Judgment R.N.Sahay and D.P.S.Choudhary JJ. 1. The sole appellant Muni Yadav alias Muni Ahir was placed on trial before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 1985 having been charged under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Kashi Nath Singh on the night of 23-24.5.1984 at village Samarya in the district of Rohtas. The learned Trial Judge found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution has been narrated accurately in paragraph 2 of the judgment under appeal as extracted hereunder : "2. The case of the prosecution in brief, as disclosed from the fardbeyan of the Informant Suraj Singh recorded by S.I.S.K. Singh of Sonhan P.S. on 24.5.1984, at 7.45 a.m. is that the Informant Suraj Singh along With his son Rajendra Singh were sleeping on a cot in the khalihan after taking meal. It is further said that Kashi Nath Singh (brother of the Informant) was also sleeping in the same khalihan along with his son Bhim Sen Singh on a cot. It is further said that Balister Singh (elder son of the Informant) was sleeping on a cot in the same khalihan which is situated towards the southern side of the village Samarya. It is said that in the night on the sound of weeping of Bhim Sen Singh aged about eight years, the Informant was awaken and the Informant saw four persons armed with garasa, gun and lathis surrounding Kashi Nath Singh (deceased). It is said that person who was holding garasa gave garasa blows to Kashi Nath Singh and Kashi Nath Singh because of the assault became silent. The Informant Suraj Singh began to raise halla and on that the son of the informant and others sleeping there rose up and in the meantime, the culprits opened fire by the gun and fled away towards north. It is said that when the Informant, after the culprits fled away came near his brother Kashi Nath Singh he saw him (Kashi Nath Singh) dead and pool of blood and blood was coming out from the person of Kashi Nath Singh. It is said that on halla some persons came at the khalihan (P.O.). It is said that when the Informant, after the culprits fled away came near his brother Kashi Nath Singh he saw him (Kashi Nath Singh) dead and pool of blood and blood was coming out from the person of Kashi Nath Singh. It is said that on halla some persons came at the khalihan (P.O.). It is further said that the Informant Suraj Singh could not identify any of the culprits but it is said that other persons might have seen and identified the culprits. The Informant, leaving Kashi Nath Singh proceeded for the P.S. for lodging the information of the incident. The Informant cannot say the reasons for murder of his brother Kashi Nath Singh. On these allegations, in short a fardbeyan (Ext. 4) was lodged in presence of Gauri Shankar Singh which was recorded by S.I. S.K. Singh of Sonhan P.S. on 24.5.1984 at 7.45 a.m. On the basis of the fardbeyan a formal FIR (Ext. 6) was drawn up at Bhab-hua P.S. and a case was registered against the four unknown persons for the commission of murder of Kashi Nath Singh. Investigation commenced and charge-sheet was submitted against the sole accused Muni Yadav. Cognizance was taken and ultimately, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by A.C.J.M., Bhab-hua, vide his order dated 22.12.1984. Hence this trial against the sole accused Muni Yadav." 3. As is apparent from the narration of the events the appellant and the deceased were of the same village. The striking feature of the case is that although the appellant who was well known to the Informant and other witnesses who claimed to have seen the appellant striking the deceased Kashi Nath Singh with a garasa in the dead of the night, the case was registered against four unknown criminals. The fardbeyan of Suraj Singh was recorded 8 hours after the occurrence. Still the name of the appellant was not disclosed by any of the three witnesses, namely, Balister Singh (PW 5), Rajendra Yadav (PW 6) and Bhim Sen Singh (PW 8) who was aged about 8 years on the date of occurrence. These three witnesses in their evidence have asserted that they identified the appellants in the torch light flashed by one of the companions of the appellant. It is to be noticed that there is no mention of torch light in the First Information Report. These three witnesses in their evidence have asserted that they identified the appellants in the torch light flashed by one of the companions of the appellant. It is to be noticed that there is no mention of torch light in the First Information Report. Witness Balister Singh had not stated to the Investigating Officer that criminals were also carrying torch. The evidence of Sukhpatia, widow of the deceased is that when she went to the khalihan on hulla, she found the dead body of her husband lying in a pool of blood. Balister, Rajendra, Bhim Sen Singh and the Informant told her that the appellant had murdered her husband. Had they disclosed the name of the appellant there was no reason why the appellant was not named before the Investigating Officer. This witness stated that the dispute had cropped up between the deceased and the appellant over a mahua tree. No other witness had spoken about the enmity between the deceased and the appellant. 4. On analysis of the entire evidence, we feel that the appellant was implicated on suspicion. It is extremely doubtful the witnesses who claim to have identified the appellant had in fact identified him. There is no independent witness of the village corroborating the fact of participation of the appellant in the alleged crime. The Trial Judge has placed great reliance on the evidence of Bhim Sen Singh who was sleeping with the deceased father. This witness was aged about 8 years. Although he has given evidence in cogent manner, it is difficult to believe that he was able to identify the appellant in the dead of the night. The evidence is not at all sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant. In our opinion, the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in recording the verdict of conviction on the evidence which is full of infirmities. The appellant should have been given the benefit of doubt. 5. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The conviction of the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge giving the benefit of doubt. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds.