JUDGMENT Vishnudeo Narayan, J.- This appeal has been preferred by sale appellant named above against the judgment and order dated 30.9.1996 passed by Shri Jaywant Tiru, Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 130 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of fardbeyan (Exhibit-2) of P.W. 3, Ful Kumari, the informant, the wife of Padumnath Pradhan, the son of the deceased, Laxminath Pradhan of this case recorded by A.S.I., Md. Mahiuddin of Kurdeg P.S. Camp in the house of the informant situated at Mahua Toli , P.S.Kurdeg, District-Gumla on 24.9.1989 at 14.00 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have been taken place on 23.9.1989 at 7 p.m. in the said house. According to the prosecution case, Laxmi Nath Pradhan, the deceased of this case, had three sons, namely, P.W. 1, Madan Mohan Pradhan, appellant-Dev Narayan Pradhan and Padum Nath Pradhan, the husband of the informant and they have their common house in village Mahua Toli, P.S.-Kurdeg, District-Gumla where they reside and the husband of the informant is in the Police Department at Rajsthan. It is alleged that on the day of occurrence at about 5 p.m. the informant was in her room in the said house and the deceased was also in the said house and at that time P.W. 1, Madan Mohan Pradhan came there with Hajit Manjhi, a local indigenous medical practitioner along with P.W. 4, Jitu Bphra for the treatment of his younger son and he was talking with them in a room facing south in the said house. It is alleged that at about 7 p.m. on that very day the appellant came from outside and he entered into the room of P.W.1, Madan Mohan Pradhan and started abusing his married daughter in filthy language stating that he had got the marriage of his daughter solemnized in the state of jointness and thereafter he has got the partition done separating this appellant and the appellant intimidated him to be taken to task and thereafter the appellant came out of the said room and went inside his room situate south west in the said house. It is alleged that P.W 4, Jitu Behra and Hajit Manjhi went away from there leaving P.W 1, Madan Mohan Pradhan in the said room and bolted the door of the said room from outside. The prosecution case further is that the appellant came in the courtyard of the house armed with Iron Ghan (Hammer) of 5 or 6 kilo of weight which is used for breaking stones and again started abusing the daughter of Madan Mohan Pradhan and also started wielding the said Ghan and at this deceased, Laxmi Nath Pradhan asked the appellant as to why he is creating nuisance in the house and asked him to go out of the house and thereafter the deceased was lifting the lantern from the Varamdah of the house and he was keeping the said lantern at the door of the room of the informant and his back was facing the courtyard at that time. The prosecution case further is that at that stage the appellant gave a blow on the head of Laxmi Nath Pradhan aforesaid by Ghan and further two blows were given by the said Ghan at his back and Laxmi Nath Pradhan fell down at the door in such a way that the upper part of his body was inside the room and there was profuse bleeding. It is also alleged that the informant gave some water in his mouth and he opened the room of Madan Mohan Pradhan aforesaid and brought him out of the said room and thereafter she spread sack on the ground and kept the dead body of the deceased with the help of Madan Mohan Pradhan on the said sack and the appellant fled away with the Ghan aforesaid. 3. 3. The appellant has pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him and he claims himself to be innocent and to have committed no offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case in view of the fact that P.W 1, Madan Mohan Pradhan had grabbed a lions share in the ancestor house which was always protested by this appellant and Laxmi Nath Pradhan, his father, the deceased of this case and furthermorethe said Madan Mohan Pradhan had illicit relationship with the informant, Ful Kumari for which this appellant along with said deceased used to raise objections and the said Madan Mohan Pradhan has committed the murder of Laxmi Nath Pradhan with the help of informant, P.W. 3, Ful Kumari. 4. The prosecution has examined by 8 witnesses before the court below to substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant. P.W.3, Ful Kumari, the informant, is the solitary eye witness of this case, P.W.1, Madan Mohan Pradhan is the son of the deceased present in a room bolted from out side in the P.O. house at the time of the occurrence. P.W. 4, Jitu Behra has turned hostile and does not support the prosecution case. P.W. 5, Jagarnath Pradhan a hearsay witness, has come to P.O. house on being called by P.Ws. 1 and 3 after the occurrence. P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 are formal witnesses. It is relevant to mention here that the doctor conducting the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and the Investigating Officer have not taken oath in this case. 5. In view of the evidence oral and documentary on the record, the learned court below has found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment of the learned court below is not only illegal, rather, it is perverse and the court below has not at all meticulously considered the •evidence on the record and has gravely erred in coming to the finding of guilt of the appellant. It has also been submitted tl1at there is no motive or any tangible reason for the appellant to commit the murder of his father Laxmi Nath Pradhan, the deceased .of this case as alleged, in view of the admitted facts which emerge on the record in the evidence of P.Ws. It has also been submitted tl1at there is no motive or any tangible reason for the appellant to commit the murder of his father Laxmi Nath Pradhan, the deceased .of this case as alleged, in view of the admitted facts which emerge on the record in the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5, P.W 1, Madan Mohan Pradhan with the help of P.W 3, the informant, has committed the murder of Laxmi Nath Pradhan and by committing the said murder he killed two birds with one stone i.e. he has removed both his obstacles in their way for perpetuating his incestuous life with P.W 3, the informant, and also to grab the property of the appellant. Further it has been submitted that P.W 4, Jitu Behra has stated in para-4 of his evidence that the appellant used to maintain and nourish his father and there was great love and affection between them and he used to live with his father, the deceased of this case and even P.W 3, the informant in para-6 of his evidence has specifically admitted the fact that there was no ill will or quarrel between the appellant and the deceased prior to the occurrence and P.W 1. Madan Mohan Pradhan has also deposed in para-6 of his evidence that the appellant did not quarrel with the deceased when he has come in the house prior to the occurrence. P.W. 4 has further deposed that P.W 1, Madan Mohan Pradhan and P.W 3, Ful Kumari used to reside together. It has also been submitted that P.W 5, Jagarnath Pradhan has deposed in para-5 of his evidence that P.W. 1, Madan Mohan Pradhan is widower and the husband of the informant, Ful Kumari is presently posted at Nagaland and they eat and dine together and there is illicit relation between them which was objected to by Laxmi Nath Pradhan, the deceased of this case. On the basis of the admitted facts aforesaid emerging in the evidence of P.W 4 and 5, the defence version of false implication of the appellant is not only probable, rather, it is established in this case as per the admission of the prosecution witnesses themselves. It has also been submitted that the appellant stands greatly prejudiced in this case due to non-examination of the I.O. and doctor and he was debarred of eliciting facts in their cross examination showing his innocence. It has also been submitted that the appellant stands greatly prejudiced in this case due to non-examination of the I.O. and doctor and he was debarred of eliciting facts in their cross examination showing his innocence. It has also been submitted that there is no legal evidence on the record that the injury caused by the deceased leading to his death has been caused by Ghan as alleged. Lastly it has been contended that P.W5 in para-4 of his evidence has deposed that when he had gone to the P.O. house at the instance of P.W1 and P.W 3 he has seen the dead body in the room in occupation of P.W.1, Madan Mohan Pradhan and the testimony of P.W 3, the informant, is unworthy of credit and fit to be brushed aside in the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. The learned A.P.P. has submitted that P.W 3, the informant is the eye witness of the commission of murder of the deceased by this appellant and P.W 2 has deposed in para-9 of his evidence that he had heard the cry of the informant as well as his mother at the time of occurrence that the appellant is assaulting the deceased and in view of the evidence aforesaid the learned Court below has rightly found the appellant guilty and has convicted and sentenced him. 8. In view of the evidence of P.Ws, 1, 3, 4 and 5 on the record the following facts emerged as admitted facts :- Laxmi Nath Pradhan, the deceased of this case had three sons, namely, PW 1, Madan Mohan Pradhan, appellant- Dev Narayan Pradhan and Padumnath Pradllan, the husband of P.W. 3, the informant. The widow of Laxmi Nath Pradhan though present at the time of occurrence but not examined in this case for the prosecution also resides with the deceased and all the aforesaid persons have their separate rooms in their occupation in the ancestor house on the basis of mutual partition having a common courtyard and there had never been any quarrel or ill will in respect of the said partition among the co-srarers and the said partition was effected by the deceased, Laxmi Nath Pradhan as per his free will. P.W 1, Madan Mohan Pradhan is a widower having two daughters, namely, Kamla and Ashmani and this appellant has got their marriage solemnized. P.W 1, Madan Mohan Pradhan is a widower having two daughters, namely, Kamla and Ashmani and this appellant has got their marriage solemnized. The husband of the informant is presently posted at Nagaland and he comes once a year to his ancestor home for two months. P.W. 3, the informant is a 30 years old issueless woman and she lives in the said house with P.W. 1, Madan Mohan Pradhan and they used to dine together and P.W. 3, the informant used to cook for him and there is illicit incestuous relationship between them. P.W. 3 provides meal to P.W. 1 and there is intimate relationship between them. There was no ill will between the appellant and the deceased prior to the occurrence and the appellant used to maintain and nourish his father, the deceased of this case and the appellant used to reside with the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was found in the room of P.W. 1, Madan Mohan Pradhan. The deceased always used to oppose the incestuous relationship between the informant and P.W. 1, Madan Mohan Pradhan. 9. In view of the admitted facts referred to above the appellant has no motive and reason to commit the murder of his father. Laxmi Nath Pradhan in the manner as alleged, rather, P.W. 3, the informant and P.W. 1, Madan Mohan Pradhan appears to have probable motive to eliminate Laxmi Nath Pradhan from the scene and to falsely implicate the appellant in this case to remove both the obstacles in their way for leading incestuous life and also to grab the entire ancestor property. The solitary testimony of P.W. 3 uncorroborated in material particulars by any independent, natural and competent witness of the occurrence in view of the admitted facts aforesaid is unworthy of credit and fit to be brushed aside. The widow of the deceased was present as per evidence of P.W. 1 at the time of commission of alleged occurrence but she has not taken on oath in this case for the prosecution for the reasons best known to the informant and P.W. 1, Madan Mohan Pradhan. The non-examination of the widow of the deceased casts a cloud of suspicion to the very warp and woof of the prosecution case and it appears that she has been deliberately withheld in this case. The non-examination of the widow of the deceased casts a cloud of suspicion to the very warp and woof of the prosecution case and it appears that she has been deliberately withheld in this case. In the absence of testimony of medical witness in this case, the cause of death of the deceased as a result of assault on his head and back also does not stand substantiated by legal and reliable evidence. The non-examination of the I.O. and doctor has equally caused great prejudice to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case as he stands debarred of eliciting facts in their cross examination showing his innocence. Furthermore, in view of the admitted facts referred to above emerging from the evidence on the record, the defence version of false implication of the appellant in this case is not only probable, rather, it is established and I have no hesitation for coming to the conclusion that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of P.W. 3 in collusion and conspiracy with P.W. 1. 10. The learned court below did not meticulously consider the evidence on the record in proper perspective and has gravely erred in coming to the finding of guilt of the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment is unsustainable. There is merit in this appeal and it succeeds. The appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside. The appellant is not found guilty and is accordingly acquitted and discharged from the liability of bail bonds. Vikramaditya Prasad, J.-I agree.