P. K. MOHAND, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a prisoners appeal against his conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE incident took place on the night of 8. 8-79 at about 10 p. m. at the residential house of the deceased in village Tentulidihi under Koira Police Station in the district of Sundargarh. ( 3 ) TERSELY put and shorn of all unnecessary details, the prosecution case, as disclosed at the trial is as follows: The appellant and the deceased are co. villagers. P. W. 1 Maati Munda is the son-in-law of the deceased. Be was residing in the same village at a short distance from the house of the deceased. It was alleged that on the night of occurrence the deceased Bashadullah Munda was sleeping in a room of his house and his son (P. W. 2) and wife (P. W. 3) were sleeping at a short distance from him in the same room. At about 8 p. m in the night the appellant came there with an axe and dealt blows with it on the deceased as a result of which he died instantaneously at the spot. Hearing a sound P. W. 2 got up and found the appellant dealing axe blows on the head of his father. He went running to the house of P. W. 1 and narrated the incident before him. When P. W. 1 came to the spot and asked the appellant as to why he was killing his father-in-law he was threatened with murder. Then P. W. 1 went to the house of P. W. 5 Sridhar Munda and narrated the occurrence before him. By the time he returned to the spot, the deceased had succumbed to the injuries. On 9-8-79 at about 4 a. m. P. W. 1 lodged the F. I. R. at Koira Police Station, which is at a distance of about 3 kilometres from the place of occurrence. The Officer-in-charge of the Police Station (P. W. 8) visited the spot at 4-30 a. m. on the same day and arrested the appellant. In course of investigation, he seized the weapon of offence and the wearing cloth of the appellant which contained stains of blood. In due course, he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. In course of investigation, he seized the weapon of offence and the wearing cloth of the appellant which contained stains of blood. In due course, he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. ( 4 ) THE plea of the appellant was a denial simpliciter. ( 5 ) IN order to prove the alleged complicity of the appellant in the crime, prosecution relied mainly on the evidence P. W s. 1, 2 and 3 who are said to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence and some circumstantial evidence about recovery of the weapon of offence (M. O. I.) and the wearing cloth (M. O. II) of the appellant. The trial court believed the prosecution case and held the appellant guilty. In the petition of appeal presented through the Superintendent of Jail, the appellant challenges the order of conviction and sentence and pleads innocence. He has not taken any specific ground in support of his appeal. ( 6 ) THAT the death of the deceased was homicidal is clearly established by the medical evidence. No objection has been raised on this ground. Hence, we need not discuss this aspect of the case. ( 7 ) THE main question for consideration is whether the conviction of the appellant could be sustained on the basis of the materials available on the record. The trial court has based the conviction primarily upon the testimonies of P. W5t. 1, 2 and 3. There are, however, certain broad features of the case, which create considerable doubt regarding veracity of the evidence of the witnesses and in our opinion it would not be safe to maintain the conviction on the basis of that evidence. P. Ws. 1,2 and 3 having made in consistent statements on material aspects of the case it is not possible to place implicit reliance on their evidence. ( 8 ) P. W. 1 Maati Munda gave evidence that on the night of occurrence while he was taking meal in his house P. W. 2 Panu Munda went running and asked him to go to his house as his father was being killed by the appellant. He stated that he went to the house of the deceased and found that the appellant was giving blows with an axe on the head of the deceased. When he protested the appellant threatened him with murder. He stated that he went to the house of the deceased and found that the appellant was giving blows with an axe on the head of the deceased. When he protested the appellant threatened him with murder. So he went to the house of P. W. 5 Sridhar Munda and narrated the incident before him. Then he along with others went to the spot and found the deceased was lying dead and the appellant had left the spot. ( 9 ) IN the F. I. R. (Ext. 5) he also stated that he had seen the appellant dealing blows with an axe on the deceased and that on his protest, the appellant threatened to kill him. In cross examination the witness stated: When I arrived in the house of the deceased I found he was lying on the ground and close to him the accused was standing with Budhia. In my presence the accused has not given any blow on the deceased. In his examination-in-chief the witness stated that the appellant was arrested by the Police on the night of occurrence and in his presence the appellant brought out the axe from his house and produced it before the Police. He also stated that in his presence the wearing dhoti of the appellant was seized by the Police. But in cross-examination he gave a different version. He stated that when he returned from the house of P. W. 5, the appellant had left to the spot and that he did not go to the house of the appellant thereafter. Being cross-examined about the seizure, he stated:what was done by the 1. 