JUDGMENT B.K. PATEL, J. — The appellant having been convicted for commission of offence of murder under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rairangpur in S.T. Case No.12/102 of 1997-96 has preferred this appeal. 2. Prosecution case in nut shell is that on 19.2.1996 at about 5.00 P.M., the appellant committed murder of the deceased Jatia Maharana by means of an arrow (M.O.IV) shot from his bow. It is alleged that one year prior to the occurrence when the appellant kept P.W.5’s daughter in his house, P.W.5 and deceased brought her back upon which the appellant had threatened the deceased and P.W. 5’s family members. Having been informed re¬garding the detection of the dead body of the deceased, the in¬formant P.W. 1 who was discharging the duties of Gram Rakhi came to the spot and found that the deceased had been killed by an arrow shot. In P.W. 1’s verbal report, P.W. 15, A.S.I. of Police, Badampahad P.S. prepared the F.I.R. Ext.1 and registered the case which was investigated by P.W.15 as well as P.W. 12, the O.I.C. of Badampahad P.S. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and the appellant faced trial thereunder. 3. The appellant took the plea of denial. In order to establish the charge, prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. Defence also examined one witness. Out of fifteen prosecution witnesses, P.Ws. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 do not support the prosecution case in any manner. Out of them, P.Ws. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 were declared to be hostile witnesses. P.W. 1 the informant is a post occurrence witness. P.W.2 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the deceased’s dead body. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 14 depose regarding recovery and seizure of articles at the instance of the appellant. P.W. 13 deposes to have seen the appellant soon after the occurrence near the deceased with an arrow stuck to the body. P.Ws. 12 and 15 are Investigating Police Officers. 4. On the basis of the evidence of P.W.13, whom the learned trial Court appears to have found as an eye-witness to the occurrence, stated to have been corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 2 who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased as well as the evidence of P.Ws. 12 and 15 are Investigating Police Officers. 4. On the basis of the evidence of P.W.13, whom the learned trial Court appears to have found as an eye-witness to the occurrence, stated to have been corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 2 who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased as well as the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 12 and 14 who depose regarding recovery of bow, arrow and bow string at the instance of the appellant, the learned trial Court held the prosecution to have established the charge against the appel¬lant. 5. In assailing the impugned judgment and order, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of P.W. 13 is in no way incriminating against the appel¬lant. It is argued that the evidence of P.W. 13 is so vague that no finding is capable of being based on his testimony. It is further contended that the evidence with regard to recovery of articles at the instance of the appellant adduced through P.Ws. 3, 4 and 14 is not only inconsistent and contradictory but also does not in any manner indicate complicity of the appellant with the alleged murder. 6. In defending the impugned judgment and order, learned counsel appearing for the State contends that the evidence of P.W. 13 clearly goes to show that the appellant ran away after shooting arrow at the appellant. It is further argued that the evidence of P.W. 13 gets corroboration from the medical evidence as well as the evidence with regard to recovery of bow, bow string and an arrow at the instance of the appellant. 7. Admittedly, the informant P.W. 1 is a post occurrence witness. Having been informed that the dead body of the deceased was lying at the spot, P.W. 1 went there and found that the dead body of the deceased with an arrow stuck to the chest was lying on the road side. His oral report was reduced into writing by P.W. 15. Also not only the evidence of hostile witnesses P.Ws. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 is of no assistance of the prosecution but also P.Ws. 9 and 10 are altogether silent regarding the occurrence. 8. Much reliance is placed by the prosecution on the evidence of P.W. 13. His oral report was reduced into writing by P.W. 15. Also not only the evidence of hostile witnesses P.Ws. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 is of no assistance of the prosecution but also P.Ws. 9 and 10 are altogether silent regarding the occurrence. 