It is further stated that the accused persons turn around the PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7 thereafter they stood standstill. After killing, the accused persons fled away towards the Western side of the Nahar fall shouting that they had taken revenge of killing of Bindu Yadav. In his cross-examination PW-4 has stated that his brother Sanjay Singh is in jail in connection with the murder of Bindu Yadav. Bindu Yadav is the co-villager of the accused persons but his relationship with the accused persons is not known. This witness has stated in his cross-examination that his village is situated towards West-North to the place of occurrence. Bhankhanpur is situated towards South and Bhankhanpur village is at one and half kilometers from the place of occurrence. He has further stated in paragraph ‘9’ of his cross-examination that he was standing at a distance of 100 meters from the place of occurrence. In paragraph ‘10’, he has stated that when he reached near the dead body of Munmun Singh, there was no person from Tekari or Bhankhanpur only after some time people from Tekari came, nobody had come from Bhankhanpur. In paragraph ‘10’, he has stated that when he reached near the dead body of Munmun Singh, there was no person from Tekari or Bhankhanpur only after some time people from Tekari came, nobody had come from Bhankhanpur. In paragraph ‘13’, he says that police came at the place of occurrence at about 6:45 P.M. The police had come with torch and petromax, police had taken away the dead body in a private car which was of the brother of the deceased. 20. It may be noticed at this stage that according to PW-3, police had inspected the dead body which was kept at ‘dhaura’ which was 7-8 ft in width and the dead body had been loaded on the tractor. The inquest report according to PW-3 was prepared on the bonnet of the tractor but PW-4 says that the dead body had been taken away by the private car of Chunchun Singh who is the brother of the deceased. The cross-examination of PW-4 further reveals that he is on inimical term with the accused persons. The accused are said to be the supporters of Bindu Yadav who had been murdered whereas PW-4 is the brother of one Sanjay Singh who is accused in the murder case of Bindu Yadav. 21. Niranjan Kumar Rai (PW-5) has also stated that he had gone to visit his land, he was returning and on way, he saw the occurrence. This witness has stated that he had seen ten persons crossing the Nahar Fall. He had identified some of them, namely, Ram Awadh Yadav, Dau Yadav, Surendra Yadav and Tun Tun Yadav. This witness has stated that those persons whom he named came to the Bahiyar near Munmun Singh (deceased). The remaining persons were standing at the Nahar. Thus, according to this witness, only four persons had gone near Munmun Singh (deceased). He has stated that Ram Awadh Yadav and Dau Yadav were carrying big arms and the remaining were carrying katta. He has stated that the accused fired from their rifle and thereafter from katta. PW-5 got afraid on seeing the occurrence and fled towards the South direction. He returned to the place where Munmun Singh was lying. He has narrated that the head side of the Munmun Singh was lying towards North and the leg side was towards South. The back was on the upper side and it was bleeding. PW-5 got afraid on seeing the occurrence and fled towards the South direction. He returned to the place where Munmun Singh was lying. He has narrated that the head side of the Munmun Singh was lying towards North and the leg side was towards South. The back was on the upper side and it was bleeding. In his cross-examination, he has stated in paragraph ‘9’ that apart from Munmun Singh, very few people were there in the Siwan, he had not seen anyone else. PW-5 says that after the occurrence, he had not reached first near Munmun Singh. When he reached there, he had seen 3-4 persons there. He has named Kashi Singh (PW-4), Shailendra Singh @ Banarsi Singh (PW-7) and Ishwar Dayal Singh(PW-6) who were there. PW-5 has not named presence of Satyendra Kumar Rai (PW-3). About the condition of the place of occurrence, PW-5 states that in the field where tractor was ploughing, there were water of about 6 inch. He states that no blood had fallen on the plot. Daroga had come after half and hour but he had not collected the soil. He has stated that Daroga came at about 07:30 P.M. and the dead body was lying at the same place. In paragraph ‘15’, this witness has stated that Daroga had come with a torch. He has further stated that his statements were recorded after two days. 22. It is, thus, evident from the evidence of PWs-3 and 5 that they are not consistent on material aspects. While PW-3 claims that the dead body was lying on the medh which was 6-8 inch in width, PW-4 states that the dead body had been lying at the ‘dhaura’ which was 6-8 feet wide where the police had come for inspection. Further, it is evident that PW-5 though claims to be an eye witness but his statement was recorded only after two days. 23. Ishwar Dayal Singh (PW-6) has though supported the prosecution case but in course of his cross-examination he has stated that he had no land in Siwan. He is, therefore, a chance witness. He is son-in-law of Munmun Singh. He has stated that at the time of occurrence the land of Munmun Singh was being irrigated through diesel engine and there was water on the plot. He is, therefore, a chance witness. He is son-in-law of Munmun Singh. He has stated that at the time of occurrence the land of Munmun Singh was being irrigated through diesel engine and there was water on the plot. In paragraph ‘13’, this witness has stated that he had seen the accused persons coming from Bhankhanpur side but he had not identified them. He identify them only when they reached nearer. He had not asked Munmun Singh(deceased) to flee away. PW-6 has further stated in his cross-examination that prior to the firing upon the deceased, he had not seen the weapons of the accused. He claims to have shouted once when the firing started. He has stated that accused persons were lased with rifles and katta. PW-6 claims that when he reached near the dead body, there was no other person. PW-6 has stated that public brought the dead body to Nahar then police took away the dead body on the vehicle of Munmun Singh. PW-6 had also gone to the police station with dead body but he states in paragraph ‘20’ that his statement was recorded by police in the Samudayik Bhawan at 10:00 A.M (Morning) after one day. In paragraph ‘21’, he has stated that he had not informed the police that accused persons had gone towards Bhankhan village. This witness was suggested that he was Gotiya of the deceased, therefore, he was deposing. 24. Shailendra Singh @ Banarsi Singh (PW-7) is the informant of the case and brother of the deceased. He was also going to Bhankhanpur Mauja with Ishwar Dayal Singh (PW-6) and Kashi Singh (PW-4). He has stated that Ram Awadh Yadav, Dau Yadav and Bablu Yadav had fired on Munmun Singh whereafter the accused persons started indiscriminate firing and thereafter they went towards Kali Asthan in Muaza Bhankhanpur where they got down and shouted that they had taken the revenge of the killing of Bindu Yadav. In course of his cross-examination, PW-7 has stated that in his land preparations were being made for ‘Ropani’ and water was being filled up with the aid of diesel engine but he claims that no work was going on in the other plots around his land. Here, he has suppressed his earlier version in the fardbeyan that he and other persons working in the field came there and found that his brother had died. Here, he has suppressed his earlier version in the fardbeyan that he and other persons working in the field came there and found that his brother had died. He heard sound of three firing whereafter he stopped being afraid of the same. Munmun Singh was at a distance of 100 yards towards East-South. After the assailants left, he reached near Munmun Singh and four minutes thereafter Satyendra Rai reached there. This witness has stated that at the time of occurrence the diesel engine was not in starting condition. In paragraph ‘24’ he states that Daroga had seen the place of occurrence in the light of the tractor. The dead body was brought on the tractor. No empty cartridge was seized from the place of occurrence. Daroga had not collected the ‘ganji’ from the body of the deceased. He cannot say as to what happened to the clothes of the deceased. In paragraph ‘23’, PW-7 has stated that the brother of the accused had been killed in the village of PW-7 and in the said case, his brother Chunchun Singh is an accused. The said murder had taken place in the year 2011. 25. From the evidence of PW-7 also it appears that he had seen the accused persons coming from the side of canal (nahar), he was at a distance of 100 yards from Munmun Singh (deceased) but he did not caution him or shout at him to flee away. According to this witness, no agriculture work was taking place around the plot where the occurrence took place which is wholly inconsistent with his earlier version in the fardbeyan and it seems highly improbable because it was the end of the month of July and it was high time for the farmers to prepare their land for kharif (paddy) crop. No independent witness has supported the case of the prosecution. Prior enmity with PW-7 is evident from the fact that his brother Chunchun Singh was an accused in the murder case of the brother of the accused. It is also evident from the statements of the witnesses that according to them, indiscriminate firing had taken place at the place of occurrence. The Police could not seize any empty cartridge. No blood stained soil or the cloth of the deceased could be seized. 26. Dr. Anil Kumar Singh, PW-8 has proved his signature on the postmortem report marked as Exhibit ‘4’. The Police could not seize any empty cartridge. No blood stained soil or the cloth of the deceased could be seized. 26. Dr. Anil Kumar Singh, PW-8 has proved his signature on the postmortem report marked as Exhibit ‘4’. He has stated that the postmortem was conducted in his presence and the postmortem report was prepared by Dr. Vinod Kumar, MO Sadar Hospital before him. Dr. Vinod Kumar, PW-9 has stated that on 24.07.2012, the dead body was brought for autopsy, a Medical Board was constituted to conduct the postmortem and the postmortem was conducted on 24.07.2012. He has explained the injuries found on the body of the deceased which has been noticed by the learned trial court in paragraph ‘17’ of the judgment as follows:- “On External examination (i) Rigor mortis present in all four limbs, eyes semi- open, mouth closed. Hair colour mixed. Built average neck rigidly present. Chin could not be flexed. (ii) Inverted margin, lacerated wound at 1 inch in diameter over occipital. (iii) Inverted and tatood margin lacerated wound of about 1 cm in diameter over about fifth entercostal space in right enlein anxillary line. (iv) Inverted margin lacerated wound about 1.5 cm in diameter over right side of medial to left scapular area. (v) Inverted and tatood margin lacerated wound of about 1 cm in diameter over left 2 nd 9c.s. just lateral to sternum. (vi) Inverted margin lacerated wound of about 1.5 cm in diameter over med of spinal bone. On dissections Stole bone over occipital are fractured and dark blood and clotted blood present in canial cavity in occipital area. A pellet/bullet like foreign body metallic substance recovered from the skull cavity in occipital area. Thorasic cavity full of dark blood and blood clots. Both Plura and lungs ascending lacerated. Heart is intact. Both chambers of heart were empty, stomach empty, liver lacerated, kidney and spleen intact and pale, intestine intact and pale, Urinary bladder contains about 20 m.l. urine.” 27. According to PW-9, the deceased had received three gunshots. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses saying that there were indiscriminate firing at the place of occurrence is not getting corroborated from the postmortem report of the deceased and from the evidence of the Doctor (PW-9) who has found that injury nos. According to PW-9, the deceased had received three gunshots. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses saying that there were indiscriminate firing at the place of occurrence is not getting corroborated from the postmortem report of the deceased and from the evidence of the Doctor (PW-9) who has found that injury nos. 1, 2 and 4 are the entry wounds on the dead body and the injuries have been caused from close range. 28. Bhudeo Das (PW-10) was the Officer-in-Charge of Mohania Police Station who had started investigation into the case. He has deposed that the fardebyan was recorded by Dhananjay Kumar Singh (PW-11) and in his presence, PW-11 had prepared the inquest report. In his evidence, he has stated that in course of investigation, he had inspected the place of occurrence. He had recorded the statement of Kashi Singh (PW-4) and Ishwar Dayal Singh (PW-6) had also recorded the statement of Satyendra Kumar Rai (PW-3) on 25.07.2012. He had recorded the statement of Niranjan Kumar Rai (PW-5). He had seized the front part of the bullet which was lying in the ‘ganji’ of the deceased and had sent the same to FSL, Patna for examination by order of learned C.J.M. In course of his cross-examination, he has stated in paragraph ‘6’ that he had received information about the occurrence on telephone that Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Munmun Singh had been murdered. He entered the same vide Sanha Diary No. 575 dated 23.07.2012 and for purpose of verification, he reached the village Bharkhar. There he got information that occurrence has taken place in Siwan of village Bharkhar. He saw that many people were going towards the place of occurrence at the said time. He stopped his vehicle at a distance of 50-60 meter saway from the pucci road. The place of occurrence is North to the said road. He has stated in paragraph ‘8’ that he had not gone with torch. He had inspected the place of occurrence at the time when there was sufficient light. He found that the plot had not been ploughed recently. He did not remember whether there was grass in the plot. He found that the dead body was lying there and on turning the dead body upside down on the back, he found that there was a firearm injury on the chest and there were two injuries from the front side. He did not remember whether there was grass in the plot. He found that the dead body was lying there and on turning the dead body upside down on the back, he found that there was a firearm injury on the chest and there were two injuries from the front side. One injury was on the right side and another was at the occipital region. In the middle of the back, blood was coming out. In paragraph ‘10’, he has stated that he had not seized the ‘kurta’, ‘ganji’ and ‘payjama’. In paragraph ‘11’, this witness has stated that he had not gone on the plot which was being ploughed. PW-10 has stated that the witnesses had told him that in the plot which Munmun Singh was ploughing, the accused persons reached and fired at him. No witness told him that the deceased had run to the plot of Hanuman Pandey where he was shot dead. In paragraph ‘12’ of his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not recorded in the case diary about the presence of blood at the place of occurrence. At the place of occurrence, he had not found any part of pellet and the witnesses did not tell him that from how much distance the accused persons had fired. In paragraph ‘14’ of his cross-examination, PW-10 has stated that no witness claimed that he was present with the deceased when he was shot at in the plot of Pandey Ji. He has stated that the front part of the pellet was sent to FSL but the FSL report had not been received. He was suggested that he had not examined any independent witness because no witness was ready to give a statement at the instance of the informant. 29. Dhananjay Singh (PW-11) was the Sub-Inspector of Police who has proved the formal FIR (Exhibit ‘6’). He had recorded the fardebyan of Banarasi Singh (PW-7). He had prepared the inquest report which has been proved as Exhibit ‘7’. In paragraph ‘6’ of his cross-examination, this witness has stated that there was mud at the place of occurrence and the dead body was lying on stomach side in said mud. He had not seized any material from the place of occurrence. 30. Dr. Jaishankar Mishra (PW-12) was the Medical Officer posted at Sadar Hospital, Bhabua on 24.07.2012. He has proved the post-mortem report as Exhibit ‘9’. He had not seized any material from the place of occurrence. 