Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellants have been convicted under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the fardbeyan of P.W. 3 Khandu Tantu Bai, is that on 1.8.1988 at about Sec. 10 p.m. while she was in her house, she heard cry of his deceased son Rasu Tantubai "Bachao Bachao" and on this, she accompanied by her husband Purno Tantubai and another son namely, Haru Tantubai went outside the house in search of her son and when she had gone to a distance, she found her son deceased Rasu Tantubai fleeing away and he was being chased by the appellants and other accused-persons and when he had gone up to 25 yards, he fell down on the village road and on that Chuna Ram Mahuli, Chowkidar cried "Maro Sale Ko" and there she saw Harendra Tantu Bai with iron rod (Khanti) and other accused-persons armed with lathi. Harendra Tantubai started assaulting her son with the iron rod (Khanti) Asa result of which her son fell and become unconscious and thereafter accused-persons assaulted her son with lathi as a result of which her son died on the spot. She raised Hulla and on her Hulla villagers, namely, Chhatu Sardar, Bipin Manjhi and others came there and witnessed the occurrence. On the next day in the morning, she went to the police station where her fardbeyan was recorded by the police. On the basis of the fardbeyan, the First Information Report, Ext. 3 was drawn up against the appellants and two other accused-persons, namely, Murlidhar Tantu Bai and the village Chowkidar Chuna Ram Mahuli. 4. After due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants and Murlidhar Tantubai and after taking cognizance of the offence, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. In coarse of trial, Murlidhar Tantubai died and the appellants on the basis of the evidence were found guilty for murder of Rasu Tantubai and accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced, as referred to above. 5. The defence of the appellants was plea of innocence and false implication. No specific defence has been taken by them appellants in their statements under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. The prosecution in all examined five witnesses. 5. The defence of the appellants was plea of innocence and false implication. No specific defence has been taken by them appellants in their statements under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. The prosecution in all examined five witnesses. Out of them, P.W. 1 Nityanand Mahto is the inquest witness; P.W. 5, Shambhu Nath Roy is a formal witness who has proved the First Information Report Ext. 3; P.W. 4 Dr. Sheo Shankar Prasad is a witness who held autopsy over the dead body. P.W. 2 Haru Tantubai is younger brother of the deceased whereas P.W. 3 Khandi Tantubai is the mother. 7. P.W. 3, the informant, Khandu Tantubai, has supported the prosecution version of the case as disclosed in the fardbeyan. She in her evidence has stated that on 1.8.1988 at about 10 p.m., while she was in her house, she heard cry of her son Rasu Tantubai and immediately thereafter, she accompanied by her husband Purno Tantubai and another son Hani Tantubai went in search of her son and no sooner she had gone to some extent, she saw her son fleeing away and he was chased by the appellants and other accused-persons. Ultimately, her son fell on the village road where appellant Harendra Tantubai assaulted with iron rod (Khanti) as a result of which he became unconscious and other accused-persons thereafter assaulted him with lathi and ultimately her son died on the spot. In her evidence, this witness has categorically stated that she had identified the appellants and other accused-persons and had also seen weapons held by them. She has also disclosed land of the weapons held by then accused-persons. However, she has not stated in her evidence about source of identification in the night at about 10 p.m. Suggestion was given to this witness by the defence that her son deceased had gone to tease the girl in the house of Manju Devi and on hulla he rank away with the article of the house and fell on the stone road and sustained injuries. However, she denied this suggestion. It is manifest from her evidence that her husband Purno Tantubai and another son Haru Tantubai had also accompanied her and they had also witnessed the occurrence. Her husband Pumo Tantubai, however, has not been examined by the prosecution. 8. However, she denied this suggestion. It is manifest from her evidence that her husband Purno Tantubai and another son Haru Tantubai had also accompanied her and they had also witnessed the occurrence. Her husband Pumo Tantubai, however, has not been examined by the prosecution. 8. P.W. 2, another son of the informant, Haru Tantubai in his evidence has stated that on the fateful night, he was coming from the pond after easing and in the way he saw his brother deceased lying dead on the village road and there his mother, father and sister arrived there. From the evidence of P.W. 2 and on its reading as a whole, it appears that he had not seen the occurrence and had only seen his brother lying dead where his mother, father and sister had arrived at. 9. From the evidence discussed above, we find that the statement of the informant P.W. 3 to the extent that her son had also accompanied her does not inspire confidence in view of the evidence of P.W. 2 that he was coming alone after easing himself and had seen his brother lying dead. The prosecution has not explained as to under what circumstances husband of the informant Purno Tantubai and his daughter who had also gone to the place of occurrence along with P.Ws. 2 and 3 have not been examined. 10. It is true that quality of the witness matters and not plurality but in the instant case, when the mother of the deceased, the informant had seen the occurrence along with her husband, it was the husband who was the best witness to say about the occurrence. From the evidence of P.W. 3, we further find that the accused-persons had left iron rod (Khanti) and other weapons on the spot and fled away. However, there is nothing on record to show that these weapons were seized by the police and seizure-list was prepared. The Investigating Officer of the case has also not been examined. Besides the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, the evidence of the doctor, P.W. 4 goes to show that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries on his person and injuries were found ante-mortem and the injuries as such were found sufficient to cause death in natural course. 11. On analysing of the evidence, as discussed above, it appears that the entire prosecution case hinges upon the evidence of P.Ws. 11. On analysing of the evidence, as discussed above, it appears that the entire prosecution case hinges upon the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 I whose evidence has been found contradictory to each other. 12. From the evidence, as discussed above, it appears to us that manner of the occurrence has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The factum of death of the deceased has been proved but there is no evidence to show that the deceased was killed at the hands of the appellants. In the facts and circumstances case, therefore, it can safely he held that the evidence of P.W. 3 is not at all reliable and no reliance could be placed upon her testimony and the entire prosecution version of the case, as disclosed by the witnesses, has become doubtful. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are not sustainable in law. 13. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Subash Tantu Bai and Krishna Majhi are on bail, therefore, they are discharged from the liability of their bail-bonds, appellant No. 1, Harendra Tantu Bai is in custody, he is, accordingly, directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other cases.