Judgment By Court.-The present Cr. Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction of the appellants dated 11.7.03 under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and order of sentence dated 14.7.2003 of rigorous imprisonment for the life to each of the appellants passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-llnd, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 53/2000 arising out of Manjhari P.S. Case No.14/1999. 2. The prosecution story as it stands narrated in the statement of the informant Lakhan Champia (P.W. 7) before P.W. 8 Hardan Baitha, Officer-in-charge of Manjhari Police Station recorded on 7.7.99 at 11 hours at village Ipilsingi was that there was fair in the village Telesarai on 5.7.1999 which was attended by the people of adjoining villages. When the fair concluded at about 7 p.m. on the same day he started returning with his elder brother Nauru Champia (since deceased) to his home village on foot and at about 7.30 p.m. when he arrived near the road bridge, situated at the north of his village and that his elder brother was behind him the appellants all of a sudden alongwith their sister's son arrived there. The informant alleged that his brother Nauru Champia was held by the appellant Sidiu Bodra and it was the another appellant Purno Bodra who fired shot from his pistol and on the sound of firing he witnessed that his brother fell down and by the time he arrived near his brother all the three culprits escaped towards north. He attempted to lift his injured brother as there was bleeding from his neck in the meantime all the three assailants started running towards him and he, out of fear, fled away from the place of occurrence leaving his injured brother. He immediately came to his house, communicated the occurrence to his cousin (Murlung Champia) P.W. 4 and the wife of the victim Kairi Kui (P.W. 6) and others with whom he returned to the place of occurrence with the torches in their hands and found his brother Nauru Champia in a state of unconscious. The victim was anyhow lifted and removed to the home and by that time it was late in the night. Explaining the delay, the informant narrated that on subsequent day there was raining and for want of any means of communication, the victim could not be taken for his treatment and in the previous night his injured brother Nauru Champia succumbed his injuries. Explaining the delay, the informant narrated that on subsequent day there was raining and for want of any means of communication, the victim could not be taken for his treatment and in the previous night his injured brother Nauru Champia succumbed his injuries. 4. Disclosing. the genesis of the occurrence the informant narrated that his father and uncle had mortgaged their land in the family of the appellant Purno Bodra which was redeemed on payment of Rs.3,000/- and after redemption the witnesses came in cultivating possession and for that the appellants were nursing grudge as they were not inclined to leave the lands and for this reason the appellants and their sister's son in furtherance of common intention committed murder of his brother and had also attempted on his life but he escaped and saved. The occurrence was witnessed by several witnesses. The informant further endorsed that he delivered his statement in presence of the area Manki, Dinesh Chandra Tamsoy (P.W. 1) in whose presence it was read over and explained to him and after finding it correct he put his thumb impression and the P.W. 1 attested his statement by putting his signature. The case was instituted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act against the appellants and their sister's son (not named). The charge-sheet was submitted only against the appellants and accordingly, charge was framed against them under Section 302/34 I.P.C. which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The specific defence of the appellants was their false implication. Altogether 12 witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution. Besides, the prosecution proved the signature of P.W. 2 on the seizure-list Ext. 1, signature of P.W. 3 Narayan Tomsoy (P.W. 3) Ext. 1/1, Fardbayan Ext. 2, FI..R. Ext. 3, inquest report Ext. 4, seizure-list Ext. 5 and the post mortem report Ext. 6. 5. The learned trial court convicted the appellants relying upon the sole testimony of P.W. 7 (informant) who has been projected as the eye witness and it was observed by the trial court that the behaviour of this witness was found to be natural and wholly reliable. 4, seizure-list Ext. 5 and the post mortem report Ext. 6. 5. The learned trial court convicted the appellants relying upon the sole testimony of P.W. 7 (informant) who has been projected as the eye witness and it was observed by the trial court that the behaviour of this witness was found to be natural and wholly reliable. We further find from the statement of the appellants recorded separately under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they were not confronted with the materials which was produced on the record during trial except what was stated by the informant P.W. 7 in his Fardbayan, though his substantive evidence was full of contradiction to his earlier statement recorded in the F.I.R. 6. Mr. M.K. Dey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the trial court grossly erred by holding the appellant guilty under Section 302/34 I.P.C. on erroneous consideration and without appreciating the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution which is, as a matter of fact, no evidence. The prosecution case is not proved. 7. Adverting to the evidence of P.W. 7 the learned Counsel pointed out that there was glaring contradiction between the statement recorded by the police in the Fardbayan of the informant P.W. 7 Lakhan Champia and his substantive evidence in the trial court. Mr. Dey submitted that in his statement recorded first point in time by the police P.W 7 did not disclose that he was accompanied by one Baya Bodra while returning back to village home, followed by his brother Nauru Champia (since deceased) but in his substantive evidence he introduced the name of Baya Bodra who could have been an independent witness on the manner of occurrence but Baya Bodra has not been produced in the witness box on behalf of the prosecution. The informant Lakhan Champia has testified that on hearing the sound of firing the appellant witnessed the appellant Sidiu Bodra holding his brother Nauru Champia and it was another appellant Purno Bodra who fired shot from his pistol. He went near his brother and found injuries on the neck and by that time the assailant escaped. But the informant is silent as to what was done by Baya Bodra at the alleged place of occurrence, whether he also escaped or he assisted the informant in lifting his brother. He went near his brother and found injuries on the neck and by that time the assailant escaped. But the informant is silent as to what was done by Baya Bodra at the alleged place of occurrence, whether he also escaped or he assisted the informant in lifting his brother. In the cross-examination the informant Lakhan Champia testified that he was being followed by his elder brother at the distance of about 5/6 steps and that he could not visualize the appellants coming from behind him. The witness admitted that it was dark night and there was none except them near the road bridge. He was walking and looking ahead and he heard the sound of firing of shot only once. He admitted in the cross-examination that before leaving the fair he had consumed too much "Handiya" (local made liquor by the tribes). Again he testified that he was coming alone followed by none. The witness further testified that he did not try to apprehend any of the appellants at the place of occurrence and that he escaped from that place out of fear. When called upon the witnesses failed to explain the duration of interval of departure of his elder from the fair. Mr. Dey submitted that though this witness in his Fardbayan had disclosed the genesis of the occurrence being the land dispute but in his substantive evidence he testified that appellants had no enmity of any kind with the deceased and that with him also the appellants were not inimical and that the deceased was his full brother. 8. Mr. Dey exhorted that the Fardbayan recorded by the police was not first in time and before that, a written report was presented in the police station, which could be evident from the statement of the informant Lakhan Champia who testified under cross-examination that he informed the village Munda and village Manki subsequent day. The name of Munda was Uddu Munda whereas it was Dulu Manki who was the Manki of the village. The name of Munda was Uddu Munda whereas it was Dulu Manki who was the Manki of the village. His statement was recorded by Munda and delivered it to him which he took it to Manki and he had put his thumb impression on his statement duly attested by Munda and when the Manki did not present the statement of the informant which was scribed by Munda at the police station on the next day evening, it were Rango and Dadu (not examined) who had carried the written report to the police station. 9. Learned Counsel further submitted that P.W. 7 Lakhan Champia is most untrustworthy and unreliable in the sense that in the Fardbayan recorded before the police. It was clearly endorsed that his statement recorded by the police was read over and explained to him in. presence of village Manki Dinesh Chandra Tamsoy (P.W. 1) and after finding it correct he put his thumb impression and his statement was attested by the said witnesses, but conspicuously, in the cross-examination before the Court he expressed his ignorance as to the identity of Dinesh Chandra Tamsoy. 10. Mr. Dey submitted that no plausible explanation has been given by the prosecution as to why the victim was detained in his house for two days in spite of the fact that he had sustained gun shot injury in his neck which is not denied. Admittedly the P.W. 7 Lakhan Champia claimed to be the solitary eye-witness of the occurrence but at the same time he admitted having consumed Hariya heavily before the alleged occurrence and it was dark night with rains. Mr. Dey, advancing his argument submitted that the statement of the informant P.W. 7 is wholly unreliable who could not even prove the genesis by producing any documentary evidence. Learned Counsel relied on the decision reported in 2003(2) Supreme Court Cases 401. The Apex Court in Lallu Manjhi & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand propounded:- "The law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable. (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable. (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon the' testimony of a single witness." 