JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:--- The appellant was tried for murder of Keshav Uttam Naik under section 302 I. P.C. and for causing disappearance of evidence in relation to the said murder under section 201 I. P.C. The prosecution had in all examined 18 witnesses in support of the said charges. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, has, vide judgment dated 17th March 1998, held the appellant guilty under section 304 Part I, I.P.C. as well as section 201 I.P.C. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 6 months under section 304 Part I, I.P.C. and to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment under section 201 I.P.C. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The period of detention during the trial has been set off under section 428 Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Learned Advocate Shri Lotlikar, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has urged before us that the trial Court has based the conviction of the appellant primarily on the evidence of P.W. 3 Subash Naik coupled with the evidence of Dr. Audi P.W. 9 and, besides that, there is no other incriminating circumstance against the appellant. According to Shri Lotlikar, initially the case was registered as accidental death and, in fact, some of the family members of the deceased, namely, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 are said to have reached the scene of offence after they heard shouts of the mother of the deceased stating that Keshav (deceased) had fallen in the well. Learned Advocate Shri Lotlikar took us through the evidence of P.W. 3 as well as evidence of Dr. Audi P.W. 9 and evidence of Gurudas Naik P.W. 7 and has pointed out that eventhough P.W. 3 Subhash Naik has stated that he had informed Gurudas Naik P.W. 7 immediately after the incident that the appellant had assaulted the deceased, yet Gurudas Naik P.W. 7 does not at all speak of the fact of Subhash Naik P.W. 3 having informed him of this fact. He then pointed out that, according to P.W. 3 Subhash Naik, it was only one blow with sharp edge of koita on the forehead of the deceased but the corresponding injury, according to Dr. Audi P.W. 9, is stated to have been caused by blunt weapon. He then pointed out that, according to P.W. 3 Subhash Naik, it was only one blow with sharp edge of koita on the forehead of the deceased but the corresponding injury, according to Dr. Audi P.W. 9, is stated to have been caused by blunt weapon. It was then pointed out that Dr. Audi P.W. 9 does not rule out the possibility of all the injuries being caused on the person of the deceased as a result of fall from a height and rolling down on a rough surface. The dead body of the deceased is said to have been found in the well. He, therefore, contends that not only the evidence of Subhash Naik P.W. 3 does not inspire confidence, it does not get corroboration from the medical evidence on record. On the basis of the above submissions it was urged that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the appellant and as such, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Faria tried his best to support the prosecution and urged before us that there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the testimony of Subhash Naik P.W. 3, who has categorically stated that he saw the appellant giving a koita blow on the forehead of the deceased; that, according to Dr. Audi P.W. 9, injury No. 1 which was found on the forehead was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. Thus, according to him, the assault about which P.W. 3 has deposed is fully supported by the evidence of Dr. Audi P.W. 9. He pointed out that the trial Court has believed Subash Naik P.W. 3 as well as the evidence of Dr. Audi P.W. 9 and there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 4. We have examined the record in the light of the submissions made by learned Advocate for the appellant as well as Public Prosecutor Shri Faria. Admittedly, as stated by Investigating Officer, P.W. 18 the message received by him from Goa Medical College, where the deceased was admitted, was that it was a case of accidental fall. 4. We have examined the record in the light of the submissions made by learned Advocate for the appellant as well as Public Prosecutor Shri Faria. Admittedly, as stated by Investigating Officer, P.W. 18 the message received by him from Goa Medical College, where the deceased was admitted, was that it was a case of accidental fall. In fact, P.W. 4 Chandrakant Naik as well as P.W. 5 Tukaram Uttam Naik, who is the brother of the deceased, have stated that they heard the shouts of the mother of the deceased, who was shouting that Keshav had fallen in the well. In fact, P.W. 12 Baburao Patil also states that on 18th April 1981 Tukaram Naik, namely, P.W. 5 brother of the deceased had come to his house at about 9.15 a.m. and told him that his brother had a fall and he was required to be taken to hospital for which vehicle is to be arranged. In fact, Dr. Dattaram Dessai, P.W. 6 who attended on the deceased immediately after the incident at about 9.30 a.m. has stated that one boy had informed him that one Keshav had fallen down. According to Dr. Dattaram Dessai P.W. 6, the said Keshav, namely, the deceased was conscious though he was not responding to him totally. However, he was saying 'paem dukta'. This means that the deceased was capable of making a complaint about the pain suffered by him and in case he was assaulted by the appellant, it is but natural that he would immediately complain and report to Dr. Dattaram Dessai P.W. 6 that he had been assaulted by the appellant. Though initially the incident was taken as accidental fall, the Investigating Officer, P.W. 18 is reported to received information from informant that this was a case of murder and accused Mohan Govind Naik and his two sons Vassudev and Guirish had been involved in the same. No charge-sheet has been filed against Vassudev and Guirish. In fact, in the light of the material available on record that it was a case of accidental fall, the Investigating Officer was required to record the information received by him from the informant that it was a case of murder, since this would be the First Information Report in the matter. In fact, in the light of the material available on record that it was a case of accidental fall, the Investigating Officer was required to record the information received by him from the informant that it was a case of murder, since this would be the First Information Report in the matter. However, the Investigating Officer not only did not choose to record the information received by him from the informant but even declined to disclose the name of the informant. In the circumstances, the information received by Investigating Officer, P.W. 18 had an important bearing in the matter and the same was required to be recorded as the First Information Report which the Investigating Officer has failed to record. 5. The prosecution had examined Subhash Naik P.W. 3 as the sole eye witness of the incident. According to this witness, he had informed that the appellant had assaulted the deceased and this information was given by him to Gurudas Naik P.W. 7 on the same day. Gurudas Naik P.W. 7 in his deposition does not at all say that he was informed by Subhash Naik P.W. 3 that the appellant had assaulted the deceased. On the other hand Gurudas Naik P.W. 7 states that the accused gave him a call from a distance of about 50 metres and told him that Keshav had fallen in the ditch. It is pertinent to note at this stage that the Investigating Officer P.W. 18 in his cross-examination has stated that on 19th April 1991 Subhash Naik P.W. 3 had told him that he had seen the incident. However, it is strange that the Investigating Officer P.W. 18 had not recorded the statement of Subhash Naik on 19th April 1991 on the ground that he wanted to confirm whether it was a case of accidental death or that of murder. When an eye witness was available and ready to inform that he had seen the incident, the Investigating Officer could have very well recorded that statement and then of-course he could verify whether it was a case of murder or that it was a case of accidental death. The statement of Subhash Naik was recorded only on 20th April 1991 and supplementary statement was recorded after a day. The statement of Subhash Naik was recorded only on 20th April 1991 and supplementary statement was recorded after a day. P.W. 3 Subhash Naik has further stated in his deposition before the Court that at the time of the incident his youngest sister had also accompanied him and the said youngest sister was deaf and dumb and aged about 12 years. The prosecution, on the other hand, examined Anjali Naik P.W. 11, who is 23 years old, who states that she had accompanied Subhash Naik and was present at the time of the incident. The statement of Anjali Naik P.W. 11 obviously cannot be believed since Subhash Naik P.W. 3 had not at all spoken of her presence at the scene of offence. According to Subhash Naik P.W. 3 he saw one blow of koita being given on the forehead of the deceased, as a result of which, there was bleeding injury on the forehead. Obviously when a bleeding injury is caused by a koita, blood is bound to be present on the koita. During the course of investigation no koita was in fact recovered but only two sickles were recovered from the house of the appellant. However, according to the Chemical Analysis, no blood was found on the sickles. Thus, even the koita, which according to Subhash Naik P.W. 3, was the weapon of the offence, has not been recovered by the police. Subhash Naik P.W. 3 has further stated that though he had seen the koita in the hand of the appellant, yet he will not be in a position to identify the same. Of course the question of identification would not arise since no koita was recovered by the police but, on the contrary, only two sickles were recovered. According to Subhash Naik P.W. 3, the koita injury was inflicted with sharp edge but, according to Dr. Audi P.W. 9, the said corresponding injury No. 1 was caused by blunt edge. He categorically ruled out the possibility of injury No. 1 being caused by sharp edge. He further opined that injury No. 1 could be caused by violent fall or by hitting of any blunt weapon or object. Audi P.W. 9, the said corresponding injury No. 1 was caused by blunt edge. He categorically ruled out the possibility of injury No. 1 being caused by sharp edge. He further opined that injury No. 1 could be caused by violent fall or by hitting of any blunt weapon or object. He further stated that injuries other than 10, 13 and 17 (which were on account of the treatment given to the deceased in the hospital) could not be caused by fall as the injuries were on all sides of the deceased which means that, according to this statement of Dr. Audi P.W. 9, all the injuries could not be attributed to fall but some of the injuries were attributed to the assault. However, P.W. 3 Subhash Naik does not speak of any assault other than one blow of koita. Moreover, it is to be noted that, according to Dr. Audi P.W. 9, the injuries other than 10, 13 and 17 could be caused if the patient falls from a height and goes down rolling on a very rough surface. The prosecution case is that the deceased was found lying in the well which means that the possibility of fall into the well and injuries having been sustained as a result of fall and rolling cannot be ruled out. Even though Subhash Naik P.W. 3 stated that the appellant threw the deceased down, yet he does not at all state that the deceased was thrown by the appellant into the well. The conduct of Subhash Naik P.W. 3 is also rather strange. He does not go to the scene of offence where the deceased had fallen and had even preferred not to intervene when the incident, according to him, was in progress. He also did not inform any of the family members of the deceased about the incident on the day of the incident or on the next day but, according to him, he informed them only after about 2 days of the incident. 6. For the aforesaid reasons we find it difficult to place implicit reliance on the testimony of Subhash Naik P.W. 3 in order to sustain the conviction of the appellant. In our opinion, the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against the appellant and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 6. For the aforesaid reasons we find it difficult to place implicit reliance on the testimony of Subhash Naik P.W. 3 in order to sustain the conviction of the appellant. In our opinion, the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against the appellant and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. The impugned conviction and the sentence imposed upon the appellant are, therefore, set aside and the appellant is ordered to be acquitted of the charges. The bail bond of the appellant is cancelled. Appeal allowed. *****