PADAM SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

                                        PADAM SINGH                                         A-
                                             v.



-
                                        STATE OF U.P.

                                    NOVEMBER 30, 1999

                         [G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.]                                B


               Penal Code-Sections 302, 307, 148, 452, 324, read with 149-
          Appellant convicted for the murder .of one 'H' causing gunshot injuries-
          Finding of Sessions Court and High Court based on inimical eye witnesses-
          No independent witness-Occurrence in broad daylight-Death of three men
                                                                                            c

-         of accused party unexplained-Held, prosecution failed to establish guilt of
          the accused beyond reasonable doubt-Conviction and sentence set aside.

                Practice and Procedure-Criminal Appeal-Appellant convicted for
          murder by Sessions Court-Division Bench divided over the conclusion-              D
          Matter referred to a third judge-Third judge affirming the Judgment of
          conviction without discussing the trustworthiness of witnesses-Held,

-         appellate court, like the trial court has to be satisfied affirmatively before
          upholding a conviction.

                The Appellant along with a co-accused 'D' were tried for offences under     E
          Sections 302, 307, 452, 148, 324 read with 149 IPC, for causing the murder
          of one 'H'. The prosecution alleged that the Petitioners along with five to six
          others entered the house of PWl and started firing, due to which H died. It
          was further alleged that firing continued from both sides, that accused entered
          into the h~use of PWl searching for his father and when PWl 's wife-PW 4
                                                                                            F
          tried to stop them she was assaulted by the Petitioner and that when PW3
          started firing from the house of 'S' the accused escaped through a side lane.

                Bodies of accused party were recovered from the verandah of the house
          of PWl alongwith the body of H. While trying to chase the accused, PWl
          alongwith others found a dead body at a distance of four furlongs from his        G
          house. A charge sheet was filed only in respect of Petitioner and deceased
          DI. The Prosecution examined eleven witnesses including four eyewitnesses
          viz., PWs 1-4. The Sessions Court relying upon the evidence of the
          eyewitnesses held that accused 'D' and the Petitioner alongwith others entered
          the house of PWl and committed the murder ofH, convicted and sentenced
      •                                                                                     H
---                                             59
                                                                                               -
    60                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A the accused to undergo life imprisonment.
           Appeals were filed by both the accused before the High Court, but
    accused 'D' died during the pendency of his appeal. The appeal filed by the
     Petitioner was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Justice G.P. Mathur
    and Justice Kundan Singh. Justice G.P. Mathur came to the conclusion that
B    the p.rosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt
    against the Petitfoner and that be is entitled to benefit of doubt, that the very
    fact that the prosecution party has not explained as to how three of the accUSE.d
    persons died, including one unknown person, the prosecution case becomes
    doubtful and the veracity of the prosecution version becomes doubtful. He
c   further held that in view of admitted enmity between the parties and admittedly
    all the eye witnesses being inimical the prosecution must have examined some
    independent witness. Justice Kundan Singh differed from the conclusions of
    Justice Mathur, and inter-a/ia held that alleged omissions and contradictions
    of the four eye witnesses cannot be held to be material omissions, that non-
    examination of independent persons cannot be a ground to discard the evidence
D   of eyewitnesses in the absence of any infirmity in the evidence and held that
    the prosecution case must be held to have been established beyond reasonable
    doubt. When the matter was placed before the third Judge, Justice Malviya,
    relying upon the sole testimony of PW4 wife of PWl, held that prosecution
    case has been conclusively proved, beyond reasonable doubt and agreed with
E   the conclusion of Justice Kundan Singh.

           In appeal to this Court, the Appellant contended that there is not an iota
     of explanation as to how the dead body of one unknown accused person could
     be found at a distance of four furlongs and when the prosecution has not offered
    any explanation for the same, the entire prosecution case must fail, that the
F   fact that there has been no seizure of blood-stained earth from the place of
    occurrence, would establish the defence version that the incident never
    happened inside the house of PWl as alleged by PWs 1 to 4 and consequently
    no reliance can be placed on them, that the investigation is so perfunctory
    and laconic that there has not been a single panch witness examined and even
    the Investigating Officer himself has not signed the seizure list as admitted
G
    in his evidence, that each of the contradictions and omissions relied upon by
    Justice Mathur makes the evidence of four eyewitnesses vulnerable and
    therefore no reliance could have been placed on those testimonies to establish
    a charge of murder, and that it is highly unnatural that the occurrence took
    place inside the village in broad day light and not a single independent witness
H   was examined by prosecution.                                                        , or
                                                                                               ._
                         PADAM SINGH v. STATE OF U.P.                             61

         The Respondent-State contended that two Judges of the High Court               A
    having agreed with the conclusion of the Sessions Judge, the Prosecution
    case must be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the same
    should not be interfered with by this court.

J         Allowing the Appeal, the Court
                                                                                        B
           HELD : 1. The prosecution evidence, except indicating that R was also
    firing, there is not an iota of material, indicating, how the three people
    belonging to the accused party died. It is too well settled that when the
    prosecution does not explain the injury sustained by the accused at about the
    time of the occurrence or in the course of occurrence, the Court can draw           C
    the inference that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of
    the occurrence and has thus, not presented the true version. It is also well
    settled, where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses, then,
    non--explanation of the injury on the accused by the .prosecution assumes
    greater importance. Adjudged from the aforesaid stand point and in the absence
    of any explanation as to how three of the people belonging of the accused party     D
    died, the testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 3, and 4 become vulnerable and the accused
    is entitled to benefit of doubt. [67-G-H; 68-A-B)

          2. That the prosecution witnesses and accused persons are inimical to
    each other is apparent from the evidence of the four eye witnesses. It has also     E
    been elicited from the cross-examination of the eye-witnesses that while the
    accused persons were running away and the prosecution witnesses were
    chasing, there had been no assault by the prosecution party nor had there
    been any firing from them. If that be so and according to the medical evidence,
    the unknown male person died on receiving multiple gun shot ante-mortem
    injuries and he must have died an instantaneous death, then obviously, the          F
    fact that the dead body was found at a distance of four furlongs would establish
    that the prosecution case, as unfolded through the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is
    not true and the true version is not coming forward. On this ground alone,
    the accused is entitled to the benefit of being acquitted. (68-8, C, DJ

           3. The conclusion reached by two Judges that the omissions and
                                                                                        G
    contradictions in the evidence of witnesses are not material, cannot be
    sustained. In the opinion of the Court, the witnesses do not stand the test, of
    stricter scrutiny, they being admittedly inimical towards the accused persons.
    In this view of the matter, no reliance could have been placed on their testimony
    and as such the conviction of the Appellant cannot be sustained. (68-E-F)           H
                                                  ....   _




    62                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A         4. The contention of the appellant that the fact that there had been firing
    at the place of occurrence has not been established by the prosecution
    witnesses, is upheld. In the teeth of the material brought out in the cross-
    examination of the Investigating Officer and in view of the fact that the
    interested witnesses have been held to be unreliable, and that the prosecution
    has offered no explanation as to how three people belonging to the accused
B   party died, the conviction of the Appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of
    the charges levelled against him. [68-G; 69-B-C]

           5. It is the duty of an appellate court to look into the evidence adduced
    in the case and arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said
C   evidence can be relied upon or not and even if it can be relied upon, then
    whether the prosecution can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable
    doubt on the said evidence. The credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by
    the appellate court in drawing inference from proved and admitted facts. It
    must be remembered that the appellate court like the trial court has to be
    satisfied affirmatively that the prosecution case is substantially true and the
D   guilt of the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts as the
    presumption of innocence with which the accused starts, continues right
    through until he is held guilty by the final Court of appeal and that presumption
    neither strengthened by an acquittal nor weakened by a conviction in the trial
    Court. The judicial approach in dealing with the case where an accused is
E   charged of mu~der under Section 302 has to be cautious, circumspect and
    careful and the High Court, therefore, has to consider the matter carefully
    and examine all relevant and material circumstances, before upholding               ,,
    conviction. [66-B, C, DJ

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 679
F   of 1997.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.96 of the Allahabad High
    Court in Crl. A. No. 2421 of 1980.

