JUDGMENT : 1. These criminal appeals arise out of the same case crime number and therefore heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. 2. These criminal appeals are directed against impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 06.10.1997 passed by learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.8 of 1992, impugned judgment dated 26.11.2009 and order of sentence dated 30.11.2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC-VII, Giridih in S.T. Case No.08(A) of 1992, impugned judgment dated 27.02.2024 and order of sentence dated 06.03.2024 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, 1 st , Giridih in S.T. Case No.08(B) of1992 and impugned judgment dated 14.06.2024 and order of sentence dated 18.06.2024 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, 1 st , Giridih in S.T. Case No.08(C) of 1992 arising out of Gawan P.S. Case No. 53/1989 for the offence under Sections 147/302/149/201 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants were directed to undergo sentence of 2 years RI for offence under Section 147 of IPC and life imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/- of the offence under Section 302/149 of the IPC and further sentence of 3 years RI and sentence of Rs.10,000/- under Section 201 of the IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and in the case of default of payment of fine further sentence of RI for one year had been imposed. 3. In the present case, Gawan P.S. Case No. 53/1989 came into existence on the written report of one Shri Jobraj Singh, son of Babu Lal Singh, resident of Dabar, P.S. Gawan, District Giridh who stated therein that on 13.07.1989 his son namely, Hriday Narayan Singh and his grandsons namely, Biranchi Kumar Singh and Dayanand Kumar Singh after taking meal went to cattle house (Baithka) for sleeping and Mahendra Kumar Singh followed them, then when he reached near Banyan tree then saw that his son Hriday Narayan Singh was being taken towards western side after killing him by Chhotan Pasi, Sadhu Pasi, Sahdeo Mahto, Kongresh Mahto, Sundar Mahto, Mahesh Mahto, Madhusudan Mahto, Bhuneshwar Mahto and Balo Mahto, all residents of Dabar, P.S. Gawan and thereafter Sadhu Sharan Singh, Sitan Singh, Makundeo Singh, Janardan Singh, Awadh Kishore Singh and Umesh Mahto were also going from near his said house. He further allegedly stated that informant has been told that the house in which Hriday Narayan Singh was sleeping was closed by chain from outside and when the chain was opened, then Mahendra Kumar Singh came across the fact from Dayanand Kumar Singh and Biranchi Kumar Singh that at about 10.30 P.M. above-stated persons after removing the door entered into the room and Kongresh Mahto strangulated Hriday Narayan Singh. Sundar Mahto and Balo Mahto pressed his chest, whereas Madhusudan Mahto and Sadhu Pasi were pressing his feet. Hriday Narayan Singh was saying not to kill him, but Chhotan said that they could not leave him without killing. Thereafter, elapse of five-six minutes Hriday Narayan Singh died and accused persons wrapped the dead body of Hriday Narayan Singh in the Gendra and bedsheet on which he was sleeping and took away his corpse. Other accused persons chained the room from outside. Informant was also apprised that Chhotan Pasi and other eight who were inside the room were having lathi, bhala and barchha and they took away one torch, one full-pant, shirt, one watch which was on the wrist of Hriday Narayan Singh. 4. It is further stated by the informant that in the night he could not approach police station on account of fact that it was raining and accused persons also blocked the way. Therefore, this written report has been given on 14.07.1989. 5. After due investigation, charge sheet has been submitted being, Charge Sheet No. 51/1989 and charge has been framed on 08.10.1989 under Sections 302/201/449/380/120-B/149/147 of the Indian Penal Code against Kongresh Mahto, Balo Mahto, Sadhu Pasi and Madhusudan Mahto, under Sections 302/201/380/120-B/149/147 of the Indian Penal Code against Awadh Kishore Singh and Sitan Singh and under Sections 201/449/380/120-B/147 of the Indian Penal Code against Sundar Mahto, to which convicts/appellants did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. As far as prosecution case is concerned, prosecution has got recorded evidence of as many as 10 witnesses and apart from that prosecution has bring on record signature of Biranchi Kumar Singh on his statement u/s 164 CrPC as Ext.1, signature of Dayanand Kumar Singh on his statement u/s 164 CrPC as Ext.1/1, the post-mortem examination report as Ext.2, the written report as Ext. 3, seizure list as Ext.4, inquest