JUDGMENT 1. Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 2000 is by Bargi Munda and Munga Munda, who were arrayed as A-2 and A-3 and Cr. Appeal No. 176 of 2000 is by Karia Pahan, who was arrayed as A-1 in Sessions Trial No. 451 of 1998 on the file of 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, Ranchi. They were tried under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that they murdered the deceased Sagar Munda, by joining with other accused and later with a view to screen the offence took the body of the deceased, where he was attacked, and left it near Kanchi river in village Kota. The trial Judge finding the appellants guilty, as charged, sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life and also sentenced each one of them to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The above appeals are against the said conviction and sentence. 2. In this judgment, the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 176 of 2000 and the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 146 of 2000 will be referred as A-1 to A-3, in the order, as they were arrayed before the trial Judge, and the above two appeals are being disposed of by the following common judgment. 3. PW-7, Aangi Mudaln, is the wife of the deceased Sagar Munda. There was a dispute between the 1st accused, Karia Pahan, and the deceased as regards the cutting of a tree. This is said to be the motive for the occurrence, which, according to the prosecution, took place at 6.30 p.m. on 10.7.1997. At 6.30 p.m. on 10.7,1997 the deceased accompanied by his wife, PW 7, Aangi Mudain, was returning from Khaguddin Bazar to his village Sukoriora. When they were near Sarna (a worship place), PW 7 saw 6-7 persons having Tangi and Balua in their hands. All of them surrounded the deceased, Sagar Munda, and attacked him. PW 7 ran away from the scene. She went to the village and informed PW 2, Sao Munda, Padya Munda, Bishwa Nath Munda, Mochi Munda and others. Information was passed on to the other villagers. PW 7 accompanied by the villagers returned to the place where her husband was attacked. They could not find her husband, though they found blood-stains and a pair of sleepers at the place. Information was passed on to the other villagers. PW 7 accompanied by the villagers returned to the place where her husband was attacked. They could not find her husband, though they found blood-stains and a pair of sleepers at the place. The villagers and PW 7 searched for the deceased and on 13.7.1997 found the dead body near Kanchi river in the village Kota. Information was sent to the police through chowkidar on 13.7.1997 and thereafter the fardbeyan, Ext. 4, was given by PW 7, on the basis of which a crime was registered and investigation was taken up. The inquest was conducted by the Officer and the body was sent to the hospital for autopsy. 4. On receipt of the requisition and the dead body, PW 6, Dr. V.K. Prasad, attached to the Sub-divisional Hospital, Khunti conducted autopsy on the dead body at 4.00 p.m. on 14.7.1997 and he found the following injuries: (i) Sharp cut injury 4" x 3" x 2" on right side of neck 2" above the right shoulder tip cutting the soft tissues, muscles, right side internal carotid, artery and vein. (ii) Sharp cut injury 5" x 2" x 2" inclined on right lower and of scapula- blade. (iii) Sharp cut injury 4" x 2" x 1 -1/2" on middle of left shoulder (in between). The doctor issued Ext. 2, the postmortem certificate, with his opinion that the deceased died on account of the injuries and that injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death. 5. After the completion of investigation, final report was filed and the appellants denied the circumstances, put against them under Section 313 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nayak, in the above appeals, submits that the evidence of PW 7 is too artificial to believe and that if PW 7 was really present at the time when her husband Sagar Munda was attacked then she would have gone to police station to lay a complaint and that the delay in laying the complaint, which, even, according to the prosecution, was given at the police station after three days, shows that PW 7 is not an eye-witness and must have been projected at a later point of time by the prosecution to support the prosecution version that the accused 1 to 3 attacked the deceased. 7. We have heard Mrs. 7. We have heard Mrs. C. Prabha, learned A.P.P., appearing for the State, on the above contentions. 8. According to the prosecution, the deceased Sagar Munda died on account of the injuries. PW 6 was examined and it was he, who conducted autopsy. In his evidence, he has stated that he found three injuries on the dead body and that he noted them in the post-mortem certificate, Ext. 2. The oral evidence of Dr. V.K. Prasad, PW 6, and the post-mortem certificate, Ext. 2, show that on the neck of the deceased, there was an injury cutting soft tissues, muscle, right side internal carotid, artery and vein. The medical evidence and the post-mortem certificate conclusively establish that the deceased died on account of homicidal violence. 9. PW 7 is the sole eye-witness and she is the wife of the deceased. According to her, there was an enmity between her husband, Sagar Munda, and the 1st accused, Karia Pahan as regards the cutting of a tree. She has deposed before the trial Court that at 6.30 p.m. on 10.7.1997 while she and her husband was returning from Khaguddih Bazar to their village, the deceased was surrounded by the accused 1 to 3 and others and that thereafter the deceased was inflicted with injuries. She has stated that on seeing the attack on the deceased she went to the village and informed the villagers, Including PW 2. According to her, she did not go to the police station on the same day but she and the villagers were searching for the deceased and only after finding the dead body near Kanchi river in village Kota, information was given to the police station through chowkidar and thereafter PW 7 gave a statement implicating the accused with the crime. The said statement of PW 7 was given at the police station on 13.7.1997 i.e. after three days of the occurrence. The explanation offered by the prosecution in giving the complaint belatedly at the police station by PW 7 is that since they were searching for the body, they did not go to the police station to give a complaint. We find the explanation offered by the prosecution too artificial, for this Court to accept. The explanation offered by the prosecution in giving the complaint belatedly at the police station by PW 7 is that since they were searching for the body, they did not go to the police station to give a complaint. We find the explanation offered by the prosecution too artificial, for this Court to accept. The evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 shows that they got information from PW 7, they and other villagers went to the place where the deceased was allegedly attacked and finding blood stains and a pair of sleepers went in search of the deceased and later found the dead body near Kanchi river. 10. We are unable to comprehend why no one thought it necessary to go to the police station on seeing the blood stains and a pair of sleepers belonging to the deceased at the place where he was allegedly attacked by the accused 1 to 3. If PW 7 was really present and witnessed the occurrence and that she Informed the villagers and if the villagers had really seen blood stains and a pair of sleepers at the place where the deceased was attacked then certainly they would have entertained a suspicion about the welfare of the deceased and one of them could have at least gone to the police station to lay a complaint. Admittedly, there was a chowkidar in the village and that he also did not go to the police station to lay a complaint till 13.7.1997. 11. In the above background, we find it difficult to accept the evidence of PW 7 that she was present with her husband and saw the attack and that she informed the villagers about the occurrence. The fact remains that for an occurrence, which was said to have been taken place on 10.7.1997, the complaint was given by the wife, PW 7, only on 13.7.1997, that too, after chowkidar informed the police about the presence of the dead body. The said chowkidar was also not produced and examined in the case. In the above circumstances, we do not know as to the nature of the information given by the said chowkidar to the police authorities on 13.7.1997. The said chowkidar was also not produced and examined in the case. In the above circumstances, we do not know as to the nature of the information given by the said chowkidar to the police authorities on 13.7.1997. Though, PW 7 came out with a version that her husband Sagar Munda was attacked by accused 1 to 3 and others, the prosecution did not let in any evidence to show as to the steps taken by the Investigating Officer to find out the identity of the other accused for them to be arrested and arrayed as accused in the case. In fact, the prosecution did not even examine the Investigating Officer before the trial Court and in view of the non- examination of the Investigating Officer, this Court is unable to find out as to the nature of investigation conducted by the said Officer to find out the identity of other accused said to have been involved in the crime. 12. In view of the discussions made above, we find it difficult to accept the prosecution version. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and consequence sentence imposed upon the appellants and allow the appeals by acquitting the appellants in the above two appeals. The appellant, Karia Pahan, (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 176 of 2000), who is on bail; is discharged from the liability of the ball bonds. The appellants, Bargi Munda and Munga Munda (appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 146 of 2000), who are in jail, shall be released forthwith, unless they are wanted in connection with any other case(s).