Judgment B. N. Agrawal, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted by the trial court under Sec.302 of the Penal code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 30.10.1986 at 4.30 p. m. when the informant Arabian share was at his house, the appellant came there and called his son Kamlesh Kumar alias tuntun. The appellant took Kamlesh kumar with him. After some time, upon hearing hulla, the informant was going towards bypass and on the way near Government boating he met rajesh Kumar (P. W.1) who informed him that his son has been shot by firearm by the appellant. It has also been stated that Rajesh told the informant that he went to the bypass along with tuntun and Sunil. It has also been stated that Rajesh found that Sunil was sitting at the roof of boating house of one Cyan Mahto and he called Kamlesh Kumar then and fired at him with his pistol which his Kamlesh Kumar on his chest. Thereafter, accused started fleeing away and on hulla being raised the villagers chased and apprehended him. It has also been stated that the accused confessed his guilt before the villagers. Thereafter, the villagers were taking Kamlesh Kumar on a rickshaw to hospital but as he died on the way, they brought him to the house of informant. It is also stated that after some time Havildar came from police out-post who took the appellant into custody. Stating the aforesaid facts a first Information Report was lodged by sub-Inspector of Police at the house of the informant on the same day at 7 p. m. 3. The police after registering the case, took up investigation and on completion thereof submitted charge-sheet. Upon receipt of charge-sheet the learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed the accused to the court of session to face trial. 4. Defence of the appellant is that, he is innocent and no occurrence, as alleged, has taken place. He has denied to have made any confessional statement before the villagers. He has also denied that he was apprehended by the villagers near the place of occurrence. According to the appellant, he was brought to the house of informant from his house. 5. During trial, prosecution examined 10 witnesses in all, out of whom, P. W.1 claims to be the sole eyewitness to the occurrence. He has also denied that he was apprehended by the villagers near the place of occurrence. According to the appellant, he was brought to the house of informant from his house. 5. During trial, prosecution examined 10 witnesses in all, out of whom, P. W.1 claims to be the sole eyewitness to the occurrence. P. W.2 is the informant, who hats claimed that he was informed by (P. W. I) about this occurrence. (P. W6) claims to have seen the appellant fleeing away. P. Ws.3 and 4 are formal witnesses who have proved the inquest. P. WS.5 and 7 have been declared hostile. P. W.8 is the Doctor who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased. (P. W.9) has been tendered. (P. W.10) is the Investigating Officer, in this case. The defence, however, has examined three witnesses to prove that (P. W. I) Rajesh kumar had sworn an affidavit before a magistrate. Upon conclusion of trial the court below has convicted the appellant, as stated above, hences this appeal. 6. The decision of this appeal hinges primarily upon evidence of the sole eye-witness (P. W. I) Rajesh Kumar. As such, first I proceed to consider his evidence. This witness has claimed that he had been the appellant firing at kamlesh Kumar. He has also stated that he gave information to the informant that his son was murdered by the appellant. It appears that this witness had sworn an affidavit on 23.1.1987 before the Notary Public (Advocate ). The affidavit has been marked as Exhibit B. when attention of this witness was drawn towards the affidavit, he stated that his thumb impression was taken therein under duress. The witness could not give name of the person who gave out threatenings to him. The witness has nowhere stated that he made any complaint to anybody or filed any petition in Court that his thumb impression had been taken on the affidavit under duress. The affidavit was drafted by an advocate who is D. W.3 and thereafter the same was typed by jitendra Prasad (D. W.1 ). D. W.2 is the notary Public who is said to have administered to the affidavit. According to this witness, the appellant fired at the deceased. According to (P. W.6)1000-2000 persons came there who were saying that Surendra killed Kamlesh. (P. W.6) stated that he knows surendra. D. W.2 is the notary Public who is said to have administered to the affidavit. According to this witness, the appellant fired at the deceased. According to (P. W.6)1000-2000 persons came there who were saying that Surendra killed Kamlesh. (P. W.6) stated that he knows surendra. This statement of P. W.6 shows that Surendra is different than the appellant Sunil. The evidence of (P. W. I) about firing by the appellant is not corroborated by evidence of (P. W.6)rather, the same is contradicted. This witness is nobody else than casteman of the informant. Though according to evidence of this witness several persons arrived there who had seen the accused fleeing away who were said to have apprehended him and before whom the accused is said to have made confessional statement but they have not been examined in the case in hand and two persons, namely, P. Ws.5 and 7 who have been examined, have been declared hostile. In view of these facts, in my view, it is not possible to place reliance upon evidence of (P. W. I ). 7. (P. W.2) is the informant is not an eye-witness to the occurrence and according to prosecution case and evidence he was given information by (P. W. I) and since evidence of (P. W. I)has been disbelieved, I have no option but to disbelieve his evidence also, especially in view of the fact that independent, villagers have not come forward to support the case. 8. Last witness is (P. W.6) Evidence of this witness that he heard villagers saying that Surendra murdered Kamlesh is in conflict with the statements of p. Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon his evidence as well. 9. The Investigating Officer (P. W.10) who visiced the place of occurrence, stated that though he found some blood at the roof of boating but he did not seize the name. If really blood was there, I really fail to understand what apprehended the Investigating officer to seize the same. That apart. (P. W.10) has stated that he did not find any empties at the place of occurrence. Finding of the Investigating Officer makes the place of occurrence also doubtful. / for the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and the trial court was not justified in convicting the appellant. 10. Finding of the Investigating Officer makes the place of occurrence also doubtful. / for the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and the trial court was not justified in convicting the appellant. 10. In the result, this appeal is allowed and conviction and of the appellant are set aside. The appellant, who is in jail, is directed to be released forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case. Appeal Allowed.