JUDGMENT S.R. SINGHARAVELU, J. — The brief facts of the prosecution case necessary for determining the issues before us are as fol¬lows: Appellant-accused Kanduri Moharana is the brother-in-law of one Sarat Chandra Moharana (informant) whose brother is the 1st appellant Bharat Moharana. Bharat Moharana and Sarat Ch. Moharana are separate in mess, worship and cultivating their land. 2. The informant Sarat Moharana, his wife Shantilata Moharana (P.W.12), son Sunil Moharana (P.W.13) and deceased daughter Soni Moharana were living in a house in village Adhanga Majurai. On 20.1.1996 at about 7 P.M. the accused-appellants entered the said house of the informant and enquired from Shanti¬lata Moharana (P.W.12) as to where about of her husband. P.W.12 stated that her husband had gone to Muliasahi. Immediately, both the accused inflicted kick and Bhujali blows to Shantilata Moha¬rana causing injuries on her and inflicted blows to her son and daughter causing serious bleeding injuries and left the house under the impression that Shantilata Moharana and her children are dead. 3. Shantilata thereafter crawled up to the neighbouring house of Nanda Kishore Das and disclosed the incident to his family members. Trilochan Das (P.W.9), who is the son of Nanda Kishore Das arranged a trekker for removing the injured to the hospital. P.W.2, the informant Sarat Ch. Moharana learnt the incident from one Karunakar Das (P.W.10) and rushed to his house immediately, saw injuries on his son and the dead body of his daughter and did not see his wife there. Anyway he took his wife and son to the hospital by the trekker arranged by P.W.9. In the hospital Shantilata Moharana revealed every happenings based on which the informant lodged a verbal report before the O.I.C., Jagatsinghpur (P.W.19) regarding the incident. The F.I.R. was recorded and the same was marked as Ext.2. The case was regis¬tered in the P.S. and the chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offence u/ss. 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. P.W.20 on taking investigation and upon examining the informant had issued injury reports vide Exts.14/3 and 15/3 for medical examination and requested the Scientific Officer to visit the spot and take photograph. He also prepared spot map and Ext.16 and held inquest on the body of Soni Moharana as per Ext.17. Ext.18 is the challan for having sent the dead body for postmortem. He also prepared spot map and Ext.16 and held inquest on the body of Soni Moharana as per Ext.17. Ext.18 is the challan for having sent the dead body for postmortem. On 21.9.1996 the I.O. seized bloodstained broken bangles and one violate colour wool chadar from the spot. Simi¬larly he recovered bloodstained scrapping from the window along with other attair vide Exts. 9,13 to 17 and 18. The material objects seized thereof were sent for chemical examination by virtue of a letter of request through SDJM, Jagatsinghpur under Ext.21. After examining the witnesses the accused were arrested on 21.01.1996 and after receiving the concerned records of medi¬cal and chemical reports the investigation was completed and charge-sheet was laid against the accused for the offence above mentioned. 5. Before the learned trial Judge in order to prove the case of the prosecution 20 witnesses were examined and 21 Exhib¬its were marked on the side of the prosecution and one witness was examined on the side of the defence. While the accused were questioned about the incriminating portion of evidence adduced, they denied it and pleaded not guilty. 6. By going through the entire evidence oral and documen¬tary, the learned trial judge found the accused guilty under Section 302/34 IPC, and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and has also found them guilty under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced them for five years each and directed the sentences to run concurrently. 7. Against the said judgment dated 24.06.1998 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 8. We have heard Mr. Das learned counsel for the appel¬lants and Mr. Nanda, learned Addl.Govt. Advocate appearing for the State. 9. Admittedly, the appellant are in-laws between them¬selves. Sarat Chandra Moharana (P.W.2), the informant is not only the husband of the injured Shantilata Moharana (P.W.12) but also happens to be the brother for Bharat Moharana (Appellant No.1). Dr. Duryadhan Pati (P.W.15), the Lecturer in Surgery, attached to S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack, on reference by the police exam¬ined Shantilata Moharana (P.W.12) on 20.1.1996 and found the following injuries which she sustained. “(1) Incised wound over left cheek in front of left ear 1 cm. below outer angle of left eye of size 10 cm x up to bone depth x 2 cm. Width elliptical size, everted margin, bleeding not matted with any foreign material. “(1) Incised wound over left cheek in front of left ear 1 cm. below outer angle of left eye of size 10 cm x up to bone depth x 2 cm. Width elliptical size, everted margin, bleeding not matted with any foreign material. (2) Incised wound over neck posterity medial aspect 11 cm. X 3 cm. X 3cm. Size bleeding, elliptical in shape everted margin, not matted with any foreign material. (3) Left ear labule was cut with bleeding.” On the same day he had also examined Sunil Moharana (P.W.13), the son of P.Ws.2 and 12 and found the following in¬juries :- “Incised wound from left to right side or anterior part of neck of size 10 cm. x 4 cm. X 2 cm. Size beginning 1 cm depth middle and ½ cm and bleeding middle aspect, elliptical shape tapering towards the right side not matted with any foreign material. It is sufficient enough in ordinary course of nature to cause death”. Exts. 14 and 15 are reports of the said Doctor for the above two injured respectively. 