Judgment S.K.HOMCHAUDHURI, J. 1. The learned IVtb Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, by the judgment and order dated the 24th of June, 1995, passed in Sessional Trial No. 560 of 1992, convicted accused Soma Oraon, son of late Bandhan Oraon, under Sections 302 and 392, IPC and sentenced him to be hanged by the neck till deatb subject to confirmation by this court. The reference has been made for confirmation of the sentence. 2. The appellant, Soma Oraon, has also preferred Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1995(R) impugning the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence. The death reference and the criminal appeal having arisen out of the same judgment and order of conviction and sentence, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the Fardbeyan of Md. Siddique, son of late Mohammad Quasim, resident of village Khatanga, P. S. Kanke, district Ranchi, examined as PW 1, is that his father, Md. Quasim (the deceased) used to sell clothes by moving in the villages and that on 9-4-1992, the date of the occurrence, his father, as usual, went out from his house with the bale of cloths for Ratu around 6 a.m. for selling. Cloths with him were (i) one pair of striped green lungies, (ii) one piece of striped Katha mapkin, (iii) four pieces of red striped napkins, (iv) four pieces of green striped napkins, (v) two pieces of napkins of light red colour, (vi) four pieces of Katha white bed-sheets, (vii) two pieces of red-yellow striped bed-sheets and (viii) one pair of red-yellow striped bed-sheets. On that day Jainul Ansari of his village returned bed from his Sasural situated at Hurhuri at around 8 a.m. and told him that while returning from his Sasural, he found that informants father was murdered by some one near Dumar Tola Karanj Thora hill, who fled away after looting the cloths. Being so informed, he, along with his cousin Md. Being so informed, he, along with his cousin Md. Raffique and other people of his village, proceeded towards Dumar Tola Karanj Thora and on the way he met a woman, named Bachan Devi wife of Jaitu Gope of Dumar Tola Karanj Thora, who was collecting leaves and on being asked, she told him that Soma Oraon of Khatange had injured an old person carrying a bale of cloths, by bitting the back side of his head with stone and fled away with the cloths. Thereafter, the informant, along with his cousin and other people, reached Dumar Tola Koranj Thora and found his father dead and also found serious injury on the back side of his head and profuse bleeding from the injury. While he was going to send Jhari Lohar, Choukidar of Khatanga to inform the Police, the Police Officer came and he made his statement in presence of the cousin Md. Raffique. 4. On the basis of the Fardbeyan, formal FIR was drawn up and Kanke P. C. Case No. 44 of 1992 under Sections 302/392, IPC was registered against the accused Soma Oraon. The Police, after investigation, submitted charge- sheet under Sections 302/392, IPC against the accused. The case was committed to the court of learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, and the learned Judicial Commissioner, on perusal of the records, framed charges under Sections 302 and 392, IPC against the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant not having pleaded guilty, the case was tried. 5. To bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. PW 1 Md. Siddique is the informant. According to the prosecution, PW 2 Bachan Devi and PW 4 Lagan Davi are eye-witnesses to the occurrence, PW 3 Abbas Ali and PW 5 Md. Reyaz Ansari ate the witnesses to the seizure list of the cloths alleged to have been robbed from the deceased. PW 6 Md. Kalam is the Investigating Officer PW 7 Sabai Singh Champion is the formal witness and PW 8, Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary, is the Medical Officer, who held autopsy on the body of the deceased. No evidence was adduced by the accused in his defence. In course of examination under Section 313, CrPC by the learned Judicial Commissioner, the accused denied his involvement irs the alleged crime. 6. Ajit Kumar Choudhary, is the Medical Officer, who held autopsy on the body of the deceased. No evidence was adduced by the accused in his defence. In course of examination under Section 313, CrPC by the learned Judicial Commissioner, the accused denied his involvement irs the alleged crime. 6. The learned IVth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, after conclusion of the hearing and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, by the impugned judgment and order, dated the 24th of June, 1995, held that the prosecution established the charges against the accused under Section 302, IPC as well as under Section 392, IPC beyond reasonable doubt. On the basis of the finding, the IVth Additional Judicial Commissioner, convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 392, IPC and sentenced him to be hanged by neck till death. 7. We heard Mr. S. N. Rajgarhia, A.P.P., for the reference and Mr. M. B. Lal, learned counsel appearing against the reference and for the appellant in the appeal and perused the materials on record. 8. PW 1, the informant, deposed that his father Md. Quasim (the deceased) used to sell cloths by moving from one villege to another. On 9-4-1992, the date of the occurrence, his father proceeded to Ratu Market with a bale of cloths. He used to go with napkin, Lungi, Chadar, bed-sheets etc. On that day, Jainul of his village returned from his Sasural at about 8 Oclock and told him that some one had murdered his father at a place near Dumar Tola Karaj Thora hill and fled away by looting his cloths. Thereafter, he along with his cousin Md. Raffique and other people of his village, proceeded towards that place and on his way met a woman, named Bachan Devi (PW 2), who was collecting leaves. On being asked, she told him that some-one was hit by Soma Oraon of Khatanga village with a stone from behind and that Soma Oraon fled away with the bale of cloths. Thereafter, he went to the place of occurrence and found his father dead and saw injury on the back side of the head of his father and profuse bleeding from the injury. He called the Choukidar of the village to inform the police, but in the meantime, the police arrived. Thereafter, he went to the place of occurrence and found his father dead and saw injury on the back side of the head of his father and profuse bleeding from the injury. He called the Choukidar of the village to inform the police, but in the meantime, the police arrived. The police recorded his statement and the statement was read over to him and finding that the statement was recorded correctly, he put his signature. He identified his signature on the Fardbeyan, which is marked as Ext. 1. He also identified the signature of his cousin, namely, Md. Raffique, which is marked as Ext. 1/1. In cross-examination, he deposed that the place of occurrence was two miles away from his house. He could not remember as to how many napkins and Lungies his father had taken to sell outside. He met Bachan Devi (PW 2) at a distance of half a mile from the place of occurrence. He specifically stated that Kalam Daroga (PW 6) had recorded his Fardbeyan. 9. PW 2, Bachan Devi, who according to the prosecution is the eyewitness to the occurrence, deposed that about one year back, on Thursday the occurrence took place. On that day, at 6 Oclok in the morning, she went out to collect dry leaves. PW 4, Lagan Devi, had accompanied her. She saw the old man, and accused Soma were going towards Rata. Ihe old man had a bale of cloths with him. Accused Soma hit the old man on the back side of his head with a stone. The old man fell down and Soma fled away with the bale of cloths. The old man died at the spot. She identified accused Soma in the dock. She told the son of the old man about the occurredce. She identified the son of the old man who was present in the court. She further deposed that the accused had fled away to his house after looting the cloths. She did not go to protect. The old men cried out after the assault. 10. PW 4, Lagan Devi, who according to the prosecution, is another eye-witness, deposed that the alleged occurrence took place in the month of Chait. She was collecting leaves in Garhikaran in the morning, PW 2 Bachan Devi was also with her. She saw accused Soma hitting an old man with stone on the back side of his head. 10. PW 4, Lagan Devi, who according to the prosecution, is another eye-witness, deposed that the alleged occurrence took place in the month of Chait. She was collecting leaves in Garhikaran in the morning, PW 2 Bachan Devi was also with her. She saw accused Soma hitting an old man with stone on the back side of his head. The old man was carrying a bale of cloths and was going to Ratu, The old man fell down and Soma, thereafter, hit the old man with stone twice and, thereafter, fled away with the bale of cloths. But when confronted, PW 4 could not identify the accused Soma in the dock. In cross-examination, she stated that she was collecting leaves of mango and she collected one basket of leaves. PW 2 also collected one basket of leaves. She deposed that when the old man was murdered, she and PW 2 fled away and informed the people of Khatanga and she also informed the son of the old man. But she did not inform the Mukhiya, Sarpanch or Chaukidar. He denied that she made false statement. 11. PW 3, Abbas Ali and PW 5 Md. Reyaz Ansari are the witnesses to the seizure of cloths of the deceased allegedly robbed by appellant Soma Oraon. PW 3, a resident of village Khatanga, deposed that the occurrence took place on 9-4-1992. On that day, he went to the school in the morning and while he was returning back at 6 p m PW 5 Reyaz was with him. Having come to learn that the police took accused Soma towards Perwalata hill, he and Reyaz (PW 5) proceeded towards Perwalata hill and on reaching there, they saw that accused Soma took out clothes from the hill and he handed over the same to the police. Amongst cloths, there were bed-sheets, Lungies, napkins etc. and ail the cloths were new, Darogajee prepared the list of the cloths in his presence and obtained his signature thereon. He identified the seizure list and bis signature put thereon. His signature has marked as Ext. 1/2. He deposed that Reyaz (PW 5) had also put his signature as a witness in his presence, which has been marked as Ext. 1/3. A copy of the seizure list was given to the accused. He identified the accused in the dock. He said that he was a teacher in Moradabadi Middle School. His signature has marked as Ext. 1/2. He deposed that Reyaz (PW 5) had also put his signature as a witness in his presence, which has been marked as Ext. 1/3. A copy of the seizure list was given to the accused. He identified the accused in the dock. He said that he was a teacher in Moradabadi Middle School. He learnt about the murder, which was committed in the morning. Although he had been in his house, he did not go to see the deadbody at the place of occurrence, but went to School. In the evening, he went to the hill out of his sweet-will. No body had called him or took him there. Only Reyaz (PW 5) had accompanied him. Both of them had gone there on a scooter. The police had taken Soma. There were about 15-20 pieces of cloths, which were not in the court. Labels of some shops were attached on some cloths, but he could not say as to what type of labels were attached. He deposed that he could not say as to who had written the seizure list, but Kalam Babu (PW 6) had not written the same. Ia the cross-examination, he further deposed that Perwalata hill was at a distance of one Km. from Karanlata hill and on reaching hill, he found there the Barababu of the Police Station and two other Policemen. 12. PW 5, who identified his signature on the seizure list, which is marked as Ext. 1/3, however, deposed that the goods, written in the list, were not seized in his presence. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. In the cross-examination, he stated that while he was returning home from Ranchi, some persons stopped him and obtained his signature. At that very time, signature of PW 3 was also taken. 13. PW 6, Md. Kalam, is the Investigating Officer. He has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, getting secret information, he and Shri Braj Mohan Paswan, the DSP of the police station on probation, reached Dumartola Karanj Thora and found Md. Siddique (PW 1), son af Md. Quasim (the deceased) there near the deadbody of his father. 13. PW 6, Md. Kalam, is the Investigating Officer. He has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, getting secret information, he and Shri Braj Mohan Paswan, the DSP of the police station on probation, reached Dumartola Karanj Thora and found Md. Siddique (PW 1), son af Md. Quasim (the deceased) there near the deadbody of his father. DSP Braj Mohan Paswan recorded the Fardbeyan of Siddique (PW 1) and he read over and explained the same to the informant who being satisfied that his statements were correctly recorded, put his signature in the Fardbeyan in his presence. Md. Raffique also put his signature as a witness. PW 6 identified the signature of Shri Braj Mohan Paswan in the Fardbeyan, which has been marked as Ext. 2. He was entrusted with investigation in the case. He made the inquest report and sent the deadbody for post-mortem examination to Ranchi Medical College Hospital. He found a blood-stained stone at the place of occurrence and seized it. Ext. 3 was the seizure list. He went to Khatanga and arrested accused Soma, who kept himself hidden in his house and on being interrogated Soma told him that he murdered Quasim (the deceased) with stone and concealed his cloths in Perwalata hill. According to his statement, he went near the Perwalata hill with accused Soma, Abbas Ali (PW 3) and Md. Reyaz (PW 5) were also with. Accused Soma took out a bale of coths from a cave of Perwalata hill. PW 1, who had reached there at that time, identified the said bale of cloths to be that of his father. He seized the bale of cloths and prepared seizure list marked as Ext. 3/1 and obtained the signatures of the witnesses thereon. In cross-examination, he deposed that the stone, by which the deceased was hit by the accused, weighed about 2 Kgs. but he did not note the weight of the stone in the case-diary and he said so from memory. The stone was stained with blood, but the same was not sent to the Chemical Analyst for the test of the blood. He further deposed that he along with D.S.P. Saheb, A.S.I. Shatruhna Singh, accused Soma Oraon and two witnesses namely, Abbas and Reyaz, went to the place of occurrence and Soma went in the cave and himself brought the bale of cloths. He further deposed that he along with D.S.P. Saheb, A.S.I. Shatruhna Singh, accused Soma Oraon and two witnesses namely, Abbas and Reyaz, went to the place of occurrence and Soma went in the cave and himself brought the bale of cloths. Seized cloths were taken away by the son of the deceased as per the order of the court. 14. PW 7, Sabai Singh Champion, is a formal witness, who proved the formal FIR, which was written by Rameshwar Upadhyay, Officer-in-charge of Kanke Police Station. 15. PW 8, Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary is the Medial Officer, who held autopsy on the deadbody of the deceased. He found the following injuries on the deadbody of the dec eased : (1) Abrasions(i) 2x1 cm. lateral side of right forearm, (ii) 4X1 cm left scapular region. (2) Lacerated wounds (i) 1X1/2 cm. X soft tissue over medial side of right palm. (ii) 6X1 1/2 cm x bone deep over left parietal eminance. (iii) 4X2 cms.x bone deep on right frontal parietal region of head. (3) InternalThere is defuse contusion of right-frontal-parietal and left parietal region of scalp. The right frontal temporal bones and left parietal bone are broken into pieces, lacerating the brain matter underneath and there is subdural blood and blood clots in the clavicle cavity. There is fracture of right 2nd to 8th ribs. He deposed that injury No. 2 was caused by stone. Injury No. 3 was also caused by stone. In cross-examination, he deposed that these injuries might be caused by fall from a high tree. On being asked by the court, he explained that the fracture 7 ribs was caused due to riding over the chest of the deceased by some person. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds : (i) The Fardbeyan, on which the case against the appellant is based, apparently a manufactured one ; inasmuch as PW1, the informant, staled in clear term that the Kalam Daroga had recorded his Fardbeyan but the Kalam Daroga, examined as PW 6, deposed That the Fardbeyan was recorded by Shri Braj Mohan Paswan D.S.P. of the Police Station on probation As such, the original Fardbeyan, if any, has been withheld and the Fardboyan which is produced in the court, has been manufactured subsequently. (ii) PW 4 is not named in the Fardboyan nor has the informant (PW 1) deposed that while he proceeded towards the place of occurrence, he met PW 4 too when he met PW 2. Moreover, PW 4, though named the accused as the person, who killed the deceased by hitting him with stone on the head, but could not recognise the accused in the dock. As such, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW 4. (iii) The story of recovery of bale of clothes from the cave of Perwalata hill as oer disclosure of the accused in presence of PWs 3 and 5 cannot be believed ; inasmuch as PW 5 had had deposed that he did not see the listed goods in the seizure list, where he put his signature. His signature was taken on the seizure list by stopping him while he was on the way to his home from Ranchi. Moreover, deposition of PW 3 is also contradictory. (iv) The account of the incident given by the eye-witness, namely, PW 2 materially differ with injuries found on the deadbody ; inasmuch as according to PW 2, the accused hit the deceased only once on the back side of his head with stone, whereas, the postmortem report reveals that there are injuries not only on the back side of the head of the deceased but also on the front side of his head and ribs No. 2nd to 8th of the right side of the chest were fractured. Such material discrepancy has cast doubt on the prosecution case. (v) The investigation has been conducted in a perfunctory manner ; inasmuch as the blood-stained stone allegedly found at the place of occurrence and seized and with which the accused allegedly hit the deceased, has not been produced before the court. The blood found on the stone has also not been sent for chemical test No sketch-map of the place of occurrence has been prepared by the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that because of the aforesaid infirmities and inconsistencies in the prosecution case it is not safe to convict the accused. The blood found on the stone has also not been sent for chemical test No sketch-map of the place of occurrence has been prepared by the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that because of the aforesaid infirmities and inconsistencies in the prosecution case it is not safe to convict the accused. 17 The learned Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that on the materials on record the conviction of accused under Sections 302 and 392, IPC does not at all warran awarding of extreme penalty on the accused to be hanged by the neck till death. Learned Public Prosecutor, however submitted that the defects in the investigation are insignificant and for that the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out of the court. The prosecution examined two eye-witnesses (PWs 2 and 4). Even if it is not safe to place reliance on the deposition of PW 4, the evidence of another eye-witness (PW2), is consistent and is not shaken by the cross-examination. The evidence of PW 2 clearly established that while the deceased was proceeding with a bale of clothes to sell, aceused-appellant bit him on the back side of his head with a stone and injured him ; as a result thereof the deceased fell down and the accused, thereafter fled away with the bale of clothes carried by the deceased. According to the medical report, the injury on the head caused by stone was sufficient to case death, 18. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 19. According to PW 1, the informant, his Fardbeyan was recorded by Kalam Daroga (PW 6), but PW 6 deposed that the Fardbeyan was recorded by Brij Mohan Paswan, D.P.S. on probation and on perusal of the Fardbeyan, it appears that Baij Mohan Paswan recorded the Fardbeyan. As narrated above, PW 1, the informant, in his Fardbeyan mentioned the clothes in seriatim, which were carried by the deceased on the date of the occurrence, as follows ; (i) one pair of striped green lungies, (ii) one piece of striped Katha napkin, (iii) four pieces of red striped napkins, (iv) four pieces of green striped napkins, (v) two pieces of napkins of light red colour, (vi) four pieces of Katha white bed-sheets, (vii) two pieces of red-yellow striped bed-sheets, (viii) one pair of red-yellow striped bed-sheets. It is surprising as to how the informant could mention the clothes carried by the deceased early in the morning for sale with meticulous particulars, namely, variety, number of each variety, colour etc. But the reason is not far to seek after. In the seizure list, the clothes alleged to have been robbed and ultimately recovered are recorded in seriatim as follows : (i) one pair of striped green lungies, (ii) one piece of striped Katha napkin, (iii) four pieces of red striped napkins, (iv) four pieces of green striped napkins, (v) two pieces of napkins of light red colour, (vi) four pieces of Katha white bed-sheets, (vii) two pieces of red-yellow striped bed-sheets, (viii) one pair of red-yellow striped bed-sheets. Thus, the clothes carried by the deceased for sale on the date of occurrence, as mentioned by PW 1 in his Fardbeyan in seriatim exactly tally with the clothes recorded in the seizure list with meticulous particulars, namely, the variety, number of each variety, colour etc. It is, therefore, apparent that the particulars of the clothes in the Farbeyan were given by the informant on the basis of the seizure list. But according to the prosecution case, the Fardbeyan was recorded at 11 a. m. and the clothes were seized in the evening of the date of the occurrence. Thus, either the recording of the Fardbeyan at 11 a.m. is incorrect or recovery of the clothes in the evening is incorrect. These irreconcilable facts shake the foundation of and cast a serious doubt on the prosecution case. According to PW 1, around 8 a. m. on the data of the occurrence, one Jainul Ansari of his village told him that while he was returning from his Sasural (in-laws house), he found that the father of the informant was murdered by some one, who robbed the clothes carried by him, It is not the case of the prosecution that said Jainul Ansari is an eye-witness to the occurrence. He has also not been examined. Jainul Ansari, according to the prosecution case, came from his Sasural (in-laws house) in the morming, who could not have any information about the taking of clothes by the deceased. It passes ones comprehension as to how Jainul Ansari could know that the person who killed the father of PW 1 also robbed him of his clothes after killing him. Jainul Ansari, according to the prosecution case, came from his Sasural (in-laws house) in the morming, who could not have any information about the taking of clothes by the deceased. It passes ones comprehension as to how Jainul Ansari could know that the person who killed the father of PW 1 also robbed him of his clothes after killing him. 20 According to the prosecution, PW 2 and PW 4 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. But there are material contradictions in the depositions of PW2 and PW 4. PW 1 stated in the Fardbeyan as well as in his deposition before the court that after getting the information that his father was killed, he proceeded to the place of occurrence and he met PW 2, Bachan Devi and came to know from her that the accused hit his father on the back side of his head and after his father fell down, the accused fled away with the bale of clothes carried by his father. Neither in his Fardbeyan nor in his deposition, PW 1 stated that he met PW 4, Lagan Devi. PW 2, however, deposed that in the morning of the date of occurrence, she came out with PW 4 Lagan Devi to collect dry leaves and saw the incident. PW 2 stated that the accused fait the deceased from behind on his head with stone and the deceased having fallen down, the accused fled away with the bale of clothes. PW 4, Lagan Devi, however, stated that she saw the accused, Soma Oraon, hitting the deceased from the back sida on his head and after the deceased fell down, he hit the deceased with stone twice and, therefore, fled away with the bale of clothes. She also stated that after the incident, they got scared and, therefore, they went to the village Khatange, which was the village of the deceased, and told the people there about the incident. She also told the son of the deceased. But her statement is not supported either by PW 2 or by PW 1 (the informant). PW 2 deposed that she did not tell about the incident to any body, except PW 1. Although PW 4, by name implicated accused deposing that she saw the accused hitting the deceased on his head, she could not, however, recognise the accused in the dock. PW 2 deposed that she did not tell about the incident to any body, except PW 1. Although PW 4, by name implicated accused deposing that she saw the accused hitting the deceased on his head, she could not, however, recognise the accused in the dock. As such, PW 4 does not appear to be trustworthy and no reliance can be placed on her evidence. 21. PWs 3 and 5 are the witnesses to the seizure list. PW 5 deposed that although he put his signature on the seizure list, the goods mentioned therein were not seized in his presence. In the cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution, he stated that while he was coming back home from Ranchi, some persons stopped him and his signature on the seizure list was obtained and at that very time, the signature of PW 3 was also obtained on the seizure list. The evidence of PW 3 is inconsistent and contradictory which lends support to the above statement of PW 5. PW 3 stated in clear term that he could not say who had written the seizure list of the clothes but Kalam Daroga (PW 5) did not write the seizure list. But PW 6 deposed that he prepared the seizure list. PW 3 is the resident of village Khatange. PW 3 stated that he came to know about the murder of the deceased in the morning, yet he did not go to the place of occurrence nor did he go to see the deadbody but west to the School of which he was a teacher. In the cross-examination, he stated that in the evening of the date of occurrence, he had gone to the Perwalata hill on a scooter at his sweet- will and PW 5 accompanied him. No one had called him or took him there, The Police had taken accused Soma there. PW 6, however, deposed that he went to the place, wherefrom the seized goods were recovered, with Shri Braj Mohan Paswan, D. S. P. on probation, A. S. I. Shatrughan Singh, accused Soma Oraon and PW 3 and PW 5. 22. No one had called him or took him there, The Police had taken accused Soma there. PW 6, however, deposed that he went to the place, wherefrom the seized goods were recovered, with Shri Braj Mohan Paswan, D. S. P. on probation, A. S. I. Shatrughan Singh, accused Soma Oraon and PW 3 and PW 5. 22. The investigation of the case has also been conducted in perfunctory manner ; inasmuch as no sketch-map of the place of occurrence has been prepared by the Investigating Officer and the stone, which, according to PW 6, weighed about 2 Kgs.,was not produced before the court and exhibited. Although the stone was alleged to be stained with blood, but the blood-stain was not sent to the Chemical Analyst for examination to ascertain whether the blood on the stone was human blood or not. The drawing of sketch-map, the chemical test of the blood found at the place of occurrence and exhibiting and production of the weapon, by which the deceased was hit, are not empty formalities, rather may be necessary to test the genuineness of the prosecution case as well as the veracity of the eyewitnesses. 23. The post-mortem report discloses that there were two injuries on the head of the deceased one on the front side and another on the back side of the head. That apart, seven ribs of the right side of the chest of the deceased were found fractured. According to PW 2, the accused hit only once on the back side of the head of the deceased with stone and after the deceased fell down, he fled away with the bale of clothes. PW 1 stated in his Fardbeyan and depotition before the court that after reaching the place of occurrence, he found his father dead and he found injury on the back side of bis head. PW 8, the Medical Officer, opined that the fracture of seven ribs of the right side of the chest of the deceased was caused due to riding over the chest of the deceased by some one. But there is no evidence on record that after the deceased fell down, the accused rode over the chest of the deceased. PW 8, the Medical Officer, opined that the fracture of seven ribs of the right side of the chest of the deceased was caused due to riding over the chest of the deceased by some one. But there is no evidence on record that after the deceased fell down, the accused rode over the chest of the deceased. The learned IVth Additional Judicial Commissioner, however, held that although the eye-witnesses were silent as to how the ribs of the deceased were fractured, from the circumstances of the case, it could be inferred that the accused had ridden over the chest of the deceased in order to make sure that he was dead and that his crime might not be disclosed. This inference, in my opinion, is wholly unwarranted. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner ought not have found out a third case against the accused merely on conjecture and surmises. The inconsistency of the prosecution story as narrated by PW 1 and PW 2 with the injuries disclosed in the post-mortem report, leads to reasonable doubt that tbe prosecution has not unfolded a real story behind the incident. 24. From what has been stated above, I am constrained to hold that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charges against the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused-appellant is entitled to be acquitted on benefit of doubt. In (he result, tce Reference is answered in negative and appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24-6- 1995, passed in Sessions Trial No. 560 of 1992 by the learned IVth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, are set aside. The accused-apoellant, Soma Oraon, shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case.