JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant appeal under Sections 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 03.10.1997 and order of sentence dated 04.10.1997, passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 120 of 1996 whereby and whereunder, the appellants named above have been convicted under Sections 302 /34 and 307/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 /34 of IPC and 10 years RI under Section 307 /34 of IPC, both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix 2. The prosecution case, in brief, as per fardbeyan dated 22.08.1995 of the informant, Gulu Baski (P.W.7) is that on 22.08.1995, in the day time he went to Giridih on a Scooter along with the deceased Kishun Marandi alias Manshu Marandi alias Guruji. They returned to Taratand Ahilyapur Chowk at 6.00 P.M. from Giridih and took tea in a hotel at the Chowk. Thereafter, at 8.00 P.M. they proceeded towards their house at Thadhi Mahua and the deceased was riding the scooter and he was sitting behind him on pillion. They arrived at Thadhi Mahua Tola at 08.05 P.M. and as soon as the deceased slowed down the scooter and turned the scooter towards his house in a lane, three persons appeared from the side of the Dewta Ghat of Kishun Marandi, in the front and suddenly a bomb exploded. Both Kishun and the informant sustained explosive injuries and he fell down and Kishun Marandi died on the spot. The scooter remained in starting position and there was light around it. The informant identified the appellants Kailash Choudhary and Sukhdeo Chaudhary, both sons of Kheman Choudhary of village Sonebad. The informant further stated that there was an unknown person along with Kailash Choudhary and Sukhdeo Chaudhary, to whom he saw and he claimed to identify him by face. The informant further stated that the deceased was a prominent person of Taratand Panchayat and he used to settle petty dispute in his village and the neighbourhood due to which terrorist of the area were inimical to him. The deceased did not allow the terrorists to enter his locality and before his killing he was threatened by them. The informant further stated that the deceased was a prominent person of Taratand Panchayat and he used to settle petty dispute in his village and the neighbourhood due to which terrorist of the area were inimical to him. The deceased did not allow the terrorists to enter his locality and before his killing he was threatened by them. Informant further stated that there was a land dispute between the Kheman Choudhary and Nakul Choudhary and the deceased helped Nakul Choudhary, who was a poor man. In the year 1994, both Nakul Choudhary and Kheman Chaudhary had a dispute concerning Mahua tree. Kheman Choudhary had sold the said Mahua tree to Daud Ansari and Nakul Choudhary with the help of the deceased had stopped the lifting of the tree. The police came to know about the said dispute and then, there was a measurement by Anchal Office and it was found that the Mahua tree was standing over gair-majurua land and then the branches of the said Mahua tree was auctioned, which was purchased by Daud Ansari. Thereafter, trunk of the Mahua tree was auctioned on 14.08.1995 in the Anchal Office and Daud Ansari had taken the said Mahua tree in auction for Rs. 1155/-. Informant further stated that with the help of Kishun Marandi, stay was taken for the aforesaid auction order from L.R.D.C.’s Office. On 16.06.1995 accused Kheman Choudhary told Butulal Murmu (P.W-8), to forbid his friends Kishun Marandi, to help Nakul Choudhary in the matter. Again, accused Kheman Choudhary went to the house of Butulal Murmu on 21.08.1995 and said Butulal Murmu to forbid his friends Kishun Marandi, to help Nakul Choudhary. The informant further stated that while the accused had exploded the bomb and killed Kishun Marandi and injured the informant and were fleeing away, Suraj Marandi (P.W-9) had seen them fleeing away. Accused Kailash Choudhary and Sukhdeo Chaudhary, had killed the deceased due to his popularity, in conspiracy with the Lalkhand and terrorist, out of enmity. 3. On the basis of the fardeyan of the informant FIR being Ahilyapur P.S. Case No. 38 of 1995 dated 23.08.1995 was registered under Section 302 /307/324/120A/34 of IPC and under Section (cid:190) of the Explosive Substance Act. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted and the case was committed to the court of sessions. 3. On the basis of the fardeyan of the informant FIR being Ahilyapur P.S. Case No. 38 of 1995 dated 23.08.1995 was registered under Section 302 /307/324/120A/34 of IPC and under Section (cid:190) of the Explosive Substance Act. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed against the appellants under 302,307 and 120(B) of IPC and under Section (cid:190) of the Explosive Substance Act and trial was held. At the conclusion of trial, appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, hence, this appeal. 4. 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. 5. The prosecution had examined altogether 23 witness in support of its case out of whom P.W-7 Gulu Baski, is the informant of the case; P.W-1 is Manjhia Marandi, who is the father of the deceased; P.W-2 Imoli Kumari and P.W-3 Demoli Kumari, both are daughters of the deceased; P.W.4 Hiralal Marandi, is the brother of the deceased ;P.W-5 is Nakul Choudhary;P.W-6 is Damrulal Marandi who is also brother of the deceased; P.W.- 8 is Butu Murmu; P.W-9 is Sarju Marandi ; P.W-10 is Moti Marandi; P.W-11 is Babli Devi, who is the wife of the deceased; P.W. 12 is Mathur Bhogta; P.W-13 is Dr. Rajendra Choudhary and he had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased; P.W-14 is Doctor Shashi Bhushan Choudhary, who had examined the informant; P.W-15 is Rawan Marandi; P.W-16 is Kistu Marandi; P.W-17 is Sunder Modi; P.W-18 is Ram Kishore sah;P.W-19 is Sonu Bhogta; P.W- 20 Satyendra Narain Singh, is the first Investigating Officer of the case; P.W-22 is A.S.I. Nurul Hassan Khan and P.W-23 Brij Nandan Rai, is the is the second Investigating Officer of the case. 6. 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. 7. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302 /34 and 307/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 /34 of IPC and 10 years RI under Section 307 of IPC, both the sentences have been directed 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: 8. The Learned counsel appearing for the appellants 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) The learned counsel for the appellants has bring the attention towards the delay in the dispatch of the FIR to the concerned Magistrate. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 22.08.1995 at 8.05 P.M, and only after 55 minutes, i.e., at 9.00 P.M., the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded. The Police Station was at a distance of 2 KMs from the place of occurrence, but the case was registered at Police Station on 23.08.1995 at 9.00 P.M. (iii) Further, he has submitted that the inquest report has been prepared on 23.08.1995 at 6.00 A.M. and the seizure list was also prepared on the same date at 6.30 A.M., there is no reason as to why the seizure list was not prepared at night. The Court has been kept in dark as to what happened after recording of the fardbeyan on 22.08.1995 at 9.00 P.M. till the morning of 23.08.1995. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that, therefore, it is a fit case where the present appeal deserves to be allowed. Arguments advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State: 10. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that, therefore, it is a fit case where the present appeal deserves to be allowed. Arguments advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State: 10. 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. 11. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the informant (P.W.-7), who is an independent witness and is not closely related with the deceased, was present at the time of occurrence. In the fardbeyan, informant has clearly stated that three persons had appeared from the side of Devta Ghar, who have been identified by the present witness. 12. It has further been stated by the learned State counsel that all the witnesses have deposed about the previous enmity between the present appellants and the deceased regarding land dispute and Mahua tree. 13. 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: 14. 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 23 witnesses and for better appreciation, the testimony of the witnesses is being referred as under: (I) P.W.-1 Manjhia Marandi, is the father of the deceased. P.W-1 has stated in his evidence that while he was at his darbaja at 8.00 P.M., there was a bomb explosion. He went to the place of occurrence where Gulu Baski was shouting and saw he was injured and his son was lying on the ground near the scooter. Gulu Baski told them that the accused Sukhdeo Choudhary, Kailash Chaudhary and an unidentified person had killed his son. P.W-1 further stated that stated that his son Kishun Marandi was a Jharkhand Leader and he was popular and influential person. He always settled the village disputes but Sukhdeo Choudhary and Kheman Choudhary opposed him. Gulu Baski told them that the accused Sukhdeo Choudhary, Kailash Chaudhary and an unidentified person had killed his son. P.W-1 further stated that stated that his son Kishun Marandi was a Jharkhand Leader and he was popular and influential person. He always settled the village disputes but Sukhdeo Choudhary and Kheman Choudhary opposed him. He has also stated about long- standing land dispute between Kheman Choudhary and Nakul Choudhary and the deceased helped Nakul Choudhary. There was dispute between Kheman Choudhary and Nakul Choudhary relating to land and for a Mahua tree. Kheman Choudhary had sold that tree, but the deceased stopped the tree from being taken away and the tree was perhaps auctioned. In his cross-examination P.W-1 has stated that Kheman Choudhary had not sold tree in his presence. The tree was also not auctioned in his presence. (II) P.W-2 Imoli Kumari, is the daughter of the deceased. P.W-2 has stated in her evidence that on the day of occurrence at 8.00P.M, she heard sound of bomb explosion and she went to the place of occurrence. Gulu Baski was crying and her father was lying dead. Gulu Baski told that Sukhdeo Choudhary, Kheman Choudhary and Kailash Choudhary had assaulted him and they had killed her father. P.W-2 has further stated that there was dispute between Kheman Choudhary and Nakul Choudhary and her father used to help Nakul Choudhary. In her cross-examination P.W-2 stated that her father had told about the dispute between Nakul Choudhary and Kheman Choudhary. They had not quarrelled in her presence. (III) P.W-3 Demoli Kumari, is also daughter of the deceased. P.W-3 has stated in her evidence that on the day of occurrence at 8.00P.M, she heard sound of bomb explosion and they went to the place of occurrence along with family.Her father was lying in pool of blood and Gulu Baski was crying. Gulu Baski told that accused Sukhdeo Choudhary, Kailash Choudhary and one unidentified person had hurled the bomb. P.W-3 has stated about the dispute between Kheman Choudhary and Nakul Chaudhary relating to land and Mahua tree and her father used to help Nakul Chaudhary as Nakul Chaudhary was poor. P.W-3 has further stated Butulal Murmu was friend of her father and Kheman Choudhary had told Butulal Murmu to forbid her father to help Nakul Choudhary otherwise he will have to face the consequences. P.W-3 has further stated Butulal Murmu was friend of her father and Kheman Choudhary had told Butulal Murmu to forbid her father to help Nakul Choudhary otherwise he will have to face the consequences. In cross-examination P.W-3 has stated that Kheman Choudhary and Nakul Choudhary had not quarreled for land and Mahua Tree in her presence. (IV) P.W.4 Hiralal Marandi, is the brother of the deceased.P.W-4 has stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence at 8.00P.M, he was in his house, when he heard sound of bomb explosion and went to the place of occurrence. He found his brother Kishun Marandi was lying dead in a pool of blood and Gulu Baski was crying. Gulu Baski disclosed that Sukhdeo Choudhary, Kailash Choudhary and an unidentified person had killed the deceased. Gulu had sustained injuries over his forehead and left cheek. P.W-4 has also stated about dispute concerning Mahua tree between Nakul Choudhary and Kheman Choudhary and his brother had helped Nakul Choudhary. In his cross-examination, P.W-4 has stated that Nakul Choudhary and Kishun Choudhary had not quarreled in his presence and his deceased brother had not settled any dispute between them in his presence. (V) P.W.-6 Damrulal Marandi, is also brother of the deceased. P.W-6 has stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence he had gone to Gandey and while he was returning therefrom, he learnt about the murder of his brother on the way. When he returned home, he found that his brother Kishun Marandi was killed with bomb. P.W-6 further stated that Gulu had told that Sukhdeo Choudhary, Kailash Choudhary and an unidentified person had killed the deceased. P.W-6 has also stated that there was quarrel between Kheman Choudhary and Nakul Choudhary due to tree. He has also stated about holding out threats on 16.08.95 and 21.08.95 by Kheman Choudhary to the deceased through his friend Butulal Murmu. In his cross-examination, P.W-6 has stated that quarrel between Kheman and Nakul Choudhary did not take place in his presence regarding the tree. (VI) P.W.-7 Gulu Baski, is the informant of the case. Informant has stated in his evidence that on 22.08.1995, he had gone to Giridih along with Kishun Marandi, on scooter. Kishun Marandi was riding the scooter and he was sitting behind him on pillion. They returned to Ahilyapur at 7.00 P.M. from Giridih and they took tea at the chowk. (VI) P.W.