BAIJNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 6.4.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mungawali, District Guna in Sessions Trial No. 78/94, whereby convicted the appellants Baijnath Singh, Badalsingh and Lakhansingh under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.500/ - each, in default two months' SI.

(2.) DURING the pendency of this criminal appeal appellant No.3 Lakhansingh expired and on 7.1.2004 his name was deleted from the array of appellants by the order of the Court. 3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 20.9.1993 Patiram had gone to market at Bahadurpur at about 4 p.m. with appellants Baijnathsingh and Badalsingh. He did not return home in the night. Kalector Singh (PW2) resident of village Jhagar Bamuria informed Chandan Singh (PW 1) that Patiram would return after sometime. In the same night at 8.00 p.m. appellant -accused Badalsingh returned home and informed Chandan Singh (PW 1) and villagers that Patiram had stayed at the house of Pratapsingh in village Sumer. But Patiram did not return till next day. Patiram's son Chandan Singh (PW1), Narainsingh (PW3), Kalector Singh (PW2), Santosh Singh and other villagers went out in search of Patiram. In the evening, they found two pairs of shoes and one pair of sandale by the river side. Out of these shoes, one pair of shoes belongs to Patiram and it is alleged that rest belong to appellants Baijnath and Badalsingh. According to the prosecution, on 22.9.1993, dead body of Patiram was found in the river. Then Chandan Singh lodged a report (Ex.P -1), upon which crime under section 302 read with 34 and 201 of IPC has been registered. First Information Report is Ex.P -19. 4. On 22.9.1993 Panchayatnama Lash (Ex.P -6) has been prepared. On the same day, one pair of sandal, one shoe of right foot and one shoe of left foot have been seized from Natthu Singh as per Ex.P -7. Spot Map (Ex.P -14) was prepared on the same day. Appellants -accused Badalsingh, Baijnath Singh and Lakhan were arrested on 30.9.1993 as per arrest memo Ex.P -27, EX.P -26 and Ex.P -28, respectively. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 CrPC. 5. On 22.9.1993 Dr. C.P. Tiwari conducted postmortem of dead body of Patiram and found as per Ex.P -10, Dr. C.P. Tiwari preserved Viscera of deceased along with solution and it was seized by police as per Ex.P -18 on 22.9.1993. Viscera was sent for chemical examination to FSI, Sagar as per report Ex.P -30. No chemical poison was found on the viscera of deceased. Statement of Baldevsingh and Badalsingh was recorded under section 164 of CrPC. As per prosecution Baldevsingh and Badal Singh saw appellants throwing Patiram in river. They are said to be eye -witness. 6. After completion of trial, charge -sheet under sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of IPC has been filed. Then case was committed to the Sessions. 7. Learned trial Court framed charges under section 302 and 302 read with 34 of IPC. Appellants/accused persons abjured the guilt. They pleaded innocence. Their defence was that they were falsely implicated. 8. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses. After completion of trial and hearing both the parties, learned trial Court convicted appellants Baijnath Singh and Badalsingh and Lakhansingh under section 302 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced them aforementioned. 9. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellants preferred this appeal alleging that learned trial Court erred in relying on the prosecution evidence and convicting the appellants ignoring the basic approach in cases based on circumstantial evidence that conviction can be recorded only when all circumstances are positively established leading to the only conclusion that the accused persons are guilty. There is no evidence to prove that death of Patiram was homicidal. There is no evidence against the appellants. Learned trial Court committed illegality in passing the judgment of conviction. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses. Material witness Rumalsingh has not been examined. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellants. Motive could not be proved by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellants prayed to allow appeal and acquit the appellant of offence under section 302 read with 34 of IPC. 10. Learned public prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that it is settled principle of law that every circumstance against the appellants should be proved beyond reasonable doubt and chain in circumstances should prove nexus of appellants with committed crime and it should exclude the reasonable possibility of anyone else being the perpetrator of the crime then the chain of evidence may be considered to show that within all human probability the crime must have been committed by the appellants -accused persons. It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellants that when the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence motive assumes importance and prosecution is duty bound to prove motive. But in the present case motive has not been proved by the prosecution and in the absence of motive appellants cannot be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the circumstantial evidence of last seen together of deceased Patiram with appellants/accused cannot be basis of conviction of appellants because circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Learned counsel for the appellants based his argument on 1994 SCC (Cr) 1551 Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that prosecution has failed to prove the death of Patiram is homicidal, hence appellants cannot be convicted for the offence of murder of deceased Patiram. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that FIR lodged by appellants Baijnath and Lakhansingh cannot be used against them because these reports can be used only for contradiction or corroboration under section 145 and 157 of the Evidence Act, if they offered themselves as a witness in the trial. 12. Prosecution examined Baldevsingh (PW5) and Badal Singh (PW 10) as an eye -witness of the incident, but both these witnesses turned hostile. Learned Public Prosecutor after declaring them hostile cross -examined them. Baldevsingh and Badalsingh denied witnessing the incident. They deposed that they have not seen any quarrel between Patiram and appellants. They also deposed that they have not seen appellants throwing Patiram's body in river. They deposed against their statement recorded under section 164 of CrPC as Ex.P -8 and Ex.P -12. They are deposing in contradiction of their previous statement recorded under section 161 of CrPC as Ex.P -9 and Ex.P -13. Consequently, their testimony regarding witnessing the incident of causing murder of Patiram by appellants is not substantiated by their evidence and their evidence is not reliable on this point. Learned trial Court rightly rejected their testimony on this point. 13. There is no evidence on record that any witness including Baldevsingh (PW5) and Badalsingh (PW 10) witnessed that appellants committed murder of Patiram, hence rest of the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The main circumstance against appellants is alleged that deceased Patiram last seen with appellants and appellants have motive to murder Patiram and appellants quarrelled with Patiram near river. No other circumstance has been put -forth by prosecution against appellants. 14. Learned trial Court observed in para 15 of the impugned judgment that looking to the injuries found on the person of Patiram, it is clear that after causing injuries to Patiram his body was thrown in the river where he became unconscious and died due to drowning and his death was unnatural. Consequently, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that death of Patiram was homicidal. 15. Dr. C.P. Tiwari (PW8) found a lacerated wound on exterior part of left eye and a lacerated wound on exterior part of left ear of Patiram which is possibly caused by fishes and these injuries were postmortem. Skin of shoulder blades, lower part of back and buttocks were torn because dead body of deceased Patiram submerged. Dr. C.P. Tiwari also found two ante -mortem lacerated wound on left Patella and another on left upper arm, but these injuries were not sufficient to cause death of Patiram. Dr. C.P. Tiwari could not give any specific cause of death of Patiram, but he specifically deposed that death of Patiram was not caused due to drowning. In cross -examination also, he categorically stated that death of Patiram was not due to drowning and he is unable to say whether death of Patiram was natural or unnatural. But in para 16 of his statement, he admitted that if death had been unnatural then he would have mentioned this fact in his postmortem report Ex.P -10. It means impliedly Dr. C.P. Tiwari admits that death of Patiram was not unnatural. Dr. C.P. Tiwari did not opine that the death of Patiram was homicidal or not. Though, he deposed that if any person falling in water becomes unconscious then no water would be found in lungs, in that position a person can die lying in water. No diatom test has been conducted by investigating agencies. Dr. C.P. Tiwari deposed that he was sure that death of Patiram was not due to drowning, so it was not necessary to conduct diatom test for that purpose. In our considered opinion, Dr. C.P. Tiwari's evidence is not sufficient to prove that the death of Patiram was homicidal or unnatural. Injuries found on patella and left upper arm of Patiram are simple in nature and they are not sufficient to cause death of Patiram in ordinary course of nature. These injuries may be caused due to fall on the ground or due to friction with rough object or surface. Learned trial Court committed error in holding that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that death of Patiram was homicidal which cannot be affirmed. Prosecution has failed to prove by cogent evidence that the death of Patiram was homicidal. 16. We consider the evidence assuming if the death of Patiram was homicidal or unnatural then offence levelled against appellants are proved or not against them beyond all reasonable doubt. We have gone through thoroughly oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. 17. Chandan Singh (PW 1) son of deceased Patiram deposed that deceased Patiram was not having family relations with appellants. Previously they were on inimical terms but before one month of the incident a compromise took place between them. Dispute was of land of Rao Chandansingh. These facts have been brought in cross -examination by learned defence counsel. Chandansingh was ignorant of the fact that Rao Chandansingh and appellants were in dispute due to cases of bank loan and Rao Chandansingh left his village. He also admitted that lands of Rao Chandansingh and appellants were adjoining. 18. Kalector Singh (PW2) and Narayan Singh (PW3) deposed that lands of Rao Chandansingh and Natthusingh are adjoining. These lands are adjoining to Badalsingh's land. Due to deal of this land, he was on inimical terms with Badalsingh. But no other witness corroborated the statement of Chandansingh and Narainsingh. Even in FIR (Ex.P -1) these facts have not been mentioned. It is clear from the evidence of Chandansingh that appellants and Patiram resolved their dispute and entered into a compromise. There is no evidence on record that after compromise, appellants and deceased Patiram and family members were having strained relations. There is no evidence on record to prove that after compromise, appellants were keeping grudge with deceased Patiram or his family members. Contrary to that, there is evidence on record that deceased Patiram willingly went with appellants to Bahadurpur and they spent time there together. Though previously relations of appellants and deceased Patiram were strained and they were said to be having inimical term. But evidence of Narainsingh and Chandansingh do not show that enmity was so grave that could not have been come to an end after compromise. In our considered opinion the evidence of Chandansingh and Narainsingh is not sufficient to prove that appellants were having such grave enmity with deceased Patiram which can be strong motive to commit murder of deceased Patiram. 19. Chandansingh (PW 1) has deposed that on 20.9.1993 appellants Baijnathsingh and Lakhansingh came to his house and asked Patiram to accompany him to Bahadurpur, but Patiram refused them. Appellants Baijnathsingh and Lakhansingh told Patiram that in short span of time they will come back from Bahadurpur, then deceased Patiram went with Baijnathsingh and Lakhansingh to Bahadurpur. This fact has not been challenged effectively in his cross -examination. Evidence of Chandan singh is corroborated by Ex.P - . Narainsingh (PW3) also corroborated the statement of Chandansingh that deceased Patiram went to Bahadurpur with appellants Baijnathsingh, Badalsingh and Lakhansingh. Both the witnesses are consistent and firm regarding the fact that deceased Patiram went with appellants Baijnathsingh, Badalsingh and Lakhansingh (deceased) to Bahadurpur. Their evidence is reliable on this point. 20. As per Ex.P -1 Patiram left village with appellants at 4:30 p.m. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 20.9.1993 deceased Patiram went to Bahadurpur along with appellants Baijnathsingh, Lakhansingh and Badalsingh. It is also proved by the evidence of Chandansingh (PW 1), Narainsingh (PW3) and Natthusingh (PW4) that deceased Patiram never returned from Bahadurpur and on 22.9.1993 his dead body was found in river in between Ghaat Bamuria and Bahadurpur. The fact of recovery of dead body from river is also corroborated by the evidence of Natthusingh (PW4), Chandansingh Parihar (PW 12) and Panchayatnama Lash (Ex.P -6). 21. Natthusingh (PW4) deposed that on 20.9.1993 about 6 -6:30 p.m., he saw appellants Baijnathsingh, Badalsingh and deceased Patiram going back to their village. Yunis Khan and Rumalsingh were also present at that time. Yunis Khan warned appellants Badalsingh, Baijnathsingh and deceased Patiram not to drink liquor as police is wandering. Next morning, Rumalsingh informed Natthusingh that Badalsingh, Baijnathsingh, deceased Patiram and Lakhansingh quarrelled after consuming liquor and Baijnathsingh and Lakhansingh are apprehended in police station. In cross -examination also, he stated that Rumalsingh told him that Baijnathsingh, Lakhansingh, Badalsingha and deceased Patiram quarrelled with each other and Baijnathsingh and Lakhansingh apprehended in police station. He never went to see them in police station Rumalsingh has not been examined by prosecution to corroborate abovesaid testimony of Natthusingh. Natthusingh's statement is that Baijnathsingh, Lakhansingh and Patiram quarrelled with each other is not admissible in evidence because informer Rumalsingh has not been examined by prosecution evidence of Natthusingh is not sufficient to prove that Baijnathsingh, Patiram and Lakhansingh quarrelled with each other after consuming liquor. Natthusingh is resident of village Bahadurpur. It is not revealed from his evidence that he disclosed the fact that Baijnathsingh, Patiram and Lakhansingh went together to their village to anyone. He did not disclose this fact to police even though he was knowing the fact that Patiram has not returned to his home and he was also searching Patiram. He also deposed that he also went to Bamuria to ask Badalsingh about Patiram, but he showed ignorance. It is clear from the evidence of Natthusingh that he was having knowledge of fact that Patiram is missing and he has not reached his house, then natural conduct should have been that he should have informed the fact to the relatives of Patiram that he saw Baijnathsingh, Badalsingh, Lakhansingh and Patiram going towards their village, but he did not disclose this fact to anyone. His statement (Ex.D -3) was recorded by police on 3.10.1993 after thirteen days of the alleged incident. There is no explanation on record why Natthusingh kept mum about abovesaid fact for thirteen days. Conduct of this witness of not disclosing the fact that Patiram left Bahadurpur along with appellants is unnatural. Hence, evidence of Natthusingh regarding last seeing Patiram together with the appellants is not reliable and his evidence is not sufficient to prove that he saw Patiram and appellants going together towards their village Ghaat Bamuria. 22. Shriram (PW 7) deposed that on Monday Patiram, Badalsingh and Baijnathsingh came to his shop for shaving. Natthusingh was also there. After shaving they went from his shop. In the evening he saw Patiram, Baijnathsingh and Badalsingh on Pifa (Rapta). Badalsingh gave him Rs.25/ - and told him to bring half (Addhi) bottle of liquor. He went and came back, told Badalsingh that Rupees twenty five are not sufficient to purchase half bottle of liquor and Badalsingh went and brought liquor and Patiram, Baijnathsingh, Badalsingh and Shriram had drunk. Patiram also purchased one bottle of liquor and they drank liquor. After consuming liquor, Baijnathsingh asked Natthusingh to bring one more bottle of liquor and after taking liquor, all three persons went to Bamuria at about 7:30 p.m. Next day, Rumalsingh informed Shriram that Baijnathsingh and Lakhansingh are apprehended in police station. He also admitted that next day about 5:00 p.m. Nathusingh told him that Patiram has not returned since night. He went alongwith Nattusingh to village Bamuria and there he taking Amarjeet Singh and other villagers went in search of Patiram. Chandansingh told that he found shoes in river, that mean to say that he got knowledge on the second day only that Patiram is missing. But he did not disclose the fact that Patiram, Baijnath, Badalsingh and he drank liquor on 20.9.1993 and at 7:30 p.m. Patiram, Badalsingh and Baijnathsingh left for Bamuria. The natural conduct should have been that he should have informed this fact to Chandansingh. Natthusingh and other villagers while they were in search of Patiram. Statement of Shriram has been recorded on 31.10.1993 after more than one month of the incident by police. Shriram never disclosed this fact to anyone, even to police that lastly seen Patiram together with Badalsingh and Baijnathsingh and saw going them towards Bamuria at 7:30 p.m. No explanation has been put forth by prosecution or Shriram why for such a long time he kept quiet regarding this important fact. In our opinion, evidence of Shriram cannot be relied beyond reasonable doubt and on the basis of Shriram's evidence, it cannot be held that Patiram was last seen alongwith Badalsingh and Baijnathsingh on 20.9.1993 at 7:30 p.m. going towards Bamuria. 23. There is no evidence on record to bring that after leaving village Bamuria Patiram was seen together with appellants in Bahadurpur or in between Bamuria and Bahadurpur. Contrary to that Ramesh Kumar (PW6) resident of Bahadurpur deposed that on Hrishipanchami i.e. on 20.9.1993 he went to the house of Jodhansingh and Pratapsingh for worship and stayed there in village Sumer, at about 9:30 p.m. he saw Baijnathsingh and Badalsingh going through road, no third person was with them. They were going towards Jhagar Bamuria.1t is proved by the evidence of Ramesh Kumar that Patiram was not along with the appellants Baijnathsingh and Badalsingh at the night of 20.9.1993 at about 9:30 p.m. This witness has not been declared hostile and his evidence is binding on the prosecution. Harisingh (PW9) turned hostile. He denied that he saw appellants going towards their house, he deposed in contradiction with his previous statement Ex.P -11. Harisingh's statement is not reliable and does not support the prosecution. Badalsingh (PW 10) deposed that accused Lakhansingh and Baijnathsingh were going with the aid of him. They were talking about liquor and they quarrelled with each other. He scolded them. At one stage he deposed that Lakhansingh and Badalsingh quarrelled with each other, but on later stage he told that he separated Baijnathsingh and Lakhansingh. Again he deposed that Baijnathsingh and Lakhansingh were quarrelling. Looking to the above said contradictions, the statement of Badalsingh is not reliable and cannot be accepted beyond doubt. 24. Shambhusingh (PW 11) deposed that at about 9:00 p.m. Badalsingh came to him and asked him to count money in the light of torch. Badalsingh counted money and after counting money, Badalsingh went to his house. Badalsingh told that Baijnathsingh is also coming. Shambhusingh's evidence in any way does not support the prosecution version. No incriminating fact has come in the statement of Shambhusingh. His evidence proves that Badalsingh alone came back to village Bamuria, but it does not mean that he committed any crime or murder of Patiram. 25. Kalectorsingh (PW2) deposed that he saw Patiram sitting in Panda's shop. Patiram gave him purchased material and asked him to deliver it to his house. Kalectorsingh deposed that at that time none was with Patiram. Prosecution declared him hostile and cross -examined this witness, but he denied his previous statement Ex.P -4 recorded by the Investigating Officer. But facts remained that Kalectorsingh saw Patiram all alone in Panda's shop at Bahadurpur. There is no evidence on record that after leaving Panda's shop Patiram accompanied appellants and he was found with appellants. Chandansingh (PW 1) also corroborates that Patiram sent purchased material (goods) alongwith Kalectorsingh and Kalectorsingh came to him at 6:00 p.m. and informed him that after sometime Patiram will come. This statement of Kalectorsingh shows that at Panda's shop appellants were not with Patiram. This fact domilishes the story of prosecution that Patiram was last seen together with appellants in Bahadurpur. 26. Chandan singh (PW1) deposed that when he alongwith other village fellows went to search his father Patiram, he found on spot one pair of shoes of Lakhansingh, one pair of shoes of Badalsingh, one shoe of his father Patiram and plastic shoes of Baijnathsingh and Lakhansingh. As per Chandansingh, he found on spot two pairs of shoes belonging to Lakhansingh and Badalsingh and one shoe of Patiram and plastic shoes of Baijnathsingh, it means to say that in all he found six shoes in number of spot. But, as per seizure memo Ex.P -7 one pair of sandal and two shoes were recovered from Natthusingh. Seizure memo Ex.P -7 belies the statement of Chandansingh that he found one pair of shoes each of Lakhansingh and Badalsingh and one shoe of his father Patiram and one shoe of Baijnathsingh. It has not been mentioned in Ex.P -7 that recovered shoes belong to any of the appellants. Chandansingh admitted that seized shoes are available in market. He deposed in para 22 of his deposition that three pairs of shoes he handed over to police. Narainsingh also handed over shoes to police Natthusingh (PW4) deposed that when they went to the search of Patiram they found four pairs of shoes on spot. One pair of leather shoes, two plastic shoes like sandal and two different shoes. As per Natthusingh, total six shoes were found on spot and they were handed over to police. This statement is also belied by seizure memo Ex.P -7 Nathusingh is quiet on the point that who is owner of seized shoes. In cross -examination he deposed that one pair of shoes was put on by Chandansingh (PW1), but Chandansingh does not corroborate this statement of Natthusingh. Investigating Officer did not conduct identification of recovered shoes and there is no sufficient evidence on Record that any of the shoes seized from Natthusingh belongs to any of the appellants. Recovery of shoes does not help in any way to prosecution to bring home the appellants. 