Judgment Lakshman Uraon, J.-The sole appellant Govind Sah has preferred this Criminal Appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.3.2001, passed by Sri Sat Prakash, learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Trial No. 189 of 1998, arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case no. 24 of 1998, corresponding to G.R. No. 353 of 1998, whereby and whereunder, he has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The informant Basanti Devi (PW 1), widow of the deceased Arun PrasadSah, in her Fard-beyan (Ext. 5), recorded by PW 12 Umesh Paswan, S.I., on 16.5.1998 at 23.30 hours at Village-Sahejama, has alleged that her husband Arun Prasad Sah returned home at 1.00 p.m. from Dumka. He took his blind son and went to purchase Biri. As the shop was closed, he could not purchase anything. His blind son started crying as he was not provided with chocolate. Her husband Arun Prasad Sah scolded his blind son and abused in filthy language. The neighbour Govind Prasad Sah (appellant) suspected that he was abused in filthy language by Arun Prasad Sah. He went inside his house and came out with a Chhura and gave 6 to 7 Chhura blows on his abdomen and testicles. On being injured, he fell down and the child in his lap was also thrown away. Her husband Arun Prasad Sah after ten steps towards his home, in front of the door of Prem Shankar Sah, fell down. The informant when started weeping, she was also threatened by this appellant to be killed. Her husband died at the spot soon thereafter. Hearing her weeping, the neighbours Ramakant Sah (PW 2), Raghunath Sah, Mohan Prasad Sah and others reached there and saw the alleged occurrence. The appellant Govind Prasad Sah fled away towards Nonihat. 3. The sole appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which he denied. The prosecution in support of its case, examined altogether 12 witnesses to substantiate the charge, levelled against the appellant. PW 1 Basant Devi, widow of the deceased, is the eye witness. PW 2 Ramakant Sah is the brother and PW 3 Naresh Prasad Sah is the nephew. PW 4 Basudeo Prasad Sah is the father of the deceased. All these four witnesses are the eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence. PW 1 Basant Devi, widow of the deceased, is the eye witness. PW 2 Ramakant Sah is the brother and PW 3 Naresh Prasad Sah is the nephew. PW 4 Basudeo Prasad Sah is the father of the deceased. All these four witnesses are the eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence. PW 5 Jiwan Prasad Bhagat is a hearsay witness. PW 6 Mahesh Prasad Sah, nephew of the deceased, and PW 7 Lakhi Prasad Sah, brother of the deceased are the witnesses on inquest report. PW 8 Suresh Prasad Sah, another nephew of the deceased, is seizure list witness in respect of the seized Chhura. PW 9 is mother of the appellant. Naturally she is hostile witness. PW 10 Dr. Binod Kumar Sinha has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Arun Prasad Sah. PW 11 Chandrika Prasad, Officer Incharge of Ramgarh Police Station, has simply submitted charge sheet whereas PW 12 Umesh Paswan is the Investigating Officer of this case. 4. The learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka, having relied the evidence of the eye witnesses i.e. PWs. 1, 2, 3 and 4 found their ocular evidence corroborated by Dr. Binod Kumar Sinha (PW 10) and by the evidence of the I.O. (P.w.12), convicted this appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him thereunder. 5. Assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned court below, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that both the deceased and the appellant were close friends in the village. Deceased Arun Prasad Sah had deserted his first wife and married with the informant Basanti Devi (PW 1). The brothers of the first wife of the deceased used to quarrel with the deceased as he had deserted their sister, which has been admitted by his second wife Basanti Devi (PW 1) in paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of her deposition. There is no independent witness of the village to corroborate the prosecution case. All the witnesses are closely related and interested witnesses and there are contradictions in the evidence of the interested witnesses, who have deposed parrot like version. PW 12 (I.O.) was not informed by anyone rather on rumour on 16.5.1998 at 9.00 p.m. he entered S.D. Entry No. 272 and went to the village and recorded the Fardbeyan (Ext. 5) of the informant at 11.30 p.m. The P.O. village is 33kms. PW 12 (I.O.) was not informed by anyone rather on rumour on 16.5.1998 at 9.00 p.m. he entered S.D. Entry No. 272 and went to the village and recorded the Fardbeyan (Ext. 5) of the informant at 11.30 p.m. The P.O. village is 33kms. away from the Police Station. The First Information Report which is the basis of S.D. Entry No. 272 has not been brought on record. On the other hand, PW 2, who is brother of the deceased, in paragraph no. 6, claims that he went to the police station along with PW 1 Basanti Devi, where her statement was recorded on which he signed. That very statement recorded at the Police Station has been suppressed by the prosecution, which was the First Information Report. But subsequently the I.O. (PW 12) when went to the P.O. village recorded the substituted Fardbeyan of Basanti Devi (PW 1) at 11.30 p.m. PW 6 Mahesh Prasad Sah, nephew of the deceased, when informed went to the village-Sahejama and reached there at 4.30 p.m. He has deposed that the police reached there at about 6.00 p.m. and prepared inquest report. The dead body was taken at night to the police station. PW 7 Lakhi Prasad Sah, brother of the deceased, also reached the P.O. village at 5.30 p.m. He has also deposed that at that time a S.I. had been there prior to his arrival, who prepared inquest report and took the dead body to the Amarpara Outpost. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the place of occurrence could not be established, which is uncertain. The I.O. (PW 12) in paragraph no. 21 has deposed that he did not find blood at the place of occurrence. PW 1 in paragraph no. 15 of her deposition has deposed that where her husband had fallen down, there was blood. PW 2 has deposed that his appellant gave one Chhura blow to Arun Prasad Sah. When Arun Prasad Sah fell down, again 4 to 5 Chhura blows were given. At that place there was blood fallen on the earth. PW 3 has also deposed that blood has come out when the injured Arun Prasad Sah had fallen down. The inquest report (Ext. When Arun Prasad Sah fell down, again 4 to 5 Chhura blows were given. At that place there was blood fallen on the earth. PW 3 has also deposed that blood has come out when the injured Arun Prasad Sah had fallen down. The inquest report (Ext. 6) shows that the dead body of Arun Prasad Sah was found by the police at the door of Prem Shankar Sah at Village Sahejama on the west side of the village road. It is also submitted that there are contradictory statements in the ocular evidence of PWs 1, 4, 8, 10 and 12 in the manner of alleged occurrence, recovery of knife and the two weapons used in causing the injuries, as deposed by PW 10 Dr. Binod Kumar Sinha. On these grounds, it was urged that the appellant deserves acquittal, giving him the benefit of doubt. 6. Learned A.P.P. refuting the argument, advanced on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that in a pre-planned way appellant went inside his house, came out with Chhura and assaulted Arun Prasad Sah with Chhura. The only reason is that he suspected himself being abused in filthy language by the deceased, who was his friend and Gotia. There was no prior enmity and both of them were in visiting terms. There is no false implication of this appellant, leaving the real culprit scot-free. The learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka has rightly believed the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4, who are eye witnesses, although related. The medical evidence of the doctor (PW 10) also corroborates the ocular evidence of the eye witnesses. The Chhura was also produced which was the means of assault. There is no any other author of the injuries, caused on the person of deceased Arun Prasad Sah, except this appellant. The learned court below has considered all the evidence, oral and documentary, and has rightly convicted this appellant and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. All the non-official witnesses are of the same village-Sahejama. The alleged occurrence took place at about 1.00 p.m. in the village. The informant (PW 1) heard the cry of her son Anup, who was in the lap of her husband Arun Prasad Sah. 7. All the non-official witnesses are of the same village-Sahejama. The alleged occurrence took place at about 1.00 p.m. in the village. The informant (PW 1) heard the cry of her son Anup, who was in the lap of her husband Arun Prasad Sah. She went there and claims