Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1470 (ALL)

Arbind Singh v. State of U. P.

2025-12-19

J.J.MUNIR, SANJIV KUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sanjiv Kumar, J. 1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ convicts Arbind Singh son of Bishwanath Singh and Bhola Nath Dubey son of Deo Narain Dubey, both residents of Village-Bhaiswar, Police Station-Ghorawal, District- Mirzapur, against the judgment and order dated 20.07.1984 passed by the Additional Sessions, Judge, Mirzapur in Session Trial No. 101 of 1983, State Vs. Arbind Singh and Another. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant Bhola Nath Dubey to undergo imprisonment for life, finding him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and the appellant Arbind Singh to imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. The present Criminal Appeal in regard to accused appellant no. 2 Bhola Nath Dubey son of Deo Narain has abated , by an order of the Court dated 22 nd August, 2025. Therefore, the present Criminal Appeal now proceeds on behalf of appellant No. 1/convict, Arbind Singh, only. 4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the informant Ram Murat son of Bihari Singh, resident of Village- Bhaiswar, Police Station- Ghorawal, District- Mirzapur submitted a written information (tehrir) dated 15.09.1982 (Ext. Ka-2) before Incharge, Police Station- Ghorawal, District- Mirzapur, stating therein that on 14/15.09.1982 at about 12 midnight the informant’s father Bihari Singh son of Jhuri Singh, aged about 60 years, was sleeping on a cot in the living room (Baithka) situate towards northern side of his house. On the other cots, two in number, the informant, his cousin Shiv Murat (fufera bhai), and Gauri Shankar, were sleeping. Upon hearing (aahat) some one’s footsteps the informant got up. He woke up Shiv Murat and Gauri Shankar. Four miscreants came near the door of the Baithka. The informant flashed his torch to spot them. One of the miscreants shot at his father, leading the informant to raise alarm. The miscreants made good then escape as were chased. Meanwhile, Ram Surat son of Lalji a resident of the adjacent house, came out of (his house) with his torch. The miscreants were chased across some distance but they fled away towards the south. One of the miscreants was identified as Arbind Singh son of Biswanath Singh and other was Bhola Pandit both residents of Village- Bhaiswar, Police Station- Ghorawal. Meanwhile, Ram Surat son of Lalji a resident of the adjacent house, came out of (his house) with his torch. The miscreants were chased across some distance but they fled away towards the south. One of the miscreants was identified as Arbind Singh son of Biswanath Singh and other was Bhola Pandit both residents of Village- Bhaiswar, Police Station- Ghorawal. He had identified the rest of the two miscreants, by face. When they returned to the living room (Baithka), the informant found his father lying dead on the cot. 5. Upon this information a chik FIR (Ext. Ka-16) under Section 302 IPC, bearing Case Crime No. 51 of 1982, was lodged at police station Ghorawal, District Mirzapur, against accused Arbind Singh, Bhola Pandit and two unknown men. The investigation of the case was entrusted to Station Officer of the Police Station, Diwakar Mishra. The inquest report was prepared alongwith connected papers. The post- mortem examination of the deceased was done, whereupon it was found that the deceased had sustained firearm injures and the cause of death was opined as shock and hemorrhage as a result of the ante-mortem injuries. The investigating officer inspected the torch and prepared its supurdaginama marked (Ext. Ka-4). He prepared a fard baramadgi of one lungi, found after a few days towards southern side of the house, which he proved as (Ext. Ka-5). The Investigating Officer prepared site- plan of the place of recovery, marked Ex. Ka-22. The I.O. also collected a sample each of plain earth and blood stained earth, a bullet, bloodstained clothes and blood stained strap (baandh) from the place of occurrence and prepared its fard baramadgi (Ext. Ka-19). He recorded the statements of the informant and other witnesses. The sample of blood stained earth, one bullet, bedsheet, strap (baandh), and dhoti were sent for chemical examination. According to the chemical examination report (Ext. Ka-25) human blood was found on all the items and the blood group was also ascertained. The I.O. inspected the place of occurrence and prepared its site-plan which he proved as Ext. Ka-18. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge- sheet (Ext. Ka 23) against appellants/ convicts Arbind Singh and Bhola Nath Dubey under Section 302 IPC, before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur. 6. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The accused appeared before the Court. Ka-18. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge- sheet (Ext. Ka 23) against appellants/ convicts Arbind Singh and Bhola Nath Dubey under Section 302 IPC, before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur. 6. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The accused appeared before the Court. The Magistrate furnished copies of the relevant prosecution papers under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and thereafter, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions on 25.10.1983. 7. The Court of Sessions summoned the accused. A charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant Arbind Singh whereas a charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC was framed against the appellant Bhola Pandit. Both the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The prosecution examined five witnesses before the Court in support of their case, to wit, P.W.1- Ram Murat (informant and eye- witness)), P.W. 2- Gauri Shankar (eye-witness), P.W. 3- Dr. S.K. Gupta (conducted post-mortem of the deceased), P.W. 4- Constable Fateh Bahadur Singh (carried dead body for post-mortem to Mirzapur) and lastly P.W. 5- Diwakar Mishra, the investigating officer of the case. 9. P.W. 1- Ram Murat, is the son of deceased Bihari. He is the informant and an eye-witness of the case. He has said on oath that he knows appellants Arbind Singh and Bhola Pandit. There was enmity between him and the appellants ante-dating the incident. He originally hailed from belonged to District Varanasi. In the year 1971, his father had purchased 11 Bigha of land in Village- Bhaiswar and after migrating from Varanasi started living here. In 1969, while his father was irrigating his agricultural land by Chakra Nala of river Nakhar, Arbind Singh blocked the flow of water and upon objection Arbind Singh had battered his father employing sticks. Thereupon, the informant had lodged a complaint before the Collector and the Superintendent of Police, a carbon copy whereof he has proved as (Ext. Ka-1). He has further testified that since a year before the incident, on account of the village Pradhan election both parties were not on good terms. In Village Bhaiswar his house is located towards northern side with a courtyard (sehan) adjacent to it and to the north of courtyard there is a living room (Baithka), with a door towards the east. He has further testified that since a year before the incident, on account of the village Pradhan election both parties were not on good terms. In Village Bhaiswar his house is located towards northern side with a courtyard (sehan) adjacent to it and to the north of courtyard there is a living room (Baithka), with a door