JUDGMENT R.C. CHA VAN, J. :- By this appeal the appellant has challenged his conviction by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur for the offence punishable under section 302 of the· Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- inflicted upon him. 2. The facts which led to the conviction of the appellant, upon his prosecution along with his father for the murder of his uncle could be stated as under: There was a dispute between deceased Tulsiram and his brother Parasram, original accused No.2, over partition of agricultural land belonging to the family. On 31st July, 2000 at about 6.30 a.m. the appellant allegedly assaulted Tulsiram near Tulsiram's house by means of wooden stalk which is used in railing of bullock-cart. Tulsiram fell down and died on the spot. On a report by Up-Sarpanch of the village an offence was registered and investigation commenced. Police performed inquest and caused post-mortem to be conducted on the dead body. In course of investigation the police recorded the statements of the witnesses, seized incriminating articles, sent them to the Forensic Science Laboratory and on conclusion of investigation, charge-sheeted the appellant along with his father Parasram. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Narkhed received the charge-sheet and committed the case to the Court of Session, Nagpur. Since both the appellant and his father pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder framed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur they were put on trial, in course of which the prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses in its attempt to bring home guilt to the accused. After considering the evidence tendered before him the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur held the appellant guilty of murder and convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned. He, however, proceeded to acquit co-accused, appellant's father, Parasram. Aggrieved by his conviction the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. R. M. Daga, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. G. Loney, the learned APP for the respondent/State. With the help of both the learned counsel we have gone through the evidence tendered. 4. He, however, proceeded to acquit co-accused, appellant's father, Parasram. Aggrieved by his conviction the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. R. M. Daga, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. G. Loney, the learned APP for the respondent/State. With the help of both the learned counsel we have gone through the evidence tendered. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the evidence in this case comprises eyewitness account of the incident given by PW 7 Bhagirathibai, victim's widow, PW 8 Anju, victim's daughter, PW 9 Yenubai, victim's neighbour and PW 10 Sarjerao, the father-in-law of victim's daughter Anju. The learned counsel pointed out that though Bhagirathibai and Anju, PW 7 and 8, victim's widow and daughter respectively, claimed to have been eyewitnesses to the incident, the investigating officer recorded their statements on 31-7-2001 one year after the incident. In para 8 of his deposition at Exh. 12 PI Ghodki, Investigating Officer, admitted that statement of PW 8 Anju was recorded on 31-7-2001. PW 8 Anju herself stated in para 6 of her deposition at Exh. 41 that statement of her mother was also recorded on the day on which her statement was recorded. Therefore, the learned counsel rightly submitted that the evidence of these two witnesses must be rejected as brought into existence an year after the incident. 5. Apart from this the learned counsel pointed out that PW 7 Bhagirathibai claimed to have stated to the police about the genesis of the incident which she had deposed to in her examination-in-chief, but in para 4 of the cross-examination she admitted that most of the part of her evidence was not to be found in her statement recorded by the investigating officer. Investigating Officer PW 12 PI Ghodki stated in para 5 of his deposition that PW 7 Bhagirathibai had not made any such statement before him. PW 8 Anju admitted that she had not stated to the police that her mother had arrived at the spot and served water to her father. She could not assign any reason as to why the fact of accused No. 2 Parasram standing on the spot with stick in his hand was not to be found in her statement. This omission was duly proved by PW 12 PI Ghodki. She could not assign any reason as to why the fact of accused No. 2 Parasram standing on the spot with stick in his hand was not to be found in her statement. This omission was duly proved by PW 12 PI Ghodki. In view of this the learned trial Judge should not have readily relied on the evidence of PW 7 Bhagirathibai and PW 8 Anju. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the third eyewitness PW 9 Yenubai had supported the prosecution in her examination-in-chief by stating that she had seen the appellant assaulting Tulsiram with stalk of railing of bullock-cart. However, in cross-examination she admitted that when she came out from her house Tulsiram was already lying on the ground motionless, ruling out the possibility of her having seen the assault. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of PW 10 Sarjerao, the father-in-law of victim's daughter Anju is curious. He claimed that he saw the appellant giving a blow to the victim, yet he proceeded to attend to his work as if nothing had happened. The learned counsel pointed out that the fact of this witness having seen the blow being given is not in his police statement and the witnesses could not assign any reason for its omission. This omission too was duly proved by PW 12 PI Ghodki in para 7 of his deposition. In view of this it is indeed not clear to us as to how the learned trial Judge could have relied on this so-called ocular testimony. 7. As regards the other witnesses the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that PW 1 Chaitram had merely given a report and had not seen the incident, PW 2 Raju was a panch on several panchanamas, all of which he claimed to have been performed in the village, though Exh. 28 out of those panchanamas shows that it was drawn up in the Police Station. Evidence of PW 3 Madan, panch on discovery and seizure of a stalk at the instance of the appellant, cannot add to the strength of the prosecution story, since the wooden log which was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, did not have any stains of blood as per report Exh. 57. Evidence of PW 3 Madan, panch on discovery and seizure of a stalk at the instance of the appellant, cannot add to the strength of the prosecution story, since the wooden log which was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, did not have any stains of blood as per report Exh. 57. Therefore even if a stick is proved to have been seized at the instance of the appellant, it is unhelpful to connect the appellant to the crime. PW 4 Dilip and PW 5 Dhanraj, panchas on seizures, have turned hostile. PW 6 Shantaram is a panch on panchanama Exh. 39 in respect of the bullock-cart. 8. PW 11 Dr. Mahure has proved notes of post-mortem examination at Exh. 45. PW 13 Photographer Surve proved the photographs taken in course of investigation and PW 12 PI Ghodki stated about the steps in the investigation. The learned APP submitted that the eyewitness account, corroborated by seizure of stick proved by PW 3 Madan, should be sufficient for concluding that the appellant was the author of injury sustained by victim Tulsiram. The foregoing discussion would show that none of the eyewitnesses deserve any credence. The attempt of the prosecution to prop-up PW 7 Bhagirathibai and PW 8 Anju one year after the incident and indifference of PW 10 Sarjerao after having claimed to have seen the assault, themselves speak volumes about the doubtful nature of their evidence. 9. We, therefore, fail to see as to how the learned trial Judge could have recorded conviction of the appellant for the offence of murder. The appeal is consequently allowed. Conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed upon him are set aside, instead the appellant is acquitted of the offence charged. The appellant shall be set at liberty if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed