Judgment : LAKSHMAN URAON, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT Birsa Ahir has challenged the order of conviction and sentence dated 23-12-1989 whereby and whereunder he has been convicted under Section 302/34, ipc and Section 449, IPC and sentenced to undergo R. I. for life under Section 302/34, IPC. However, no separate sentence was passed under Section 449, IPC in Sessions Trial No. 252 of 1988 arising out of g. R. No. 450 of 1988, Palkot PS Case No. 39 of 1988. ( 2 ) INFORMANT Thuma Oraon (P. W. 9) on 10-8-1988 at 18. 30 hours was at his home along with his mother Chumani Oraon. His mother was preparing food, then appellant Birsa Ahir along with another villager Jakariyas Oraon (since dead) went there and abused his mother. They entered into his house, abused her. Jakariyas Oraon abused her that she played witch craft resulting death of his son. Both of them caught hold of hands of Chumani Oraon and took to the village Akhara where a committee was convened. Informant also followed his mother. He saw that both named accused laid down his mother on the Akhara and with stones they crushed her head resulting her death at the spot. The alleged occurrence was witnessed by Domra Oraon (P. W. 4) and other villagers. After causing murder of Chumani, both the accused fled away. Informant has stated that due to illness, son of Jakariyas Oraon had died on previous Thursday. He suspected his mother to be a sorcerist. After framing of charge co-accused Jakariya Oraon died. ( 3 ) TO prove the charge against the sole appellant Birsa Ahir, prosecution produced 12 witnesses. P. W. 9 Thuma Oraon is the informant who only has tried to support his fardbeyan recorded on 11-8-1988 at 11. 00 hours at village Bagesara Hari Toll by S. I. A. K. Gupta (P. W. 10), O/c of Palkot P. S The other witnesses P. W. 1 Rajeshwar Pathak is a formal witness who had proved fardbeyan (Ext. 1), P. W. 2 Mannu Ram, another formal witness, has proved formal FIR (Ext. 2); P. W. 3 Rajin Orain saw the dead body of Chumani a Akhara in front of his house in the morning. She is a hostile witness as she deposed that on the alleged date of occurrence, people were dancing at the Akhara throughout the night. 1), P. W. 2 Mannu Ram, another formal witness, has proved formal FIR (Ext. 2); P. W. 3 Rajin Orain saw the dead body of Chumani a Akhara in front of his house in the morning. She is a hostile witness as she deposed that on the alleged date of occurrence, people were dancing at the Akhara throughout the night. P. W. 4 Domra Oraon who has been , mentioned as eyewitness in the fardbeyan of the informant (P. W. 9), is a hostile witness as he did not support the version of P. W. 9. P. W. 5 Hindu Oraon, another hostile witness, saw the dead body of Chumani on the Akhara. He does not know as to who killed her. P. W. 6 Bahidar Oraon also saw the dead body only having no knowledge as to who assaulted and killed her. P. W. 7 Nanhu Kharia, a formal witness and Mukhiya of Bagesara Gram Panchayat, has signed on the inquest report (Ext. 3) prepared by the I. O. P. W. 8 Bisharam Oraon is a tendered witness. P. W. 9 Thuma Oraon is the informant. P. W. 10 Ashok Kumar Gupta is the Investigating Officer. P. W. 11 is Dr. Krishna Prasad who conducted autopsy (Ext. 4) and P. W. 12 is Mitianus Khakha, a formal witness who has proved S. D. Entry (Ext. 5 ). The learned 1st Additional Sessions judge, Gumla relied the evidence of sole closely related eyewitness P. W. 9 and opined that P. W. 11 Dr. Krishna Prasad has corroborated the manner of the alleged assault who has found injuries on the dead body ante mortem in nature and the I. O. (P. W. 10) who investigated the case; convicted the appellant and sentenced thereunder. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Court below has erroneously relied the evidence of sole witness, closely related with the deceased as son who is informant P. W. 9 Thuma Oraon. It was 6. 30 p. m. and the dead body of Chumani Oraon, mother of the informant (P. W. 9) was in the Akhara. The other villagers were also available there. The Akhara is in front of the house of P. W. 4 Domra Oraon who is also a hostile witness. Informant did not identify any other villagers who were present at the Akhara. The other villagers were also available there. The Akhara is in front of the house of P. W. 4 Domra Oraon who is also a hostile witness. Informant did not identify any other villagers who were present at the Akhara. There was no blood found at the Akhara, hence the I. O. (P. W. 10) did not seize any bloodstained soil. There were two stones at the Akhara. The I. O. did not find any blood on those stones, hence they were also not seized. Informant narrated the entire occurrene to village Chaukidar and on 11-8-1988 at about 9. 30 a. m. he was sent to police station on whose statement Station Diary Entry No. 162 dated 11-8-1988 at Palkot PS was entered. Instead of registering a case of the first information of Chaukidar, only S. D. Entry was made in which the name of this appellant has not been mentioned. That was the first information report and the subsequent statement which is fardbeyan (Ext. 1) of the informant (RW. 9) is hit by Section 162, Cr. P. C. Without any corroboration by other village independent witness the evidence of P. W. 9 becomes doubtful. Hence, the appellant deserves acquittal giving benefit of doubts. ( 5 ) LEARNED A. P. P. refuting the argument advanced has submitted that the eyewitness although is the son of the deceased, but he has deposed giving details of the manner of the alleged occurrence and the doctor (P. W. 11) found injuries on the dead body. The 1. 0. (P. W. 10) also found dead body on the Akhara. Hence only on the basis that P. W. 9 the sole eyewitness and related to the deceased as her son, his evidence cannot be discarded. The learned Court below relying the evidence has convicted the appellant and sentenced him on the basis of the evidence of sole witness P. W. 9. ( 6 ) I have already discussed above that all the non-official witnesses except P. W. 9 informant are either hostile, tendered or formal witnesses. P. W. 11 Dr. Krishna Prasad conducted autopsy on the dead body of Chumani Oraon on 12-8-1988 at 8. 30 a. m. and found the following ante mortem injuries on her person : (i) Lacerated injury on right temporal occipital region 5" x 4" x 4" fracture of temporal bone. P. W. 11 Dr. Krishna Prasad conducted autopsy on the dead body of Chumani Oraon on 12-8-1988 at 8. 30 a. m. and found the following ante mortem injuries on her person : (i) Lacerated injury on right temporal occipital region 5" x 4" x 4" fracture of temporal bone. (ii) Lacerated injury over the left side of scalp 6" x 3" x 1/2". (iii) Strenuous broken bruise over strenuous region, fracture of 4th 5th, 6th and 7th ribs at parasternal region over right side. He found injury Nos. (i) and (iii) grievous in nature and injury No. (ii) simple in nature, all caused by hard and blunt weapon Use piece of stone. Injury Nos. (i) and (ii) were sufficient either jointly or singly to cause death In the ordinary course of nature. The time elapsed since death was within 24 hours due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of above injuries. He has proved post mortem report (Ext. 4) which is to his pen and signature. P. W. 10 Ashok kumar Gupta on the information of Chaukidar Sukhram Oraon, entered S. D. Entry No. 162 dated 1 1-8-1988 (Ext. 5) and proceeded to P/o and reached there on the same day at 11. 00 a. m. He recorded the fardbeyan (Ext. l) of the informant and 3 prepared inquest report (Ext. 3) of the dead body of Chumani. When the evidence, inquest report (Ext. 3) and post mortem report (Ext. 4) is considered, there is no doubt that the death of Chumani Oraon was homicidal due to above assaults by stones on her head. ( 7 ) NOW I have to consider the complicity of this appellant in causing murder of Chumani Oraon. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the evidence of sole eyewitness informant Thuma Oraon (P. W. 9), son of the deceased, on the ground that he followed his mother up to the Akhara who was taken by this appellant and another coaccused Jakariyas Oraon (since dead ). There were other villagers in the Akhara. but he does not know the names of any of those villagers. It creates doubt in my mind as to whether there was any villager present at the Akhara or not as none of the village independent witnesses has supported the prosecution case. There were other villagers in the Akhara. but he does not know the names of any of those villagers. It creates doubt in my mind as to whether there was any villager present at the Akhara or not as none of the village independent witnesses has supported the prosecution case. He narrated the entire story of the alleged occurrence to village Chaukidar Sukhram who went to the Police Station and informed the police. The S. D. Entry (Ext. 5) does not reveal the name of the assailants, rather Sukhram Oraon (Chaukidar) informed that a woman was murdered at village Bagesara in the Akhara of Hari Toh, but how she was murdered and who murdered her Is not known. Thus, the statement of P. W. 9 that he narrated the entire story to village Chaukidar Sukhram Oraon and sent him to Police Station to inform about the alleged occurrence does not find mention of the name of the assailants including the name of the appellant. When both the named accused entered into the house, at that time it was dark. The other members of his family had gone for transplantation of paddy crops. There were other villagers on the Akhara whom he could not identify. This suppression is only to conceal the real fact. He must have identified the villagers as he is aged about 35 years. He saw the dead body of his mother on the Akhara. There were villagers in abundance. The I. O. (P. W. 10) has deposed that he did not seize two stones found there as there was no blood on it. He also did not find any blood at the place where the dead body was found. Hence he did not seize any bloodstained soil. He has also not recorded in the case diary as to whether there was any blood at the Akhara or not. When considered this evidence, it creates doubt in my mind as to where Chumani Oraon was done to death. Her head was crushed with stone and there was abundance of blood as deposed by P. W. 9, son of the deceased, but it gets belied by the evidence of the I. O. (P. W. 10) Ashok kumar Gupta who did not find any blood or bloodstained stone. Chaukidar Sukhram had narrated the entire story to him. Her head was crushed with stone and there was abundance of blood as deposed by P. W. 9, son of the deceased, but it gets belied by the evidence of the I. O. (P. W. 10) Ashok kumar Gupta who did not find any blood or bloodstained stone. Chaukidar Sukhram had narrated the entire story to him. It shows that First Information Report was the statement of Chaukidar, but on his statement no FIR was lodged, although his information was about an occurrence regarding commission of cognizable offence. The i. O. was duty bound to record his statement as First Information report, but Ext. 5 Station diary Entry is very clear that Chaukidar neither named the dead body nor named the assailants nor how the deceased was done to death. The subsequent fardbeyan (Ext. 1) of the informant (P. W. 9) in the fact and circumstances of the case is hit under Section 162, Cr. P. C. and is not the actual FIR. The informant has purposely suppressed all the materials regarding the murder of his mother. There is no eye-witness except himself. The dead body was found on the akhara, but there was no blood either near the dead body nor there was any blood on the stones which were two in number. The other villagers had also assembled there, but informant (P. W. 9) being the villager aged about 35 years, could not identify any of them which is quite improbable. All these evidences are only to suppress the real fact regarding the manner of the alleged occurrence and the place of occurrence where actually his mother was done to death. In my mind it haunts that Chunami must have been murdered somewhere else and her dead body was brought and kept on the village akhara. That is why there was no blood on the earth where the dead body was found nor there was any blood on the stones, two in number, found there by the I. O. When considered all these evidences meticulously, i find that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence of the sole eyewitness who is interested. There is evidence of the informant only who has alleged that oneweek prior to the alleged occurrence, son of Jakariyas Oraon died. So he along with this appellant suspected the mother of the informant to be a sorcerist. There is evidence of the informant only who has alleged that oneweek prior to the alleged occurrence, son of Jakariyas Oraon died. So he along with this appellant suspected the mother of the informant to be a sorcerist. It seems to me that only to take revenge, he has implicated jakariyas Oraon (since dead) and appellant birsa Ahir in this case. Had it been a fact, the village independent witness including the Chaukidar must have corroborated the fardbeyan or supported the prosecution case. The Chaukidar has not been examined in this case purposely by the prosecution who is in know of the actual fact who was sent by P. W. 9 to police station and narrated the occurrence there. When considered all this evidence, circumstances and the evidence of the sole eye interested witness p. W. 9, 1 find that his evidence is doubtful. Hence, such type of the evidence of sole witness is unsafe to rely to convict appellant under Section 302/34, IPC. ( 8 ) IN the result, I find merit in this criminal appeal which succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against this appellant is set aside and he is acquitted. As the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of the bail bond furnishing in this case. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .