JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - All these appeals arise out of a common judgment. As the facts of all the appeals are same, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellant in all the three appeals faced trial in the court of Ad hoc Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela for commission of offence u/s 302/34 of I.P.C. in S.T. Case No. 82/9 of 2003. The prosecution case san of any unnecessary details is as follows: 3. The informant (P.W.1) on 14th October, 2002 at about 9.30 P.M. was told by the mother of "Fotlish" that her husband Tenia" was lying injured in front of the house of Binod Sahoo. After receiving the said information, P.W.1 rushed to the place and found that her husband was lying on the ground in a pool of blood with bleeding injuries. On enquiry her husband disclosed that accused Ramjan, Babujan and Santosh, accusing him to be a police informer, assaulted him by means of Bhujali and Talwar. The informant informed this fact to Laxman Sahoo (P.W.4) and taking his help brought her husband to her house. She requested one "Sister" to inform the incident over phone to Police. After receiving the information, the I.I.C. Plant Site P.S., Rourkela registered a case, came to the site, recorded the statement of P.W.1 and treated the same as formal F.I.R. and commenced investigation. 4. While matter stood thus, Tenia expired, consequently inquest was made, the dead body was sent for post mortem and the three accused persons were arrested. It is alleged that while in custody the accused persons confessed about their guilt and disclosed the place where they had hidden the weapons of offence. On the basis of such statement the weapon of offence was seized in presence of the witnesses. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted in G.R. Case No. 1720/2002 in the court of S.D.J.M., Panposh. Learned S.D.J.M. after going through the police papers and on being satisfied that a prima facie case was made out, took cognizance of the offences and committed the case to the court of Session for trial. 5. The plea of the accused persons was of complete denial. In order to substantiate their case the prosecution got examined nine witnesses and exhibited several documents. On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined. 5. The plea of the accused persons was of complete denial. In order to substantiate their case the prosecution got examined nine witnesses and exhibited several documents. On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined. P.W.1 was the informant and the wife of Tenia(the deceased), P. Ws.2, 3 and 4 were the post occurrence witnesses. P.Ws. 6 and 7 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. P.W.8 was the I.O. and P.W.9 was the Medical Officer, who had given report, after examining the weapon of offence. 6. Learned Sessions Judge after vivid discussion of the evidence, relying upon the report of the Doctor (P.W.9), the statement made u/s 27 of the Evidence Act and recovery of the weapon of offence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to establish the charges against the accused persons, consequently, they were found guilty and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for a period of three months. 7. The said judgment is assailed by the accused persons by filing three appeals from Jail. Miss. Tripathy, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, strenuously placed before us the evidence, both oral and documentary. According to Miss Tripathy no iota of evidence is available to connect the Appellant with the alleged crime. It is stated that no person has seen the accused persons committing the offence. There were three accused persons, but only one weapon was seized. All the injuries, except one, were simple in nature. The statement recorded u/s 27 of the Evidence Act before the Police, while the accused persons were in custody, cannot be relied upon and last but not the least the prosecution had totally failed to establish the fact that the accused persons had committed the crime. In the absence of any cogent evidence, it is submitted, the Sessions Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity in convicting the accused persons. Miss Tripathy further emphasized that reading of the entire judgment would reveal that the Sessions Judge has proceeded more on surmises and conjectures than on the basis of cogent evidence and as such it is a fit case where the appeals should be allowed. 8. The submissions made by Miss Tripathy are repudiated by Mr. Kishore Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate. 8. The submissions made by Miss Tripathy are repudiated by Mr. Kishore Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate. According to him, the accused persons were hardened criminals and they had a very bad track record. Suspecting that Tenia was a police informer they jointly murdered him. Mr. Mishra further submitted that the Sessions Judge has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances and the order of conviction and sentence is just and proper and may not be interfered. 9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the evidence meticulously. This is a case where there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the entire case rests of circumstantial evidence. The most peculiar feature so far as the case in hand is concerned is that the doctor, who conducted the post mortem, was not examined. The post mortem report, however, is available on record. Law is well settled that the report of Serologists and the post mortem report being public documents can be admitted in evidence. But then, as the doctor was not examined the accused persons were subjected to prejudice and were handicapped as they were not in a position to cross examine the doctor and test the veracity of the facts mentioned in the post mortem report as well as the cause of death. That apart, perusal of the post mortem report reveals that the external injuries do not tally with the internal injuries. 10. Admittedly, there are three accused persons. The fatal injury is only one. The other two injuries are simple in nature. In consonance with the confessional statement said to have been made by the Appellant while in police custody, only one weapon was seized. P.W.9, the Asst. Surgeon, after perusing the weapon had opined that the injuries can be caused by the said weapon. Unfortunately, no document was produced before this Court to reveal as to whether the said weapon contained blood stains. That apart, as stated earlier there were three accused persons, thus it was not known as to who amongst the three had caused the fatal injury. The assault was on the main road and in front of the house of Binod Sahoo. The said Binod Sahoo has not been examined as a witness. That apart, as stated earlier there were three accused persons, thus it was not known as to who amongst the three had caused the fatal injury. The assault was on the main road and in front of the house of Binod Sahoo. The said Binod Sahoo has not been examined as a witness. The two witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.3) stated in their evidence that they heard that the accused persons assaulted Tenia by means of a knife, bhujali and sword. The weapon recovered did not tally with the descriptions. A feeble attempt is made by the prosecution to provide mens rea. It is stated that the accused persons were criminals and suspecting Tenia to be a police informer, they assaulted and murdered him. But then, no materials have been produced to establish that the accused persons were involved in any other criminal case in past. The incident, as it appears from the F.I.R., took place in the year 2002. Seven years have passed in the meanwhile. The accused persons are in custody for all these years. 11. After going through the judgment, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has failed to establish the overt acts said to have been committed by the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. Here is a case where there are no eye witness. The doctor, who conducted the post mortem, has not been examined., Out of three injuries, two are simple in nature. The fatal injury as would be evident from the post mortem report does not match with an external injury. That apart, only one weapon was seized though there are three accused persons. Added to that, no evidence is adduced to establish as to who amongst the three accused persons had assaulted with the said weapon. The prosecution has failed to complete the chain and there are more than one links missing. 12. In view of the discussions made above, this Court feels that the entire prosecution story is shrouded with probabilities and there is a cloud of suspicion as to how the incident took place. We are satisfied that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts and it is a fit case where the benefit of doubt should be drawn in favour of the accused persons. 13. We are satisfied that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts and it is a fit case where the benefit of doubt should be drawn in favour of the accused persons. 13. Consequently, all the three JCRLAS are allowed, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Ad hoc Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela, in S.T. Case No. 82/9 of 2003 is set aside and the Appellant in JCRLA No. 100/2003, JCRLA No. 102/2003 and JCRLA No. 105/2003 are acquitted u/s 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They may be set at liberty forthwith, unless their detention is required in connection with any other case. Appeals allowed. Final Result : Allowed