          U.N. Bachawat, Sushil Kumar Jain, Ms. Madhurima Tatia and A. Mishra
G   for the Appellant.

         Anis Ahmad Khan for A.S. Pundir for the Respondent.                            ...
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    ..   PATT ANAIK, J. The appellant Padam Singh and his co-accused Desh
H   Raj were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar in Sessions Trial
           PADAM SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. [PATTANAIK, J.]                     63
No. 260of1980 for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 452, 148, 324 read         A
with Sec. 149 IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for life for their
conviction under Section 302 and other sentences for other offences with the
direction that the sentences would run concurrently. Both of them preferred
appeals to the High Court but co-accused Desh Raj, died during the pendency
of his appeal and, therefore his appeal stood abated. The appeal filed by         B
appellant-Padam Singh was heard by a Bench ofHon'ble Justice G.P. Mathur
and Hon'ble Justice Kundan Singh. Hon'ble Justice ·Mathur, came to the
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt against the accused appellant and, therefore, he is entitled
to benefit of doubt. Justice Kundan Singh however disagreed with the
conclusion of Hon'ble Justice Mathur and came to the conclusion that the          C
prosecution has been able to prove its case successfully with reliable and
convincing evidence beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and as such,
dismissed the appeal. In view of difference of opinion between the two
learned Judges, the appeal was placed before Hon 'ble Justice Giridhar Malviya,
who agreed with Hon'ble Justice Kundan Singh and dismissed the appeal.
Ultimately, therefore by majority of two as to one, the appeal of the appellant   D
stood dismissed by the High Court and hence the present appeal.

