S.K Agarwal, J.:— This appeal was preferred by eight appellants, viz. Natthu Singh, Sobran son of Subedar, Sobran son of Jhabbu, Lekhraj, Sadhu, Abhilakh, Bahadur and Phulwari, against their conviction under Ss. 302/149, I.P.C and consequent sentence to life imprisonment to each one of them. All the appellants, named above, were further sentenced to one year's R.I under S. 148, I.P.C However, the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The facts of the case, as disclosed from the F.I.R, are that on 24-10-1979 Bajra crop was harvested by the complainant and his family. His brother Kaptan Singh in the evening at about 4.30 on 25-10-1979, was returning with the fodder to his house on a bullock-cart. He was accompanied by his daughter Km. Kamla, aged about 9 years, who was sitting over the fodder, and another brother of the informant, viz. Lalaram, was walking. About 100 yards behind the bullock-cart, the informant Gaya Din along with Kathori, Mahendra, Collector, and Sri Kishan was also following the bullock-cart. When the bullock-cart was about a furlong and a half from the village outskirts, the appellants were said to have emerged from the bushes. Out of the abovesaid appellants, Sita Ram was holding a double-barrel gun, Phulwari was having a country made pistol, and rest of the appellants had single-barrel guns. Sita Ram is said to have opened fire upon Lalaram, Kaptan and Kamla daughter of Kaptan. In all 20-22 fires were discharged by the appellants upon these three victims. The informant and the witnesses concealed themselves behind the bushes and had seen the incident from there. It is further alleged, by way of motive in the F.I.R, that appellants-Natthu and Abhilakh who were got apprehended by providing information to the police for forming an unlawful gang. The appellants have learnt about complicity of Kaptan in their arrest. They were nursing a grudge against deceased-Kaptan and to satiate the same they had killed the two brothers and the niece of the informant on the fateful day. It is asserted further in the F.I.R that the appellants tried to drag away the dead bodies of the deceased persons, but the shouts raised by the witnesses including the informant prevented them from doing so. Meanwhile, people from the village including Bhumiraj Singh, Don Lal and Ram Singh of village Mallarpur also arrived at the spot of occurrence. Seeing the villagers rushing to the spot, the accused persons fled.
3. The F.I.R was not lodged during the night for fear of the accused persons and also in order to preserve the dead bodies from the assailants. The bodies were brought to the house and left there till morning. The F.I.R Ext. Ka-1. was lodged at P.S Aliganj, District Etah at 9.10 a.m on 25-10-1979. The investigation in the case, after registration of the F.I.R was commenced by P.W 7 Raghubir Singh Yadav. After completing the necessary formalities he had submitted the charge-sheet, which consequently resulted into the trial of the appellants and their conviction by the trial Court.
4. It may be relevant to state here that out of these eight appellants-Natthu and the two Sobaran have died during pendency of this appeal in this Court. Hence, their appeal abates.
5. We are now left with only five appellants, viz. Lekhraj, Sadhu, Adhilakh, Bahadur and Phulwari. Two other accused, named in the F.I.R, viz, Sita Ram and Doodh Ram who were armed with a double-barrel gun and a Lathi lost their lives in an encounter soon after this incident. They were, thus, not put up for trial, being dead.
6. The evidence in the trial reveals that there were two persons, who were armed with double-barrel guns. They are Sita Ram and Natthu apart from Phulwari, who was armed with country made pistol and the dead appellants were all armed with single-barrel guns.
7. In this case three persons, viz. Kaptan Singh, Lala Ram, the two brothers, and Kamla daughter of Kaptan Singh had lost their lives. Their post-mortem examinations were conducted by P.W 8 Dr. P.N Verma in between 2.30 p.m and 4.00 p.m A perusal of the post-mortem examination reports clearly indicate that all the deceased persons had sustained firearm injuries. In all the injuries of these persons blackening is found to be present. This leads to a clear inference that the shootings were resorted to from a very close range on these persons.
8. The prosecution in support of its case has examined three eye-witnesses. They are P.W 1 Giya Din, P.W 2 Sri Kishan, and P.W 5 Ram Singh. Rest of the witnesses examined are P.W 3 Constable Amar Singh, who escorted the dead body, P.W 4 Head Constable Balbir, who prepared the chick F.I.R and other papers relating to registration of the offence at the police station. P.W 6 Ram Prasad Sharma is the Investigating Officer of this case. P.W 7 Raghubir Singh Yadav prepared the inquest memos under the supervision of Ram Prasad Sharma, I.O
9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A for the State.
10. Learned counsel for the defence has challenged the conviction on the following grounds:
1. All the witnesses are not only inimical but also partisan. They themselves are dreaded criminals. Their presence is highly doubtful at the spot.
2. The F.I.R is ante-timed. According to the learned counsel, it was lodged after arrival of the Circle Officer. The General Diary was kept open so as to put any time of the registration of the F.I.R On 25th and 26th October, 1979 admittedly no cognizable report was registered. Special report was sent late.
3. There is every possibility that this incident may have occurred after the sun set in complete isolation.
11. In order to deal with these arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, we have to examine the evidence of the eyewitnesses closely. According to the F.I.R Sita Ram fired first shot. Thereafter all the appellants fired upon the three deceased. As many as 20-22 shots were fired by the appellants. As has already been stated earlier that in all the injuries of the three deceased blackening is there, which clearly implies that the shooting has been resorted to from a very close range, probably from a distance between 3 to 5’ (feet).
12. P.W 1 Giya Din has stated that after suffering the injuries his brothers fell on the ground at distance of about one yard from each other and the young girl fell on the cart Itself. The accused persons made a vain attempt to drag away the dead bodies. He had further stated that he had witnessed the Incident from a distance of 50-60 yards whereas in the F.I.R he had stated that he and the other witnesses were walking behind the two deceased persons and the bul-lock-cart at a distance of about 100 yards. He said, at the time of occurrence he himself was behind the bushes that were standing on both sides of the road. As a result of arrival of the witnesses from the village side the assailants did not take away the dead bodies. He said that he had brought the dead bodies of the three deceased on a cart to the village as the sun had already set. The report was got scribed by Ram Nath in the morning at about 5.00 and thereafter he had taken the same to the police station where it was registered at about 9.10 a.m The distance of the police station is about 9 miles. It Is further admitted by this witness that P.W 5 Ram Singh is a resident of village Gularpur. He has pleaded Ignorance to th§ suggestion that this witness Ram Singh is Sarhu of deceased-Kaptan Singh, his brother. He had further stated that this Ram Singh had on the day of occurrence come to Raghunath. He has further admitted that all the witnesses examined in the case as eye-witnesses are by cast Aahir and all the appellants are Lodhey Rajputs. He has further admitted that his brother deceased-Kaptan Singh was a police informer. He has further admitted that till the date of his deposition in Court he had never heard the name of any Ranvir Singh of village Jaipur nor about his any gang. He has further admitted that there is a chuakidar in the village. The Chaukidar had visited his house. He did not take him to the police station. He has further admitted that the F.I.R was transcribed by him at his house before the sunrise. He pleaded ignorance about the time of sunrise on that day. He further admitted that before transcribing any F.I.R he was tight-lipped and had no talks about the incident with any villager nor any villager had made any enquiiy regarding these murders. At the time of preparing the F.I.R he held no talks with any witness. He did not inform even the Chaukidar about the manner of assault. Number of people of adjoining villages also visited him, but he did not enter into any dialogue with them with regard to the incident. He further admitted that he is an illiterate person. He did know English months. He has denied the suggestion that an oral information was communicated to the police station in the night and on the arrival of Police Constables Raturi Singh and Gulab Khan the F.I.R was prepared by him in consultation with them. He has admitted that he did not see any pellets and spent cartridges at the spot, nor he had seen any of these things on the cart. He admitted that the I.O reached the place of occurrence before his return from the police station. He reached the village half an hour after the I.O's arrival. He has further admitted that the Sub-Inspector has already brought the blood from the spot before his arrival. He has admitted that the I.O has not visited his harvested Bajra field. He could identify only Natthu and Bahadur correctly. He claimed that he started for the police station immediately on the sunrise and reached there in 2-2½ hours. The bushes on the sides were above the human height. He has further admitted that the road at some places was wide enough to allow two carts to pass and at some places only one out could pass. All the assailants came from the northern side and fired upon the deceased persons. The incident lasted only a minute or two. The assailants started firing immediately on their arrival. All the witnesses were together and immediately on seeing the assailants, out of fear, they had hidden themselves behind the bushes. They came out from the bushes after the departure of