Judgment D.N.Prasad, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal arisen out of judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the then Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. No. 108 of 1986 by which the learned trial Judge convicted the appellants and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for life under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, as stated in brief, is that on 8-9-1986 at about 2 p.m., the appellants along with other accused namely Narad, Rameshwar and Rabindra chased the deceased Muni Dusadh and at that time accused Awadhesh was armed with Garansa whereas other accused persons including appellant No.2 Jamuna Dusadh was holding lathi. It is further alleged that accused persons assaulted the deceased in village Talaiya near a tank of Muni Dusadh, the deceased died in a paddy field. One Chandradeep Dusadh son of Chowkidar of the village, Shital Dusadh had seen the occurrence and he reported the matter to his father, Shital Dusadh, who had gone to market at that time. On getting this information, the village Chowkidar, Shital Dusadh went at the place of occurrence and found the deadbody of deceased Muni Dusadh and, thereafter, he went to police station and gave his fardbeyan on the basis of which the case was registered under Secs. 147, 148, 149 and 302/34, IPC against both the appellants and other three persons. Namely, Narad, Rameshwar and Rabindra. 3. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet against both the appellants, whereas other accused Narad, Rameshwar and Rabindra Ram were not sent up for trial and their names were mentioned in column-II of the charge-sheet. The witnesses were examined in the lower Court and after considering the evidence on record, oral as well as documentary, the learned Sessions Judge convicted both the appellants and sentenced them under Sec. 302/34, IPC, as mentioned above. 4. The defence case as alleged that the accused persons have falsely been implicated in this case out of enmity and there is nothing specific against the appellants for committing overt act. 5. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, both the appellants preferred this appeal on the ground that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record properly and there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. 5. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, both the appellants preferred this appeal on the ground that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record properly and there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. It is further claimed that except the interested and inimical witnesses, no other independent witness had supported the story of chasing and assaulting the deceased. It is also claimed that there is an allegation that the appellant No.1 was armed with Garansa and appellant No.2 was holding lathi and all of them assaulted with common intention, but the doctor did not find any ante mortem injury caused by hard blunt substance, which also falsified the story of the prosecution in the manner as alleged. The single alleged eyewitness, Mohan Ram, the nephew of the informant with whom there is long standing enmity and the said evidence of Mohan Ram has not been corroborated by any other independent witness and there is much contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses and as such the impugned judgment is fit to be set aside. 6. At the very outset. I would like to mention that obviously there was allegation for chasing and assault by five accused persons. Namely, Awadhesh Jamuna, Narad, Rameshwar and son of Rameshwar Dusadh, but the police did not find the case true against the three accused persons namely Narad Dusadh. Rameshwar Dusadh and Rabindra Ram and that is why they were not sent up for trial. 7. Altogether, eight witnesses have been examined in the case on behalf of the prosecution in its support of whom PW 2. Triveni Dubey and PW 8. Suresh Chandra Sharma are not on the point of occurrence. PW 1. Bishwakarma Manjhi is the hearsay witness arid he heard that the appellants along with other three accused persons assaulted the deceased. PW 3 is the son of Shital Manjhi, the Informant; stated that he had seen the appellants and other three persons namely Rameshwar. Narad and Rabindra fleeing away towards north when Awadhesh was possessing Gandasa in his hand and other accused persons were holding lathi. He further stated that he had seen the dead-body of Munni Dusadh near the tank. But he admitted in his cross-examination that he came to know at the place of occurrence that Munni Dusadh has been killed and. Narad and Rabindra fleeing away towards north when Awadhesh was possessing Gandasa in his hand and other accused persons were holding lathi. He further stated that he had seen the dead-body of Munni Dusadh near the tank. But he admitted in his cross-examination that he came to know at the place of occurrence that Munni Dusadh has been killed and. thereafter he had rushed to the spot to see the dead-body. He also admitted that there is a ridge 6 to 9 feet high of the said tank and the said ridge runs from east to west. He also admitted in para 4 that about 100 people assembled at the place of occurrence before his arrival to the said place and he had seen a single injury on the head of the deadbody. 8. PW 4. Shital Manjhi, the Informant is admittedly not the eyewitness of the occurrence and he came to know that the appellants alongwith other accused persons assaulted the deceased. He further deposed that he had seen the dead-body, which was lying near the tank. He clearly admitted in his crossexamination in para 3 that there is a land dispute with the appellants from before and one Title Suit No.476 is still pending and he also lost in the lower Court but appeal in the High Court is pending. There is also criminal case with the appellants. 9. PW 5. Mohan Ram claimed to be the eye-witness and according to him he had seen the appellants along with Rameshwar. Rabindra and Narad chasing Muni Ram and when Muni Ram fell down, the appellant. Awadhesh gave gandasa blow whereas other accused including the appellant No.2. Jamuna assaulted with lathi. He admitted in his cross-examination that Shital Dusadh, the informant is his uncle and that Chandradeep. PW 3 is his cousin and all of them are residing in the same house. He further stated that several persons reached to the spot on hulla. He also met with Shital, the informant and Chandradeep. PW 3 at his house. But, admittedly, this witness did not disclose anything about the occurrence to them: Had there been disclosure by this witness, the informant would have narrated this fact also in the FIR. He further stated that several persons reached to the spot on hulla. He also met with Shital, the informant and Chandradeep. PW 3 at his house. But, admittedly, this witness did not disclose anything about the occurrence to them: Had there been disclosure by this witness, the informant would have narrated this fact also in the FIR. He also stated in para 7 that he had seen the accused persons chasing the deceased, but he could not say the distance of the place of occurrence from the Jamun tree when he was staying there for easing. According to him the accused persons also assaulted with lathi, but admittedly the doctor did not find any injury on the dead-body caused by hard blunt substance. 10. PW 6 Bijay Pratap Singh is the Investigating Officer and he claimed to have investigated the place of occurrence. According to him the dead-body was lying beneath the said ridge of the tank and it was lying in the paddy field of Banshi Singh. He admitted that no any map for the place of occurrence was prepared by him and he had not sent the blood-stained earth for chemical examination. He also stated that Mohan Ram. PW5 has not stated before him that the appellant No.1. Awadhesh gave Farsa blow first to the deceased. 11. PW 7. Dr. Shyam Bihari Mahto held the post-mortem on the dead-body of Muni Dusadh and found the following injury: (i) Incised wound 12" x 6" x cavity deep from upper part of left ear to the nose across the left eye-cutting in skin, muscle bone and brain matter. (ii) Incised wound 3" x 1" x 1" over the left cheek up to left angle of the mouth. (iii) Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" over the left side of upper lip. According to him, the said injuries were ante mortem in nature and caused by sharp-cutting weapon. 12 No any other witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution and both the appellants were examined under Sec. 313. Cr PC and they have denied the allegation. They have stated in their statements that they have been falsely implicated by chowkidar with whom, there is a land dispute. 12 No any other witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution and both the appellants were examined under Sec. 313. Cr PC and they have denied the allegation. They have stated in their statements that they have been falsely implicated by chowkidar with whom, there is a land dispute. Obviously, there were five accused persons in the FIR and there was specific allegation against all of them for chasing the deceased and assaulting the gandasa and lathi and accordingly FIR was lodged under Secs. 147, 148 and 149/302. IPC but the police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet against only two appellants, whereas other three accused Rameshwar. Narad and Rabindra were not sent up for trial and virtually they were discharged from the case at the stage of investigation itself. There is also no eye-witness of the occurrence as indicated or mentioned in the FIR. There is also no explanation assigned by PW 6 (10) for letting off other three accused persons as they were not sent up for trial. 13. PW 3. Chandradeep Manjhi, who is the son of the Informant also claimed that he had seen the accused persons including the appellants fleeing away, but he is quite silent in respect of the assault. The informant is also not the eye-witness of the occurrence. PW 5 is 23id to be eye-witness of the occurrence of, But there is no mention in the FIR in this respect and it is an admitted position that there is a land dispute with the appellants from before with the Informant, Shital Dusadh and the PWs 3, 4 and 5 are admittedly residing in the same house and PW 5 is also the won nephew of the informant. It has also come in evidence that there is a ridge running from east to west 6 feet to 9 feet high. Admittedly, more than one hundred people also reached to the spot on hulla but not a single independent witness of the village has been examined on behalf of the prosecution and both the witnesses, PW 3 and PW 5 are the own relations of Shital Dusadh, the Informant, who is admittedly in the litigating terms with the accused/appellant from before. 14. 14. There is allegation about motive that deceased Muni Dusadh had murdered one Naresh Manjhi, 10 years ago and due to which there is a dispute with the sun of Naresh Manjhi, but none of the witnesses supported this version as well as any document has been produced to substantiate this story. 15. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the alleged eye-witness, PW 5 can be said to be chance witness and he cannot be relied upon as the whole story has been concocted in order to harass the appellants. He further submitted that there is a longstanding enmity between the parties from before and for which the Informant admittedly lost the Title Suit in the lower Court and the appeal is still pending in the High Court and for which the appellants have been dragged falsely in this case out of previous enmity. It is further argued that the evidence of PW.3 is also not reliable as admittedly he was on the tank at the relevant time and there is a ridge by the side of the tank which runs from west to east and its height is 6 to 9 and as such it is not possible for a person to see the incident behind the said ridge. It is further argued that doctor did not find any injury caused by hard blunt substance, though there is allegation that the appellant No.2, who was holding lathi also assaulted with lathi. It is also argued that no family member of the deceased came forward and deposed, or support the prosecution case in any manner as well as none of the villagers supported the prosecution case which makes the whole prosecution case suspicious and false implication of both the appellants with whom there is a longstanding enmity. It is also submitted that neither any cause or any incriminating article has been recovered or seized from the house of the appellants and the story of possessing gandasa by the appellant No.1 has been concocted after thought. 16. Obviously, the informant, PW 4 and his son PW 3 are not the eyewitnesses on the point of occurrence. It is also submitted that neither any cause or any incriminating article has been recovered or seized from the house of the appellants and the story of possessing gandasa by the appellant No.1 has been concocted after thought. 16. Obviously, the informant, PW 4 and his son PW 3 are not the eyewitnesses on the point of occurrence. The sole witness, PW 5 claimed to be eye-witness, but admittedly he is own nephew of the Informant and he is also residing with the Informant in one house and there is also long-standing enmity between the Informant and the appellants from before. No independent villager or own relation of the deceased has been examined in this case from the side of the prosecution. The evidence of PW 5 has not been corroborated by any other independent witness or any other material. The sole witness having, been not corroborated from any independent witness and who is also on inimical terms with the appellants, cannot be relied upon. It is also clear that the said witness named all the five accused persons including the appellants for chasing and assaulting the deceased at the relevant time, but I have already discussed above that other three accused persons have not been sent up for trial and virtually they were let off from the prosecution case. 17. There appears much contradiction as well in the evidence of the witnesses and there is no independent witness coming forward to support the prosecution case and as such the whole prosecution case becomes suspicious and doubtful. It is also settled that if there is a slightest doubt in the prosecution case the benefit will go in favour of the accused and thus I find that the appellants are entitled for the benefit of doubt. 18. In the above facts and circumstances, I find that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, I do not find the appellant guilty for offences charged. 19. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is, hereby, set aside. Both the appellants are acquitted and set at liberty and they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.