       The prosecution case in nut-shell is that Ved Ram lodged the First
Information Report, alleging that on 28.9.79 at 6 A.M., while he was lying on
a cot in the verandah of his ~aithak and deceased Hari Singh was lying on         E
another cot, both were talking to each other, accused Padam Singh, Desh Raj,
Lekh Raj and five to six oth~rs, entered into the house from the main gate and
Desh Raj fired from his gun which hit Hari Singh. Ved Ram rushed inside his
Baithak and closed the door and he also fired from the said Baithak. Firing
from both sides continued for a long period. The accused-assailants then
searched for Ved Ram's father and when his wife Vimlesh tried to stop them,       F
she was assaulted by Padam Singh with Farsa. The assailants then climbed
over the roof. By this time, PW3, Raghuraj Singh had taken position on the
roof of the house of Sher Singh and he started firing from there. The accused-
assailants, then broke open the wall of the room and went over the roof and
escaped through the side lane. Raghuraj Singh then shouted that the assailants    G
had run away and then Ved Ram PWl came out of his Baithak and saw that
Hari Singh was lying dead. He also saw one of the assailants Munshi was
lying dead. Even the body of Lekh Raj was also found there. PWl and others
tried to chase the accused persons but could not catch hold of them. They
further found the dead body of another unknown person at a distance of four
furlongs. The prosecution party then came back and lodged the report at 8.30      H
     64                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A A.M. in the Police Station, which was at a distance of eight kilometers. On
   the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R. PW5, Sub-Inspector of Police of Police Station
   Kakore, commenced investigation. He held inquest over the dead body of
   Harl Singh as well on the dead bodies of Lekh Raj and Munshi. Certain arms
   and ammunitions were also found near the dead bodies of Munshi and Lekh
B Raj, which were seized. He went a distance of four furlongs, where the dead         ;-
   body of the unknown person was lying and held inquest over the same. The
   investigation was then taken over by Uma Shanker Singh, who ultimately
   completed the investigation and submitted. the charge-sheet against the two
   accused persons namely Desh Raj and Padam Singh and on being committed,
   the accused persons stood their trial in respect of the charges as already
C started. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses, including four eye
   witnesses PWs I, 2, 3, and 4. The learned Sessions Judge relied upon the
   testimony of the aforesaid four eye witnesses and came to hold that the
   accused Desh Raj, Padam Singh along with others entered into the house of
   PWI and committed the murder ofHari Singh and convicted them accordingly.
   On the basis of the evidence of Doctor PW6; who had conducted the autopsy
D on the dead body of the deceased Hari Singh, the learned Sessions Judge
   found that the death was on account of shock and haemorrhage as a result
  of three ante-mortem injuries and all the injuries on the person of deceased
  Hari Singh were gun shot injuries. In appeal, Justice Mathur on an analysis
  of the entire evidence _on record came to the conclusion that the very fact that
E prosecution party has n~t explained as to how tqree of the accused persons
  died, including one unknown person, whose dead body was found, four
  furlongs away from the place of 1occurrence, the prosecution case becomes
  doubtful and the veracity of the prosecution version becomes doubtful.
  Hon'ble Justice Mathur also came to the conclusion that in view of admitted
  ~nmity between the parties and admittedly, all the eye witnesses PWs I to
F 4 being inimical, when the occurrence took place at 6 A.M., it is reasonable
  to expect that some independent persons must have seen the occurrence,
  more so when the firing from both sides continued for about one hour but
  none of them has been examined by the prosecution. The learned Judge was
  of the opinion that though the accused persons came to kill Ved Ram or his
G father Saheb Singh and had no motive to commit the murder of Harl Sing, yet
  Hari Singh was killed by a gun shot injury and neither Ved Ram nor father
  received a single scratch of injury and this fact creates doubt with regard to
  the origin and genesis of the prosecution case. It is significant to notice that
  though as many as three persons from the accused side were found dead but
  the investigation never proceeded against their death to find out as to how
H they were killed and the Investigating Officer in his evidence categorically
             PADAM SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. [PATTANAIK, J.)                   65
  admitted that he had never focussed his attention in that respect. Justice A
  Mathur, also while appreciating the trust-worthiness of the four eye witnesses
  noticed the omissions and contradictions in their statement in Court from their
  earlier statement recorded under Sec. 161 and was of the opinion that by no
  stretch of imagination the witnesses can be held to be wholly truthful witnesses.
  With these conclusions, the learned Judge recorded the order of acquittal.
  Justice Kundan Singh, while differing from the conclusion of Justice Mathur, B
  was of the opinion that the alleged omissions and contradictions of the four
  eye witnesses cannot be held to be material omissions, amounting to
  contradictions and therefore their evidence cannot be brushed aside on that
  ground. He further held that merely because the witnesses are inimical is not
  a ground to discard their testimony. So far as the non-explanation of the C
  prosecution as to how three of the accused persons were found dead, he was
  of the opinion that since Raghuraj Singh was also firing shots from his gun
  from the roof top, the accused persons might have been killed and further
  while chasing the accused persons, the unknown person might have received
  the injury and, died and consequently, it cannot be said that the prosecution
  has not explained as to how three of the accused party died. According to D
  him, merely because independent persons have not been examined and the
  witnesses are interested witnesses but in the absence of any infirmity in their
  evidence, the said evidence cannot be thrown out. The learned Judge was of
  the opinion that the general tendency of the people in our country being to.
. avoid litigation or to involve themselves of being a witness to an incident, E
  the Court must examine the veracity of the evidence on record to come to its
  own conclusion. According to learned Judge, while appreciating the evidence,
  the Court must also bear in mind the innocence and rustic persons hailing
  from rural areas, whet} deposed about certain state of affairs, they are not
  aware of the necessity of law or legal contentions, which may be raised in
  Courts. According to the learned Judge when the occurrence has taken place F
  in broad day light and there has been no lack of opportunity in identifying
  the accused persons, the evidence of PWs I to 4 is sufficient to bring home
  the charge and, therefore, the prosecution case must be held to have been
  established beyond reasonable doubt. When the matter was placed before
  third learned Judge viz. Justice Malviya, he, instead of appreciating the G
  evidence,· as a Court of appeal would do, merely stated the conclusion of the
  two learned Judges, who originally heard the appeal and differed from each
  other and then he agreed with the conclusion of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kundan
  Singh, solely relying upon the evidence of PW4. Vimlesh, who was also
  attacked by Padam Singh and who sustained the two injuries which could be
  caused by blunt weapon. Mr. Justice Malviya, apart from the fact that, he did H
     66                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A not discuss the trustworthiness of the four eye witnesses, even has not
   discussed the reasoning, advanced by Hon'ble Justice Mathur in not placing
   reliance on the inimical evidence of PWs I to 4. A bare reading of the
  judgment of Justice Malviya would indicate that he has failed to discharge
   his duty and obligation as an appellate Court, in appreciating the evidence
   and coming to its conclusion one way or the other. It is the duty of an
B appellate Court to look into the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at
  an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied
   upon or not and even if it can be relied upon, then whether the prosecution
  can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the said
  evidence. The credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by the appellate
C Court in drawing inference from proved and admitted facts. It must be
  remembered that the appellate Court like the trial Court has to be satisfied
  affirmatively that the prosecution case is substantially true and the guilt of
  the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts as the presumption
  of innocence with which the accused starts, continues right through until he
  is held guilty by the final court of appeal and that presumption is neither
D strengthened by an acquittal nor weakened by a conviction in the trial court.
  The judicial approach in dealing with the case where an accused is charged
  of murder under Section 302 has to be cautious, circumspect and careful and
  the High Court, therefore, has to consider the matter carefully and examine
  a!I relevant and material circumstances, before upholding conviction.
E
            At the outset we must observe that neither Justice Kundan Singh nor
     Justice Malviya have acted in accordance with the aforesaid parameters and
     the duties of a Court of appeal, while considering the legality of conviction
     recorded by the Sessions Judge. Mr. Bachawat, the learned Senior Counsel,
     appearing for the appellant, Padam Singh, seriously ,contended that there is
F    not an iota of explanation as to how the dead body of one unknown accused
     person could be found at a distance of four furlongs and when the prosecution
     has not offered any explanation for the same, the entire prosecution case must
     fail inasmuch as the manner in which the incident happened, as unfolded
    through the evidence of PWs I to 4 cannot be said to be a true version. Mr.
G   Bachawat, also further contended that the very fact that there has been no
    seizure of blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence, would establish         '>
    defence version that the incident never happened inside the house of PWI,
    as alleged to by the witnesses I to 4 and consequently, no reliance can be
    placed on their testimoney. Mr. Bachawat, also seriously commented upon the
    fact that the investigation is so perfunctory and lacunic that there has not
H   been a single Panch witness exa!llined and ewen the Investigating Officer
                                                                                           I
                                                                                      .<11\f
            PADAM SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. [PATTANAIK, J.]                      67
himself has not signed the seizure list, as is admitted in his evidence. The        A
learned Senior Counsel, also submitted that each of the contradictions and
omissions relied upon by Justice Mathur in his Judgment between the
statement in the Court and the statement recorded under Sec. 161 makes the
evidence of the four eye witnesses vulnerable and, therefore, no reliance
could have been placed on those testimonies to establish a charge of murder.        B
Lastly, the learned counsel urged that it is highly unnatural that the occurrence
is taking place ins~e the village in broad day light and only inimical witnesses
would be examined and not a single independent witness, and this creates
doubt about the prosecution case.

