JUDGMENT Lakshman Uraon, J. 1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 2-8-1997 and 5-8-1997 respectively, passed by Sri R.N. Verma, learned 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No. 392 of 1997, arising out of G.R. No. 88 of 1995, whereby and whereunder, both the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, directing both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The informant Barte Pahan (PW 8), who is not the eye witness of the murder of his son Bargi Pahan, in his Fard-beyan (Ext. 2), recorded on 13-2-1995 at 14-45 hours at village Itre by S.I. Juel Minz (PW 11), has alleged that his son Bargi Pahan had recently returned from Bombay where he had gone for work. On Sunday i,e. 12-2-1995 at about 5.00 p.m. he went for a walk wearing pant and shirt. He did not return home till 9.00 pm. The informant believed that his son might have gone to somewhere else in the village either to his friends or guests. Next day, when he did not return till 6.00 a.m., all the members of his family went in search of Bargi Pahan. They went towards north of the village and found some blood stains and Hawai Chappal towards east of Ranchl Chaibasa Road on its western side. They reached near about the bush but could not trace out Bargi Pahan. There was a well 15 yards away towards east from that bush. In that well they searched the dead body with Jhaggar. The dead body of Bargi Pahan came out of the deep water. He alleged that some Unknown persons had murdered his son and to screen from legal punishment, had thrown the dead body into the well. On that basis formal F.I.R. (Ext. 3) was registered on the same day at 18.00 hours and on the following day i.e. on 14-2-1995, it was received in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti. 3. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined altogether 12 witnesses whereas none has been examined on behalf of the defence. On that basis formal F.I.R. (Ext. 3) was registered on the same day at 18.00 hours and on the following day i.e. on 14-2-1995, it was received in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti. 3. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined altogether 12 witnesses whereas none has been examined on behalf of the defence. PW 1 Bodhan Purti does not know Bargi Pahan or Mery Mudi and has become hostile. PW 2 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sondalya has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Bargi Pahan and the Post Mortem Report is Ext. 1. PW 3 Lachhu Purti, who does not known about the alleged occurrence, is also hostile witness. PW 4 Ladu alias Ludri Purti is the sister of Meri Mundi. She does not know about the alleged occurrence and is also a hostile witness. PW 5 Sunder Pahan claims himself to be the eye witness of the alleged occurrence. PW 6 Longo Pahan is a tendered witness. PW 7 Dugan Pahan (Munda) is uncle of the deceased and the eye witness. PW 8 Barte Munda is the informant himself and father of the deceased. PW 9 Marry Purti is the mother of the deceased. PW 10 Marcus Purti is also a hostile witness. PW 11 Juel Minz and PW 12 Rajiv Ranjan Kumar are the Investigating Officers of this ease. The learned 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, having relied the evidence of PW 5 Sunder Pahan, PW 7 Dugan Munda, PWs 11 and 12, both Investigating Officers, and the medical evidence of PW 2 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sondalya, convicted both the appellants and sentenced them thereunder. 4. Assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed against these appellants, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the informant in his Fard-beyan (Ext. 2) has not mentioned as to how he came to know about the alleged occurrence rather in course of his evidence in Court he has deposed that he was informed by PWs 5, 6 and 7 about the manner of the alleged occurrence, resulting death of his son. In the Fard-beyan (Ext. 2) has not mentioned as to how he came to know about the alleged occurrence rather in course of his evidence in Court he has deposed that he was informed by PWs 5, 6 and 7 about the manner of the alleged occurrence, resulting death of his son. In the Fard-beyan (Ext. 2) the informant has not named the assailants, which is the First Information Report in this case, rather it is against unknown even though he was informed the names of the assailants by the eye witnesses PWs 5, 6 and 7 that these appellants have killed his son Bargi Pahan. The learned Court below did not consider the fact that the informant had gone to the Police Station along with the Chowkidar where his Fard-beyan was recorded by PW 11 Juel Minz but subsequently the present Fard- beyan (Ext. 2) has been recorded at Village Itre. The First Information Report of the informant has been purposely suppressed and the present Fard-beyan (Ext. 2) is substituted one, only to drag these appellants falsely. The informant was also informed that other two assailants were Rama Singh Munda, who has been acquitted whereas Thutha Munda was not made accused in this case, alleging that he was also amongst the other assailants, while killing the deceased. Both the witnesses i.e. PW 5 and PW 7 whose evidence has been relied by the learned Court below are not independent witnesses rather they are the brothers of the informant and uncle of the deceased. The alleged occurrence took place in the field and hardly at a distance of 50 yards there are the houses of the villagers but none of the villagers of that village has been examined to corroborate the prosecution case. On these grounds, it was submitted that these appellants deserve acquittal. 5. The learned A.P.P. in course of his argument has submitted that the learned Court below has considered the evidence of the eye witnesses, which gets corroborated by the medical evidence and the Investigateing Officers of this case and has rightly convicted these appellants and sentenced them thereunder. 6. PW 11 Juel Minz is the first I.O. who has deposed that having heard rumour in between 14.00 to 15.00 hours on 13-2-1995 that a dead body is in the well at Village Indipiri, he entered S.D. Entry and went to the P.O. village-Itre and reached there at 14.45. 6. PW 11 Juel Minz is the first I.O. who has deposed that having heard rumour in between 14.00 to 15.00 hours on 13-2-1995 that a dead body is in the well at Village Indipiri, he entered S.D. Entry and went to the P.O. village-Itre and reached there at 14.45. He recorded the Fard-beyan (Ext. 2) of Barte Pahan and registered F.I.R. (Ext. 3). He went to the well. The dead body was brought out of the well, He prepared inquest report (Ext.4) and sent the dead body for post- mortem examination. He seized blood stained soil and one pair blood stained Hawai Chappal and prepared seizure list (Ext. 5). PW 2 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sondalya on 14-2-1995 at 2.00 p.m. conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Bargi Pahan and found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person : (i) Incised injury over left parietal region. Lic oblique situated on the posterior part of parietal bone of size 2" x 1" x 2 1/2" cutting scalp cavity bone and brain. (ii) Incised injury over left side of occipital bone 2" x 1" x 3" cutting covering of scalp, occipital bone and brain. (iii) Incised injury over centre of occipital bone 2" x 1" x 3" cutting all underlying structure bone and brain matter. (iv) Incised injury over right side of forehead 2" x 1/4" x 1/4" cutting only soft tissues, skin, vessels etc. etc. The cranial cavity was filled with bloody fluid and blood clot. All the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapons, such as axe or Balua. The time elapsed since death, due to the above injuries, was within 48 hours. He prepared the Post Mortem Report (Ext. 1). 7. When considered the inquest report (Ext. 4). Post Mortem Report (Ext. 1) and the evidence of PWs 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12, it is very clear that Bargi Pahan was murdered and his dead body was found at Village --Indipiri in a well. The time of occurrence finds corroborated with the Post-Mortem Report. Thus, the prosecution case regarding place of occurrence, time of occurrence and the murder of Bargi Pahan has been proved. 8. The time of occurrence finds corroborated with the Post-Mortem Report. Thus, the prosecution case regarding place of occurrence, time of occurrence and the murder of Bargi Pahan has been proved. 8. Now I take up the only point as to whether these appellants are the authors of the injuries as found by PW 2, who con-ducted the autopsy on the dead body of Bargi Pahan, resulting his death and after causing his murder his dead body was thrown into the well, PW 8 the informant Barte Munda has admitted that he is not the eye witness of the manner of the alleged assault on his son, but he was informed by PW 5 Sunder Pahan, PW 6 Longo Pahan and PW 7 Dugun Pahan that his son Bargi Pahan was assaulted by Laxmi Narayan Singh alias Lalu Singh, Ramesh Singh and Thutha in the evening just after sunset. Next day in the morning he saw the dead body of his son at Village Indipiri in a well. He and the Village Chowkidar went to the police station where his Fard-beyan was recorded on which he gave his L.T.I. (Para 2). The police along with him came to the place of occurrence and inquest report was prepared. He saw only one injury on the left parletal region of the dead body of his son. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. He could not identify these appellants on the plea that he does not go to market and only because the appellants are of Village Bangaon whereas the informant is of Village-Itre within the jurisdiction of different police station i.e. Bangaon and Murhu. All the three eye witnesses i.e. PW 5, 6 and 7 had informed him simultaneously before going to the police station about the alleged occurrence but that Fard- beyan recorded at the police station about the alleged occurrence but that Fard- beyan has not been brought on record. At the police station itself he has disclosed that Ramesh, Lalu and Thutha have murdered his son, which was recorded by the police on which he gave his L.T.I, in presence of Village Chowkidar (Pr. 6). PW 5 Sunder Pahan had not gone to the police station along with the informant had gone to the police station and gave his Fard-beyan (Pr. 9) rather on rumour he went to Village-Itre where he recorded the Fard-beyan (Ext. 6). PW 5 Sunder Pahan had not gone to the police station along with the informant had gone to the police station and gave his Fard-beyan (Pr. 9) rather on rumour he went to Village-Itre where he recorded the Fard-beyan (Ext. 2) of Barte Pahan. The Fard-beyan (Ext. 2) recorded at Village Itre on 13-2-1995 at 14.45 hours does not bear the signature of L.T.I. of Village Chowkidar. PW 6 who had informed the informant along with PWs 5 and 7 about the alleged occurrence has been tendered. PW 5 Sunder Pahan and PW 7 Pugun Munda have deposed that on Sunday at about 4.15 pm. They along with the tendered witness PW 6 Longo Pahan were going to Village Indipiri to take wine. When they reached in front of the house of Mareus Putri (PW 10), a hostile witness, they saw appellants Ramesh Singh, Laxmi Narayan Singh alias Lalu Singh and Rama Singh assaulting Bargi Pahan. PW 5 has very specifically deposed that appellant Ramesh Singh had Tangi, appellant Laxmi Narayan Singh alias Lalu Singh had Lathi and Rama Singh Munda had Tangi, They assaulted with their respective weapons to Bargi Pahan, resulting his death. They were going to conceal the dead body. Out of fear these witnesses fled away towards the village. From the place of occurrence, which is the up land of Chamra Purti, there is house of Marcus Purti at a distance of 15 paces and from there at about 20 paces there is house of Baden and Lakshan and at a distance of 50 yards there are other houses of the entire Basti. They did not raise any alarm at the place of occurrence, rather they went to Village Itre and informed the informant Barte Pahan. The entire villagers were informed by these witnesses that Bargi Pahan was done to death by these appellants and Rama Singh Munda. Thereafter, they went to the police station along with Chowkidar Mangal Singh. The Chowkidar Mangal Singh has not been examined by the prosecution but at the police station, his statement was recorded by the police. The entire villagers were informed by these witnesses that Bargi Pahan was done to death by these appellants and Rama Singh Munda. Thereafter, they went to the police station along with Chowkidar Mangal Singh. The Chowkidar Mangal Singh has not been examined by the prosecution but at the police station, his statement was recorded by the police. PW 5 and 7 had also gone there, who had also narrated the entire manner of occurrence and had named these appellants and one Rama Singh Munda as assailants but in course of his evidence PW 5 has deposed that Rama Singh was standing away at some distance and was not assaulting Bargi Pahan, rather Thutha Machhua assaulted Bargi Pahan twice with Farsa. This alleged assailant Thutha Machhua has not been made accused by the prosecution. When the I.O. had gone to village, there also they named the assailants. All the three alleged eye witnesses i.e. PW 5, 6 and 7 are closely related but PW 7 Dugun and PW 5 Longo Pahan had not gone to the police station along with the informant PW 8 and the Village Chowkidar. If the evidence of this witness PW 5 as also the evidence of PW 7 Dugun Munda is believed, then it is a mystery as to why the names of the assailants disclosed by them at the police station where their statements were recorded on which PW 8 has given his L.T.I, was not brought on record. 9. PW 7 has deposed that only these appellants assaulted Bargi Pahan resulting his death, He has not named Rama Singh Munda as to whether he was present there along with another assailant Thutha Munda or not. At the place of occurrence, as deposed by him in Pr. 7, a number of females and children of Village Indipiri had assembled but the prosecution has not made them witness. The first I.O. Juel Minz (P.W. 11), after recording the restatement of the informant (PW 8), recorded the statement of Lachhu Purti (PW 3). Bodhan Purti (PW 1), Budhwa Oria, Daneshwar Purti, Sopan, Shanti Devi, Kishun Putri and Marcus Putri (PW 10), PW 12 Rajiv Ranjan Kumar, the second I.O. took charge of further investigation from the first I.O. on 15-7-1995. He again recorded the statement of Lachhu Purti, Lodhu Purti, Barte Pahan, Mary Purti, Marcus Purti, Sunder Purti, Dugun Munda, Sunder Pahan and Ladu. He again recorded the statement of Lachhu Purti, Lodhu Purti, Barte Pahan, Mary Purti, Marcus Purti, Sunder Purti, Dugun Munda, Sunder Pahan and Ladu. All the witnesses were Mundari speaking witnesses and the Village Chowkidar was the interpreter, who has not been examined in this case. Thus, although the two I.Os. have examined the witnesses twice, even then none of the village independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution case to corroborate the evidence of PWs 5 and 7. 10. When considered all the pros and cons of the prosecution case, I find that the informant (PW 8), who is not the eye witness, when informed by PWs 5, 6 and 7, who are the eye witnesses, naming the assailants, went of the police station along with Chowkidar where his Fard-beyan was recorded, on which he signed. The 1st I.O. the Officer incharge (PW 11), has denied this fact that the informant has gone to the police station, rather, the statement of the informant was recorded at Village-Itre on 13-2-1995 at 14.45 hours. The Fard-beyan (Ext. 2) is against unknown. The reasons for suppressing the names of these appellants and others, as disclosed by the eye witnesses, raises doubt in the prosecution case. The defence although has not examined any witness but suspicion has been raised regarding involvement of these appellants in assaulting Bargi Pahan, resulting his death. Bargi Pahan had left his home without informing his parents. He was seen by the eye witnesses i.e. PWs 5, 6 and 7 while they were going to take wine to Village Indipiri, talking with Carry, sister of Ludri Purti (PW 4). The said Carry seems to be the root cause of the alleged occurrence, who is a girl of questionable character. She could not be traced out and hence she was not examined. It seems that the girl, to whom the deceased had gone to meet, was seen by someone else, who might have assaulted him, resulting his death and the dead body was thrown into the well at Village Indipiri. That is why the original Fard-beyan of the informant, which was recorded at the police station, was suppressed. Had it been brought on record, the true picture of the prosecution case would have been revealed. Even after knowing the names of the assailants, as informed by PWs. That is why the original Fard-beyan of the informant, which was recorded at the police station, was suppressed. Had it been brought on record, the true picture of the prosecution case would have been revealed. Even after knowing the names of the assailants, as informed by PWs. 5, 6 and 7, the informant (PW 8) lodged the case against unknown. The 1st I.O. Juel Minz (P.W. 11) has recorded the evidence of the witnesses, whose statements were again recorded under S. 161, Cr. P.C. by the 2nd I.O. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar (P.W. 12), who took charge of investigation with effect from 15-7-1995. The belated recording of the statements, even then contradictory to each other, was only to implicate these appellants subsequently by P.Ws. 5 and 7, who are none else but uncles of the deceased and are interested witnesses. At village Indipiri, which is a thickly populated village, at the time and place of occurrence a large number of villagers, including male, female and children, had assembled there, as deposed by P.W. 7 Dugun Munda but none of them has been examined by the two Investigating Officer nor they were cited as witnesses. Allegation against Thutha Munda is also with regard to assaulting the deceased along with these appellants and one Rama Singh Munda. But surprisingly enough, Thutha Munda has not been made accused in this case whereas Rama Singh Munda has been acquitted on the statements of the interested witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 5 and 7 that Rama Singh Munda did not assault Bargi Pahan to death. 11. The independent witness Longo Pahan (P.W. 6), alleged to be the eye- witness, has not supported the prosecution case and has been tendered by the prosecution. The learned Court below having relied the contradictory statements of the eye-witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 5 and 7, has convicted these appellants under Sections. 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them thereunder. The learned 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, has not considered meticulously the contradictions and also suppression of the first Fard-beyan, which was recorded at the police station at the earliest opportunity by the informant himself and erroneously held these appellants guilty for the charges, framed against them, which cannot be sustained as it suffers from legal infirmities. 12. In the result, I find merit in this criminal appeal, which succeeds and accordingly, allowed. 12. In the result, I find merit in this criminal appeal, which succeeds and accordingly, allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No. 392 of 1997, is hereby set aside. Appellant No. 1-Ramesh Singh, who is in custody, is ordered to be released forthwith from the custody, if not wanted in any other case, whereas appellant No. 2-Laxmi Narayan Singh alias Lalu Singh, who is on bail, is discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds. S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 13. I agree.