S. K. MOHANTY, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals, one through the Superintendent, Jail and the other directly in court by the same appellants arise out of a judgment of conviction for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 and section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. For the former offence sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded. No separate sentence has been awarded for the latter offence. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION story as disclosed from the F. I. R. lodged by the injured P. W. 1 is that on 25. 3. 1990 he along with Ranjit Sahoo (deceased) and others had been to Biramitrapur to witness Me/a. At the evening hour he and Ranjit got down from bus at Vedabyas and went to the house or Munia Tirkey at village Lungei. Ranjit had secret relationship with Munia. Reaching her house, they engaged in conversation with Munia when at about 11 p. m. her brother Rengta (appellant No. 1), sisterts husband Bijia (appellant No. 2) and neighbour Rama (appellant No. 3) approached them with thensgas and sticks and asking them why they had come, assaulted not P. W. 1 and Ranjit. Thereafter they made them naked, brought them out of the house and commanded them to run. When P. W. 1 and Ranjit started running, they were chased. P. W. 1 concealed near a bush till the morning when he picked up a torn cloth from roadside and returned home. The dead body of Ranjit was spotted in the morning of 27. 3. 1990 inside a Eucalyptas grove near village Lungei wit multiple injuries on his person. It is alleged that the three appellants assaulted Ranjit to death for his illicit relationship with Munia. The appellants took the plea of denial. ( 3 ) RELYING on the direct evidence of P. W. 1, medical evidence of the doctors P. Ws. 5 and 11 and the fact of seizure of some blood-stained apparels from the possession of the appellants, the impugned judgment of conviction has been passed. The appellants took the plea of denial. ( 3 ) RELYING on the direct evidence of P. W. 1, medical evidence of the doctors P. Ws. 5 and 11 and the fact of seizure of some blood-stained apparels from the possession of the appellants, the impugned judgment of conviction has been passed. ( 4 ) AT the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants urged that the evidence on record did not establish commission of any offence of culpable homicide, there was no reliable evidence of any common intention amongst the appellants and the evidence of P. W. 1 besides being unsatisfactory, is also not corroborated by any other witness and consequently the judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) POSTMORTEM examination over the dead body of Ranjit Sahoo was conducted by the doctor P. W. 5 on 27. 3. 1990. He found two head injuries which were lacerated wound over left parietal region and a bruise over right fronto-temporal region. Besides the above, he found another lacerated wound, two abrasions and as many as 24 more bruises over other parts of his body. On opening the skull, he found the scalp contused, linear fracture of left parietal bone, congestion of maninges and other injuries to brain. According to him, the injuries were antemortem in nature, might have been caused by hard and blunt object like stick and cause of death was due to the head injuries and others injuries. In view of above injuries, it cannot be denied that the death of Ranjit was homicidal in nature. The doctor P. W. 11 examined P. W. 1 on 27. 3. 1990 and found swelling of his left parotid region, 2 to 3 abrasions on the right arm, multiple contusion on left leg and swelling on right gluteal region. According to him, the injuries were simple in nature and possible by stick. Now the first question arises whether the materials on record establish beyond doubt that the appellant caused the injuries and particularly the head injuries. ( 6 ) IN Court, P. W. 1 has stated that after watching Mela at Biramitrapur, they came to Vedabyas, where one girl and her brother slept in one room and P. W. 1 and Ranjit slept m another. ( 6 ) IN Court, P. W. 1 has stated that after watching Mela at Biramitrapur, they came to Vedabyas, where one girl and her brother slept in one room and P. W. 1 and Ranjit slept m another. According to him, in that night the three appellants suddenly started beating them mercilessly with sticks, took them to the threshing floor where all of them took liquor. Thereafter, the appellants stripped P. W. 1 and Ranjit naked and again started beating. Then the appellants asked P. W. 1 and Ranjit to run for their lives whereupon both of them ran, but were chased and further assaulted by lath is. P. W. 1 has further stated that he could manage to escape and concealed himself inside a bush till the early morning when he went to Rourkela covering his private parts by means of a cloth which he found nearby. In the morning when P. W. 1, the brother of Ranjit, came and enquired about Ranjit, P. W. 1 narrated incident to him. ( 7 ) BEFORE making a close examination of the evidence of P. W. I, the evidence on record regarding Munia may be stated. P. W. 7 is the father of Munia and appellant Rengta, and father-in-law of appellant Bijla. His evidence reveals that Munia is married and has two children. According to him, during Biramitrapur Mehi he and his wife had gone to another village and Munia was alone in their house. They returned after 3 days on a Monday on which day his daughter died by taking poison. In other words, the case incident having taken place by Sunday, Munia committed suicide on the following day. Absence of any explanation as to the reason for committing suicide, in the facts of the case, clearly suggests intimacy of Munia with Ranjit and that she could not tolerate the assault on him and chose to commit suicide. ( 8 ) IN cross-examination P. W. 1 denied his knowledge about the names of the girl and the culprits although in the F. I. R. he had not only named them but also disclosed the relationship of appellant Rengta and Bijla with the girl and further that appellant Rama was their neighbour. Further, P. W. 1 avoided to say as to why the appellants assaulted them. Further, P. W. 1 avoided to say as to why the appellants assaulted them. He has not explained in court as to why they went to the house of Munia and preferred to stay in her house in that night. His evidence in court creates the impression that he is not prepared to speak the whole truth. According to him, both he and Ranjit raised hulla that they were assaulted. He admits that there are several houses around the place where they were assaulted. But no independent witness has been examined to speak to the assaults by the appellants. ( 9 ) P. W3 has stated that on 25. 3. 1990 his brother Ranjit did not return after witnessing Biramitrapur Mela and on 26. 3. 1990 at about 8 a. m. P. W. 1 informed him that he and Ranjit both were assaulted in village Lungei where they slept, in the night, that they were made naked and chased, that thereupon they ran away and he could not say where Ranjit was. On being so informed, P. W. 3 united till evening and thereafter when he was searching for Ranjit, the driver of the truck in which P. W. 1 worked as a helper, informed him that the dead body of Ranjit was lying near Vedavyas crossing. He then found the dead body of Ranjit on 27. 3. 1990 at 9 a. m near the hill near the said crossing. It may be noted here that according to P. W. 1 he told about the incident to P. W. l when the latter come and enquired about Ranjit, whereas according to P. W. 3 it is P. W. 1 who went to P. W. 3 and told about the incident. ( 10 ) THE 1. 0. seized some blood-stained earth and a blood stained brick piece from the front of the house of P. W. 7 Dhadia. He also seized some blood stained earth from the spot where had body of Ranjit was found. On chemical examination, the above three items were found stained with human blood suggesting assault on Ranjit in front of the house of Dhadia The 1. 0. further seized some wearing apparels from the land of one Etwa Oram of village Lungei, a number of such, apparels from the house of appellant Bijla and some apparels irom the persons of the three appellants. 0. further seized some wearing apparels from the land of one Etwa Oram of village Lungei, a number of such, apparels from the house of appellant Bijla and some apparels irom the persons of the three appellants. Thus a good number of wearing apparels were seized in the case. Out of them a chadi, a pair of nylon socks, one white terrycotton full pant, one white banian and one yellow/chocolate colour banian were found stained with human blood of A group, on chemical examination. Curiously enough these apparels have not been exhibited in court and consequently there is no evidence as to from which place or from which appellant or appellants the above wearing apparels on whom blood-stains were detected were seized and to whom they belonged. In other words, the apparels found stained with human blood are not connected by any evidence with any of the appellants or the deceased and P. W. 1. The 1. 0. further seized the Dhaura stick M. O. land Begunia stick M. O. 11 on production by appellant Rengta under the seizure list Ext. 15. On chemical examination, no blood stain was detected thereon. So seizure of these sticks does not improve matters for prosecution. ( 11 ) P. W. 1 has not stated as to who inflicted the head injuries on Ranjit and at which place. The dead body was located inside a grove about 10 hours after the assault. That being so, the possibility that Ranjit might have sustained the head injuries in some other mode or by some other person cannot be completely ruled out. On analysis of the evidence, we have no hesitation in accepting the fact that P. W. 1 an Ranjit were inflicted good number of stick blows in Munias village on the night of occurrence, but there is no dependable evidence to connect the appellants with such assault. Appellant Rama is in no way related to Munia. Prosecution has not explained as to why he joined the other appellants. The evidence of P. W. 1 suffers from infirmities and is not corroborated by any other evidence as regards assault on him and Ranjit by all the three appellants. In this background, we do not consider it safe to accept the prosecution story of assault by the three appellants, since we entertain considerable doubt in the matter. The evidence of P. W. 1 suffers from infirmities and is not corroborated by any other evidence as regards assault on him and Ranjit by all the three appellants. In this background, we do not consider it safe to accept the prosecution story of assault by the three appellants, since we entertain considerable doubt in the matter. The benefit of such doubt must go in favour of the appellants. In the result the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellants be set at liberty forthwith. Appeal allowed