Judgment R.N.LAL and B.PRASAD JJ. 1. The informant (P.W. 3), Md. Isratullah of village Andhana, Police Station-Noorsarai, District Nalanda was offering namaj in his village mosque dt. 8-6-84 at about 10 P.M. when he was informed by Md. Anwar (P.W. 4) tht his mother has been killed by the appellant, Md. Masratullah, his brother by cutting her neck. The informant rushed to his house along with several persons including Moin (P.W. 1), Md. Moinuddin (P.W. 2) and Md. Abu Tahir (P.W. 6) and on reaching his house he found the appellant running away by jumping down from the roof and they tried to catch him but the appellant escaped. 2. The appellant used to live with his mother and always pressed her to transfer her properties to him to which she was not agreeable. This was the cause for killing by him by cutting her neck. The informant saw the dead body of his mother lying in the latrine. Thereafter he kept the dead body therefrom on the cot at varandah where she used to sleep. The night was dark. He gave his beyan to the police in the next morning at 4.30 A.M. (Ext. 2). The Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared the inquest report (Ext. 4) and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. He examined several witnesses and received the post-mortem report. Thereafter he submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant. Later the appellant was tried for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of his mother Bibi Rasool Bano Hajra. Sri Bishwanath Singh, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif found the appellant guilty for the said offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by his judgment dated 10-10-85 in Sessions Trial No. 20/85 and convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that out of eight prosecution witnesses examined in this case in support of the prosecution story, Md. Moin (P.W. 1), Md. Moinuddin (P.W. 2) and Md. Abu Tahir (P.W. 6), the first information witnesses turned hostile in the Court and pleaded ignorance about the manner of occurrence. Mr. Isratullah (P.W. ,3) was only supported by Md. Anwar (P.W. 4). Kishori Prasad (P.W. 5), a formal witness, only proved the fardbeyan and first information report (Exts. Moin (P.W. 1), Md. Moinuddin (P.W. 2) and Md. Abu Tahir (P.W. 6), the first information witnesses turned hostile in the Court and pleaded ignorance about the manner of occurrence. Mr. Isratullah (P.W. ,3) was only supported by Md. Anwar (P.W. 4). Kishori Prasad (P.W. 5), a formal witness, only proved the fardbeyan and first information report (Exts. 2 and 3), Arbind Kumar (P.W. 7) is the Investigating Officer and Dr. C. P. Sinha (P.W. 8) is a doctor who held the postmortem examination on the dead body and proved his report (Ext. 8). The defence examined one witness Md. Kariptulla (D.W. 1) brother of the informant as well as the appellant. 4. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 did not support the prosecution story at all. So they were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 8, the doctor, stated that on 29-6-85 at about 10 A.M. he held the autopsy on the dead body of Bibi Rasool Bano Hajra and found the following ante-mortem injury : "One clean cut wound 6" X 2½" on the front and extending up to left side of neck cutting trachea, left carotid blood vessels, left sterno mastoid muscle and the nerve underneath." The injury was ante-mortem and caused by a sharp cutting weapon leading to severe haemorrhage. May be a dagger. He had found the hair of the deceased intact and he did not find any dragging mark on the body of the deceased. 5. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the most important witnesses in this case. P.W. 3 stated that while he was offering namaj, he was informed by the P.W. 4, Md. Anwar Mian that the appellant had cut the neck of his mother. He rushed to his house along with P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 and found the door of the house closed from within. At that very time, he saw the appellant jumping down from the Chhapar and escaping away, though he later said that he did not see him running away. The villagers tried to catch him but night was dark and the appellant escaped. He found the dead body lying in the latrine. Her neck was cut. There was dispute between the appellant and his mother regarding the property and that was the cause of her murder. He gave his Jardbeyan at darbaza in his village. The villagers tried to catch him but night was dark and the appellant escaped. He found the dead body lying in the latrine. Her neck was cut. There was dispute between the appellant and his mother regarding the property and that was the cause of her murder. He gave his Jardbeyan at darbaza in his village. This witness stated that a partition had taken place regarding their property during the time of his father only but some property had remained joint. The appellant was living with his mother since childhood and at times he quarreled with her also for property. P.W. 6 and some more persons of the village had chased the appellant but to no effect. He had been to his another brother (D.W. 1) at Biharsharif but he did not lodge any information in Noorsarai police station. He had submitted a written report to the police in the night which he had got written by the village Karmchari. The Investigating Officer had reached his darwaja at about 8 A.M. next day to whom he gave his statement. 