30. Dr. Jaishankar Mishra (PW-12) was the Medical Officer posted at Sadar Hospital, Bhabua on 24.07.2012. He has proved the post-mortem report as Exhibit ‘9’. In his cross- examination, he has stated that he did not remember that post- mortem report was written in his presence or not. Paras Nath Singh (PW-13) is the seizure list witness. Saroj Kumar Singh (PW-14) is also one of the seizure list witnesses. He was shown the bullet by police. PWs-12 and 13 are the formal witnesses who have proved the seizure list. Consideration 31. From the above-mentioned discussions, it is evident that PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 belong to a particular community and they belong to the rival group of the defence side. Bindu Yadav, who was in the group of the accused, had been killed in the year 2011 in the village of the informant (PW-7). These witnesses have come forward to show their presence near the place of occurrence at the relevant time. They are related as well as interested witnesses, therefore, their testimonies would be required to be examined with more circumspection and care. In a murder case, the testimony of an eye-witness, if found full of inconsistencies and lapses and lacking sufficient reliability, it would not be safe to convict the accused on the basis of such testimonies. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sekaran versus State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2024 SC 397 and in the case of Jaikam Khan versus State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2021) 13 SCC 716 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the prosecution witnesses were related/interested witnesses, non-examination of independent witnesses, despite their availability on the spot would be fatal to the prosecution. Further, in the case of Mallanna and Others versus State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 8 SCC 523 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that merely because witness are related or interested or not injured, their evidence cannot be discarded if they are natural witnesses and their testimonies are otherwise found to be credible, specially when they have supported the prosecution case in material particulars. 32. 32. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles of criminal jurisprudence, this Court finds that in this case, the prosecution witnesses are not consistent on many aspect of the matter, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be safe to convict the appellants in the present case. To support this view, this Court would point out that these prosecution witnesses have stated they had seen the accused persons coming from the side of Bhankhan Village and they were about ten persons who crossed the Nahar fall (canal) and moved towards the deceased. Ram Awadh Yadav and Dau Yadav were carrying rifles but from the testimonies of the witnesses, it would appear that none of them cautioned the deceased and tried to flee away to save themselves. This cannot be said to be a natural conduct of the prosecution witnesses. Their statement that they saw the alleged occurrence from a distance of 100-150 yards would not inspire confidence of this Court. It cannot be a natural conduct of the witnesses that on finding about ten persons armed with weapons and firearms like rifle which could have targeted, the witnesses standing at a distance of 100-150 yards, they would keep standing to see the occurrence. It is not their case that they had concealed themselves at any safe place and from there, they had seen the occurrence. In his fardbeyan, PW-7 has stated that he was in the field with his brother Munmun Singh (deceased) getting prepared his field for ‘Ropani’ but later on, he changed his version. PW-7 did not say about presence of PW-3 and driving of tractor by PW-3. 33. PW-3 claims that he had been driving the tractor of the deceased and he was ploughing the field. According to him, he had not shouted or raised hulla on hearing of firing and ran towards the village Tekari in North direction but he did not go there. According to this witness, he had not made any statement before the police. 34. This Court finds from the evidence of PW-3 to PW-7 that all of them have stated that indiscriminate firing were done by at least seven accused persons who had crossed over the Nahar fall (canal) and came to the deceased at the place of occurrence. According to this witness, he had not made any statement before the police. 34. This Court finds from the evidence of PW-3 to PW-7 that all of them have stated that indiscriminate firing were done by at least seven accused persons who had crossed over the Nahar fall (canal) and came to the deceased at the place of occurrence. The eye witnesses are not consistent as to the number of persons who had come to the deceased and some of the witnesses have stated that out of ten, three accused stayed at the bank of Nahar fall whereas seven moved towards the deceased but PW-3 had stated that he had seen 8-10 persons moving towards the deceased. 35. It is also evident that according to the prosecution witnesses, when they went near the deceased after the occurrence, they found that the head side of the deceased was lying on Aar (medh) which was 6-8 inch in width and the leg side of the body was lying inside the field. PW-3 has, however, stated that the police had inspected the dead body which was kept at ‘dhaura’ which was 7-8 feet in width and the dead body had been loaded on the tractor. The inquest report, according to him, was prepared on the bonnet of the tractor. Therefore, this Court finds that when police came, the dead body had already been shifted from the alleged place of occurrence i.e. the field where Munmun Singh (deceased) was present and had been shot dead. The dead body had been brought to ‘dhaura’ which is a wider place near the road. PW-4, who is another eyewitness, states that the dead body had been taken away by a private car of Chunchun Singh and Police had come with torch and petromax whereas the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station (PW-10) has stated that he had stopped his vehicle at a distance of 50-60 meters from the pakki road. The place of occurrence is not the said road and he had not gone with torch. According to him, he had inspected the place of occurrence at the time when there was sufficient light and he found that the plot had not been ploughed recently. PW-10 says that the dead body was lying there. The place of occurrence is not the said road and he had not gone with torch. According to him, he had inspected the place of occurrence at the time when there was sufficient light and he found that the plot had not been ploughed recently. PW-10 says that the dead body was lying there. Thus, the statement of PW-4 that the Police had come with torch and petromax at about 6:45 pm would lead this Court to take a view that by the time Police had arrived, the darkness has started prevailing and the dead body had already been shifted to ‘dhaura’ which was a wider place near the pakki road. That is why PW-10 has stated in paragraph ‘11’ of his evidence that he had not gone on the plot which was being ploughed. Though PW-10 stated that the witnesses had told him that in the plot which Munmun Singh was ploughing the accused persons reached and fired at him. But it is evident that PW-10 had not gone on the said plot. 36. It is further found that the prosecution witnesses have stated that when two of the accused persons tried to catch hold of the deceased, he tried to save himself and ran to the plot of Hanuman Pandey where he was shot dead. But PW-10 has stated that no witness told him that the deceased had ran to the plot of Hanuman Pandey where he was shot dead. Further, PW-10 did not find any part of pillet and the witnesses did not tell him that from how much distance the accused persons had fired. 37. PW-11 has stated that there was mud at the place of occurrence and the dead body was lying from the stomach side in the said mud, therefore, the testimony of PW-10 and PW-11, who are the Police officers, are highly inconsistent and raises strong doubt about the veracity of their statements with the regard to the place of occurrence. 38. PW-10 and PW-11 did not find any part of pellet/bullet and the front part of the bullet which he claims to have seized from the ‘ganji’ of the deceased could not be proved in course of trial. According to PW-10, he had sent the bullet to the FSL but the report had not been received. 38. PW-10 and PW-11 did not find any part of pellet/bullet and the front part of the bullet which he claims to have seized from the ‘ganji’ of the deceased could not be proved in course of trial. According to PW-10, he had sent the bullet to the FSL but the report had not been received. Further, PW-10 and PW-11 did not examine any independent witness even though some of the witnesses have stated that at some distance some other persons were also ploughing their field. It must be noticed that 23 rd July is the peak season of sowing paddy crops and most of the times, there would be heavy rains during this period, if not, then the farmers would store water through diesel engine and after ploughing the field, they would sow the paddy crops. This is the season when all the farmers are in hurry to sow their crops at the earliest but no independent witness has been found by the I.O. in this case. 39. The informant (PW-7) has himself stated that the land was being prepared for ‘ropni’ and the water was being filled up with the aid of diesel engine but he claims that no work was going on in the other plots around his land which this Court finds difficult to believe. Contrary to his statement, PW-10 has stated that the witnesses told him that the plot which the Munmun Singh was ploughing, the accused persons reached and fired at him. PW-11 says that there was mud at the place of occurrence, therefore, it again becomes difficult to believe that the accused persons would enter into the mud to catch hold of the deceased and then kill him. The prosecution case of indiscriminate firing has not been corroborated by any material particulars as no part of any pellet/bullet was seized by police. 40. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the appellants on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who are related, inimical and interested witnesses in this case would not be safe. The learned trial court has not considered the aforesaid aspects of the matter. This Court therefore, sets aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and allows all the appeals. The appellants are acquitted of the charges giving them benefit of doubt. 41. Appellants of Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos. The learned trial court has not considered the aforesaid aspects of the matter. This Court therefore, sets aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and allows all the appeals. The appellants are acquitted of the charges giving them benefit of doubt. 41. Appellants of Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos. 458 of 2014, 500 of 2014 and 510 of 2014 are on bail. They are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 42. So far as Appellant, namely, Ram Awadh Yadav of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 516 of 2014 is concerned, he is reported to be in custody, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.