to have seen that this appellant stabbed her husband once in the abdomen and when he fell down, 4 to 5 further stab injuries were caused to her husband on his chest and other parts of the body. His intestine was protruded, who died in front of the door of the villager Prem Shankar Sah. In the Fardbeyan (Ext. 5) informant named Ramakant Sah (PW 2), Raghunath Sah (not examined), Mohan Prasad (not examined) and other villagers to have seen the alleged occurrence. Ramakant Sah is the brother of the deceased. PW 1 Basanti Devi, PW 2 Ramakant Sah, brother of the deceased, PW 3 Naresh Prasad Sah, nephew of the deceased, and PW 4 Basudeo Prasad Sah, father of the deceased, claim to have seen this appellant giving stab injuries on the chest, abdomen and other parts of the body. PW 1 has deposed that appellant was bosom friend of the deceased and both were in visiting terms. She has deposed that the appellant is vegetarian and even he does not dare to crush the ants. Her statement was recorded by the I.O. on which she signed (Ext. 1). PW 2 Ramakant Sah has deposed that besides him, Raghunath Sah (not examined), Naresh Sah (PW 3), Basudeo Sah (PW 4) and Basanti Devi, wife of the deceased Arun Prasad Sah, were at the place of occurrence and saw the alleged manner of occurrence. He deposed that Arun Prasad Sah died in front of the house of Ram Briksh Sah, whose intestine had come out. He had gone to the police station where statement of PW 1 Basanti Devi was recorded in his presence, which was signed by him (Ext. 1/1). Thus, both PW 1 and 2 have contradicted as to whether the Fardbeyan of p.w. 1 was recorded at Village Sahejama or at the police station. The I.O. (PW 12) on hearing rumour that at Village Sahejama one person was stabbed, entered S.D. Entry No. 272 on 16.5.1998 at 21.00 hours. 1/1). Thus, both PW 1 and 2 have contradicted as to whether the Fardbeyan of p.w. 1 was recorded at Village Sahejama or at the police station. The I.O. (PW 12) on hearing rumour that at Village Sahejama one person was stabbed, entered S.D. Entry No. 272 on 16.5.1998 at 21.00 hours. He along with other police officials went to Village-Sahejama and reached there at 23.00 hours and recorded the Fard-beyan (Ext. 5). of Basanti Devi (PW 1). He prepared inquest report (Ext. 6) on the next day at 5.45 a.m. He found the dead body in front of the door of Prem Shankar Sah. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Next day the appellant's house was searched and one blood stained knife was recovered, which was concealed in the thatched roof of the house of the appellant. It was seizl3d in presence of the witnesses and sl3izure list (Ext. 8) was prepared. 8. PW 8 Suresh Prasad Sah is the seizure list witness in whose presence the I.O. recovered the blood stained knife from the house of the appellant, seized it and prepared seizure list on which he signed (Ext. 3) and the seizure list was also signed by Raghunath Sah (Ext. 3/1). Neither the said seizure list bears the signature of the appellant nor the seized knife was produced before the court in course of trial. The statement of PW 2 that he along with PW 1 went to the police station where Fard-beyan of PW 1 Basanti Devi was recorded has also not been brought on record. The alleged Fard-beyan was recorded on 16.5.1998 at 23.30 hours at Village-Sahejama where the 1.0. (PW 12) reached at about 23.00 hours. This time of arrival of the I.O. (PW 12) at the village and preparation of inquest report has also been contradicted by PW 2, who deposed that the Fard-beyan was recorded at the police station. PW 4 Basudeo Prasad, father of the deceased, if relied to be truthful witness, then he has deposed that he went to the place of occurrence and saw kun Prasad Sah lying dead. He went to the Amarpur Out-post and narrated the entire story to the villagers. PW 6 Mahesh Prasad Sah, nephew of the deceased, went to Village-Sahejama at 4.00 p.m. and saw the dead body of Arun Prasad Sah in front of the door of Prem Shankar Sah. He went to the Amarpur Out-post and narrated the entire story to the villagers. PW 6 Mahesh Prasad Sah, nephew of the deceased, went to Village-Sahejama at 4.00 p.m. and saw the dead body of Arun Prasad Sah in front of the door of Prem Shankar Sah. The I.O. reached Village-Sahejama at about 6.30 p.m. and prepared inquest report. The dead body was shifted to Amarpur Out-Post at 10.30 p.m. This witness also went there and remained at the Amarpur Out-Post throughout the night and in