JUDGMENT : N.Pandey & I.P.Singh, JJ.-Appellants Jhariya Tudu alias Fagu Tudu and Debidhan Tudu have filed this appeal impugning the JUDGMENT : of Shri Shea Dayal Prasad, Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur, dated 27th June. 1990. in Sessions Case No. 260/1981/069/1989 whereby both of them have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, shortly put, is that in the midnight of 9th October, 1980, informant, Ghhami Besara (P.W.3) was sleeping with her husband and other family members at her Osara in village Panchanandpur, P.S. Maheshpur District Sahibganj now Pakur. It is alleged thatthese two appellants along with four other unknown accused came to the Osara. Appellant, Jhariya Tudu uttered to kill Pradhan (husband of the informant) since he was instrumental in transferring certain land to others. Thereafter other four unknown accused persons caught hand and leg of her husband and appellant Debidhan Tudu started cutting his neck with sickle as a result of which the husband of the informant died. The informant thereafter raised alarm on which her neighbour Munshi Tudu arrived with his wife and saw the husband of the informant lying dead. It would appear from the materials brought on the record, the information about the occurrence was given to the Maheshpur Police Station. Ultimately, S.I. of Police arrived at the village on the next day at 5 P.M. and recorded the Fardbeyan of the informant (P.W.3) and also prepared inquest report and after observing other necessary formalities submitted charge-sheet. 3. The defence of the appellants, as would appear from their statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also from the trend of the cross examination of the prosecution, appears to be total denial of the allegation. 4. As it would appear from the record of this case that the prosecution had examined four witnesses; out of them P.W.1 is Dr. M.M.P. Sinha who had conducted autopsy of the deceased and found the following injuries: . "(i) Cut injury on the anterior and right lateral side of neck 8"x2"X1½". (ii) Lacerated injury clavicle area right side 1"x1"x ½"x ½" right clavicul 2 2 cut half of depth. (iii) Cut injury on the postlateral aspect right elbow 2"x ½"x ½" the portion of the lower end of humerous cut. (iv) Multiple stab injury right side of back penetrating to anterior. (ii) Lacerated injury clavicle area right side 1"x1"x ½"x ½" right clavicul 2 2 cut half of depth. (iii) Cut injury on the postlateral aspect right elbow 2"x ½"x ½" the portion of the lower end of humerous cut. (iv) Multiple stab injury right side of back penetrating to anterior. (v) Cut injury back, right side in the 7th into costral space 1½" x ½" X 2"]. (vi) Lacerated injury anterior aspect of the left stone 1"x ½" x ¼". In the opinion of the doctor death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the above• injuries. The Investigating Officer of this case was not examined. However, the charge sheet and other materials were proved by P.W.4, P.N.Bhattacharya. 5. P.Ws. 2 and 3, namely, Silbanu Hembram and Chhami Besra are the occular witnesses of the occurrence. Both these witnesses have claimed to be present along with the deceased in the night at the time of occurrence. They have also tried to corroborate the prosecution version that in the night of 9.10.1980 while they were sleeping along with the deceased, the appellants along with four other accused persons committed the murder of the deceased in the manner described in the Fardbeyan. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that from a bare reference to the evidence of these witnesses it would appear that the prosecution has tried to develop its case at the subsequent stage. Because in the first information report specific case of the P.W.3 is that on account of sickle injuries given by appellant Debidhan Tudu, her husband died at that very stage and thereafter on Hulla Munshi Tudu and his wife arrived. It was not mentioned that this lady or her son fled away from the place of occurrence to village Amarpur whereas in court P.W.3 has tried to develop her case, saying that on the next day she left village Panchanandpur with her son for village Amarpur. She further says that having arrived at Amarpur she sent some body to village Panchanandpur to find whether her husband was alive or dead.' 6 (a). It was next submitted that even the medical evidence in this case with regard to the injuries found on the person of the deceased is quite inconsistent to the case of the prosecution that the husband of the informant had only one sickle injury on the neck. It was next submitted that even the medical evidence in this case with regard to the injuries found on the person of the deceased is quite inconsistent to the case of the prosecution that the husband of the informant had only one sickle injury on the neck. Because, as would appear from the post mortem report and evidence of the doctor that as many as six injuries were found. There is no explanation by the prosecution under what circumstances other injuries were found on the deceased. 7. It was further contended that in the first information report there was specific allegation that it was only appellant Debidhan Tudu who assaulted with sickle the deceased, but in court attempt was made by the witnesses to state that both the appellants had assaulted him with sickle. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State, however, contended that simply because the witnesses have contradicted the case of the prosecution, the manner in which it was described in the Fardbeyan, entire prosecution case can not be disbelieved. He contended that admittedly P.Ws. 2 and 3 are illiterate and rustic witnesses, therefore, some contradictions are always possible when they are examined before the court. 9. In our view, submission of the State Counsel appears quite unsound. True it is that it is not expected from the prosecution to narrate all the facts in the Fardbeyan, therefore, even there are certain variations in the statement of the witnesses and the facts stated in the Fardbeyan, entire case of the prosecution can not be doubted. But, in this case we have already noticed that as per the statement of P.W.3, her husband died immediately after the occurrence and when she raised alarm Mushi Tudu and his wife arrived and saw the dead body. It has not been mentioned that P.Ws. 2 and 3 at the time of occurrence, itself had left village Panchanandpur for Amarpur. But, in course of examination of the victim before court such developments were made stating that while assault was going on the deceased, P.Ws. 2 and 3 fled away from the place of occurrence for village Amarpur. That apart other aspect of the matter also raises doubt about the credibility of the prosecution version. But, in course of examination of the victim before court such developments were made stating that while assault was going on the deceased, P.Ws. 2 and 3 fled away from the place of occurrence for village Amarpur. That apart other aspect of the matter also raises doubt about the credibility of the prosecution version. If the statement of P.W.3, as made out in the Fardbeyan that her husband' died at the spot and then accused persons fled away is correct, there was no occasion for her on the next day to send some body from village Amarpur to village Panchanandpur to ascertain whether her husband was dead or alive. 10. Apart from aforesaid contradictions, the medical evidence also creates doubt whether the informant and her son (P.W.2) were present at the place of occurrence. Because as per their statement in the first information report or in court as well, the deceased died due to sickle blow on' his neck. But, no explanation whatsoever has been furnished under what circumstances, the doctor had found five other injuries besides the injuries on neck. Therefore, this aspect of the matter also raises a doubt whether the prosecution has come forward with the true version. 11. Therefore, having regard to the facts noticed above we accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned JUDGMENT : and acquit the appellants by giving them benefit of doubt.