JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J. 1. The instant appeal under Sections 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 12.04.1999 and order of sentence dated 15.04.1999 passed by the learned Second Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in S.T. No. 341/96 whereby and whereunder, the appellants named above together with one Pahan Munda (since dead after judgment) have been convicted under Sections 452, 380, 364, 427 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo RI for life under Section 364 IPC, RI for 7 years under Section 452 IPC, RI for 3 years under Section 380 IPC, RI for two years under Section 427 IPC and RI for 2 years only under Section 147 IPC, and directed the above sentences to run concurrently. 2. At the outset it needs to refer herein that the initially the instant appeal had been preferred by the 12 accuse/appellants but during pendency of the instant appeal except Appellant no.9 Magan Munda and Appellant No.11 Lobin Munda the other 10 appellant died as such the instant appeal was abated against the said 10 appellants vide order dated 24.11.2023 and 20.12.2023. Factual Matrix 3. The brief facts of the case as per the memo of appeal is being referred herein which reads as under: 4. In the presence of Chaman Singh Munda (P.W. 8), Rukmani Devi P.W.7 (informant) had given her fardbeyan recorded on 27.06.1996 and on the basis of which the FIR(Ext.5) of the instant case was instituted, alleging therein that the informant was inside the house with her husband namely, Chaitan Singh Munda on 26.06.1994. 5. In the morning hours, at about 7 A.M., 40 to 45 persons together along with the appellants and Gobra Munda, Jagan Munda came and surrounded her house and started shouting. 6. The mob broke open the main door of the house and entered into the house and caught hold of her husband-Chaitan Singh Munda. The unlawful assembly dragged out her husband from the house and also took away property documents and ornaments of gold and silver. They also damaged the chhappar of the house. The mob took away her husband and subsequently, she came to know that few other persons namely, Radha Munda, Lugna Munda, Bhola Munda, Budhu Munda, Ghurna Munda and Mansa Munda were also taken away by the mob. 7. They also damaged the chhappar of the house. The mob took away her husband and subsequently, she came to know that few other persons namely, Radha Munda, Lugna Munda, Bhola Munda, Budhu Munda, Ghurna Munda and Mansa Munda were also taken away by the mob. 7. Altogether the mob took away the Informant’s husband and six others towards the jungle and the miscreants had severely assaulted her husband and other persons. It was alleged that the occurrence has taken place due to a long-standing land dispute between her husband at one hand and accused Parasnath Munda and Lobin Munda on the other side. She suspected that her husband was taken away for the purpose for committing murder in the jungle. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid, FIR being Sonahatu P.S. Case No. 45 of 1994 was instituted and the police took up investigation into the case and accordingly chargesheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 427, 380 and 364 of the IPC was submitted against 16 accused persons including the surviving appellants. 9. Out of the accused persons, Gobra Munda and Jagan Munda had died during the pendency of the trial, whereas accused Jaipal Munda evaded the trial by absconding 10. The prosecution in order to prove the case has adduced evidence, both documentary and oral whereas the defence case is total denial of the involvement of the accused persons in the case. 11. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination, recorded the statement of the accused persons and found the charges levelled against the appellants proved beyond all reasonable doubts. 12. Accordingly, the appellants have been convicted under Sections 452, 380, 364, 427 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo RI for life under Section 364 IPC, RI for 7 years under Section 452 IPC, RI for 3 years under Section 380 IPC, RI for two years under Section 427 IPC and RI for 2 years only under Section 147 IPC, and directed the above sentences to run concurrently, against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence the present appeal has been filed. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants: 13. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants: 13. The Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the following grounds: (i) Prosecution has miserably failed in proving the charge leveled against the appellants and learned trial court has committed error of law in evaluating and analyzing the evidence in coming to the conclusion. (ii) No independent witness(villagers) had been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the story of the Informant. Especially when all other witness from P. Ws.1 to 6 are partisan and highly interested being the relatives and agnates of the informant party. (iii) The learned Trial Court had not appreciated the fact that the entire evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 8 in the backdrop of admitted land dispute and long-standing litigation between the informant party at one hand and the appellants party on the other hand. (iv) In the instant trial the prosecution has not been able to prove the genesis situs of the occurrence and the items of offence by not examining the Investigating Officer of this case and the prosecution has not offered any plausible explanation whatsoever for not examining the Investigating Officer of the case. The non-examination of the I.?. has caused serious prejudice to the defence of the appellants and the entire scenario of the occurrence had remained eclipsed due to the absence of this important witness. (v) The learned Trial Court was swayed by sentiments while deciding the present case and had taken help of surmises and conjecture. It has been nobody's case that the husband of informant P. W. 7 was taken by the mob together with P. W. 1 to 6 with a purpose of committing their murder. When the husband of P.W. 7 was detained by the mob and P. Ws. 1 to 6 were freed, none of the aforesaid witnesses P.Ws.1 to 6 had deposed before the Court that the mob had detained Informant's husband to commit his murder. Only on one circumstance that the husband of P. W. 7 was last seen with the appellants and the mob on the date of occurrence at the hillock, does not conclusively prove that he was subsequently done to death as because since that date he did not return home. Only on one circumstance that the husband of P. W. 7 was last seen with the appellants and the mob on the date of occurrence at the hillock, does not conclusively prove that he was subsequently done to death as because since that date he did not return home. The only circumstances without any Informant's further evidence that the husband was actually done to death or was subjected to further assault by the mob, it could not be said that he was kidnapped for murder and hence, the appellants deserve to be acquitted from charges under section 364 Indian Penal Code. (vi) The learned Trial Court had approached the entire case on the basis of the allegations which are omnibus in nature, there is no evidence to show the individual acts of the appellants in course of the occurrence. There is also no evidence to indicate that the mob of 80 persons including the appellants were sharing the common object. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has committed serious error in law in holding that all the appellants were sharing common object for committing the offences as alleged by the prosecution witnesses. (vii) The witnesses examined by the prosecution numbering 1 to 6 have contradicted themselves in material particulars such as in the matter of giving details about the time and place of occurrence. (viii) The appellants were not properly been examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the circumstances and evidence which have been utilised against them have not properly been put to them causing much prejudice to their defence as they have been denied the opportunity of explaining those evidence and circumstances against them. (ix) Learned counsel for the appellants, in the backdrop of aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence since is not based upon cogent evidence and as such it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. Arguments advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State: 14. Per Contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence taking the ground that the impugned judgment has been passed based upon the testimony of witnesses who have supported the prosecution version. 15. Arguments advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State: 14. Per Contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence taking the ground that the impugned judgment has been passed based upon the testimony of witnesses who have supported the prosecution version. 15. It has been submitted that admittedly there is contradiction among the testimony of the eyewitness but the said contradiction is minor in nature, therefore it has no bearing upon the prosecution story. 16. Further P.W.1 to 6 has fully substantiated the case of the prosecution therefore it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine any independent witness in order to prove the case. Further it is settled position of law that non-examination of independent witnesses is not always hamper the prosecution case. 17. Admittedly, herein the Investigating officer has not been examined but the genesis of the said occurrence has fully been narrated by the P.W.1 to 6 as also by the informant, therefore non examination of the I.O. will no way eroded the credibility of the prosecution story. 18. Learned State counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Analysis: 19. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspect and contention of the learned counsel for the parties this Court is now proceeding to consider the testimonies of witnesses which have been recorded by learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court during the trial has altogether examined 10 witnesses. 20. PW 1 is Budhu Munda, he had stated in his examination in chief that the incident took place on Sunday. It was seven in the morning. He heard the sound of a drum being played. He then went out to see what was happening and Motha, Mansa, Gurua, Radha, Khagdu had also gone there before him. Chaitan was in his thatched house and his wife was also in the same house. At the same time, fifty-sixty people came to Chaitan Master's thatched house from the river side and surrounded both houses of Chaitan, the building and the mud house and broke the door of the thatched house and also broke the thatched house. When Chaitan Master was found in the house, they caught him, tied him up and took him out. At the same time, fifty-sixty people came to Chaitan Master's thatched house from the river side and surrounded both houses of Chaitan, the building and the mud house and broke the door of the thatched house and also broke the thatched house. When Chaitan Master was found in the house, they caught him, tied him up and took him out. Chaitan was tied up by Dakhin Saw Munda. After that, those people caught them too and took them away to Tungri. They took Chaitan there and kept him but let them return saying that “you all should go away or else I will kill you”. From that time till today Chaitan is missing. 21. In that crowd he and others recognized Botha Munda, the one who had taken them, among them he and others recognized Gotha, Vibrun, Jagar, Tui, Jeevan, Jaipal, Kalevar Munda, Mahavir Munda, Nakul Munda, Bodha Munda, Paras Nag Munda, Lobia Munda, Pahan Munda, Magan Munda. 22. He identified Kalevar Munda and Mahavir Munda in the court. He stated that if present, he can recognise all the above-mentioned persons also. 23. In the cross examination, he stated that accused Paresh, Govind and Lobin have had a land dispute with Chaitan and his brothers for the last ten years. Also that Chaitan and Doman’s son Bhunesar had no differences with each other regarding Rukmuni but they had a dispute over land. 24. He stated in para 11 that He don't remember on which day the police inspector had come. Perhaps the police inspector had come three or four days after the incident. The police inspector had questioned them a little and they had told the police inspector about their injuries. Then the police inspector took them to hospital for their treatment. 25. PW 2 is Bhotha Munda. He had stated in his examination in chief that it was Sunday. It was the time of Vinsar (Morning). At that time, a drum was played in his village. Hearing the drum, the villagers gathered around Chaitan’s house. four or five people were there. Their names were Motha, Krishna, Gurua, Rajan, Budhu, Chaitan Master, his son-in-law, Munsa Munda. They were just chatting when a lot of people came and surrounded them. There were about 80 people. At that time, a drum was played in his village. Hearing the drum, the villagers gathered around Chaitan’s house. four or five people were there. Their names were Motha, Krishna, Gurua, Rajan, Budhu, Chaitan Master, his son-in-law, Munsa Munda. They were just chatting when a lot of people came and surrounded them. There were about 80 people. He recognized some people were from his village namely Pahan Munda, Magan Munda, Pareshnath Munda, Lobiya Munda, Bodh Munda, Nakul Munda, Kalevar Munda, Mahavir Munda, Jagarnath Munda, Jag Jeevan Munda, Bisam Munda, Tui Munda, Gobra Munda and Dakhin Sai from Pusna Village was also there. These people had tang, farsa, arrow and bow in their hands. Later, to save their lives, he along with others entered Chaitan's building and Chaitan entered his Khapda house. The accused took out all the people who were hiding in the building and tied them up. Then they entered the khapda house and took out Chaitan from the house by hanging him and tied him up. After that, the accused took them to Lachhan Toli Dhungri Dhara. There, they have beaten them badly. The said accused persons said that Chaitan is a literate teacher so they would not let him go. They let them go but did not leave Chaitan. He returned home. Chaitan has not returned to the village till date. He also stated that there was a land case going on between Chaitan and accused. He identified Kalevar and Mahavir in the court. He also said that he could have recognised even others who were there that day if they were present in the court. 26. In the cross examination, he stated that the accused took them to tori dungri. In the route of this there is house of sixteen seventeen people. The people of that houses are Ramkrishna, Sambat Munda, Doro Munda, Etwa Muda, Horo Munda, etc. These people had stopped accused persons. But accused did not listen. When accused persons took them to Tongri stream it was ten o’clock. By eleven o’clock accused persons had released them. After that he and others came home. They were injured. They had injuries on head and back. They had shown their injuries to the doctor. All of them had not been able to walk so they had shown it to the doctor the next day. 27. By eleven o’clock accused persons had released them. After that he and others came home. They were injured. They had injuries on head and back. They had shown their injuries to the doctor. All of them had not been able to walk so they had shown it to the doctor the next day. 27. He stated in para 10 that When he came home after the incident, he did not inform the watchman about the incident. He told all his family members about the incident. In Para-14, he stated that the Inspector came on the day of the incident. The inspector took his statement at Chaitan's house that day. The statements of all those people who were later released were taken there on the same day. 28. PW 3 is Kishua alias Luguru Munda, he stated in his examination in chief that it was Sunday. It had been three years since then. The time was before sunrise. He heard that a meeting was going on, so he left his house and went to Master Chaitan's house. 