JUDGMENT Lakshman Uraon, J.-This criminal appeal has been preferred by the aforesaid appellants against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 8.7.1994, passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 333 of 1991, whereby and whereunder, he has convicted appellant Gullu Soren alias Babu Ram Soren under Sections 302, 148 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the of• fences under Sections 148 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, directing all the sentences to run concurrently. He has further convicted appellants Motilal Hansda, Chatur Besra and Binia Murmu under Sections 302/149, 147 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorolls imprisonment for six months for the offences under Sections 147 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, directing all the sentences in respect to these appellants to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, as per the statement (Ext. 2) of the informant Makhuni Manjhian (PW 6), wife of deceased Mangal Murmu of village-Bishunpur, Tola-Dungridih, Police Station-Tundi, District-Dhanbad, is that on 5.2.1991 at about 5.00 p.m. while she was sitting at her door, taking her child in her lap, she heard sound of Dugdugi. Soon thereafter, 50 to 60 persons, who were villagers of the nearby villages Bishunpur, Naro, Pokhariya, Simartungri, Madhupur etc., armed with Tangi, Farsa, Lathi, bows and arrows, reached at her door. Out of them, she identified Motnal Hansda (appellant no. 1), Daria Hansda, Sikandar Hansda, Sarekal Tudu, all of village-Bishunpur, Chapra Manjhi of VillageMadhupur, Nirodhi Hansda and Chatur Besra (appellant no. 2), Gulu Soren alias Babu Ram Soren (appellant no. 3) of Village-Simartungri, Motilal Besra of VillageNaro and Binia Murmur (appellant no, 4) of Village-Pokharia. Chapra Manjhi and Gulu Soren alias Baburam Soren both had Tangi in their hands and others were armed with Lathi, Farsa, bows and arrows. Motilal Hansda, Daria Hansda and Sorekal Hansda pointed out the house of her husband Mangal Murmur. The others broke open the outer door and entered into her house. They brought her husband assaulting from his house to the verandah. Chapra Manjhi gave a Tangi blow on the head of her husband Mangal Murmur. Motilal Hansda, Daria Hansda and Sorekal Hansda pointed out the house of her husband Mangal Murmur. The others broke open the outer door and entered into her house. They brought her husband assaulting from his house to the verandah. Chapra Manjhi gave a Tangi blow on the head of her husband Mangal Murmur. When her husband fell down, then appellant Gulu Soren alias Babu Ram Soren gave Tangi blow above the left ear of her husband. When her husband died, then all the accused persons beating the drum went away towards east. When the accused persons fled away, then lavan Hembram, father of the informant, and nearby persons assembled there and saw the alleged occurrence. The alleged occurrence took place only because of the fact that on the same day at about 3.00 p.m. some persons of Village Naro and Simartungri had come to lukhu Hansda of Village-Bishunpur fa Ojhai (witchcraft). They picked up quarrel regarding wine with her husband Mangal Murmur, who was also going to Bishunpur to participate in a feast. The statement of the informant Makhuni Manjhian was recorded on the same day at about 9.30 p.m. at the Police Station, where she had gone along with her father Ravan Hembram and villagers Koka Soren, Shyamlal Soren, Mahadeo Hembram, Shanu Hembram and others on which she gave her L.T.I. and her father signed on it. 3. The learned court below acquitted Moti lal Besra, Daria Hansda, Sikandar Hansda and Sorekal Tudu whereas Nirodhi Hansda and Chapra Manjhi were not sent up for trial by the Investigating Officer. 4. At the time of the alleged occurrence, the informant Makhuni Manjhian (PW 6), wife of deceased Mangal Murmur, was sitting at the door, having child in her lap. In her statement, she has mentioned that she identified ten accused persons, out of whom two were not sent up for trial and four have been acquitted by the learned court below, as mentioned above. In the first statement in the First Information Report (Ext. 2) she has stated that all the named accused along with others entered into her house, breaking the door. They brought her husband assaulting from the room to the verandah. Chapra Manjhi has been shown as not sent up for trial, as the Investigating Officer in course of investigation did not find any person namedChapra Manjhi of Village-Madhupur. 2) she has stated that all the named accused along with others entered into her house, breaking the door. They brought her husband assaulting from the room to the verandah. Chapra Manjhi has been shown as not sent up for trial, as the Investigating Officer in course of investigation did not find any person namedChapra Manjhi of Village-Madhupur. She has alleged that Chapra Manjhi first assaulted with Tangi on the head of her husband Mangal Murmur. When Mangal Murmur fell down on the verandah, then Gulu Soren alias Babu Ram Soren (appellant no. 3) assaulted him with Tangi above the left ear of her husband Mangal Murmur sustained bleeding injuries and died at the spot. When she was examined as PW 6, she claimed to have identified only Gulu Soren (appellant no. 3), Chapra, Binia Murmu (appellant no. 4), Chatur Besra (appellant no. 2) and Motilal Hansda (appellant no. 1). She could not name the others, whom she had named in the First Information Report. She has deposed that only appellant no. 3 Gulu Soren had assaulted with Tangi above the ear and others assaulted with Lathi, resulting death of her husband at the spot. After causing murder of her husband, all of them left the place of occurrence, beating Dugdugi. On hearing Hulla, none of the villagers had reached to her home, as the villagers out of fear had left the village on hearing the sound of Dugdugi. The accused persons remained inside her house for about an hour and during that period she remained outside the room. After half an hour of leaving her home by the accused persons, the villagers Motilal Hansda, Sikandar Hansda, Sorekal Tudu, Daria Hansda and her father had come to her house (Pr. 10). Thus, her statement is very clear that named accused in the F.I.R. Daria Hansda, Sikandar Hansda, Sorekal Tudu and appellant Motilal Hansda are the villagers, who had gone to her home after half an hour of leaving the place of occurrence by the accused persons. Out of them, Daria Hansda, Sikandar Hansda and Sorekal Tudu along with Motilal Besra have been acquitted by the learned court below whereas Motilal Hansda appellant no. 1, who had also gone with them and father of the informant to her home, has been convicted by the learned court below along with three other appellants, namely, Chatur Besra, Gulu Soren and Binia Murmu. 1, who had also gone with them and father of the informant to her home, has been convicted by the learned court below along with three other appellants, namely, Chatur Besra, Gulu Soren and Binia Murmu. She has further contradicted that the blood stained soil was taken by the I.O. whereas the I.O. although found blood fallen at the place where Mangal Murmur was murdered, he did not seize any blood stained soil. 5. PW 7 Krishnadeo Singh, I.O., has recorded the statement of the informant Makhuni Manjhian on 15.2.1991 at about 9.30 a.m. (Ext. 2) but Ext. 2 shows that her statement was recorded on 15.2.1991 at 9.30 p.m. When he went to Village Bishunpur, Tola-Dungridih, in the house of the informant, then he found the dead body of Mangal Murmur. He prepared inquest report in carbon process in presence of the witnesses Ravan Hembram and Rabi Hembram (Ext. 3). The dead body was found on the verandah of the house of the deceased. He did not find any villager nearby the place of occurrence. Although he found blood fallen on the ground at the place of occurrence, he did not seize it. Even he did not seize the clothes of the deceased. He also found the dragging mark of the dead body. In course of investigation, he did not find any person named Chapra Manjhi. He had also not enquired regarding the altercation, which had taken place at about 3.00 p.m. on the same day. He admits that Tundi Block is under the influence of M.C.C. extremist. 6. PW 1 Dr. O.K. Dhiraj has conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mangal Murmur on 16.2.1991 at about 3.00 p.m. and found (a) abrasion: (i) 4" X 3/4"• over both clavicular area (ii) 1 1/2 X 1 ". front of left shoulder (iii) 1/4 X 1/4"-middle part of the forehead (iv) 1" X 1 "-outer to right eye (v) 1 1/2" X 1 ". outer to left eye (vi) Multiple small abrasions in an area 5" X 2" over left iliac forsa (vii) 1/2" X 1/4" over left medial malleolus (viii) 1 1/2" X 1/2" each in the front of the neck on each side in the middle portion (ix) 1/2" X 1/4" two in number over back of the left shoulder. outer to left eye (vi) Multiple small abrasions in an area 5" X 2" over left iliac forsa (vii) 1/2" X 1/4" over left medial malleolus (viii) 1 1/2" X 1/2" each in the front of the neck on each side in the middle portion (ix) 1/2" X 1/4" two in number over back of the left shoulder. (b) Incised wounds with not so clear edges : (i) 3" X 1/4" X bone deep, 1 1/4" X 1/4" X scalp deep and 3/4" X upto bone over occipital parietal areas in an area of 4 1/2" X 3" (ii) 1/2" X 1 /10' into skin deep near left iragus (iii) 11/2" X 1/5" X through and through left ear low (iv) 3/4" X 1/10" X skin deep one inch behind left ear roof. (c) Lacerated wounds-1/2" X 1/4" X upto bone over occipital protuberance. On dissection subgaleal ecehymosis was seen over parietal (left) and occipital areas. Contusion of left temperalis muscle was also noted. Depressed masiac fracture, 3" X 1 1/2" - 2" was seen over left temperal parietal areas and a linear fracture of left parietal and occipital bone 4" long was also noted. Subdural haematoma was seen all over the left and right hemi sphere but was more marked on left thoracoabdominal on gans appeared normal. Both sides of the heart was partially full and the urinary bladder was empty. The stomach contained approx. 100 c.c. bloodstained watery fluid without any alcoholic smell. The doctor opined that the death was due to coma as a result of the aforementioned injuries on the head, The death was since 24 hours since the time of the postmortem examination, The doctor accordingly, prepared post-mortem report in his pen and signature (Ext. 1). 7. PW 2 Ravan Hembram, father of the informant, is a hearsay witness, who had gone to the place of occurrence when the accused had left the place. He saw injuries on both the temporal region but he had not deposed these things before the I.O. in course of investigation that he was informed by his daughter. 1). 7. PW 2 Ravan Hembram, father of the informant, is a hearsay witness, who had gone to the place of occurrence when the accused had left the place. He saw injuries on both the temporal region but he had not deposed these things before the I.O. in course of investigation that he was informed by his daughter. PW 3 Koka Soren, a villager, had gone to the house of the informant, who was informed by her (informant) that her husband was murdered by the villagers of Village-Simbartoli whereas appellant Gulu Soren is of villageSimardumari, appellant Biniya Murmur is of Village-Pokharia, appellant Motilal Hansda is of Village-Bishunpur, Chatur Besra is of Village-Simardumri. He did not see any accused fleeing away from the house of the informant, regarding whom she (informant) had claimed that the villagers including this witness Koka Soren saw the accused persons fleeing away, beating drum after causing murder of her husband. 8. PW 4 Etwari Murmu is the brother of the deceased Mangal Murmur, who is a tendered witness. He had seen many persons fleeing away after causing murder of his brother. He did not identify anyone of them. PW 5 Manjhlu Kisku is also a tendered witness, who knows nothing about the alleged occurrence and who belongs to the same village of the informant i.e. Bishunpur. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the only eye witness is the informant (PW 6) herself whose statement could not be corroborated by any of the independent witnesses. She has stated that it was summer season (Pr. 6) but the date of occurrence is 15th February, 1991 at about 5.00 p.m. and at that time it was not dark although it was the month of February. The other villagers including her father PW 2 Ravan Hembram, PW 3 Koka Soren and PW 4 Etwari Murmu although had gone to the house of the informant, they did not see anyone fleeing away from the place of occurrence. Ravan Hembram PW 3 has stated that he identified only Gulu Soren (appellant no. 3), who is Fufera brother (Pr. 8). But the informant PW 6 has stated that Gulu Soren is not related with her although she admits that there was no differences in between the families of Gulu Soren and the informant (Pr. 5). 10. The evidence of Dr. 3), who is Fufera brother (Pr. 8). But the informant PW 6 has stated that Gulu Soren is not related with her although she admits that there was no differences in between the families of Gulu Soren and the informant (Pr. 5). 10. The evidence of Dr. D.K. Dhiraj (PW 1') shows that there were abrasions on the person of the deceased on the head nine in number and incised wounds 4 in number besides the lacerated wounds over occipital protuberance. The cause of death was due to coma, as a result of head injuries. The informant was on the verandah while the assailants entered into the room and assaulted her husband with Tangi, Lathi and Farsa. At that time she was not in a position to see as to who assaulted with what weapon to her husband. After his death he was dragged from the room and brought on the verandah. The I.O. (PW 7) found the dead body on the verandah. Thus, the place of occurrence has been established which is the house of the informant. Her husband was assaulted and murdered inside the room and after his death, the dead body was dragged and brought on the verandah. The I.O. also has found blood fallen on these places, although he did not seize any blood stained soil nor he seized any clothes of the deceased. The inquest report (Ext. 3) also shows that the place of occurrence is the house and verandah of the informant. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that none of the villagers had supported the oral evidence of the informant (PW 6). She (the informant) has contradicted her statement that one Chapra Manjhi assaulted her husband with Tangi on his head but in her evidence she has not named Chapra Manjhi alleging that he assaulted with Tangi on the head of her husband. On the other hand, she has stated that only Gulu Soren alias Baburam Soren gave Tangi blows on the head of her husband and the others assaulted with La this. It was also submitted that the I.O. has investigated the case in a very perfunctory manner. On the other hand, she has stated that only Gulu Soren alias Baburam Soren gave Tangi blows on the head of her husband and the others assaulted with La this. It was also submitted that the I.O. has investigated the case in a very perfunctory manner. He did not seize the blood stained soil from the place of occurrence nor he examined any of the witnesses regarding the altercation, which had taken place in between the appellants and the deceased on the same day at about 3.00 p.m. regarding wine. 11. PW 6 informant has not seen the alleged assault on her husband rather when the accused left her house, then she found her husband in injured condition, who had died. The deceased was of lalkhandi Group whereas these appellants are the members of Jharkhandi Group. PW 7 (I.O.) has stated that Tundi area was under the influence of lalkhandis. These appellants are supporters of Jharkhandis. Hence they have falsely been implicated in this case. 12. I have already stated above that in this case only the informant Makhuni Manjhian (PW 6), wife of the deceased, claims herself to be the eye witness. The manner of the alleged occurrence, as stated by her, is quite contradictory. In the First Information Report (Ext. 2) she has claimed to have identified ten accused persons whereas in course of her evidence she has named only Gullu Soren, Chapra, Binia Murmur, Chatur Besra and Motilal Hansda. In the F.I.R., she had stated that Chapra Manjhi and Gullu Soren were armed with Tangi. Chapra Manjhi assaulted on the head of her husband and when her husband fell down, then Gulu Soren alias Baburam assaulted him with Tangi. In her evidence she had not stated anything about Chapra Manjhi. On the other hand, she has stated that Gulu Soren alias Baburam assaulted with Tangi above the ear of both sides of her husband Mangal Murmur and the others, namely, Chapra Manjhi, Binia Murmur, Chatur Besra and Motilal Hansda assaulted with Lathi. The Tangi blows given by the appellant Gulu Soren alias Baburam has not been specified as to which part of the body of Mangal Murmur was injured by Tangi blows. On the other hand, there is specific allegation in the F.I.R. that Chapra Manjhi assaulted with Tangi on the head of her husband, who fell down and thereafter, the others assaulted him with Lathi. On the other hand, there is specific allegation in the F.I.R. that Chapra Manjhi assaulted with Tangi on the head of her husband, who fell down and thereafter, the others assaulted him with Lathi. Shn has also stated that the assailants remained inside the room for an hour. During that period she remained outside the room on the verandah. It was 5.00 p.m. and inside the room the assailants had entered. In this circumstance it is not possible that she could see the assailants assaulting her husband, by remaining herself on the verandah. After the assault, the dead body was dragged and brought on the verandah. She claimed that when the accused left her house, then she saw her husband injured and died. She did not name the assailants to any villagers. She only informed her father including the village witness Koka Soren (PW 3) and Etwari Murmu (PW 4). Thus, I find that there is contradiction in her ocular evidence. She has denied any relationship with appellant Gulu Soren alias Baburam although she was knowing him prior to the alleged occurrence whereas her father PW 2 Ravan Hembram has deposed that Gulu Soren alias Baburam is his Fufera brother. At the time of the alleged occurrence, about 50 to 60 persons beating Dugdugi entered into her home. The villagers out of fear had left the village and came back to their village after half an hour when the assailants had left the place of occurrence. They were also not narrated about the alleged occurrence by the informant. The F.I.R. (Ext. 2) has been recorded in Hindi by the 1.0. (PW 7) which bears signature of Ravan Hembram (PW 2) but there is no endorsement that PW 6 Makhuni Manjhian (informant), who gave her statement in Santhali, was re-translated in Hindi by her father. In paragraph 12 she has stated that the statement recorded by the I.O. (PW 7) was read over to her father in Hindi which was re-translated. 13. In view of these facts I come to the conclusion that the evidence of the sole eye witness Makhuni Manjhian (PW 6) suffers from contradictions, which cannot be relied upon to convict the appellants, as the medical evidence and the post-mortem report (Ext. 13. In view of these facts I come to the conclusion that the evidence of the sole eye witness Makhuni Manjhian (PW 6) suffers from contradictions, which cannot be relied upon to convict the appellants, as the medical evidence and the post-mortem report (Ext. 1) does not corroborate her statement regarding the assault made by Tangi and Lathi on the person of her husband and also the manner of the alleged occurrence and the claim made by her to have witnessed the alleged assault by remaining herself outside on the verandah. 14. In the result the conviction and sentence, passed by the learned court below against these appellants cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the all the appellants are acquitted of the charges. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned court below are hereby set aside. Appellants Motilal Hansda, Chatur Besra and Binia Murmur who are on bail, are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds whereas appellant no. 3 Gulu Soren alias Baburam, who is in custody, is ordered to be released forthwith from the custody, if not required in any other case. Vishnudeo Narayan, J.-I agree.