Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. Both the appeals arise out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 4-2-1989 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge. Palamu in S.T. No. 180/87. In both the appeals appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They have further been convicted for the offence under Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. One Gulab Chand Sao gave his fardbeyan on 10-8-1986 at 7.30 a.m. before the Sub - Inspector of Police that yesterday his mother and younger sister were doing paddy seedling near the hillock. His elder brother Prasad Sao had gone to hillock to see cultivation and grazing cattle. In the afternoon the wife of Prasad Sao namely. Putni Devi told him that Rama Sao. Sham a Sao. Mahendra Sao his father Jaimal Sao and mother Dhaneshri had gone towards hillock with tangi and lathi. She asked him to go there as his elder brother had gone to graze the cattle as they had threatened her husband. Some time thereafter at about 5 p.m. he went towards hillock and when, he climbed on the hillock he heard cry of his brother and saw his relations Rama Sao and Shama Sao with tangi and Mahendra Sao with lathi assaulting his brother and Jaimal Sao and Dhaneshri Devi assaulting him by throwing stones. Dhaneshri Devi said to kill him. She also threatened him. He raising hulla returned back and told his mother and younger sister who were doing paddy seedling near the hillock. He along with his mother sister and Ramyad Sao and Behari Sao who were ploughing the field raising hulla went to hillock and saw the aforesaid persons after killing him were pushing his brother. The accused persons saw them and ran away towards south in the forest. Many persons came thereon hulla thereafter he and others were taking his brother to his house who died on the way. The motive of the occurrence as alleged was that his cattle had gone in the maize crops of the accused persons for which they had threatened to kill. 3. On the aforesaid fardbeyan formal First Information Report. Ext. 1 was drawn and investigation was taken up. The motive of the occurrence as alleged was that his cattle had gone in the maize crops of the accused persons for which they had threatened to kill. 3. On the aforesaid fardbeyan formal First Information Report. Ext. 1 was drawn and investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation charge -sheet was submitted against the appellants and one Dhaneshwari Devi who died during the trial. On receipt of the charge - sheet cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. The trial Court recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and on completion of trial convicted the appellants as stated above. 5. The defence of the appellants was that nobody had seen the occurrence and they have falsely implicated in this case out of enmity. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined ten witnesses out of whom. PWs. 1 and 10 are formal witnesses, who proved signature over First Information Report. Ext. 1 and the case diary Ext 3 respectively PW 6 is a Doctor, who held post - mortem over the dead - body. PW. 2 has claimed to have seen the appellants going towards the hillock abusing and threatening to her husband and also learnt about the occurrence from Gulab Chand. PW 9. PW 3 is a hearsay witness. PWs 4. 5, 7 and 8 have claimed to have seen the occurrence. PW 9 is the Informant and has claimed to have seen the occurrence. 7. Admittedly, the appellants are relations of the Informant and the witnesses. There was enmity between them. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on the hillock. PW 2 is widow of the deceased and not an eye -witness. She stated in her evidence that she was at her house on the day of occurrence at about 4 p.m. She saw the appellants going towards south. They were abusing and threatening to her husband. Appellants Rama Sao and Shama Sao had tangi in their hands. Mahendra had lathi Jaimal Sao and Dhaneshri had nothing in their hands. She informed the Informant and the Informant went towards the hillock where her husband had taken the cattle for grazing. After some time, PW 9 and others came with dead-body of her husband. PW 4 and PW 9 informed that the appellants had killed her husband. Mahendra had lathi Jaimal Sao and Dhaneshri had nothing in their hands. She informed the Informant and the Informant went towards the hillock where her husband had taken the cattle for grazing. After some time, PW 9 and others came with dead-body of her husband. PW 4 and PW 9 informed that the appellants had killed her husband. She stated that there were 22 to 25 houses around her house. She did not inform to anyone about going of the appellants abusing and threatening her husband. PW 9 the Informant, did not say in his evidence that PW 2 had informed him that the appellants were going abusing and threatening her husband. However, PW 9 stated in his evidence that while he was going on hillock, he saw the appellants assaulting his brother Prasad Sao, the deceased, with tangi and Zathi and soon after assault they pushed his brother in the bush and ran away. The witness stated that after the accused-persons ran away he and his brother Sukhari Sao, PW 3 went to his house and informed the people and while they were returning they saw his mother PW 4, and sister, PW 5 and others coming with the dead - body of his brother. Prasad Sao but in the First Information Report, the Informant stated that he along with others returned with dead -body. The witness in his cross -examination stated that his field is on the hillock. From the bed of the hillock nothing can be seen. 8. PW 4 .is mother of the Informant and PW 5 is sister of the Informant. They stated in their evidence that they were in their field, which is situated near the hillock. PW 4 stated in her evidence that one - hour time takes to go to hillock on foot. The Informant. PW 9, came and informed that his brother is being assaulted by the appellants on the hillock and then they along with the Informant proceeded to the place of occurrence and saw the appellants assaulting the deceased but the Informant PW 9, did not say in his evidence that he returned seeing assault on his brother and informed PWs. PW 9, came and informed that his brother is being assaulted by the appellants on the hillock and then they along with the Informant proceeded to the place of occurrence and saw the appellants assaulting the deceased but the Informant PW 9, did not say in his evidence that he returned seeing assault on his brother and informed PWs. 4 and 5 about the occurrence or he along with PWs 4 and 5 again went to the place of occurrence and had seen the occurrence which creates doubt about the veracity of the evidence of PWs 4 and 5. 9. Similarly, PWs 7 and 8 have stated in their evidence that they were in their field. PW 7 stated that he heard hulla of PWs 4 and 5 and went near the hillock and saw the occurrence. PW 8 stated that he heard hulla raised by PW s. 5 and 9 at 3 p.m. He writ there and saw the occurrence but the Informant PW.9 did not say that on hulla PWs 7 and 8 had come and seen the occurrence. Moreover. PW 4 has stated that when she along with others were coming with the dead - body of her son Ram Prasad Sao, PWs 7 and 8 came. Therefore, the evidence of PW 7 and PW 8 being eye -witnesses becomes suspicious. Attention was also drawn to the statement made before the Police but the Investigating Officer In this case has not been examined. However the trial Court has disbelieved their evidence. 10. Thus, on consideration, as discussed above, It appears that the evidence of the eye - witnesses is contradictory to each other on the material point, which creates doubt about the veracity of their evidence. 11. PW 4 Is mother of the Informant. PW 5 is sister of the Informant. They have stated that many persons came on the hillock but none of them have been examined to support the prosecution case even as hear say witness nor reason have been assigned for their non -examination. PW 7 and PW 8 are, no doubt, independent witnesses and they have claimed to be eye - witnesses but their evidence cannot be relied upon because of the fact that PW 4 herself has stated in her evidence that while she and others were coming back with the dead -body of the deceased. PW 7 and PW 8 are, no doubt, independent witnesses and they have claimed to be eye - witnesses but their evidence cannot be relied upon because of the fact that PW 4 herself has stated in her evidence that while she and others were coming back with the dead -body of the deceased. PWs 7 and 8 came and accompanied her. Therefore, on close scrutiny of the evidence, the evidence of the witnesses does not inspire confidence. 12. Moreover, the prosecution case has failed to establish the place of occurrence as there is nothing on the record to show that blood was found at the place of occurrence nor details of the place of occurrence have come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case although the attention of PWs 3, 7 and 8 was drawn to the statement made before the Police on material point. Therefore, non~ examination of the Investigating Officer has caused prejudice to the case of the appellants and because of non -examination of the Investigating Officer, the place of occurrence could not be established. 13. Therefore, on consideration, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and as such both the appeals are allowed. The judgment and order of conviction are hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the charges leveled against them. They are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. A.K.Sinha, J. 14 I agree.