29. Radha Krishna, Motha, Gurua, Mansa all gathered there and were talking. Then some people came. They were Pahan, Magan, Labiya, Pos, Nakul, Bad, Kaleva, Mahavir, Jaga, Jagjivan, Jaipal, Vishray, Tudu, Gaura, Lakhinder, Dakhini Saw. These people came and surrounded them. Then he with others entered the building. That building belonged to Master Chaitan. Chaitan was in his mud house. The accused persons completely ruined Chaitan's mud house. The accused persons dragged him out of the building. He doesn’t know who else was dragged out. Chaitan too was dragged out of his mud house by the accused persons. His hands were tied with a cloth and he was being beaten. The accused person tied all of them and took them to Lakhan Tola Dhungri and there also the accused beat them badly. Then they let them go. But they didn’t let Master Chaitan go. Chaitan hasn’t come back to the village till today. 30. He also stated in para 3 that in his village there is no one called Krishna Munda, Paresh Kushal Munda. He identified kaleshar in the court and stated that he would have recognised other accused persons too if they were present that day. 31. In the cross examination, he stated that A civil suit was going on between Lodo Paser, Jehla and Etwa etc. He identified kaleshar in the court and stated that he would have recognised other accused persons too if they were present that day. 31. In the cross examination, he stated that A civil suit was going on between Lodo Paser, Jehla and Etwa etc. This civil suit is currently going on in the High Court. This suit is going on for a long time. He also stated in para 8 that both parties belonged to the same family. It was this Ram Krishna who had filed a criminal case against these accused for cutting paddy. This case is still going on. In Para17, he also stated that after coming home, he told everything to his parents and wife. He told everything to Radha, Moth, Guruva. He told everything to Chaitan’s brother and Chaitan’s wife. He stated in para 18 that When he was being taken to Lachhan Tola, no one saw them is the way. When he along with others returned from Lachhan Tola, he did not tell anything to anyone on the way. 32. In para 21 he stated that the police inspector came on the day of the incident. The police inspector came in the morning at about 9 A.M. The police inspector took him to the police station and interrogated there. Everyone was interrogated at the police station. He stated that Chamar Singh Munda has come to the court today. He had brought us on the last date also. Chamar Singh Munda is the father-in-law of Chaitan Master who lives in Remadih. It is not that he has not seen anything. It is not true that he has given false testimony on the instructions of Chamar Singh. 33. PW 4 is Gurua Munda. He stated in his examination in chief that it was Sunday. It has been happened three years ago. It was around 8 or 9 A.M in the morning, he was on the road, then he heard the drum playing. He had heard the sound in the early morning. The drum was being played in the nearby houses. They sat on the road. After that they entered Chaitan's building. He, Bhokta, Radha, Rugad, Mansa, Budhu entered the building and Chaitan entered his kachha house. After that many people came, among whom I recognized Pahan, Mohan, Naveen, Paresh, Bodh, Nakul, Kalevar, Mahavir, Jagarnath, Jeevan, Jaipal, Dui, Visaya, Lakhiya, Gobra, Dakhin Saw. They sat on the road. After that they entered Chaitan's building. He, Bhokta, Radha, Rugad, Mansa, Budhu entered the building and Chaitan entered his kachha house. After that many people came, among whom I recognized Pahan, Mohan, Naveen, Paresh, Bodh, Nakul, Kalevar, Mahavir, Jagarnath, Jeevan, Jaipal, Dui, Visaya, Lakhiya, Gobra, Dakhin Saw. These people had Lathi in their hands. These people had beaten them forcefully. They have beaten Bhokta, Rana, Budhu, Mansa, Chaitan. They have beaten him too. The accused persons after beating them took them to the east. After that accused persons let them go but did not release Chaitan. Chaitan told them to wait, then they stopped but when accused persons threatened them, they left Chaitan and went away. Chaitan has not come back till date. 34. He recognized accused Bodha, Kaleshwar and Jagjivan in the court. He also stated that the other people of Accused if they have been there, he would have recognized them also. 35. In the cross examination he stated in para 6 that the police came to the village on the same day. The police came to the village at 12 noon. They told the inspector everything. He got a severe injury on his back. He even showed the injury to the police inspector. In para 10, he stated that it is not true that he had told the inspector that after being released they hide in the jungle in the whole night. They had not even told the police that as the police was raiding the jungle, so they came to know about it in the morning, then they went to the police and gave a statement the next day. In para 12 he stated that Radha uncle had earlier filed a case against this accused person for cutting paddy. He stated that it is not true that he gave false testimony on the advice of his uncles. 36. PW 5 is Radha Nath Munda. He stated in his examination in chief that it was Sunday. He was at home that day. In the morning the drum was being played. Near Paresh Nath's house. They all gathered on the road. He, Krishna Munda, Bhotha Munda, Mansa Munda, Chaitan Munda and all our agnates gathered and started to find out why the drum was being played. By then these people came and surrounded their village, so they all went into their homes. In the morning the drum was being played. Near Paresh Nath's house. They all gathered on the road. He, Krishna Munda, Bhotha Munda, Mansa Munda, Chaitan Munda and all our agnates gathered and started to find out why the drum was being played. By then these people came and surrounded their village, so they all went into their homes. I, Krishna Munda, Botha Munda, Gurua Munda, Mansa Munda all went into Chaitan Master's building. Chaitan Master went into his kachha house. After that Pahan Munda, Mangan Munda, Paresh Nath Munda, Lohraya Munda, Nakul Munda, Kalesar Munda, Mahvir Munda, Jagnivan Munda, Visay Munda, Govar Munda, Dakshin Saw Munda and many other people entered the building and took them out. These people have beat all of them. They also have beaten Chaitan Master and took him out. After that the accused persons brought all of them and Chaitan across the river. They then let them go. But they didn’t let Chaitan go. Chaitan hasn’t returned to the village till date. He recognised Kaleshwar Muda, Jeevan Munda and Botha Munda in the court. He stated that he can also recognise even those accused who were not present in the court that day. 37. In the cross examination, he stated that Chaitan Master used to work in Namkum and lived there but used to come home on holidays. His wife Rukmini used to stay at home. Chaitan’s younger brother’s name is Jangal and they lived in the same house with Jangal and his family but Chaitan lived separately from Jangal. In Jangal’s family, Jangal, his wife, his daughter, Karmi Kumari and his son all lived together. Chaitan’s wife, son and daughter were all at home at that time. Chaitan’s son is not old enough but he is young and studies in class five. Karmi was about ten years old and Jangal has died. It has been four years since he died. The day of the incident, Chaitan was at home with his family. Chaitan has two houses. One is a building house and the other is a thatched house. The building house has no cast roof. He knows Maheshwar, he visits Chaitan’s house. He used to work in Chaitan’s house. He was working there a year before the incident. He still works there. Maheshwar is not married. 38. Chaitan has two houses. One is a building house and the other is a thatched house. The building house has no cast roof. He knows Maheshwar, he visits Chaitan’s house. He used to work in Chaitan’s house. He was working there a year before the incident. He still works there. Maheshwar is not married. 