JUDGMENT : Lakshman Uraon, J.-The appellants have preferred this appeal against the order of conviction dated 4.9.1998 and sentence dated 5.9.1998 passed by Sri Dhirendra Nath Chakravarty, Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 292 of 1993 whereby and whereunder all the appellants have been convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life; for an offence under Section 452/449 IPC, 5 years and; under Section 342 R.I. for one year each on each count directing the sentences to run concurrently in all respects. However, no separate sentence for the offence punishable under section 201/149 IPC has been awarded. 2. The prosecution case has arisen on the fardbeyan of informant Dhiren Singh Munda (P.W. 6) recorded on 21.3.1993 at 18.00 hours at his home village Mauni Baba Sonari by A.S.I. R.C. Singh (P.W. 9), I.O. of Sonari PS. Informant was sleeping in his house along with his wife in the night of 18/19th March, 1993. At about 1.00 a.m. night, Bijay Kumar Gope @ Butru Gope, Chunu Bhumij, Petu Bhumij (absconder), Sunil Rajak and Sunil Gope, all of the same village, went to his home. They broke open the door and entered into his house. They brought out his wife Latika Devi alleging that she plays witchcraft resulting ill health of the wife of appellant Bijay Kumar Gope @ Butru. Bijay Kumar Gope has recently married one year prior to the alleged occurrence with Asha Devi as love marriage. Bijay Gope @ Butru Gope assaulted with iron rod to Latika Devi on her head. The other appellants also assaulted her with Lathis and rod. Informant raised alarm, then his brother Nidhi Ram Singh Munda (P.W. 7) whose house is adjacent to the house of the informant, Bal Bahadur Kshetriya (P.W.2) and Debu Lohar (P.W. 4) came and intervened. When the appellants threatened them, then they did not intervene. Bijay Kumar Gope @ Butru Gope and his associates confined P.W. 7 Nidhi Ram Singh inside the home and locked it from outside. The appellants took the informant and his wife towards Kharkai river. They assaulted his wife in his presence with rods and Lathis and murdered her. At about 8.00 a.m. morning, her dead body was buried at the burning Ghat in his presence. On 21.3.1993 at about 18.00 hours, when police went there, then the appellants fled away. The appellants took the informant and his wife towards Kharkai river. They assaulted his wife in his presence with rods and Lathis and murdered her. At about 8.00 a.m. morning, her dead body was buried at the burning Ghat in his presence. On 21.3.1993 at about 18.00 hours, when police went there, then the appellants fled away. The police in his presence exhumed the dead body of Latika Devi. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext.3), case was registered besides these appellants against Pitu Bhumij also, but he is absconding after framing of charge. Hence the case of these appellants was separately tried. 4. The prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses out of them P.W. 1 Kartik Chandra Mahto is the witness in whose presence dead body of Latika Devi was exhumed and inquest report was prepared on which he signed (Ext. 1). P.W. 2 Bal Bahadur Kshetriya is also a witness in whose presence dead body was exhumed. P.W. 3 Dr. Yogendra Prasad conducted autopsy on the dead body of Latika Devi. Ext. 2 is the post mortem report in his pen and signature. P.W. 4 Debu Lohar, P.W. 5 Banmali are the hostile witnesses, although as per fardbeyan of the informant, P.W. 2, P.W. 4, P.W. 5, the independent village witnesses, are the eyewitnesses of the alleged occurrence. P.W. 6 is the informant himself. P.W. 7 Nidhi Ram Singh is the own brother of the informant and P.W. 8 Bishu Singh is the nephew of the informant. P.W. 9 I.O. Ram Chandra Singh on hearing rumour, went to the P/O. He found that the door of the informant was not locked; rather he himself came out of the house. The learned Court below relied the evidence of P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W. 3 Dr. Yogendra Prasad and also objective findings of P.W. 9 I.O., convicted the appellants and sentenced thereunder. 5. Challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against these appellants, the learned counsel for the appellants has argued that although the alleged occurrence took place in the busy town of Sonari where 20-25 villagers are residing in the same colony. The independent witnesses, who are eyewitnesses, P.W. 1 Kartik Chandra Mahto, P.W. 2 Sal Bahadur Kshetriya, P.W. 4 Debu Lohar and P.W. 5 Sanmaii Mishra have denied any knowledge about the alleged occurrence. The independent witnesses, who are eyewitnesses, P.W. 1 Kartik Chandra Mahto, P.W. 2 Sal Bahadur Kshetriya, P.W. 4 Debu Lohar and P.W. 5 Sanmaii Mishra have denied any knowledge about the alleged occurrence. Hence they have been declared hostile. It was submitted that the informant himself does not know the names of his sons. Deceased was his wife but she had gone along with other man through which she got two sons. Deceased was willing to live along with her sons, but the informant was not allowing them to live with him. This annoyed the informant who himself caused murder of his wife Latika and falsely implicated these appellants in this case. There is no independent village witness of the alleged occurrence. The information given to the police is also doubtful as to where and when the police was informed who went to the P/O after hearing rumour. Informant was also assaulted with iron rod, lath; and Farsa, but he was never examined by any doctor nor any injury report was brought on record. The P/O has also not been proved properly. On these grounds, it was urged that the appellants deserved acquittal giving them benefit of doubt. 6. Refuting the argument advanced by the appellants, the learned APP has argued that it was dark night, hence no independent witness could see the alleged occurrence. Only the informant, his brother P.W. 7 Nidhi Ram Singh whose house is very close to him and his nephew P.W. 8 Sishu Singh who is also residing near to his house, are the eyewitnesses who have supported the prosecution case. The manner of the alleged occurrence was found corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W. 3. The I.O. also examined the dead body in presence of the villagers, prove the complicity of these appellants in causing murder of Latika Devi believing her that she was playing witchcraft. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the time of the alleged occurrence and the manner in which the police was informed by the informant. It was submitted that informant's fardbeyan was recorded on 21.3.1993 at 18.00 hour at his home whereas the alleged occurrence took place in the night of 18/19th March, 1993. For delay, the informant has explained that he was confined in his own house by the appellants. It was submitted that informant's fardbeyan was recorded on 21.3.1993 at 18.00 hour at his home whereas the alleged occurrence took place in the night of 18/19th March, 1993. For delay, the informant has explained that he was confined in his own house by the appellants. When the police went there, the accused fled away who were restraining his movement, then alone his fardbeyan was recorded. As it was night, the other village independent witnesses are not the eyewitnesses who have not supported the prosecution case, but his brother P.W. 7 Nidhi Ram and P.W. 8 nephew Sishu Singh claim themselves to be the eyewitnesses regarding assault on Latika Devi. The informant is the only witness of the 2nd and 3rd place of occurrence i.e. incomplete Jharkhand Office near the bank of the river and the back side of Mauni Saba Sthan, the burnt hut where Latika Devi was buried in his presence. 8. P.W. 3 Dr. Yogendra Prasad on 22.3.1993 at 11.00 a.m. conducted autopsy on the dead body of Latika Devi and found rigor mortis absent. He found the following injuries on her person:(A) Abrasions: (i) Multiple abrasions of different shape and sizes over front of chest and abdomen ranging from 4" x 4" x ½” (ii) 2" x 4" x 2" 1", x 1" over right knee front (iii) 2" x 1" over right side front leg (iv) 2" x 2", 1" x 1" on left knee front (v) Multiple abrasion over buttock and both thigh (vi) 3" x 4" over forehead (vii) 7" x 2" on left side of face (B) Bruise:- There was generalized bruise over back of chest and abdomen- both buttocks. There were deep incisions over the above noted area widespread contusion. Doctor found fracture of left 2nd and 3rd ribs. All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. The death was due to haemorrhage and shock and the time elapsed since death was within 36 to 72 hours. He prepared post mortem report (Ext. 2) in his pen and signature. 9. P.W. 9 I.O. has prepared inquest report in carbon process (Ext. 4) in presence of the witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 who have signed on it. When perused these oral evidence of P.W. 3 and the documentary evidence Exts. He prepared post mortem report (Ext. 2) in his pen and signature. 9. P.W. 9 I.O. has prepared inquest report in carbon process (Ext. 4) in presence of the witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 who have signed on it. When perused these oral evidence of P.W. 3 and the documentary evidence Exts. 2 and 4, there is no doubt that the death of Latika Devi, aged about 42 years, was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the abrasion and bruises and internal fracture of ribs, was homicidal death. 10. Now I take up the place of occurrence where the alleged occurrence took place. P.W. 6 Dhiren Singh Munda, informant, was at his home. By his side, there are houses of his brother P.W. 7 Nidhi Ram Singh and nephew P.W. 8 Bishu Singh. They are the only eyewitnesses of the alleged occurrence. P.W. 6 has deposed that at night, the appellant went to his home armed with iron rod, lathi and farsa. He was assaulted with Farsa, lathi and rod on his back. They took out his wife alleging that she is Daine. She was also assaulted with iron rod, hockey sticks, lathi and farsa. Thereafter they took both the informant and his wife towards Kharkai river Jharkhand Office, under construction. There they assaulted his wife resulting her death. Thereafter they took dragging her to Mauni Baba Sthan where she was buried in presence of the informant. Thereafter informant was brought back to his home and confined in his house restricting his movement by the appellants under threat. His brother P.W. 7 claimed that on alarm raised by his brother P.W. 6, he woke up and peeped through the door that these appellants armed with lathi, farsa and iron rod assaulting both the informant and his wife dragged out of house. He came out and when objected, he was threatened and was confined in his house. The other witnesses Bir Bahadur (P.W. 2) and Debu Lohar (P.W. 4) came there, who were also chased. All the five named accused including absconding accused Petu Bhumij took Latika Devi towards the river assaulting her and at about 8.00 morning she was buried. He came out and when objected, he was threatened and was confined in his house. The other witnesses Bir Bahadur (P.W. 2) and Debu Lohar (P.W. 4) came there, who were also chased. All the five named accused including absconding accused Petu Bhumij took Latika Devi towards the river assaulting her and at about 8.00 morning she was buried. As per his evidence, the alleged occurrence took place in the morning of Saturday, but the police went to the P/O on Monday i.e. one day after the alleged occurrence and exhumed the dead body of Latika Devi. This witness (P.W. 7) has deposed that when Latika Devi was being taken towards Kharkai river assaulting her, her husband P.W. 6 Dhiren Singh Munda was confined in his house. When police came after one day, then he broke open the door of the house of the informant. When informant came out of his house, then his fardbeyan was recorded. All the three witnesses-P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8, closely related, have deposed that it was dark night and there is no provision of electricity in their Basti. P.W. 8 claims that when he came out of his door at night, then he saw these appellants taking Latika Devi assaulting her towards the river. They first took her to the Jharkhand Office, under construction, and assaulted her there. After 5.00 a.m. morning, he could not hear any cry of Latika Devi. The appellants took the dead body towards Mauni Baba Asthan at 8.00 a.m. and buried it. Even he was free and not confined, but he did not inform the police. P.W. 6 Dhiren Singh Munda (informant) went to the police station and informed the police. He claimed to have witnessed the entire occurrence from his house peeping through the door which is quite impossible at night as the under construction Jharkhand office is at a distance of 40 feet and it was dark night. In between his house and the place of occurrence, there are 4-5 huts. About 30 persons are residing in that Basti; out of them 15-20 persons have seen the alleged occurrence, but they have not come forward to support the prosecution case. P.W. 6 informant when raised alarm, P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 7 went there. But they have not supported the prosecution case. About 30 persons are residing in that Basti; out of them 15-20 persons have seen the alleged occurrence, but they have not come forward to support the prosecution case. P.W. 6 informant when raised alarm, P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 7 went there. But they have not supported the prosecution case. The informant claims that he was present from the very beginning till the dead body was buried at the Mauni Baba Asthan by the appellants. His brother has deposed that P.W. 6 was confined in his house. P.W. 6 has also deposed that his brother P.W. 7 was also confined in his house and locked from outside. Informant has deposed that he was kept confined in his house. When the police went there he broke open the door and his statement was recorded. I.O. (P.W. 9) has deposed that he has not broken open the door, rather he found the door broken and the informant (P.W. 6) came himself out of his house whose statement was recorded. He was also assaulted on his face, back, leg with Lathi, iron rod and Farsa, but there is no injury report on record to show that he sustained any injury due to assault by the appellants. Even he does not know the names of his son and daughter, as they are not residing in his house. He has deposed that he went to the police station and informed about the alleged occurrence, but the I.O. has deposed that when he heard rumour, he entered S.D. No. 563 on 21.3.1993 at 17.30 hours and went to the river Kharkai. He recorded the fardbeyan of Dhiren Singh at his home. He exhumed the dead body and prepared inquest report and sent it for post mortem examination. P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 have not stated under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that Bijay Gope @ Butrw: Gope had iron rod, Chunu Bhumij had hockey stick and the other appellants Sunil Rajak and Sunil Gope had lathis in their hands, whereas absconding accused Petu Bhumij had farsa. Thus, the evidence of these interested witnesses-P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8. regarding possession of arms by these appellants, has been developed in course of their evidence. Thus, the evidence of these interested witnesses-P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8. regarding possession of arms by these appellants, has been developed in course of their evidence. Informant has admitted that his wife was eloped by one Dashwa Munda and through him, wife of the informant Latika Devi gave birth to a son and one daughter. She did not give birth to any child through the informant. His wife Latika Devi does not want to live along with him till the day of deposition on 19.8.1995. The informant (P.W. 6) who is aged about 35 years, has not seen his son and daughter who are alleged to have been born through Dashwa Munda. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued and has also suggested that she does not want to lead her marital life along with the informant and was also not willing to live in his house along with her son and daughter. This annoyed the informant who himself caused murder of his wife and falsely implicated these appellants. 11. P.W. 6 has given contradictory statements that he went to the police station and informed the police, but the I.O. (P.W. 9) has deposed that on rumour he went to the P/O and recorded the fardbeyan. P.W.7 his brother Nidhi Ram Singh has deposed that only Latika Devi was taken towards the river assaulting her by the appellants. They had closed and confined Dhiren Singh Munda (P.W. 6) in his house. If this statement of P.W. 7 (paragraph 6) is believed, then P.W.6 cannot be the eyewitness of the alleged occurrence. P.W. 7 in para. 7 has deposed that after two days, when police went there, the police opened the doors of the informant and P.W. 7 which is also belied by the I.O. ( P.W. 9) that the doors of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 were not closed from outside, rather they themselves came out voluntarily. P.W. 7 himself came to know on the next day that Latika Devi was murdered. There are rumours in the village that Latika Devi died. P.W. 8, who is nephew of the informant, claims to have seen that these appellants assaulting Latika Devi took away towards Jharkhand Office. But he did not inform the police rather police came after two days after the alleged occurrence on the information of Dhiren Singh Munda (P.W. 6). P.W. 6 has deposed in para. P.W. 8, who is nephew of the informant, claims to have seen that these appellants assaulting Latika Devi took away towards Jharkhand Office. But he did not inform the police rather police came after two days after the alleged occurrence on the information of Dhiren Singh Munda (P.W. 6). P.W. 6 has deposed in para. 4 that he has got one son and one daughter through Latika Devi. The son is aged in between 17 to 18 years' and daughter is aged about 15 years. His brother P.W. 7 Nidhi Ram Singh had deposed that Dhiren Singh Munda had married with Latika Devi 4-5 years ago (para. 18). He does not know whether the deceased had got any son/ daughter or not. 12. When pros and cons of the prosecution case and the evidence is considered, I find that no independent witness of the village has supported the prosecution case. P.W.1, P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5, who are the co-villagers and independent witnesses, have turned hostile. The marriage of the informant with the deceased Latika Devi is also doubtful whether it took place within 4-5 years ago as deposed by his brother P.W. 7 or after marriage his wife Latika Devi had fled away along with one Bashwa and got one son and one daughter who are aged about 17 years and 15 years respectively. P.W. 7 claims that through him Latika Devi gave birth to a son and a daughter. On the other hand, he has deposed that he has not seen the faces of - his son or daughter till date. His wife does not want to live along with him. The manner of the alleged occurrence and the weapons of assault were not stated before the I.O. rather in course of evidence. P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 have developed means of assault possessed by these appellants as lathi, hockey stick, iron rod and farsa. Informant did not sustain injury as there is no injury report, although he claims that he was assaulted with iron rod, hockey stick and farsa. The evidence that he is the eyewitness was contradicted by his brother P.W. 7 who has deposed that his brother informant P.W. 6 was confined in his house. The appellants took only Latika Devi assaulting her towards Jharkhand office where she was murdered. The evidence that he is the eyewitness was contradicted by his brother P.W. 7 who has deposed that his brother informant P.W. 6 was confined in his house. The appellants took only Latika Devi assaulting her towards Jharkhand office where she was murdered. P.W. 9 (I.O.) did not find blood there in the Jharkhand office under construction. Hence there is no seizure of any bloodstained soil, although absconding accused Petu Bhumij assaulted with farsa on the person of the deceased. She sustained abrasions only and fracture of ribs due to assault by hard and blunt substance. The learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the time of death also on the ground that rigor mortis was absent. P.W. 3 had deposed that he conducted post mortem examination on 22.3.1993 at 11.00 a.m. and opined that the death was within 36-70 hours. On the other hand, the prosecution case is that in the night of 18/19th March, 1993, Latika Devi was assaulted and done to death at about 5.00 a.m. At about 8.00 a.m. on 19.3.1993 itself, dead body was buried. The dead body was exhumed on 21.3.1993 and fardbeyan was recorded, FIR was lodged. Thus, when the time is calculated, it does not get support from the medical evidence of P.W. 3 regarding the time elapsed since death. P.W. 6 was confined in his house as deposed by his brother P.W. 7. Hence he is not the eyewitness of the alleged occurrence regarding assault on Latika Devi at Jharkhand Office and also burying her dead body. P.W. 7 was also confined in his house. Hence he also cannot be the eyewitness as he claims to have peeped through his door. All those interested witnesses P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 have deposed that it was dark night, there was no provision of any electricity in their Basti. The villagers did not come out to support the prosecution case. No one informed the police soon after the occurrence, although it is situated very near to Sonari PS hardly at a distance of 3 k.m. from the P/O. The delay in lodging the FI R was• explained that both P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 were confined for two days in their respective houses by the appellants and were threatened and watched not to inform the police. When I.O. went to the P/O on 21.3.1993 at 17.30 hours, he did not find the doors of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 bolted from outside, rather they came out voluntarily as free men without any confinement whose fardbeyan and statement were recorded by the police. When considered meticulously all these evidence, I find that the prosecution case is full of doubt regarding complicity and involvement of these appellants in causing murder of Latika Devi. The genesis that wife of Bijay Gope. @ Butru Gope was suffering from ailment suspecting that it was the witchcraft played upon by deceased Latika Devi who was suspected to be a sorcerist. When considered all these aspects, I find that there is full of contradictions in all respects regarding the genesis; the manner of the alleged occurrence and the place of assault and the involvement of these appellants whereas P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 claim to have seen, although they were confined in their respective houses in a dark night without any electricity availability. Thus, the silence of the villagers including P.W. 8 and the hostile witnesses in not informing the police in time creates doubt in my mind that these appellants are responsible in causing murder of Latika Devi. The learned Sessions Judge has not considered these aspects and has arrived at a wrong conclusion convicting these appellants which cannot be sustained. 13. In the result, I find merit in this Criminal Appeal which succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 292 of 1993 is set aside and all the accused-appellants named above, are acquitted. As they are in custody, they are ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.-I agree.