JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. We have already heard Ms. Pragati Prasad, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellants, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nayak, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. V.K. Vashistha, learned Spl. P.P. with Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that appellant No.1 Surendra Singh in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.179 of 2003 and appellant No.2 Lalu Sahu in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.280 of 2003 have been died during the pendency of these appeals, hence, their appeal has been abated vide orders dated 22.07.2025 and 26.08.2025. The names of surviving appellants have been renumbered and this appeal is heard on behalf of the aforesaid alive appellants. 3. Instant criminal appeals have been preferred by above named appellants for setting aside their conviction and sentence dated 24.01.2003 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV, Khunti in S.T. Case No.389 of 1991, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 148 , 302/149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.20,000/- each for the offence under Section 302 /149 of the I.P.C. and further, sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 148 of the I.P.C. with default stipulation. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently. FACTUAL MATRIX 4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 06.12.1990 at about 04:00 p.m., the informant, Sita Debi, along with her husband Harkhu Singh and son Ghasi Singh and other co-villagers Bhola Sahu were returning from Rania Bazar to their home at Village Manahatu and reached near Village Kulhi, meanwhile, some miscreants armed with tangi attacked on husband and son of the informant. The informant raised alarm then the accused persons also attempted to assault her but any how she managed to flee away. It is alleged that due to previous enmity Sohan Sahu, Lalu Sahu, Ganesh Sahu, Bodho Sahu, Surendra Singh, Hari Singh and Tulsi Ram have committed the above incident. On the basis of above information, Rania P.S. Case No.35 of 1990 corresponding to (G.R Case No.640 of 1990) was registered for the offences under Sections 148 , 302/149 of the I.P.C. against five named accused persons and others. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the appellants total seven in number. On the basis of above information, Rania P.S. Case No.35 of 1990 corresponding to (G.R Case No.640 of 1990) was registered for the offences under Sections 148 , 302/149 of the I.P.C. against five named accused persons and others. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the appellants total seven in number. The case was committed to the Court of sessions. The appellants stood charged for the offences under Sections 148 , 302/149 of the I.P.C. 6. In the course of trial, altogether 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Out of 8 prosecution witnesses, P.W.1 informant, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have been claimed to be eye witnesses of occurrence, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are witnesses of inquest, P.W.6 is tendered by prosecution, P.W.7 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of deceased persons and P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer. Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary evidence has been adduced :- Exhibit 1 & 1/1 : P.M. Report of deceased persons Exhibit 2 : Fardbeyan Exhibit 3 : Formal F.I.R. 7. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication. The specific plea of appellant Surendra Singh was that he was permanent employee of Central Fuel Research Institute, Dhanbad and on date and time of alleged occurrence he was on duty. 8. On the other hand, the defence has also examined four witnesses and adduced following documentary evidence :- Exhibit A to A/2 : Attendance sheet of Ex-servicemen's Welfare Association Security Staff. Exhibit Y to Y/4 : Photographs of place of occurrence 9. The learned trial court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record led by prosecution and defence hold the appellants guilty and sentenced for the offences as mentioned above. 10. Learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the appellants have challenged the impugned judgment and order on following amongst other grounds :- (i) The alleged eye witnesses examined by prosecution have materially develop the story giving go by to their earlier statement before police. Therefore, their testimony cannot be relied upon. (ii) The material eye witnesses of this case are P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are highly interested witnesses and due to enmity with the appellants have falsely implicated them in the alleged occurrence. Therefore, their testimony cannot be relied upon. (ii) The material eye witnesses of this case are P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are highly interested witnesses and due to enmity with the appellants have falsely implicated them in the alleged occurrence. (iii) The manner of assault and the weapon alleged to be used in commission of the alleged offence, does not find corroboration from the testimony of P.W.7 Dr. Sudhir Kr. Shandilya, who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased persons. (iv) P.W.2 Chhedi Singh and P.W.3 Bhola Sahu have testified about the occurrence in general and omnibus manner without attributing any specific overt act of the appellants. (v) P.W.1 Smt. Sita Debi who is wife of the deceased Harkhu Singh has given a vivid description of the assault committed by each of the appellants against her son and husband but in her cross-examination, she has categorically admitted that her eye sight is very weak since 5-10 years. (vi) P.W.3 Bhola Sahu belongs to family members of accused persons having inimical terms with them. He has attributed allegation against all the accused persons that they have assaulted to deceased persons by knife and tangi and both weapons were used by each of the assailants simultaneously. He claims to be standing at a distance of 10 metre from the place of occurrence along with P.W.1. (vii) The occurrence is alleged to have happened on 06.12.1990 at about 04:00 – 04:30 p.m. but the F.I.R. was lodged on 07.12.1990 at about 08:15 a.m. at the police station which is situated at a distance of only 6 kms. (viii) The Investigating Officer (P.W.8 Shyam Kumar Singh) in his evidence has admitted that none of the witnesses in their statement have told before him that any of the accused persons were bearing knife rather all have stated about tangi. The I.O. has also admitted that the murder was committed due to old enmity but he has not inquired in detail about the nature of enmity between the parties. He has also admitted that nearby the place of occurrence at a distance of 150 to 200 yards, there are some houses but nearby the place of occurrence, he did not find any bushy area. He has also admitted that nearby the place of occurrence at a distance of 150 to 200 yards, there are some houses but nearby the place of occurrence, he did not find any bushy area. (ix) The learned trial court has ignored the material contradictions appearing in the evidence of alleged eye witnesses as well as improvements and exaggerations regarding actual participation of the appellants and delayed F.I.R. without any reasonable explanation has led the learned trial court to a wrong conclusion about guilt of the appellants. None of the witnesses appear to be eye witnesses of the occurrence rather they had concocted a false story after due deliberation due to previous enmity and involved the appellants in the false case of murder. The learned trial court has also failed to consider that no incriminating article has been recovered in this case to connect the appellants with the alleged offence of murder. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants is absolutely illegal and based on conjecture and surmises beyond the weight of evidence available on record and liable to be set aside. The appellants deserve acquittal from the charges levelled against them. 11. On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. along with A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly apprised all the materials available on record and properly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses and arrived at right conclusion about guilt of the appellants. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of appellants do not deserve any interference in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 12. We have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 13. It appears that in order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons, altogether 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 Smt. Sita Debi has corroborated the contents of First Information Report lodged by her and testified that on the date of occurrence at about 04:00 p.m., she along with her husband Harkhu Singh and son Ghasi Singh returning to home from Tangar Kella Bazar. Chhedi Singh (P.W.2) and Bhola Singh (P.W.3) were also accompanied with her. P.W.1 Smt. Sita Debi has corroborated the contents of First Information Report lodged by her and testified that on the date of occurrence at about 04:00 p.m., she along with her husband Harkhu Singh and son Ghasi Singh returning to home from Tangar Kella Bazar. Chhedi Singh (P.W.2) and Bhola Singh (P.W.3) were also accompanied with her. She has further deposed that when they reached near Kulhi Village at Kurthi Tand, meanwhile, seven accused persons namely Sohan Sahu, Lalu Sahu, Ganesh Sahu, Bodho Sahu, Surendra Singh, Hari Singh and Tulsi Ram suddenly came out from a bush armed with tangi and knife and at first, all the accused persons assaulted to her son Ghasi Singh by knife and tangi, who died on the spot. Thereafter, all the above accused persons also assaulted to her husband by knife and tangi causing his instantaneous death. This witness was very much scared from the above incident, hence, she fled away from the place of occurrence and came to her house along with her bhaisur Chhedi Singh (P.W.2) and another witness Bhola Singh (P.W.3). She has further disclosed the motive behind the occurrence is that one Aghnu Singh who is son of his bhaisur has kept the sister of Tulsi Ram at his house, hence, accused persons Surendra, Ganesh, Sohan and Tulsi Ram brought her bhatija Aghnu Singh along with sister of Tulsi for performing Court marriage at Civil Court, Khunti. She has further deposed that about six months prior to occurrence the accused persons brought Aghnu and sister of Tulsi Ram to Court for marriage which could not be solemnized. Another motive for occurrence as disclosed by this witness is that the landed property of her husband and son was got sold by the accused persons in the name of one Gauri Devi through imposter. When her husband came to know about the forged sale deed, he took action for cancellation of the sale deed, due to that reason also the accused persons have killed her husband and son. Her statement was recorded by the police, accordingly, case was lodged against the accused persons. In her cross-examination, her attention has been drawn towards earlier statement before police wherein she admits to have disclosed that accused persons were bearing knife and tangi both. Her statement was recorded by the police, accordingly, case was lodged against the accused persons. In her cross-examination, her attention has been drawn towards earlier statement before police wherein she admits to have disclosed that accused persons were bearing knife and tangi both. The first tangi blow was given to her son by Sohan Ram on head and second blow of tangi on ear and knife blow was given on abdomen. Father of Sohan also assaulted by knife and tangi to her son on back side of head near pinna and knife blow on lower part of the stomach. Ganesh has also assaulted to her son on head, leg and back side by knife and tangi. Bodho gave knife and tangi blow to her son on head and pinna and knife blow on stomach. Surendra Singh, Hari Singh and Tulsi Ram each have given tangi blow twice on the head of her son and once knife blow on stomach. She has seen the above incident from a distance of four steps. She has further reiterated that after assaulting to her son, the accused persons assaulted to her husband. First tangi blow on head was given by Surendra Singh to her husband and he assaulted both side of the head by tangi. Surendra Singh also gave knife blow in the stomach of her husband, thereafter, Hari assaulted to her husband by knife and tangi. She has further specified that Surendra gave two tangi blows on both side of head to her husband and one knife blow. Tulsi has also given tangi and knife blow to her husband on head, thereafter, her husband fell down and due to fear, she fled away. She has further reiterated that the incident of assault took place in the Kurthi field near the pedestrian road. She also admits that from the place of occurrence Kulhi Village was situated at a distance of 150 yards. She went to Kulhi Basti. Thereafter, she returned to her home which is situated at a distance of half kilometer from Village Kulhi. When she returned to her home, Khedu @ Chhedi and Bhola also stayed in the night at her home. She went to Kulhi Basti. Thereafter, she returned to her home which is situated at a distance of half kilometer from Village Kulhi. When she returned to her home, Khedu @ Chhedi and Bhola also stayed in the night at her home. She has denied the suggestion of defence that she had seen no occurrence at all as alleged by her rather she came to know about murder of her son and husband on the next day morning and lodged this case due to previous enmity against the accused persons. She also admits that her eye sight is very weak since 5-10 years and she has failed to identify the photograph of place of occurrence. She has also acknowledged that the dead body of her husband was found near community hall and just adjacent to it, there are houses of Nirmal, Munda, Katya Kumhar, Pahlu Kumhar, Devmeen Kumhar, Lega Kumharin and Keshwar Sahu. She also admits that she belongs to Rajput community. The sister of Tulsi Ram is Gauri Devi, who is by caste Ghasi (Scheduled Caste) at present her daughter-in-law. She does not know where Gauri is residing at present. P.W.2 Chhedi Singh has also corroborated the testimony of P.W.1 and states that he along with the informant, her husband, son and one Bhola Sahu were returning from Tangar Kella Bazar and reached near Kurthi Tand at Village Kulhi then seven accused persons came out from a bush bearing tangi and knife. All the accused persons at first assaulted to Ghasi Singh by tangi and knife due to which he died, then Harkhu Singh was assaulted by Surendra, Tulsi Ram and Hari Singh by tangi and knife on his head and stomach who also died on the spot. The accused persons were intending to kill this witness also then he fled away to his home. He has also expressed the motive behind the occurrence is that his son Aghnu Singh has kept sister of Tulsi Ram as his wife. Hence, all the seven accused persons asked this witness to get Court marriage of both and they also went to Khunti Civil Court, but marriage could not be solemnized due to minority of his son. Thereafter, accused persons under conspiracy got the landed property of Harkhu registered in the name of Gauri Devi. Hence, all the seven accused persons asked this witness to get Court marriage of both and they also went to Khunti Civil Court, but marriage could not be solemnized due to minority of his son. Thereafter, accused persons under conspiracy got the landed property of Harkhu registered