-7 Gulu Baski, is the informant of the case. Informant has stated in his evidence that on 22.08.1995, he had gone to Giridih along with Kishun Marandi, on scooter. Kishun Marandi was riding the scooter and he was sitting behind him on pillion. They returned to Ahilyapur at 7.00 P.M. from Giridih and they took tea at the chowk. Thereafter, they proceeded towards their house at Thadhi Mahua and the deceased was riding the scooter and he was sitting behind him on pillion. At 8.00 P.M., they came near their house, where the occurrence took place. In order to turn, scooter was slowed down, near Devta Aasthan, from where three persons- Sukhdeo Choudhary and Kailash Choudahary, came out and there was a bomb explosion . Due to bomb explosion he and Kishun Marandi sustained injury as a result they fell down and Kishun Marandi died due to bomb blast. The scooter was in starting condition and it threw light and in scooter light, he identified the accused Sukhdeo Choudhary and Kailash Choudhary but could not identify the third person. Informant further stated that Kishun Marandi was a prominent person of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha at Taratand Panchayat. He used to settle petty dispute and terrorists were not happy with him. He does not know if somebody had threatened Kishun Marandi. Informant further stated that there was a dispute between Kheman Choudhary and Nakul Choudhary relating to a tree and the land. Nakul Choudhary was poor and so Kishun Marandi helped him. Kheman had sold the Mahua tree to Daud Mian,but, Kishun Marandi had stopped the lifting of the tree with the help of Anchal, then the tree was auctioned. The auction was also stayed through the L.R.D.C. by Kishun Marandi. Butulal Murmu had cautioned Kishun Marandi in this matter. Kheman Choudhary had told Butulal Murmu (P.W-8), to forbid his friends Kishun Marandi, to help Nakul Choudhary in the matter otherwise bad consequences would follow. Butulal Murmu had cautioned Kishun Marandi for the first time five days before of the occurrence and again one day before the occurrence. He had narrated about the occurrence to the people. Sarju Marandi had seen the accused fleeing away. Informant further stated that he was treated in Sadar Hospital, Giridih. Informant has identified his signature on the fardbeyan which was marked as Ext.-1. He had narrated about the occurrence to the people. Sarju Marandi had seen the accused fleeing away. Informant further stated that he was treated in Sadar Hospital, Giridih. Informant has identified his signature on the fardbeyan which was marked as Ext.-1. In his cross-examination, informant has stated that he was hospitalised for 10 days. He did not sustain injury all over his face. His face was not blackened due to smoke of bomb explosion. Little blood came out from his face and shoulder. The discharge slip of the hospital is in his possession and he had not given the same to anyone. Officer-in-charge had taken his statement at the place of occurrence. Bara Babu of Ahilyapur P.S. had recorded his statement on the next day after the occurrence in the hospital and he had put his signature over his statement. Nurul Hassan had recorded his statement at the place of occurrence. Nurul Hassan Khan had taken him to Giridih Sadar Hospital. He cannot say about the name of the scooter. Only one bomb had exploded in front of the scooter. There was a smoke, sound and light due to explosion. Informant further stated that, Nakul Choudhary and Kheman Choudhary, never quarreled in his presence and he had not seen the Mahua tree, for which there was quarrel between them. The tree was not auctioned in his presence. It was not purchased by Daud Mian in his presence. Kishun Marandi had not filed any application in his presence so that the tree may not be sold. He learnt about their quarrel between Nakul Choudhary and Kheman Choudhary, from Kishun Marandi. Butulal Murmu had not cautioned Kishun Marandi in his presence. Kheman Choudhary had not told Butulal Murmu in his presence. He had seen the three accused before the bomb was thrown. Infromant further stated that he had stated before he police that he had identified two persons Kailash Choudhary and Sukhdeo Choudhary fleeing away after exploding bomb. The accused had fled away after the occurrence towards the western side. Sarju Marandi lives at Lewatand tola after Bahiar. He had seen Sarju Marandi at the place of occurrence. He came to the Place of occurrence about 10/15 minutes before Daroga’s arrival. The accused had fled away after the occurrence towards the western side. Sarju Marandi lives at Lewatand tola after Bahiar. He had seen Sarju Marandi at the place of occurrence. He came to the Place of occurrence about 10/15 minutes before Daroga’s arrival. (VII) P.W.- 8 is Butu Murmu and he has stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence at 8.00P.M he was taking his meal when he heard loud sound and halla. He came to Thadhi and saw many persons assembled near the gali of Mansu Marandi. The deceased was lying dead and Gulu was also injured and Gulu had sustained some injury. Gulu told them about the occurrence and also disclosed the name of the accused Sukhdeo Choudhary, Kailash Choudhary and an unidentified person. P.W-8 has also stated about the dispute of Mahua tree between Nakul Choudhary and Kheman Choudhary. Kishun Marandi used to help Nakul Choudhary, who was a poor man. On 16.8.1995 and 21.08.1995, Kheman Choudhary had visited his house and told him to inform his friend Kishun Marandi, not to help Nakul Choudhary, otherwise serious consequences would follow. In cross-examination, P.W-8 has stated that on halla, both male and female persons in the village armed with pharsa, tangi etc. went Thadhimahua. The distance between his village and Thadhimahua is half a kilo meter. He did not find an assemblage of 3000 persons at Thadhimahua and about 30/40 persons were present at that place. He stayed there for about one hour and by that time, about 100-150 persons had arrived there. P.W- 8 further stated that while he met with Kheman Choudhary, nobody else was present there. (VIII) P.W-9 is Sarju Marandi and he has stated in his evidence that on the date of occurrence he was in his house at 8.00P.M. He heard a loud sound of bomb explosion and went to western Bahiar with a pharsa and a torch and saw the accused Sukhdeo Choudhary, Kailash Choudhary and an unidentified person running towards him in his direction. He saw them in the torch light. He chased them and threw pharsa as a result Sukhdeo Choudhary sustained simple injury and fled away. Thereafter, he came to the place of occurrence and found Kishun Marandi was lying dead in front of his house and Gulu was also injured. He saw them in the torch light. He chased them and threw pharsa as a result Sukhdeo Choudhary sustained simple injury and fled away. Thereafter, he came to the place of occurrence and found Kishun