8. Much reliance is placed by the prosecution on the evidence of P.W. 13. On reading of the evidence, it is apparent that P.W. 13 does not claim to be an eye-witness. This witness, examined in Court on 6.4.1998, deposes that the deceased died one year back. However, admittedly the occurrence took place on 19.2.1996. P.W. 13 deposes that one year back at about 3.00 P.M., while he was watching cattle near village Kathabharia, he found that the deceased was returning by that side from the market. He claims to have seen the deceased rushing to him shouting “Mariga¬li Marigali” and the appellant running away from that place. It is asserted by him that an arrow had stuck to the body of the de¬ceased and the appellant ran away towards nearby river. In his examination-in-chief itself, P.W. 13 says that he did not dis¬close regarding the incident to any one in the village. Thus, admittedly, P.W.13 does not claim to have seen the appellant shooting arrow at the deceased. Also there is no evidence that the appellant was holding any bow or arrow when P.W. 13 saw him running away. His evidence to the effect that he did not disclose regarding the incident to any one in the village renders the entire testimony suspicious. In course of P.W. 13’s cross-examination, it was suggested that he had not stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he saw the appellant running away towards river. P.W. 12, the Investigating Police Officer says that P.W. 13 had not stated before him that the appellant was running away towards river. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 13 is not at all capable of sustaining the finding that the appellant shot an arrow at the deceased. 9. P.W. 12, the Investigating Police Officer says that P.W. 13 had not stated before him that the appellant was running away towards river. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 13 is not at all capable of sustaining the finding that the appellant shot an arrow at the deceased. 9. Out of the three witnesses stated to have seen recovery and seizure of the incriminating articles, P.W. 4 says that in his presence and the presence of others, the appellant gave information to have kept concealed the weapon of offence under river bed and in the field of village Kathabharia, took them there and gave recovery of string of the bow from the river bed kept concealed under water and an arrow from the field. He iden¬tifies Ext. 7 to be his signature on the seizure list under which the articles were seized. P.W. 12 says that the deceased’s wear¬ing apparels, blood stained arrow and other articles produced by the police constable were seized under seizure list Ext. 7/1 in which P.W.4’s signature Ext. 7 appears. P.W. 12 deposes that the bow string (M.O. V), bow (M.O. VI) and arrow (M.O. VII) were recovered and seized under seizure lists Exts. 5 and 6 at the instance of the appellant. M.Os. V, VI and VII by themselves are not in any manner incriminating against the appellant inasmuch as none of the articles indicate that the appellant shot an arrow at the deceased. That apart, the evidence of seizure of articles available from the depositions of P.Ws. 3 and 14 is also far from consistent. P.W. 3 says that the appellant gave recovery of a bow from under riverbed and an arrow from a field.. He also says that the police seized string of bow but does not indicate regarding the place from which the bow string was recovered. P.W. 14 testi¬fies that “from a field an arrow was recovered and from the riverbed accused gave recovery of an arrow without the iron portion and from near a bush one bow, its string in broken condi¬tion which police seized”. In cross-examination, P.W. 14 states that the arrow having iron portion from the field was traced out by P.W. 4, Suresh Patra and searched by all. According to this witness, seizure lists were prepared at the police station where he as well as P.W. 4 put their signatures. In cross-examination, P.W. 14 states that the arrow having iron portion from the field was traced out by P.W. 4, Suresh Patra and searched by all. According to this witness, seizure lists were prepared at the police station where he as well as P.W. 4 put their signatures. Admittedly, P.W. 4 is not a signatory to Exts. 5 and 6. Therefore, neither the evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to recovery of articles at the instance of the appellant is trustworthy nor the circumstance of seizure of articles at the instance of the appellant is of any assistance to the prosecution. 10. No doubt, the evidence of P.W.2 reveals that in course of post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, P.W. 2 found incised wound on the chest with an arrow being inserted to the chest wall and the cause of death of the deceased was due to massive haemorrhage and shock resulting from internal injuries caused by an arrow shot. However, in view of the discussion made above, prosecution has failed to prove that it was the appellant who shot an arrow at and caused fatal injury on the deceased. We, therefore, find that the impugned judgment and order is unsustainable. 11. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 30.7.1998 passed by the learned Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Rairangpur in S.T. Case No. 12/102 of 1997-1996 convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life. It is stated that the appellant is still in custo¬dy. If that be so, the appellant, namely, Jagannath Purty be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in any other case. L. MOHAPATRA, J. I agree. Appeal allowed.