11. On the other hand, Mrs. Benani Verma, learned A.P.P attracted the attention of this Court towards the statement of P.W. 4 Murlung Champia, P.W. 5 Jiggi @ Mundri and P.W. 6 Kairi Kui. 12. Advancing her argument Mrs.Verma submitted that P.W. 4 Murlung Champia was the cousin of the deceased who simply testified that Nauru Champia died and that he did not find any injury on his body. Though he was declared hostile but he admitted under cross-examination that Nauru before his death had voluntarily stated that the appellants Purno and Sidiu had assaulted him. Similarly P.W. 5 Jiggi @ Mundri testified that her father narrated prior to his death that the shot was fired by the appellant Purno whereas Sidiu had caught hold him. P.W. 6 Kairi Kui the widow of deceased also corroborated that her husband Nauru Champia prior to his death apprised that Purno Bodra and Sidiu Bodra had fired shot on him. Mr. Dey by way of reply explained that all the three witnesses aforesaid were consistent that the victim Nauru was found unconscious at the place of occurrence at about 8/9 p.m. when they visited there and that though he (deceased) remained alive for two days but he succumbed in the state of unconsciousness and therefore Mr. Dey submitted that there was no occasion for the victim to disclose the name of his assailants before the witnesses aforesaid and in that view of the matter the testimony of P.W. 4 Murlung Champia, P.W. 5 Jiggi @ Mundri and the P.W. 6 Kairi Kui (widow) is not at all reliable. Yet, none of the said witnesses has re-produced the exact words of the utterances of the victim, implicating the appellants as to the cause of his injuries which resulted into his death and therefore, their testimonies suffers from incredibility. 13. Yet, none of the said witnesses has re-produced the exact words of the utterances of the victim, implicating the appellants as to the cause of his injuries which resulted into his death and therefore, their testimonies suffers from incredibility. 13. From the careful examination of the materials on the record, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, the admitted fact was that Nauru Champia died of sustaining gun shot injury with the entry wound over his right eye-brow and the exit wound in the shape of lacerated wound 1 ½ " x 1" x bone deep over back of the neck. On dissection, of the head and neck, blood and blood clot were found in the cranial cavity, brain was badly lacerated and that the bone was penetrated corresponding to the external wound. In the opinion of the Doctor the injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. We find that though no specific question was put to the medical expert P.W. 9 Dr. Arun Kumar as to whether after sustaining such injuries the victim was able to speak but we safely draw the inference from the injuries found on his head and neck that it was not possible for a person either to speak or to survive for sometime. The post mortem was _ held by P.W. 9 Dr. Arun Kumar on 7.7.99 at about 4.30 p.m. and in his opinion time elapsed since death till the post mortem examination was assessed about 48 hours and if such time is calculated from the date of alleged occurrence which took place on 5.7.1999 at about 7.30 p.m. it can safely be inferred that the victim died instantaneously and he was not able to speak. In the cross-examination the witness testified that charring of skin cannot be caused by pellets or explosion of bomb and the word "bone deep" signified that the bullet had penetrated the bone (spinal cord). 14. From the prosecution case and the witnesses we find that only Lakhan Champia (P.W. 7) has been projected as the eye-witness but his statement is full of contradiction as stated above. Further he admitted that he was heavily drunk and it was dark night with down pour and he was walking at some few steps ahead to his brother Nauru Champia. Further he admitted that he was heavily drunk and it was dark night with down pour and he was walking at some few steps ahead to his brother Nauru Champia. He turned behind only on hearing the sound of firing shot and keeping in view that it was dark night and there was no source of illumination it was not possible for him to identify the assailants of his brother. Moreover, we further find that the independent witness Baya Bodra who was accompanying the informant P.W. 7 at the material time was Kept aloof from the witness box for the reasons best known to the prosecution causing adverse inference as he could have been an important eye-witness of the whole account of the occurrence. We find that the conviction of the appellants was sustained relying upon solely on the testimony of P.W. 7 ignoring the infirmities and his natural behaviour coupled with the circumstances that it was dark night with down pour and there was no source of light for identification. We further find that the appellants were not confronted with the incriminating materials if at all on the record during their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. except what the informant P.W. 7 had narrated in his Fardbayan before the police and therefore, under the aforesaid circumstances, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment thereto are unsustainable which is liable to be set aside. This appeal is allowed. 15. The appellants Purno Bodra and Sidiu Bodra are acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 53/2000 from their conviction and sentence. Let the appellants be set at liberty in the instant case.