ALOK KUMAR BASU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed agaist the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st court, Jalpaiguri passed in connection with sessions Case No. 58 of 1997. ( 2 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment and order found all the three appellants guilty under Section 302/34 of the IPC and accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life each. ( 3 ) THE appellants being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of conviction and sentence preferred this appeal. ( 4 ) THE prosecution case in brief was that on 29-7-1992 at about 10 p. m. when nandalal Saha. husband of Laxmi Rani Saha of East Rabindra Nagar, Siliguri in the district of Darjeeling was talking to the present appellants regarding transaction of some money in front of the veranda of one Pradip's stationery shop, Laxmi Rani Saha stood nearby and Laxmi Rani Saha heard that the appellants were threatening to kill her husband Nandalal. After sometime due to load shedding when Laxmi Rani Saha entered her room to bring lantern, she heard a scream and coming out from her room quickly with a lantern she saw that her husband was crying in pain on the veranda and the appellants were running away. Laxmi Rani subsequently found that her husband was killed. ( 5 ) LAXMI Rani Saha on the same night lodged a complaint with Bhaktinagar P. S. mentioning therein the appellants as the assailants of the husband Nandalal and bhaktinagar P. S. took up the investigation on the basis of written complaint of Laxmi rani Saha. ( 6 ) BHAKTINAGAR P. S. after completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the present appellants under Section 302/34 of the IPC for murder of nandalal Saha, husband of Laxmi Rani saha. ( 7 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against all the three appellants under Section 302/34 of the IPC and the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. ( 8 ) DURING trial, prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses in support of its case except doctor who conducted post-mortem examination and it appears from record that copy of the post-mortem report was admitted in evidence during trial since appellants did not raise any objection. ( 8 ) DURING trial, prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses in support of its case except doctor who conducted post-mortem examination and it appears from record that copy of the post-mortem report was admitted in evidence during trial since appellants did not raise any objection. ( 9 ) OUT of 11 witnesses examined by prosecution, P. W. 1 was Laxmi Rani Saha, wiie of the deceased and also the alleged eyewitnesses of the occurrence and who also lodged the FIR mentioning the name of the three appellants on the same night of the occurrence. P. W. 2 was Mohanlal Saha, elder brother of deceased Nandalal Saha who gathered name of the appellants as the assailants of his brother Nandalal Saha from p. W. 1. P. W. 4 was Chandan Saha who came at the place of occurrence immediately after murder of Nandalal Saha and gathered from p. W. 1 name of the appellants as the assailants of his brother Nandalal Saha and he informed P. W. 2 about the occurrence. P. W. 6 was one Mukti Bhowmik, a local resident and she was also brother of Pradip at whose shop the alleged occurrence took place. P. W. 7 Totan Saha was the son of deceased nandalal Saha who again came to know the name of appellants as the assailants of his father from his mother P. W. 1. P. W. 8 was scribe of the FIR and he was declared hostile as he spoke against the interest of prosecution. P. W. 11 was S.. S. Bagchi who actually conducted the investigation after receipt of the petition of complaint from P. W. 1, but, could not submit charge-sheet due to his transfer. ( 10 ) THE learned Additional Sessions judge mainly relying on the evidence of P. W. 1 which according to him was sufficiently corroborated by P. W. 2, P. W. 4 and P. W. 7 found the present appellants guilty for the murder of Nandalal Saha and accordingly, the learned Judge recorded his order of conviction and sentence against the appellants. ( 11 ) APPEARING for all the three appellants, Ms. ( 11 ) APPEARING for all the three appellants, Ms. Basu has submitted a written note of argument and through his oral submissions he has further clarified the points taken against the order of conviction and sentence in this way :- (a) From the fact and evidence on record it transpires that soon after occurrence, P. W. 11 received a telephonic information from siligur P. S. about the murder which was reduced into a G. D. entry number being 799 dated 29-7-1992, but, curiously enough, that G. D. entry was not produced. It appears from the statement of P. W. 1 that she after visiting Bhaktinagar P. S. gave a statement which was reduced into writing, but, that statement was not placed during trial. Finally, according to the prosecution P. W. 8 scribed the written complaint which was sent to Bhaktinagar P. S. to start a specific case. Thus, in this case there appears a glaring discrepancy with regard to the lodging of the FIR; (b) In this case P. W. 1 Laxmi Rani Saha appears to be the main witness for the prosecution, because, according to prosecution p. W. 1 had the direct knowledge about the involvement of the appellants, but, on comparison of her first information report with that of her substantive evidence given during trial as P. W. 1. significant discrepancies are noticed which makes the substantive evidence of P. W. 1 totally unacceptable in the eye of law; (c) On close examination of the statement of P. W. 2 and P. W. 4. significant discrepancies are noticed which makes the substantive evidence of P. W. 1 totally unacceptable in the eye of law; (c) On close examination of the statement of P. W. 2 and P. W. 4. it appears that there are significant contradictions and discrepancies in the statement of these two witnesses for which they cannot be accepted as reliable and credible witnesses for the prosecution; (d) Evidence of P. W. 7 cannot be of any help since he was not examined by the investigating officer and, that apart, he gathered knowledge about the appellants from her mother P. W. 1 ; (e) P. W. 8 who scribed the FIR did not support the prosecution case for which he was declared hostile and from his evidence there are reasons to call in question the authenticity of the first information report; (f) Witnesses of the prosecution starting from P. W. 1, P. W. 2, P. W. 4 and P. W. 6 deposed differently regarding the injuries appearing on the person of the deceased; (g) The examination of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. was not in accordance with law and, in fact, jumbled up questions were put to the appellants which is against the mandate of the statute; (h) Finally, P. W. 6 has totally demolished the evidence of P. W. 1, who happens to be the principal witness of the prosecution and, curiously enough, this witness although spoke against prosecution, was not declared hostile. ( 12 ) MR. Basu concludes that if authenticity of the first information report is questionable, if the principal witness P. W. 1 cannot be relied upon in view of the evidence of p. W. 6 who was not declared hostile and if. no other independent witness supports the prosecution case against the appellants, relying on the prosecution evidence as it stands, no order of conviction can be recorded in law. ( 13 ) MR. no other independent witness supports the prosecution case against the appellants, relying on the prosecution evidence as it stands, no order of conviction can be recorded in law. ( 13 ) MR. Basu in this context has drawn our attention to the ratio of decisions reported in the case of Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari v. the State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2005 scc (Criminal) page 1037 : (2005 Cri LJ 2569) and Raja Ram v. The State of rajasthan, reported in 2005 SCC (Criminal) page 1050 in support of his contention that evidence of P. W. 6 who was not declared hostile by prosecution would be binding upon the State in the matter of deciding the guilt of the present appellants. ( 14 ) MR. Goswami, the learned P. P. appearing for the State with all force under his command refuted all the points of Mr. Basu taken through his written note of argument and further clarified through his oral submissions. ( 15 ) MR. Goswami contends that soon after the occurrence Laxmi Rani Saha wife of the deceased Nandalal Saha who had the opportunity to witness the unfortunate occurrence reported the matter with utmost promptitude at the nearest P. S. and she mentioned the name of all the three appellants and there appears no earthly reason to call in queston the credibility of P. W. 1 laxmi Rani Saha. ( 16 ) MR. Goswami made best of his endeavour to convince us that the ratio of decision rendered both in the case of Mukhtiar ahmad Ansari (supra), and Raja Ram (supra) cannot have any application in the fact and circumstance of the present case and p. W. 6 even if not declared hostile does not appear to have caused any dent in the prosecution case which has been otherwise fully substantiated through the testimony of P. W. 1 and which was corroborated by P. W. 2, p. W. 4 and P. W. 7. ( 17 ) MR. Goswami contends that from the inquest report itself we get that the deceased was murdered at the shop of Pradip majumder and from the inquest report as well as from the post-mortem report there appears no scope to question the basic fact of prosecution that deceased was assaulted with sharp cutting weapons by more than one person resulting in his instantaneous death. ( 18 ) MR. ( 18 ) MR. Goswami after mentioning the relevant prosecution evidence, therefore, submits that P. W. 1 alone was sufficient to substantiate the charge levelled, against the appellants and P. W. 1 was sufficiently corroborated by P. W. 2, P. W. 4 and P. W. 7 and having regard to the testimony of these witnesses, deposition of P. W. 6 cannot have any impact on the conclusion of the learned trial court. ( 19 ) WE have carefully considered submissions of Mr. Basu and Mr. Goswami and we have also taken due notice of the written note of argument submitted by Mr. Basu. We have also examined the prosecution evidence available with the record. ( 20 ) HAVING regard to the prosecution evidence and having regard to the submissions made by Mr. Basu appearing for the appellants, we have no doubt in our mind that Nandalal Saha was murdered on 29-7-1992 at about 10 p. m. at the shop of one pradip Majumder at East Ranbindra Nagar, siliguri within the jurisdiction of bhaktinagar P. S. and Nandalal Saha died on the spot on receipt of several injuries on his person caused by sharp cutting weapons. ( 21 ) WE find from the FIR that soon after the occurrence Laxmi Rani Saha wife of the deceased submitted written complaint mentioning the name of these appellants as the assailants of her husband and in the