Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 374(2) – Appeal from convictions – Murder of the complainant’s father – Previous enmity between the parties – On the fateful day, the appellants armed with weapons inflicted gun shot injuries and blows to the victim resulting in his death – FIR against the appellants – Surviving appellants convicted u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – Upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held : PW-2 being inimical to the appellants, his testimony to be taken carefully – PW-3 was at the best, a chance witness – Circumstances on record do not justify the presence of PW-3 at the place of occurrence – Oral testimony of PW-2 and PW3, the so-called eye witness, not free from doubt and their evidence not of unimpeachable quality – Rule of prudence demands corroboration of their versions from other witnesses present at the place of occurrence and witnessed the murder of the victim, however, they were not examined – Moreover, non-examination of the investigating officer created reasonable doubt in the prosecution case – On proper evaluation, it has transpired that there were reasons for which PW-2 might have falsely implicated the appellants and also that PW-3 was not a wholly reliable witness – There is a fair degree of uncertainty in the prosecution story and the courts below appear to have somewhat been influenced by the oral testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, without taking into consideration the effect of the other attending circumstances, thereby warranting interference – Charge that the appellants had murdered the victim, not proved beyond reasonable doubt, thus, entitled to benefit of doubt – Order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below set aside – Evidence Act, 1872.