Judgment By Court.- This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 23rd June, 1998 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 223 of 1995/2 of 1995 by which, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant holding him guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the informant Shamlal Hembrom (P.W. 9) who was declared hostile during trial, lodged F.I.R. alleging therein that on 8.11.1994, he and the appellant Mangal Tuddu were running a Todi shop. Appellant Mangal Tuddu alongwith deceased Narain Tuddu were drinking Todi in that shop. Narain asked the informant to bring wine and thereafter, on payment of Rs.10/- got a bottle of wine which the appellant and the deceased were taking. Thereafter, some altercation took place between the deceased and the appellant regarding the appellant illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased on which, the appellant assaulted the deceased Narain with a 'Khanti' (heavy iron rod) on his head. The informant tried to intervene but he was threatened and thereafter, the informant went to the village and raised alarm. The villagers arrived at the spot and saw the deceased Narain lying in injured condition with pool of blood. The First Information Report was registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but since subsequently, Narain Tuddu succumbed to injury and then Section 302 was added. Thereafter, on submission of charge-sheet against the appellant, he was put on trial. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty for the charge levelled against him. 4. In order to establish the charges on behalf of the prosecution, altogether 9 witnesses were examined during trial. 5. P.W 9, the informant was declared hostile in course of trial. P.W 7 Lukhi Hemrom, i.e. the wife of the deceased is an eye witness to the occurrence, whereas, P.Ws. 2, 4, 5 and 6 reached at that place just after the occurrence. P.W. 3 Budhuwa Hemrom, though he deposed as an eye witness in examination-in-chief but, in the cross-examination, he in fact came to know about the occurrence and therefore, he is merely a hearsay witness. 2, 4, 5 and 6 reached at that place just after the occurrence. P.W. 3 Budhuwa Hemrom, though he deposed as an eye witness in examination-in-chief but, in the cross-examination, he in fact came to know about the occurrence and therefore, he is merely a hearsay witness. P.W. 7 in her examination-in-chief, though has stated that this appellant had assaulted her husband on his head due to which he died but, in paragraph-4 of the cross-examination, she stated that she was not knowing this appellant from before and she did not identify him. 6. Therefore, on the one hand the informant (P.W. 9) has already been• declared hostile by the prosecution and on the other hand the wife of the deceased specifically stated that she did not identify this appellant and therefore, we find that there is no other material on record to connect this appellant with the alleged offence of murder. In such a situation, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence 302 Indian Penal Code passed by the trial court cannot be sustained. 7. Thus, in view of the discussion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we find that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The statement of the witnesses, examined on behalf of the prosecution, do not inspire confidence and therefore, we are unable to maintain the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the appellant on the basis of such weak and shaky evidence. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the Trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellant, who is in custody, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.