in the name of Gauri Devi. When Harkhu came to know about the illegal sale of his land, he protested and take action for cancellation of the sale deed due to that reason Harkhu and his son have been murdered by the accused persons. In his cross-examination, this witness admits that towards western side of the road, there were some bushes where all the seven accused persons were hiding themselves. Ghasi was surrounded by all the seven accused persons, who indiscriminately assaulted with tangi and knife, simultaneously, after his death, Harkhu was also assaulted by all the seven accused persons through their respective weapons. There is nothing else in his cross-examination to rebut his aforesaid testimony. P.W.3 Bhola Sahu is another eye witness of the occurrence. He has also stated that while he was returning from Tangar Kella Bazar along with Ghasi, Harkhu with his wife and Chhedi Singh near Kurthi Tand near Village Kulhi at about 04:00 – 04:30 p.m., all the seven accused persons came out from the bushes armed with tangi and knife and at first assaulted to Ghasi Singh and thereafter, to Harkhu Singh. Both of them died on the spot. The accused persons also attempted to assault this witness and others but they fled away raising alarm. In his cross-examination, he also admits that Aghnu Singh is son of Chhedi Singh who has kept sister of Tulsi Ram. He has disclosed before police that accused persons were also having knife. Accused Sohan Sahu belongs to his family but there is no land dispute with him. He also admits that first blow of tangi was given by Sohan Ram to Ghasi Singh on head, thereafter, four other accused persons assaulted to Ghasi and three others to Harkhu Singh. He has seen the occurrence from a distance of 10m and was standing under the Jackfruit tree. He also admits that from the place of occurrence Police Chowki is about 3 kms and Rania Police Station is about 13-14 kms. In the night itself, one Ramdosi had gone to inform the police about the occurrence. He has seen the occurrence from a distance of 10m and was standing under the Jackfruit tree. He also admits that from the place of occurrence Police Chowki is about 3 kms and Rania Police Station is about 13-14 kms. In the night itself, one Ramdosi had gone to inform the police about the occurrence. He has denied the suggestion of defence that due to previous enmity, he has given false evidence. P.W.7 Dr. Sudhir Kr. Shandilya who conducted postmortem on the dead body of Ghasi Singh on 08.12.1990 at 11:00 and found following ante mortem injuries :- Stab injury (i) Over abdomen just below xiplin sternum 1.1/2" x 1/2" x 3". (ii) Over right hypockudrium 1" x 1/2" x 4". (iii) Over left lypodimdrum 1" x 1/2" x 4". (iv) Over right lumber region 1" x 1/2" x 3". (v) Over left lumber 1" x 1/2" x 4". (vi) Over left inguinal region 1" x 1/2" x 4". All viscera's underlying stab injuries were injured. (vii) Stab injury over left thigh on the aspect 1" x 1/2" x 3". Incised injury (i) Over dorsal aspect of left little finger 1.1/2". (ii) Incised injury over left ear 4" x 2" x 4". (iii) Over occipital region 4" x 2" x 4". Brain matter exposed and protruded out. Cause of death due to shock and haemorrhage. Time since death more than 36 hours. Injuries over abdomen were caused by sharp pointed weapon may be Gupti and Barchhi. Injury over head caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon may be Tangi. The injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. On the same day at 12:10 p.m., he conducted postmortem on the dead body of Harkhu, aged about 55 years and found the following ante mortem injuries :- Incised wounds (i) Back to right ear over mastoid antrum two in number. (ii) 3" x ½" x 3" just half inch below this No.(i) injury. There was anterior injury no.2. 2.1/2" x ½" x 1" with fracture of temporal bone. (iii) Over right ear lobules and mastoid process size 2.1/2" x ½". (iv) Over occipital region three in number (i) 3" x 1" (ii) 1" x ½" (iii) 1" x ½" depth is not given of any of these three injuries. (v) Incised injury over nape of the neck 2" x ½" x ½". (iii) Over right ear lobules and mastoid process size 2.1/2" x ½". (iv) Over occipital region three in number (i) 3" x 1" (ii) 1" x ½" (iii) 1" x ½" depth is not given of any of these three injuries. (v) Incised injury over nape of the neck 2" x ½" x ½". Stab injuries (i) Over left epigastrium just left to medial line size 1.1/2" x ½" x 6" stomach also injured. Cause of death due to shock and haemorrhage owing to above injuries. Incised injuries were caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon such as Kulhari or Tangi and stab wounds by sharp pointed weapons such as Gupti or Barchhi. Time since death more than 36 hours. This witness has proved post-mortem report which is marked as Ext.1 and Ext.1/1. P.W.8 Shyam Kumar Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case has recorded fardbeyan of informant Sita Debi (Ext.2). Accordingly, formal F.I.R. (Ext.3) was registered. He has visited the place of occurrence and inspected the same on identification of informant. The place of occurrence is Kurthi field of Nirmal Kandulna situated near a pedestrian road at Village Kulhi. North side of the place of occurrence, there was a Jackfruit tree