JUDGMENT: S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.- This acquittal appeal under section 378 (1)(5) of Cr. P.C. has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand against the judgment and order dated 20th September, 2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C. and S.T. (POA) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.C. and S.T. No. 2/2001, whereby the trial court has acquitted the Respondents from the charges under section 302/34; 201/34 IPC. and section 4(5) of the S.C. and S.T. Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. 2. The case of the prosecution, as per written report dated 8th May, 1998 of the Informant Subeshwar Manjhi, a Truck Driver in A.K.T. Company, Khalari Colliery is that he informed his father to come to his house to receive money for house expenses, but he did not turn up. The Informant himself went to his father's house on 6th April, 1998, there, he learnt from people that his father while returning with his mother at about 12 Noon on 5th April, 1998 and reached near the Gan Pahra Ahar, the three accused persons (Respondents herein) came there and killed his father by throttling him with Lathi and they also burnt his dead body in collusion with Choukidar and the villagers. The accused spread rumour that due to thrust and non-availability of water, his father died. It was further alleged that the body was burnt in spite of protest by the mother of the Informant i.e. wife of the deceased. The reason for murder was stated to be illicit relationship of widow cousin-Sister-in-Law (Bhabhi) of the deceased, namely, Dhanauti Kunwar who had illicit relationship with accused Ajay Dubey due to which she became pregnant and had to go for abortion. It was further stated that due to illicit relationship, four days prior to the incident, the deceased met the father of the accused Ajay Dubey and complained. At that time, Ajay Dubey had threatened the deceased with dire consequences. It was further stated that the accused persons were threatening the Informant and his family members for not reporting the matter to the police or otherwise, their houses will be burnt and they will be killed. 3. At that time, Ajay Dubey had threatened the deceased with dire consequences. It was further stated that the accused persons were threatening the Informant and his family members for not reporting the matter to the police or otherwise, their houses will be burnt and they will be killed. 3. The prosecution examined altogether five witnesses in support of their case, namely, Kalasiya Devi @ Kailashpati Devi (P.W.1), daughter-in-law of the deceased; Nandu Paswan (P.W.2), son of the deceased; Lachhuman Manjhi (P.W.3), another son of the deceased; Meena Devi (P.W.4), another daughter-in-law of the deceased, and Foolkali Kunwar (P.W. 5), wife of the deceased. 4. The genesis of the case is the illicit relationship of accused Ajay Dubey with Dhanauti Kunwar, cousin sister-in-law.(Bhabi) of the deceased. 5. The trial court proceeded to find out the truth. of such allegation. It was found that Dhanauti Kunwar was not examined, though she was the most important witness. She was also not examined by the Police during the course of investigation. In that connection, P.W.4 stated that her house and that of Dhanauti Kunwar are separate from each other. Dhanauti Kunwar became pregnant of four months. There was a Panchayati in the Village fifteen days prior to the occurrence. During the Panchayati, Dhanauti Kunwar was present. In the Panchayati, paper was prepared, a copy of which was given to Dhanauti Kunwar and another to her father-in-law i.e. the deceased. P.W. 5, wife of the deceased stated that she had given information to the Police and Panchayat about the illicit relationship of Dhanauti Kunwar with Ajay Dubey. But simultaneously, she stated that no information was lodged with in the Police station or in the Panchayat. The court below found that there was contradiction of statement in between P.Ws. 4 and 5 on the question of illicit relationship. P.W. 2, one of the sons of the deceased stated that there was no relationship with Dhanauti Kunwar who was residing separately in a separate house. P.W. 3, another son of the deceased stated that no Panchayati was held on the point of illicit relationship in between Dhanauti Kunwar and Ajay Dubey nor the matter was reported in the Police Station. Taking into consideration such contradictory statements of P.Ws., the trial court held that the genesis of the occurrence was not proved. P.W. 3, another son of the deceased stated that no Panchayati was held on the point of illicit relationship in between Dhanauti Kunwar and Ajay Dubey nor the matter was reported in the Police Station. Taking into consideration such contradictory statements of P.Ws., the trial court held that the genesis of the occurrence was not proved. The statement of P. W. 5, the wife of the deceased was completely contradictory to the statement as was recorded in the F.I.R. P.W. 5, the wife of the deceased was stated to be an eye witness. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that she along with her husband had gone in the morning to cut Gram (Chana) crop. At about 10 A.M., her husband told her that he was going to his house for taking meal and will bring food for her. But her husband did not return till 3 P.W. Then she went to her house and asked her daughter-in-law, Kailashpati Devi (P.W.1) about her husband, who told her that the father-in-law had not come. Then her daughter-in-law gave her food and went to the field bringing Gram. Crop Bundles, Her four daughters-in-law went to bring Gram crop Bundles. After taking meal, when P.W. 5 was going and reached Gan Pahra Ahar, she sawall her daughters-in-law weeping. They told her (P.W.5) that the three accused persons had murdered the deceased by throttling with la this. All of them, thereafter went to see the dead body which was lying near the field. The throat of the dead body was pressed and the hands and legs were injured. There were also injuries in his right Buttock. 6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid evidence of P.W.5, as' it was found that the P. W. 5 was not an eye witness to the occurrence and that she had given a somewhat different story, contradictory to the F.I.R. and being not supported by evidence of any other witness, the trial court disbelieved her statement. The trial court also found that there was a long unexplained delay in lodgings the F.I.R. As per F.I.R., the deceased was said to have been murdered on 5th April, 1998 and the Informant learnt about the occurrence on the next date i.e. 6th April, 1998 when he came to the house of the deceased, but in spite of that the F.I.R. was lodged on 8th May, 1998. 7. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the version of the eye witness being contrary to the incident as given in the F.I.R. and being also contrary to the evidence of the other witnesses, the genesis of the occurrence having become doubtful, I find no ground made out to interfere with the judgment in question. 8. In the facts and circumstances, there being no merit, this acquittal appeal is dismissed.