JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Above appellants have preferred the above captioned appeals assailing their conviction and sentence dated 07.05.2022 / 12.05.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No. 860 of 2013(A), arising out of Karra P.S. Case No.64 of 2011 (G.R. Case No.381 of 2011) registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act for committing murder of one Manoj Mahto, wherein, the appellant – Jetha Kachhap was held guilty for committing offences under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and appellant – Sanatan Swansi was held guilty for committing offence under Sections 302 / 34 of I.P.C. and both the appellants have been awarded sentence of imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. One Lakh for the offence punishable under sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant – Jetha Kachhap has been further sentenced to R.I. for five years along with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently with default stipulation in case of non-payment of fine. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The prosecution story as depicted in the F.I.R. lodged on the basis of fardbeyan of one Bigal Mahto (P.W.-2) recorded on 08.10.2011 at about 19:30 hours at Sawra Bazar near Yatri Shed stating therein that on 08.10.2011 at about 2:00 P.M., the informant went to Sawra Bazar for selling vegetables and installed his shop near the Yatri Shed. It is further alleged that at about 4:00 P.M., informant's son Manoj Mahto (deceased) and Jitendra Mahto (P.W.-6) arrived at the shop, meanwhile, one Pancham Mahto and one Munda boy of Village – Sawra approached there and asked to Manoj to enjoy Hariya, to which he declined, but they forcibly took Manoj with them and on suspicion, informant also followed them towards the Yatri Shed protesting the taking away of his son Manoj. It is further alleged that when the informant’s son along with aforesaid persons reached near the Yatri Shed, meanwhile, Jetha Kachhap (appellant in Cr.A.(D.B.) No. 682/2022), Jagran Munda, Sanatan Swansi (appellant in Cr.A.(D.B.) No. 570/2022) and two other unknown extremists also came out from a ditch and all of them surrounded Manoj and started firing over him. As a result of which, informant’s son fell down. The informant along with his younger son, Jitendra Mahto (P.W.-6) got scared and fled away towards their home. Thereafter, the informant informed the matter to police through telephonic message and after arrival of police at the place of occurrence, the informant again went to the place of occurrence. The informant has further disclosed that the motive behind the occurrence is that there was land dispute between informant and “fhufhera” brother of Pancham Mahto namely, Ramdhan Mahto and Somra Mahto, who have close contact with PLFI extremists. It is alleged that in the last week, Sunil Mahto, Son of Ramdhan Mahto and Prakash Mahto, Son of Somra Mahto had threatened to kill him, if he will go over the disputed land. Hence, all the accused persons under deep rooted conspiracy with the help of members of PLFI have killed the son of the informant by shooting. 3. On the basis of above informantion, Karra P.S. Case No. 64/2011 dated 08.10.2011 was registered for the offence under Sections 302/34, 120B of I.P.C., Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act against Jetha Kachhap, Jagran Munda, Sanatan Swansi, Barna Oraon, Pancham Mahto, Sunil Mahto, Prakash Mahto, one Munda boy and two unknown persons and charge of investigation was handed over to S.I. Subhchandra Jha (P.W.-7), who after conclusion of investigation submitted first charge sheet No. 74/2013 dated 30.09.2013 against accused Pancham Mahato, showing accused Jetha Kachhap, Sanatan Swansi and Barna Munda absconding. Later on, charge sheet was also submitted against the present appellants Jetha Kachhap and Sanatan Swansi in the split-up case. Both the accused (appellants) denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. After conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was passed, which has been assailed in these appeals. 5. Later on, charge sheet was also submitted against the present appellants Jetha Kachhap and Sanatan Swansi in the split-up case. Both the accused (appellants) denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. After conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was passed, which has been assailed in these appeals. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants has raised the following points of argument:- (i) There is no iota of legal evidence proving the involvement of appellants in the alleged offence of murder. (ii) There is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the appellants showing any overt act committed by the appellants. (iii) The testimony of ocular witnesses (P.W.-2 and P.W.-6) regarding bullet injury sustained by the deceased is absolutely in contradiction with the medical evidence. (iv) Admittedly, there was no previous enmity between the informant or deceased with the present appellants and no prior acquaintance with the appellants is also admitted. (v) The genesis and manner of occurrence as depicted in the evidence of informant (P.W.- 2) and P.W.-6 does not conclusively prove that the appellants were perpetrator of the crime. (vi) The learned trial court without properly appreciating the testimony of aforesaid eye-witnesses and ignoring the materials elicited in the cross-examination demolishing their testimony, has arrived at wrong conclusion, which is absolutely perverse beyond weight of evidence and based upon own imagination of the learned trial court. In the above premises, the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence of appellants is not legally sustainable and fit to be set aside and the appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 6. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State refuting the aforesaid points of argument advanced on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly appreciated the evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-6, who are eye witnesses of the occurrence and also considered the other material evidence available on record corroborative of the prosecution story and arrived at right conclusion that Jetha Kachhap along with Barna Oraon fired gunshot upon Manoj Mahto, which hit his chest, leg and stomach and other accused persons were surrounding him. The injuries are also corroborative from the medical evidence i.e. Post-Mortem Report of the deceased. The injuries are also corroborative from the medical evidence i.e. Post-Mortem Report of the deceased. There is no legal force in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and no valid reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of appellants. These appeals have no merits and fit to be dismissed. 7. For better appreciation of the case, it is pertinent to go through the brief resume of evidence adduced by prosecution. P.W.-1 - Chandrabhan Ram has conducted supplementary investigation of this case against only accused Barna Oraon and submitted supplementary charge sheet against him on the strength of attachment of his property. P.W.-2 – Bigal Mahto is the informant of the case. He has deposed that on 08.10.2011 at about 4:30 P.M., he has gone to sell vegetables produced from his field at Sawra Bazar along with his sons Jitendra and Bharat. Meanwhile, MCC party members approached there, then he told his son Manoj to fled away, but in the meantime, Pancham Mahto arrived there, who requested Manoj to take Hariya drink and accompanied with Manoj went towards Yatri Shed where Barna and Jetha also arrived and Barna fired upon Manoj and other accused persons namely, Sanatan, Jagran and other unknown persons were also present there. He has further deposed that after fire shot given by Barna, Jetha also fired twice on chest and stomach of Manoj and due to fear, this witness fled away to his home and thereafter went to Karra Police Station and on advice of police, he returned to his home and police went to get the dead body of his son from Sawra Bazar. This witness has disclosed previous enmity with Ramdhan Mahto, Somra Mahto and their sons Sunil and Prakash in connection with land situated at Village-Padampur. In his cross-examination, this witness admits that his house is situated at a distance of 4 KM from Sawra Bazar and Karra Police Station is situated at a distance of 10 KM. After returning from the place of occurrence, he went to Police Station by his motorcycle and categorically admits that he has not informed the police about the occurrence through telephonic message, as mentioned in the F.I.R., rather he himself went to police station and reported the occurrence. After returning from the place of occurrence, he went to Police Station by his motorcycle and categorically admits that he has not informed the police about the occurrence through telephonic message, as mentioned in the F.I.R., rather he himself went to police station and reported the occurrence. Attention of this witness has been drawn towards his fardbeyan and re-statement recorded by Police, wherein he has not stated that after fire shot given by Barna, Jetha also fired twice on Manoj at Chest and Stomach. The attention of the I.O. (P.W.-7) has also been drawn towards the above contradictions at para-32, wherein he has clearly admitted that this witness has not disclosed before him either in the fardbeyan or in re-statement that after firing by Barna, Jetha Kachhap also fired twice on chest and stomach of deceased Manoj. This witness has also disclosed that his son has received total four firearm injuries. He has also admitted that his son Jitendra Mahto and deceased Manoj are also involved in 3-4 criminal cases. He has also categorically admitted that prior to occurrence, there was no inimical terms of any kind with the accused Pancham Mahto, Jagran, Sanatan or Jetha. P.W.-3 Bharat Mahto and P.W.-4 Ram Sewak Mahto have been declared hostile by the prosecution and expressed their no personal knowledge about the occurrence, rather they have heard that Manoj was murdered. P.W.-5 – Dr. Sunil Khalkho has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Manoj Mahto and found following injuries:- (i) Lacerated wound on back side size ½” x ½”. (ii) Lacerated wound on abdomen size ½” x 1”, 1 x 2”, (iii) Open lacerated wound on left thigh near inguinal region size 4” x 3”. This injury is exit of bullet. (iv) Open lacerated wound on left thigh size ½” x ½”. It is entry of bullet. First and second injuries were opined to be caused by sharp cutting substance and third and fourth injuries are bullet injuries, which are ante-mortem in nature. Cause of death is opined due to massive hemorrhage and shock within 12 to 48 hours. In cross-examination, this witness admits that no blackening or tattoo mark was found around injury no. 3 and 4 or any gun powder was found around the above wound. Hence, this fire was made from a long distance. No bullet was found inside the dead body. Injury Nos. In cross-examination, this witness admits that no blackening or tattoo mark was found around injury no. 3 and 4 or any gun powder was found around the above wound. Hence, this fire was made from a long distance. No bullet was found inside the dead body. Injury Nos. 3 & 4 cannot be said to be caused by fire arm only. P.W.-6 Jitendra Kumar Mahto is the son of the informant and brother of the deceased. According to his evidence, on 08.10.2011 at about 4-5 PM, he was present at Sawra Bazar, meanwhile, members of PLFI extremists party namely, Barna Oraon, Jetha Kachhap, Sanatan Swansi and Jagran Munda arrived there and his brother Manoj was brought towards passenger Shed by Pancham Mahto, where the above accused persons were present. He has stated in clear cut terms that at first Barna Oraon fired two shots on Manoj Mahto, thereafter, Jetha Kachhap fired twice and Sanatan Swansi, Jagran Munda were surrounding his brother. He has seen the occurrence at a distance of 10-15 steps. He has further described that his brother Manoj has sustained one fire injury on his leg, one on his stomach and two fire arm injuries on shoulder. In his cross-examination, he admits that at the time of occurrence, there was crowd of 200-300 persons. He also admits that his brother and he himself have been involved in 3-4 criminal cases for the offence of extortion and Arms Act. According to him, the firearm injury was caused from a distance of 1 or 2 hands (approx. 3 ft.). His statement was recorded by Police on the same day i.e. 08.10.2011 at his home, which was signed by him and on that basis, the case was registered. He also admits that he returned to his home at about 6:30-7 PM. This witness further admits in his cross-examination that he was not acquainted with Jetha Kachhap and Sanatan Swansi prior to occurrence and they were never related with him or his family members or ever visited to his house. He also admits that prior to date of occurrence i.e. 08.10.2011 or afterwards, he has never talked with Sanatan Swansi and Jetha Kachhap nor ever visited with them, rather for the first time, on the date of occurrence, he came to know the names of Jetha Kachhap and Sanatan Swansi in the market. He also admits that prior to date of occurrence i.e. 08.10.2011 or afterwards, he has never talked with Sanatan Swansi and Jetha Kachhap nor ever visited with them, rather for the first time, on the date of occurrence, he came to know the names of Jetha Kachhap and Sanatan Swansi in the market. He also admits that there was no enmity of any kind with Pancham Mahto, Jetha, Sanatan, Jagran or Barna with this witness or his family members. He also admits that no Test Identification Parade was held by Police after arrest of Jetha Kachhap and Sanatan Swansi. He has denied the suggestion of defence that he was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and has given false evidence against the accused persons and he has seen no occurrence at all. P.W.-7 Subhchandra Jha is the Investigating Officer of this case. According to this witness, after receiving charge of investigation of this case on 08.10.2011, he visited the place of occurrence at Village-Sawra weekly hat place and near the Yatri Shed adjacent to the pitch road, he found dead body of Manoj Mahto, who was killed by PLFI extremists by shooting. He recorded the re-statement of the informant and other witnesses namely, Jitendra Mahto, Ram Sewak Mahto, Bharat Mahto, Somit Lakra etc. and arrested the accused Pancham Mahto on 17.10.2011. After completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against Pancham Mahto and continued investigation against other accused persons i.e. Jetha Kachhap, Jagran Munda, Sanatan Swansi, Prakash Mahto, Sunil Mahto, Barna Oraon, one Munda boy of Village – Sawra and two unknown persons. He has further deposed that in course of supplementary investigation, Barna Oraon was arrested and his confessional statement was recorded on 20.01.2012. Thereafter, he was transferred and further charge of investigation was given to the then Officer-in-Charge, Bindeswari Das. Admittedly, this witness has not arrested the present appellants namely, Jetha Kachhap and Sanatan Swansi nor submitted charge sheet against them. He also admits that he received charge of investigation on 08.10.2011 at about 10:00 PM and visited the place of occurrence on 09.10.2011. Prior to that, the dead body was lifted and inquest report was prepared. Admittedly, this witness has not arrested the present appellants namely, Jetha Kachhap and Sanatan Swansi nor submitted charge sheet against them. He also admits that he received charge of investigation on 08.10.2011 at about 10:00 PM and visited the place of occurrence on 09.10.2011. Prior to that, the dead body was lifted and inquest report was prepared. He has also admitted that the informant Bigal Mahto (P.W.-2) and his son Jitendra Kumar Mahto in their statement before him have not disclosed that at first Barna shot firearm, thereafter, Jetha also shot fire over chest and stomach to Manoj Mahto. Jitendra has also not stated that his brother has sustained two firearm injuries on his shoulder, one on his chest and another on his stomach. He also admits that at the time of submitting charge sheet against accused Pancham Mahto, he did not find any cogent evidence against Sanatan Swansi and Jetha Kachhap and admits that he has no knowledge as to under what kind of evidence and circumstances, they were charge-sheeted. 8. Apart from aforesaid oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution:- Exhibit-P-1 Signature on the xerox copy of fardbeyan (with objection). Exhibit-P-2 Signature on xerox copy of seizure list (with objection). Exhibit-P-3 Postmortem examination report. Exhibit-P-4 Xerox copy of formal FIR (with objection). Exhibit-P-5 Xerox copy of inquest report. 9. It appears that common question has been prepared for examination of present appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein it has been asked that they have caused firearm injury to Manoj Mahto by shooting and also belong to PLFI extremists. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 10. It appears that on the basis of above evidence, the learned trial court has arrived at conclusion that all the witnesses have supported the prosecution story particularly, P.W.-2 and P.W.-6, who happens to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence and it is also proved that Jetha Kachhap fired gun shot on the deceased and other accused persons including Sanatan Swansi had surrounded him. It was further observed that though the evidence led by prosecution shows that accused Jetha and Barna fired gun shots upon Manoj and Sanatan Swansi did not fire gun shot on the deceased, but it has come in evidence that Sanatan along with other accused persons had surrounded Manoj. It was further observed that though the evidence led by prosecution shows that accused Jetha and Barna fired gun shots upon Manoj and Sanatan Swansi did not fire gun shot on the deceased, but it has come in evidence that Sanatan along with other accused persons had surrounded Manoj. This act of accused Sanatan comes within the meaning of Section 34 of the I.P.C. Therefore, it is concluded that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, out of whom Barna and Jetha had fired gunshot injury upon Manoj, resulting in his death, so the liability of accused Jetha Kachhap and accused Sanatan Swansi, for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is established beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts, by invoking the aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C. Further, offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act is established against Jetha Kachhap, who has been attributed opening firearm against the deceased. The accused persons were acquitted from the charge under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act. 11. From the aforesaid discussion of ocular testimony of witnesses and the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, following material facts may be deduced: - (i) The occurrence is of 08.10.2011 at about 4-4:30 PM. (ii) The basis of FIR is fardbeyan of informant Bigal Mahto recorded by S.I. Anup Kumar Karmakar, O/C of Karra P.S. on 08.10.2011 at about 19:30 hours at Sawra Bazar near Yatri Shed. (iii) In the FIR, there is clear cut allegation that at about 4:00 PM, informant’s son Manoj Mahto and Jitendra Mahto were also present at the shop of informant. (iv) Pancham Mahto and one Munda boy came and took Manoj Mahto against his will for taking Hariya drink near Yatri Shed, where Jetha Kachhap, Jagran Munda, Sanatan Swansi and two other unknown extremists fired upon Manoj, due to which, he fell down, then informant and his son, due to fear, fled away to their home. (v) In the FIR, the informant has asserted about motive behind the occurrence is their dispute with Ramdhan Mahto and Somra Mahto and Pancham Mahto is “Fufhera” brother of Ramdhan Mahto. (vi) It is alleged that the son of Ramdhan Mahto namely, Sunil Mahto and one Prakash Mahto, son of Somra Mahto have threatened the informant about one week ago in connection with land situated at Padampur. (vi) It is alleged that the son of Ramdhan Mahto namely, Sunil Mahto and one Prakash Mahto, son of Somra Mahto have threatened the informant about one week ago in connection with land situated at Padampur. Sunil Mahto and Prakash Mahto are also associated with PLFI extremists, who have managed this occurrence. (vii) Out of seven witnesses examined in this case only P.W.-2 Bigal Mahto (Informant) and P.W.-6 Jitendra Kumar Mahto, son of the informant have claimed to be eye-witness of the occurrence. (viii) According to P.W.-2 when Pancham Mahto took away Manoj to take Hariya drink near Yatri Shed, then Barna and Jetha also arrived and Barna fired upon Manoj Mahto and other accused persons namely, Sanatan, Jagran and unknown were also present. He further clarifies that after firing by Barna, Jetha also fired twice on chest and stomach of Manoj, then due to fear, he fled away to his home. According to his evidence, he straight forward went to Karra police station on his motorcycle and reported the occurrence, but did not again went to place of occurrence at Sawra Bazar due to fear. It also transpires that direct testimony of this witness disclosing firing by Barna and Jetha and causing total four firearm injuries to his son has been deposed for the first time before the court and does not find place in his fardbeyan or statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. recorded by the I.O. (P.W.-7). In this regard, the attention of I.O. has also been drawn, who has disclosed that above facts were not disclosed by the informant before him. Another anomalous situation also has crept in the testimony of P.W.-2 that admittedly he did not go to the place of occurrence after the incident, but his fardbeyan has been recorded at Sawra Bazar at about 7:30 PM by the police, which is basis of F.I.R. This witness has also failed to disclose as to how he was acquainted with accused persons namely, Jagran, Sanatan or Jetha and admittedly he had no inimical terms with them. The testimony of P.W.-2 is further falsified by the evidence of P.W.-5 Dr. Sunil Khalkho, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and only one fire arm injury on left thigh of the deceased has been found, which has been marked as Injury No. 3 exit of bullet and Injury No. 4 entry point of bullet. The testimony of P.W.-2 is further falsified by the evidence of P.W.-5 Dr. Sunil Khalkho, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and only one fire arm injury on left thigh of the deceased has been found, which has been marked as Injury No. 3 exit of bullet and Injury No. 4 entry point of bullet. Injury Nos. 1 & 2 are lacerated wound over back side and on abdomen. Therefore, the claim of P.W.-2 that altogether four shot was given by Barna and two shot by Jetha Kachhap cannot be believed. In totality, the evidence of P.W.-2 appears to be wholly unreliable and full of material contradictions and infirmities. (ix) P.W.-6 Jitendra Mahto, who happens to be son of informant has also claimed to be eye-witness of the occurrence. According to his evidence also in the Sawra Bazar, he was present with his father and brother, meanwhile, Pancham Mahto arrived and brought his brother Manoj towards Passenger Shed where accused Barna Oraon fired two shots. Thereafter, Jetha Kachhap fired twice and he has watched the occurrence at a distance of 10-15 steps. According to this witness also his brother Manoj has sustained one firearm injury on his leg, one on his stomach and two firearm injuries on shoulder. Therefore, this witness claims to have occasion to see the occurrence at a very close distance i.e. 1-2 hand (approx. 3 ft.) and asserted about four fire arm injuries, but as per Post Mortem Report, there is only one firearm injury and other injuries described by this witness happens to be sustained in his shoulder, one injury on stomach and one at the leg. According to this witness also firearm injury were caused from very close distance, but there is no mark of charring or tattooing over the injuries found on the body of deceased and in this regard, P.W.-5 Dr. Sunil Khalkho has categorically testified that the firearm injury was caused from a long distance and also opined that it cannot be definitely said that the injury Nos. 3 & 4 may be caused only by firearm. According to this witness, his statement was recorded by Police on the same day i.e. on 08.10.2011 at his home, when he returned from the place of occurrence at about 6:30 – 7 PM. 3 & 4 may be caused only by firearm. According to this witness, his statement was recorded by Police on the same day i.e. on 08.10.2011 at his home, when he returned from the place of occurrence at about 6:30 – 7 PM. He also claims that on the basis of his aforesaid statement, which was also signed by him, present case was registered. Unlike P.W.-2, this witness also admits that he was not acquainted with accused Jetha Kachhap and Sanatan Swansi prior to occurrence and had no connection with them nor ever they have visited to his house and even after date of occurrence, he never talked with Sanatan Swansi and Jetha Kachhap. He came to know the names of the accused persons on the date of occurrence as heard from others in the market. He also admits that he had no enmity of any kind with the accused persons. It is also obvious from evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-6 that they have not seen the dead body of the deceased at the place of occurrence, which was brought to the police station, then they have occasion to see. (x) P.W.-7 Subhchandra Jha, who is Investigating Officer of this case, has submitted charge sheet against accused Pancham Mahto, continuing investigation against the present appellants and others. He received charge of investigation on 08.11.2011 at about 10:00 PM and admittedly visited the place of occurrence at 09.10.2011. He also admits that none of the witnesses have stated before him as to who has opened firearm against the deceased and how many shots were given. He also admits that at the time of submitting charge sheet, he did not find any cogent evidence against Sanatan Swansi and Jetha Kachhap (present appellants). 12. The overall evaluation / assessment of the evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-6, who are the projected eye-witness of this case does not inspire confidence due to material contradictions, inconsistencies and non-disclosure of manner of occurrence in their earliest statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C as noted above. The injuries caused to deceased by using firearm as claimed by these witnesses also do not find any corroboration from the Post Mortem Report of the deceased. As such, the testimony of these witnesses laches creditworthiness to record finding of guilt of appellants. 13. The injuries caused to deceased by using firearm as claimed by these witnesses also do not find any corroboration from the Post Mortem Report of the deceased. As such, the testimony of these witnesses laches creditworthiness to record finding of guilt of appellants. 13. In our considered view, the learned trial court, placing reliance upon the testimony of P.W.-2 and P.W.-6, has recorded finding of guilt of the accused persons and sentenced them, which appears to be not justified under law. The learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the testimony of witnesses on their face value, rather swayed upon only examination-in-chief of the witnesses. The genesis, manner and place of occurrence, has not been proved by P.W.-2 and P.W.-6, no motive or previous enmity or acquaintance with the appellants has been shown. The source of identity of appellants and participation in the alleged crime is also absolutely doubtful and unreliable. 14. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, We arrive at definite conclusion that the learned trial court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence led by prosecution and ignored the material contradictions and infirmities appearing in the evidence of alleged eye witnesses and arrived at wrong conclusion about guilt of the present appellants for the offence of murder. 15. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record and the submissions raised at the time of hearing by the counsel of respective parties, We find merits in these appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and impugned judgment of conviction dated 07.05.2022 and order of sentence dated 12.05.2022 of the present appellants is hereby set aside. 16. Appellant Jetha Kachhap is in custody. He is directed to be released forthwith, unless required in any other case. Appellant Santan Swansi is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of bail bonds and sureties are also discharged. 17. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment for information and needful.