0. in the house of the deceased I cannot say. Thereafter I did not go to the house of the accused and I have not seen the accused. Thus, I would be seen that the witness made deliberate attempt to depart from truth and discredited himself by his own contradictory statements. ( 10 ) P. W. 2 Panu Munda is a boy aged about 13 years. The learned Sessions Judge has made a note at the beginning of the deposition of this witness that as he did not understand the language of the Court and was talking in Munda language a Police Constable was engaged to act as an interpreter: The deposition was recorded in English. The learned Sessions Judge has made a note at the beginning of the deposition of this witness that as he did not understand the language of the Court and was talking in Munda language a Police Constable was engaged to act as an interpreter: The deposition was recorded in English. There is, however, nothing to show that the record of deposition was interpreted to the witness in the language in which it was given, as required under Section 278 (3), Criminal Procedure Code. That a Police Officer should have been chosen to act as an interpreter in this case, is a procedure, which has only to be stated to call forth our severe condemnation. By the very nature of things, in a criminal trial, the interpreter must be a person other than a Police Officer, otherwise the procedure of appointing an interpreter would be nothing but a force. We trust that a thing like this will never recur in future. ( 11 ) P. W. 2 stated that on the night of occurrence his father was sleeping in a room and in the same room at a short distance he was sleeping with his mother. It was suggested to him in cross-examination that he was sleeping with his mother in another room, but he denied the suggestion. It appears, however, from the spot map (Ext. 12) prepared by the 1. 0. that P. W. 2 and his mother were sleeping in another room- and not in the same room where the deceased was sleeping. The witness stated that on hearing a sound he got up and found the appellant giving blows on the head of his father with an axe. He admitted in cross-examination that there was darkness at the time of occurrence. Absence of light at the spot creates a doubt in regard to the identity of the culprit. It is difficult to believe that P. W. 2 could observe the details of the occurrence and recognised the person who caused injuries on the deceased. The witness went to the extent of identifying the M. 0. I as the weapon of offence. Can it be said that the axe was so peculiar and different from its class that the witness could be sure to identify it at the time when it was shown to him at the time of trial? The witness went to the extent of identifying the M. 0. I as the weapon of offence. Can it be said that the axe was so peculiar and different from its class that the witness could be sure to identify it at the time when it was shown to him at the time of trial? In this connection, it bas to be noted that at no stage there was any T. 1. parade held in respect of the axe (M. 0. I ). In these circumstances, it cannot be accepted with any amount of confidence that the axe which P. W. 2 Saw in the baud of the appellant, if at all, was the same which was produced at the trial. As indicated earlier, the witness stated in his examination-in-chief that when P. W. 1 protested, the appellant threatened him with murder. But in cross-examination he changed the version and said: To the question of P. W. 1 the accused replied that he would murder my father and be has said nothing else. ' It is difficult to believe that after committing the murder the appellant remained at the spot till the arrival of P. Ws. 1 and 2. A culprit would be naturally in a hurry to get away. The evidence of P W. 2 on the whole does not inspire confidence. ( 12 ) THE evidence of P. W. 3 is no better and therefore it does not add strength to the prosecution case. She is none else but the wife of the deceased and claimed to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. The evidence of P. W. 1 would show that when be came to the spot being called by P. W. 2 he found P. W. 3 to be asleep and he asked her to go away lest she should be killed by the appellant. P. W. 3, however, wants us to believe that though she had seen the appellant giving blows on her husband she did not get up out of fear. The version given by the witness does not accord with human probabilities. It is unbelievable that the wife would not get up from bed and silently watch the occurrence while her husband was being murdered. We cannot imagine any good reason for her silence. The version given by the witness does not accord with human probabilities. It is unbelievable that the wife would not get up from bed and silently watch the occurrence while her husband was being murdered. We cannot imagine any good reason for her silence. The witness stated that P. W. 1 had snatched away the axe from the hand of the appellant at the spot. P. W. 1 did not, how ever, whisper a word about it. The investigating Officer stated that at the time of his arrest the appellant produced the axe (M. O. I) from his house. If actually the axe had been snatched away from the hand of the appellant by P. W. 1 it is not understood how it was produced by the appellant from his house. Seizure of the axe appears to be shrouded in mystery. We do not attach any importance to this evidence. ( 13 ) THE prosecution also relied on the seizure of the wearing cloth of the appellant and detection of human blood thereon by the Serologist. During his examination in Court, the appellant denied the seizure. As already stated, P. W. 1 Maati Munda during his cross-examination denied having witnessed the seizure. No other witness was examined by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of the Investigating Officer about the seizure. Even assuming that M. O. II was seized from the appellant and human blood was detected on it, this is, in our opinion, too slander a circumstance to establish the guilt of the appellant. ( 14 ) ON a close and careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on the record, we are inclined to hold that the prosecution bas failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. We are very sorry that the murder of an innocent man should go unpunished in this case. But this result is mainly due to the fact that the case was not investigated with that care which we should expect in a case like this and the prosecution has failed to adduce proof of the requisite standard. ( 15 ) IN the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and the sentence and acquit the appellant of the charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. He should be set at liberty forthwith. D. Pathak, C. J.- I agree. Appeal allowed. .