Judgment G.S.Chaube and P.K.Sarkar JJ. 1. Both the appellants, name, above, have been convicted under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by judgment and order dated 9.1.1989 of the Sessions Judge, Palamau, in S.T. No. 221 of 1986. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Ramjanam Choudhary, son of Nanhaku Choudhary of village Pataria, Police station Chainpur in the district of Palamau was working as Pump Guard under Minor Irrigation Department at village Bokeya within Chainpur police station of the same district. He was residing at the house of his father-in-law Rupan Choudhary of the same village; his wife and son were also residing there. On 10.11.1985 in the evening his wife Fulwa Devi (P.W. 1) accompanied by her son Surajdeo Choudhary (P.W. 2) and father Rupan Choudhary was going to pump side at the bank of river Koel from a mile north of Bokeya Basti with food for her husband. On way to the pump side they were accosted by these appellants who are related as brothers enter-se, at a place called Futhara Ahar. When they asked P.W. 1 as to where he was going, she told them that she was taking food to her husband. The appellants overpowered her father Rupan Choudhary, assaulted him and dragged towards west. Out of fear she herself fled to the village accompanied by P.W. 2 and disclosed to the villagers what had happened. Accompanied by co-villagers she started searching for her father and went upto the bank of the river but her father could not be traced. Next morning her father was found lying dead in the bed of river Koel. Fulwa Devi accompanied by her husband went to Chainpur and lodged an information reportregarding the occurrence and on the basis thereof Chainpur P.S. Case No. 138 of 1985 was registered. In her first information report (Ext. 2) the daughter of the deceased stated that the appellants were working as contractor under Minor Irrigation Department respecting the said pump and had stopped the construction work on the ground that they had not been paid by the Department for the work so far executed by them. They had not agreed to resume the work even when her husband insisted for this. This much for the motive to kill the deceased. 3. They had not agreed to resume the work even when her husband insisted for this. This much for the motive to kill the deceased. 3. The Police Officer held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and sent the same to hospital for autopsy. Witnesses were also examined in course of investigation and both the appellants were sent up for trial on charge of murdering Rupan Choudhary (deceased) in furtherance of their common intention. Consequently, a charge under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against them. However, they denied the charge and pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. Therefore, to prove the charge prosecution examined 10 witnesses; out of them P.W. 5 Ramjanam Choudhary son of Bilash Choudhary was tendered and P.W. 4 Nand Kishore Choudhary, P.W. 6 Rajendra Choudhary and P.W. 7 Ganesh Choudhary turned hostile. Relying on the testimony of P.W. 1 Fulwa Devi, her son Surajdeo Choudhary (P.W. 2), and the village Chaukidar (P.W. 9) the learned Sessions Judge arrived at conclusion that it was the appellants who murdered the deceased. Hence, their conviction leading to the present appeal. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and erred in holding the appellants guilty of murdering the deceased. The witnesses who have supported the prosecution story, are interested and relatives of the deceased. According to him, from the evidence of independent witnesses including the village Chaukidar one gathers that in all probabilities the abduction and murder of the deceased went unnoticed. The appellants have been falsely implicated due to suspicion because of some earlier feud between them and P.W. 3 as disclosed in the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3. 6. Therefore, the point for consideration in the present appeal is whether the deceased had been abducted by these appellants in the manner alleged by prosecution and was later on killed by them. 7. That deceased Rupan Choudhary was killed and his dead body thrown in the bed of river Koel situated north west of his village Bokeya cannot be disputed. Therefore, the point for consideration in the present appeal is whether the deceased had been abducted by these appellants in the manner alleged by prosecution and was later on killed by them. 7. That deceased Rupan Choudhary was killed and his dead body thrown in the bed of river Koel situated north west of his village Bokeya cannot be disputed. Apart from the evidence of residents of village Bokeya including the first informant and village Chaukidar, P.W. 10 Janki Das, the then Sub-Inspector of Chainpur police station, has stated that on 11.11.1985 in the after noon he went to the bank of river Koel and found the dead body of the deceased at a place called Gharghatwa Ghat. He had found injuries on the dead-body and prepared inquest report (Ext. 4) in presence of P.Ws. 6 and 7. P.W. 8 Dr. Panna Lal Pandey of Daltonganj Sadar Hospital has stated that on 12.11.1985 he had held post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Rupan Choudhary aged about 65 years and found following ante-mortem injuries on the dead-body: (i) Abrasion on the back extending from the scapular area on both the sides upto the middle part of the back; (ii) Abrasion 2" × 1" on the left knee, (iii) Abrasion 1" × 1/2" on the upper part of right fore arm; (iv) bruise 2" × 1" on the lateral end of right eye-brow, (v) bruise 2" × 1" on the right mastoid process; (vi) bruise 1" × 1" on the right side of scalp; (vii) bruise 3" × 1" on the back of right side of scalp; (viii) abrasion 1" × 1/2" on the left buttock and (ix) fracture of the upper part of right humerus bone. On dissection rhymosis was found underneath the scalp. There was fracture on the right parietal bone. There was laceration on the membrane. Blood and clots were also found underneath the membrane with laceration of the brain substance. According to the doctor while injury No. (i) was caused by dragging, rest of the injuries were caused by some hard and blunt substance and death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the above mentioned injuries within 6 to 48 hours prior to holding of post-mortem. He has stated that in themselves injury Nos. According to the doctor while injury No. (i) was caused by dragging, rest of the injuries were caused by some hard and blunt substance and death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the above mentioned injuries within 6 to 48 hours prior to holding of post-mortem. He has stated that in themselves injury Nos. (vi) and (vii) i.e., those found on the head of the deceased, were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to result in death. Post-mortem report shows that the autopsy was held at 9 in the forenoon of 12.11.1985. 8. Having noticed that according to the medical evidence the deceased had died of ante-mortem injuries found on his person, it remains to be seen whether those ante-mortem injuries were handiwork of the present appellants. P.W. 1 Fulwa Devi has stated that at about 6 in the evening on the day of the occurrence which was a Sunday, she was going to the pump side where her husband Ramjanam Choudhary was on duty as pump guard. She was accompanied by the deceased and her son Surajdeo Choudhary. When they reached near Futhara Ahar, the appellants accosted them and asked her as to where she was going. She stated that she was taking food to her husband. The appellants on their part overpowered the deceased stating that even though they had intended to kill her husband, they would kill the father. They started assaulting the deceased who fell down. Thereafter, appellant No. 1 caught hold of the deceased by his legs and started dragging. Appellant No. 2 was showering his lathi in the meantime. She has further stated that her father was dragged towards river Keel. She fled back to the Basti raising alarm and disclosed to the villagers about the occurrence. The villagers accompanied by her, including village Chaukidar, went to the river side, but her father could not be traced. Next morning his dead body was found in the bed of the river. 9. P.W. 2 has also stated that he was accompanying the deceased, and mother to the pump side for taking food to his father. On way to the pump side, the appellants accosted them, assaulted his grand-father and when he fell down they started dragging him towards West. 9. P.W. 2 has also stated that he was accompanying the deceased, and mother to the pump side for taking food to his father. On way to the pump side, the appellants accosted them, assaulted his grand-father and when he fell down they started dragging him towards West. Like his mother, he has also stated that after being given lathi blow the deceased fell down and thereupon appellant No. 1 caught hold of his legs and started dragging and appellant No. 2 was showering lathi on him. However, this witness has stated that the deceased had fallen with his face downward and it. was in that condition that he was dragged and blows were given on his person by appellant No. 2. As indicated earlier, the doctor who had performed post-mortem, had found extensive abrasion on the back of the dead body indicating that the deceased had been dragged before he died. In other words, when being dragged the face of the deceased was towards sky and not on earth. Therefore, we have no hesitation in concluding that the testimony of P.W. 2 is not corroborated by the medical evidence. Besides these two witnesses who claimed to have seen the deceased being abducted and assaulted by the appellants; P.W. 3, the husband of the first informant and son-in-law of the deceased, has come to state that in the evening on 10.11.1985 when he was at the pump side on duty, his wife Fulwa Devi, son Surajdeo Choudhary and others went to him and informed that these appellants had abducted the deceased and took him towards West. Consequently he went to the bank of the river accompanied by those persons in search of his father-in-law, but he was not found. He informed the village Chaukidar who also searched for the deceased, but in vain. Next morning when search started again, the dead-body was found in the bed of river Koel with injuries thereon. Consequently, they went to the police station and lodged the first information report. 10. Even though P.W. 3 says that his wife and son accompanied by villagers had arrived at the pump side and informed him that the appellants had abducted the deceased and while assaulting took him towards West, P.W. 1 does not say so. Consequently, they went to the police station and lodged the first information report. 10. Even though P.W. 3 says that his wife and son accompanied by villagers had arrived at the pump side and informed him that the appellants had abducted the deceased and while assaulting took him towards West, P.W. 1 does not say so. She is conspicuous in her silence on the question whether her husband to whom the food was being taken at the time deceased was abducted and dragged away, was ever informed of the incident. Howevei, P.W. 2 has stated that his father arrived in the village at about 8 in the nighv when informed by villagers. He has specifically stated that he and his motht. had not gone to the pump side to inform his father of what had happened in their presence. On the other hand, their evidence is that seeing the occurrence they fled back to the village raising alarm. P.W. 4 Nand Kishore Choudhary who was also working as pump operator at the same pump house where P.W. 3 was a guard, has stated that, no doubt, at 7 p.m. on that Sunday the wife of P.W. 1 and some villagers arrived at the pump and informed of the occurrence of abduction of the deceased, they did not disclose the name or names of the miscreant(s). He was declared hostile and permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution. In course of his such cross-examination his attention was drawn to his alleged statement made to the Investigating Officer that Fulwa Devi had stated at that time that the appellants had carried the deceased towards West; and he denied having so Elated. However, when the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) come to the witness box, the prosecution failed to contradict P.W. 4 by asking him whether, in fact, such statement had been made. The result is that we have no other version of P.W. 4 except that when the news of abduction of the deceased was broken to P.W. 3 in his presence, it was not disclosed who were the persons who abducted the deceased. P.Ws. 6 and 7 although residents of the same village also do not appear to support the prosecution story even as hear-say witnesses. P.Ws. 6 and 7 although residents of the same village also do not appear to support the prosecution story even as hear-say witnesses. P.W. 9, the village Chaukidar who was, admittedly, informed of the incident, during the same night and had participated in the search, has stated that during the night P.W. 3 had told him that his father-in-law was traceless. Therefore, a search was made but with no result. In the morning at about 8 the dead body of the deceased was found in the bed of river Koel and it was then that P.W. 3 stated that the appellants had killed the deceased. In course of his cross-examination he was asked whether he had stated to the Investigating Officer regarding disclosure to him, by P.W. 3 that these appellants had killed the deceased, the witness stated that he did not recollect. However, P.W. 10 stated that P.W. 9 had made no such statement to him when examined under Sec. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The implication, therefore, is that P.W. 9 was not speaking the truth regarding the disclosure by P.W. 3 to him in the morning on 11.11.1985 that the appellants had killed the deceased. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that in the morning when the dead body was found in the bed of river Koel, P.W. 3 had made such statement to P.W. 9, it is of no evidenciary value because, admittedly, he had not seen any part of the occurrence. 11. Thus, it emerges from the above discussion that two witnesses who claimed to have seen the occurrence themselves and 3rd who said that he was informed of the occurrence by those witnesses immediately thereafter, are interested ones. However, P.W. 4 Nand Kishore Choudhary and P.W. 9 Chaukidar Brijdeo who are independent witnesses, have stated that during the night no body had disclosed the name(s) of the person(s) muchless of the appellants, who had abducted the deceased. However, P.W. 4 Nand Kishore Choudhary and P.W. 9 Chaukidar Brijdeo who are independent witnesses, have stated that during the night no body had disclosed the name(s) of the person(s) muchless of the appellants, who had abducted the deceased. Regarding motive for the killing, it is stated that the appellants were working as petty contractor under Minor Irrigation Department and they were executing some contract work respecting the pump at the bank of river Koel and P.W. 3 was posted as a guard, P.W. 3 has stated that on being asked by the Executive Engineer of the Department he was insisting on the appellants to complete the construction work at the earliest and the appellants were not agreeable on the ground that they had not been paid. That had led to some altercation between him and the appellants and the latter had assaulted him. Even if this story is true, we find that it could hardly be a motive to the appellants to kill an innocent person having nothing to do with the construction of that pump. On the other hands, P.W. 3, his wife and son appear to have motive for falsely implicating the appellants. 12. Therefore, on giving anxious consideration to the evidence adduced by the prosecution and broad probabilities of the case, we came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the deceased had been abducted by the appellants in the manner alleged and later on killed him. Therefore, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed; and the conviction and sentenced of the appellants set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.