written complaint Laxmi Rani Saha disclosed that she first noticed her husband to engage into quarrel with these appellants over some transaction of money and thereafter due to "sudden load shedding she went into the room to bring lanterm and at that time hearing a scream, she hurriedly came out with a lantern and to her utter surprise, she found her busband lying on the ground and crying in pain while the appellants were running away. ( 22 ) WHEN we consider the FIR of Laxmi rani Saha along with her substantive evidence as P. W. 1, we have no doubt in mind to hold that Laxmi Rani Saha, P. W. 1 was the sheet anchor for the prosecution case and the other witnesses namely P. W. 2, P. W. 4 and P. W. 7 Totan Saha, son of the deceased had no direct knowledge of the occurrence and what they came to learn was the information from Laxmi Rani Saha. ( 23 ) THUS, on close scrutiny of the judgment of the learned trial Court in the background of the prosecution evidence, we find that the only determining factor for disposal of this appeal is how far we can accept Laxmi road Saha as a credible witness so as to confirm the order of conviction relying on her evidence alone. ( 24 ) MR. Basu submits that Laxmi Rana saha claimed herself to be an eye-witness in the sense that she found all the three appellants with her husband just before his murder and Laxmi Rani Saha also saw all the three appellants to flee away after murder of her husband and we are also of the view that if this evidence of Laxmi Rani Saha can be accepted, there is no reason to differ from the final order of the learned Judge convicting the appellants for the charge of murder of Nandalal Saha. ( 25 ) MR. Basu submits that P. W. 1 Laxmi rani Saha cannot be accepted as a reliable witness simply because her evidence and her first information report was given a total go bye by the statement of P. W. 6, Mukti bhowmik. Mr. Basu contends that Mukti bhowmik in her cross-examination, first of all, stated that if it is accepted that deceased was killed at the veranda of the stationery shop of Pradip who was her brother, it was not possible for Laxmi Rani Saha to see the appellants from her own house which was not at all visible from the place of occurrence. Mukti Bhowmik next stated that when she came at the place of occurrence she noticed the dead body of Nandalal Saha and she was the person who informed Laxmi rani Saha about the occurrence and at that time Laxmi Rani Saha was in the house of one Bhanu Dey. Mukti Saha finally stated that Laxmi Rani Saha had no lantern or hurricane in her hand. ( 26 ) ON examination of the ratio of decisions reported in the case of Mukhtiar ahmed Ansari (2005 Cri LJ 2569) (supra) and Raja Ram (supra) we find that if a particular witness of prosecution speaks against the material point of prosecution and if that witness is not declared hostile, the evidence of that particular witness of prosecution has to be considered while deciding the guilt of the accused person of a particular case. ( 27 ) THUS, from close examination of the entire prosecution evidence particularly, evidence of P. W. 1 Laxmi Rani we find that entire conviction order was based on her testimony and if she is accepted as credible witness consequently we can accept the testimony of P. W. 2, P. W. 4, P. W. 7 as corroborative piece of evidence, but, if Laxmi Rani saha cannot be accepted as credible witness, the evidence of P. W. 2, P. W. 4 and P. W. 7 shall have no legal importance. ( 28 ) AFTER considering the ratio of decisions rendered in the case of Mukhtiar ahmed Ansari (supra) and Raja Ram (supra) when we notice that P. W. 6 Mukti bhowmik was not declared hostile to prosecution and when Mukti Bhowmik in her evidence totally demolished the evidence of p. W. 1, considering the glaring discrepancies in the matter of lodging of the FIR and considering the glaring discrepancies in the statements of P. W. 2 and P. W. 4, we are of the considered view that basing on the sole testimony of P. W. 1 Laxmi Rani Saha, no conviction order can be legally passed against the present appellants. ( 29 ) IN the light of our above discussion, we are constrained to hold that so far prosecution evidence on record are concerned, the learned Judge erred in fact and law in recording the order of conviction and sentence against the present appellants for the murder of Nandalal Saha. ( 30 ) WE, therefore, find merit in the present appeal and accordingly we allow the same. ( 31 ) THE appeal preferred by Prafullya das, Krishna Das and Radhika Sarkar challenging the order of conviction and sentence is allowed. ( 32 ) THE order of conviction and sentence are hereby set aside and all the three appellants are held not guilty of the charge under section 302/34 of the IPC and they are acquitted of the same. ( 33 ) WE find from record that all the three appellants are on bail and we discharge them from the respective bail bond with immediate effect. ( 34 ) SEND the LCR along with copy of this judgment forthwith to the learned trial Court for information and necessary action. ( 33 ) WE find from record that all the three appellants are on bail and we discharge them from the respective bail bond with immediate effect. ( 34 ) SEND the LCR along with copy of this judgment forthwith to the learned trial Court for information and necessary action. ( 35 ) URGENT xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, may be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalties. agree. Appeal allowed.