report as Ext. 5, confessional statement of Balo Mahto as Ext. 6, formal FIR as Ext. 3, seizure list as Ext.4, inquest report as Ext. 5, confessional statement of Balo Mahto as Ext. 6, formal FIR as Ext. 7, signature of Sukhdeo Tudu on inquest report as Ext.1/2 and signature of Mahendra Kumar Singh as Ext.1/3. Defence has also adduced evidence of two witnesses namely, Basant Narayan Sharma and Anup Kumar and brought on record certain papers which show that there was inimical relation between informant side and convict side. 7. After going through the trial court record, it transpires that PW-1 Biranchi Kumar Singh and PW-2 Dayanand Kumar Singh are stated to be eye witness to the occurrence. As far as PW-10 Mahendra Kumar Singh is concerned, it is the case of prosecution that while he was coming to cattle house (Baithka) for sleeping then he saw near Banyan tree the dead body of Hriday Narayan Singh was being carried by accused persons which was wrapped in Gendra and bedsheet, then he immediately rushed to cattle house (Baithka) and he was apprised by both the eye witnesses regarding the incident. As per written report, informant (PW-4) has received information qua the incident from Mahendra Kumar Singh (PW-10) and he (PW-10) received information from PW-1 and PW-2. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) at the outset submitted that PW-1 and PW-2 were minor at the time of incident and their respective statement under Section 164 CrPC and testimony before court during the trial clearly show that they are tutored witnesses and that’s why their testimonies are consistent to their earlier statement, but it ought not be relied by this Court. Learned counsel tried to convince this Court that there is inherent inter-se contradiction in the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-10, which clearly indicate that the prosecution story is non-believable because each of the witnesses is having their own story of incident what they deposed before the court. Further, it has been argued on behalf convicts/appellants that in the present case prosecution has miserably failed to prove the fact that alleged recovery of dead body is that of deceased Hriday Narayan Singh. Further, it has been argued on behalf convicts/appellants that in the present case prosecution has miserably failed to prove the fact that alleged recovery of dead body is that of deceased Hriday Narayan Singh. To buttress their arguments, learned counsels drew attention of this Court towards the testimony of doctor who has been examined in the present case as PW-3 and has stated categorically that body was so decomposed that even cause of death could not be ascertained during the course of post-mortem examination and all soft tissues were absent and no evidence of any injury on bone part was found. It has also been pointed out that none of the family members who were got examined in the present case has ever stated in their respective testimony that on what basis they have identified the dead body as that of deceased Hriday Narayan Singh. Lastly, it has been submitted that the prosecution story which has come from the mouth of PW-1 and PW-2 does not appear to be probable and to implicate accused persons with whom informant was admittedly inimical relation false story was concocted against them, that’s why FIR got registered belatedly. 9. Per contra, learned A.P.P./Spl. P.P. submitted that there are two eye witnesses who have vividly given description of the incident and despite lengthy cross-examination on behalf of convicts nothing has been extracted from their mouth which could shake the credibility of those eye witnesses. Further, submission has been made that law does not prohibit to accept the evidence of minor if it inspires confidence to the Court. Upon aforesaid premise, it has been prayed that no interference is required by this Court in finding of learned trial court. 10. As stated earlier that PW-1 Biranchi Kumar Singh and PW-2 Dayanand Kumar Singh are said to be the eye witnesses in the present case. So, first of all, we would like to analyze the testimony of these two witnesses. It is stated by PW-1 that incident is of 13.07.1989 at about 10.30 PM and he and Dayanand Kumar Singh were studying in the light of lantern and deceased Hriday Narayan Singh was lying on the chowki, then there was some bang on the door from outside but the door was closed from inside. It is stated by PW-1 that incident is of 13.07.1989 at about 10.30 PM and he and Dayanand Kumar Singh were studying in the light of lantern and deceased Hriday Narayan Singh was lying on the chowki, then there was some bang on the door from outside but the door was closed from