Judgment Ram Chandra Prasad Sinha, J. 1. All the five appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each under sec. 304, Part II read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code by Judgment and order dated 31st August, 1979 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah. Appellants 1 and 2 have further been convicted and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each under sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Rest of the appellants have also been convicted under sec. 323 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each of the aforesaid sections. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case as given in the fardbeyan given by P.W. 5, widow of the deceased Ramchandra, before P.W. 4 at 11.30 A.M. on 23rd June, 1974 is that about 8 A.M. in the morning while she was sitting in her marai where her deceased husband Ramchandra Kamkar was taking his meals, appellant Kedar came and after seeing her husband taking meals, he went to his angan and immediately, thereafter, appellant Subhash Kamkar came there with lathi in his hand and gave a lathi blow on the waist of her husband and her husband fled away after leaving his meals towards darwaja of Gupteshwar Kamkar (not examined). Appellant Subhash again came therewith a farsa along with Chhotakan with garasa; appellants Ram Vilas, Prabhunath and Kedar each armed with lathi came there. Appellant Subhash gave a garas blow on the left hand anti Chhotakan Ramkar gave a garasi blow on left leg just above he knee of her husband and the other appellants assaulted him with lathi: When she went there to save her husband she was also assaulted with lathi by appellants Kedar and Prabhunath. This occurrence was witnessed by the wife of Bhagelu (Peuljharia P.W. 1) and wife of Raghunath (Parvati P.W. 2) and several other persons of the Mahalla. Thereafter, her husband was taken to the Dumaraon Raj Hospital and she also went there on a rickshaw. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, a formal first information report was drawn up and a case was registered under sections 147, 148, 323, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up. Thereafter, her husband was taken to the Dumaraon Raj Hospital and she also went there on a rickshaw. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, a formal first information report was drawn up and a case was registered under sections 147, 148, 323, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up. Ram Chandra Kamkar died on 16th July, 1974 in the Dumaraon Raj Hospital and, thereafter, the case was converted into a case under sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the Court of session where the accused persons were charged for the offence under sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides other sections mentioned above but on trial the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as stated above. 4. The defence of the appellants is that the accused persons are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. Ramchandra Kamkar, the deceased, was assaulted by 15 to 61 unknown persons at the house of Gupteshwar Kamkar because the deceased had gone inside his house for misbehaving with the younger daughter-in-law of Gupteshwar Kamkar. Eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, where as two witnesses were also examined in support of the defence. 5. Out of the 8 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, Phuljharia wife of Bhagelu (P.W. 11 and Parvati wife of Raghunath (P.W. 2) were declared hostile and they did not support the prosecution case. Ram Pravesh Prasad (P.W. 3) is the son of the deceased. He was not named in the first information report as a witness. The informant Nanhki Kamkar in is P.W. 5, P.W. 6 Shyam Bihari Kamkar is a witness of seizure of blood from the hut of the deceased, but he was also declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. Sub-Inspector Sachidanand Singh, (P.W. 4) is the investigating Officer. Dr. Tribhuwan Nath (P.W. 7) examined the injuries on the person of the deceased and his widow (P.W. 3), (P.W. 8) Kumar had held the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Ramchandra. 6. Sub-Inspector Sachidanand Singh, (P.W. 4) is the investigating Officer. Dr. Tribhuwan Nath (P.W. 7) examined the injuries on the person of the deceased and his widow (P.W. 3), (P.W. 8) Kumar had held the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Ramchandra. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that (P.W. 3) the son of the deceased, and (P.W. 5) the widow of the deceased, are the only eye witnesses examined in the case, but the name of P.W. 3 has not been mentioned in the first information report, and therefore, no reliance should be placed on the evidence of (P.W. 3). Though (P.W. 3) has supported the prosecution case as an eye witness, but as his name does not find place in the first information report, no reliance can be placed on his evidence. In evidence, (P.W. 5) has stated that when her husband had fled away on getting one lathi blow to the house of Gupteshwar Kamkar, she as well as her son (P.W. 3) went there to save her husband, but this fact has also not been mentioned in the first information report that her son had also gone there. Therefore, in may opinion, it is not safe, to place any reliance on the evidence of (P. W .3) 7. Now it is to be examined as to whether reliance can be placed on the sole testimony of P.W. 5 and conviction can be based on her evidence. If evidence of the single witness is free from any blemish, conviction can be based on such evidence. But, it has been submitted that her evidence suffers from several blemishes and it is not sate to place any reliance on her evidence. As mentioned above, in the first information report she has not named her son as a person at the time of assault on the deceased, but in evidence in court she has, stated, as mentioned above, that her son had also gone the house of Gupteshwar Kamkar to save the d ed. In paragraph 8 of her deposition she has stated that she did not say anything about the occurrence to any person of the village. She has also stated that at the time of occurrence there was no male person there; only some women bad come whose names were mentioned as witnesses. In paragraph 8 of her deposition she has stated that she did not say anything about the occurrence to any person of the village. She has also stated that at the time of occurrence there was no male person there; only some women bad come whose names were mentioned as witnesses. This excludes the presence of her son at the time of occurrence, and this also shows that she has added the name of her son as an eye witness in her examination-in-chief. In view of what has been stated above, it cannot be said that her evidence is free from blemish. She is also a highly interested witness and it is not safe to hase the conviction on her evidence, though she is an injured witness. 8. It has next been contended that the dying declaration of Ramchandra (deceased) was recorded by the Project Executive Officer of Dumarason Block, but prosecution has deliberately not brought the dying declaration on the record of the case and, as such, adverse inference should be drawn for non-production of the dying declaration of the deceased. The dying declaration of Ramchandra Kamkar recorded on 23rd June, 1974 by Brajnandan Singh, Project-Executive Officer, Dumarason, is attached with the case diary and the investigation Officer has also copied it in paragraph 28 of the case diary, but neither the Project Executive Officer has been examined in this case nor the foresaid dying declaration has been brought on the record of the case. It is the duty of the prosecution to place all the relevant evidence before the court and not to bring only such the evidence which aims at the conviction of the accused persons. In this case, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the dying declaration, which is a very important piece of evidence, has not been brought on the record of the case, and from its non-production adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution that the document was withheld only because it did not support the prosecution case -In order to satisfy my judicial conscience and in the interest of justice I looked into the aforesaid document and, in fact, it gives a different picture. 9. For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that the judgment of conviction of the appellants is not fit to be upheld and the appellants deserve acquittal. 10. 9. For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that the judgment of conviction of the appellants is not fit to be upheld and the appellants deserve acquittal. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentences passed against them are set aside and they are acquitted. They are also discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.