Judgment R. N. Thakur, R. N. Lal, JJ. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the murder of Madan mohan Gorai and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He has further been found guilty under Sec.326 of the Indian Penel Code (shortly the Penal Code) for causing grievous hurt to the informant (P. W.7)Shaktipado Gorai, the son of the deceased and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years under this count as well with the direction that both the sentences will run concurrently, 2. The prosecution case leading to this appeal is that P. W.1, alongwith his father, deceased Madan Mohan Gorai and his elder brother Shaktipado Gorai (P. W.7), had gone to attend the call of nature in the morning of 22-6-1983 at about 5.30 a. m. The deceased, being an old man, sat near the house itself to attend the call of nature and the informant and his brother (P. W.7) went other-side of the canal to attend the call of nature. While[they were easing, they heard halla raised by the father. They got up and saw their father being assaulted by this appellant with sword. P. W.7 rushed towards his father. He was also assaulted by this appellant with sword. The deceased fell down. P. W.7 also fell down. Thereafter, with the help of the villagers, P. W.7 and the deceased were taken to the police station where, on the statement of P. W.1. F. I. R. Ext.1 was recorded and a case was instituted. P. W.8 took up the investigation. The father of the informant died of the injuries and post-mortem examination was conducted on his dead body by P. W.9. P. W.10 another doctor examined P. W.7, who had received injuries. 3. P. W.8 inspected the place of occurrence and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. 4. The appellant was ultimately put on trial where 10 witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case to bring home the charges. The appellant pleaded his innocence but did not examine any witness. After considering the entire evidence the trying court convicted the appellant as stated above. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned trying court did not appreciate the prosecution evidence properly and carefully and therefore, came to wrong conclusion. The appellant pleaded his innocence but did not examine any witness. After considering the entire evidence the trying court convicted the appellant as stated above. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned trying court did not appreciate the prosecution evidence properly and carefully and therefore, came to wrong conclusion. In support of his argument, he has taken us through the entire evidence. 6. The fact that the deceased died of injuries speaks of no doubt. P. W.9 of M. G. Medical College Hospital, Jamshedpur, conducted the post-mortem examination on 22-6-1983 on the dead body of deceased. (It appears that P. W.9 has wrongly said in his deposition that he conducted post-mortem on 22-6-1983 because the post-mortem report Ext.8 indicates that the post-mortem was conducted on 22-6-1983 ). Following injuries were found on the person of the deceased:- "1. One incised wound 2" x1/4"x skin deep on the right parital region of scalp.2. One incised 3" X " X skin deep on the left parital region of scalp.3. One incised wound 3" X 1" X muscle deep on the right fore arm it is anterior aspect.4. One incised wound 3"x 2"x muscle deep on left toe arm at its anterior aspect.5. One incised wound 1" X " X skin deep on the left wrist.6. One incised a wound 4"x"x muscle deep on the left palm. One incised wound l"x"x skin deep on dosal aspect of left ring finger. . One incised wound 3"x"x 1" into muscles deep an anterior aspect of left shoulder. One incised wound 2"x l"x muscles deep an anterior aspect of left arm 2" inches below injury No.8. One incised wound 2" X 1" skin deep on the left elbow. All the above injuries were caused by heavy sharp-cutting weapon like sword and were homicidal in nature. The death, in his opinion, was caused by shock and by multiple injuries. The aforesaid injury No.1, was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. There also other oral evidence to suggest that the deceased died of injuries. Accordingly, we find and hold that the deceased died of injuries. 7 P. W.7 has stated that he also received injuries. His evidence is corroborated by P. W.10, the Medical Officer, who had examined him on 22-6-1983 and found 10 injuries on his person and were caused by sharp-cutting weapons like sword. Accordingly, we find and hold that the deceased died of injuries. 7 P. W.7 has stated that he also received injuries. His evidence is corroborated by P. W.10, the Medical Officer, who had examined him on 22-6-1983 and found 10 injuries on his person and were caused by sharp-cutting weapons like sword. The age of the injuries was 24 hours. The injured was unable to perform the normal duty for more than 24 days. Thus, we find, that there were also injuries on the person of P. W.7. 8. Now, the question arises as to whether this appellant is responsible for those injuries caused on the deceased as well as on P. W.7. 9. Out of 10 witnesses only P. W.1 and 7 are eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Both of them are brothers and are sons of the deceased. P. Ws.2, 3 and 6 have been tendered. P. Ws.4 and 5 are witnesses of seizure. P. W.8 is investigating Officer. As said above P. Ws.9 and 10 are Medical Officers. Thus the case mainly hinges on the evidence of P. W.1 and 7. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently arguad that P. W- 7 being an injured is the most reliable witness and, therefore, the conviction hould be maintained. No doubt P. W.7 received injuries, but we have to see whether he is a truthful witness. Similarly, we have to consider whether the i nformant is a truthful witness. Therefore let us consider their evidence first p. W- 7 has stated in court that on the date of occurrence in the morning he alongwith his father had gone to attend the call of nature. His father sat near his house and he (P. W.7) went to the other side of the canal. While, he was easing, he heard cries of his father, upon which he got up and saw this appellant assaulting his father. Dashrath Gorai also assaulted him with sword 4 to 5 times. After assault, the appellant fled away. Thereafter he went to his house and told about the occurrence to his mother and wife and went inside his house where he fell down unconscious. There are about 50 houses in his village. According to him, in the morning at 5 a. m. it was dark. As soon as he sat to ease, he heard halla. They had not taken water pot. There are about 50 houses in his village. According to him, in the morning at 5 a. m. it was dark. As soon as he sat to ease, he heard halla. They had not taken water pot. He further says that there was no water in the canal at that time. Then he says that they had taken buckets. On hearing halla, he ran towards his father after leaving bucket there. According to him his father was not visible from the place where he had sat to ease. He further says that he saw his father lying. Nobody came when he cried for the first time. He became unconscious and came to his senses after a week in hospital. He further says that at the time of occurrence the appellant was living with his mother in village Dalgaon since two to three years before. Appellant had constructed a house there. The appellant is his cousin brother. The appellant was separate from him. The appellant had sold some of his lands to one Arun saw. Further he says that since a year before the occurrence, the appellant had not come to his village. This P. W.7 does not say that P. W.1 (the informant)had also gone alongwith his father to ease. According to his own evidence he was assaulted 4 to 5 times, but 10 injuries were found on his person by the doctor. It was dark and from the place where he was easing, his father was not visible, even when he was standing. 11. Ext.1 contains the earliest statement of P. W.1 about the occurrence. According to the F. I. R. at the time of occurrence, he alongwith his father and p. W.7 had gone together to attend call of nature. His father sat by the side of the house itself being old in age, but he and P. W.7 went towards the canal to ease but soon thereafter he heard the cries of his father. His brother (P. W.7)ran towards his father hearing his cries. He himself also followed his brother, he saw this appellant assaulting his father with sword. As soon as his brother (P. W.7) reached there, this appellant started assaulting his brother as well. He became fearful because he was empty handed. After assault the appellant fled away. When he went near his father, he found his father and brother lying injured. He himself also followed his brother, he saw this appellant assaulting his father with sword. As soon as his brother (P. W.7) reached there, this appellant started assaulting his brother as well. He became fearful because he was empty handed. After assault the appellant fled away. When he went near his father, he found his father and brother lying injured. Bishambar Sawar, Lal Manjhi, Runek Manjhi, Shuku Manjhi, Belai manjbi, Malindra Manjhi and other came there (none of these persons has been examined ). Soon thereafter, his father died, and thereafter, he took his father and brother to police station with the help of the villagers. In court, p. W.1 says : "hum dono bhai paikhana karne chale gaye, usi samay bhai ka halla sunkar main ghatanasthal ki oar aya to maine dekha ki mere bhai ko dasrath talwar se mar raha tha. " From the place of occurrence he took his brother and father to his house from where they were taken to police station. According to him, Dashrath is his mamera brother. According to him, Dalgaon is four miles from his village intermeddled bya river. At the time of occurrence, it was dark. He saw the occurrence from the place where he was from before. He saw Dashrath going towards police station. Then he says that appellant is his agnate. He (P. W.1) raised alarm from very place and from that very place he saw his brother being assaulted. He saw this appellant going to the police station after seeing his father and brother, he went to the village and called some villagers. He reached the police station at 9 a. m. At that time he found this appellant under lock up in the Thana. He learnt from the Daroga that the appellant had himself surrendered. The land on which he (informant) was residing was joint with the appellant. 12. The F. I. R. was lodged at 10,45 A. M. on the day of occurrence the police station is only at a distance of 5 K, M. from the place of occurrence. 13. The Investigating Officer (P. W 8) has stated that he arrested this appellant (Dashrath Gorai) near Bhalgar Tungari with a sword in his hand. 12. The F. I. R. was lodged at 10,45 A. M. on the day of occurrence the police station is only at a distance of 5 K, M. from the place of occurrence. 13. The Investigating Officer (P. W 8) has stated that he arrested this appellant (Dashrath Gorai) near Bhalgar Tungari with a sword in his hand. This statement of P. W.8 is totally falsified by the admission of P. W.1, the informant who says that he had seen the appellant going to the police station and when he reached at the police station to lodge the case, he found the appellant in the police lock up. Ext.2/1 is the seizure list according to which sword was seized from the possession of the appellant on 22-6-1983 at 6.30 p. m. According to P. W.1 he had found this appellant under police lock up at the police station at 9 a. m. on 22-6-1983, who is to be relied upon. It also looks quite improbable that though the occurrence took place in the morning at 5 a. m. , the appellant kept the sword in his hand with blood stains till 6.30 p. m. till he was arrested. In this connection the evidence of P. W.5 is also relevant. In his presence it is said that the sword was recovered from the possession of the appellant. P. W.5 is a teacher in a school which is at a distance of 1 and 1/2 miles from his village. According to him the Sub-Inspector came to his village at 7 A. M. According to him, after the occurrence the Choukidar had gone to police station to lodge information and then Sub-Inspector of Police had come and recorded the statement of the informant. He did not see the sword in the hand of the appellant rather the Sub-Inspector told him that he had seized the sword from the hand of the appellant. 14. Taking into consideration all these contradictory statements and the circumstances appearing in the case we find that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving its case boyond all reasonable doubts. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentences passed against this appellant is set aside. He is discharged from the liability of bail bond. Appeal allowed.