JUDGMENT S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J.- The sole appellant, Ramdeo Singh has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26th May, 1997 passed by Sri D.P. Singh, learned 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial no. 120 of 1994, whereby and whereunder he has been convicted for the offence u/ss. 302/201/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to R/I for life u/s. 302 I.P.C. and R/I for seven years u/s. 201 IPC., which are to run concurrently. 2. Altogether six named accused including the appellant were charged u/s. 364 I.P.C. for kidnapping Mithilesh Singh (deceased) and Lalku Ganjhu (deceased). During investigation, after about 45 days of the occurrence, two skeletons were found in a deep forest, stated to be skeletons of Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu. Out of six accused, initially four absconded and two of them, namely, Ramdeo Singh (appellant) and Kushaldeo Ganjhu were arrested. They were committed for trial for the charges u/ss. 302/201/34 I.P.C. which were framed against them. During the course of trial, another accused, Kushaldeo Ganjhu, who was on bail, also absconded. The case of sole accused, Ramdeo Singh (appellant) was split up and proceeded separately. The case of prosecution, as per fardbeyan of, Dasarath Singh (P.W. 1), recorded on 27th October, 1993 is that the deceased, Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu had gone to 'Jatra mela' at Burmu at about 10 A.M. on 26th October, 1993 but they did not return till night. Having waited up to 10 P.M., the informant and his family members took dinner and slept. In the same night (27th October, 1993) at about 3 A.M., one Birsi Devi (P.W. 3) maidservant of informant came and informed that Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu had gone to her house at about 10 P.M. At that time, she (Birsi Devi) and her sister (Sugia) were in the house. One Basanti and Subhadra of her village also came to her house. At about 11 P.M. in the night, six persons, namely, Mahendra Singh, Ramdeo Singh (Appellant); Karonath Singh, Bhuna @ Bhunua Gorait, Kushaldeo Ganjhu and Bhukhan Pahan suddenly entered in her house and took away Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu with them. The informant further reported that he informed the matter to the villagers and requested them to search but could not get any trace of Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu. The informant further reported that he informed the matter to the villagers and requested them to search but could not get any trace of Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu. It was alleged that there was a past enmity with the accused; he (informant) being a contractor, the accused abducted his son with an intention to kill him. In support of their claim, prosecution examined altogether six witnesses. On behalf of defence, two witnesses were also examined, namely, Karma Nath Mahto (D.W.1) and Bahurau Munda (D.W. 2). One Dr. Arun Kumar Singh, Medical Officer was examined as a Court witness (C.W.). Dasarath Singh, informant (P.W. 1) while supported his fardbeyan, stated that his maid servant, Birsi Devi (PW. 3) came to his house in the night of 26th October, 1993 and informed that the accused persons have abducted his son, Mithilesh Singh and one Lalku Ganjhu. In the next morning, he went along with brother of Lalku Ganjhu to search for his son in the house of Mahendra Singh but he could not find whereabouts of his son and Lalku Ganjhu. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Burmu police. P.W. 2, Sakur Ansari, a seizure list witness stated that he had no knowledge about the incidence. P.W. 4, Awadhesh Kumar Singh and P.W. 5, Kamlesh Kumar both sons of the informant i.e. brothers of the deceased, who were also seizure list witnesses, supported the story of prosecution regarding disappearance of their brother in the night of 26th October, 1993. In fact, these two witnesses claimed to have identified the deceased, Mithilesh Singh. P.W. 4, Awadhesh Kumar Singh stated that the cap on which 'Big Boy' was written and a 'Dot pen' recovered from Baruaghati forest, lying near the skeletons belonged to deceased, MithileshSingh. Two skeletons were found at a distance of ten to twelve feet. Kamlesh Kumar (PW. 5), other brother of the deceased, Mithilesh Singh stated that Birsi Devi (PW. 3), informed that the appellant, Ramdeo Singh with five accused had abducted his brother from her house. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the skeletons were found after 45 days from the date of disappearance of Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu. Kamlesh Kumar (PW. 5), other brother of the deceased, Mithilesh Singh stated that Birsi Devi (PW. 3), informed that the appellant, Ramdeo Singh with five accused had abducted his brother from her house. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the skeletons were found after 45 days from the date of disappearance of Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu. Birsi Devi (P.W. 3) claimed to be sole eye witness of abduction of Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu by six accused persons, namely, Mahendra Singh, Ramdeo Singh (Appellant), Karonath Singh, Bhuna @ Bhunua Gorait, Kushaldeo Ganjhu and, Bhukhan Pahan. In her testimony, she deposed that on 26th October, 1993, when she was preparing meal, Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu came to her house to see her, as she was unwell. She served food to them and also made them to sleep in one of rooms of her house. At about 11-12 O'clock, when she was talking with other girls of neighbourhood, somebody called her name. When she opened the door, found six accused persons, namely, Mahendra Singh, Ramdeo Singh (Appellant), Karonath Singh, Bhuna @ Bhunua Gorait, Kushaldeo Ganjhu and Bhukhan Pahan, who entered in her house. Karonath Singh and Mahendra Singh had gun with them, the accused tied hands of Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu and thereafter, carried them towards north in the forest. She rushed to the house of informant (her malik) and informed him about the occurrence. In the cross-examination, she admitted that on the date of occurrence, she was suffering from fever and stated that the deceased, Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu went to her house to see her. She (Birsi Devi) could not explain as to why both the deceased took meal in her house in the night of 26th October, 1993 and they desired to sleep in her house prior to disappearance. 3. It is a settled law that the testimony of a solitary witness, must inspire confidence and should not leave any doubt in the mind of the Court aqout the truthfulness. In the case of 'Sadhu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan', reported in 2003(2) East Cr.C. 183 (S.C.), the Supreme Court observed: "It is no doubt true that the conviction of an accused can be based solely on the testimony of a solitary witness. In the case of 'Sadhu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan', reported in 2003(2) East Cr.C. 183 (S.C.), the Supreme Court observed: "It is no doubt true that the conviction of an accused can be based solely on the testimony of a solitary witness. However, in such a case the Court must be satisfied that implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of such a witness and that his testimony is so free of blemish that it can be acted upon without insisting upon corroboration. The testimony of the witness must be one, which inspires confidence and leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court about the truthfulness of the witness...." 4. In this case, a solitary witness regarding abduction of Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu is P.W 3, Birsi Devi. Others, such as informant, Dasarath Singh (P.W 1) and two of his sons, Awadhesh Kumar Singh (P.W. 4) and Kamlesh Kumar (P.W. 5) are hearsay witnesses, who came to know of such abduction from Birsi Devi (P.W.3). Informant, Dasarath Singh (P.W.1) and his two sons, Awadhesh Kumar Singh (P.W.4) and Kamlesh Kumar (P.W.5) being directly related to deceased, Mithilesh Singh, can be stated to be interested witnesses. One is to keep in mind that the solitary witness, Birsi Devi (P.W. 3) is also maid servant of the house of deceased. There is no evidence brought on record to suggest serious enmity between the informant and accused, Ramdeo Singh or deceased and the accused, Ramdeo Singh or any other accused. Though it was stated by the informant that he was a contractor but none of the witnesses stated any previous enmity nor shown any motive to abduct Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu in order to murder. There is complete absence of exhortation or pre-meditation on the part of the accused. 5. Another thing to be noticed i.e. recovery of two skeletons, from a deep forest near a "Jamun" tree after 45 days from the date of disappearance of Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu. The I.O. Dasarath Sah, (P.W. 6) stated that he recovered two skeletons and various articles on 1st December, 1993 from Baruaghati forest in presence of witnesses and sent them for forensic examination but the prosecution did not choose to exhibit any forensic report. The place of occurrence, as per I.O., is near a 'Jamun' tree of Baruaghati forest. The I.O. Dasarath Sah, (P.W. 6) stated that he recovered two skeletons and various articles on 1st December, 1993 from Baruaghati forest in presence of witnesses and sent them for forensic examination but the prosecution did not choose to exhibit any forensic report. The place of occurrence, as per I.O., is near a 'Jamun' tree of Baruaghati forest. According to him, he found two skeletons near a 'Jamun' tree and in its branches, two traps were made of jute. He found two skeletons from nearby, hidden beneath stone. Curiously Dr. Arun Kumar Singh, who medically examined the skeletons, was not produced as prosecution witness. The trial court examined him as court witness no.1. He proved his report (Exhibit-4). His evidence being important, relevant portion is re-produced hereunder: "List of bones-Set A (1) Skull bone-one (2) Mandible-one (3) Scapulae-one right side (4) Clavicle- Two-left and right (5) Ulna- Two-right and left (6) Radius- Two-right and left (7) Febula-one (8) Tibia-one (9) Femur-one-right side (10) Portion of right hip bone-one (11) Vertebra-Three- Thoracic (12) Ribs-thirteen (13) Lower end of both ulna lower end of both radius. Both ends of Tibia, both ends of febula lower portion of femur and greater trochanter, portion of iliac crest/eaten partly by animal. Soft tissues and ligament are found dry and attached with the bones. The bones are dry and emits odor. Skull Permanent dentition complete, Atrition present, vucileam suture united. Sagital and coronal suture externally union has commenced. Glabeua, super ciliary arches are prominent. Upper horizontal margin is rough forehead slap, mastaid process is fig- Mandible-Two chin is square, angle of sex is averted. Angle for age is nearly right angle. Permanent ventilation complete, attrition present. Dental foramen only in middle. Hip bone-Iliac crest of hip bone fused sympagial surface is somewhat granular and some transverse ridges foreseen. Long bones- The end of long bones which were available were united with their respective shaft. There is no evidence of