inside. Then Dayanand Kumar Singh asked who is outside but no response was given and all of a sudden the door was removed from its frame and thereafter Kongresh Mahto, Sahdeo Mahto, Chhotan Pasi, Sadhu Pasi, Sundar Mahto, Mahesh Mahto, Balo Mahto, Bhuneshwar Mahto, Masudan Mahto, total nine persons entered into the room and Kongresh Mahto started throttling Hriday Narayan Singh, then Sundar Mahto, Mahesh Mahto and Balo Mahto pushed his chest and Masudan Mahto and Sadhu Pasi pressed the leg of Hriday Narayan Singh. Thereafter, Hriday Narayan Singh started crying then Chhotan Pasi put his palm on his mouth and from other hand pointed out revolver towards them and extended threat that if they will make hulla then they would be killed. Hriday Narayan Singh was killed by throttling and thereafter his dead body was wrapped in the bedsheet which was on the chowki and they removed dead body from the room and alongwith them one torch, one lathi having bhala, pant, shirt, watch of Hriday Narayan Singh and two pillows were also been taken by them. Further, when the aforesaid accused persons got away from the room then Sadhu Sharan Singh, Sitan Singh, Makundeo Singh, Janardan Singh, Awadh Kishore Singh and Umesh Mahto were also standing outside the door and they put the door in the frame (choukhat) and door was got closed by putting chain and rope was also knotted in the chain so that it could not be opened. Thereafter, Mahendra Singh came and he opened the door by removing the chain, then PW-1 and PW-2 apprised the incident to him and all the three went to their home and incident was narrated to Jobraj Singh (informant). He further stated that dead body of Hriday Narayan Singh was found at Kusmai village after 25-26 days of incident. Signature of PW-1 in 164 CrPC statement has been marked as Exhibit-1. 11. He further stated that dead body of Hriday Narayan Singh was found at Kusmai village after 25-26 days of incident. Signature of PW-1 in 164 CrPC statement has been marked as Exhibit-1. 11. In cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that accused Sadhu Sharan Singh, Sitan Singh, Makundeo Singh, Janardan Singh and Awadh Kishore Singh are their gotia and one case of murder of Makundeo Singh, Janardan Singh and Brahmdeo Singh is going on and his uncle Madan Singh and other persons were facing the trial. He further stated that towards east of place of occurrence there is Baithka of one Bhagirath Singh and at about 50 yards there is house of Bhadi Thakur and house of Kaleshwar Rai is 200 yards. House of Janardan Singh and Hadis Mia is also about 300 feet away from the place of occurrence. 12. This witness has further stated in cross-examination that when bang at the door was given, then Hriday Narayan Singh was not sleeping rather lying on the bed and after bang he did not respond and even when the door was removed then his uncle did not react and also when the accused persons entered into room his uncle was lying on the bed. Out of fear, he and PW-2 went in the corner of the room and eight to ten minutes had taken in commission of crime. He has also stated that he saw the dead body of his uncle at Kusmai village and his family member was also went there to see the dead body. His family member went to police station along with the dead body. He further submitted that face of the dead body was alright and it was identifiable. 13. PW-2 has stated in consonance with what PW-1 has stated. However, in cross examination, PW-2 has stated that at the time of incident, he was studying in 7th standard whereas Biranchi was studying in 8th or 9th standard but he was unable to tell either the name of his class teacher of 7th standard or books of 7th standard and even date of examination of 7th standard. Signature of PW-2 in 164 CrPC statement has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. 14. PW-3 Dr. Bhupendra Prasad Singh conducted the post- mortem examination on the dead body of Hriday Narayan Singh on 11.08.1989 and found the following:- I. Trunk and feet were tied with rope. II. Signature of PW-2 in 164 CrPC statement has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. 