JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. The appellants were put on trial for the charges under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been convicted under the same and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2,0007- each and in default of payment of the fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, each, by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 409 of 1995. 2. The prosecution case, as made out in the fardbeyan (Ext.-3), in brief, is that on 7.7.1995, at about 2.30 p.m., the informant, Disu Hessa, (not examined) along with his brother-in-law- Arjun Tamsoy, had gone to take bath in the pond of Munda Kanuram Tamsoy (P.W.4) of village Kumrita, which was about a distance of half a kilometer east-south. While, they were coming back alter taking bath, at about 3.00 p.m., suddenly the accused-appellants, Bonj Tamsoy, Mathura Tamsoy, Krishna Tamsoy and Budhram Tamsoy variously armed with Farsa, Bows and arrows caught hold of the brother-in-law of the informant, Arjun Tamsoy, and took him to the field of Ram Chandra Tamsoy, which was adjacent cost of the road. They pushed Arjun Tamsoy on the ground and when he fell down, Bonj Tamsoy, Appellant No. 3, gave Farsa blows on Arjun Tamsoy causing injuries on left shoulder, jaw and the ear. Budhram Tamsoy Appellant No. 2, Krishna Tamsoy- Appellant No. 1, and Mathura Tamsoy-Appellant No. 4, also pelted stone and caused injuries on the mouth and eyes of Arjun Tamsoy and he instantaneously died. When the informant intervened, the accused persons threatened him to kill. The accused persons, thereafter, escaped away. The informant then raised alarm and soon, thereafter, wife of the deceased- Sombari Kui-(P.W.2), the sons of the deceased, Jeena Tamsoy (P.VV.3), Sim Tamsoy and the Munda of the village, namely, Kanuram Tamsoy (P.W.4) arrived at the place of occurrence, who also saw the accused persons fleeing away. The informant then narrated the incident to them. The reason of the incidence was the previous enmity, as about one year ago, Bonj Tamsoy and Mathura Tamsoy had committed murder of Chamra Tamsoy and a case of murder was registered against them and in that case, both of them were released from jail two-three months before the said occurrence. The informant then narrated the incident to them. The reason of the incidence was the previous enmity, as about one year ago, Bonj Tamsoy and Mathura Tamsoy had committed murder of Chamra Tamsoy and a case of murder was registered against them and in that case, both of them were released from jail two-three months before the said occurrence. The deceased, Arjun Tamsoy, had helped in institution of the case of murder of Chamra Tamsoy against the accused appellants, namely, Bonj Tamsoy and Mathura Tamsoy. 3. From the record, it appears that the Investigating Officer in course of investigation recorded further statement of the informant, Sombari Kui (P.W.2), Jeena Tamsoy (P.W.3), Kanuram Tamsoy (P.W.4) and others. He had also visited the place of occurrence and prepared inquest report (Ext.5). He had also seized Farsa, stained with blood like substance, from the house of accused Krishna Tamsoy vide seizure list (Ext.6). He had seized blood stained soil and a piece of stone from the place of occurrence and prepared the seizure list (Ext.6/1). On conclusion of the investigation, the investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against all the four accused persons under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In order to bring home the charges the prosecution, examined six witnesses. Out of them, P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 are formal witnesses. P.W.1 Dhirendranath Jha, proved the postmortem report, Ext.1; P.W.4, Kanuram Tamsoy, village Munda, is the witness of the inquest report. Another witness of the inquest report, Simal Tamsoy, was not examined. P.W.4 identified the signature (Ext.2) on the inquest report and also the signature of Simal Tamsoy (Ext.2/1). P.W.5, Shankarlal Chirania, who is an advocate clerk, proved the fardbeyan and inquest report written and signed by S.I., B.B. Pandey, (Ext.3) and (Ext.5), the formal First information Report written and signed by the Officer-in-charge of Majhgaon police station, namely, Ramayan Prasad Singh (Ext.4) and also proved the two seizure lists; seizure lists of the seizure of Farsa and seizure of piece of stone and blood stain soil (Exts.6 and 6/1), respectively. P.W.5 proved the case diary (Ext.7), written and signed by the S.I., B. B. Pandey. P.W.6, Sidharth Shankar, is literate constable posted in Crime Branch of the office of the Superintendent of Police at Chaibasa. He stated that the S.I., B.B. Pandey, is dead. He proved the endorsement on summon seeking attendance of the Investigating-Officer (Ext.8). P.W.5 proved the case diary (Ext.7), written and signed by the S.I., B. B. Pandey. P.W.6, Sidharth Shankar, is literate constable posted in Crime Branch of the office of the Superintendent of Police at Chaibasa. He stated that the S.I., B.B. Pandey, is dead. He proved the endorsement on summon seeking attendance of the Investigating-Officer (Ext.8). Out of the material witnesses, P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased (Sombari Kui) and P.W.3 Jeena Tamsoy is the son of the deceased. They are the witnesses of the occurrence. 5. Learned Sessions Judge, on completion of the trial, came to the conclusion that the accused persons conjointly assaulted the deceased by Farsa and piece of stone, which resulted in instantaneous death of the deceased and that the prosecution successfully established the chain of events, which goes to prove the charges under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the four accused persons for committing murder of the deceased, Arjun Tamsoy, and on that basis convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as aforementioned. 6. Mr. R.C. Khatri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, assailed the said finding of the learned Trial Court mainly on the grounds that: i. There is no eye witness of the occurrence. ii. The informant has not been examined. iii. Investigating Officer has also not been examined. iv. Medical evidence does not corroborate the Ocular evidences. v. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution case. vi. Motive for the offence is not clear from the prosecution version. vii. The conviction and sentence of the appellants, being based on suspicion, are vitiated and unsustainable in law. 7. We have also thoroughly perused and considered the evidences on record. P.W.1, Dr. Dhirendranath Jha, has proved the report of the postmortem, performed by him on the dead body of the deceased. He found three compound incised wounds over the left side of the scalp; 4" X 1/2" X viscera deep, 3" X 2" X Viscera deep, 2" X 1/2" X viscera deep, respectively. He also found incised wound over the right side of the face 3" X 1/2" X 1/2". In his opinion, external injuries might be caused by sharp cutting weapon, such as Farsa. He also found compound commuted fracture of the left parital, frontal and facial bones caused by blunt, hard and heavy substance, such as big piece of stone. He also found incised wound over the right side of the face 3" X 1/2" X 1/2". In his opinion, external injuries might be caused by sharp cutting weapon, such as Farsa. He also found compound commuted fracture of the left parital, frontal and facial bones caused by blunt, hard and heavy substance, such as big piece of stone. In cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that he did not find any external impression of stone injury. He further stated that no such stone or Farsa was produced before him. 8. P.W.2, Sombari Kui, is the wife of the deceased. She is stated to be the eye witness of the occurrence. In her deposition, she said that when she reached near the pond, she saw Mathura Tamsoy, Bonj Tamsoy, Budhram Tamsoy and Krishna Tamsoy assaulting her husband Bonj Tamsoy by means of Kapi and rest three persons by pelting big piece of stone, causing injury on left side of her husbands head. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the pond was situated at a distance of 50 yards from her house. She stated that in her presence, two blows of Kapi were given on her husband, which resulted in his death. She specifically stated that there was no other person present at the place of occurrence except the assailants. We find the statement of P.W.2 contrary to the prosecution version in the fardbeyan. 9. P.W.3, Jina Tamsoy, is the son of the deceased Arjun Tamsoy. According to him, he heard hulla at his house and rushed to the field of Ramchandra Tamsoy along with his mother Sombari Kui (P.W.2), his younger brother, Raimal and Disu Hessa. He saw Bonj Tamsoy assaulting his father by means of Farsa at left hand and left side of the face. Budhrdm Tamsoy, Mathura Tamsoy and Krishna Tamsoy also assaulted his father by peace of stone and his father died instantaneously. In Para-3, he has stated that he is a patient of epilepsy and very often, he remains confined to bed, but he stated that he saw the accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence. The evidence of this witness also does not support the prosecution version described in the fardbeyan. 10. The other witnesses are formal and have proved one or the other signature and writing as aforesaid. The evidence of this witness also does not support the prosecution version described in the fardbeyan. 10. The other witnesses are formal and have proved one or the other signature and writing as aforesaid. P.W.4, Kanuram Tamsoy, is the village Munda, but he has also not said anything regarding the incidence and has merely proved his signature on the inquest report (Ext.2) and signature of one Simal Tamsoy, as Ext.2/1. 11. According to the prosecution version, in the fardbeyan, the informant alone was the witness of the occurrence as P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 had arrived at the place on hearing the alarm raised by him after the accused assailants had left the place of occurrence. But the prosecution failed to examine the informant. P.W.2 has not supported the version of the First Information Report and the version of P.W.2 and P.W.3 are contradictory to each other. The medical evidence also does not support the informants version of causing injury on the left shoulder of Arjun Tamsoy and other injuries. 12. Thus from the evidences and materials available on record, we find that: a. The informant, who had allegedly seen the occurrence, has not been examined. According to the First Information Report, the informant was the only witness of the assault on the deceased as P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 had arrived at the place of occurrence, when the accused persons had already escaped after assaulting the deceased. Even according to P.Ws.2 and 3, they saw the accused appellants fleeing away from the place of occurrence in different directions. b. Investigating Officer has not been examined, who could have thrown some light on the position of the dead body and the place of occurrence and other relevant materials. c. The appellants also could not get opportunity to cross-examine the Investigating officer and the informant. d. Though the pond and the place of occurrence are said to be in the village, surrounded by several houses, no independent witness came to support the prosecution. e. From the material on record, no motive for the incident has been proved. f. Prosecution witnesses have contradicted the version of each other. 13. Learned Court below has based his findings on the following circumstances appearing on record: i. The deceased had left his house at 2.00 p.m. for taking bath in the pond which was at a distance of 50 yards from his house. ii. P.Ws. f. Prosecution witnesses have contradicted the version of each other. 13. Learned Court below has based his findings on the following circumstances appearing on record: i. The deceased had left his house at 2.00 p.m. for taking bath in the pond which was at a distance of 50 yards from his house. ii. P.Ws. 2 and 3 heard alarm raised by the informant and rushed towards the place of occurrence and found Arjun seriously injured and dead and the accused persons fleeing away. iii. Accused Bonj Tamsoy was on inimical term with the deceased. iv. Medical evidence corroborates the injuries on the deceased and thereby manner etc. of occurrence. 14. In our considered opinion, the evidences and material read and taken in totality only given rise to a strong suspicion. Suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof to establish the alleged guilt. 15. It is also well established that for proving guilt of commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must lead the evidence to connect all links in the chain so as to clearly point the guilt of the accused and nobody else. Reference may be made to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramreddl and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR SCW 1602. We find no such -connecting links in the prosecution evidence forming a complete chain so as to bring within the ambit of legal evidence to establish the prosecution case. 16. In view of the discussions and reasons, aforementioned, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgment/order of learned Court below. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and conviction and sentence of the appellants. The Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, who are serving the sentence, be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case and the Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of their bail bond. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed. D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 17. I agree.