Judgment Naresh Kumar Sinha, J. 1. The appellant who is in jail ever since his arrest on 15th January, 1987 for committing the murder of Udai Hembrom earlier in the day has filed this jail appeal for setting aBide the judgment and order dated 24th January, 1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the 6aid murder and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case as unfolded in course of the trial and which found acceptance by the Court is that the informant Sekh Tuddu, PW 1, the appellants, Somra Uraon and the deceased Udai Hembrom belonged to Santhal community. The deceased practised occultism and was known as Jan Guru and he belonged to village Pagro. The appellant was the servant of the informant and lived with him in his house in village Bara Tetaria P. S. Borio in the district of Sahebganj. Prior to the occurrence the informant fell ill and the deceased offered to cure him. On 15th January, 1987, at about 6 a.m. the Jan Guru visited the house of the informant as a Puja was being performed in that connection. Two pigeons were sacrified on the occasion and its meat and boiled rice were served in a thali before the Jan Guru by Manjan Hembrom, PW 7 at about 8-9 a.m. after the Puja. At that very time the appellant gave 3 to 4 blows by Kulhari (axe) on the head of the Jan Guru and killed him on the spot. The informant and others chased and apprehended the appellant who confessed his guilt. The appellant named one Pulchu Hembrom to have tempted him with money to kill the deceased. 3. The appellant along with the blood stained Kulhari was produced tjirwabari Police Outpost 2.30 p.m. that very day by PW 1 on whose satement the fardbeyan Ext. 4 was recorded and on the basis of which the formal FIR Ext 3 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Coda against the appellant and Pulchu Hembrom. After investigation in course of which an inquest was held on the deceased, blood stained Kulhari and earth were seized and a doctor performed the Post-mortem examination, the police charge-sheeted both of them. After investigation in course of which an inquest was held on the deceased, blood stained Kulhari and earth were seized and a doctor performed the Post-mortem examination, the police charge-sheeted both of them. Pulchu Hembrom having absconded after grant of bail, the appellant alone was put on trial and convicted and sentenced in the manner already indicated above after rejecting his plea that the informant had himself killed the deceased and falsely implicated him. 4. That the deceased was killed inside the house of the informant PW 1 on the relevant date is not disputed. This is evident from the suggestion given to PW 1 in the cross-examination that he had himself murdered the deceased and falsely implicated the appellant. The alleged murder was reported to police out post within hours of the occurrence and the fardbeyan itself mentioned that the deadbody was lying inside the house of the informant. Though the Investigating Officer was not examined as a prosecution witness, Babloo Maraudi, PW 5 and Somai Hembrom, PW 6 claim that the Daroga came and saw the deadbody and prepared the inquest report. Both the witnesses proved their signatures appearing on the inquest report which are marked Exts 1 and 1/3 respectively. The inquest report was proved by Sureshwar Prasad Singh, PW 9 to be in the hand-writing of ASI Sri Kameshwar Paswan and was marked Ext 5. Both PWs 5 and 6 witnessed the seizure lists one in connection with the seizure of blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and their signature on the seizure list are marked Exts 1/2 and 1/5 respactively. Both the seizure of the blood stained Kulhari and the other in respect of the seizure of blood stained earth, have been proved and marked Ext 6 and 6/1 in the deposition of PW9.All this is sufficient to prove that the deadbody of the deceased was found inside the house of the informant. As a matter of fact, PW 6 claims that he had seen the body of the deceased with injury on his head. That the deceased died of ante mortem injuries is established by the presence of such injuries on the body of the deceased in course of the post-mortem examination. Dr. Lalit Kumar Sinha, PW 8 who was then posted as Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital. That the deceased died of ante mortem injuries is established by the presence of such injuries on the body of the deceased in course of the post-mortem examination. Dr. Lalit Kumar Sinha, PW 8 who was then posted as Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital. Sahebganj, held the post-mortem examination on 16-1-1987 at 12.30 p.m. and prepared the post-mortem report, Ext 2. He found as many as four incised wounds, viz (1) 3"Xl"Xl/2" with fracture of skull bone in the middle frontal region of the head, (ii) 2 l/2"Xl 1/2"X 1 1/2 on the right cheek with fracture of right maxillu bone, (iii) 1/2"X1" XI 1/2" on the right external year and (iv) 4"X2"X2 1/2" with fracture of left mendible and complete chopping off the left ear. He also found one penetrating wound 1/2"X1/3"X1 1/2" on the left cheek. In the opinion of the doctor, while incised injuries had been caused by sharp weapon such as Kulhari, the penetrating injury had been caused by a sharp pointed weapon. The opinion of the doctor that time elapsed since death was about 20 to 24 hours, is more or less consistent with the prosecution case regarding time of the murder. It may be mentioned in this connection that according to PW 7, the murder had taken place at about 11 a.m. There was, therefore, overwhelming evidence that it was a case of homicide and the deceased died of ante mortem injuries sustained by him. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was no satisfactory evidence on the record to prove that the appellant committed the murder a id that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was clearly in error in convicting the appellant. The conviction of the appellant is based on the testimony of the two eye-witnesses namely, PWs 1 and 1, that is, the informant and his mother-in-law as also the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 that the appellant on being apprehended confessed his guilt. It was pointed out on behalf of the appellant that PW 7 has categorically stated in her evidence that she was alone in the house when she served the meal to the deceased. While claiming that she served the meat of the pigeons and boiled rice to the deceased, she nowhere stated that her son-in-law PW 1 also happened to be present inside the house at the time of the occurrence. While claiming that she served the meat of the pigeons and boiled rice to the deceased, she nowhere stated that her son-in-law PW 1 also happened to be present inside the house at the time of the occurrence. This is also evident from her statement that when she was cooking the food, the deceased was sitting alone. It was, therefore, argued that the testimoney of PW 7 completely ruled out the presence of PW 1 at the time of the occurrence and the testimony of the informant, PW 1 deserves to be rejected out right on that score alone. 6. Another infirmity pointed out in the prosecution case is that according to PW 7, the appellant, after assaulting the deceased, kept standing in the Court-yard. The witness stated that the persons who came on hulla, had caught hold of him. It may be mentioned that the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 is that they had chased the appellant and had apprehended him at a distance. Another infirmity pointed out in the evidence of PW 7 is that according to her evidence, the appellant gave only one blow on the forehead of the deceased which killed him. The doctor who held the autopsy, had found as many as five ante-mortem injuries. The Medical evidence is described as inconsistent with the testimony of the two eye witnesses. PWs 1 and 7 who claim that the appellant had assaulted the deceased by means of Kulhari. The doctor had found one penetrating wound, 1/2"X1/3"X1 1/2" on the left cheek of the deceased and in his opinion, the said injury had been caused not by a sharp weapon such as Kulhari but by a sharp pointed weapon. The presence of the aforesaid penetrating woundwas thus not consistent with the description of the assault given by PWs 1 and 7 and thus, creates serious doubts as to the manner of the assault. 7. The appellant is said to havemade a confession after he was chased and apprehened by the witnesses. PWs 1, 2 and 3 have stated that when they caught hold of the appellant, he confessed to the crime. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that their claim was wholly inconsistent with the evidence of PW 7 that after the occurrence, the appellant kept Btanding in the C urt-yaird and was caught hold of by the persons who came on hulla. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that their claim was wholly inconsistent with the evidence of PW 7 that after the occurrence, the appellant kept Btanding in the C urt-yaird and was caught hold of by the persons who came on hulla. it was pointed out that there are inconsistencies in the statements of the PWs 1, 2 and 3 wit, regard to the place where the appellant is said to have been apprehended. According to PW 1, the appellant was caught at a distance of 100 yards in a Bari when he confessed his guilt. PW 2 would like us to believe that the appellant was caught at a distance of 1 km. at Loharki Bari. PW 3 says something wholly different when he claims that the appellant was caught hold of about 150 Hath on the road to the north. It is pointed out that the inconsistencies in the statements of the witness with regard to! the place where the appellant was apprehended, gave a lie to the proseeutipn claim that the appellant, on being apprehended, confessed his guilt. Even if the confession was made as claimed by the prosecution, it does not appear to be voluntary. PW 2 stated that police was present when the confession was made. According to PW 3, the appellant had confessed his guilt at the police out-post. That the appellant was also assaulted, is also admitted by PW 3. All these admissions by the prosecution witnesses besides other inconsistencies, already pointed above, create serious doubts, both regarding making of confession and if a confession was made, that it was not voluntary in nature and may have been mads in the presence of the police which made the confession wholly inadmissible in law. 8. It is true that there is no evidence on the record to suggest that there was enmity in between the informant and the appellant and there appears no good reason why the informant would falsely implicate the appellant on a charge of murder. The appellant happens to be the servant of the informant; and this fact was admitted by the appellant in his examination under Section 313, CrPC. There is also no good reason why PWs 2 and 3 would join with PW 1 in falsely attributing the making of a confession to the appellants. The appellant happens to be the servant of the informant; and this fact was admitted by the appellant in his examination under Section 313, CrPC. There is also no good reason why PWs 2 and 3 would join with PW 1 in falsely attributing the making of a confession to the appellants. Notwithstanding all this, the fact remains that the testimony of PW 7 who was present in the house completely ruled out the presence of PW 1 at the time of the alleged occurrence. The version of the occurrence given by PW 7 was inconsistent with the testimony of PWs 1, 2 and 3 who claim to have chased and apprehended the appellant at a distance. The description of the occurrence given by two eye witnesses, PWs 1 and 7 that the appellant assaulted the deceased by means of Kulhari, was not consistent with the medical evidence as an injury caused by penetrating weapon had also been found. There were a number of injuries on the body of the deceased which were wholly inconsistent with the claim of PW 7 that the appellant had given only one blow to the deceased. To add to all this, is the fact that PWs 1, 2 and 3 who claim to have apprehended the appellant, had described three different places as the place where the appellant was apprehended. The extra-judicial confession, if any, does not appear to be voluntary in nature as a prosecution witnesses admitted to have assaulted the appellant and two of the three prosecution witnesses admitted that the confession was made before the police at the police out-post. Thus, though there is evidence to hold that the deceased was murdered inside the house of the informant on the date in question, there are serious doubts as to the claim of the prosecution that it was the appellant who committed the murder. The prosecution has not only to prove its case, it has to prove the case in the manner alleged beyond all reasonable doubt Considering the inconsistencies and infirmities in the prosecution evidence, it cannot be said that the cage against the appellant had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 9. The appellant is given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted of the charge. The appeal is, accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are set aside. The appellant is in custody. 9. The appellant is given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted of the charge. The appeal is, accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are set aside. The appellant is in custody. He is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained in connection with some other case. P.K.Sarin, J. 10 I agree.