the morning his other brothers went there. At about 9.30 a.m. the dead body was taken from Amarpur Out-Post. The I.O. started investigation at night itself. His statement was also recorded at 9.00 p.m. on which he signed. That very statement, which was recorded at 9.00 p.m. on the same day i.e. 16.5.1998, has also not been brought on record. The Fard-beyan (Ext. 5) of PW 1 Basanti Devi was recorded on the same day i.e. 16.5.1998 at 23.30 hours at Village-Sahejama. The F.I.R. was received in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 18.5.1998. PW 1 has admitted that the brothers of the first wife of her husband used to threaten her husband as he had deserted his first wife. At night the I.O. received information that some was stabbed at Village-Sahejama and accordingly, he entered S.D. Entry. This fact has also been suppressed. The statements of PW 2 and PW 4, which were recorded prior to the Fard-beyan of PW 1 on which they signed at the Police Station and at the village respectively have also not been brought on record. The statement that the dead body of Arun Prasad Sah remained at the village throughout the night has also been contradicted by the witnesses, who have deposed that the dead body was shifted to Amarpur Out-Post and in the morning it was sent for post-mortem examination after preparation of inquest report (Ext. 6), showing that the dead body was found in front of the door of Prem Shankar Sah at Village-Sahejama whereas the inquest report was prepared on 17.5.1998 in the morning at 5.45 a.m. On the same day i.e. on 17.5.1998 Dr. 6), showing that the dead body was found in front of the door of Prem Shankar Sah at Village-Sahejama whereas the inquest report was prepared on 17.5.1998 in the morning at 5.45 a.m. On the same day i.e. on 17.5.1998 Dr. Binod Kumar Sinha (PW 10) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Arun Prasad Sah at 1.15 p.m. and found the following ante mortem injuries : (i) Penetrating incised wound over left side of chest 1 ¼ " x ½ " x thoracic deep (ii) Penetrating incised wound ½ " x ½ " x ¼ "1½ " x 1" x thoracic cavity deep On dissection on the thorax he found fracture of 7th and 8th ribs which communicate injury no. (i). He found lungs ruptured and huge collection of blood was found in the thoracic cavity. (iii) Incised wound 1 ½" x ½" x protruding of the small intestine over the right iliac fosse. The liver was found ruptured and huge collection of blood was found inside the abdomen cavity. The doctor opined that the death was due to haemorrhage and shock, as a result of injury nos. (i) and (iii), which was sufficient to cause death. The weapon of assault was pointed and sharp, may be caused by Chhura (knife). The time elapsed since death was 24 hours. The doctor opined that the dimensions of the three injuries were different, which can be caused by three different knives but it is also possible by one knife Breadth of injury nos. (i) and (ii) are same. The depth is the same. The injuries may have been caused by two weapons. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the ocular evidence regarding stab injuries with Chhura on the chest of Arun Prasad Sah and when he fell down by face, he was given 4 to 5 stab injuries on his person, does not get support by the evidence of Dr. Binod Kumar Sinha (PW 10), who found only three incised wounds, instead of 4 to 5 injuries. The doctor, who found three incised wounds, has opined that the dimension of all the three injuries are different, meaning thereby they might have been caused by two weapons whereas the appellant is alleged to have possessed only one weapon i.e. knife, which was recovered from his house but was not produced before the court as Material Exhibit purposely. The doctor, who found three incised wounds, has opined that the dimension of all the three injuries are different, meaning thereby they might have been caused by two weapons whereas the appellant is alleged to have possessed only one weapon i.e. knife, which was recovered from his house but was not produced before the court as Material Exhibit purposely. The prosecution has not given any explanation for non-production of the seized knife to show that there was blood stain on it and was the means of assault, resulting death of Arun Prasad Sah. 10. PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 claimed to be the eye witnesses, who were present in their respective houses and saw the alleged manner of assault from their doors as the occurrence took place in front of the door of Prem Shankar Sah (villager). They are interested witnesses. PW 1 has not deposed where her Fard-beyan was recorded. On the other hand, PW 2 and PW 4, who are brother and father of the deceased, have claimed that at the night itself they had gone to Amarpur Out-Post where the Fard-beyan of PW 1 Basanti Devi was recorded on which PW 2 claims to have signed on it. PW 4 claims that his statement was recorded on which he signed. On the other hand, PW 12 has deposed that at night he having heard rumour on 16.5.1998, entered S. D. Entry and proceeded for Village-Sahejama, where he reached at 23.00 hours. This statement of the I.O. is also contradicted by the interested witnesses that the I.O. reached at about 6.30 p.m. and recorded the statement of PW 1 in presence of the witnesses. Inquest report was prepared and the dead body was shifted at 9.30 p.m. to Amarpur Out-post. The I.O. (PW 12) has deposed that as it was night, he recorded the Fard-beyan of the informant and other witnesses. But the inquest report was prepared next day in the morning at 5.45 a.m., as it was dark night on 16.5.1998. He has also deposed that he remained at Village Sahejaha throughout the night. This statement also creates doubt that the original information, which was given at the police station by PW 2 and PW 4 was suppressed and the present Fard-beyan (Ext.5), alleged to have recorded at Village Sahejaha at 23.30 hours on 16.5.1998, seems to be a substituted Fard-beyan. He has also deposed that he remained at Village Sahejaha throughout the night. This statement also creates doubt that the original information, which was given at the police station by PW 2 and PW 4 was suppressed and the present Fard-beyan (Ext.5), alleged to have recorded at Village Sahejaha at 23.30 hours on 16.5.1998, seems to be a substituted Fard-beyan. The source of rumour, which is the basis of the S.D. Entry No. 272 has also not been brought on record. The prosecution case is based on the parrot like statements of the interested witnesses of the same family, who are PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4. Although it was 1.00 p.m., day time, even then none of the independent villagers was examined by the prosecution. The 1.0. (PW 12) has deposed that there are other caste people in the village but he did not record their statements rather he preferred to record the statements of the family members of one caste. The statement of the 1.0. (PW 12) also creates doubt as to what happened to the two Fard-beyans, recorded earlier than the Fard-beyan recorded at 23.30 hours on 16.5.1998. If he is believed, he reached Village-Sahejaha at 23.00 hours whereas the witnesses have deposed that the I.O. reached the Village Sahejaha at 6.30 p.m. during the day time. Even then the inquest report was prepared on 17 .5.1998 at 5.45 hours. This gave enough time to concoct and embellish the prosecution case by substituting the original First Information Reports by the present Fardbeyan (Ext. 5) of Basanti Devi, alleged to have been recorded at 23.30 hours on 16.5.1998. This further creates doubt in my mind that appellant is alleged to have given first knife blow on the abdomen of Arun Prasad Sah had when he fell down by face side, then 4 to 5 stab injuries were caused by this appellant, which should have caused injuries on the back portion of the body of the deceased. These oral evidences on the interested witnesses do not find corroboration by the Post-Mortem Report (Ext. 4) and the evidence of Dr. Binod Kumar Sinha (PW 10). The doctor has deposed that he found only three incised injuries having different dimensions, meaning thereby, to have caused by three different weapons. However, he has deposed that injury nos. (i) and (iii) were sufficient to cause death. 4) and the evidence of Dr. Binod Kumar Sinha (PW 10). The doctor has deposed that he found only three incised injuries having different dimensions, meaning thereby, to have caused by three different weapons. However, he has deposed that injury nos. (i) and (iii) were sufficient to cause death. His evidence is that all the three injuries may also be possible by one knife and again he has deposed that injury nos. (i) and (ii), which are same in depth, might have been caused by two weapons. Instead of 4 to 5 stab injuries, as deposed by the interested witnesses, PW 10 has found only three penetrating incised wounds. 11. When considered meticulously the evidence of the interested witnesses and the evidence of the doctor (PW 10) as also the I.O. (PW 12), I find that the manner of the alleged assault, as deposed by PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4, are not consistent with the medical evidence nor their statement is consistent regarding time and place of recording the Fard-beyan of the informant or PW 1 and PW 4. The defence has created doubt in my mind that the brothers of the first wife of deceased Arun Prasad Sah were always threatening Arun Prasad Sah as he had deserted his first wife, who might have been the persons involved in causing murder of. Arun Prasad Sah. The non-examination of the village independent witnesses, when the alleged occurrence took place in the midst of the village and there are several houses nearby the place of occurrence, also creates doubt in my mind. The I.O. has simply deposed that he did not record the statement of other castes of village independent witnesses, except the statements of own castes of the informant. This also creates doubt in my mind regarding the veracity of the investigation and the evidence of the interested witnesses, who are PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4. When prosecution case is considered in totality, I find that there is no dispute regarding the place of occurrence and the time of the alleged occurrence but the arrival of the I.O. (PW 12) at the place of occurrence recording of Fard-beyan of the informant, preparation of inquest report (Ext. 6) and removing the dead body to Amarpur Outpost or to the police station are not consistent and corroborative to each other. 6) and removing the dead body to Amarpur Outpost or to the police station are not consistent and corroborative to each other. The ocular evidence regarding number of knife assaults on the person of Arun Prasad Sat' has also not been supported by PW 10 Dr. Binod Kumar Sinha, who has conducted autopsy and prepared Post-Mortem Report (Ext. 4) in his pen and signature. PW 1, who claims that she went to the place of occurrence where her husband was stabbed on hearing cry of her blind son Anup, who was in the lap of her husband. The child cried on fall. Prior to that, her husband Arun Prasad Sah was stabbed by this appellant. Her house is at a distance of 100 yards from the place where her husband was stabbed. The other witnesses i.e. PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 have claimed that they were at their doors and saw the alleged occurrence but none of them rushed there to rescue Arun Prasad Sah. They did not even chase the appellant, who is villager, nor they apprehended him, but informed the police at the police station, which is situated at a distance of 33 kms. away from the village, and that statement has also not been brought on record. The source of rumour received by PW 12 (I.O.), forming S.D. Entry, has also not been brought on record. All these evidences contradictory to each other in all respects on these points create doubt in my mind that . this appellant is the author, who caused three penetrating incised wounds on the persons of th~ ueceased Arun Prasad Sah. The learned court has not considered the parrot like version made by the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 and erroneously, having relied their evidence, arrived at the conclusion that the medical evidence corroborates the ocular evidence. In view of my above considered reasoning, I find that such contradictory statements, adduced by the interested witnesses and the I.O. (PW 12) are not reliable to convict this appellant, rather he deserves benefit of doubt in the case in hand. 12. In the result, I find merit in this Criminal appeal, which succeeds and is hereby allowed. In view of my above considered reasoning, I find that such contradictory statements, adduced by the interested witnesses and the I.O. (PW 12) are not reliable to convict this appellant, rather he deserves benefit of doubt in the case in hand. 12. In the result, I find merit in this Criminal appeal, which succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.3.2001, passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Trial No. 189 of 1998, arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 24 of 1998/Gr.No. 353 of 1998, is hereby set aside. As the appellant is in custody, he is ordered to be released forthwith from the custody, if not wanted in any other case. S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.-I agree.