Judgment A.K.Sinha and B.K.Jha JJ. 1. The sole appellant, namely, Deo Narayan Rout has been convicted under sections 302 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence was recorded by the trial court under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Langar Thakur (P.W. 5), the son of the deceased, was recorded by A.S.I. Ashok Kumar Singh (I.O.) on 19.5.96 at 7.00 P.M. at Bahera hospital and the prosecution as disclosed in the fardbeyan is that on 19.5.96 at about 2.00 P.M. a quarrel took place between the female members of the informants house with the female members of neighbourhood. In the meantime the appellant came with Tangi in his hand and by abusing he assaulted the informants mother Kaushalya Devi with Tangi on her head as a result of which the informants mother was seriously injured. The informant who was shaving nearby came to the rescue of his mother but the appellant fled away. The informant saw that blood was coming from the mouth and nose of his mother. The occurrence was witnessed by Mahendra Rai and Shyam Jha and after sometime many villagers assembled at the P.O. On the basis of the fardbeyan a case under sections 341, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered but in course of investigation the informants mother died, so, the case was converted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The police submitted chargesheet under sections 448, 441, 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. The learned Magistrate took cognizance in the case and committed the case to the court of sessions. 3. The appellant was charged under sections 302 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty. The defence version is that the deceased actually fell down on Shilwat and sustained injuries and due to land dispute the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. 4. The defence has also examined D.W. 1 Ganga Prasad Jha who is a lawyer clerk. He has formally proved the compromise petition (Ext. A) and has stated that the compromise petition was drafted at the instance of Langer Thakur who affixed his L.T.I. after understanding the contents. 4. The defence has also examined D.W. 1 Ganga Prasad Jha who is a lawyer clerk. He has formally proved the compromise petition (Ext. A) and has stated that the compromise petition was drafted at the instance of Langer Thakur who affixed his L.T.I. after understanding the contents. He, however, could not say the contents of the compromise petition. 5. D.W. 2 Ram Chandra Bhagat has deposed that in course of quarrel between the female members of the informants house and the wife of the appellant the deceased fell down on Shilwat due to which she died and he learnt this fact from the father of the informant. It is manifest from his evidence that he is a hearsay witness and the quarrel had not taken place in his presence nor the deceased sustained injury in his presence. 6. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses, including Noorul Hoda (P.W. 9), P.K.Rai (P.W. 7) who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased as also A.K. Singh (P.W. 8) who is the investigating officer of this case. P.W. 9 Noorul Hoda is a formal witness. He has proved the injury report (Ext. 5) granted by doctor of Bahera hospital who has not been examined in the case. P.W. 1 Mahendra Rai and P.W. 2 Shyam Jha who have been named as eye witnesses in the fardbeyan (Ext. 2) have turned volte face and have not supported the prosecution case. Thus, the case of the prosecution depends on the evidence of P.W. 3 Guddu Thakur who is the son of the informant, P.W. 4 Pramila Devi who is the wife of the informant and P.W. 5 Langar Thakur, the informant himself besides the evidence of the doctor and the I.O. and I shall discuss their evidence hereinafter. 7. P.W. 5 Langar Thakur claimed himself to be the eye witness of the alleged occurrence and has stated that he was doing the work of shaving in the nearby Gohal when the alleged occurrence took place and the appellant came with a Tangi and assaulted his mother on her head. He further stated that he took his mother to the hospital but his mother died on 22.5.96. He further stated that he took his mother to the hospital but his mother died on 22.5.96. In his cross-examination he has stated that the appellant gave a single blow with the sharp portion of Tengari and the blood had fallen in Oshara and courtyard of his house and he had shown the blood to the l.O. who seized the blood stained earth. It may be stated here that the injured was first taken to Bahera hospital where she was treated by the doctor who granted injury certificate (Ext. 5) which shows that the doctor did not find any injury caused by sharp edged weapon as claimed by the informant, rather, he found two injuries on the head of the deceased which were caused by hard and blunt object. The doctor who conducted the postmortem examination also found two injuries caused by hard and blunt object on the head of the deceased. As such, the claim of the informant that the appellant had assaulted the deceased by sharp portion of the Tangi does not find support from the injury report (Ext. 5) as also from the post mortem report (Ext. 1). It further appears that both the doctors found two injuries on the head of the deceased but the informant has stated that the appellant had given single blow to his mother by Tangi and this discrepancy between the ocular evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and the medical evidence could not be explained by the prosecution. P.W. 5 has stated in his cross-examination that after the occurrence, he took his mother with the help of villagers to the police station where he reached at about 4.00 P.M. and gave his statement at 4.00 P.M., meaning thereby, that the F.I.R. was lodged by him at 4.00 P.M. but the fardbeyan shows that it was recorded at Bahera hospital at 7.00 P.M. as the I.O. (P.W. 8) has admitted that after receiving the O.D. Slip from the hospital at 6.50 P.M. he went to the hospital and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant. It would thus appear that the F.I.R. which the informant claimed to have lodged at 4.00 P.M. has not been produced by the prosecution and an adverse inference against the prosecution can be drawn on this score. 8. It would thus appear that the F.I.R. which the informant claimed to have lodged at 4.00 P.M. has not been produced by the prosecution and an adverse inference against the prosecution can be drawn on this score. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the informant had not witnessed the occurrence and was not present at the time of the alleged occurrence which has been established from the evidence of the witnesses and the entire prosecution story is nothing but a cock and bull story which is the brain work of informants mind which is evident from the fact that his own son Guddu Thakur (P.W. 3) has clearly stated that besides him and his mother, his uncle Shambhu Thakur and Shyam were present in the Angan. He further stated that his father and grand father came after one hour of the alleged occurrence and his father went straight to the hospital. P.W. 6, Madhu Thakur who is the father of the informant has deposed that at the time of occurrence he was present in his Daian but he could not say that who were present in the Angan when the alleged occurrence took place. P.W. 4 who is the wife of the informant has also stated that she was alone in the Angan and at the time of assault Mahendra Rai and Shyam Jha (P.Ws. 1 and 2) came there but she does not whisper the name of the informant. As such, it would appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 6 that the informant was not present when the alleged occurrence took place and the entire prosecution case which is based on the statement of P.W. 5 becomes highly doubtful. 9. P.W. 4 Pramila Devi who is the wife of the informant and eye witness to the alleged occurrence has stated that while the quarrel was going on, her mother-in-law was trying to pacify the quarrel and in the meantime the appellant came and assaulted her mother-in-law with Tengari. She has stated that alleged occurrence took place on Sunday and her mother-in-law died in hospital on Wednesday which corresponds to 22.5.96. In cross-examination P.W. 4 has categorically stated that she was alone in the courtyard and when the assault took place Mahendra Rai (P.W. 1) came there and further stated that Mahendra Rai and Shyam took away her mother-in-law to the hospital. In cross-examination P.W. 4 has categorically stated that she was alone in the courtyard and when the assault took place Mahendra Rai (P.W. 1) came there and further stated that Mahendra Rai and Shyam took away her mother-in-law to the hospital. P.W. 4 has not stated about the presence of her son Guddu Rai (P.W. 3) and her husband (P.W.5). In other words, she has excluded the presence of P.Ws. 3 and 5 who claimed to be the eye witnesses to alleged occurrence. 10. P.W. 3 Guddu Thakur who is the child witness has stated that the alleged occurrence took place on Wednesday at 4.00 P.M. although the admitted case of the prosecution is that the occurrence had taken place on Sunday at 2.00 P.M. He has further stated that his mother, father and grand father were present although it has been found above and his father and grand father were not present at the time of occurrence. So, it can be said at once that he has been tutored to depose falsely. According to P.W. 3 his mother, uncle and one Shyam Jha were present in the courtyard who had witnessed the occurrence but his uncle Shambhu Thakur has not been examined and P.W. 2 Shyam Jha has not supported the prosecution case. This witness has stated that his grand mother died on the date of occurrence itself and was cremated on the same day which is not a fact as per the prosecution version and it appears that he has made absurd statement which is far from truth. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.W. 3. 11. The next witness is P.W. 4 Pramila Devi. I have already stated above that her ocular evidence has not been substantiated by the medical evidence, inasmuch, as she has stated that appellant assaulted the deceased with sharp portion of Tengari once only but the doctor did not find any injury on the head of the deceased caused by sharp edged weapon, rather, the doctor who had examined the deceased in the hospital found two injuries caused by hard and blunt object and the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased also found two injuries which were caused by hard and blunt object. The prosecution could not explain this discrepancy which in its own turn makes the evidence of P.W. 4 highly doubtful. The prosecution could not explain this discrepancy which in its own turn makes the evidence of P.W. 4 highly doubtful. P.W. 4 has stated that there was a dispute regarding Angan with the accused and it is actually the case of the defence that due to the dispute the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case and the occurrence had not taken place in the manner as alleged in the fardbeyan. 12. P.W. 8 Ashok Kumar Singh is the I.O. of this case who has deposed that O.D. Slip was received from the hospital at 6.50 P.M. on the basis of which station diary entry no. 306 was made and on the instruction of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station he went to Bahera hospital and recorded the fardbeyan (Ext. 2) of the informant, on the basis of which, formal F.I.R. (Ext. 3) was lodged. The I.O. has stated that he inspected the place of occurrence which is Angan of the house of the informant and the house of the appellant is situated at a distance of 10 to 15 yards from the house of the informant towards west. According to him he prepared the inquest report after getting information regarding the death of the deceased and sent the dead body for post mortem examination on 22.5.96. The prosecution has not proved the inquest report. P.W. 8 has stated that he had prepared the inquest report on 22.5.96 at 7.00 P.M. RW. 7 Dr. P.K. Rai has, however, deposed that he had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 22.5.96 at 1.00 P.M. The postmortem report (Ext. 1) also indicates that the postmortem was done on 22.5.96 at 1.00 P.M. The evidence of the witness goes to show that the deceased had died on Wednesday which correspond to 22.5.96. So, in all probabilities the inquest report must have been prepared at 7.00 RM. on 22.5.96 and the same day the I.O. had sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination. Therefore, the postmortem examination must have been done on the following day i.e. 23.5.96 but the doctor has stated that he conducted the postmortem examination on 22.5.96 at 1.00 P.M. It appears that the doctor committed some mistake in putting the date on the postmortem report and has deposed in the court looking at the postmortem report. Therefore, the postmortem examination must have been done on the following day i.e. 23.5.96 but the doctor has stated that he conducted the postmortem examination on 22.5.96 at 1.00 P.M. It appears that the doctor committed some mistake in putting the date on the postmortem report and has deposed in the court looking at the postmortem report. In his evidence also he mentioned the same date and it seems that this discrepancy occurred due to slip of pen in mentioning the date. The evidence on record shows that the deceased died on 22.5.96 and the I.O. received the information of her death on the same day at 6.50 P.M. and prepared the inquest report at 7.00 P.M. So, in all probabilities the postmortem must have been conducted on the following day i.e. on 23.5.96. 13. It may be pointed out that P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 have stated that blood had fallen at the P.O. but the I.O. who visited the place of occurrence did not find any blood and stated that nobody produced before him the blood stained cloth of the deceased. As such, the evidence of the witnesses lacks corroboration from the objective finding of the evidence. 14. On the basis of above analysis of the evidence it would be found that the witnesses have made contradictory statements on material points and their ocular version is not supported by the medical evidence on account of which the entire prosecution story is shrouded with doubts. The other circumstance of the case as pointed out by the learned counsel, however, goes to show that the prosecution version is not above doubts. No independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution case. 15. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record, we are of the view that the prosecution had not proved the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and the learned trial court was not justified in convicting the appellant in the manner stated above. Therefore, we set aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court and hold the appellant not guilty to the charges and acquit him of the same. 16. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the appellant Deo Narayan Rout who is in jail is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.