      The learned Counsel, appearing for the State, on the other hand               C
contended that the two learned Judges of the High Court having agreed with
the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge and having found that accused
Padrun Singh along with other accused persons entered into the house of
PW I and then on account of gun shot firing from Desh Raj, Hari Singh died,
the prosecution case must be held to have been proved beyond reasonable
doubt and the same should not be interfered with by this Court.                     D
    ~s has been started earlier, it has been noticed by us that the Judgments
ofHon'ble Justice Kundan Singh as well as Hon'ble Justice Malviya, suffered
from the infirmity that the learned Judges have not appreciated the veracity
of the four eye witnesses and have not come to their conclusion on E
appreciation of the evidence on record. This approach of the learned Judges,
while coming to the ultimate conclusion that the prosecution case has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt has forced us to examine the evidence of
the four eye witnesses and to find out whether there is any substance in the
contention of Mr. Bachawat that the prosecution story, as unfolded through
these witnesses is not true. It is in this context that even though the deceased F
Hari Singh belonging to the prosecution party died and three of the accused
persons viz. Lekh Raj, Munshi and another unknown person, were found
dead, but the prosecution evidence is totally silent as to how these three
people died. That Lekh Raj, Munshi and the unknown person died in course
of the occurrence is established beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution G
evidence, excepting, indicating that Raghuraj was also firing, there is not an
iota of material, indicating, how the three people belonging to the accused
party died. It is too well settled that when the prosecution does not explain
the injury sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or
in the course of occurrence, the Court can draw the inference that the
prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and has H
      68                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP~ 5 S.C.R.

 A thus, not presented the true version. It is also well settled, where the evidence
      consists of interested or inimical witnesses, then, non-explanation of the
      injury on the accused by the prosecution assumes greater importance.
      Adjudged from the aforesaid stand point and in the absence of any explanation
      as to how three of the people belonging to the accused party died, the
 B   testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 become vulnerable and the accused is
     entitled to benefit of doubt. That prosecution witnesses and accused persons
     are inimical to each other is apparent from the evidence. of the four eye
     witnesses. It has also been elicited from the cross-examination of the
     eye-witnesses that while the accused persons were running away ·and the
     prosecution witnesses were chasing, there had been no assault by the
C    prosecution party nor had there been any firing from them. If that be so and
     according to the medical evidence, the unknown male persons died on receiving
     multiple gun shot ante- mortem injuries and he must have died in instantaneous
     death, then obviously, the fact that the dead body was found at a distance
     of four furlongs would establish that the prosecution case, as unfolded
     through the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is not true and the true version is not
D    coming forward. On this ground alone, the accused is entitled to the benefit
     of being acquitted.
                                                                                tD
            Even, if we examine the intrinsic oath of the prosecution witnesses, ,who
     are admittedly inimical, the omissions and contradictions between the statement
                                                                                         ....
E    made under Sec. 161 and the statement made 'in Court, as brought out in the
     cross-examination, makes the witnesses unreliable and the two learned Judges,
     without noticing the same have just brushed aside on the ground that the
     omissions and contradictions are not material. The said conclusion in our
                                                                                          ,(
     opinion, cannot be sustained. After going through the cross-examination of
     the aforesaid witnesses, in our opinion, the witnesses do not stand the test
F    of stricter scrutiny, they being admittedly inimical towards the accused persons.
     In this view of the matter, no reliance could have been placed on their
     testimony and as such the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.

           We also find ample force in the argument of Mr. Bachawat that the fact
G that there had been firing at the place of occurrence, has not been established
     by the prosecution witnesses. The reading of the evidence of the Investigating
     Officer PW5 gives an interesting picture when he states that blood stained
     soil and control had been taken from the place of occurrence and sealed
     separately but no witness to the seizure has been examined. According to
     him, on the way to Saragpur, though a dead body was found and '
H    panchayatnama of the dead body was prepared, but no panch had been
                  PADAM SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. [PATTANAIK, J.]                        69
      examined. He further candidly admitted that the pellet marks which were found         A
      on the wall, were not shown in the site plan. In his cross-examination, he
      categorically stated that "I had not conducted any investigation as to who
      killed Munshi Singh, Lekh Raj and the unknown person". He also further
      admitted that he did not sign on the labels of the bundles, which were sealed.
      In the teeth of the aforesaid materials, brought out in the cross-examination
      of the Investigating Officer and in view of the fact that we have already held        B
      the interested witnesses to be unreliable and that the prosecution has offered
      no explanation, as to how three people belonging to the accused party died,
      it is difficult for us to sustain the conviction of the appellant. We, accordingly,
      set aside the impugned conviction and sentence of the appellant and acquit
      him of the charges levelled against him. He may be set at liberty forthwith,          C
      unless, required in any other case.

      V.M.                                                             Appeal allowed.




...