the assailants (Badmash). He further admitted that when they raised shouts none fired towards them. He stated that the witnesses, including him, had hidden themselves in such a manner that the assailants could not see them, but they could see them. He admitted that he had not shown the place to I.O from where the assailants had fired. He further stated that the sun had set after about an hour and a half after the incident. They continued to remain at the spot of occurrence till the sun set. He admitted that the spent cartridges and pellets were picked up from the spot by Balister. But till the time he had gone to lodge the report, he was not informed by Balister that he had picked the cartridges, nor they were shown to him. He admitted that in his report he has not stated that he had seen the spent cartridges lying there and Balister had picked them up. He failed to offer any explanation for this omission in his statement under S. 161, Cr. P.C as well as in the F.I.R He further admitted that in the firing the bullocks had not sustained any injury, nor there is any mark of pellets in the cart. The explanation offered by him is that the bullocks ran away managing their freedom from the yoke. He further stated that he had told the I.O that immediately on the first firing the bullocks freed themselves from the yoke and managed their escape. This is why no injury was sustained by them. If this fact is not there in his deposition, he cannot offer any explanation. He offered an explanation for his stay at the spot for an hour and a half to the arrival of a number of men and women to the spot and since they started crying he stayed there for such a long time. He further stated that after the incident he could not have reached the police station during the day. He further stated that Bahadur and Natthu caught Lala Ram by his foot, but they failed to drag his body. This fact, however, does not find any mention in his statement to the I.O and he was unable to explain the omission.
13. It is admitted to this witness that village Abadi is about 400 yards away from the spot of incident. He tried to explain the improvement that has been made in his statement with regard to his walking behind by 100 yards or 50-60 yards. He denied that he has disclosed in the F.I.R that he was about 100 yards behind the cart. He said, this has been taken down by the I.O himself. I had not told him any such thing. He denied the suggestion that this incident had taken place at some darker hour of the day. A suggestion has been given that this F.I.R was transcribed very late in consultation with the 1.0 on his arrival. Another suggestion was given to him that he was not present at the place of occurrence and had not witnessed the incident.
14. So far as this witness (P.W 1) is concerned, we find following infirmities in his statement:—
Firstly, he had absolutely no injury on his person. He claims that he concealed himself behind the shrubs at a distance of 50-60 yards, although in his F.I.R this distance is shown by him as 100 yards.
Secondly, he made absolutely no attempt to lodge the F.I.R on that day despite the fact that village Chaukidar had visited his house in the night and he made no attempt to send him to the police station to lodge the F.I.R, and
Thirdly, yet another circumstance against this witness is his stay at the spot of occurrence for about an hour and a half. It further goes against this witness.
Thus, the explanation offered by him does not stand to reason that many persons, men and women, arrived at the scene of occurrence and, therefore, he stayed there until the sunset.
15. Enmity between the appellants and this witness is very distinguishably admitted to this witness. According to him murders had taken place as a matter of revenge for getting some of the members of the gang of Ranvir arrested by the polic by Kaptan Singh, deceased. He had made an evasive reply to all such questions that were uncomfortable to him. These questions mainly pertain to his implication in various offences along with his brothers and also on the point of relationship of his with the witnesses. He had pleaded ignorance to such questions. His complete failure to disclose about the incident to any member of the village or any person coming from other villages is strange. It Is admitted to this witness that number of persons of different villages visited his house before lodging of the F.I.R Similarly, many persons of his village had also visited him. This omission on his part goes a long way to suggest that in all probability he himself was not aware of the manner of assault. These circumstances militate unerringly against the presence of P.W 1 Giya Din, who is the brother of the two male deceased persons and uncle of Kamla, the girl deceased, near the spot. The manner of shooting indicates that the assailants had absolutely no compassion even for that young kid. If he would have been there, he must have been recognised by the assailants and if they were known persons to him then he would not have been spared by them to be a witness in the case.
16. In these circumstances we do not find it safe to place any implicit reliance upon the testimony of this witness to uphold the conviction of these appellants.
17. Now, coming to the testimony of P.W 2 Sri Kishan, we find that this witness and P.W 5 Ram Singh both were accompanying P.W 1. All of them had hidden themselves at one place, behind the bushes. This witness has stated in his deposition in the Court that he had come to the spot from his field. His field is across the pond. This witness has very clearly admitted that there is a lake on the south of the road and to the west of this lake his village Lehegaiya situates. The road runs south-west. He further stated that the place of occurrence is about 200 yards towards the lake from his field. He stated that at about 4.30 p.m he came from his field. Earlier in examination in chief he has stated that at about 4.30 he was on his field. When he was asked to explain this anomaly, he stated that he had no watch and he learnt the time as 4.30 from the villagers who arrived at the scene of occurrence and told that this is 4.30 This explanation of his, we are not prepared to swallow. He admitted that his statement under S. 161, Cr. P.C was recorded on the third day of occurrence. It was recorded at the house of Kaptan Singh. He admitted that he did not disciose to the I.O that he came from his field and accompanied the witnesses. He then again told that he did tell this fact to the I.O and if he has not scribed It in his statement he cannot offer any explanation. He admitted that he had not shown to the I.O his field, nor the I.O has seen it. A suggestion was given to him that his field is at a distance of about 2 furlongs from the place of occurrence. He denied the suggestion. He admitted that he did not know as to when and on which day and at what time the I.O visited the village of occurrence, but when he was called he went there. It is strange that he stated that he stayed after the incident only for 5-6 minutes and went away to his village. He claimed that he had absolutely no talks with Giya Din in this period of 5-6 minutes, nor with any person of his village. He further admitted that for the first time about this incident a disclosure was made by him to his mother and thereafter to the I.O He admitted that prior to this murder his brother was abducted, but he feigned ignorance that his father had lodged a report against appellant Sobaran etc. He admitted that a case is pending about abduction of his brother, but again feigned ignorance and stated that he did not know that this case is going on against Sobaran or not. He admitted that against his father and uncle a false case of dacoity is still pending, but showed ignorance whether this dacoity case was launched against his father and uncle by Ram Das son of Lakhhi. He also pleaded ignorance to the fact that Lala Ram is the son of mother's sister of Ram Das and he is married to the sister of Abhilakh, appellant. He also avoided to admit name of Lekh Raj's father. He admitted that the did not know the name of the father of any of these accused persons. He further stated that he had not given out to the I.O in his statement the parentage of any of the accused. He claimed that he had disclosed only their villages. He further stated that he does not know how in his statement before the 1.0 the parentage of two appellants, viz. Sobaran and Doodh Ram were transcribed. He further admitted that he has heard the name of Kharge resident of village Pitamnagla. He is Lodh Rajput, but tried to avoid admitting that before this murder Kharge had prosecuted his father for the theft of his buffalo. He claimed that he did not know Ram Singh witness at all. This Ram Singh is P.W 5. This witness did not ever meet him till this day. He could not identify Ram Singh even in Court. He denied that he had disclosed about Ram Singh's presence at the scene of occurrence and that he came from the side of the village on hearing the gun shot report, He further stated that he did not see any guns in the beginning. He had seen them only after the gunshots were fired. He also admitted that bushes were higher than the man's height and they had concealed themselves behind the bushes out of fear. They had concealed themselves in such a manner that the assailants could not see them. If the assailants could not see them then they also cannot see and identify them. From his statement as well as from the statement of informant it is safely deducible that the bushes were thickly arranged. He further stated that he could not know when the assailants opened fire and whether they were watching them or not. He further stated that they came out from the bushes only after the departure of the assailants. They hid themselves immediately on the first fire. The assailants were wearing police like dresses. This fact is not stated by P.W 1. According to him, when the assailants opened fire none of the deceased were going ahead of the bullock-cart, whereas according to informant Lala Ram was moving ahead of the cart at the time of opening of fire. He has further admitted a very important fact that the place where the incident occurred the road takes a turn. A suggestion was given to him that from the place of his hiding the assailants were not visible at all. The suggestion apparently has force. He further stated that from the barrel of the gun a distance of about a yard was there when the fires were made on the victims. The assailants were about 2 yards from the victims. He too has not shown the I.O the spot from where the assailants had fired. He further admitted that he had not shown the police of his hiding to the I.O He further pleaded ignorance as to who were those persons who had abducted his brother. He further stated that he did not know who lodged the report about the abduction of his brother. Suresh. We cannot believe that this witness was not knowing who lodged the report of abduction of his brother. The report was lodged by his own father.
18. Thus, the testimony of this witness, in our opinion, is not reliable for the reasons that he is an inimical witness. He has enmity with some of the appellants. He has come from a distance of about 200 yards; Admittedly the incident concluded within a minute or two. He did not disclose the factum of incident to any one till recording of his statement on the third day by the I.O He did not disclose this fact that he came from his field to the I.O in his statement under S. 161, Cr. P.C He also like P.W 1 has made evasive replies to every discomfiting question. In our opinion the replies of these questions were very much within his knowledge, but he had deliberately not made correct replies. His presence at the spot at the relevant moment, when the incident took place, in our opinion, is rendered highly doubtful. His field is neither shown in the site plan nor it was shown by him to the 1.0 The I.O himself too made no attempt to see his field. He denied having disclosed the parentage of any accused to the I.O, although the parentage is there is his statement under S. 161, Cr. P.C
19. Now taking up the statement of P.W 5 Ram Singh, we find that this witness stands no better than P.W 2. He is a resident of village Gularpur. This village is three miles from the village of occurrence. He claims that he has gone to a relative of his, Raghunath, in village Lehgai. This Raghunath was not even examined by the I.O He claimed that when he was coming back after seeing Raghunath, who was ailing, and travelled a distance of about 350 yards, he heard the gunshot report and saw the appellants. From his cross-examination it appears that he is a close relation of deceased-Kaptan Singh and the informant. No doubt he admitted that he is married in village Nagla Sable, but he deliberately denied any knowledge about the in-laws’ place of Kaptan. According to him, he stayed for half an hour after the incident and in the meantime the dead bodies were taken to the village. This is directly in conflict with the testimony of P.W 1, who claimed that the dead bodies were taken to the village only after about an hour and a half. He claimed that Instead of going to his village he returned to village Lehganiya and stayed there. He denied any consultation with informant Giya Din (P.W 1). He claimed that when the F.I.R was being transcribed, he reached there. Even after the transcription of the report no talks regarding the incident of shooting ensued between him and Giya Din. He claimed to have accompanied Giya Din to the police station. He further claimed that from the police station he did not return to village Lehganiya. He further admitted a very important fact that at the police station the I.O made no enquiries either from him or from any other person. His statement under S. 161, Cr. P.C was recorded on 1-11-1979, i.e about eight days after the incident P.W 2 did not name this witness. He claimed that he had informed the I.O that he had seen the appellants firing and identified them, but if this is not there in his statement to the I.O he was unable to explain. He admitted that he did not know any person other than Phulwari residing in village Khanpur. Phulwari is an appellant. This raises a serious doubt in our mind about his knowing Phulwari. He claims that Phulwari used to visit Abhilakh of village Pritamnagla. He further stated that he never had any talks with this accused nor any one else told him about this appellant. He further stated that he knows only the name of this appellant as Phulwari and he did not know the parentage, etc. So far as this witness is concerned, he too cannot be safely relied upon by us. His statement was recorded on the 8th day. No explanation is forthcoming from the I.O for this delay. This witness admitted that he had remained in the village all along and nobody had contacted him. There are serious doubts in our mind regarding his knowing any of the accused persons including Phulwari. He appears to us to be a relation of Kaptan Singh about which fact he deliberately and purposely feigned ignorance.
20. So far as the investigation is concerned, we are of the opinion that it had been conducted in a most perfunctory manner. The I.O had not made any attempts to examine the witnesses, who, according to F.I.R, had come from other villages at the time of occurrence. Except these three relative witnesses he had not preferred to produce any independent witness in the trial, nor recorded even their statements under S. 161, Cr. P.C This I.O, P.W (sic) Raghubir Singh Yadav, appeared to us, had acted in a partisan manner. Three of the deceased persons were belonging to his community. He had admitted that he had not noted down in the case diary time for any activity including the recording of statement of the informant at the time of his arriving at the spot. He had failed to offer any explanation for recording the statement of Sri Kishan and Ram Singh belatedly, although they were available to him. He admitted that P.W 1 Giya Din had not told him that immediately after the first fire the bullocks had freed themselves from the yoke and that is why they had not sustained any injury. If the bullock-cart carrying fodder was there and the three deceased persons, two of whom were on it and the third on Lala Ram was moving ahead by a few steps, then, in our opinion, it is absolutely impossible that the bullocks could free themselves from the Yoke and manage to run away without sustaining any injury when 20-22 shots were made indiscriminately by as many as 10 assailants. He further admitted that P.W 1 had not informed him that the assailants had made any attempt to drag the body of deceased persons. He admitted that he made no attempt to find out as to where, when and how many days before the incident Kaptan had effected the arrest of Natthu and Abhilakh and whether Kaptan was a witness in that case or not. This was a very important fact and circumstance. It would have strengthened the motive. He had stated that he tried to find out about the gang of which Natthu and Abilakh were members and were arrested, but he could not learn anything. This is further a very strong circumstance. The arrests were effected by the same police station where he was a S.I The record of that police station would have revealed to him this fact. He further stated that Kaptan may have informed 10 years or 20 years before, he was unable to disclose. He further stated that he could not learn whether Natthu and Abhilakh were prosecuted or not. He further admitted that Kaptan was a police informer, according to the informant. It shows that he denied any personal knowledge of this fact. He admitted that Kaptan himself was a renowned criminal. He further admitted that he did not find out as to what information was communicated by the wireless message to the higher officials. He further denied any knowledge about the fact that such wireless messages are recorded in a register. It is an admitted fact that wireless messages are written in a register. He admitted that he had not visited that Bajra field which Kaptan had harvested earlier. He further admitted that he had not noted down in the case diary, any where, the place where incident had taken place and what is the width of the road at that place. He further stated that at some places the road is of a bullock-cart width and at some places two bullock-carts width. The road is zigzag one. He had stated that the person concealing behind the bushes can see, but, admittedly, he had not made any note of this observation of his in the case diary. He had admitted that in the site plan he had not shown the place of concealment of the witnesses. He further admitted that he had not even shown the place from where the fires were made. He admitted that he had not noted down in the case diary from where the fires were made from the front or other directions. He admitted that he had learnt that the assailants had fired by covering themselves behind the bushes. He further admitted that he had not shown the place from where the spent cartridges and the tickles were recovered. He admitted that he has not seen the fields of Sri Kishan and Ram Singh. He admitted that village Naglasadar is at a distance of three furlongs from the place of occurrence. Thus, from his statement it is easily decipherable that the investigation in the case was conducted in a most lackadaisical manner.
21. Examining the evidence of P.W 4 the Head Constable, who has registered the case on the basis of Ext. Ka-1, the written report, and prepared the check F.I.R and other papers. According to him, report of non-cognizable offence was registered at the police station on the day on which this report was registered. He admitted that a wireless message to the higher officials about the incident was sent at about 9.10 a.m He claimed that the message must be in the wireless register. He admitted that a wireless register is maintained at the police station. He claimed that the check F.I.R was sent, according to the entry in the register of the police station, to the higher officials on 26-10-1979. No time is noted on the check F.I.R There is no date underneath the signatures of the Circle Officer. He had admitted that during the period of his posting at P.S Aliganj a case known as Ranger Lodh gang was active in the region, but he denied any knowledge to the fact that this Ranger gang had committed the murder of an Inspector and two Constables by dragging them out from a bus. He further admitted that the police was making serious efforts to wipe out this gang. He denied the suggestions that in the region, at the relevant time, there was a serious party-Bandi between Lodhey Rajputs and Ahlrs.
22. Thus, from the facts and circumstances occurring in this case, we are of the clear opinion that the F.I.R was transcribed after consultation with the police on the next day and the persons, who were inimical to the witnesses, were nominated in the F.I.R Enmity is a double edged weapon. The circumstances, as discussed above, for this conclusion are that for an hour and a half no effort was made by this witness P.W 1 to lodge the F.I.R Admittedly, a Chaukidar was there in his village. He made no attempts to summon him and send him with a written report or an oral version. His complete silence all along the night regarding the manner of assault and the assailants despite the fact that he has to admit the arrival of number of people from other villages as well as from his village to his house to any one of them including the Chaukidar is a wholly unusual conduct. This is a very important circumstance militating heavily against the prosecution story as contained in the F.I.R as well as regarding the time of lodging of this F.I.R We cannot shut our eyes to these circumstances. The circumstances enumerated by us while discussing the witness speak for themselves. Thus, in the above facts and circumstances this appeal deserves to be allowed. In the result, appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence dated 16-12-1980 passed in S.T No. 143 of 1980 is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the offences charged for. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.
23. Appeal allowed.