Judgment R.A.Sharma, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by two appellants challenging the judgment dated 18-6- 1990 passed by the 1st Add!. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa Camp at Seraikella, in S.T No. 72 of 1986 convicting and sentencing them of life imprisonment under Sec. 302/34, IPC. 2. The prosecution case as set out in the FIR lodged by the Ghasia Maghi at the police station Aditapur, District - Singhbhum is that on 13-4-1986 at about 9.45 p.m. when the informants son Pradhan Hembrom (PW 5) move from his house on motorcycle for joining duty, he was attacked by the appellants who were armed with lathi causing damage to the headlight of the motorcycle on account of which Pradhan Hembrom ran away and thereafter, the appellants assaulted the informant and killed his wife Fulmoni Devi. The I.O. went to the spot of the occurrence and prepared the inquest report and also seized the blood-earth and a danda spotted with the blood. The dead body of the deceased was sent to the hospital for post-mortem examination and on receipt of the said report, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants, on the basis of which the S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. 3. The prosecution has examined ten witnesses other than the informant who has not been examined. PW 1 is the witness of the inquest report. PWs 2, 4 and 7 were tendered. PW 3 was declared hostile. PWs. 5 and 6 are said to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence. PW 8 is the formal witness identifying the signature of the police officer on the FIR. PW 9 is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body and PW 10 is the I.O. 4. The trial Court has convicted the appellants on the basis of the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 although these two witnesses are not eye-witnesses. P.W. 5, during the cross-examination, in paragraph Nos. PW 9 is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body and PW 10 is the I.O. 4. The trial Court has convicted the appellants on the basis of the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 although these two witnesses are not eye-witnesses. P.W. 5, during the cross-examination, in paragraph Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18 of his testimony, has stated that after he was attacked by the appellants, he ran away leaving the motorcycle towards the west along side the residential quarters of the colony and thereafter he went to the front gate of his house but as it was closed, he did not enter the house, instead he rushed towards the northern boundary of the house where he did not see anything and then he went to the southern side where he saw the dead body of his mother, Fulmoni Devi, lying but nobody was present over there. It is, thus, clear that he did not see his mother being attacked or killed by the appellants. He only saw her dead body lying unattended. He is, therefore, not n eye-witness. 5. PW 6, who is the wife of PW 5, as stated in her testimony that she did not see her husband being attacked by the appellants but she saw one of the appellants beating her father-in-law and at that time, she entered her house and closed the door. In the next paragraph at page 2 of her testimony, she has further stated that one of the appellants Hopa Hembrom had also beaten her mother-in-law (Fulmoni Devi) but she herself has not seen the appellants beating/killing her mother-in-law. She is also not an eye-witness of the occurrence. The testimonies of PWs 5 and 6 clearly show that these witnesses have not seen Fulmoni Devi being attacked or killed by the appellants. It was, therefore, not proper for the trial Court to convict the appellants on the basis of their testimonies. 6. Sec. 60 of the Evidence, the relevant Portion of which is reproduced below, required that the oral evidence must be direct: "60. Oral evidence must be direct. It was, therefore, not proper for the trial Court to convict the appellants on the basis of their testimonies. 6. Sec. 60 of the Evidence, the relevant Portion of which is reproduced below, required that the oral evidence must be direct: "60. Oral evidence must be direct. - Oral evidence must in all cases whatever, be direct, that is to say If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it" It is well-settled that if the Court wants to convict a person on the basis of the oral testimony, it must be of the person who says that he saw the offence being committed. But as mentioned hereinabove, the PWs 5 and 6 have not seen the murder of Fulmoni Devi being committed by the appellants. Therefore, their conviction on the basis of the testimony of the said two PWs cannot be sustained. 7. Before the trial Court, it was specifically argued on behalf of the appellants that there was no eyewitness of the occurrence. This plea was rejected by the trial Court relying on the statements made by the PWs 5 and 6 in their examination-in-chief, ignoring what they stated in their cross-examination. 8. The correctness of the statement made by a witness in examination in-chief is tested through crossexamination the object of which is to bring out the truth and expose the falsehood in his/her statements. In the course of cross-examination, the witness is interrogated by the other party or by his Counsel in order to bring out what the witness wants to conceal. Therefore, the statement of a witness in the crossexamination cannot be ignored. In the event of conflict between the statements made in the examination in-chief and the cross-examination, the latter is to be preferred. The trial Court was thus, not justified to ignore what PWs 5 and 6 have said in their cross-examination. 9. While dealing with the testimony of PW 5, the trial Court also made the following passing observations: "..Even if it is said that this witness did not see the assault but while going on duty, the accused Hopa tried to assault and this witness tried to escape. Thereafter seeing the movement of the accusedpersons, he again returned back and he found his mother dead. Thereafter seeing the movement of the accusedpersons, he again returned back and he found his mother dead. So the only irresistible conclusion can be drawn from his statement that these accused-persons are the assailants". 10. Although in examination-in chief. PW 5 has stated that after he was attacked by the appellants he ran away towards west leaving the motorcycle and after going for about 20 ft. he saw his mother Fulmoni Devi also running and when he entered the house. He saw the appellants beating his mother by danda. It was further stated by him that he also saw his father (informant) being beaten by the appellants. But in the cross-examination he has not only not reiterated what he has said in his examination-in-chief but has said just contrary to what he said in the examination-in-chief. He has stated in his cross-examination that he left the house for joining duty from the back door and after the attack by the appellants he ran away towards the west along side the residential quarters of the colony from where he went to the front door of the house which was found closed and then he went to the boundary towards the northern side where no body was there and thereafter, he went to the southern side where he found the dead body of his mother. Fulmoni Devi, lying with none present over there. In his crossexamination neither did he state about seeing the movement of the appellants after he was attacked nor was there any probability of seeing their movement because of his running away towards different directions after the attack. His statements in examination-in-chief is inconsistent with what he stated in the cross-examination and the two cannot be reconciled. The trial Court has recorded the above-quoted observations purely on the basis of the statement of PW 5 in examination-in-chief, ignoring his testimony in the cross-examination. Such a course was not open to it. 11. That apart, it is a case of conviction only on the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 and not on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. This is clear from the following findings recorded by the trial court in the penultimate paragraph: " On careful considering of the evidence of these witnesses, I find that these accused-persons are responsible to cause death of Fulmoni. This is clear from the following findings recorded by the trial court in the penultimate paragraph: " On careful considering of the evidence of these witnesses, I find that these accused-persons are responsible to cause death of Fulmoni. It is further submitted that the informant of this case has not been examined and the case has not been proved but on going through the evidence of PWs 5 and 6, there is no material to discredit their testimonies and non-examination of Ghasia Majhi will not be fatal to the prosecution case". 12. For the reasons given above, the conviction of the appellants recorded by the trial Court cannot be sustained. This appeal is allowed. The Judgment dated 18th June, 1990, passed in S.T. No. 72 of 1986 by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa Camp at Seraikella, convicting and sentencing the appellants to life imprisonment under Sec. 302/34. IPC is set aside. As the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from their respective bail-bonds. A.K.Prasad, J. 13 I agree.