Marandi was lying dead in front of his house and Gulu was also injured. PW-9 has further stated that the deceased Kishun Marandi was a leader and helped the poor. There was a dispute between Nakul Choudhary and Kheman Choudhary relating to land and Mahua tree and the deceased used to help Nakul Choudhary. P.W-9 has further deposed that Kheman Choudhary went to Butulal Murmu and told him to inform his friend Kishun Marandi not to help Nakul otherwise Kishun Marandi will have to face the consequences. In his cross-examination, P.W-9 has stated that Lalkhandi had also threatened to kill the deceased. He has further stated that he had heard the sound of bomb and came out from his house alone. In the Bahiar, he saw three persons were fleeing away. There was a loud halla that Sukhdeo Choudhary was fleeing away after hitting with the bomb. He heard that Sukhdeo Choudhary had thrown bomb while he was in his house. He has further deposed that he had not seen the quarrel between Nakul Choudhary and Kheman Choudhary and when Kheman Choudhary had gone to tell Butulal, he was not present there. (IX) P.W.-10 is Moti Marandi, and he has stated in his evidence that on the date of occurrence at 8.00 P.M., he was in his house, when he heard sound of explosion and came out. He went in front of the house of Kishun Marandi where Gulu Baski told him that Sukhdeo Choudhary had killed the deceased by throwing bomb and Kailash Choudhary and unidentified persons were accompanying him. The deceased was lying dead and Gulu also had sustained injuries over his cheek and shoulder. P.W.-10 has stated about the dispute with regard to the tree and the land between Nakul Choudhary and Kheman Choudhary. In his cross-examination, P.W.-10 has stated that he is not gotia of the deceased and he does not know as to when daroga took the statement of Gulu Baski. He has also deposed that he had not seen the dispute between Nakul Choudhary and Kheman Choudhary. (X) P.W-11 is Babli Devi, who is the wife of the deceased. In his cross-examination, P.W.-10 has stated that he is not gotia of the deceased and he does not know as to when daroga took the statement of Gulu Baski. He has also deposed that he had not seen the dispute between Nakul Choudhary and Kheman Choudhary. (X) P.W-11 is Babli Devi, who is the wife of the deceased. P.W-11 has stated in her evidence that on the day of occurrence at 8 P.M., she was in her house when she heard sound of explosion. She came out with members of her family and saw Gulu Baski injured and her husband was lying dead in a pool of blood. P.W-11 further stated that Gulu Baski informed them that Sukhdeo Choudhary and Kailash Choudhary and an unidentified person had killed her husband. She has also stated about the dispute with respect to the land and Mahua tree between Kheman and Nakul and her husband helped Nakul Choudhary due to his poverty. Kheman Choudhary threatened Butulal Murmu on 16.8.95 and 21.8.95 to make his friend Kishun Maradi understand that he should not help Nakul Choudhary otherwise he has to face consequences. In her cross-examination, P.W-11 has stated that the dispute between Kheman and Nakul did not take place in her presence. (XI) P.W-12 is Mathur Bhogta and he has stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence at 8 P.M, he was in his house and ran towards the house of Kishun Marandi on hearing the sound of explosion. He found the deceased lying dead and Gulu Baski in an injured condition. Gulu Baski said that accused Sukhdeo Choudhary, Kailash Choudhary and an unidentified person had killed the deceased by throwing bomb. Deceased was a leader of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and helped the poor. In cross-examination, P.W-12 stated that occasionally he worked in the place of Kishun Marandi in capacity of Kamia (Servant). (XII) P.W-13 is Doctor Rajendra Choudhary and he had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Kishun Marandi. Doctor has stated that on 23.08.1995, he was posted in Sadar Hospital, Giridih and on that date at 8.00 P.M, he conducted post mortem examination in artificial light by order of Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. He has further stated that Docter K. Kumar was the observer at that time. He found rigor mortis present in lower limbs. The abdomen was distended. Doctor has stated that on 23.08.1995, he was posted in Sadar Hospital, Giridih and on that date at 8.00 P.M, he conducted post mortem examination in artificial light by order of Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. He has further stated that Docter K. Kumar was the observer at that time. He found rigor mortis present in lower limbs. The abdomen was distended. The external injury viz extensive lacerated injury over the face extending from lower part of nose below and upward up to the forehead 2” behind the hair line in front. The depth was maximum over the nose towards the center of the wound, and both eyes and nose were absent. Singeing of sculp hair in front with multiple tiny charring spot over the skin of rest part of the face, right side of the shoulder and front of the chest on the upper part. On dissection, skull bone was fractured in multiple pieces with protusion of brain meninges. Intra- cranial cavity contained blood clot. Maxillary and nasal bone fractured in pieces. Mandiblular bone fractured. Neck-subqutenious tissues NAD, Hyoid bone-intact, Larrings, trachea -NAD, Chest wall-intact. Lungs-NAD, Heart-both chamber empty. Liver, kidney-NAD. Stomach-empty and Mucosa- NAD. Doctor deposed that all the above injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by explosive substance, like bomb blast. Doctor opined that death was caused by extensive, shock and hemorrhage and time since death to post-mortem examination was about 24 hours. Doctor has proved the post-mortem report which was marked as Ext.-2 In cross-examination, doctor has stated that the dead body was received at the hospital at 7.20 P.M. (XIII) P.W-14 is Dr. Shashi Bhushan Choudhary, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Giridih. P.W-14 has stated in his evidence that he had examined Gulu Baski, on 22.8.95 at 11:05 P.M. and found spurting with charring by explosive materials on the face. The injury was simple in nature caused by explosive material. The age of the injury was within 12 hours. Doctor has proved the injury report of Gulu Baski, which was marked as Ext.-3. In his cross-examination, doctor has stated that the spurting was on whole face. He cannot say whether the charring was deep or not. He cannot say whether the patient was admitted in the hospital. He cannot say what medicine were prescribed to the injured. Doctor has proved the injury report of Gulu Baski, which was marked as Ext.-3. In his cross-examination, doctor has stated that the spurting was on whole face. He cannot say whether the charring was deep or not. He cannot say whether the patient was admitted in the hospital. He cannot say what medicine were prescribed to the injured. Doctor further stated that according to the police, the injury was on the forehead and cheek, only two injuries and he had mentioned injuries on face and so all over the face. The second injury mentioned by the police over the shoulder was not found by him and he did not find pellets inside the injuries. (XIV) P.W-15 is Rawan Marandi and he has stated in his evidence that while Kishun Marandi and Gulu Baski were coming from Birsha Morh, he also took his seat behind them on the scooter and he got down near his house. Hardly he had reached up to his gate, he heard sound of bomb explosion. He ran towards the place of occurrence and saw Kishun Marandi lying dead due to bomb injury and Gulu Baski in injured condition. P.W-15 further stated that Gulu told him that Sukhdeo Choudhary, Kailash Choudhary and one unknown person came out and Sukhdeo Choudhary hurled bomb and killed Kishun Marandi. P.W-15 has further stated that there was the land dispute and the dispute regarding Mahua tree between Kheman and Nakul Choudhary and Kishun Marandi used to help Nakul Choudhary. Butulal Murmu had told him about the threat by the Kheman Choudhary to Nakul Choudhary. He has further stated that inquest report was prepared by inspector Nurul Hasan, in his presence and the inquest report was marked as Ext.-4. In cross-examination, P.W-15 has stated that his house is at a distance of 4/5 hundred feet from the house of deceased. (XV) P.W-16 is Kistu Marandi and he has stated in his evidence that on the date of occurrence at 8 P.M. he was at his house, when he heard sound of bomb explosion. He went to the place occurrence and saw Kishun Marandi was lying dead due to bomb blast and Gulu Baski in an injured condition. Gulu Baski told about throwing of bomb by Sukhdeo Choudhary accompanied by Kailash Choudhary and an unidentified person. He has also stated about the dispute between Kheman Choudhary and Nakul Choudhary. He went to the place occurrence and saw Kishun Marandi was lying dead due to bomb blast and Gulu Baski in an injured condition. Gulu Baski told about throwing of bomb by Sukhdeo Choudhary accompanied by Kailash Choudhary and an unidentified person. He has also stated about the dispute between Kheman Choudhary and Nakul Choudhary. P.W-16 further stated that there was land dispute and the dispute regarding Mahua tree between Kheman and Nakul Choudhary and Kishun Marandi used to help Nakul Choudhary. In cross-examination, P.W-16 has stated that the place of occurrence is at a distance of five yards from his house. P.W.-16 further stated that he had seen the quarrel between Kheman and Nakul, 8/10 days prior to the death of Kishun Marandi. The dispute was regarding the Mahua tree and the land. (XVI) P.W-17 Sunder Modi has stated in his evidence that blood-stained earth was seized by the police on 23.08.1995 at 6 A.M. at the place of occurrence. The seizure list was prepared by Nurul Hassan Khan, police in his presence and he put his signature on it and the said seizure list was marked as Ext.-5. (XVII) P.W-18 Ram Kishun Sah has stated in his evidence that blood-stained earth was seized by the police on 23.08.1995 in the morning at the place of occurrence. P.W-18 has stated that he put his signature on the seizure list along with Sunder Modi. (XVIII) P.W-19 Sonu Bhogta has stated in his evidence that on the date of occurrence, he was at his home and heard sound of bomb explosion. He rushed to the place of occurrence and found Kishun Marandi dead due to bomb explosion and Gulu Baski was injured. There was quarrel between Kheman and Nakul Choudhary and Kishun Marandi used to help Nakul Choudhary. (XIX) P.W-20 Satyendra Narain Singh, is the first Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated in his evidence that on 23.08.1995 he was posted at Ahilyapur P.S. and he himself took the investigation of the case. P.W-20 has proved the injury requisition of Gulu Baski and formal FIR which were marked as Ext.-6 and Ext.-7 respectively. P.W-20 has proved the fardbyan which was in the handwriting and signature of A.S.I. Noor Hasan Khan and the said fardbeyan was marked as Ext.-8. P.W-20 has proved the injury requisition of Gulu Baski and formal FIR which were marked as Ext.-6 and Ext.-7 respectively. P.W-20 has proved the fardbyan which was in the handwriting and signature of A.S.I. Noor Hasan Khan and the said fardbeyan was marked as Ext.-8. P.W-20 further stated that he had inspected the place of occurrence and the place of occurrence is the public lane about 15 yards north to the house of the deceased at village Taratand, tola Thadhimahua. He examined the witnesses present at the place of occurrence. He received the injury report of Gulu Baski and post-mortem report of Kishun Marandi. He handed over the investigation to Brij Nandan Rai, officer-in -charge, on 21.10.1995, upon his transfer. In his cross-examination, P.W-20 has stated that on 23.3.1995 at 8.30 P.M. by rumor he got information about the death of Kishun Marandi and he went to Thadhimahua. At Thadhimahua, he met with Nurul Hassan Khan, the Officer-in-Charge of Taratand out post. Nurul Hassan had prepared the inquest report and seizure list of the case. He took over investigation of the case. He did not record the statement of Nurul Hassan. He had not prepared the sketch map of the place of occurrence. The remains of bomb explosion were not found at the place of occurrence despite search. He did not send the blood-stained earth to forensic science Laboratory for examination. He never recorded the statement of Gulu Baski. (XX) P.W-22 is A.S.I. Nurul Hassan Khan who has stated in his evidence that on 22.08.1995 he was posted at Taratand and on that day he had recorded the fardbeyan of Gulu Baski, Thadhimahua tola, villaga Taratand. He had prepared the inquest report and seized the blood- stained earth. He had sent the injured Gulu Baski to Sadar Hospital, Giridih, for treatment. In cross-examination, he has stated that the F.I.R. was lodged on the day of occurrence. The Officer-in- charge Satyendra Narain Singh took charge at the place of occurrence at about 21.30 hours. The Officer-in-charge did not record his statement. After handing over the fardbeyan, inquest report, injury report and the seizure list to the Officer-in-charge, he had no concern with the case. (XXI) P.W-23 Brij Nandan Rai, is the second investigating officer of the case. He has stated in his evidence that on 05.11.1995, he was posted at Ahilyapur police station. The Officer-in-charge did not record his statement. After handing over the fardbeyan, inquest report, injury report and the seizure list to the Officer-in-charge, he had no concern with the case. (XXI) P.W-23 Brij Nandan Rai, is the second investigating officer of the case. He has stated in his evidence that on 05.11.1995, he was posted at Ahilyapur police station. He took over charge of this case from sub-inspector Satyendra Narain Singh. He obtained the sanction order for prosecution and submitted the charge sheet. 