14. PW-3 Dr. Bhupendra Prasad Singh conducted the post- mortem examination on the dead body of Hriday Narayan Singh on 11.08.1989 and found the following:- I. Trunk and feet were tied with rope. II. Small black hair on scalp detached were found. III. All bones were exposed. IV. Almost all soft tissues were destroyed. V. Trachea, larynx, oesophagus and all visceras were destroyed. VI. Ribs on both sides chest were destroyed anteriorly. VII. 1 st and 4 th cervical vertebrae were present and rest were not found. VIII. No evidence of fracture or injury of any kind either ante-mortem or post-mortem was found. IX. Cause of death could not be ascertained during the course of P.M. examination. Lung bones like humorous radius and ulnas both sides tibia and fibula both sides and four cervical vertebrae were preserved for further investigation, if needed. X. Time elapsed since death till the P.M. examination, “about four weeks”. XI. The dead body was brought by constable no. 269 Banshidhar Mishra and the chawkidar accompanied by Jobraj Singh, the father of the deceased. The dead body was brought from Kusmai Pathlahiya Mica Mines, Gawan P.S. XII. All soft tissues as mentioned above were absent and no evidence of any injury on bony part was found. As such the cause of death could not be ascertained. XIII. If the dead body is thrown and submerged in water in which there be aquatic animals such as fishes etc., a number of parts of the dead body would be consumed by them. This witness prepared the post-mortem report of Hriday Narayan Singh and put his signature and marked it as Exbt.-2. 15. PW-4 Jobraj Singh who happens to be the informant in the present case has reiterated the contents what he has written in his written report, but has stated that incident inside the Baithka (cattle house) was narrated to him by PW-1 and PW-2 whereas PW-10 has stated him that when he reached near Banyan tree then he saw accused persons were taking away Hriday Narayan Singh after killing him. After hearing above-said fact, he visited to cattle house then saw door was opened and he did hulla and made search. He has also said that it was raining that’s why he did not go to police station. After hearing above-said fact, he visited to cattle house then saw door was opened and he did hulla and made search. He has also said that it was raining that’s why he did not go to police station. Informant was having enmity with accused persons therefore he did not go to police station out of fear that they might kill him. He has identified his writing and signature of written report and the same is marked as Exhibit-3. Precisely, PW-4 evidence is based upon what was heard by PW-1 and PW-2 about the incident inside cattle house whereas from PW-10 he heard Hriday Narayan Singh was being taken by 9 accused persons after killing. In cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that some of the accused persons are gotia and there is inimical relation between accused persons and civil as well as criminal litigation is going on between informant side and accused side. He has also stated in his cross-examination that on the day of incident rain started at 10.00 PM and stopped by 10.45 PM. 16. PW-5 is the I.O. of the present case who has given description of place of occurrence and has also stated that he visited to the place of occurrence on 14.07.1989 and recorded the statement of witnesses and on 15.07.1989 he again visited to the place of occurrence and seized one lantern and seizure list was accordingly prepared and the same has been marked as Exhibit- 4. This witness further stated that on the basis of confessional statement of Balo Mahto and on saying of Balo Mahto, Mahesh Mahto and Kongresh Mahto dead body of Hriday Narayan Singh was taken out from 70-75 feet of water and inquest report was prepared which was signed by Sukhdeo Tudu and Chore Manjhi. He has also identified his handwriting of the death inquest report and same has been marked as Exhibit-5. In cross-examination, I.O. has stated that he verified the records of police station and mentioned in the case diary that at the time of incident and prior to incident there were ten matters of I.P.C. and twenty matters of 107 CrPC were pending between informant side and accused side. He also stated that at the time of searching of dead body informant was not with him. He also stated that at the time of searching of dead body informant was not with him. Certain contradictions have also been taken from the mouth of I.O. who has stated that informant has not stated that Biranchi and Dayanand had stated about the incident and he made hulla and also made search. 17. PW-6 is a Constable who accompanied other police officials and has stated that at the behest of accused Balo Mahto, Mahesh Mahto and Kongresh Mahto dead of Hriday Narayan Singh got recovered and thereafter they returned to police station. He does not able to remember who had cited as a witness in death inquest report, however, dead body was identified by Madan Singh, brother of Hriday Narayan Singh. He also stated that the skin of the face of dead body was destroyed and his statement was not recorded by Darogaji. 18. PW-7 is also one of the police constables who accompanied PW-6 alongwith other police officials and has stated that at the behest of accused Balo Mahto, Mahesh Mahto and Kongresh Mahto dead body of Hriday Narayan Singh got recovered from Kusmai Chanan. He has also stated that his statement was not recorded by Darogaji at the time of investigation. 19. PW-8 is witness to death inquest report who has stated in his examination-in-chief that in his presence, no dead body was taken out from Kusmai Chanan. However, one dead body was kept 50 feet away from Kusmai Pathlaiya Chanan. But no paper was prepared by Darogaji in his presence rather he was already having a paper on which he put his signature. In cross- examination he has stated that dead body was in a gunny bag (not of plastic) and it was tied. 20. PW-9 is also witness to death inquest report who has stated that he put signature on a paper which was prepared by Darogaji and his statement was not recorded and this witness has been declared hostile. He also showed his ignorance towards the content of paper and has stated that gunny bag was tied. 21. PW-10 Mahendra Kumar Singh has stated that on 13.07.1989 at about 10.00 PM in the night after taking meal, he was going with torch for sleeping and Biranchi Singh, Hriday Narayan Singh and Dayanand Singh had already reached to Baithka after having their meal and were studying. 21. PW-10 Mahendra Kumar Singh has stated that on 13.07.1989 at about 10.00 PM in the night after taking meal, he was going with torch for sleeping and Biranchi Singh, Hriday Narayan Singh and Dayanand Singh had already reached to Baithka after having their meal and were studying. He further stated that he was lighting the torch and saw Sadhu Pasi, Chhotan Pasi, Kongresh Mahto, Sahdeo Mahto, Balo Mahto, Sundar Mahto, Mahesh Mahto, Bhuneshwar Mahto and Madhusudan Mahto, all were carrying dead body wrapped in bichhawan (bed) and were being taken towards western side and before going towards western side they were standing near Baithka. He further stated that Janardan Singh, Awadh Kishore Singh, Sadhu Singh, Umesh Mahto, Makundeo Mahto and Sitan Singh came out from the verandah of his Baithka. Janardan also lit torch and told that he was in search of this witness and asked to catch him. Thereafter, Chhotan Pasi and Sundar Mahto were started chasing him to kill and this witness started fleeing away. Thereafter, all the accused persons went towards west and he went to Baithka and he saw there was chain tied with a rope on the door of the room in which he used to sleep and inside the room Biranchi and Dayanand were weeping. Thereafter removing chain, he entered into room then he could not find Hriday Narayan Singh and only Biranchi and Dayanand were present and they told him that after killing Hriday Narayan Singh all the nine accused persons took his dead body after wrapping in the bistar (bedding). Old dhoti, pant, shirt and watch were also taken by accused persons. Thereafter, he alongwith Biranchi and Dayanand went to their home and informed Jobraj Singh. He has also stated that his statement under Section 164 CrPC was got recorded and he identified his signature and same has been marked as Exhibit-1/3. 22. In cross-examination, he has stated that he could not say what was wrapped in the bistar (bedding). He has also stated that he was chased by Chhotan Pasi and Sundar Mahto, then he ran to his home and thereafter alongwith his uncle Jograj Singh (informant) came and they were having only lantern and torch in their hand. He has also stated that he, his uncle, Biranchi and Dayanand came to home from Baithka. The villagers surrounded from all the side, as such, they scared to come out. He has also stated that he, his uncle, Biranchi and Dayanand came to home from Baithka. The villagers surrounded from all the side, as such, they scared to come out. He also stated that he saw the dead body of Hriday Narayan Singh in police station. He further stated that dead body was taken out from mines where he saw the dead body and it was in plastic bag and aluminum wire was wrapped on it and dead body was not decomposed and it was identifiable. He has also stated that Janardan Singh, Awadh Kishore Singh, Makund Singh, Sitan Singh and Sadhu Saran Singh are their gotia and out of them Janardan Singh and Makund Singh were also killed. 23. We find that when the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 got recorded under Section 164 CrPC, their age were 12 years and 10 years respectively, but perusal of their respective said statement reveals that no certificate of competency has been given by the learned Magistrate who recorded their respective statements. Approximately 5 years after recording of 164 CrPC statement, their respective testimony got recorded before the trial court in the present case. By that time, even PW-1 has divulged his age as 17 years whereas PW-2 as 15 years. But before recording their respective testimony, no certificate of competency has been given by the trial Judge. PW-1 and PW-2 have given vivid description of incident by taking names of as many as 15 accused persons out of which nine who entered inside the room and even six who were in the Verandah of the room/Baithka. Not only this, this Court finds that these two witnesses have stated categorically what role played by the accused persons who entered inside the room. These two witnesses further stated that deceased Hriday Narayan Singh was lying on the chowki and was awaken even when bang at door was given, then also he kept on lying and even when nine accused persons admittedly who were having inimical relation with informant side entered in the room then also it is said that Hriday Narayan Singh was kept on lying on the bed. This also appears to be unnatural conduct on the part of deceased as stated above by the witness. I.O. has stated that Baithka is about 12ft. X 8ft. This also appears to be unnatural conduct on the part of deceased as stated above by the witness. I.O. has stated that Baithka is about 12ft. X 8ft. Considering the above said size and presence of 12 persons (9 accused persons + Deceased + PW-1 & PW-2), it is difficult for us to believe that if nine accused persons entered inside the room, all of a sudden then two children of tender age could able to see the activity/role played by the accused persons and, that too, when they were threatened by pistol not to cry/shout and they themselves stated that both of them went in the corner of the room and they shut their eyes. Again, it is difficult for us to believe the version of these two eye witnesses on the account that it is the case of prosecution that only one lantern was lighting in the Baithka and it was raining and dark night at about 10.00 PM, then how these two witnesses were able to identify exact six number of accused persons who were said to be standing at Verandah. Description of place of occurrence as stated by PW-1/PW-2 reveals that it is surrounded by houses of other persons in nearby, then again it is difficult to understand the reason that why six persons exposed themselves by standing in Verandah of cattle house/Baithka, that too, when the Baithka belongs to the person with whom accused persons were having inimical relation with them. 24. Further, we find that PW-10 Mahendra Kumar Singh has stated in his examination-in-chief that when he was coming after taking meal to the Baithka for sleeping by lighting torch then he saw accused persons who were carrying dead body in the bichhawan (bed), but in cross-examination there is complete vota- face by this witness who has stated that he was not knowing that what was there in the wrapped bistar (bedding). Further, PW-10 has stated that as accused persons chased him, he went straight to his home and thereafter, came alongwith his uncle Jobraj Singh (informant) to the Baithka and thereafter he, Jobraj Singh and two children (PW-1 & PW-2) came back to the home. Further, PW-10 has stated that as accused persons chased him, he went straight to his home and thereafter, came alongwith his uncle Jobraj Singh (informant) to the Baithka and thereafter he, Jobraj Singh and two children (PW-1 & PW-2) came back to the home. This fact is completely in contradiction to what is stated by PW-10 in his examination-in-chief and also from the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 as these two witnesses have stated that PW-10 alone by untying rope opened the chain and entered the room, then both of them apprised the incident to him and thereafter all the three (PW-1, PW-2 & PW-10) went to home and conveyed the incident to informant. Testimony of PW-4 reveals that alleged incident which took place inside Baithka had been conveyed to informant by PW- 1 and PW-2, but it does not find corroboration from the written report of PW-4. Written report reveals that it is PW-10 who narrated the incident to informant. 25. It further transpires that I.O. has stated that at the time of search of dead body informant was not with him and it is three accused persons namely, Balo Mahto, Mahesh Mahto and Kongresh Mahto on whose behest dead body has been recovered. From evidence of doctor (PW-3), it can be well inferred with certainty that face of the dead body was not identifiable as almost all the soft tissues were destroyed and all bones were exposed, as all soft tissues were absent no evidence of any injury on bony part was found, as such the cause of death couldn’t be ascertained. Then, one question which cropped up in our mind that how identification of dead body was made and alleged claim of seeing dead body of Hriday Narayan Singh by the witnesses PW-1 and PW-10 has no basis and difficult for us to rely the version of witness on this aspect, despite the fact that they claimed that dead body was identifiable. PW-6 has deposed that Madan Singh, brother of deceased identified the dead body. Madan Singh has not been examined as a witness and even PW-8 and PW-9 who are witnesses of death inquest report have also not uttered a word that how the dead body was identified. PW-6 has deposed that Madan Singh, brother of deceased identified the dead body. Madan Singh has not been examined as a witness and even PW-8 and PW-9 who are witnesses of death inquest report have also not uttered a word that how the dead body was identified. Of course, from cross examination and 313 CrPC statements of accused persons, it appears that accused persons have not disputed the identity of dead body, but undoubtedly it was primary burden of proof upon the shoulder of prosecution to establish the identify of dead body as, “that of Hriday Narayan Singh”. There is no iota of material which would even remotely suggest that where and when dead body was shown to the family member for identification and who has identified on which basis. 26. Other aspect, which we want to discuss is that, it is admitted position that there was inimical relation between informant side and accused side. It is trite law that enmity is a double-edged weapon. So, it can be a motive for a person to commit an offence and at the same time, it can also prompt other side (victim) to implicate falsely the person with whom they have enmity. It has been also vehemently argued on behalf of defence that informant was chronic litigant well-versed with the legal jugglery and intentionally informant did not approach public authority in the night to concoct and/or manufacture story so that all the persons inimical to him could be framed in the present case. 27. We have carefully gone through the material which has come on record regarding non-lodging of FIR in the night of 13.07.1989 when incident took place. The reason assigned was that the informant was having threat from the accused persons and it was raining. From the perusal of evidence available on record, it transpires that informant was descendent of ex-landlord and police station is just 2‰ KM away from the place of occurrence. It is the statement of informant himself that rain started at 10.00 PM in the night and stopped by 10.45 PM. It has also been stated that out of fear even they didn’t tell the incident to villager. It is the statement of informant himself that rain started at 10.00 PM in the night and stopped by 10.45 PM. It has also been stated that out of fear even they didn’t tell the incident to villager. The above said act of informant side is also bereft of normal human conduct that if a kith and kin of a person was killed and taken away by known accused person then the victim side would not make hue and cry and would not also seek help from the villager. This village is said to having more than 80 houses and it is also not believable that all persons are inimical to the informant. FIR is registered on 14.07.1989 and sent to concerned Magistrate on 17.07.1989 and there is no explanation on the part of prosecution for delayed sending of FIR to concerned Magistrate. Therefore, false implication of appellants cannot be ruled out. 28. Considering the aforesaid discussion, we find that the manner of incident brought on record on behalf of prosecution appears to be improbable, therefore, appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt. 29. Therefore, impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 06.10.1997 passed by learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.8 of 1992, impugned judgment dated 26.11.2009 and order of sentence dated 30.11.2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC-VII, Giridih in S.T. Case No.08(A) of 1992, impugned judgment dated 27.02.2024 and order of sentence dated 06.03.2024 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, 1 st , Giridih in S.T. Case No.08(B) of 1992 and impugned judgment dated 14.06.2024 and order of sentence dated 18.06.2024 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, 1st, Giridih in S.T. Case No.08(C) of 1992 are not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore set aside. 30. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 31. Since the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their respective bail bonds. 32. Let the trial court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.