6. P.W. 4, Md. Anwar, who was a tenant in the part house of; the informant stated that while he was sleeping in the night he heard crying sound of Bibi Rasool Bano Hajra and got on the roof through staircase and saw the appellant dragging his mother towards latrine. The appellant had dagger in his hand which was blood stained. Bibi Rasool Bano Hajra was in pool of blood. After having seen this he rushed to the masjid to inform the informant and thereafter the informant along with P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 and some other persons came to the place of occurrence (house) and they saw the appellant running away eastwards after jumping down from the roof with a dagger in his hand. They tried to catch the appellant but he escaped. The door of the house was locked from inside. They found the dead body in the latrine which was taken out and kept on the cot. According to this witness also, the appellant was pressing his mother to get entire property transferred in his name to which she was not agreeable and that resulted into her murder. The place of occurrence (house) was partitioned in two parts and P.W. 4 was living in the other part of that house along with his wife and children. According to this witness also, the appellant was pressing his mother to get entire property transferred in his name to which she was not agreeable and that resulted into her murder. The place of occurrence (house) was partitioned in two parts and P.W. 4 was living in the other part of that house along with his wife and children. Some other tenants were also there in that part. No rent receipt was granted to him. It was the month of Ramjan and the night was dark. There were a number of houses in the vicinity. There was a staircase to go over the roof which he used to look at the appellants Angan and saw her being dragged by the appellant. The members of his family had not got up on the roof to see the occurrence. The Angan was Pucca and so was the latrine but verandahs were kacha. The appellant was dragging the dead body by hairlock towards latrine. The blood was oozing out from her body at that time. The blood had fallen in the latrine also. The said mosque is situated at a distance of 5-6 Bans from his house. The appellant and three more brothers of whom P.W. 3 informant, and D.W. 1 have been examined in this case and one brother was not examined. No other son of Bibi Rasool Bano Hajra (deceased) except the appellant ever quarreled for the property. The appellant was unmarried. The other brothers were looking after the property of the appellant. He did not find any injury on the body of the appellant. He denied that there was a hullah of "thief" "thief". 7. P.W. 7, the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 29-8-84 while he was at Noorsarai police station he had got some information about the death in village Andhan and on that basis he proceeded and came to the informants house and recorded his fardbeyan of which the witness signed (Ext. 2). He went inside the house and found one plank of the door broken and other plank was locked. He found the dead body lying on the cot at the verandah and he prepared the inquest report in presence of witnesses (Ext. 4) and thereafter he sent the dead body for autopsy to Biharsharif hospital. He inspected the place of occurrence. The house of P.W. 4 was situated in the southern side of the latrine. He found the dead body lying on the cot at the verandah and he prepared the inquest report in presence of witnesses (Ext. 4) and thereafter he sent the dead body for autopsy to Biharsharif hospital. He inspected the place of occurrence. The house of P.W. 4 was situated in the southern side of the latrine. He found the blood fallen in the latrine which he seized under the seizure list (Ext. 5) in presence of witnesses who signed the same (Exts. 7-7/1). There were two cots kept in that verandah and the dead body was lying on one cot which was blood stained. He seized the blood stained cot under the seizure list (Ext. 6). He found the tiles of the chhapar of the house broken. There was a staircase also from the house of the tenant on the other side of the house from where the Angan of the appellant was visible. After getting the post-mortem report he completed the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. The Investigating Officer stated that P.Ws. 1. 2 and 6 were declared hostile had told him that they had gone to the place of occurrence (house) along with informant and seen the appellant running away via Chhapar and he escaped without being caught. They had seen the dead body kept in the latrine which was kept on the act P.W. 2 had told him that the appellant had been running away with dagger in his hand. The door of that house was locked from inside and so was told by P.W. 6 also. He did not find any trail of blood between the verandah and the latrine. He did not get the blood seized examined by any serologist. He did not find any hair lying at the place of occurrence. Hair locks were dressed and tied. He did not seize the blood stained cloth on the body of the deceased and at several places he found the tites broken on the Chhapar. P.W. 4 did not place any paper to show that he was tenant in that house. 7A. Learned counsel for the appellant attached the impugned judgment on several grounds namely there was nothing on the record to show that there were any source of light as it admittedly was a dark night of Ramjan. No witness has said that he carried any light or torch at that hour (10 P.M.). 