and towards South Tamarind tree and houses of Kumhar communities at a distance of 300 yards. Both dead bodies were found at the place of occurrence under pool of blood and inquest report was prepared in presence of witnesses and he also seized blood-stained soil and sent the dead body of both the deceased to Khunti Hospital for postmortem. He received postmortem report of the deceased persons, recorded statement of witnesses and found sufficient evidence against the accused persons had submitted charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 148 , 302/149 of the I.P.C. In his cross-examination, this witness reiterates that incident has happened about 04:30 p.m. on 06.12.1990 and on 07.12.1990 at about 08:15 a.m. case was lodged. The police station is situated at about 6 km and there is no pitch road. He has also recorded restatement of witness Sita Debi (P.W.1) just after recording her fardbeyan but date and time of the same is not mentioned in the diary. He has also recorded the statement of both Chhedi Singh (P.W.2) and Bhola Sahu (P.W.3) at Police Station. He has also recorded restatement of witness Sita Debi (P.W.1) just after recording her fardbeyan but date and time of the same is not mentioned in the diary. He has also recorded the statement of both Chhedi Singh (P.W.2) and Bhola Sahu (P.W.3) at Police Station. This witness further admits that none of the witnesses have stated before him that the accused persons were bearing knife rather all have stated that the accused persons were having tangi with them. He also states that the motive behind the occurrence was old enmity between the parties but in connection with enmity he has not made detailed inquiry. He also admits that witness Chhedi Singh (P.W.2) has stated before him that his son has kept a girl namely Gauri who is sister of accused Tulsi Ram but he has not taken statement of Gauri. The villagers were not ready to give statement due to fear of accused persons. He also admits that at the place of occurrence, no other eye witnesses were present. The seized blood-stained soil was not sent to F.S.L. for chemical examination and that is also not produced before the Court. He has denied the suggestion of defence that he has conducted table work and not recorded the statement of any of the witnesses and submitted charge-sheet without any evidence against all the accused persons. 14. The defence has also examined four witnesses: D.W.1 Keshwar Sahu stated that he knows the field of Nirmal Munda in Kulhi Village, where two people (Harkhu and his son) were murdered. He was not present at the scene at the time of the murder but arrived about half an hour later and saw the bodies from a distance. He does not know who committed the murder or who was present at the scene and he never told anything to the police. D.W.2 Nirmal Munda stated that Manatu Village is about 1.5 km from Kulhi Village. He did not know Ojha Saw or Sita Debi from Manatu Village. The photos shown (marked as Exhibits- 5 and 5/4) are of his own field, where two men were killed about eight years ago. He has further stated that he did not reach the site immediately and arrived about half an hour later, when many people from Kulhi Village were already there. No one told him who committed the murder. The photos shown (marked as Exhibits- 5 and 5/4) are of his own field, where two men were killed about eight years ago. He has further stated that he did not reach the site immediately and arrived about half an hour later, when many people from Kulhi Village were already there. No one told him who committed the murder. The police visited the village but did not record his or anyone else’s statement. He has further stated that he did not know the area, plot number or size of the field nor the owners or details of surrounding lands. His house is about 50 yards from the place of occurrence and there are five or six houses nearby. He resides in Kulhai village and has no further knowledge. D.W.3 Basant Ram has stated that his village is about 30–32 km from Kulhi village. Bodhan Sao son of Shobha Sao, lives in the witness’s village. On the day of the incident, police came searching for Bodhan Sao in connection with a murder in Kulhi village. However, Bodhan Sao was in his own village at Kuman and working in the threshing floor all day. He does not know as to who was murdered. He has also not seen any dead bodies and has no knowledge about the occurrence. D.W.4 J.M. Choudhary stated that he was serving as Security Officer at the Central Fuel Research Institute (CFRI), Dhanbad, on 06.12.1990. He knows Surendra Singh (son of late Gangu Singh), who has worked as a security guard at the institute. According to attendance records (Exts. A, A/1, A/2), Surendra Singh was on duty from 05.12.1990 to 07.12.1990, across various shifts. The attendance registers were signed by Surendra Singh, Imamuddin Khan and Kedar Singh, whose handwriting and signatures the witness recognizes. CFRI is about 180 km from Ranchi. In his cross-examination by prosecution, this witness has admitted that Surendra Singh, Imamuddin Khan and Kedar Singh were not direct employees of CFRI but worked under a contracted security service (Ex-Serviceman Welfare Association, Security Services Ranchi). He could not confirm whether the attendance registers were actually prepared in his presence. He has denied that the documents were forged to protect Surendra Singh. 15. We have given thoughtful consideration to overall facts and circumstances of this case. The most important witness of this case is (P.W.1) Sita Debi, informant-cum-wife of deceased Harkhu Singh. He could not confirm whether the attendance registers were actually prepared in his presence. He has denied that the documents were forged to protect Surendra Singh. 15. We have given thoughtful consideration to overall facts and circumstances of this case. The most important witness of this case is (P.W.1) Sita Debi, informant-cum-wife of deceased Harkhu Singh. As per F.I.R. (Ext.2), all the seven accused persons namely Sohan Sahu, Lalu Sahu (since deceased), Ganesh Sahu, Bodho Sahu, Surendra Singh (since deceased), Hari Singh and Tulsi Ram suddenly came out from a bush and started assaulting to the husband and son of the informant indiscriminately and due to fear of accused persons, the eye witnesses who were present namely Sita Debi, Chhedi Singh and Bhola Sahu fled away. The whole prosecution case rests upon the evidence of these three eye witnesses. No corroborative piece of evidence like seizure of weapon of offence, blood stained soil or any other incriminating materials have been collected during investigation. Learned counsel for the appellants has laid much emphasis upon the very presence of these three alleged eye witnesses at the relevant time of occurrence on the ground of discrepancies and vital improvements appearing in their evidence. Therefore, considering the gravity of offences charged against the appellants, threadbare analysis of testimony of these ocular witnesses, is required to ascertain the truth. Admittedly, P.W.1 (Sita Debi) had a weak eye sight since many years prior to occurrence. She has claimed to see the occurrence from the distance of four steps. Although, in the First Information Report which was admittedly lodged after 16 hours of occurrence, the informant Sita Debi has not stated any specific overt act against any appellants rather in a general omnibus manner, she states that she along with her husband, son, bhaisur Khedu @ Chhedi Singh and Bhola Sahu were returning from market and reached at village Kulhi at about 04:30 p.m., all the accused persons seven in number armed with tangi started inflicting deadly assault upon her son and husband, when she protested, she was also threatened to kill then she along with her bhaisur Khedu Singh and Bhola Singh fled away to their home. Her fardbeyan was recorded at Police Station Rania on 07.12.1990 at about 08:15 a.m. in presence of Bhola Sahu (P.W.3) and Khedu @ Chhedi Singh (P.W.2). Her fardbeyan was recorded at Police Station Rania on 07.12.1990 at about 08:15 a.m. in presence of Bhola Sahu (P.W.3) and Khedu @ Chhedi Singh (P.W.2). In her evidence during trial, P.W.1 (Sita Debi) has materially improved her testimony and she has attributed against all the appellants giving assault by knife and tangi, firstly, to her son and thereafter to her husband. All the appellants have also been attributed causing injuries on the same part of body by their respective weapons. The place of occurrence is Village Kulhi and no particular field like Kurthi field of Manahatu or near the pedestrian road. Similarly, P.W.2 Chhedi Singh and P.W.3 Bhola Sahu have claimed to see the occurrence from a distance of 10 metre standing under a Jackfruit tree. They have also stated that all the accused persons were simultaneously assaulting to Harkhu Singh and Ghasi Singh. However, P.W.2 Chhedi Singh who happens to be bhaisur of informant has stated that all the accused persons at first assaulted to Ghasi Singh by tangi and knife and then Harkhu Singh was assaulted by Surendra Singh, Tulsi Ram and Hari Singh by tangi and knife on his head and stomach. P.W.3 (Bhola Sahu) has not attributed specific overt act against each accused persons rather in general and omnibus manner stated that all the accused persons assaulted at first to Ghasi Singh and thereafter, to Harkhu Singh by knife and tangi. 16. It appears from postmortem report of deceased persons that deceased Ghasi Singh has sustained seven stab injuries on different parts of body and three incised wounds. Similarly, deceased Harkhu Singh has sustained five incised wounds on different parts of body and one stab injury on stomach. It is opined by the P.W.7 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Shandilya that above incised wounds injuries may be caused by sharp cutting weapon like Kulhari and stab wounds by sharp pointed weapon such as Gupti and Barchhi. It is not pointed out that all the injuries are caused by same weapon or by different weapons. 17. If the evidence of above eye witnesses is considered in the light of injuries sustained by deceased persons, the manner of assault and receiving of injuries on different parts of bodies as per evidence of witnesses becomes not corroborative to each other. Therefore, the exact attributability of assault against each of the appellants becomes unreliable. 18. 17. If the evidence of above eye witnesses is considered in the light of injuries sustained by deceased persons, the manner of assault and receiving of injuries on different parts of bodies as per evidence of witnesses becomes not corroborative to each other. Therefore, the exact attributability of assault against each of the appellants becomes unreliable. 18. The testimony of P.W.1 Sita Debi, P.W.2 Chhedi Singh and P.W.3 Bhola Sahu also becomes doubtful for following reasons: (i) The occurrence took place on 06.12.1990 at 04:30 p.m. in Village Kulhi which is at a distance of 500 m to 1 k.m. as stated by above witnesses from their own Village Manahatu. (ii) The F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Rania which is situated at a distance of 12 k.m. from the place of occurrence. Although the witnesses have admitted existence of a Police Chowki at a distance of 3 k.m. from the place of occurrence as stated by P.W.3 Bhola Sahu. None of the villagers or local residents, were informed about the above occurrence in the night. (iii) P.W.2 Chhedi Singh has admitted that his son has kept the sister of appellant Tulsi Ram namely Gauri Devi as his wife. It is also admitted by P.W.1 and P.W.2 that Tulsi Ram was adamant to solemnize marriage of his daughter through Court marriage with the son of Chhedi @ Khedu Singh (P.W.2) and they also went to Court about six months prior to occurrence, but marriage could not be solemnized due to minority of the boy Aghnu Singh. Thereafter, Tulsi Ram fraudulently got registered landed property of the deceased as well as of Khedu @ Chhedi Singh (P.W.2) in the name of his daughter Gauri Devi which was protested by the deceased persons and action was taken for cancellation of the sale deed, therefore, accused persons were annoyed. This fact also suggests that it was the son of P.W.2 Chhedi Singh who kept Gauri Devi, i.e., daughter of appellant Tulsi Ram as his wife and the landed property of Harkhu Singh (deceased) was also sold. Therefore, the enmity ensues between Khedu Singh and Harkhu Singh also. (iv) P.W.3 Bhola Sahu has also inimical terms with accused Ganesh Sahu and Sohan Sahu. No independent witnesses have come to support the prosecution case. Therefore, the enmity ensues between Khedu Singh and Harkhu Singh also. (iv) P.W.3 Bhola Sahu has also inimical terms with accused Ganesh Sahu and Sohan Sahu. No independent witnesses have come to support the prosecution case. All the above eye witnesses (P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3) have given colourable evidence regarding place of occurrence, manner of assault, use of weapon and the actual participation of each appellants in commission of the alleged offence of murder. The manner in which they claim to be eye witness makes their presence at the place of occurrence itself as doubtful. 19. The learned trial court has swayed upon testimony in examination-in-chief of these witnesses and overlooked the material contradictions and discrepancies appearing in their cross- examination as well as the contradictions pointed out in the evidence of P.W.8 Shyam Kumar Singh, Investigating Officer of this case. 20. In view of material improvements and discrepancies appearing in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, their motive and animus with the accused persons existing prior to the occurrence renders themselves as unreliable and not creditworthy. The learned trial court has miserably failed to consider that the evidence of these eye witnesses are not corroborated from the medical report of the deceased persons as to the nature of injuries sustained by them along with the use of weapon. The whole spectrum of the case as brought on record by these eye witnesses indicates their presence at the spot to be doubtful rather they were present at their home and in the next day morning, they got information about the occurrence and F.I.R. was lodged against the appellants due to enmity. 21. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, we are of the firm view that the learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence of ocular witnesses claiming themselves to be eye witness of the occurrence and also in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence concluded about the guilt of the appellants which is not warranted under law. Accordingly, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants is hereby set aside and these appeals are allowed. The appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds and sureties are also discharged. 22. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed. 23. Accordingly, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants is hereby set aside and these appeals are allowed. The appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds and sureties are also discharged. 22. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed. 23. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to concerned trial court for information and needful. 24. We take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Ms. Pragati Prasad, learned amicus curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to process fee of Rs.7,500/- (Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) to Ms. Pragati Prasad within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 25. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee.