Nalanda The State of Bihar v. with
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1186 of 2007 the (Against judgment, dated 23.7.2007 of conviction, and the order, dated 30.7.2007, passing sentences against the convicted persons, in Sessions Trial No. 40 of 1997, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Nalanda) =========================================================== Jalar Yadav @ Jailer Yadav, S/o- Late Krishn Yadav, resident of Village- Patuana, P.S.- Bihar, District- Nalanda The State of Bihar Versus with .... .... Appellant .... .... Respondent Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1031 of 2007 =========================================================== 1. Bhola Yadav, s/o- Ragho Yadav 2. Dilip Yadav, s/o- Late Sideshwar Yadav 3. Bihari Yadav, s/o- Late Hira Yadav All 1 to 3 resident of Village- Patuana, P.S.- Biharsharif, District- Nalanda. The State of Bihar Versus with .... .... Appellants .... .... Respondent Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1223 of 2007 =========================================================== Raj Kumar @ Sadhu Gope @ Sadhu Yadav, S/o- Late Sri Yadav @ Sri Gope, resident of Village- Patuana, P.S.- Bihar, District- Nalanda. The State of Bihar Versus with .... .... Appellant .... .... Respondent Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1032 of 2007 =========================================================== 1. Naresh Yadav, son of late Jalo Yadav, 2. Ram Khelawan Yadav alias Khelawan Yadav, son of Prabu Yadav, Both resident of village- Patuyana, P.S. Biharsharif, District- Nalanda. The State of Bihar Versus with .... .... Appellants .... .... Opp. Party. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 2 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1043 of 2007 =========================================================== Rajendra Yadav, S/o- Late Pryag Yadav, resident of Village- Rajakuan, P.S.- Bihar, District- Nalanda The State of Bihar Versus with .... .... Appellant .... .... Respondent Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1067 of 2007 =========================================================== 1. Kapildeo Yadav @ Kapil Yadav, S/o- Dwarika Yadav 2. Yogendra @ Lotha Yadav, s/o- Late Lala Yadav 3. Shyam Yadav, s/o- Late Chandrika Yadav All 1 to 3 resident of Village- Patuana, P.S.- Bihar, District- Nalanda. The State Of Bihar Versus with .... .... Appellants .... .... Respondent Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1105 of 2007 =========================================================== 1. Kailu Yadav, s/o- Late Shree Yadav 2. Nagina Yadav @ Naga s/o- Late Shree Yadav, resident of Village- Patuana, P.S.- Bihar, District- Nalanda. The State of Bihar Versus with .... .... Appellants .... .... Respondent Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1115 of 2007 =========================================================== Kamlesh Yadav, S/o- Dwarika Yadav, resident of Village- Patuana, P.S.- Biharsharif, District- Nalanda The State of Bihar Versus with .... .... Appellant .... .... Respondent Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1185 of 2007 =========================================================== Kailu Yadav @ Ramchandra Yadav, S/o- Rajendra Yadav, resident of Village- Rajakuan, P.S.- Bihar, District- Nalanda. The State of Bihar Versus .... .... Appellant .... .... Respondent Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 3 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1219 of 2007 =========================================================== Damoder Yadav, S/o- Late Daweshwar Yadav, resident of Village- Kayampur Makhudmpur, P.S.- Rahui, District- Nalanda. The State of Bihar Versus with .... .... Appellant .... .... Respondent Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1222 of 2007 =========================================================== Bijay Yadav, S/o- Late Sri Yadav, resident of Village- Patuana, P.S.- Bihar, District- Nalanda. .... .... Appellant The State of Bihar Versus .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate. Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate. Md. Khurshid Alam, Advocate. Mr. Nasim Mukhtar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. A.K.Sinha, A.P.P. Mr. S.C. Mishra, A.P.P. Mr. D.K. Sinha, A.P.P. Ms. S.B.Verma, A.P.P. Mr. A. Sharma, A.P.P. Mr. A. Mishra, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Birendra Prasad Singh, Advocate. Mr. Vishwanath Prasad, Advocate. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI) Date: 16-12-2013 All these eleven appeals have arisen out of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 4 judgment, dated 23.7.2007, of conviction under various penal provisions and the order, dated 30.7.2007, whereunder sentences have been passed against the convicted persons, in Sessions Trial No. 40 of 1997, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Nalanda. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants, Kailu Yadav @ Ramchandra Yadav, son of Rajendra Yadav, Jalar Yadeav @ Jailer Yadav and Damoder Yadav, have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.”) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) each and, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for three years. The three appellants aforementioned have also been convicted by the impugned judgment, under Section 5 Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years each with fine of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) and, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for one year. By the impugned judgment and order, appellants, Bijay Yadav
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 5 and Raj Kumar @ Sadhu Gope @ Sadhu Yadav, have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 30,000/- (thirty thousand) each and, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for two years. These two appellants have been further convicted under Section 27 Arms Act, 1959, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each with fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. Under the impugned judgment, the appellant, Kamlesh Yadav, has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and also under Section 379 I.P.C. For his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C., the appellant, Kamlesh Yadav, has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 30,000/- (thirty thousand) and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. For his conviction under Section 379 I.P.C., the appellant, Kamlesh Yadav, has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 6 years. The appellant, Kamlesh Yadav, has been further convicted under Section 27 Arms Act, 1959, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant, Rajendra Yadav, has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 30,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. The appellants, Kailu Yadav, Nagina Yadav @ Naga, Kapildeo Yadav @ Kapil Yadav, Dilip Yadav, Bihari Yadav, Shyam Yadav, Naresh Yadav, Bhola Yadav, Lotha Yadav @ Yogendra and Ram Khelawan Yadav alias Khelawan Yadav, stand convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 30,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. In consequence of their conviction under Section 27 Arms Act, 1959, all these appellants, have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 7 (five thousand) each and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently with further direction that 50% of the fine shall, if realized, be paid to the dependents of the two deceased, namely, Siya Sharan Yadav and Yadu Yadav. 4. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus: (i) Siya Sharan Yadav (since deceased) and Yadu Yadav (since deceased) were sons of Saukhi Yadav (P.W. 10). While Siya Sharan Yadav was a Clerk in a local school, his brother, Yadu Yadav, was a Peon in the said school. On 29.8.1996, at about 9.45 A.M., Saukhi Yadav (P.W. 10), who is informant of this case, left his house to purchase fertilizer at Khandak Mor, Biharsharif. Before the informant left his house, his two sons, Siya Sharan Yadav and Yadu Yadav, had their meals and were ready to leave for their school so as to attend to their duties there. (ii) When the informant reached the southern side of Biharsharif Railway Station, he saw his said two sons coming, on a motorcycle, from northern direction. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 8 The informant noticed that accused Dwarika Yadav (since deceased) and accused Rajendra Yadav, both armed with country-made pistols, suddenly, came out of the bushes and shouted, “Both the enemies have come, don’t lose them, finish them at once”. Siya Sharan Yadav, who was driving the motorcycle with Yadu Yadav, as the pillion rider, stopped his motorcycle. Accused Kailu Yadav, son of Rajendra Yadav, and accused Ashok Yadav, who were armed with guns, reached the place, where the informant’s sons were stopped. Kailu Yadav and Ashok Yadav, then, hurled two bombs, one after the other, on the front side of the motorcycle. Both the said sons of the informant, Saukhi Yadav (P.W. 10), fell from the motorcycle on the ground and so fell down their motorcycle. Immediately thereafter, accused Ashok Yadav, again, hurled a bomb. Accused Kailu Yadav and accused Ashok Yadav threw 2-3 more bombs on the said two sons of the informant. Due to bombs so thrown, which had exploded, Siya Sharan’s head and face were badly damaged. Accused Jailer Yadav attacked Yadu Yadav by throwing bomb, which hit Yadu Yadav’s back and injured Yadu Yadav’s back. Accused Damodar Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 9 Yadav, too, attacked Yadu Yadav by throwing bomb and this bomb, too, hit Yadu Yadav. No sooner the bombs were so hurled on the two sons of the informant injuring them, as mentioned hereinbefore, four of the accused persons, namely, Bijay Yadav, Nagina Yadav, Kailu Yadav and Raj Kumar Yadav @ Sadhu Yadav, all armed with rifles and guns, arrived at the place, where Siya Sharan and Yadu Yadav were lying injured and started indiscriminate firing. Accused Kapil Yadav, Kamlesh Yadav, Naresh Yadav, Shyam Yadav, Ram Khelawan Yadav, Bihari Yadav, Yogendra @ Lotha Yadav, Dilip Yadav and Bhola Yadav, all armed with guns, surrounded Siya Sharan Yadav and Yadu Yadav, both of whom were lying injured on the ground, and, then, accused Dwarika Yadav (since deceased) and Rajendra Yadav asked their associates to ensure that Siya Sharan Yadav and Yadu Yadav did not survive. Upon being so urged, accused Bijay Yadav fired from his rifle and the bullet hit Siya Sharan’s thigh and accused Nagina Yadav fired from a gun and the bullet hit Yadu Yadav’s back. While leaving the place of occurrence, accused Kailu Yadav and accused Ashok Yadav exploded 2-4 more Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 10 bombs; whereas accused Bijay Yadav and Raj Kumar Yadav, while firing shots from their fire-arms, uttered that they had taken the revenge. In the meanwhile, accused Kamlesh Yadav took out the revolver of Siya Sharan Yadav and, thereafter, all the assailants left the place of occurrence and proceeded towards Chainpur village. (iii) Apart from the informant (P.W. 10), his brother (P.W. 7) and nephew (P.W. 1), many of his other co-villagers had witnessed the occurrence. The said two sons of the informant had been killed, because of old enmity and the litigations pending in the Court. (iv) Having learnt about the occurrence and having made General Diary Entry No. 921 of 1996, on 29.8.1996 at 10.25 A.M. at Biharsharif Police Station, its Officer-in-Charge, accompanied by other police personnel, left the said Police Station and reached the place of occurrence, located near Biharsharif Railway Station, at 10.45 A.M. Having arrived at the place of occurrence, the Officer-in-Charge, Biharsharif Police Station, held inquests, at 11.00 A.M., on the said two dead bodies and recorded fardbeyan of the informant Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 11 (P.W.10) at the very place of occurrence and handed over the said fardbeyan, on 29.8.1996, at 03.35 P.M., to the Investigating Officer (P.W. 12). (v) Based on said fardbeyan and treating the same as the First Information Report, Bihar Police Station Case No 287, dated 29.8.1996, under Sections 302/379/34 I.P.C./Section 27 Arms Act/ Sections 3/5 Explosive Substances Act, was registered against Dwarika Yadav, Kapil Yadav, Kamlesh Yadav, Bijay Yadav, Nagina Yadav, Kailu Yadav, Raj Kumar @ Sadhu Yadav, Ashok Yadav, Jailer Yadav, Naresh Yadav, Shyam Yadav, Ram Khelawan Yadav, Bihari Yadav, Yogendra @ Lotha Yadav, Dilip Yadav, Bhola Yadav, Rajendra Yadav, Kailu Yadav, son of Rajendra Yadav and Damodar Yadav. (vi) The dead bodies of Siya Sharan and Yadu Yadav were subjected to post mortem examinations and, on completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid, under Section 302/379/Section 34 I.P.C./Section 27 Arms Act/Sections 3/5 Explosive Substances Act, against accused Dwarika Yadav, Kapil Yadav, Kamlesh Yadav, Bijay Yadav, Nagina Yadav, Kailu Yadav, Raj Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 12 Kumar @ Sadhu Yadav, Ashok Yadav, Jailer Yadav, Naresh Yadav, Shyam Yadav, Ram Khelawan Yadav, Bihari Yadav, Yogendra @ Lotha Yadav, Dilip Yadav, Bhola Yadav, Rajendra Yadav, Kailu Yadav, son of Rajendra Yadav and Damodar Yadav. 5. At the trial, when charges under Section 302 and 379 read with Section 34 I.P.C., Section 27 Arms Act, 1959, and Sections 3 and 5 Explosive Substances Act, 1908, were framed against the accused aforementioned, all of them pleaded not guilty thereto. After the commencement of the trial, accused Ashok Yadav and accused Dwarika Yadav died; but the trial proceeded against the remaining accused. 6. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 13 (thirteen) witnesses. The accused were, then, examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and, in their examinations aforementioned, all the accused, facing trial, denied that they had committed the offences, which were alleged to have been committed by them. Apart from the fact that all the accused denied their involvement in the alleged occurrence and also contended that they had been Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 13 implicated falsely, because of the litigations pending with the informant, his family and other witnesses, who had been examined as eye-witnesses, accused Kailu Yadav took the plea of alibi by contending that he was, on the date and time of the alleged occurrence, at Brindavan, in the district of Munger, and could not have, therefore, been present at the place of occurrence. In support of his case, accused Kailu Yadav examined one witness. 7. Having, however, found all the accused guilty of the offences as have been mentioned above, learned trial Court convicted them accordingly and passed sentences against them as have been described above. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences, which have been passed against them, all the accused, as convicted persons, have preferred these appeals.
Legal Reasoning
8. We have heard Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel, and Md. Khurshid Alam, learned Counsel, appearing for the appellants. We have also heard Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, and Mr. Birendra Prasad Singh, learned Counsel, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 14 appearing for the informant. 9. While considering the present appeals, what needs to be noted, at the very outset, is that it is the common case of both, the prosecution as well as the defence, that the relation between the appellants, on the one hand, and the informant and other eye-witnesses, on the other, had been inimical inasmuch as the informant, his two said deceased sons and the eye- witnesses were all accused in the case of killing of the son and brother of accused Dwarika and, in the said case, the remaining accused persons were examined as witnesses of the occurrence and, while Yadu Yadav (since deceased) stood acquitted, Siya Sharan Yadav (since deceased) and the informant, Saukhi Yadav (P.W. 10) stood, amongst others, convicted. 10. While the prosecution seeks to make us believe that it is because of this animosity, existing between the parties concerned, which had made the accused-appellants kill the said two sons of the informant, the defence would have us believe that it is because of the grudge and animosity, which the informant and other eye-witnesses bore against the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 15 appellants and their alleged associates, that the appellants, along with the said two deceased accused persons, namely, Dwarika Yadav and Ashok Yadav, had been falsely implicated in the case. 11. Because of the fact that both the parties concerned had maintained inimical relation with each other, it needs to be borne in mind that enmity is a double-edged weapon, which cuts both the ways. While enmity may be a reason for committing an offence, such as, murder, enmity may also be a reason for either falsely implicating an enemy as an accused or roping in an enemy, who may be innocent, along with the guilty ones. 12. It is, therefore, incumbent, on the part of the Court, while dealing with such a case, as we have at hand, to be cautious, while appreciating evidence. 13. With the above prefatory remarks, let us, now, come to merit of the present appeals. 14. On coming to the merit of the appeals, what attracts our attention, most prominently, is that it was Dr. Sita Ballav Sharan (P.W. 11), who had, admittedly, performed post mortem examinations on the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 16 said two dead bodies. 15. Let us, therefore, take notice of the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 11) with regard to his findings and his opinion about the causes of death of the said two deceased and also the weapon or weapons, which were likely to have caused the injuries, which resulted into deaths of the said two deceased. 16. The doctor (P.W. 11) has deposed that on 29.08.1996, at 5.15 P.M., he held post mortem examination on the dead body of Yadu Yadav and found the following ante mortem injuries :- “(i) One lacerated wound 3”x3” in dimension with charred margin, situated on back of head with loss of skin and bone and partial loss of brain substance. (ii) One lacerated wound with black and charred margin 1”x1/2” in dimension, situated on forehead. (iii) One lacerated wound 3”x3” in dimension situated on right side of back with charred back with loss of skin and muscle and scapula fracture. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 17 (iv) One lacerated wound with black and inverted margin of dimension ¼”x1/4” situated on left side of back of chest, wound of entry. (v) One lacerated wound with inverted margin ½” in diameter, situated on front of chest, on left side wound of exit. Both injuries nos. (iv) & V communicate each other.” 17. The doctor (P.W. 11) has also deposed that there was pillaring of skin with blacken surrounding present on both hands on the dorsal aspect and, on dissection of chest, left lung was found lacerated with blood in chest cavity; but the heart was empty. 18. The doctor has further deposed that two metallic foreign bodies of irregular size were recovered from injury No. (iii), the said foreign bodies were sealed, labelled and handed over to the accompanying constable. 19. It is in the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 11) that on dissection of abdomen, all abdominal Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 18 viscera were found intact and pale and that stomach contained 1 ‰ lb semi-digested food materials, but urinary bladder was empty and time elapsed since death was 12 hours. 20. In the opinion of the doctor (P.W. 11), death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries caused by fire-arms and explosive substances. The doctor (P.W. 11) has also opined that while injury Nos. (iv) and (v) were caused by fire-arms, such as, rifles, injury Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) might have been caused by explosive substances. 21. It is also in the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 11) that on 29.8.1996, at 5.40 P.M., he held post mortem examination on the dead body of Siya Sharan Yadv and found the following ante mortem injuries :- “(i) One lacerated wound with blacken and charred margin 4”x3” in dimension with loss of skin bone, and partial brain substance on right side of head, fracture of right temporal and parietal leons (sic) with fallowing (sic) of head. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 19 (ii) one lacerated wound with blacken and charred margin, situated on left side of neck of dimension (sic) of 3”x2” with loss of skin, muscles and blood vessels. (iii) one lacerated wound with charred margin of dimension 3”x4” situated on left side of front of chest, with loss of skin and muscles (iv) Four lacerated wounds with charred margin, situated on left thigh each of ‰”x1/4” muscle deep in dimension. (v) One lacerated wound with black and inverted margin of dimension of ¼” in diameter situated on front of right thigh, wound of entry. (vi) One lacerated wound with inverted margin of diameter ½” situated on back of right thigh, wound of exit. Both injuries No. (v) and (vi) communicated each other. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 20 (vii) Four lacerated wound situated on front of right thigh, each of dimension ¼”x 1/4” muscle deep.” 22. It is the further evidence of the doctor (P.W. 11) that on dissection of above noted injuries, blood and blood clots were found present and, on dissection of injury Nos. (iv) and (vii), two metallic foreign bodies of irregular size were collected, sealed, labelled and handed over to the accompanying constable. 23. The doctor (P.W. 11) has deposed that on dissection of chest, left lung was found lacerated, right lung was intact, but pale and heart was empty. 24. The doctor (P.W. 11) has also deposed that on dissection of abdomen, all abdominal viscera were found intact, but pale and the stomach contained semi-digested food materials and urinary bladder was empty. 25. In the opinion of the doctor, death of Siya Sharan Yadav was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries, which we have mentioned above. It is also in the opinion of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 21 doctor (P.W. 11) that a period of 12 hours had elapsed since the time of death and the injury Nos. (v) and (vi) were caused by fire-arms, whereas the remaining injuries, namely, injury Nos. (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vii) were caused by explosive substance, such as, bomb. 26. The prosecution has not disputed the findings of the doctor (P.W. 11) and/or his opinion with regard to the causes of death or the weapons, which had been used in causing the injuries, which had been, according to the doctor, found on the said two dead bodies. 27. Though the defence did dispute the correctness of some of the findings of the doctor (P.W. 11) as well as his opinion with regard to the nature of injuries, which the said deceased had sustained, and/or the causes of death, we do not notice anything having been elicited by the defence by cross-examining the doctor (P.W. 11) to show that what the doctor has deposed was incorrect or untrue. This apart, we, too, do not notice anything inherently incorrect or improbable in the findings of the doctor or his opinion with regard to the nature of injuries, which the said two deceased had Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 22 sustained, the causes of death of the said two deceased and the nature of weapons, which could have caused the deaths. Notwithstanding, therefore, some dispute raised with regard to the findings and the opinions of the doctor, the evidence given by the doctor (P.W. 11) has remained substantially unshaken and uneffected. 28. What, rather, surfaces clearly from the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 11) is that in the case of both the said deceased, their stomachs were found to contain semi-digested food materials and, in order to reach the stage of semi-digestion, 3 to 4 hours are required meaning thereby that if the occurrence had taken place, as the prosecution contends, at about 10.15 A.M., the two deceased ought to have taken their food between 6.15 A.M. and 7.15 A.M. on the day of occurrence, i.e., 29.08.1996. 29. In the backdrop of the medical evidence on record, let us, now, turn to the evidence of the informant (P.W. 10), who is claimed to be an eye- witness. The evidence of the informant (P.W. 10) is that he left his house at about 9.45 A.M. to purchase fertilizer at Khandak Mor, Biharsharif, and at the time, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 23 when he left his home, both his said sons were ready to leave for their school after having had their meals. The further evidence of P.W. 10 is that when he reached the road on the southern side of Biharsharif Railway Station, he saw both his sons coming, on a motorcycle, from the northern side and the motorcycle was being driven by Siya Sharan Yadav and both his sons were killed by the present appellants and their associates, namely, Dwarika Yadav and Ashok Yadav, who are dead, by exploding bombs and shooting from fire-arms. 30. There is substance in the submission, made on behalf of the appellants, that the evidence of P.W. 10 cannot be believed inasmuch as the post mortem reports reveal that the stomach of the said two deceased contained semi-digested food materials and to reach the stage of semi-digestion, 3 to 4 hours were required. To put it a little differently, had informant (P.W. 10) been telling the truth, his said two sons had their meals closely before 9.45 A.M. and since the occurrence had taken place shortly thereafter, the food, which the said two deceased had taken, could not have reached the stage of semi-digestion. The net effect of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 24 inconsistency between the findings of the doctor, on the one hand, and the evidence of the informant (P.W. 10), on the other, shows that either the informant (P.W.10) has lied that his sons had left their home at about 9.45 A.M. or he (P.W. 10) had not witnessed the occurrence, which he (P.W. 10) alleged to have witnessed. 31. At any rate, in the light of the findings of the doctor (P.W. 11), the evidence of the informant (P.W. 10) cannot be readily believed in or relied upon. 32. Our curiosity to find out if P.W. 10 can be believed at all takes us to the evidence of P.W. 7, whose evidence, we notice, is that after the occurrence had taken place, the news of the occurrence had reached far and wide and his co-villagers, including the father of the said two deceased (i.e. P.W. 10), and others arrived at the place of occurrence. This clearly shows that the evidence of P.W. 7, who is none but the brother of P.W. 10, belies the claim of P.W. 10 that P.W. 10 was present near the place of occurrence even before the occurrence had taken place inasmuch as P.W. 10 has claimed, we have already pointed out above, that he had seen the occurrence from the beginning to the end; Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 25 whereas P.W. 7 has clearly deposed that P.W. 10 arrived at the scene of the occurrence, along with their other co- villagers, on coming to know about the occurrence. 33. Coupled with the above, the fardbeyan, lodged by the informant (P.W. 10), which became the basis for registration of the case against the appellants and their said two deceased associates, was, according to the informant (P.W. 10), recorded, at the place of occurrence, on the very day of the occurrence, at 11.00 A.M. There is, however, no corresponding corroborative evidence available on record in this regard, more particularly, because the Officer-in-Charge, who had recorded the fardbeyan, has not been examined at the trial. No reason has been assigned for his non- examination and no reason is discernible in this regard from the evidence on record. 34. One may also not ignore the fact that according to the Investigating Officer (P.W.-12), the fardbeyan was handed over to him by the Officer-in- Charge, Biharsharif Police Station, on the day of the occurrence, at 03.45 P.M., and this Investigating Officer, who, too, had reached the place of occurrence soon after Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 26 the occurrence had taken place, does not even claim that he had seen the Officer-in-Charge, Biharsharif Police Station, recording, at the place of occurrence, fardbeyan of P.W. 10. 35. Surprisingly enough, though the Investigating Officer (P.W. 12) claims to have been present at the place of occurrence, when the Officer-in- Charge, Biharsharif Police Station, was present there, he (P.W. 12) admits that he did not know until the time fardbeyan was handed over to him, at 03.45 P.M., as to what the occurrence was. In fact, the Investigating Officer’s evidence further weakens and destroys the claim of the informant (P.W. 10) that his fardbeyan had been recorded, at the place of occurrence, at about 11.00 A.M., inasmuch as the Investigating Officer (P.W. 12) has, in no uncertain words, deposed that he remained ignorant, at the place of occurrence, as to who was the complainant and who were the accused. Had the fardbeyan of P.W. 10 been recorded at the place of occurrence, on 29.8.1996, at 11.00 A.M., naming the accused therein, there was no earthly reason for the Investigating Officer (who remained present at the place Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 27 of occurrence along with the Officer-in-Charge, Biharsharif Police Station) to have not known as to who was the complainant, who were the accused and what was the occurrence. 36. Further-more, the fardbeyan, upon its registration as First Information Report, was received by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the following day, i.e., on 30.8.1996, though it is not in dispute before us that the Court complex is situated very close to the place of occurrence. Why it took the police almost 24 hours to make the First Information Report reach the Chief Judicial Magistrate has remained unexplained by the prosecution and no explanation is, in this regard, discernible from the evidence on record. 37. When the above disquieting and disturbing aspects are considered in the light of the evidence of P.W. 7, who, as we have already mentioned above, claims that P.W. 10 had arrived at the place of occurrence after the news of the occurrence had reached his village, it reinforces our inference that P.W. 10 was, contrary to his claim, not an eye-witness to the occurrence. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 28 38. While we find it impossible to believe that P.W. 10 was an eye-witness to the occurrence, the question, which obviously arises, is whether P.W. 7 was an eye-witness to the occurrence. It is, in this regard, noteworthy that P.W. 3 claims that when the occurrence took place, P.W. 7 was not present at the place of occurrence. 39. While, thus, P.W. 7 excludes the presence of P.W. 10 from the scene of occurrence, when the occurrence had taken place, the presence of P.W. 7, at the scene of occurrence, stands excluded by the evidence of P.W. 3. In other words, P.W. 10, contrary to his claim, was, according to the evidence of P.W. 7, not a witness to the occurrence and, at the same time, even P.W. 7, according to the evidence of P.W. 3, was not an eye-witness to the occurrence. 40. In the light of the fact that assertion of one person as an eye-witness to the occurrence is belied by the evidence of the other prosecution witness, it becomes clear that neither P.W. 7 can be believed nor can we believe the informant (P.W. 10). 41. The question, now, is if P.W. 3 can be Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 29 believed. It is of immense importance to note, in this regard, that according to the evidence of P.W. 3, accused Dwarika and accused Rajendra came out of the bushes with pistols and restrained Siya Sharan and Yadu from the front side and, then, Kailu Yadav and Ashok Yadav hurled bombs from the front side and accused Jailer Yadav and Damodar Yadav hurled bombs from the back side on both the said brothers, namely, Siya Sharan and Yadu and, having sustained injuries, both the said brothers fell down from the motorcycle. The description of the occurrence, which P.W. 3 has so given, is well- nigh impossible to believe inasmuch as two of the accused persons are alleged to have hurled bombs from the front side on the motorcycle, while two bombs are also, in the same breath, claimed by P.W. 3 to have been hurled, on the said two brothers, at their backside. The throwing of bombs, in the manner as P.W. 3 claims to have been thrown, would have proved mutually destructive inasmuch as the bombs thrown from the back side of the motorcycle could have easily caused injuries not only to the said two brothers, but also Kailu Yadav and Ashok Yadav and, similarly, bombs, thrown Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 30 by Kailu Yadav and Ashok Yadav, could have caused serious injuries to Jailer Yadav and Damodar Yadav. Such an inherently unsafe act of assault, on the part of the assailants, cannot be easily believed. 42. What is also noticeable, in the evidence of P.W. 3, is that according to him, all the four accused persons, again, hurled 2-3 bombs and, in the meanwhile, accused Bijay, Nagina, Kailu, Raj Kumar, variously armed with rifle and guns, came out and surrounded both the brothers and Bijay fired from his rifle, which hit the thigh of Siya Sharan, and, then, Nagina fired from his rifle, which hit the back of Yadu, and, at the same time, accused Kapil, Kamlesh, Bihari, Dilip, Shyam, Lotha, Ram Khelawan, Naresh and Bhola, armed with rifle and guns, came out of the bushes and, having surrounded both the brothers, started firing. 43. If the above description of the occurrence, given by P.W. 3, were true, not only that the bodies of the said two sons of the informant would have been riddled with bullets, but so many bombs having been thrown on the said two sons of the informant would have ripped the bodies of the said two deceased Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 31 into pieces of flesh and bones. Consequently, pieces of flesh and bones of the said two deceased would have been found lying strewn around the place of occurrence. Except, however, causing injury on the back of Yadu and similar injury on the back of the head of Siya Sharan, no such injury is found to have been caused to any of the said two deceased, which could have been consistent with the explosion of a series of bombs in the manner as P.W. 3 has described. 44. Putting an end to the credibility of the evidence of P.W. 3, it has been pointed out, on behalf of the appellants, and rightly so, that the Investigating Officer (P.W. 12) has confirmed that in his previous statement, made during investigation, P.W. 3 had not made any such assertions, which he has made at the trial. These material omissions, which, undoubtedly, constitute major contradictions, cannot be ignored and even P.W. 3 cannot be regarded as a witness, whose evidence is safe to place reliance upon. 45. When we turn on the evidence of P.W. 1, we find that according to him, accused Dwarika Yadav and Rajendra Yadav, armed with pistols, came Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 32 out of the bushes and exhorted their associates to kill the said two sons of the informant by saying that enemies had come and they shall be killed and, then, Kailu Yadav and Ashok Yadav hurled bombs from the front side and Jailer Yadav and Damodar hurled bombs from the back side on Siya Sharan and Yadu and, having sustained injuries, both, Siya Sharan as well as Yadu Yadav, fell down from the motorcycle. It is in the evidence of P.W 1 that Kailu Yadav and accused Ashok Yadav, then, hurled 2-3 more bombs on Siya Sharan and Yadu Yadav and the bomb, which Jailer Yadav had thrown, hit the back side of Yadu Yadav. This apart, even the bomb, thrown by Damodar Yadav, according to the evidence of P.W. 1, had hit Yadu Yadav and then Bijay Yadav, Nagina Yadav, Kailu and Sadhu Yadav came out with rifles and guns, surrounded both the said brothers, whereupon accused Bijay Yadav fired from his rifle, which hit the right thigh of Siya Sharan, and the bullet, fired by accused Nagina from a rifle, hit Yadu Yadav’s back and, thereafter, Kapil Yadav, Kamlesh Yadav, Dilip Yadav, Shyam Yadav, Ram Khelawan Yadav and Naresh Yadav came out of the bushes, surrounded Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 33 both the brothers and started firing and, then, Yogendra also came out of the bushes and started firing. 46. In the light of the medical evidence on record, the description of occurrence, which P.W. 1 has given, cannot be believed inasmuch as so many bombs, if hurled on the two sons of the informant, would have ripped their bodies into pieces of flesh and bones; whereas except for an injury on the back of Yadu Yadav and an injury on the back of the head of Siya Sharan, no major injury caused by bomb could be seen. Even if one tries to give some credence to the evidence of P.W. 1, it would be impossible inasmuch as the Investigating Officer (P.W. 12) has confirmed that no such statement, as has been given by P.W. 1, at the trial, while describing the occurrence, was made by P.W. 1 during the course of investigation. 47. When P.W. 1 did not make any such statement, as has been made by him at the trial, his evidence given in the Court, in the light of the omissions with which suffers his previous statement made to the police, cannot be safely believed in or relied upon. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 34 48. On coming to the evidence of P.W. 4, who, too, has claimed to be an eye-witness, we notice that according to him, Dwarika and Rajendra came out of the bushes and surrounded the motorcycle aforementioned on the point of pistols and urged his associates to kill their enemies. It is in the evidence of P.W. 4 that from the front end, accused Kailu and from the back side, accused Ashok, Damodar and Jailer started hurling bombs and altogether as many as four bombs hit Siya Sharan and Yadu, both of whom fell down. If closely examined, it becomes transparent that the description of the occurrence, given by P.W. 4, is wholly contrary to the evidence given by P.W. 1, P.W. 3, P.W. 7 and even P.W. 10 inasmuch as the witnesses, other than P.W. 4, have deposed that both, accused Kailu and accused Ashok, had hurled bombs on the front side of the motorcycle, in question; whereas P.W. 4 claims that while accused Kailu threw bomb from the front side, accused Ashok, in association with accused Damodar and Jailer, threw bombs, on the back side of Siya Sharan and Yadu Yadav. 49. Be that as it may, according to P.W. 4, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 35 accused Bijay, Nagina, Kailu and Sadhu came out of the nearby bushes and, then, accused Bijay fired on Siya Sharan by means of a rifle and the bullet hit his thigh and accused Nagina fired on Yadu, which hit Yadu’s back, and, then, Kapil, Kameshwar, Dilip, Shyam, Bhola, Lotha, Naresh, Ram Khelawan and Bihari came and, having surrounded Siya Sharan and Yadu, started firing and, thereafter, Rajendra, Ashok, Kailu and Jailer hurled three bombs upon the deceased, the said three bombs having been hurled on Siya Sharan and Yadu after they had fallen from the motorcycle. 50. Apart from the fact that the description of the occurrence, so given by P.W. 4, is contrary to the description of the occurrence, as given by P.W. 3, P.W. 7 and P.W. 10, the fact remains that had three bombs been hurled, apart from other bombs, which had been allegedly thrown on the said two brothers, their bodies could not have remained in one piece each. In fact, at one stage of his evidence, P.W. 4 has deposed that as many as four bombs were thrown at a time on Siya Sharan and Yadu. Moreover, had Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 36 P.W. 4 been present, he would have seen the arrival of the police inasmuch as it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the Officer-in-Charge, Biharsharif Railway Station, accompanied by other police personnel, reached the place of occurrence at 10.45 A.M.; whereas P.W. 4 says that he cannot say if the police came. 51. The impression that the evidence of P.W. 4 is either concocted or imaginary also becomes evident from the fact that he claims that all four bombs were thrown at a time. Commensurate with the throwing of four bombs at a time, corresponding injuries have not been found on the dead bodies of Siya Sharan and Yadu Yadav. Had four bombs been really thrown at a time and hit the said two deceased, as the prosecution witnesses have tried the Court to believe, the bodies of Siya Sharan and Yadu would have been, as already observed above, ripped into pieces and stood wholly mutilated; whereas the only possible injury, caused to Yadu Yadav, by bomb, was an injury on his back and, similarly, the only injury, sustained by Siya Sharan, which could have been attributed to a bomb Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 37 was at the back of his head. 52. So far as P.W. 6 is concerned, he was tendered by the prosecution at the trial for cross- examination. As P.W. 6 has deposed nothing against the appellants, one has no option but to hold that this witness has given no evidence against the appellants and their said two alleged associates. P.W. 6 cannot, therefore, be said to have implicated the appellants. 53. Because of intrinsically unbelievable features with which stand woven the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses, coupled with the disturbing questions, as to when the fardbeyan was recorded and why fardbeyan, having been registered as F.I.R., had not been sent, forthwith, to the Magistrate concerned, we find considerable force, in the submissions made, on behalf of the appellants, that the possibility of fardbeyan having been ante dated and ante timed cannot be easily ruled out. This unexplained delay, coupled with the admitted enmity between the parties, restrain us from giving any credence to the evidence of the informant, whose evidence otherwise also, in the light of what we have discussed, cannot be treated as Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 38 evidence of an eye-witness. The possibility of the accused having been named in the fardbeyan, because of previous enmity or suspicion, can also not be ruled out. This apart, in the fact situation of the present case, the possibility of roping in of some innocent along with guilty ones, if any, cannot be boldly and confidently denied. 54. What emerges from the above discussion is that though the prosecution has examined P.W. 1,3,4,7 and 10 as eye-witnesses, none of these witnesses can be believed. Even if we do not reject their evidence as wholly unreliable, their evidence will fall, at best, in the category of those witnesses, who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The evidence of a witness, who is found to be neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, cannot be made basis of conviction unless his evidence is corroborated by independent credible evidence, direct or circumstantial. 55. It is trite that the witnesses, ordinarily, fall into three distinct categories, namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. If the witness is Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 39 wholly reliable, his evidence can be implicitly relied upon and such a witness’s testimony can be made basis for convicting an accused. Similarly, when a witness is found to be wholly unreliable, no reliance can at all be placed on his evidence and his evidence has to be rejected outright. When, however, a witness is found to be neither wholly reliable, nor wholly unreliable, his evidence cannot be accepted as true unless his evidence is found to have been corroborated by some credible independent evidence, direct or circumstantial. 56. The evidence of the eye-witnesses, which the prosecution has adduced in the present case, cannot be safely relied upon unless the same is found to have been corroborated by some credible independent evidence, direct or circumstantial. 57. It is also an undisputed position of law that one infirm witness cannot be taken to have corroborated the evidence of another infirm witness meaning thereby that witnesses of same brand cannot be taken to have corroborated each other. 58. Thus, when a witness is neither wholly Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 40 reliable nor wholly unreliable, his evidence cannot be taken to have been corroborated by a witness of the same brand, namely, a witness, who is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, for, evidence is not to be counted, but weighed. It is not the number of the witnesses, which shall determine the outcome of a trial; rather, it is the intrinsic quality of the evidence, given by the witnesses, which decides the outcome of trial. If each one of a large number of witnesses is found to be wholly unreliable, their evidence cannot become acceptable as true merely because a large number of similar brand of witnesses has corroborated each other. 59. The above discussion of the evidence on record leaves us with the evidence of P.W. 9, whose evidence is to the effect that he had seen the accused sitting on the platform of Biharsharif Railway Station with fire-arms and, on seeing him, they had tried to cover the fire-arms with gamucha (i.e. country towel.) While appreciating the evidence of P.W. 9, it deserves to be noted that the Investigating Officer has deposed that P.W. 9 had named only one person as having been seen by him carrying the fire-arm and the said person was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 41 accused Ashok Yadav. Apart from the fact that the evidence given by P.W. 9 is not in tune with the evidence of other witnesses, whom prosecution has examined as eye-witnesses, we do not find any credible evidence, on record, corroborating the evidence of P.W. 9 inasmuch as none of the so-called eye-witnesses has deposed that they had seen any of the accused going from the Railway Station towards the place, where the motorcycle was stopped by accused Kailu Yadav and accused Ashok Yadav. 60. With some justification, it has been submitted, on behalf of the appellants, that prosecution witnesses, particularly, P.W. 3, is assertive in his evidence that it was accused Bijay Yadav, who had shot, at the thigh of Siya Sharan, by means of a rifle; but the medical evidence shows that the entry of the wound, caused on the thigh of Siya Sharan, was larger than the exit, which could not have been caused by shooting from a rifle. 61. What emerges from the above discussion is that none of the prosecution witnesses can be held to be wholly trustworthy and even if we do Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 42 not reject their evidence as wholly unreliable, they will fall, as indicated above, in the category of those witnesses, who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. Coupled with this intrinsic weakness of the prosecution case, there is no credible and convincing evidence, direct or circumstantial, corroborating the evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses. 62. In the face of the fact that every witness, who has been examined as an eye-witness, is found to be neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, none of these witnesses, in the absence of any independent credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, can be said to have corroborated each other and they cannot be said to have proved the prosecution’s case beyond reasonable doubt. 63. Though it has been contended, on behalf of the appellants, that the motorcycle, alleged to have been seized from the place of occurrence, was not the motorcycle of Siya Sharan and the possibility of some one, other than the accused-appellants, having killed both the deceased and fleeing away from the place of occurrence, cannot be ruled out, we are not Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 43 inclined to enter into the correctness of the submissions so made on behalf of the appellants inasmuch the ambit of enquiry of a trial and of these appeals is merely to determine if all or any of the appellants were/was involved in the occurrence of causing death of Siya Sharan and/or Yadu Yadav. For reasons, which we have discussed above, we have already held that none of the eye-witnesses, whose evidence we have discussed so far, can be believed. 64. That the investigation into the case was slipshod is also evident from the fact that the Investigating Officer (P.W. 12) admits that he had not gone even to the bushes and could not, therefore, say if the height of the bushes was sufficient to hide a grown- up person. This apart, there is no evidence to show that the bushes stood crushed or had been trampled over by the accused as alleged against them inasmuch as the evidence of the witnesses is to the effect that the accused were hiding in the bushes and had come out of the bushes. If the description, as given hereinbefore, were true, bushes would have been found crushed, when so many persons had trampled over the same in Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 44 order to reach the place, where Siya Sharan and Yadu Yadav were killed. 65. There is yet another lapse on the part of the prosecution inasmuch as we notice that no witness from the neighbourhood has been examined by the Investigating Officer. Though the neighbours might not have seen the occurrence, their evidence could have, at least, revealed the time of the occurrence; moreso, when the time of the occurrence, as given by the informant and other witnesses, do not, in the light of the medical evidence on record, tally. 66. Though some doubts have been expressed, on behalf of the appellants, as to the truthfulness of the evidence, given by the prosecution witnesses, that the occurrence had taken place at the place, where it is claimed to have taken place, we do not find much substance in this contention inasmuch as the occurrence, according to the evidence on record, did take place, where the dead bodies of Siya Sharan and Yadu were found. The vital questions, which, however, remain unanswered are as to whether the present appellants and the said two deceased accused Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 45 persons (who had faced the trial) were the ones involved in the occurrence of killing of Siya Sharan and Yadu Yadav and whether the description of the occurrence, as given by the prosecution witnesses, can be believed at all. . 67. With regard to the above, suffice it to point out that the very description of the occurrence, as given by the prosecution witnesses, does not inspire confidence. In fact, when holistically examined, the description of the occurrence, given by the prosecution witnesses, appears to be incredibly concocted and so far as the involvement of the appellants is concerned, their involvement, too, for the reasons that we have discussed above, cannot be safely believed. 68. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we are clearly of the view that the evidence, adduced by the prosecution, was nothing but an ad-mixture of half-truth and untruth and it has become impossible to extricate the truth from falsehood. Benefit of such a situation ought to have gone to the accused-appellants and they ought to have been accorded, at least, benefit of doubt. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 46 69. What crystallizes from the above discussion is that the prosecution has failed, in the present case, in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants and the learned trial Court ought to have acquitted the accused-appellants by according them benefit of doubt. 70. In the result, and for the reasons discussed above, all these appeals succeed. The impugned conviction of the accused-appellants and the sentences passed against them by the judgment and order, under appeal, are hereby set aside. All the appellants are held not guilty of the offences, which they have been convicted of, and are acquitted of the same under benefit of doubt. 71. Let accused-appellants Jalar Yadav @ Jailer Yadav, Kailu Yadav @ Ramchandra Yadav, son of Rajendra Yadav and Damoder Yadav, be set at liberty forthwith unless they are required to be detained in connection with any other case. The bail bonds of the remaining appellants are hereby cancelled and their sureties shall stand discharged. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1186 of 2007 dt.16-12-2013 47 72. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned Court below with a copy of this judgment and order. (I. A. Ansari, J) (V.N. Sinha, J) Ali Imam /Arjun/- P.K.P./ A.F.R.