7A. Learned counsel for the appellant attached the impugned judgment on several grounds namely there was nothing on the record to show that there were any source of light as it admittedly was a dark night of Ramjan. No witness has said that he carried any light or torch at that hour (10 P.M.). As such, the identification in the absence of means of identification cannot be taken to be reliable. No dragging mark was found in the Angan by the Investigating Officer, though all the P.Ws. 3 and 4 said that the body had been dragged. P.W. 8, the doctor, also did not find any dragging mark on the body of the deceased. P.W. 3 clearly stated that he had given written report to the police in the night written by the village karamchari but the said written report was not produced by the prosecution in the Court which was a real first information report and not produced by the informant. This has also prejudiced the case of the prosecution, though there were several houses in the vicinity but no neighbour was examined. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 who are the first information report witnesses and were said to have seen the escaping of the appellant therefrom with his blood stained dagger did not support the prosecution story. So, they were declared hostile by the prosecution. The blood was not sept to serologist for examination. No broken plank was found at the place of occurrence rather D.W. 1, the other brother of the appellant, has said that batwara had already taken place regarding family property for which Yaddashta was prepared (Ext. A) which contains the signature of Panches (Ext. B series). Admittedly the appellant was living with his mother. Since the property had already been divided among the four brothers and nothing was therefor the mother, there was no question of appellant demanding the transfer of property in his name by his mother. Thus the very motive of the occurrence gets belied. There was hallah during the night of the occurrence of thief thief and that thief had murdered the mother. He denied that the appellant had killed his mother rather the appellant had good relationship with his mother and the informant had filed a false case against him. P.W. 4 Md. Anwar, is a friend of the informant and does not live in| the village. He denied that the appellant had killed his mother rather the appellant had good relationship with his mother and the informant had filed a false case against him. P.W. 4 Md. Anwar, is a friend of the informant and does not live in| the village. The informant wanted to grab his land as he was under the cultivating possession of the appellants lands. All the brothers used to give their share of grains for the maintenance of mother. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in absence of identification, absence of motive, not sending the seized blood or blood stained cloth to the serologist for chemical examination, non-finding of dragging mark at the place of occurrence, batwara of the joint family property taking place earlier, and the informant being in cultivating possession of the appellants lands hit hard the circumstances of murder of the deceased by the appellant and break the links of chains of the prosecution story which the prosecution has failed to establish. 9. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the Investigating Officer had found the blood in the Angan, in the latrine and on the cot. P.Ws. 3 and 4 had seen the appellant escaping away by jumping down from the Chhapar with dagger in his hand. The room was locked from inside. The appellant insisted for the transfer of mothers property in his name and so it was only appellant who killed Bibi Rasool Bano Hajra (deceased) and none else. Accordingly, the impugned judgment warrants no interference. 10. It has already been stated above that the night was dark and it was a month of Ramjan. It was 10 P.M. and P.Ws. 3 and 4 claimed to have seen the appellant jumping down from the Chhapar and running away but they did not say what was the means of identification and none of them had any light in their hands. The murder of Bibi Rasool Bano Hajra as given out by P.W. 8, the doctor, has not been challenged. Admittedly, the property was partitioned among the brothers except only some property remaining joint and the informant was in cultivating possession of the appellants lands. In the absence of identification it is difficult to say that the appellant had blood stained dagger in his hand while escaping away by jumping from the Chhapar. The blood stained clothes were not sent to the chemical analyst. In the absence of identification it is difficult to say that the appellant had blood stained dagger in his hand while escaping away by jumping from the Chhapar. The blood stained clothes were not sent to the chemical analyst. The written report submitted by P.W. 3 to the police in the night itself was held back by the prosecution rather P.W. 7, the Investigating Officer, stated that he recorded the fardbeyan at 4.45 A.M. in the village itself. Now it was incumbent on the prosecution to produce that written report. But the holding back of the valuable document speaks lot against the prosecution case, rather the fardbeyan (Ext. 2) cannot be taken to be the basis of the first information report. The batwara having taken place earlier with some property left joint also hits the prosecution story hard. These various gaps in the prosecution story do not point at the killing of the deceased by the appellant and the appellant alone, rather the defence has succeeded in raising reasonable doubts against the prosecution story. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, we find that the prosecution story is not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against the appellant. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if in jail.