Judgment :- This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai in S.C.No.172 of 1995 on 15.11.1996. 2. Originally three persons were accused, as per the First Information Report/complaint given by the deceased Baskaran. According to the statement of Baskaran, which was marked as Ex.P9, on 21.10.1993, at about 4.00pm, due to a dispute that arises out of the payment of lease paddy, accused Thangappan stabbed the deceased Baskaran in the presence of his daughter Padma-A1 and his grand son Kakari-A2. According to the complaint, during that quarrel between Thangappan and the deceased, A1 and A2 caught hold of him, Thangappan took knife from his hip and stabbed Baskaran in his stomach and with injury Baskaran got into a lorry and went to the Uthamapalayam Police station and gave a complaint at about 16.30 hours, which was registered as a case in Crime No.453 of 1993 for the offence punishable under Sections 341,324,& 307 IPC. Subsequently Baskaran died and hence the charge was altered to Section 302 IPC. 3. According to the prosecution, investigation was conducted and charge sheet was also filed. Before the commencement of trial, Thangappan died and therefore, his daughter Padma and her son Kakari arrayed as A1 and A2. On the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 16 were examined, Exs.P1 to P17 and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked. Trial court after considering the materials on record acquitted them of the charge under Section 302 IPC; but found the accused guilty under Section 304(II) read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them 5 years rigorous imprisonment. The trial court has not imposed any fine on them. Challenging the order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred. 4. Mr.P.P.Shanmugasundaram, learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the punishment of conviction and sentence have to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel for the appellants referred to the evidence adduced by the prosecution. In this case, PW1 has turned hostile; though Ex.P9 contains his name, he did not support the prosecution case. On the other hand he has stated that he did not know anything about the death of Baskaran and therefore, he was treated as hostile. In this case, PW1 has turned hostile; though Ex.P9 contains his name, he did not support the prosecution case. On the other hand he has stated that he did not know anything about the death of Baskaran and therefore, he was treated as hostile. The other person Kurisu named in Ex.P9 as a witness has not been examined at all. The Trial court has convicted the accused on the basis of the evidence of PW2. P.W.2 the father of the deceased Baskaran who has stated in evidence that since he apprehended that his son Baskaran may be attacked by the accused, he followed the deceased to the scene of occurrence, but after the occurrence, he has not accompanied with his injured son to the police station to give complaint, which action goes to prove that he was not the real witness for the occurrence. Further PW2 try to explain about the injury sustained by the deceased Baskaran. Learned senior counsel further submitted that PW2 is an interested witness and his evidence cannot be accepted. PW3 also has spoken about the occurrence. His name does not find place of the first information report. Therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained. 5. It is the case where the injured himself has given complaint/FIR in the police station, which was marked as Ex.P9. In that the deceased Baskaran has clearly stated the reason for the dispute and how the quarrel arose at the time of occurrence; the deceased has stated that the lessee of the land, one Karuvayan, wanted to give lease paddy only to Baskaran, but A1 and A2 and the deceased Thangappan demanded that the lease paddy should be given to them; and at the time of the deceased intervened and he said that the matter could be settled in a Panchayat. Immediately, A1 Padma and A2 Kakari caught hold of Baskaran and Thangappan took a knife from his hip and stabbed him on the stomuch; Baskaran snatched the knife from Thangappan, caught a passing lorry, went to the police station with the knife and gave the complaint. In that complaint it is stated that at the time of occurrence one by name Kurisu, and his son-in-law were present, but he was not examined even during investigation. The first information statement does not refer to PW2. In that complaint it is stated that at the time of occurrence one by name Kurisu, and his son-in-law were present, but he was not examined even during investigation. The first information statement does not refer to PW2. The witnesses whose names are stated in the first information report as witnesses to the occurrence, should have been examined in the court. But in this case, the eye witness Kurisu has not even examined during the course of investigation by the police and the other witness has turned hostile. In those circumstances, it is very difficult to rely the evidence of P.W.2 and conclude that A1 and A2 were present in the scene and caught hold of the deceased at the time of occurrence. Therefore, it creates a doubt, whether the accused 1 and 2 were present at the scene of occurrence. Considering the fact that out of the two named witnesses, one has not been examined and the other has turned hostile, there arises a reasonable doubt whether the occurrence had taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Jaggo ( AIR 1971 SC 1586 ) has held that a witness named as eye witness in first information statement, if not produced would seriously affect the truth of the prosecution case. In Bhagawati v. State of U.P. (AIR 1976 SC.1449) the Supreme Court has held that every witness mentioned in first information statement must be examined in all circumstances failure to do so would lead to the rejection of the evidence altogether. Under these circumstances, both the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt; therefore, they are entitled to be acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt. 6. In the result, Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai in S.C.No.172 of 1995 on 15.11.1996 is set aside. The bail bonds executed by them are cancelled.