27. Sharda (PW 15) deposed that Lakhansingh lodged report Ex.P -17 and Baijnathsingh lodged report Ex.P -16 in police station Bahadurpur. He has not deposed that he has written and signed these reports. He admitted in cross -examination that Adam Cheque No. 11/3 and 12/3 have not been written by him. Reports Ex.P -16 and P -17 alleged to be lodged by appellants Baijnathsingh and Lakhansingh on 20.9.1993 at 9:00 p.m. Prosecution tried to prove with the help of these reports that Patiram was with Badalsingh and Baijnathsingh near river till 9:00 p.m. on the fateful day, but these reports have not been legally proved by the prosecution and these reports cannot be used against the appellants. These reports are of no help to prosecution. 28. Narainsingh (PW3) deposed that Rumalsingh told him that Baijnathsingh, Lakhansingh and Patiram quarrelled with each other and they are apprehended in police station, but Rumalsingh has not been examined who informed Narainsingh about this fact. Consequently, Narainsingh's statement is not admissible in evidence. Narainsingh deposed that Baijnathsingh was sitting in police station, but Lakhansingh and Patiram were not there. Dr. S.K. Dwivedi (PW14) examined appellant Baijnathsingh and as per Ex.P -23 he found one lacerated wound on his forehead which indicates that Baijnathsingh was apprehended by police and he was medically examined by Dr. Dwivedi on 21.9.1993. Though, there is no sufficient evidence on record to prove that at what time and on what date Baijnathsingh was arrested by police and medically examined on 21.9.1993. This fact shows that some incident occurred with Baijnathsingh which may possibly the result of quarrel of Baijnathsingh and Lakhansingh but, on this fact we cannot presume that appellants created evidence to save them from offence levelled against them. 29. As per above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no sufficient and consistent evidence on record to bring that on what time Patiram was seen along with appellants and when they departed. It is heavy burden on prosecution to prove that Patiram was last seen along with appellants which is before his death or just before few hours of his death. Though, it is proved by the prosecution that Patiram has left alongwith appellants to Bahadurpur and they were seen in Bahadurpur by some witnesses. But there is no sufficient evidence on record to prove that Patiram left Bahadurpur along with appellants and when they went towards river side. Except last seen evidence of Patiram along with appellants when they started from their village, there is no other incriminating circumstance against appellants. .Prosecution has failed to prove grave enmity of appellants towards deceased Patiram. This case is based on circumstantial evidence and motive is very material in this case and evidence of motive assumes importance as we have concluded that on facts motive has not been established by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Hon'ble apex Court in 1994 SCC (Cri) 1551 Arjun Marik and Others v. Srate of Bihar has held that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis alone can be founded. In the present case also, prosecution has not proved motive of appellants to commit murder of Patiram. No other circumstance has been proved against appellants. There is no other circumstance to complete the chain of circumstance to prove the guilt of appellants and their nexus with death of Patiram. Definitely learned trial Court committed illegality in holding that motive has been proved and on the basis of last seen circumstance of Patiram along with appellants prosecution successfully proved guilt of appellants. Learned trial Court committed error in appreciating the prosecution evidence in right perspective. In our considered opinion, in view of the abovementioned citation of apex Court only on the basis of last seen circumstance, it cannot be held that appellants committed murder of Patiram. 30. As per above discussion, we are of the view that prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that appellants committed murder of Patiram. Learned trial Court committed illegality in holding that prosecution has proved offence under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. Impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court is not sustainable in law. Appeal deserves to be allowed. 31. Consequently, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 6.4.1995 is hereby set -aside. Appellants are hereby acquitted of the offence under section 302 read with 34 of IPC. Fine amount, if deposited, be refunded to the appellants. They are set at liberty. Their bail bonds stand discharged.