towards the east. On the fateful day at about 12 midnight, his father was sleeping on a cot inside this living room (Baithka), where the informant was also sleeping on a separate cot. He had a with him. On the third cot Gauri Shankar and Shiv Murat were sleeping. Upon hearing some aahat (sound of footsteps), the informant woke up and saw four persons at the door. He then woke up Shiv Murat and Gauri Shankar. The informant flashed his torch and identified Arbind Singh and Bhola Pandit. Arbind was holding a revolver in hand whereas Bhola Pandit was carrying a ballam. The rest of the two miscreants were wielding lathis, whom he could not identify. The appellant Arbind Singh shot his father causing injuries to his head and the right eye. He raised alarm, whereupon, Ram Surat and others reached there, carrying a torch. The appellants fled towards south. They who were chased through some distance, but they fled away. Thereafter, the informant returned to the living room (Baithka) where he found his father Bihari lying dead with blood on his cot and some blood had also spilt on to the earth. Due to fear he did not go anywhere and stayed in the house. The next morning he wrote down an application in his own hand and took it to Police Station Ghorawal, at about 08.30 a.m., which he gave to the constable. The witness has proved his tehrir as (Ext.-Ka- 16). He has further stated that the I.O., after recording his statement at the Police Station, came over to the deceased’s village for investigation. During investigation the informant and Ram Surat had shown him their respective torches of which he prepared a supurdagi nama (Ext. Ka-3). There was a torch lying on his father’s cot, which was inspected by the I.O. and he wrote down its supurdagi nama as (Ext. Ka-4). 10. During investigation the informant and Ram Surat had shown him their respective torches of which he prepared a supurdagi nama (Ext. Ka-3). There was a torch lying on his father’s cot, which was inspected by the I.O. and he wrote down its supurdagi nama as (Ext. Ka-4). 10. In his cross-examination P.W. 1, Ram Murat has said that he had sent the application to the Superintendent of Police and the Collector by registered post, one or two months prior to the festival of Nag Panchami in 1979. Witness Gauri Shankar’s house is adjacent to his house and Gauri Shankar would sleep at Ram Murat’s house occasionally. The lantern was lit in the Baithka and it was a dark night. Upon hearing the noise of footsteps, he woke up but did not raise alarm and went over quietly to Shiv Murat’s and Gauri Shankar’s cots woken them up, otherwise the intruders would have fled. The miscreants opened fire after the informant had flashed his torch. He forgot to write in his first information that appellant Arvind Singh was carrying a revolver and Bhola Pandit a ballam. His father was shot from a distance of one foot and the bullet hit his head and passed through his right eye. The assailant had shot him a in bending position. None of the accused had covered their faces. He went to the Police Station on a bicycle. He had asked Ram Surat and Gauri Shankar, whether they would depose before mentioning their names in the FIR. On 15.09.1982, there was a case pending in the Mirzapur Court where he was an accused. About two to three years prior to this incident a case was lodged against him, Ram Surat, Gauri Shankar and others in which both the accused (of this case) had deposed against them. There was a case regarding one Prabhawati’s murder lodged against him at the behest of Arvind Singh. There was another case of maarpeet lodged against him and his father. Teju Kaal has also lodged a case against him, Ram Surat, Shiv Murat and Gauri. Prior to this incident Premanand had lodged a case regarding the theft against this witness which was compromised. In that case, Inspector Pachmi Ram had come along with Arvind Singh and Baba to arrest them. In that case there were other accused, to wit, Vullu, Sharda and Ram Surat, alongside him. Prior to this incident Premanand had lodged a case regarding the theft against this witness which was compromised. In that case, Inspector Pachmi Ram had come along with Arvind Singh and Baba to arrest them. In that case there were other accused, to wit, Vullu, Sharda and Ram Surat, alongside him. While being arrested by the Inspector, they obstructed. He has admitted that there are many cases pending against them. 11. P.W. 2- Gauri Shankar is another eye-witness of the incident. He has said that he knows the appellant Arbind Singh and Bhola Pandit. The deceased Bihari was his Mama (maternal uncle). About one and a half years ago at about 12 midnight, Bihari was asleep on a cot in front of the door to his baithaka whereas the witness himself, Shiv Murat and Ram Murat were sleeping on two other cots. Ram Murat and Shiv Murat woke him up, and when Ram Murat flashed his torch, they saw the appellants Arbind Singh, Bhola Pandit besides two other persons standing at the Baithaka of door. Arbind Singh was wielding a revolver and Bhola, a ballam and the two others had danda on them. As soon as, Ram Murat flashed his torch, Arbind Singh shot Bihari with his revolver which hit Bihari on the back side of head, behind the ear passing through the right eye of the deceased; and, after hitting the earthen ¼feVVh dk½ pillar the bullet dropped onto the deceased’s cot. Upon their alarm Ram Surat came over with a torch. The appellants fled towards southwards. They were chased through some distance but they fled away. Thereafter, P.W. 2 returned to the Baithaka and saw Bihari lying dead. There was blood over his bed, cot and also splattered on the earth. At the time of this incident, the appellant Arbind Singh was wearing a kurta and lungi and the lungi present before the Court is the same, which Arbind Singh was wearing at the time of incident. The aforesaid lungi was found on 16.09.1982 at about 04.00 p.m. towards the southern side of the informant’s house in a drain. The I.O. had collected this lungi and prepared a fard baramadgi, which he proved as (Ext. Ka-5). 12. In his cross-examination, the P.W. 2 has said that the Lungi was found in a drain and it was not taken to the police station the same day. The I.O. had collected this lungi and prepared a fard baramadgi, which he proved as (Ext. Ka-5). 12. In his cross-examination, the P.W. 2 has said that the Lungi was found in a drain and it was not taken to the police station the same day. Except for the rainy seasons, he sleeps in his own house, but in the rainy season he would sleep in Bihari’s Baithka, because it has many windows. To the north of his own house, there is Oshara having windows. When they returned after chasing the appellants the bullet was found lying on the deceased’s cot. Ram Murat was not attacked when he flashed the torch. Ram Murat had awakened them saying that get up, let us see who are these persons. After the appellants had fled away 25-50 persons of the village visited at the place of occurrence. He has admitted that there is a dispute regarding the irrigation of land between him and the appellant Arvind Singh. He lodged a complaint regarding maarpeet against Arvind Singh and others, which was dismissed. In a case under Section 304 I.P.C. he was accused along with Uma, Ram Murat and others. The appellant Bhola did not reside in village Bhaiswar, but would frequent it. 13. P.W. 3 Doctor S.K. Gupta, is an expert witness who has conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased cadaver on 16.09.1982 at 03.00 p.m. in District Hospital, Mirzapur. He has said that the deceased was aged about 60 years. Rigor mortis had passed away from the upper part of the body and was passing through the lower parts. Blood was oozing from the nose and right ear. There were blisters over the nose. Mouth was open and the entire body was swollen. He found following ante-mortem injuries over the body:- (i) Fire-arm wound of entry 1cm x 1cm x cranial cavity at right back side of the head. The margins of wound were inverted and lacerated. (ii) The right eye ball was torn and bulging out and bleeding. (iii) Right occipital bone was fractured, corresponding with injury no. 1, caused by fire-arm. Brain towards right side of injury no. 1 was lacerated and it was corresponding to injury no. 1. About one ounce of blood and clotted blood was present. Superior plate of the orbit of right eye was fractured. There was semi-digested food in the stomach. (iii) Right occipital bone was fractured, corresponding with injury no. 1, caused by fire-arm. Brain towards right side of injury no. 1 was lacerated and it was corresponding to injury no. 1. About one ounce of blood and clotted blood was present. Superior plate of the orbit of right eye was fractured. There was semi-digested food in the stomach. The small intestine was filled with gases and there was fecal matter in the large intestine. The gall bladder was empty. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury no. 1. In his opinion injury no. 1 was caused by a shot from a revolver. The exit of injury no. 1 was corresponding to the eye ball of the right eye. The assault could have occurred from a distance of 3 to 4 feet or more than that distance. The death of the deceased would have occurred at about 12 midnight on 14/15.09.1982. He has proved the post-mortem report as Ext. Ka-6. 14. In his cross-examination, P.W. 3 Dr. S.K. Gupta, has said that the above injury could be caused by gun shot from a distance of more than 4 feet because there was no blackening and scorching around the margins of the injury. The direction of the above injury was parallel to the body of deceased, while in the lying position. 15. P.W. 4- Constable, Fateh Bahadur Singh, is a formal witness who took the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem to Mirzapur, after the inquest report was prepared. 16. P.W. 5- S.O., Diwakar Mishra, is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the chik FIR, Ext. Ka-16 as secondary witness of Head Constable, Shiv Shankar Singh, the scribe of the FIR. He has also proved G.D. No. 6 as Ext. Ka-17. He has said that he recorded the statements of witnesses. The inquest report of the deceased was prepared along with relevant connected papers. He has proved inquest report as Ext. Ka-10, related papers photo nash, challan lash, letter to the CMO and the letter to the R.I. sample seals etc. as Ext. Ka-7 to 13. He has also stated that he inspected the place of occurrence and prepared a site-plan which he proved as Ext. Ka-18. He has proved inquest report as Ext. Ka-10, related papers photo nash, challan lash, letter to the CMO and the letter to the R.I. sample seals etc. as Ext. Ka-7 to 13. He has also stated that he inspected the place of occurrence and prepared a site-plan which he proved as Ext. Ka-18. He collected samples of plain earth and blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and kept it in sealed boxes which he proved as Ext. 2 and 3. He recovered a bullet lying under the deceased’s cot which he proved as Ext. 4. He has also taken sample of blood stained bedsheet (Kathari), Ext. 5, blood stained pillow, Ext. 6, plastic box, Ext. 7, the strap (baandh) of the cot, Ext. 8, blood stained baniyan, Ext. 9 and prepared a fard baramadgi, marked as Ext. Ka-19. He has also prepared a recovery memo (supurdagi nama) for the torch kept on the deceased’s cot marked as Ext. Ka-4. He also inspected torches of witness, Vikram and Bullu which were in running condition and he proved it as Ext. 3. He raided houses in search of the appellants but they were not found. On 17.09.1982, Shiv Murat handed him over the lungi, Ext. 1, which was left by accused at the place of occurrence and prepared its fard baramadgi which he proved as Ext. 5. After completion of investigation he submitted a charge-sheet, Ext. Ka-23, before learned Magistrate. 17. In his cross-examination he has said that the office of the Circle officer, Churk, was about 40 km away from the police station and there is vehicular connectivity between the two. The chik report is sent the same day to the Circle Officer, if it is lodged before 12 noon, and in other cases, the next day. The date is 17.09.1982 endorsed on the chik under C.O.s signature. The date of receipt at the office of Circle Officer is not mentioned in the G.D. of 15.09.1982.There was ¼feVVh dk½ pillar in the middle of the Baithka, 6-7 steps away from eastern wall. The deceased’s cot was two and half balisht (a measure of man’s palm and fingers from thumb to the little finger, outstretched) way from the pillar. There was a bullet mark at the height of about 5 balisht on the earthen pillar, which was about two and half balisht higher that the placing of the deceased’s cot. The deceased’s cot was two and half balisht (a measure of man’s palm and fingers from thumb to the little finger, outstretched) way from the pillar. There was a bullet mark at the height of about 5 balisht on the earthen pillar, which was about two and half balisht higher that the placing of the deceased’s cot. The informant had not told him that due to fear he did not go to the police station the same night. Gauri Shankar had not told him that appellant Shiv Murat’s lungi was recovered in his presence. 18. The following documentary evidence has been produced by the prosecution to prove its case; Exhibit Ka-1, Tehrir dated 29.08.1982, Exhibit Ka-2, Tehrir dated 15.09.1982,,Exhibit Ka-3 and Exhibit Ka-4, Recovery memo and supurdginama of torch, Exhibit Ka-5, Recovery memo of Lungi, Exhibit-Ka-6 post-mortem report, Exhibit Ka-7 Letter to R.I., Exhibit Ka-8 Letter to the C.M.O., Exhibit Ka-9 Report regarding post-mortem, Exhibit Ka-10 Inquest report, Exhibit Ka-11 Copy of Chik FIR, Exhibit Ka-12 naksha laash, Exhibit Ka-13 Challan laash, Exhibit Ka-14 Sample of Seal, Exhibit Ka-15 G.D. No.22, Exhibit Ka-16 Chik FIR, Exhibit Ka-17 G.D., Exhibit Ka-18 site-plan, Exhibit Ka-19 Recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth and bullet blood stained, Exhibit Ka-20 Search memo of Arbind Singh, Exhibit Ka-21 Search memo of Bhola Nath Dubey, Exhibit Ka-22 site-plan of the place where the Lungi was recovered, Exhibit Ka-23 the charge-sheet, Exhibit Ka-24 Chemical Examination Report, Exhibit Ka-25 report of the chemical examiner, Material Exhibit-1 Lungi, Material Exhibit 2 and 3 sample of blood stained and plain earth, Exhibit 4 Bullet, Exhibit 5 blood stained Kathri, Exhibit 6 pillow, Exhibit 7 tobacco dibia, Exhibit 8 blood stained baandh, and Exhibit 9 blood stained baniyan. 19. After the closure of prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the prosecution case and stated that false evidence has been adduced against them and that due to enmity they have been falsely implicated in the present case. 20. The accused did not produce any evidence in their defence. 21. After hearing both the parties and perusal of record, the learned Trial Judge convicted the appellant- Arbind Singh under Section 302 and appellant Bhola Nath Dubey under Section 302 IPC read with 34 IPC. 20. The accused did not produce any evidence in their defence. 21. After hearing both the parties and perusal of record, the learned Trial Judge convicted the appellant- Arbind Singh under Section 302 and appellant Bhola Nath Dubey under Section 302 IPC read with 34 IPC. The Trial Court observed that there was motive for the appellants to commit Bihari’s murder, because Bihari had purchased a land in the village and there was dispute with regard to its irrigation with Arbind Singh. There was a factional dispute relating to election of the Gram Pradhan which served as a motive as well. Though, the incident had occurred in the dark of night but a torch was flashed across the faces of the appellants, leading the assailants to be recognized by the witnesses. The presence of Gauri Shankar in the deceased Bihari’s Baithka is well explained and the FIR was lodged promptly. There is no inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The learned Trial Judge also observed that the FIR was not ante-timed. P.W. 1, Ram Murat and P.W. 2, Gauri Shankar had proved the occurrence. There are no material contradictions in ocular and medial evidence. In view of the above, the Trial Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them as indicated above. 22. We have heard rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 23. It is submitted on behalf of the surviving appellant that the FIR was lodged belatedly and there is no plausible explanation regarding the delay. It is also submitted that the FIR is ante-timed and the date and time of lodging the FIR were endorsed later showing an earlier time. It is also submitted that the eye-witnesses are close relatives of the deceased and they are highly interested witnesses. Therefore, their testimony is not reliable. It is further submitted that the presence of the eye witnesses at the place of occurrence is also highly doubtful. It is next submitted that there are material contradictions in the testimony of PW-1- Ram Murat and PW-2, Gauri Shankar, which makes their presence at the place of occurrence very doubtful. The prosecution have not produced any other independent witness which renders the prosecution case unreliable. It is further submitted that there are major contradictions in the ocular evidence and medical evidence which does not support the prosecution case. 24. The prosecution have not produced any other independent witness which renders the prosecution case unreliable. It is further submitted that there are major contradictions in the ocular evidence and medical evidence which does not support the prosecution case. 24. It is also submitted that the deceased and the eye witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 had criminal history and the deceased might have been killed by someone else in the dark hours of the night, and the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity (party bandi). It is also submitted that the appellants had no motive to kill the deceased, particularly an immediate motive. Therefore, the prosecution was unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record correctly. Thus the impugned judgment is illegal and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is not sustainable. 25. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the State that there is no delay in lodging the FIR. It was promptly lodged. PW-1 and PW-2 are natural witnesses who were present at the time of the incident and they have supported the prosecution case. There are no major contradictions in their testimony. Thus, their testimony was reliable and trustworthy. It is also submitted that there are no major contradictions in ocular evidence and medical evidence. There was motive for the appellants to commit the murder of the deceased, as earlier there arose a dispute between the parties and due to the Gram Pradhan election, there was party rivalry in the village which led the appellants to harbor animosity against the deceased. Therefore, there was motive for the appellants to commit this murder. 26. It is further submitted that though it was dark in the night, but the witnesses had torches in their hands and they had identified the appellants when the torch light was flashed across their faces. The appellants are residents of the same village. Therefore, they were known to the witnesses, who flawlessly identified them. Thus, the prosecution case was proved beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 27. In the light of submissions of both parties and evidence on record we have to see that whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the prosecution case was proved beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 27. In the light of submissions of both parties and evidence on record we have to see that whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is settled law that in a criminal case the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, according to the prosecution, on 14/15.09.1982 at about 12 midnight, the appellants came to the place of occurrence, which was the Baithka of the informant, with an intention to commit the murder of Bihari, the informant’s father, and in furtherance of their common intention, the appellant/ convict Arvind Singh shot Bihari with a revolver, as a result of which Bihari died on the spot. 28. In the present case, the date and time of Bihari’s death is not disputed. Doctor S.K. Gupta, PW-3, has conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased and found that the deceased sustained two fire arm ante-mortem injuries. The one was a firearm entry wound on the right side of the back of skull, margins inverted and lacerated. The other injury was that the right eyeball was lacerated and bulging out. In his opinion injury no. 1 was caused by fire from a revolver. The exit of injury no. 1 was corresponding to the eye ball of the right eye and there was a fracture of the occipital bone. The deceased’s brain towards right side of injury no. 1 was lacerated and it was corresponding to injury no. 1. In view of the medical examination report, it is clear that the deceased had died due to a head injury caused by firearm. 29. Further, PW-1, Ram Murat and PW-2 Gauri Shankar, have said in their dock evidence that the alleged incident took place at 12 midnight of 14/15.09.1982. In this regard, Doctor S.K. Gupta, who has conducted the post-mortem examination on 16.9.1982 at 3 p.m., has opined that death could have taken place about one and a half day prior to the post-mortem examination. Thus, the above time tallies, with the time and date stated by the eye witnesses which supports the prosecution case. In this regard, Doctor S.K. Gupta, who has conducted the post-mortem examination on 16.9.1982 at 3 p.m., has opined that death could have taken place about one and a half day prior to the post-mortem examination. Thus, the above time tallies, with the time and date stated by the eye witnesses which supports the prosecution case. Therefore, the date and time as well as the death of deceased Bihari are not disputed and they are established by the prosecution. 30. So far as the place of occurrence is concerned, it is also not disputed by the defence. In this regard, PW-1 Ram Murat and PW-2 Gauri Shankar, have categorically stated that the deceased was murdered while he was sleeping on his cot in the Baithka. It has also come in evidence that there were gunshot injuries to the deceased and he was bleeding. Blood had also dropped down on deceased’s cot as well as on the floor under the cot. 31. The Investigating Officer, PW-5 Diwakar Mishra, has inspected the place of occurrence on the morning following the incident and found that the dead body of the deceased was lying on the cot in the Baithka. He also found a bed-sheet, pillow, and kathri soaked in blood and blood- stained earth under the cot. He also found that the straps (baandh) of the cot were also soaked in blood. The Investigating Officer collected the above articles as well as samples of plain earth and blood-stained earth and sent them for chemical examination. In view of the chemical examination report (Exhibit Ka-24) these articles carries human blood. Thus, the ocular evidence as well as the evidence collected by the I.O. at the place of occurrence and also the fact that the body of the deceased was found lying at the cot of the Baithka, proves that the deceased was killed at the place of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. The defence has also not suggested any alternative place of occurrence where the murder of the deceased could have taken place. Therefore, the place of occurrence is established by the prosecution. 32. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the FIR was lodged belatedly and it was ante-timed, and thus, the prosecution case is not believable. The defence has also not suggested any alternative place of occurrence where the murder of the deceased could have taken place. Therefore, the place of occurrence is established by the prosecution. 32. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the FIR was lodged belatedly and it was ante-timed, and thus, the prosecution case is not believable. In this regard, the prosecution case is that the incident occurred on 14/15.09.1982 at 12 midnight, and the FIR was lodged by the informant Ram Murat, son of Bihari, on 15.09.1982 at 8:30 a.m. at Police Station- Ghorawal, District Mirzapur. 33. Upon a perusal of the chick FIR, it is clear that the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is eight miles. The FIR was lodged about 8 ½ hours after the time of incident. In this regard, PW-1, Ram Murat has said that due to fear, he did not go to the police station the same night, and in the morning, he himself wrote down the application (tehrir) and went to the police station on a bicycle and lodged the FIR. The reason shown by the informant for lodging the FIR, belatedly, does not appeal to us. Here, it is pertinent to note that it has come in evidence that after the incident, many residents of the village reached the spot, and right through the night they were visiting the place of occurrence but, the informant did not ask any villager to accompany him to go the police station to lodge an FIR. Here, it is also noteworthy that according to PW-1 and PW-2, they chased the assailants across a certain distance and after the assailants fled away, they returned to the place of occurrence. It has also come in evidence that there were some criminal cases lodged against the informant and the deceased. In one such case, both the appellants of this case had deposed against the informant and PW-2 Gauri Shankar, the other witness of this case. There was one case regarding theft lodged against the informant, and in that case, the police inspector came to arrest the informant, and at that particular time, the appellant Arbind Singh and Babu, had accompanied the police personnel. There was one case regarding theft lodged against the informant, and in that case, the police inspector came to arrest the informant, and at that particular time, the appellant Arbind Singh and Babu, had accompanied the police personnel. It has also come in evidence of PW-1 that when the inspector tried to arrest the informant Ram Murat in that case, he obstructed the arrest, and in this regard, another case was lodged against him. 34. Further, according to PW-2 Gauri Shankar, in the case under Section 304 IPC regarding culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the informant, himself, and others were accused, and in another case with regard to attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder both of them along with others were accused. Therefore, upon looking at the above evidence, it is clear that both the informant and PW- 2 Gauri Shankar had criminal antecedents, and the deceased too have criminal history. It is also clear that in some such criminal cases the appellants of this case stood with the other side. 35. In view of the above background, it is not natural on the informant’s part not to proceed to the police station the same night to lodge an FIR, though he chased the assailants with the other villagers, knew them well and almost all the persons of the village had reached the place of occurrence, which they kept visiting the entire night some coming in and others leaving. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the informant would have had any fear in proceeding to the police station to lodge an FIR. The informant has not disclosed any reason for the delay in lodging the FIR in the written report. In view of the evidence of the I.O. that the informant did not tell him, that due to fear he did not go to the Police Station during the night to lodge the FIR, this reason put forward to explain the delay cannot be accepted. Therefore, there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and the delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. In Thulia Kali Vs. Therefore, there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and the delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. In Thulia Kali Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1972 (3) SCC 393 , the Supreme Court has held that on account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of colored version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. Thus, the delay in lodging the FIR should be satisfactorily explained. It was also held that if the witnesses examined have given contradictory evidence and there is discrepancy on the point and the prosecution fail to examine other independent material witnesses then it would make the Court draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. In Mohd. Muslim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (now Uttrakhand) 2023 (7) SCC 350 , it has been held by the Supreme Court that the FIR in a murder case is vital and valuable piece of evidence. Infirmities in the FIR casts doubt on its authenticity, depletes its evidentiary value and entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt. 36. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the FIR was ante- timed and lodged later on with an earlier time mentioned in it. In this regard, upon a perusal of evidence, it appears that the office of the Circle Officer, Robertsganj, is about 40 kilometers away from the police station and it has come in evidence that generally, those chik FIR which are lodged before 12 noon are sent to the Circle Officer the same day, and in case FIRs lodged after 12 noon, they are sent to the Office of Circle Officer the next day. In the present case, the FIR was lodged at 8:30 a.m., which means it was lodged before 12 noon. The record shows that the FIR reached the Office of the Circle Officer the next day. 37. The prosecution has not clarified why the FIR was not sent to the Office of the Circle Officer the same day, which was against the general practice, raising suspicion that it was anti-timed. 38. The record shows that the FIR reached the Office of the Circle Officer the next day. 37. The prosecution has not clarified why the FIR was not sent to the Office of the Circle Officer the same day, which was against the general practice, raising suspicion that it was anti-timed. 38. The Supreme Court in Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188 , has observed in para 12 of the report: “FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eye witnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an after thought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. With a view to determine whether the FIR, was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the courts generally look for certain external checks. One of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the local Magistrate. If this report is received by the Magistrate late it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course the prosecution can offered a satisfactory explanation for the delay in dispatch or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate. Prosecution has led no evidence at all in this behalf. The second external check equally important is the sending of the copy of the FIR along with the dead body and its reference in the inquest report. Even though the inquest report, prepared u/s 174 Cr. P.C. is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the prosecution case, the details of the FIR and the gist of statements recorded during inquest proceedings get reflected in the report. Even though the inquest report, prepared u/s 174 Cr. P.C. is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the prosecution case, the details of the FIR and the gist of statements recorded during inquest proceedings get reflected in the report. The absence of those details is indicative of the fact that the prosecution story was still in embryo and had not been given any shape and that the FIR came to be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and was then ante timed to give it the colour of a promptly lodged FIR.” 39. In view of the above, there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR without reasonable explanation which raises doubt over the prosecution case. 40. It is next submitted on behalf of the appellant that there was no motive for the appellants to commit the offence. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of prosecution that the appellant had motive enough to commit the offence because Bihari had purchased land in the appellant’s village in the year 1971, and thereafter, set up residence there. In the year 1979 when he was irrigating his agricultural land the appellant Arbind Singh had caused obstruction and raised some dispute in this regard. Thereupon P.W. 1 Ram Murat had sent a report to the Office of the Superintendent of Police and the Collector. P.W. 1 Ram Murat, has proved this application as (Ext. Ka-1). There is a postal receipt alone in this regard and no other evidence to prove that this application ever reached the Office of the Superintendent of Police or the Collector and if so what action was taken on this application by these officers, has been produced. Even if it is assumed, that the above complaint had reached to the Superintendent of Police, then all that it shows is that there was a dispute regarding the irrigation of land and that too in the year 1979, whereas the incident in the present case occurred on 15.09.1982 i.e., after about 3 years from the alleged dispute. There is no evidence to show that between these three years, the appellants and the deceased ever reached grudges against each other or then. There is no evidence to show that between these three years, the appellants and the deceased ever reached grudges against each other or then. The above dispute is also not of such a serious nature that it would prompt the appellants to commit murder of the deceased, after 3 years of the event, in such a manner. 41. Further, it has been argued on behalf of the prosecution that there was an election of the village Gram Pradhan where the informant and appellants were supporters of rival parties and this rivalry had prompted the appellants to commit murder of the deceased. It is also argued that the election of the Gram Pradhan was held about a year prior to the occurrence and Gopal Singh, brother of the appellant Arbind Singh was seeking election to the post of the Gram Pradhan. His opponent was Vikram Singh. The deceased and P.W. 1 Ram Murat were supporting Vikram Singh and it is on account of this rivalry that the appellants had developed grudge against the deceased and his family, which prompted them to commit murder. This argument, even if it is believed to be true, has no force. Even if it is assumed to be true, it does not give any immediate cause for the appellants to murder the deceased, because the above election was held about a year ago and there is no evidence that in the intervening period both the parties had any other dispute or quarrel of a serious nature. It is very unlikely that suddenly after about one year of the elections for post of Gram Pradhan, the alleged grudge emanating from the Gram Pradhan election would prompt the appellants to commit the murder of the deceased. Additionally, it may be noted that according to prosecution the enmity was between the informant and his father on one side and appellants on the other. It is highly unlikely that under these circumstances the appellants would target the deceased Bihari alone and leave the informant unhurt and not even threaten him, if he was present at the spot. Therefore, from the above discussion, we come to the conclusion that the motive for the appellants to commit the murder is very weak and not reliable. It is highly unlikely that under these circumstances the appellants would target the deceased Bihari alone and leave the informant unhurt and not even threaten him, if he was present at the spot. Therefore, from the above discussion, we come to the conclusion that the motive for the appellants to commit the murder is very weak and not reliable. Though, this case is based on direct evidence, and, in a case of direct evidence, it is settled law that the motive looses its significance, but, it is also relevant to mention that if a party alleges motive to commit a crime then failure to prove such motive would certainly have some effect on its case. 42. Now let us see whether the direct evidence, in the form of eye witness account, adduced by the prosecution establishes that the appellants have committed the offence. In this regard, the prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Ram Murat and P.W. 2 Gauri Shankar to support its case. P.W. 1 Ram Murat is the son of the deceased and P.W. 2 Gauri Shankar is a nephew (bhanja) of the deceased. Therefore, both these witnesses are the relative- witness of the deceased, and thus, interested witnesses also. In Seeman @ Veeranam Vs. State, Inspector of Police, 2005 SCC (Cri) 1893 , and in Baliraj Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2017 AIR (SCW) 2114 , the Supreme Court has held that the witness could be a relative but, that does not mean, that his testimony is to be totally rejected. In such a case, it is the paramount duty of the Court to be more careful in the matter of scrutiny of evidence of an interested witness, and if, on such scrutiny it is found that the evidence of the interested witness is worth credence, the same would not be discarded merely on the sole ground that the witness is an interested witness. It is also held that, it is well settled that it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity which is required to be judged by the Court to place reliance on the testimony. 43. It is also held that, it is well settled that it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity which is required to be judged by the Court to place reliance on the testimony. 43. Therefore, with regard to a relative- witness, it is settled law that merely on account of being related to the deceased, the evidence of the witness cannot not be discarded and the only precaution the Court would have to bear in mind is that the testimony of such witnesses should be examined carefully by looking at other attending circumstances of the case. Here, in this case as discussed above, the deceased as well as the informant and the eye witness Gauri Shankar, were involved in many criminal cases together and had criminal antecedents as well. The appellants had deposed against them in one such case and accompanied the inspector in another, to cause the informant’s arrest. The argument on behalf of the appellants is that deceased who had criminal antecedent would have many enemies, and it may be that he was eliminated by some other person; and a blind murder as it was, led the informant to take benefit of the dispute due to partybandi, in order to falsely implicate them in this case. 44. After a careful examination of the testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, it comes out that the presence of both these witnesses is highly doubtful at the place of occurrence, at the time of incident. There are not only major contradictions in their testimony but also the manner in which they have described the incident to have taken place. The account is highly improbable and no reliance can be placed on their testimony. According to prosecution at the time of incident, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, both were sleeping in the Baithka, alongwith the deceased. In this regard so far as the presence of P.W. 2 Gauri Shankar is concerned, he has said that his house is near that of the deceased. The reason given by Gauri Shankar to sleep in the deceased’s Baithka is that except in rainy season, he sleeps in his own house and in the rainy season, he sleeps in the deceased’s Baithka because it has many windows and his Oshara has only one window . The reason given by Gauri Shankar to sleep in the deceased’s Baithka is that except in rainy season, he sleeps in his own house and in the rainy season, he sleeps in the deceased’s Baithka because it has many windows and his Oshara has only one window . The above reason given by P.W. 2 to be sleeping in the deceased’s Baithka on the fateful day, is very weak. He has a separate house nearby, with an Oshara that has windows. There was no reason for him to sleep in the Baithka of the deceased. He has stated that he was awakened by P.W. 1, Ram Murat and when he got up he saw four men at the door. The informant flashed a torch across their faces, whereupon one of them shot the deceased from his country-made pistol. 45. According, to P.W. 2, the fire was shot from a distance of 5-6 feet and he has stated that after the shooting the appellants fled the spot. On the other hand, it is stated by P.W. 1 Ram Murat, that accused Arbind Singh shot the deceased, after bending over him, from a distance of one foot. Therefore, the distance from which, and the manner in which the deceased was shot is given a different account of by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. Here, it is also relevant to mention that according to PW-1, when he heard the noise of footsteps while sleeping, he did not raise alarm but quietly went to Gauri Shankar's cot and awakened him. Though, it is not clear, but from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it can be gathered that the doors of Baithka were open, which is why the appellants were seen at the door. When the torch was flashed across their faces, they shot the deceased. In such a situation, when doors were open, and the informant had heard footsteps of someone at odd hours of the night, the normal reaction for him would have been to raise alarm so that the intruders who come from outside would flee, knowing that people inside were alert and not sleeping. The reason given by the informant for not raising an alarm is that he thought that the persons would run away, if he indeed raised it. The reason given by the informant for not raising an alarm is that he thought that the persons would run away, if he indeed raised it. The above reason is also very weak and unnatural because, at odd hours of the night, if one hears foot steps of strangers approaching his house with doors open, then his first reaction would be to suspect that they had come with bad intentions. In such a situation, the informant should have suspected that the persons who are approaching the Baithka may be miscreants or were there with an ulterior motive. The normal conduct for him would have been to raise alarm rather then keep silence and wake up his roommates. The above conduct also raises suspicion regarding the presence of the informant and Gauri Shankar at the place of occurrence. 46. Additionally, it is stated that the torch was flashed by the informant across the miscreant’s faces and one of them fired only one shot leaving the informant and other men in the Baithka unhurt. It has also come in evidence that the other men in the Baithka were neither threatened nor any attempt made to assault them. It has also come in evidence that, it was dark in the night and appellants were not covering their faces, though they live in the same village. Normally, the assailants would have concealed their identity by covering their faces before committing such a crime. If they chose a dark night to commit this offence then there was a possibility for them to cover their faces, but when the torch was flashed at them, they would have apprehended that their identity was disclosed and would have attempted an assault on other inmates or at least threatened them. Further, the sole source of light, the torch, has not been produced by prosecution in Court and no reason for this lapse is given. Therefore, the witnesses testimony about the manner in which the appellants committed the offence is not reliable. The prosecution has not examined the other man, who was also sleeping in the Baithka and no reason has been assigned for his non-examination in Court. In Hem Raj v State of Haryana 2005 (10) SCC 614 , the Supreme Court has held that non-examination of independent witness by itself may not give rise to adverse inference against the prosecution. The prosecution has not examined the other man, who was also sleeping in the Baithka and no reason has been assigned for his non-examination in Court. In Hem Raj v State of Haryana 2005 (10) SCC 614 , the Supreme Court has held that non-examination of independent witness by itself may not give rise to adverse inference against the prosecution. However, when the evidence of the eye-witnesses raise serious doubts on the point of their presence at the time of occurrence, the unexplained omission to examine the independent witnesses would assume significance. The above guidance squarely applies in the present case. In view of the above authority, as the presence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 is found doubtful at the place of occurrence and their testimony not reliable and trustworthy, non-production of other witness of fact by the prosecution would lead to an adverse inference about the prosecution case. 47. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that there are material contradictions in ocular and medical evidence also which totally rules out the possibility of the appellants committing the murder in the manner alleged by the prosecution. In this regard, the examination of evidence, both ocular and medical, shows they contain material contradictions which raises doubt about the manner in which the incident took place. 48. As per the post-mortem report of the deceased, there were two ante-mortem injuries, one was a firearm wound of entry over right side of scalp on the back side. The margins were inverted and lacerated which means that the deceased was shot at this point and the second injury was that the right eyeball was lacerated and bulging out with bleeding present, when the bullet passed through the right eye. In the internal examination, it was found that the firearm wound on the right eye corresponds to injury no. 1, and there was fracture of the occipital bone on the right side. In view of the above medical condition, it is clear that the deceased had died due to a head injury caused by a firearm. It has come in evidence that at the time of the incident, the deceased was sleeping on a cot of with a height of 2.5 balisht (handspan) (which is the measure of the distance between the tip of the thumb and the tip of the little finger when the hand is spread out). It has come in evidence that at the time of the incident, the deceased was sleeping on a cot of with a height of 2.5 balisht (handspan) (which is the measure of the distance between the tip of the thumb and the tip of the little finger when the hand is spread out). According to P.W. 1, the deceased was shot from a distance of 01 foot, but the autopsy report says there was no blackening, tattooing or scorching around the wound of entry. 49. In Modi’s book on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, twenty-third edition (Reprint 2011), at page 721 , it is mentioned that, ‘Blackening is found, if a firearm like a shotgun is discharged from a distance of not more than three feet and a revolver or pistol discharged within about two feet. In the absence of powder residue, no distinction can be made between one distant shot or another., as far as distance is concerned. Scorching in the case of latter firearms is observed within a few inches, while some evidence of scorching in the case of shotguns may be found even at one to three feet. Moreover these signs may be absent when the weapon is pressed tightly against the skin of the body, as the gases of the explosion and the flame smoke and particles of gunpowder will all follow the track of the bullet in the body.’ 50. Therefore, in case of firearm injury from a firearm having a short barrel (like a revolver in this case) there would be blackening and scorching, if the weapon was discharged from a distance of less than 3 feet. P.W.1 has not said that the deceased was shot pressing the barrel of the revolver to the skin of the head. In view of the above, the testimony of P.W. 1 becomes doubtful and it is not believable that the shooting was from a distance of one foot. It has come in the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W. 2 that the deceased was lying on the cot when he was shot over the back of his head. In view of the testimony of P.W.3 Dr., S.K. Gupta, the direction of the injuries of the deceased was parallel, if he was lying on the cot. 51. It has come in the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W. 2 that the deceased was lying on the cot when he was shot over the back of his head. In view of the testimony of P.W.3 Dr., S.K. Gupta, the direction of the injuries of the deceased was parallel, if he was lying on the cot. 51. Here, in this case PW-2 Gauri Shankar has said that the bullet passed through the right eye, struck an earthen pillar, and landed on the cot of the deceased. The I.O. has also said that he found a bullet mark on the earthen pillar at a height of five balisht from the ground. The above manner of assault on the victim is highly improbable and it is not possible that the deceased was shot in such a manner, while in a lying down position on the cot with a height of two and half balisht from the ground. If the deceased was shot while in the lying position on the cot, then it was not possible that the bullet would exit from the right eye and hit the earthen pillar at the height of 5 balisht, situated at about two and half balisht from the cot of the deceased. In such a situation the bullet would not take the upward direction, through the right eye and hit the earthen (??(cid:2)??(cid:4) ??(cid:7)) pillar at double the height of the point of entry. Further, if P.W.1 is believed that the deceased was shot in a lying down position and the assailant shot him from a distance of one foot after bending over him, then the direction of bullet, after exit from the right eye, would not have been upward; rather it would be downwards. Therefore, the manner in which P.W.1 has testified, that the deceased was shot, is not believable. 52. According to the testimony of P.W. 2 the appellant had shot the deceased from the door in a standing position and in that case also, it was not possible for the bullet to take the direction upward after hitting the deceased over back of head, while lying on the cot. In either of the situation, it is highly improbable that the injuries were caused by the appellants to the deceased in the manner, as claimed by the prosecution. In either of the situation, it is highly improbable that the injuries were caused by the appellants to the deceased in the manner, as claimed by the prosecution. Thus, there are material contradictions in ocular and medical evidence and the medical evidence totally rules out the presence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 at the place of occurrence. 53. In view of the above findings, we come to the conclusion that the presence of P.W. 1 Ram Murat and P.W. 2 Gauri Shankar, at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful and there are material contradictions in their testimony, regarding the manner in which the incident is said to have occurred. There are also material contradictions in ocular and medical evidence. Therefore, looking into the facts of the case, it cannot be ruled out that the deceased was murdered by someone else and the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. 54. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is based on incorrect appreciation of facts and evidence, and the conclusion of guilt of the appellants is based on conjectures. Thus, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside, and the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charges framed against them. 55. Thus, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. 56. In view of the above, the instant criminal appeal is, accordingly, allowed . We set aside the judgment and order dated 20.07.1984 passed by the Trial Court i.e., the Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Sessions Trial No. 101 of 1983 and acquit the surviving appellant, Arbind Singh, of the charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. 57. Appellant No.1 , Arbind Singh is on bail. His bail bonds and personal bond are cancelled and the sureties discharged. Appellant No. 1 Arbind Singh, need not surrender. 58. Appellant No. 1, Arbind Singh shall execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) for his appearance, in the event of an appeal being preferred against his acquittal. 59. Appellant No. 1 Arbind Singh, need not surrender. 58. Appellant No. 1, Arbind Singh shall execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) for his appearance, in the event of an appeal being preferred against his acquittal. 59. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court concerned alongwith the Trial Court record for information and necessary compliance.