JUDGMENT By Court: The appellants were put on trial along with Hare Ram Bhumij on the allegation that they in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Binda Manjhi and Uma Manjhian after abducting them. They having been found guilty for the said charges were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years for the offence under section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.4.1990 the informant Rukmani Manjhian (P.W.8) was sleeping inside the house along with her husband Saheb Ram Manjhi (P.W.6), while her father-in-law Brinda Manjhi (deceased) as well as mother-in-law Uma Majhiain (deceased) were sleeping outside the house. At about 3-4 A.M, the appellant Hare Ram Bhumij (died) and his son Litu Bhumij came over there and started abusing her father-in-law and mother-in-law. On hearing this, she woke up and came out of the house and saw both the accused dragging her father-in-law and mother-in-law which was objected by her husband Saheb Ram Manjhi (P.W.6) but he was assaulted by the appellant Litu Bhumij by lathi. They took both of them towards their house by dragging where both of them were done to death. Thereafter accused persons took the dead bodies towards forest by their Auto Rickshaw and got the dead bodies burnt. Further case of the prosecution is that Choukidar of village Tilaidih informed the Officer-in-Charge of Potka Police Station on the same day at about 11 A.M. that some person has been murdered at village Tilaidih. Upon which station diary entry was made and the Officer-in-Charge of Potka Police Station Ram Gopal Lahiri (P.W.11) proceeded to the place of occurrence where he reached at about 2.30 P.M. and recorded the Fardbeyan (Ext.4) of Rukmani Manjhian (P.W.8) wherein she stated that accused person committed murder of both the persons as they suspected them to be the culprit of causing death to the daughter of accused Litu Bhumij by practicing witchcraft. After recording the Fardbeyan, Officer-in-charge himself took up the investigation of the case and made inspection of the place of occurrence and recovered the dead bodies from the forest and made inquest on the dead bodies and prepared Inquest Reports (Exts.5 and 5/1) and sent the dead bodies for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr.Sheo Shankar Prasad (P.W.5) who found the following ante mortem injuries on the person of Binda Manjhi. (i) Deep Burn injury involving skin and muscle and bone of whole body except left half of leg and half of thigh (right) and leg and dorsum of foot. (ii) Crush injury of left parieto temporal bone cutting in pieces fracture of skull bone – haemorrhage and blood clots in between the maninges and cerebral haemosphere. (iii) Incised wound (2” x ½ “ x cavity deep) ½ “ below the umbilicus causing intestine to come out. (iv) Fracture of all thoracic rib in left and right side and contusion over the lung.” Dr. issued post mortem examination report (Ext.2) with an opinion that cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by sharp cutting weapon as well as hard and blunt substance. Further on holding post mortem examination the Doctor found the following injuries on the person of the deceased (Uma Majhian): (i) Deep burn involving the skin, muscle and bone except part of foot and face (97%). (ii) Tongue protruded and clinched between the teeth. (iii) Muscle of chest, leg, abdomen and lower thoracic rib from front burnt and all visceras are burnt. (iv) Fracture of occipital temporal bone and haemorrhage in between the meninges and cerebral hemisphere. He issued post mortem examination report (Ext.2/1) with an opinion death occurred due to shock caused by burn injury. The injured Saheb Ram Manjhi (P.W.6) was examined by Dr. Mithilesh Kumar (P.W.10) who found the following injury on his person. Contusion on the back -size 1” x 2” which was simple caused by hard and blunt substance. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellants whereupon cognizance of the offence was taken and in due course, when the case was committed to the court of sessions, charges were framed to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellants whereupon cognizance of the offence was taken and in due course, when the case was committed to the court of sessions, charges were framed to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses. Of them Sadhu Soren (P.W.4) brother-in-law of the deceased Binda Manjhi, Saheb Ram Manjhi (P.W.6),son of the deceased, Bali Manjhian (P.W.7) daughter of the deceased and Rukhmani Manjhian (P.W.8) daughter-in-law of the deceased claimed to be the eye witnesses whereas Pradhan Manjhi (P.W.9) is hearsay witness. Learned trial court having placed its implicit reliance on the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses claimed to be the eye witnesses, did find the appellants guilty and hence, recorded the order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred this appeal. Learned counsel Mr. Zaid Ahmad appearing for the appellants submits that P.Ws 4, 6, 7 and even the informant (P.W.8) have claimed to have seen the occurrence which, according to them, took place at three places, firstly, at the house of the deceased, secondly, at the house of the accused persons and then at the forest where dead bodies were burnt but their testimonies get belied from their own statements recorded by the Investigating Officer in course of investigation made under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, none of the witnesses are worth reliable, still the trial court held the appellants guilty which is quite erroneous and hence, order of conviction and sentence is fit to be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that though the Fardbeyan (Ext.4) of P.W.8 was treated to be the first information report but in view of the testimonies of the informant and also by P.W.6 the Fardbeyan (Ext.4) can never be treated as a first version of the informant and therefore, no importance can be attached to this document. Learned counsel further submits that though the Fardbeyan (Ext.4) of P.W.8 was treated to be the first information report but in view of the testimonies of the informant and also by P.W.6 the Fardbeyan (Ext.4) can never be treated as a first version of the informant and therefore, no importance can be attached to this document. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, we do find that Sadhu Soren (P.W.4), Saheb Ram Manjhi (P.W.6), Bali Manjhian (PW.7) and Rukmini (P.W.8) have claimed themselves to be the eye witnesses to the entire occurrence which are said to have taken place first at the house of the deceased from where the appellants along with Hare Ram Bhumij dragged both the deceased to their house where both of them were assaulted and then dead bodies were taken to forest where it was burnt. In this respect it be noted that P.Ws, 4 and 6 have testified that on hearing hulla when they came outside of the house, they saw accused persons taking both of them out of their house by dragging and assaulting and brought them to their house where they were assaulted and then both of them were taken in a Auto Rickshaw towards forest. Similarly, P.W.7 and P.W.8 have testified that while they were in the house, accused persons came and took both the deceased out of the house and started assaulting them and then they took both of them to their house by dragging where they were done to death and then dead bodies were taken towards forest in a Auto Rickshaw. On careful perusal of the testimonies of P.Ws 4 and 6, we do find that though both of them have testified that on hearing hulla, they reached to the place of occurrence and saw the accused persons taking both the deceased to their house by dragging and by assaulting and then took dead bodies towards forest in a Auto Rickshaw but such statements, as per the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.11), were never made by them in course of investigation. Moreover, P.W.4 has admitted in course of cross-examination that he had made statement before the police that when on hearing hulla, he came to the place of occurrence, he was informed by P.Ws. 7 and 8 that accused persons have taken both the deceased to their house. Moreover, P.W.4 has admitted in course of cross-examination that he had made statement before the police that when on hearing hulla, he came to the place of occurrence, he was informed by P.Ws. 7 and 8 that accused persons have taken both the deceased to their house. This piece of evidence itself suggests that this witness had no occasion to see the occurrence at any point of time. Further we do find that aforesaid piece of evidence relating to deriving of knowledge about the occurrence from the witnesses never appears to be admissible as none of the witness either P.W 7 or P.W.8 has stated that they told about the occurrence to P.W.4. Similarly, P.W.6, according to evidence of P.W.11 (Investigating Officer ) had never stated before him about the deceased being assaulted at their house or at the house of the accused persons and that apart, his claim of witnessing the occurrence gets belied from his evidence elicited in course of cross-examination wherein he has testified that he did not see the accused persons assaulting the deceased at the house of the accused persons, rather came to know about the name of the assailant from the villagers. Again his testimony to the effect that he had gone to call Mukhiya and when he came, he found both the deceased dead confirms that he never saw he occurrence. It may further be noted that this witness has also claimed to have been assaulted by the accused while he was objecting the appellants taking the deceased to their house by testifying that he was assaulted by one of the appellants by Lathi on his chest and nose but surprisingly, no such injuries has been found by the Doctor (P.W.10) either on the chest or even over the nose rather one contusion has been found on his back which he does not appear to have received at the time of occurrence as it is never the case of P.W.6 that he was assaulted on his back. In these view of the matter, P.W.4 as well as P.W.6 seem to be wholly untrustworthy. In these view of the matter, P.W.4 as well as P.W.6 seem to be wholly untrustworthy. Coming to the testimonies of P.Ws.7 and 8 both of them have testified that the accused persons came and asked both the deceased to come out of the house and when they came out, accused persons caught hold of them and took them to the house of Litu Bhumij by assaulting where the deceased were done to death but both of them, according to Investigating Officer (P.W.11) had not stated like that before him. Again, we do find that none of the aforesaid witnesses saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased in the house of Litu Bhumij as P.W.7 has testified that it was Sadhu Soren (P.W.4) who had disclosed her that the accused persons committed murder of the deceased. Similarly, P.W.8 has testified that it were P.W. 7 and P.W.4 who saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased but P.W.7 never claims to have seen accused persons committing murder in the house of Litu Bhumij whereas P.W.4 has himself stated that he came to know about the occurrence from P.W.7 and P.W.8. Thus, none of them appears to have seen the accused persons assaulting the deceased. That apart, the Fardbeyan (Ext.4), upon which case was instituted never appears to be the first version of the informant. In this respect it may be noted that P.W.11 has testified that when Choukidar informed that occurrence of murder had taken place at village Tilaidih, he made entry of such information in the Station Diary and then proceeded for the place of occurrence where he at 2.30 P.M. recorded the Fardbeyan of P.W.8 but surprisingly, P.W.8 has testified that before the police reached to the village, she along with her husband (P.W.6), P.W.7 and Mukhiya P.W.9 and Choukidar had gone to the police station where she told about the occurrence as to who and in what manner committed murder of the deceased which was reduced in writing over which she put her thumb impression. Similarly, P.W.6 has also testified that he and Mukhiya (P.W.9) had gone to the police station where he gave statement about the occurrence in detail which was reduced in writing, upon which he put his signature even P.W.11 in his testimony has testified that villagers had also come to the police station along with Choukidar at 11A.M. but they had disclosed only that some persons have been murdered at village Tilaidih. This piece of evidence of Investigating Officer is hardly believable in view of the testimonies of the witnesses including the informant, as stated above, wherein they have categorically stated that in the police station they had stated about the occurrence which was reduced in writing but that document was never placed before the court, rather Fardbeyan of P.W.8 recorded subsequently at 2.30 P.M. has been treated to be first information report which, in the facts and circumstances, can never be treated as first information report, rather at best it can be said to be a statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It be stated that first information report in a criminal case and particularly, in a murder case is vital and the valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the first information report is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons used if any. Any delayed version will be prone to introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. Here, in the instant case, very first information which the witness has claimed to have given at the police station had never been brought on the record and, therefore, subsequent version of P.W.8 which was treated to be first information report loses its authenticity as the statements made therein in the facts and circumstances are susceptible to doubt. Moreover, in view of the discussions made hereinabove eye witnesses never appear to have given true version of the occurrence. Under these situations, the case never appears to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, rather the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence, the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them and are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Under these situations, the case never appears to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, rather the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence, the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them and are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. In the result, the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the appellants are hereby set aside and this appeal stands allowed.