38. In para 8 he stated that in Tongri also they were beaten up by the accused persons. They have beaten them with Lathi and hit them on the back. No blood came out. First, they hit Motha. The blood oozing out from head injury. After that accused told them to run. Then they ran away from there. Some people returned home and some stayed in Ada Tongri on the other side of the Koja river. He had returned home. He came home at ten o’clock in the day. He stated that after coming home he did not tell anyone about the incident. Not even Chaitan’s wife or brother. He told his wife. He did not tell the watchman, the sarpanch. He did not even go to the police station to inform them. In para 11, he stated that the Police came on Sunday itself. They came around 12 o’clock. He did not go and tell anything to the inspector. Chaitan was his elder brother. His farm is separate from theirs. Shiv Bahadur and Prakash are their agnates. Chaitan, Shiv Bahadur and Prakash all live in the same place. When the accused persons were taking them away, they were at home with their families, but he cannot tell whether they saw accused taking them away or not. Samvat, Dom, Budhram, Lukin, etc. saw accused taking them away. No one from Lachhan Tola saw them. No one from Gitilandih saw them because that village is far away, he cannot say who else saw them. He did not show the police the place of incident at Dugri. The police took his statement. He doesn’t remember the time. The police interrogated us on the road three days after the incident. 39. In para 14 he stated that it is not that he had told the Inspector that they were beaten up and left at Tungri at 10 A.M. in the day, rather he had told the police officer that the accused persons left us at 10 A.M. in the day. 39. In para 14 he stated that it is not that he had told the Inspector that they were beaten up and left at Tungri at 10 A.M. in the day, rather he had told the police officer that the accused persons left us at 10 A.M. in the day. He had told the Inspector that he remained hidden in the jungle the entire night and the day out of fear. And when he came to know that the police are conducting a raid, then he came out of Jungle and gave his statement. He stated that he had filed a case of theft against these accused persons two years before the incident. The accused were acquitted in that case. There was no fight between Pares and Chaitan. It is not that due to old enmity he has given false testimony against the accused. 40. PW 6 is Mansa Munda. He has stated in his examination in chief that it was Sunday morning time. He was going to Ghuslu Tola to bring Cow, when he reached near Chaitan Master's house, he saw five men sitting, they are Motha, Gurua, Lugru, Radha, Budhu and Chaitan Master. At the same time, people came from the east. He doesn’t know who all came, but a lot of people had come. They created a ruckus and have beaten them. They beat me too. He was hiding in Chaitan's house. After beating him up, they took him to the south and later they left him outside the village. What else happened? He doesn’t know what happened after that. Chaitan is not in the village right now. Pahan, Jangal, Logiya, Malek, Mahaveer, Paresh, etc were the people who were there at the time of incident. 41. He recognised Kalewar in court. In the further examination by defence he stated in para 8 that about 4 years ago on 26.06.94 he was not in Ghusludih village nor did he saw any incident in that village. He doesn’t know anything about this case. No police officer has ever questioned him. 42. PW 7 is Rukmani Devi. She is the wife of Chaitan and informant of the case. She stated that it was Sunday, 26.06.94. It was four o'clock in the morning when the drum was played. At that time, she was in her mud house. There was a thatched roof. The concrete house across the road is mine. 42. PW 7 is Rukmani Devi. She is the wife of Chaitan and informant of the case. She stated that it was Sunday, 26.06.94. It was four o'clock in the morning when the drum was played. At that time, she was in her mud house. There was a thatched roof. The concrete house across the road is mine. When the drum started playing, all her agnates gathered in front of her house. Some of the people who gathered were Radha Nath Munda, Lugdu Munda, their father Pusua Munda, Gurua Munda, son of Lubin Munda, Motha Munda, son of Birja Munda, Budhu Munda, son of Kusam Munda, and a man from Usida village, Mansa Munda, who is Birja's son-in-law, was also present. After that, about 80-85 people came from here and there and surrounded her house. Among them, she recognized one person who was from another village, Girua Dakhin Sayan Munda resident of Lachhan Tola Bundu Thana. Apart from him, she recognized the people of her village who were there. They were Kuleshwar Munda, Mahavir Munda, Gobra Munda, Bisay Munda, Jogar Munda, Lakhin Das Munda, Tui Munda, Ganpal Munda, Jagjivan Munda, Nakul Munda, Bodha Munda, Pasenath Munda, Lobia Munda, Pahan Munda, Magan Munda. These were the only people she knew. These rioters started breaking the main door of her mud house and half of them climbed on the roof of the house and vandalized the tiles and the people who entered by breaking the main door dragged her husband out of the house. When she tried to free her husband, they pushed her away. They took away one thousand rupees in cash, two tola gold, twenty tola silver from a box in her house and all the documents related to the farm and all the service-related documents of her husband which were in the box. So many people had gathered in front of her house and they entered her building. The accused persons beat them up and threw them out of the building. After that, they tied her husband with a towel and took him away from the village to the east. The accused persons took her agnates and everyone else too. 43. Her agnates returned later but her husband has not returned till date. After that she informed the police the same day. The police wrote down her statement and read it out to her. The accused persons took her agnates and everyone else too. 43. Her agnates returned later but her husband has not returned till date. After that she informed the police the same day. The police wrote down her statement and read it out to her. After finding it correct, she signed it. She admitted her signature to be in Exhibit1. She identified Kalevar Munda, Posnath Munda and Mahavir Munda in the court. If those people, whose name she just mentioned, were present in the court that time, she would have recognized them all. 44. In para 9 she stated that they had and are still having land related dispute with accused Lobia and Paresh. The land dispute she had with Paresh and Lobia is still going on in the High Court as an appeal. In para 13 she stated that she could not see the accused persons who had climbed up her thatched house but she saw all the accused persons who were breaking the main gate of our house coming out in my courtyard. Among those who broke the main gate, she could identify Kalevar Munda, Lobiya Munda, Jaipal Munda, Tudu Munda and Mahavir Munda. 45. She gave her statement to the police which was written in the evening of the same day and before recording her statement, the police came to the village with her. The police were first informed about the incident at 1.15 pm. The police arrived at 2 pm. After that, she went to the police station with her father in the evening and the police recorded her statement. She signed it. She doesn’t remember if the police read out the statement or not. She also doesn’t remember if she read her statement before signing it or not. At that time, her father was also with her. In para 16 she stated, once again, the police took her statement at her father's house or in the village, she doesn’t remember. In para 19 she stated that when the accused were dragging her husband away, none of the villagers saw it. She herself says that all the villagers were locked in their houses out of fear. Her in-laws, who were released by the accusedpersons, told her that they reached her father's house the second day of the incident. She cannot say at what time they reached there, but it was morning. She herself says that all the villagers were locked in their houses out of fear. Her in-laws, who were released by the accusedpersons, told her that they reached her father's house the second day of the incident. She cannot say at what time they reached there, but it was morning. When they were telling her about the incident, her parents and brothers were also there. Radha Munda, Lubru Munda, Guruva Munda, Bulu Munda, Motha Munda came to her father's house, and told her that the accused persons did not release her husband. 46. PW 8 is Chamar Singh Munda. He is the father of Rukmani Devi informant. He stated in his examination in chief that on 02.06.1994, Sunday, at 8.1/2 am, his second son Itendra Narayan Munda came to him and told him that when he was at his maternal uncle’s house, his sister Rukmini came running to his maternal uncle’s house and told them that some anti-social elements of the village, with whom he had a case for ten years, had tied up his brother-in-law, Chaitan and taken him away from his house. He also told us that his sister told him that there were 50-60 antisocial elements. After hearing this, Chamar Singh Munda went to the inspector of Bundu but he was not there. The police told him that he should bring his daughter to the police station and get it registered, then it will happen immediately. Then he was going home from the police station when he got the information on the way that his daughter Rukmini came home crying. Then he went to his home and took his daughter from home and took her to OP. His son told him that some people from his in-laws’ house with whom a property dispute is going on for the last 10 years, they have tied up her husband and came to the house. He told the names Kalevar Munda, Mahavir Munda, Gotha Munda, Jagan Munda, Visaya Munda, Dui Munda, Bodha Munda, Nakul Munda, Leen Das Munda, Lodiya Munda, Paresnath Munda of Ghuslu Tola. His daughter also told the name of Dakhin Saw Munda of village Lachhan Toli, Police station Budu. Our daughter told that apart from these people there were also 40-50 unknown people. His daughter also told the name of Dakhin Saw Munda of village Lachhan Toli, Police station Budu. Our daughter told that apart from these people there were also 40-50 unknown people. The daughter told us that at seven o’clock in the morning, Motha Munda, Radha Munda, Lugru Munda alias Krishna Munda, Gurua Munda, Budhu Munda, Mansa Munda, who were sitting in the Hatiya and having coffee, were also taken away by the accused person along with Chaitan from the thatched house by the accused person. He identified Kalevar Munda, Makul Munda, Dui Munda in the court. 47. PW 9 is Dr. Gopal Srivastava. He stated in his examination in chief that, on 02.07.94 he was posted as Medical Officer in Rahe Addl. PHC, he got police requisition through compounder. He attended the patient in evening. 48. On that day, he examined Jageshwari Devi W/o Bhotha alias Somara Munda of Village Siridih Tola, Ghusru Toli, P.S. Sohanhatu Distt., Ranchi and found the following injuries on her person :- 1) One abrasion waist back 1/4" x 1/4" about. 2) Age of the injurymore than 72 hours. Nature Simple and caused by H.B. object, such as Lathi etc. This injury report is written by him and bears his signature. (Ext. 2-3). 49. On that day he examined Lugura alias Krishna Munda S/o Late Pusua Munda of the same address and found the following injuries:- (i) One abrasion on left shoulder blade- back 1/2" x 1/4" about. (ii) One abrasion back of chest right side below right shoulder blade-1/4” x ¼” about. (iii) One abrasion left shin of tibia ½” x ¼” about. Age of injuries – More than 72 hours. Nature – All simple in nature and caused by H.B. object, such as Lathi etc. This injury report is written by him and bears his signature (Ext. –3/2) In Cross examination, he stated that All abrasions found on these injured persons may be caused by fall. 50. PW 10 is Moti Chand Choudhary. He stated in his examination in chief that he knows K.D. Tiwari Jamadar Saheb. He was posted in Rahe out post in 1994. The Fardbeyan is in the handwriting and signature of K.D. Tiwari. (Exhibit-4). The FIR is in the handwriting and signature of Jagesar Rai, Jamadar (Exhibit-5). The case diary is in the handwriting and signature of K.D. Tiwari (Exhibit-6). 51. He was posted in Rahe out post in 1994. The Fardbeyan is in the handwriting and signature of K.D. Tiwari. (Exhibit-4). The FIR is in the handwriting and signature of Jagesar Rai, Jamadar (Exhibit-5). The case diary is in the handwriting and signature of K.D. Tiwari (Exhibit-6). 51. In cross-examination, he stated that in 1994, he was posted in Sonahatu police station. K.D. Tiwari was also with him at that time. KD Tiwari and Jagesar Ram are still in the service. In para 4, he stated that all this was not written in front of him. He doesn’t have any personal knowledge of this incident. 52. This Court, on the basis of aforesaid factual aspect vis-à-vis argument advanced on behalf of parties, is now proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by formulating following issues to be answered by this Court: (I). Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants for the charges leveled against him? (II). Whether order of conviction can be passed on the basis of general and omnibus allegation? (III). Whether the trial Court committed any error in convicting the appellants and sentencing them by assuming that the alleged charges were proved beyond all reasonable doubts? 53. Since all the issues are inter-linked with each other and as such they are being taken together by taking into consideration the facts of the given case including the testimony of witnesses. 54. This Court, in order to answer the issues framed by this Court, first deems it fit and proper to go through the settled proposition of law vis-à-vis, the contention of the learned counsel for the parties. 55. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants that no independent witness(villagers) had been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the story of the Informant and especially when all other witness from P. Ws.1 to 6 are partisan and highly interested being the relatives and agnates of the informant party. 56. Per contra, learned APP has contended that just because the some of the witnesses are agnates or related to each other their evidence or testimony cannot be categorized as that of interested witnesses. 57. 56. Per contra, learned APP has contended that just because the some of the witnesses are agnates or related to each other their evidence or testimony cannot be categorized as that of interested witnesses. 57. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein that the position of law is well settled that the testimony of the witness even if related one cannot be discarded mechanically rather the testimony is to be considered consciously, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2003) 2 SCC 661 , wherein it has been held as under: "6.We shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. 7. In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab it has been laid down as under: (AIR p. 366, para 26) "26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts." 8. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts." 8. The above decision has since been followed in Guli Chand v. State of Rajasthan in which Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras was also relied upon. 9. We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh case in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking through Vivian Bose, J. it was observed: (AIR p. 366, para 25) “25. We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in — ‘Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan’ (AIR at p. 59). We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel.” 10. Again in Masalti v. State of U.P. this Court observed: (AIR pp. 209-10, para 14) “But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. … The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hardandfast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. … The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hardandfast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct.” [Emphasis supplied] 58. Likewise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Shamim v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 10 SCC 509 held as under: “9. In a criminal trial, normally the evidence of the wife, husband, son or daughter of the deceased, is given great weightage on the principle that there is no reason for them not to speak the truth and shield the real culprit. We see no reason why the same principle cannot be applied when such a witness deposes against a closely related accused. According to normal human behaviour and conduct, a witness would tend to shield and protect a closely related accused. It would require great courage of conviction and moral strength for a daughter to depose against her own mother who is an accused. There is no reason why the same reverse weightage shall not be given to the credibility of such a witness. PW 4 is the daughter of the appellant. She has deposed that two days prior to the occurrence the appellant had threatened the witness to leave PW 1 else she would get his family members killed. Soon after the occurrence having reached the house of her in-laws she stepped out on the verandah. The appellant who was standing on her own verandah told the witness that she had got the deceased killed because the witness did not listen to her and that her husband would be killed next. In cross-examination she reiterated the same. The statement, in our opinion, can be considered as a corroborative evidence being a voluntary extrajudicial confession, considering the nature of relationship between the witness and the appellant. 59. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Mohd. Rojali Ali v. State of Assam, (2019) 19 SCC 567 relevant paragraphs of which is quoted as under : “13. 59. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Mohd. Rojali Ali v. State of Assam, (2019) 19 SCC 567 relevant paragraphs of which is quoted as under : “13. As regards the contention that all the eyewitnesses are close relatives of the deceased, it is by now well-settled that a related witness cannot be said to be an “interested” witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. This Court has elucidated the difference between “interested” and “related” witnesses in a plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation, which in the context of a criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused (for instance, see State of Rajasthan v. Kalki2; Amit v. State of U.P.3; and Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy4). Recently, this difference was reiterated in Ganapathi v. State of T.N.5, in the following terms, by referring to the threeJudge Bench decision in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki2: (Ganapathi case5, SCC p. 555, para 14) “14. “Related” is not equivalent to “interested”. A witness may be called “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be “interested”.” 14. In criminal cases, it is often the case that the offence is witnessed by a close relative of the victim, whose presence on the scene of the offence would be natural. The evidence of such a witness cannot automatically be discarded by labelling the witness as interested. Indeed, one of the earliest statements with respect to interested witnesses in criminal cases was made by this Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab6, wherein this Court observed: (AIR p. 366, para 26) “26. The evidence of such a witness cannot automatically be discarded by labelling the witness as interested. Indeed, one of the earliest statements with respect to interested witnesses in criminal cases was made by this Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab6, wherein this Court observed: (AIR p. 366, para 26) “26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.” 15. In case of a related witness, the Court may not treat his or her testimony as inherently tainted, and needs to ensure only that the evidence is inherently reliable, probable, cogent and consistent. We may refer to the observations of this Court in Jayabalan v. State (UT of Pondicherry)7: (SCC p. 213, para 23) “23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim.” 60. Thus, from the aforesaid settled position of law it is evident that the court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses and the primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency. 61. So far as ground of non-examination of independent witness is concerned it has been held that for nonexamination of independent witness the case of the prosecution cannot be doubted alone, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P. [ (2016) 4 SCC 357 ], wherein at paragraph 29 it has been held as under: “29. State of U.P. [ (2016) 4 SCC 357 ], wherein at paragraph 29 it has been held as under: “29. As far as the non-examination of any other independent witness is concerned, there is no doubt that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness. But, the prosecution case cannot be doubted on this ground alone. In these days, civilised people are generally insensitive to come forward to give any statement in respect of any criminal offence. Unless it is inevitable, people normally keep away from the court as they find it distressing and stressful. Though this kind of human behaviour is indeed unfortunate, but it is a normal phenomena. We cannot ignore this handicap of the investigating agency in discharging their duty. We cannot derail the entire case on the mere ground of absence of independent witness as long as the evidence of the eyewitness, though interested, is trustworthy. 62. In the light of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court is readverting of the factual aspect of the instant case. admittedly herein P.W.1 to 8 is related to each other and they are cognates and close relative to each other. It has come in the testimony of these witnesses especially P.W.1 to 6 that there were mob of 80 to 85 persons and the said mob had taken the victim Chaitan along with P.W.1 to 6 to Tungri and after some time, and the accused persons freed P.W.1 to 6 but kept master Chaitan (husband of the informant) and from that time Chaitan is missing. 63. Admittedly herein no independent witness (villagers of the said village) had been examined and it is pertinent to mention herein that all the accused persons including the present surviving appellants are also the resident of the same said village. In the aforesaid circumstances question arises herein that in the mob of 80 to 85 persons the prosecution witnesses had recognized only the accused persons who belong to the same village and further question arises herein that the named accused persons were few in number then how 80 to 85 persons were assembled there i.e at the place of occurrence. 64. Further the prosecution witnesses (P.W.1 to 6) has categorically stated that they were not sure that whether the villagers had seen the alleged offence or not. 64. Further the prosecution witnesses (P.W.1 to 6) has categorically stated that they were not sure that whether the villagers had seen the alleged offence or not. Admittedly these witnesses have not brought on record that why the accused persons let them go and kept Chaitan. Noticeably it has come in the evidence that there was land dispute among the victim and accused persons, therefore the false accusation against the surviving appellant cannot be denied outrightly. 65. Further from perusal of the testimony of P.W.6 it is evident that he has denied to witness the alleged occurrence as he had stated in the cross examination that at the relevant time, he was not present in the village. For ready reference the relevant part of the testimony is being quoted as under: 66. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid part of testimony of P.W.6 that there is inter-se contradiction among the prosecution witnesses which is major in nature. 67. Further, it is the settled proposition of law that if the result of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, accused could establish the probability of his defence and if probability was established by accused, it would really entitle him to the benefit of doubt, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhikam Saran Vrs. State of U.P., reported in (1953) 2 SCC 560, wherein, at paragraph-16, it has been held as under: "16. It is significant to observe that the appellant led no evidence in defence but merely relied upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in order to establish his defence. He had not to affirmatively establish his defence in the manner in which the prosecution had to establish its case. If as the result of his cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses he could establish the probability of his defence it was enough for his purposes, because if such a probability was established by him it would really entitle him to the benefit of the doubt insofar as such probability would prevent the prosecution case being established beyond reasonable doubt." 68. Further, this court is conscious with the settled position of law that minor discrepancy cannot vitiate the prosecution story, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. Further, this court is conscious with the settled position of law that minor discrepancy cannot vitiate the prosecution story, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujrat [ (1983) 3 SCC 217 ], in particular at paragraph nos. 5 which reads as under: "5. ...The finding of guilt recorded by the Sessions Court as affirmed by the High Court has been challenged mainly on the basis of minor discrepancies in the evidence. We do not consider it appropriate or permissible to enter upon a reappraisal or reappreciation of the evidence in the context of the minor discrepancies painstakingly highlighted by learned Counsel for the appellant. Overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious : "(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. (2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprised. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.(3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.(4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape-recorder. (5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess- work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. (6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which takes place in rapid succession or in a short time span. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. (6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which takes place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.(7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him - - Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment." 69. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2015) 17 SCC 694, at paragraph-8, it has been held as under: "8. While the slight difference in the initial version of the prosecution and the FIR version has been reasonably explained by the crossexamination of PW 6, it is our considered view that minor discrepancies, embellishments and contradictions in the evidence of the eyewitnesses do not destroy the essential fabric of the prosecution case, the core of which remains unaffected. Even if we have to assume that there are certain unnatural features in the evidence of the eyewitnesses the same can be reasonably explained on an accepted proposition of law that different persons would react to the same situation in different manner and there can be no uniform or accepted code of conduct to judge the correctness of the conduct of the prosecution witnesses i.e. PWs 1 and 2. The relation between PWs 5 and 6 and PWs 1 and 2 and the deceased, in our considered view, by itself, would not discredit the testimony of the said witnesses. There is nothing in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 which makes their version unworthy of acceptance and their testimony remains unshaken in the elaborate cross- examination undertaken." 70. The relation between PWs 5 and 6 and PWs 1 and 2 and the deceased, in our considered view, by itself, would not discredit the testimony of the said witnesses. There is nothing in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 which makes their version unworthy of acceptance and their testimony remains unshaken in the elaborate cross- examination undertaken." 70. Thus, from the aforesaid proposition of law it is evident that minor discrepancies, embellishments and contradictions in the evidence of the eyewitness do not destroy the essential fabric of the prosecution case, the core of which remains unaffected. But at the same time, it is equally settled that the discrepancies which go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses that can be annexed with due importance. More so when there is need of corroboration of the testimony of eyewitness from other available evidences. 71. In the backdrop of aforesaid settled position of law this Court is again adverting to the testimony of prosecution witnesses wherefrom it is evident that in cross-examination P.W.6 had totally stated the different version and denied his presence on the day of alleged occurrence. It needs to refer herein that P.W.6 claimed himself as victim and eyewitness of the case and in spite of that he had not corroborated the prosecution case in his cross examination he has not been declared hostile by the prosecution as such his version is fully acceptable. 72. Further, P.W.7 in para 13 had stated that she did not raise alarm at the time of occurrence and in para 24 she had admitted that she did not inform the Chowkidar or Mukhia or Surpanch of the village about the alleged occurrence, therefore this court is of the view it is an abnormal conduct of this witness. 73. It is apparent from the testimony that P.W.7 has named all 16 accused persons in para 3 of her evidence but at the same time this court finds that P.W.l could have named only 14 accused persons in para -2, and P.W.2 could have named 14 accused persons also P.W.3 could have named all the 16 accused persons in P.W.4 could have named all the 16 accused persons, P.W.5 could have named only 12 accused persons and P.W.6 could not name any of the accused at all. 74. 74. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution could prove the accusation against the surviving appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. 75. It needs to refer herein that the law is well settled that in the case of eye witness, who, if supports the prosecution version, the conviction is to be there, but the law is equally settled that it is the duty of the prosecution to substantiate the charge said to be proved without any iota of doubt and if there is any doubt, then the benefit of such doubt is to be given to the accused person. 76. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decision has propounded the proposition that in the criminal trial, there cannot be any conviction if the charge is not being proved beyond all reasonable doubts, as has been held in the case of Rang Bahadur Singh & Ors. Vrs. State of U.P., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 454 , wherein, at paragraph-22, it has been held as under:- "22. The amount of doubt which the Court would entertain regarding the complicity of the appellants in this case is much more than the level of reasonable doubt. We are aware that acquitting the accused in a case of this nature is not a matter of satisfaction for all concerned. At the same time we remind ourselves of the time-tested rule that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits. We really entertain doubt about the involvement of the appellants in the crime." 77. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnegowda & Ors. Vrs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 98 , has held at paragraph-26 as under:- "26. We really entertain doubt about the involvement of the appellants in the crime." 77. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnegowda & Ors. Vrs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 98 , has held at paragraph-26 as under:- "26. Having gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the findings recorded by the High Court we feel that the High Court has failed to understand the fact that the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and this is a classic case where at each and every stage of the trial, there were lapses on the part of the investigating agency and the evidence of the witnesses is not trustworthy which can never be a basis for conviction. The basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt." 78. Further from perusal of the evidence in its entirety it is evident that no any prosecution witnesses had categorically stated about the specific attributability of the surviving appellants and there is general and omnibus allegation against the appellants. Further it is evident from record that learned trial court has not taken the aid of Section 149 IPC in order to substantiate the common object of the assembly and inspite of that the learned trial court has convicted all the appellants for the offence under section 364 IPC. 79. Further, at this juncture it would be apt to discuss the core of the Section 364 IPC wherefrom it has been stipulated that whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 80. But in the instant case it has been nobody's case that the husband of informant P.W.7 was taken by the mob together with P.W.1 to 6 with a purpose of committing their murder. When the husband of P.W. 7 was detained by the mob and P.Ws. 1 to 6 were freed, none of the aforesaid witnesses P.Ws.1 to 6 had deposed before the Court that the mob had detained Informant's husband to commit his murder. When the husband of P.W. 7 was detained by the mob and P.Ws. 1 to 6 were freed, none of the aforesaid witnesses P.Ws.1 to 6 had deposed before the Court that the mob had detained Informant's husband to commit his murder. Only on one circumstance that the husband of P. W. 7 was last seen with the appellants and the mob on the date of occurrence at the hillock, does not conclusively prove that he was subsequently done to death as because since that date he did not return home. 81. The only circumstances without any Informant's further evidence that the husband was actually done to death or was subjected to further assault by the mob, it could not be said that he was kidnapped for murder and hence, the appellants on ground of benefit of doubt, deserve to be acquitted from charges under section 364 Indian Penal Code. 82. So far, the conviction under other various Sections of the IPC is concerned, this Court by taking into consideration the testimony of prosecution witnesses particularly P.W.6 has already observed in preceding paragraph that there is major contradiction among the witnesses and further the allegation against the surviving appellants are general and omnibus in nature and further no specific attributability of the surviving appellants has been brought forth by the prosecution, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that surviving appellants are deserve to be acquitted from all the charges as alleged in the instant case. 83. It requires to refer herein that prosecution has not been able to prove the genesis situs of the occurrence and the items of offence by not examining the Investigating Officer of this case and the prosecution has not offered any plausible explanation whatsoever for not examining the Investigating Officer of the case. it is considered view of this Court that the non-examination of the I.?. has caused serious prejudice to the defence of the appellants and the entire scenario of the occurrence had remained unearthed due to the absence of this important witness. 84. Further, it needs to refer herein the principle of 'benefit of doubt' belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. it is considered view of this Court that the non-examination of the I.?. has caused serious prejudice to the defence of the appellants and the entire scenario of the occurrence had remained unearthed due to the absence of this important witness. 84. Further, it needs to refer herein the principle of 'benefit of doubt' belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of 'benefit of doubt' can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vrs. Bhagirath & Ors., reported in (1999) 5 SCC 96 , wherein, it has been held at paragraph-7 as under: - "7. The High Court had failed to consider the implication of the evidence of the two eyewitnesses on the complicity of Bhagirath particularly when the High Court found their evidence reliable. The benefit of doubt was given to Bhagirath "as a matter of abundant caution". Unfortunately, the High Court did not point out the area where there is such a doubt. Any restraint by way of abundant caution need not be entangled with the concept of the benefit of doubt. Abundant caution is always desirable in all spheres of human activity. But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused." 85. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka (Supra) at paragraph-32 and 33 has held as under:- "32. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka (Supra) at paragraph-32 and 33 has held as under:- "32. --- --- The minor variations and contradictions in the evidence of the eyewitnesses will not tilt the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused but when the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses proves to be fatal to the prosecution case then those contradictions go to the root of the matter and in such cases the accused gets the benefit of doubt. 33. It is the duty of the Court to consider the trustworthiness of evidence on record. As said by Bentham, "witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice.--- --'” 86. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 3 SCC 57 has laid down the principle that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted, for reference, paragraph 6 thereof requires to be referred herein which reads hereunder as :- “6. ------The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. — " 87. It needs to refer herein before laying down the aforesaid view, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 has already laid down the same view at paragraph 163 which is required to be referred which read hereunder as “163. We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt.---" 88. We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt.---" 88. Thus, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove this Court is of the considered view allegations made against surviving appellants are completely vague and omnibus. There is no allegation of specific overt act against these appellants and on account of land dispute, general and omnibus allegation is levelled against the surviving appellants. 89. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect and legal position and considering the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, is of the view that the learned trial Court had not given thoughtful consideration to the evidences available on record in entirety and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all shadow of doubt against the present appellants, therefore, the impugned order requires interference by this Court. 90. Accordingly, the impugned order of conviction dated 12.04.1999 and Order of sentence dated 15.04.1999, passed by second Additional Judicial Commissioner Khunti in Sessions Trial No.341 of 1996 is hereby quashed and set aside so far, the surviving appellants are concerned. 91. Consequently, the instant appeals stand allowed. 92. The surviving appellants namely Magan Munda and Lobin Munda is hereby discharged from all criminal liabilities. Since the aforesaid appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. 93. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment. I agree, (Rajesh Kumar, J.)