15. Hence, from the testimonies as reproduced above and the fardbeyan it has come that on 22.08.1995 Kishun Marandi(deceased) and informant Gulu Baski (P.W-7), in the day time, had gone to Giridih, on a Scooter. Thereafter, both were returning to their home situated at village-Taratand,Tola- Thadhi Mahua and deceased was riding the scooter and Gulu Baski was sitting behind him on pillion. They arrived at Thadhi Mahua Tola at 08.05 P.M. and as soon as the deceased slowed down the scooter and turned the scooter towards his house in a lane, appellants and an unidentified persons came in front and suddenly a bomb exploded. Kishun Marandi died on the spot and informant Gulu Baski sustained explosive injuries. The informant identified the appellants Kailash Choudhary and Sukhdeo Chaudhary, both sons of Kheman Choudhary of village Sonebad, as an assailant. 16. On the above allegation, appellants Sukhdeo Chaudhary and Kailash Choudhary were tried and convicted under Section 302 /34 of IPC and Section 307 /34 of IPC. 17. Therefore, this Court on the basis of documents available on record as exhibited and testimony of the witnesses, is to see as to whether there is sufficient material to attract offence under Section 302 /34 of IPC and Section 307 /34 of IPC against the appellants. 18. The admitted fact is that- (1) Deceased Kishun Marandi was leader of a regional political party. (2) Kheman Choudhary is father of both the appellants and there was dispute between Kheman Choudhary and Nakul Choudhary (P.W-5), relating to Mahu Tree and deceased had helped Nakul Choudhary (P.W-5) in the matter. (3) Deceased was a prominent person of Taratand Panchayat and he used to settle petty dispute in his village and in the neighbourhood due to which terrorist of the area were inimical to him and had threatened the deceased to kill. 19. (3) Deceased was a prominent person of Taratand Panchayat and he used to settle petty dispute in his village and in the neighbourhood due to which terrorist of the area were inimical to him and had threatened the deceased to kill. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants has mainly taken the ground firstly, that the occurrence is of 22.081995 at 8.05 P.M and fardbeyan was recorded at 9.00 P.M. on the same day itself and the Police Station was at a distance of 2 KMs from the place of occurrence, but the case was registered at Police Station on 23.08.1995 at 9.00 P.M. and secondly, fardbeyan was recorded at 9.00 P.M on 22.081995, but, inquest report and seizure list were prepared on 23.08.1995 at 6.00 A.M. and at 6.30 A.M. respectively and there is no explanation why inquest report and seizure list were prepared after such long delay. 20. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussions, in order to appreciate the submissions advanced on behalf of appellants and the State, this Court in the instant case is to consider following issues: (i) Whether there is undue delay in lodging the FIR. (ii) Whether there is delay in forwarding the F.I.R to Court i.e. requirement of section 157 CrPC was complied. (iii) Whether there is delay in preparing the inquest report and seizure list. (iv) Whether the sole eye witness of the case in hand i.e. informant Gulu Baski (P.W.7) is reliable and truthful. (v) Whether P.W-2 Imoli Kumari, who is daughter of the deceased had disclosed the name of the appellants in her statement under section 161 CrPC. (vi) Whether P.W-9 Sarju Marandi had seen the appellants fleeing away after the incident. 21. Regarding the first issue i.e. the ground of undue delay in lodging the FIR, submission has been made that it gives a reason to doubt that during the period of delay the F.I.R might have been manufactured to suit the prosecution. On perusal of record, we find that alleged occurrence took place on 22.08.1995 at 8.05 P.M and only after 55 minutes fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by P.W-22 A.S.I. Nurul Hassan Khan, at 9.00 P.M. on 22.08.1995. The Police Station was at a distance of 2 KMs from the place of occurrence, but the case was registered at Police Station on the next day on 23.08.1995. The Police Station was at a distance of 2 KMs from the place of occurrence, but the case was registered at Police Station on the next day on 23.08.1995. at 9.00 P.M. i.e after delay of 24 hours or one day. 22. Here, it would be pertinent to see judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue of delay in lodging the FIR. Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan , (2013) 5 SCC 655 , has said that it is obligatory on the part of the court to take notice of delay and examine, in the backdrop of the case, whether any acceptable explanation has been offered by the prosecution. Paragraph-15 of the said judgment is quoted herein below- ‘” 15. It is settled in law that mere delay in lodging the first information report cannot be regarded by itself as fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, it is obligatory on the part of the court to take notice of the delay and examine, in the backdrop of the case, whether any acceptable explanation has been offered by the prosecution and if such an explanation has been offered whether the same deserves acceptance being found to be satisfactory.” 23. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of H.P. v. Gian Chand , (2001) 6 SCC 71 at paragraph-12 has held as follows- “12. Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the court on its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is a possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case. …” 24. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case. …” 24. Hence, Hon’ble Apex Court in State of H.P.(Supra) has held that if prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is a possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. In the case in hand prosecution has not been able to explain why there was delay of one day in registering the FIR though fardbeyan was recorded on 9.00 P.M. at 22.08.1995 and FIR was registered on 23.08.1995. at 9.00 P.M. and this raises doubt in the prosecution case. 25. Further, we find that the issue of delay in lodging the FIR was raised by the appellants before the learned trial court and trial court also at paragraph-37 of the impugned has noted that despite the fact the police station was at a distance only 2 KMs, there is no reason as to why the fardbeyan of the informant was not sent to the police station in the night. 26. Now coming to the second issue i.e. there is delay in forwarding the F.I.R to Court i.e. requirement of section 157 CrPC was complied, we find that formal FIR was drawn on 23.08.1995. at 9.00 P.M. and received in the court on 25.08.1995 and the cause of such inordinate delay in forwarding the FIR to the court concerned has not been explained by the prosecution. This fact has also been appreciated by learned trial court and the at paragraph-39 of the impugned judgment learned trial court had noted that FIR has been received in the court concerned on the third day and there is no any valid reason to explain the delay. The learned trial court has also given a finding at paragraph-37 of the impugned judgment wherein trial court had noted that delay in the dispatch of sending the FIR to CJM, Giridih, makes it probable that there is a possibility of improvement in the prosecution story and introduction of any distorted version by deliberations and consultations. 27. The learned trial court has also given a finding at paragraph-37 of the impugned judgment wherein trial court had noted that delay in the dispatch of sending the FIR to CJM, Giridih, makes it probable that there is a possibility of improvement in the prosecution story and introduction of any distorted version by deliberations and consultations. 27. The issue of sending the special report to the Magistrate as required under section 157 CrPC was dealt by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab , (2005) 9 SCC 315 and paragraph-16 of this judgment is quoted herein below- “ 16. Sending the copy of the special report to the Magistrate as required under Section 157 CrPC is the only external check on the working of the police agency, imposed by law which is required to be strictly followed. The delay in sending the copy of the FIR may by itself not render the whole of the case of the prosecution as doubtful but shall put the court on guard to find out as to whether the version as stated in the court was the same version as earlier reported in the FIR or was the result of deliberations involving some other persons who were actually not involved in the commission of the crime. Immediate sending of the report mentioned in Section 157 CrPC is the mandate of law. Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would require the court to minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not.” 28. Hence, in Ravi Kumar(Supra), Hon’ble court has held that delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would require the court to minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not. 29. But, in the case in hand prosecution has failed to explain the delay of three days in forwarding the FIR to the court concerned. 30. 29. But, in the case in hand prosecution has failed to explain the delay of three days in forwarding the FIR to the court concerned. 30. Further, the third issue i.e. delay in preparing the inquest report and seizure list, we find that inquest report and seizure list was prepared on 23.08.1995 at 6.00 A.M. and at 6.30 A.M. respectively and there is no explanation why inquest report and seizure list were prepared after such long delay though police had arrived at the place of occurrence immediately within one hour of the occurrence and had taken fardbeyan of the informant on 22.08.1995. at 9.00 P.M. Here, it is pertinent to note that even in the impugned judgment, learned trial court has also in paragraph-37 has noted that- “there is no reason as to why the seizure list was not prepared at the night. The court has been kept in dark as to what happened after recording of the fardbeyan on 22.08.1995 at 9.00P.M. till the morning of 23.08.1995. It appears that the prosecution has deliberately concealed the steps were taken at night.’’ Hence, from the above discussion it can be concluded that there was undue delay in preparing the inquest report and seizure list which has not been answered by the prosecution. 31. The fourth issue is whether the sole eye witness of the case in hand i.e. informant Gulu Baski is reliable and trustworthy witness. On this issue, we find that as per prosecution case, on the day of occurrence deceased was riding the scooter and informant Gulu Baski was sitting behind him on pillion and when the deceased slowed down the scooter and turned the scooter towards his house in a lane, appellants and an unidentified persons came in front and suddenly a bomb exploded as a result Kishun Marandi died on the spot and informant Gulu Baski sustained explosive injuries. The informant claimed to identify the appellants Kailash Choudhary and Sukhdeo Chaudhary, in the light of scooter. But, ongoing to the cross-examination of the informant, we find that at para- 13, informant has specifically stated that he did not sustain injury all over his face and he had sustained injury on his left cheek and on his shoulder. The informant claimed to identify the appellants Kailash Choudhary and Sukhdeo Chaudhary, in the light of scooter. But, ongoing to the cross-examination of the informant, we find that at para- 13, informant has specifically stated that he did not sustain injury all over his face and he had sustained injury on his left cheek and on his shoulder. But, doctor P.W-14 had examined the informant and, in his cross-examination, doctor has stated that he had mentioned injuries all over the face and he did not find any injury over the shoulder. Hence, there is deviation in injury as stated by the injured informant though doctor P.W-14 had examined the informant on 22.05.1995 at about 11.05 P.M i.e within three hours of the alleged incident. 32. Further, doctor had stated that injury was simple in nature caused by explosive material. Hence, on the basis of injury report Ext.-3 of the informant, it can be concluded that informant has not stated true nature of injuries sustained by him as found by the doctor because it is unbelievable that due to bomb explosion when deceased who was riding the scooter died on the spot as alleged then how, informant who was sitting on the pillion of the scooter, sustained only simple injury. This contradiction in the medical report of informant itself leads to the conclusion that informant is not reliable and trust worthy witness. 33. It is settled proposition of law that the judgment of conviction can be passed on the basis of the testimony of sole eyewitness but the testimony of said witness should be trustworthy and inspire confidence in the mind of the Court as has been discussed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B. , (2010) 12 SCC 91 . 34. But, the untrustworthy and unreliability of the informant can also be inferred from para-14 of his cross-examination wherein informant has stated that he remained in hospital for ten days. This raises doubt in the prosecution case because why a person will be admitted in hospital for ten days when a person has sustained only simple injury particularly when prosecution has not filed any papers regarding the treatment of the informant in the hospital for ten days. This raises doubt in the prosecution case because why a person will be admitted in hospital for ten days when a person has sustained only simple injury particularly when prosecution has not filed any papers regarding the treatment of the informant in the hospital for ten days. Hence, we come to the conclusion that though informant has been projected as sole eye witness of the case, but, from the testimony of informant, it can be said that informant is not reliable and trustworthy witness. 35. Regarding the fifth issue whether P.W-2 Imoli Kumari Kumari, who is daughter of the deceased had disclosed the name of the appellants in her statement under section 161 CrPC. On this issue we find that P.W-2 had deposed in her cross-examination that she had told to the police that Gulu Baski had disclosed the name of the appellants in the killing of deceased. But, at paragraph-20 of the cross-examination of the first investigating officer P.W-20 Satyendra Narain Singh, we find that investigating officer has specifically deposed that P.W-2 Imoli Kumari had not stated in her statement that appellants had killed her father. 36. Hence, not disclosing the name of the appellants in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C by the P.W-2 Imoli Kumar, was material contradiction. These omissions are vital and are not normal discrepancies and raises doubt in the prosecution case. 37. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657 , wherein Apex court has dealt material contradiction, which is quoted for ready reference- 30. While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide State v. Saravanan1.) 31. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide State v. Saravanan1.) 31. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and the other witness also makes material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence. (Vide State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh2.) 32. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found to be not minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence or with the statement already recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Vide Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.3) 33. In case, the complainant in the FIR or the witness in his statement under Section 161 CrPC, has not disclosed certain facts but meets the prosecution case first time before the court, such version lacks credence and is liable to be discarded. (Vide State v. Sait4.) 34. In State of Rajasthan v. Kalki5, while dealing with this issue, this Court observed as under : (SCC p. 754, para 8) “8. … In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person.” 35. The courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy belongs. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party’s case, material discrepancies do so. (See Syed Ibrahim v. State of A.P.6 and Arumugam v. State7.) 36. In Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh8 this Court examined the issue and held: (SCC p. 192, para 9) “9. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party’s case, material discrepancies do so. (See Syed Ibrahim v. State of A.P.6 and Arumugam v. State7.) 36. In Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh8 this Court examined the issue and held: (SCC p. 192, para 9) “9. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test the credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.” 37. While deciding such a case, the court has to apply the aforesaid tests. Mere marginal variations in the statements cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. 38. Lastly, the sixth issue i.e. whether P.W-9 Sarju Marandi had seen the appellants fleeing away after the incident. We find that P.W-9 has been projected as chance witness by the prosecution. P.W-9 has deposed that on hearing sound of bomb explosion he went to the place of occurrence taking torch and pharsa and at western Bahiar in torch light he saw the accused Sukhdeo Choudhary, Kailash Choudhary and an unidentified person running towards him in his direction. He chased them and threw pharsa as a result appellant Sukhdeo Choudhary sustained simple injury, but he fled away. In his cross- examination P.W-9 has deposed that he had shown pharsa to the daroga and took the pharsa to his home and there was blood stain in the pharsa. But, investigating officer P.W-20 Satyendra Narain Singh, in his cross-examination at para-23 has deposed that P.W-9 Sarju Marandi had not shown him torch and pharsa and did not show him the place where he had identified the appellants. 39. In case of Mano Dutt v. State of U.P. , (2012) 4 SCC 79 , Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue of chance witness wherein Apex Court has laid down that chance witness to be relied subject to the evidence being trustworthy and admissible in accordance with the law. 39. In case of Mano Dutt v. State of U.P. , (2012) 4 SCC 79 , Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue of chance witness wherein Apex Court has laid down that chance witness to be relied subject to the evidence being trustworthy and admissible in accordance with the law. But, in the case in hand testimony of P.W-9 Sarju Marandi, who is projected as chance witnesses, to have identified the appellants while fleeing away, is not trustworthy. 40. Thus, the appellants have tried to question the bona fide of the prosecution case as well made efforts to show that the version of the defence is more probable. 41. In the backdrop of these facts and pleadings available on record this Court has to appreciate the other materials available on record and has to see the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses in order to see whether the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt or not. 42. 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, therefore, this Court has to see whether this case falls under the law as propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rang Bahadur Singh & Ors. Vrs. State of U.P., [ (2000) 3 SCC 454 ] or not, wherein it has been held that 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. For ready reference, paragraph-22 of the judgment is quoted 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. 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.” 43. Likewise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnegowda & Ors. Vrs. State of Karnataka (Supra) 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. 44. This Court, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances, is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Sections 302 /34 and 307/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the appellants. Both the appellants Sukhdeo Choudhary and Kailash Choudhary are acquitted of the charges by giving benefit of doubt. 45. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction dated 03.10.1997 and order of sentence dated 04.10.1997, passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 120 of 1996 are hereby set aside. Appellants Sukhdeo Choudhary and Kailash Choudhary are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bond. 46. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. 47. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of. 48. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment. I agree, (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)