JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 01.11.2002 and order of sentence dated 08.11.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. IV), Garhwa in Sessions Trial No. 503 of 1988, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 2500/- each. 3. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that altogether six accused persons were put under trial and held guilty. The present appeal was also filed by all the six convicts, out of them, appellant no. 1 namely, Lal Mohan Singh, Son of Charitar Singh, appellant no. 4 namely, Charitar Singh, Son of Late Dukhi Singh and appellant no. 6 namely, Kreshan Singh, Son of Late Dukhi Singh have died and their appeal have been abated vide order dated 24.04.2025. This appeal is now heard on behalf of appellants namely, Chandramani Singh, Son of Late Charitar Singh, Chhotan Singh, Son of Late Dukhi Singh and Mukhlal Singh, Son of Krishan Singh. FACTUAL MATRIX 4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that on 23.06.1988, at about 9:00 PM, informant’s son Ayodhya Singh was sleeping and his father Ram Badan Singh (informant) was sitting in the Varandah outside of the house. The informant’s wife Fulmatia Devi (P.W.-2), daughter-in-law namely, Ratni Devi (P.W.-5) and younger son namely, Shiv Kumar Singh (P.W.-4) were inside the house and informant has not taken dinner. The main door of the house was open, in the meantime, informant heard esjs yM+dk dks idM+ dj dkgs ys ^^tk jgs gks^^ . Thereafter, informant saw that his son Ayodhya was being assaulted and brought outside by the accused persons and his wife, daughter-in-law and younger son were raising alarm and shouting. The informant protested and asked the accused persons about the matter then Kreshan Singh replied that they are taking away his son to Ranicheri Tola to finally settle some dispute. Thereafter, informant saw that his son Ayodhya was being assaulted and brought outside by the accused persons and his wife, daughter-in-law and younger son were raising alarm and shouting. The informant protested and asked the accused persons about the matter then Kreshan Singh replied that they are taking away his son to Ranicheri Tola to finally settle some dispute. The informant assumed that the accused persons will leave his son after some time, therefore, he took dinner, but his son did not return then informant along with his wife went to the house of accused persons and saw that his son was lying in the courtyard of accused Charitar Singh in injured condition. His son asked water. The informant gave water to him, but in the meantime, informant’s son died. He has further alleged that Kreshan Singh admitted to have killed his son. 5. On the basis of above information, FIR being Ranka P.S. Case No. 33 of 1988 was registered against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 302 of the I.P.C. 6. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against all the six accused persons namely, Lal Mohan Singh, Chandramani Singh, Chhotan Singh, Charitar Singh, Mukhlal Singh and Kreshan Singh for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 342 and 302 of the I.P.C. After taking cognizance of offence, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. Case No. 503 of 1988 was registered. The charges were framed against all the six accused persons for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C., which they denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons, altogether six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 8. Apart from oral testimony of ocular witnesses, following documentary evidences were also adduced. Exhibit-1 : F.I.R. Exhibit-2 : Signature of Dr. Baleshwar Choudhary on Post-mortem Report. 9. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication due to land dispute. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 10. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, found the appellants guilty for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as aforesaid. 11. 9. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication due to land dispute. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 10. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, found the appellants guilty for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as aforesaid. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that out of six witnesses examined in this case P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 are close relative of the deceased and interested witnesses, who have not seen the occurrence and manipulated a false story that the deceased was dragged out from his house and brought to the courtyard of accused persons and killed. The place of occurrence as alleged by witnesses is not the courtyard of appellant-Charitar Singh. A very strange story has been put forward by prosecution through informant, who is sole architect of this case that inspite of the knowledge that his son is being dragged and assaulted by the accused persons entering into his house, while he was sleeping and taken away the deceased with clear cut threatening that they will end the disputes today itself with the deceased. The informant, his wife, son and daughter-in-law kept mum and they took dinner and were waiting for arrival of their son. Such type of reaction / conduct cannot be imagined by any ordinary prudent man. The second place of occurrence has also not been proved due to non- examination of the I.O. Admittedly none of the witnesses have seen the appellants while assaulting the deceased. The appellants are falsely implicated only with a view to grab all undivided landed property putting the appellants behind bar to sustain imprisonment for life. Moreover, the specific allegation for dragging and assaulting the deceased was only against Kreshan Singh, Charitar Singh and Lal Mohan Singh, who have been died. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove specific overt act of the present live appellants or they share any common intention to kill the deceased by inflicting any injury to him. There are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses regarding involvement of present appellants in the alleged offence of murder. The injuries sustained by the deceased also found simple in nature and there is no repeated assault so that it may be assumed that several persons have inflicted injuries to the deceased. There are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses regarding involvement of present appellants in the alleged offence of murder. The injuries sustained by the deceased also found simple in nature and there is no repeated assault so that it may be assumed that several persons have inflicted injuries to the deceased. Therefore, conviction of appellants with the aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C. is absolutely unwarranted under law and liable to be set aside. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu Vs. State of Punjab reported in ( 2022) 2 SCC 545 13. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State, refuting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly analyzed and appreciated in threadbare manner the evidence available on record and arrived at right conclusion. The impugned judgment and order suffers from no illegality or infirmity, calling for any interference. This appeal has no merits and fit to be dismissed. 14. Before imparting our verdict on above point, it is pertinent to go through the entire evidence i.e. oral as well as documentary adduced by the prosecution. 15. P.W.-1 Srikant Pandey is a formal witness, who has simply proved the signature of Officer-in-Charge, Ranka Police Station on formal FIR. This witness seems to be a cultivator and incompetent to prove the signature of the Officer-in-Charge. 16. P.W.-2 Phulmani Devi is the mother of the deceased. According to her evidence, on the date of occurrence at the night at 9:00 PM, her son Ayodhya Singh was sleeping, meanwhile, Kreshan Singh, Charitar Singh, Chhotan Singh, Mukhlal Singh, Lal Mohan Singh and Chandramani Singh, total six persons armed with lathi entered her house and lifted her son Ayodhya Singh and took away. This witness and other family members protested the accused persons, but they succeeded in taking away her son. Thereafter, she along with her husband went to the house of Charitar Singh, where she saw her son Ayodhya was lying seriously injured, but breath was going on slowly. She served water to her son and laid down him on a cot in the courtyard of Charitar Singh, where he died. In her cross-examination, she admits that Charitar Singh is her own brother-in-law. She served water to her son and laid down him on a cot in the courtyard of Charitar Singh, where he died. In her cross-examination, she admits that Charitar Singh is her own brother-in-law. There was no earlier dispute between her son and the accused persons. She further admits that at the time of above occurrence, her husband was not present at home and she along with her two daughter-in-law only were present along with her son Ayodhya. She raised alarm when her son was being dragged by the accused persons. Thereafter, her co-villager Mannour Mian came to her house to whom she disclosed about the said occurrence. She further admits that immediately she went to the house of Charitar Singh, where she saw her son was lying on earth in the courtyard, where Chandramani and Mukhlal were also present, who were having lathi in their hand. Her son was lifted from the courtyard to dhaba, but he died. She also noticed blood on the earth where her son was lying. The dead body was left on the spot. She has denied the suggestion of defence that she has given false evidence, rather she has deposed as seen by her. 17. P.W.-3 Hulsi Devi is the sister-in-law of the deceased. She has also stated that the deceased was dragged out from her hosue by all six accused persons. Thereafter, she came to know that her bhaisur Ayodhya has been assaulted, due to which he died. In her cross-examination, she admits that at the time of occurrence, her husband was also present and her mother-in-law (P.W.-2) was outside the hosue in dhaba. Her mother-in-law also protested the accused persons while taking away her bhaisur and followed them to their house. After some time, her mother-in- law returned and told that accused persons have kill Ayodhya Singh. She has also denied the suggestion of defence that she is not eye-witness of the occurrence, rather on tutoring by her mother-in-law, she has given false evidence. 18. P.W.-4 Sheo Kumar Singh is brother of the deceased. According to him, on 23.06.1988 at about 9:00 PM, he along with his mother Phulmani Devi, Sister-in-law Ratni Devi and brother Ayodhya Singh were present in the house and his father was sitting outside the house in the dhaba. 18. P.W.-4 Sheo Kumar Singh is brother of the deceased. According to him, on 23.06.1988 at about 9:00 PM, he along with his mother Phulmani Devi, Sister-in-law Ratni Devi and brother Ayodhya Singh were present in the house and his father was sitting outside the house in the dhaba. Meanwhile, all the six accused persons armed with danda entered into the house and dragged out Ayodhya Singh assaulting him. The accused persons dragged the deceased to the house of Charitar Singh, then this witness along with his mother and father went to the house of Charitar Singh and saw his brother has sustained injuries and lying in the courtyard under pain. They also lifted the injured and laid down on a cot at the house of Charitar Singh, where he died, due to injuries. In his cross-examination, this witness admits that accused Kreshan, Charitar and Chhotan are his own uncle and their house is situated at about ½ mile from his house. He further admits that when the accused persons entered into the room of Ayodhya Singh, he did not saw them, but after hearing hulla of his mother, he came out, then saw the accused persons were taking away his brother. He can’t tell whether all the accused persons have assaulted Ayodhya Singh with lathi and how many lathi blow was given by which of the accused. He further admits that after the above incident, his father took dinner, thereafter, he along with co-villager Bishwanath Singh, Balram Singh, Jagnandan Singh and others went to the house of the accused persons, where he saw all the accused persons armed with lathi. The dead body was left at the house of Charitar Singh from where police recovered the dead body. 19. P.W.-5 Ratani Devi is the wife of the deceased. According to her evidence, at the time of occurrence, she was in the house along with her husband, meanwhile, all the six accused persons came, assaulted her husband by lathi and lifted him and dragged towards the house of Charitar Singh. Thereafter, her father-in-law Ram Badan Singh, mother-in-law Phulmani Devi went in search of her husband at the house of Charitar Singh, where her husband died due to injuries sustained by him. Thereafter, her father-in-law Ram Badan Singh, mother-in-law Phulmani Devi went in search of her husband at the house of Charitar Singh, where her husband died due to injuries sustained by him. In her cross-examination, she admits that in her house, all the accused persons assaulted the deceased by lathi indiscriminately at that time she or any other family members did not raise any alarm. Her husband was also not raising any alarm. She further states that her husband was assaulted about one hour in front of her house. When the accused persons were taking out her husband, then also no villager assembled and no alarm was raised by any family members. She further states that after two hours of said occurrence her mother-in-law, father-in-law went to the house of the accused persons. She has denied the suggestion of the defence that she has not seen any occurrence and given false evidence. 20. P.W.-6 Dr. Arbind Kumar Yadav. He has proved the handwriting and signature of Dr. Baleshwar Choudhary, who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, which is marked as Exhibit-2. The Dr. Baleshwar Choudhary, who conducted autopsy had found following injuries:- (i) Lacerated wound 1” x ½” x bone deep. (ii) Bruise 1” x 1” right side. (iii) Multiple bruise on back. (iv) Multiple bruise on right forearm. (v) Lacerated wound 1” x ½” x ½” on left forearm. (vi) Multiple bruise on lower part of abdomen. (vii) Bruise 8” x 1” on left thigh. (viii) Bruise 5” x 1” on right thigh. (ix) Lacerated wound 1” x ½” x ½” on left leg. (x) Lacerated wound 1” x ½” on right leg. (xi) Cruse injury on left middle thigh. All the injuries are caused by hard blunt substance. Cause of death, in the opinion of the aforesaid doctor, is due to injuries. Time lapse since death within 48 hours. 21. From the trend of testimony of ocular witnesses examined by prosecution, as discussed above, it is crystal clear that P.W.-2 Phulmani Devi (mother of the deceased), P.W.-3 Hulsi Devi (sister-in-law of the deceased), P.W.-4 Sheo Kumar Singh (brother of the deceased) and P.W.-5 Ratani Devi (wife of the deceased) have claimed to be eye-witnesses of occurrence, but their evidence appears to be colourable in nature making the happening of occurrence in the manner stated by them to be rather impossible. The very first phase of occurrence when the accused persons entered into the house of the deceased at about 21:00 hours in the night, protest was raised by these witnesses, but they have acted in the manner depicting as to nothing untowards has happened. The informant Ram Badan Singh, who has not been examined in this case, has clearly stated in the FIR that when the accused persons were dragging out his son and taking with them, then he asked accused persons about the matter. Upon this, Kreshan Singh replied that they are taking his son to Ranicheri Tola to finally settle some dispute with him, but when his son did not return for some time, he took dinner and along with his wife went to the house of Charitar Singh in whose courtyard, his son was lying in the injured condition. On that occasion also only Kreshan Singh admitted that he has killed his son. 22. P.W.-2 Phulmani Devi, wife of the informant and mother of the deceased although in her examination- in-chief states that all the six accused persons forcibly dragged away assaulting her son from the house while he was sleeping inspite of protest raised by her and other witnesses, but in her cross-examination, she admits that at the time of taking away her son from the house, her husband was not present in the house and when he returned, then she along with her husband went to the house of Charitar Singh. She has also admitted that her younger son Sheo Kumar Singh (P.W.-4) was also not present at that time and she along with her two daughters-in-law only were present in the house with her son Ayodhya (deceased). Thereafter, she went with her husband to the house of Charitar Singh and saw her son was lying in injured condition in the courtyard of Charitar Singh and Chandramani and Mukhlal were also present having lathi in their hands. 23. P.W.-3 Hulsi Devi (sister-in-law of the deceased) admits that at the time of entering of the accused persons in her house, her mother-in-law (P.W.-2) was outside the house in dhaba. According to her, her father-in-law was not present and as per her evidence, her mother-in-law immediately followed the accused persons and after some time, she returned and told that accused persons had killed her son Ayodhya Singh. 24. According to her, her father-in-law was not present and as per her evidence, her mother-in-law immediately followed the accused persons and after some time, she returned and told that accused persons had killed her son Ayodhya Singh. 24. P.W.-4 Sheo Kumar Singh (brother of the deceased) has stated about presence of his father also in the dhaba of the house along with his mother, wife and sister-in-law. He has not claimed to have followed the accused persons towards their house. He also claimed that he along with mother and father went to the house of Charitar Singh where he saw Ayodhya Singh was lying in the courtyard of Charitar Singh in the injured condition. In his cross-examination, he has specifically stated that he could not say as which of the accused has assaulted Ayodhya Singh and by what weapon. 25. Similarly, P.W.-5 Ratani Devi (wife of the deceased) also claims to have seen her husband lying in the injured condition in the dhaba of Charitar Singh after dragging him from his own house towards house of accused persons. 26. The testimony of witnesses alleged to be eye-witnesses of occurrence simply shows involvement of Charitar Singh and Kreshan Singh, who were instrumental in dragging away the deceased from his house and dead body of deceased was found in the courtyard of Charitar Singh. As per informant, Charitar Singh also admitted that he had killed his son, as mentioned in the FIR and Kreshan Singh himself was instrumental to decide the dispute with the deceased. Therefore, no specific overt act has been attributed against the present appellants. There is no other connecting evidence direct or circumstantial showing involvement of the present appellants causing murder of the deceased. No motive behind the occurrence has been brought on record by the prosecution. It appears that the learned trial court has not taken into account the testimony of these eye-witnesses in the light of materials elicited in their cross-examination. Moreover, with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. all the accused persons were involved in this case, but what was their common intention, in furtherance of which they have acted in concerted manner is absolutely lacking in this case. Moreover, no participation of present appellants in assaulting the deceased has been proved beyond doubt. Moreover, with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. all the accused persons were involved in this case, but what was their common intention, in furtherance of which they have acted in concerted manner is absolutely lacking in this case. Moreover, no participation of present appellants in assaulting the deceased has been proved beyond doubt. The mother of the deceased Phulmani Devi (P.W.-2), when went to the house of Charitar Singh, has claimed to see Chandramani and Mukhlal with lathi, but has not claimed to have seen assaulting these appellants to the deceased. Therefore, the involvement of the appellants appears to be doubtful. There is no cogent and reliable evidence on record to show the complicity of present appellants in the alleged murder. 27. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, we are of the firm view that the learned trial court has failed to properly appreciate the testimony of eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution, which clearly shows that no specific overt act has been attributed against the present appellants. They have simply been implicated in this case on account of their presence at the house of co-accused Chairtar Singh, that by itself cannot be a ground for implicating these appellants with the charge of commission of murder. Therefore, we find that the conviction and sentence of the appellants is absolutely illegal and beyond the weight of evidence available on record, which is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed 28. The appellants are on bail, as such, they are discharged from liability of bail bonds and sureties are also discharged. 29. Pending I.A., if any stand disposed of. 30. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.