any ante mortem injury on the bones noted above. Opinion- The bones were of human origin belonging to male, aged 30 years (+ -) 8 years. It was not possible to comment as the cause of death. Since the bones did not contain any ante mortem injury. Time' of death about one to three months. Since examination from 15.12.93. Bones of both sets (A+B) marked by me were kept in a jute bag duly sealed. It was not possible to comment as the cause of death. Since the bones did not contain any ante mortem injury. Time' of death about one to three months. Since examination from 15.12.93. Bones of both sets (A+B) marked by me were kept in a jute bag duly sealed. Continued for Set 'B in this para- For set B list of bones (1) Skull-one (2) Humerous- Two (3) Radius-One (4) Ulna-One (5) Cervical Vertebra:--6 Thorasic vertebra-12, Lumber vertebra-5. (6) Sacrum-One (7) Hip bone-two-right and left (8) Scapula-one-right (9) Sternum-Gne (10) Ribs-24 (11) Femure-one right side (12) Tibia-one right (13) Febula-one right (14) Patella-one right (15) Small bones of hands six in number. Iliac creast of right hip bone, long end of both humerus lower end of radius both ends of ulna, upper end of femure, long end of tibia and fibula were eaten away by animals. Soft tissue and ligament had dried up and attached with the bones; The bones were somewhat dried and emitted odor. Skull-Permanent dentition complete. Attrition present. Vacillus suture united. Sagital and coronal suture are united internally and externally glabulla super siliary arches are prominent upper orbital mangui is rounded forehead slop. Mastoid process deep. There is cut injury 51/2 Cm. long on right parietal eminence situated anterior posteriorly and right parietal bone is completely cut. There is cut injury 5 cm. long on right parietal bone cutting under line bone, completely. There are two cut injury 5 cm. in length each occipital bone cutting the underline bone completely. There is crack fraction of left occipital parietal temporal bone which started from the cut injury on occipital bone. The cut injuries on 3rd, 5th and 6th cervical vertebra sixth vertebra was completely cut. There was infiltration of blood in fancy tissues the sillier cut injury. Hip bones-The greater ciatic noteh is narrow aster rocity is everted, pre viculow surcal not prominent, Iliac creast united, isclial tuberocity united, sympnytial surface bear transverse ridges and at places it is granular. Sternum-Body of sternum and marifurium stearinoid not united length humero 12.1" (1) spenion- The bones are of human origin belonging to a male aged 30 (+ -) eight years. (2). Death was due to afore noted injury' each of the above noted injury were sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause drature. The injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon such age may be. (2). Death was due to afore noted injury' each of the above noted injury were sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause drature. The injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon such age may be. The time of death is about one to three months prior from the time of the examination on 15.12.93. Those reports are in my pen and signature. Let it be mentioned Ext. for the prosecution." If the opinion of Doctor (C.W. 1) relating to cause of death of first skeleton (Set A) is seen, it will be evident that the doctor was not in a position to comment as to the cause of death since the bones did not contain any ante mortem injury. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the human of whose skeleton was recovered (set-A) was murdered or not. It was for the prosecution to prove that the two sets of skeletons (Set-A and Set-B), which were recovered, belonged to Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu or any of them. Identification of each of the deceased was required beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case, only one witness, namely, Kamlesh Kumar, (P.W.5) identified 'one cap' and another 'Dot. pen' which were merely lying near the skeletons. Nobody could identify any of the deceased even by clothes. In the case of 'Rabindra Prakash Vs. State of Haryana', reported in 2003(1) East Cr.C. 36 (S.C.), the Supreme Court did not accept the identification of the deceased by clothes as proper identification, in the case of 'Jai Pal VS. State of U.P.,' reported in 2003(1) Cr. R. 658(S.C.), as the evidence of witnesses was recorded after 50 days of occurrence, the identification of the deceased by clothes was not accepted. Thus, there is a doubt about the murder of deceased. There is no evidence brought on record to suggest that the skeletons belonged to Mithilesh Singh and/or Lalku Ganjhu. Thus, I find that the order of conviction of the learned court below suffers from legal infirmities which cannot be upheld. 6. In the result, there being merit in this criminal appeal, it is allowed. The appellant, Ramdeo Singh having not found guilty of the charges levelled against him, he is acquitted. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned court below convicting the appellant u/ss. 6. In the result, there being merit in this criminal appeal, it is allowed. The appellant, Ramdeo Singh having not found guilty of the charges levelled against him, he is acquitted. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned court below convicting the appellant u/ss. 302/201/ 34 I.P.C. and sentencing to undergo imprisonment for life for the charges u/s. 302 I.P.C. and seven years imprisonment for the charges u/s. 201 I.P.C. in Sessions Trial no. 120 of 1994 is set aside. It is directed that the appellant, Ramdeo Singh shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Lakshman Uraon, J.-I agree.