10. As against the body of the girl who has succumbed to the injuries, namely, Soni Moharana, the post-mortem was conduct¬ed on 21.01.1996 at about 11.30 A.M. by Dr. Pradeep Kumar Mohanty (P.W.3) and the following injuries were found. “(1) One cut throat injury present about the thyroid carti¬lege on right side neck below the ear to right side neck below the mandible. The size of the wound was 4 ½” x 2" 1 ½”. The neck was partially severed and the depth of the cut was upto the verte¬bra and the skin attached on the back of the neck. Blood clot and veins of both sides were cut. Tracea was cut and hyoid bone was injured. Sterno mastoid muscle and other muscles of the neck were cut. No deformity and dislocation present on the body. Scalp intact. Skull intact. Membrain are congested. Brain intact and congested.” Ext.4 is the Post-mortem report. 11. From the above medical evidence it is made clear that death of Soni Moharana and there was attempt of murder made on the body of P.W. 12 and her son P.W. 13. Now the question before us is as to whether the complicity alleged against the appellant in connection with the above offensive acts were proved beyond doubt. 12. 11. From the above medical evidence it is made clear that death of Soni Moharana and there was attempt of murder made on the body of P.W. 12 and her son P.W. 13. Now the question before us is as to whether the complicity alleged against the appellant in connection with the above offensive acts were proved beyond doubt. 12. Apart from the witnesses turned hostile the only eye¬witnesses are P.Ws. 12 and 13. So far as P.W. 13 is concerned, he is a child witness. A careful perusal of his evidence would go to show that he has not uttered anything about any person making assault on him. In other words, he has not deposed anything against the appellant in connection with the bodily injury sus¬tained by him. What he deposed was “Accused Tikina (accused Bharat) assaulted my mother by means of a knife (Chhuri). Accused Kanduri also assaulted my mother by means of knife.” Although he had mentioned that accused Bharat pressed his chest there was no corresponding supporting medical evidence. That is why we mention that evidence on the part of P.W.13 is lacking in connection with the injuries sustained by him. Again in respect of the weapon alleged to have been used against his mother (P.W.12), what P.W.13 told was only Chhuri (a knife) which is quite different from Bhujali as projected by the prosecution. Thus, when the prosecution case is very much particular about that weapon Bhuja¬li was used against P.W.12 there was no corresponding supporting evidence in the evidence of P.W.13. 13. Again his deposition as if he has not seen his father P.W.2 at the spot after the occurrence is quite contrary to that of P.W.2 himself who claimed to have seen P.W.13 lying in a pool of blood in the spot house. Therefore, the suggestion on the side of the defence made to P.W.13 as if he had slept and was in slumber in the course of alleged occurrence gains some momentum and cannot be without meaning. It is quite natural that a boy of 7 years old could have slept and could have sustained injuries without even knowing the assailants. 14. Now, the only other available evidence is that of P.W.12 the injured, interested eyewitness. It is quite natural that a boy of 7 years old could have slept and could have sustained injuries without even knowing the assailants. 14. Now, the only other available evidence is that of P.W.12 the injured, interested eyewitness. Her evidence is to be analysed with all care and caution because of the admitted previ¬ous enmity between her husband P.W.2 and the latter’s brother, the 1st appellant. Her interestedness and exaggerated version does not stand to scrutiny. Her consistent case all through is that both the accused gave her Bhujali blows and that both stood on her stomach, chest and gave pressure. But nowhere she had stated saying that while entering her house the appellants were armed with Bhujali. The prosecution has not also made any endea¬vour to let that evidence on record. This gains ground because of the medical evidence, which is taken shelter to by the defence by saying that a Bhujali will not cause such injuries. Again her evidence that Katari was used against her son P.W.13 was also improbabilized by the latter. That is why also there is no sem¬blance of blood in the weapon, which is claimed to have been seized from a well. Therefore, there was not only cloud around the weapon but also its nexus or proximity with the appellants. 15. It is further to be noted that even though P.W.12 deposed that upon crawling towards the house of Nanda Kishore Das, he happened to narrate the offensive act of the accused to Osi Das and Bigyani Das and that the latter two were not even cited as prosecution witnesses. Neither P.W. 10 nor P.W. 12 mentioned about the presence of P.W. 9 in the house of Nanda Kishore Das. None of the other inmates was also examined. The fact that P.W. 12 was said to have narrated the event to P.W. 2 is not believable because she herself deposed that she got consciousness only in the hospital and where also she was not able to talk except with a feeble voice. This coupled with the fact that P.W.2 has not able to name the scribe of the F.I.R. throws much doubt on his veracity. 16. Since there is many gaps to prove nexus between the appellants and the complicity alleged, the benefit of doubt should go to the appellants-accused. 17. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed. This coupled with the fact that P.W.2 has not able to name the scribe of the F.I.R. throws much doubt on his veracity. 16. Since there is many gaps to prove nexus between the appellants and the complicity alleged, the benefit of doubt should go to the appellants-accused. 17. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed. The convic¬tion and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. The appellants are granted benefit of doubt and accordingly acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if no longer required in any other case. P.K. TRIPATHY, J. I agree. Appeal allowed.