JUDGMENT C.R. DASH, J. — This appeal arises out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.10.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No. 112 of 1996. Learned Sessions Judge found both the appellants guilty of of¬fence under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life. 2. A compendium of the prosecution case is as follows:- Both the appellants are nephews of deceased Dhara Choudhury being the sons of his sister. At about 3.00 p.m. on 14.4.1996 appel¬lant No. 1-Maya Palei shot an arrow at the deceased. Receiving the arrow shot injury the deceased fell down on the ground and at that time appellant No.2- Hadu Palei smashed the head of the deceased with a Mankada Stone. The deceased died at the spot. Dambaru Choudhury (P.W.10), who happens to be the son of the deceased lodged oral report at Nayakote Police Station, which the I.O. (P.W.4) reduced into writing and registered the case. P.W.4 took up the investigation, seized the incriminating articles including the weapons of offence in course of such investigation and on completion of investigation filed charge-sheet implicating the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302/34, I.P.C. 3. The defence plea is one of complete denial. 4. Prosecution has examined 12 witnesses to prove the charge. P.Ws. 1,2,11 and 12 are the eye witnesses to the occur¬rence. Out of them P.Ws. 1 and 2 did not support the prosecution case. P.Ws. 3, 9 and 10 (informant) are the post-occurrence witnesses. P.W.8 is the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body. P.Ws. 5,6 and 7 are official witnesses be¬longing to the police department. P.W.4 is the I.O. 5. Learned Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 302/34, I.P.C., on the basis of evidence as appreciated by him. Learned trial Court has relied heavily on the evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 12, who are wife of elder brother of the deceased and daughter-in-law of the deceased respectively. 6. It is prima facie found from the evidence on record including the evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 12 that appellant No. 1-Maya Palei short an arrow aiming at the deceased; that arrow hit the deceased and the deceased fell down; thereafter, appellant No.2-Hadu Palei smashed the head of the deceased with a stone. 7. P.Ws. 6. It is prima facie found from the evidence on record including the evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 12 that appellant No. 1-Maya Palei short an arrow aiming at the deceased; that arrow hit the deceased and the deceased fell down; thereafter, appellant No.2-Hadu Palei smashed the head of the deceased with a stone. 7. P.Ws. 1 and 2 having turned hostile, we propose to examine how far P.Ws. 11 and 12 can be believed as eye witnesses. P.W.11 in her cross-examination has testified that she has seen the occurrence from near her house. P.W.12 in her cross-examination has testified that she saw the incident from the verandah of her house and at the time P.W.11 was there with her. P.W.11 is the wife of the elder brother of the deceased and P.W.12 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. By their house they are referring to the house of the deceased marked “F” in the spot map (Ext.3) prepared by the I.O. (P.W.4). Regarding admissi¬bility of the spot map/sketch map prepared by a Police Officer in evidence, it is well settled in law that the sketch map would be admissible so far as it indicates all that the Police Officer saw himself at the spot, but any mark put on the sketch map based on the statements made by the witnesses to the Police Officer would be inadmissible in view of the clear provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as such a mark on the basis of the statement of a witness is not more than the statement of a witness made before a Police Officer during investigation. (See Tori Singh and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh; A.I.R. 1962 SC 399 referred to in State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani & Anr. 2003(3) CRIMES 228 (SC). P.W.4 in his evidence has testified that he visited the spot at 6.30 A.M. on 15.4.1996 and prepared the spot map vide Ext.3. The spot map vide Ext.3 shows the mark like the place where the dead body was lying, house of accused persons, house of the deceased and some other physical marks as observed by the I.O. himself at the spot, In view of such fact the spot map vide Ext.3 would be admissible in evidence to the limited extent as indicated supra. From the spot map, it is found that the distance of the house of the deceased marked “F”: is 300 feet from the place marked “A” where the dead body was lying. The aforesaid evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 12 if considered along with the spot map (Ext.3) it is to be held that whatever P.Ws. 11 and 12 saw, they saw from a distance of about 300 feet which in conversion comes to about 100 yards. 7.1 P.W.11 in her cross-examination has testified that prior to the incident concerning murder of the deceased, there was altercation between the accused and deceased Dhara; she intervened and took deceased Dhara to his house. It has further been testified by her that deceased Dhara again went towards the village and after some time she (P.W.11) came from the house to know where deceased Dhara has gone and saw deceased Dhara lying with injuries beneath the jack-fruit tree in front of the house of accused Maya. On the point of her witnessing the occurrence P.W.11 has testified thus:- “...... I have personally seen shooting of arrow by Maya while coming out of my house and I have further seen his ? (him) running away pulling out the arrow from the body of Dhara. I have seen this from near my house. Again says I have not exactly seen the act of shooting of arrow by Maya but I have seen him running towards Dhara and pulling out the arrow running away.......”. (Emphasis supplied) Such evidence of P.W.11 belies her testimony in her examina¬tion-in-chief to the effect that “accused persons had altercation with Dhara and in course of altercation Maya shot an arrow which hit Dhara”. The testimony of this witness to the effect that when she tried to intervene, appellant Maya Palei threatened to shoot her is not believable inasmuch as from a distance of 300 feet he (convict Maya) could not have threatened when he was fleeing away from the spot of occurrence. 7.2 If the sequence of events as testified by P.W.11 is believed fro the sake of argument, then it is to be held that appellant Maya Palei (A-1) shot the arrow first; the deceased fell down and appellant Hadu Palei (A-2) smashed the head of deceased Dhara with a stone. 7.2 If the sequence of events as testified by P.W.11 is believed fro the sake of argument, then it is to be held that appellant Maya Palei (A-1) shot the arrow first; the deceased fell down and appellant Hadu Palei (A-2) smashed the head of deceased Dhara with a stone. Action of Hadu Palei (A-2) is one preceding the act of Maya Palei (A-1) pulling out the arrow from the person of the deceased and running away. If the entire trans¬action has happened in the aforesaid sequence, P.W.11 must not have seen the overt act of Hadu Palei (A-2) smashing the head of the deceased Dhara with a stone. 7.3 P.W.11 having come out from the house when deceased did not return, must be the first person who came out of the house to find out as to where deceased Dhara had gone. She (P.W.11) has given justification for her such conduct in coming out of the house inasmuch as she has testified that prior to the incident of shooting by Maya Palei (A-1) there was altercation between the accused and deceased Dhara and on her intervention she (P.W.11) took Dhara to his house, but Dhara having again gone towards the village, she came out after some time to know where he (deceased) had gone. P.W.11 has not testified anything about the presence of P.W.12 with her when she came out of the house, but P.W.12 has testified that from the verandah of the house she saw the inci¬dent and P.W.11 (Anjali Chaudhury) was with her at that time. She (P.W.12) has not testified as to what attracted her attention to come out of the house. In her evidence she has supplied justifi¬cation by testifying thus:- “........ I was in side my house when my father in law went in search of bullock. After departure of my father in law as he did not return for some time I came out of the house to the verandah, to look for him. From the verandah I saw the incident. Anjali Chaudhury was with me.........” From the cross-examination of P.W.12 and the I.O. (P.W.4) it is found that P.W.12 has been contradicted under Section 145 of the Evidence Act on this aspect. From the verandah I saw the incident. Anjali Chaudhury was with me.........” From the cross-examination of P.W.12 and the I.O. (P.W.4) it is found that P.W.12 has been contradicted under Section 145 of the Evidence Act on this aspect. If the justification for P.W.12 to come out of the house is taken out of record, there is nothing on record to justify as to what attracted the attention of P.W.12 to come out of the house to see the occurrence in the manner she has testified. On the sequence of event she (P.W.12) has testi¬fied thus:- “....... Accused Maya shot arrow from his homestead from near the fencing which hit my father in law on his chest. I rushed to intervene. I was threatened by Maya with same bow and arrow. Hadu smashed a stone on my father in law. After shooting arrow Maya pulled out the arrow from the person of Dhara by putting his leg to the chest of Dhara and thereafter ran away with bow and arrow. Then Hadu smashed the stone to Dhara. Anjali Chaudhury has also seen the occurrence with me.....” If P.W.12 is believed for sake of argument she has seen the occurrence from the very beginning till completion and in between the overt act by Maya Palei (A-1) and Hadu Palei (A-2), she rushed to intervene in vain and she was threatened by Maya (A-1) with same bow and arrow. On the face of the entire transaction which must have been completed with quick succession, it is not believable that from the distance of her house P.W.12 tried to intervene and threatened by appellant No.1. According to P.W.12 she and P.W.11 saw the occurrence from the same place at the same time, but there is wide variance in the evidence of both the witnesses. P.W.12 has tried to shift the overt act of Hadu Palei (A-2) to a subsequent stage just to make the entire evidence appear such that both the witnesses would have seen the entire transaction. But if the evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 12 are read together there is no room for doubt that both the witnesses are not eye witnesses to the occurrence and they are the post occur¬rence witnesses who have only seen Maya (A-1) fleeing from the spot after pulling out the arrow from the person of the deceased. 8. But if the evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 12 are read together there is no room for doubt that both the witnesses are not eye witnesses to the occurrence and they are the post occur¬rence witnesses who have only seen Maya (A-1) fleeing from the spot after pulling out the arrow from the person of the deceased. 8. P.W.8 is the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He found the following exter¬nal injuries on the dead body:- (i) One lacerated wound over the left parietal region 3" X 1/2" X 1/2" inch. (ii) Lacerated wound 1 1/2" X 1/2" X 1/2" over the left side of the back below the scapula. (iii) Lacerated wound over the left parietal region 3" X 1/2" X 1/2" with multiple fragmented fractured wound. He (P.W.8) has found no arrow shot injury on the dead body. Learned Sessions Judge has ruled that the body of the deceased having been decomposed, P.W.8 might not have found the arrow shot injury. Such an opinion on the basis of presumption is not proper inasmuch as there is clear mention about the arrow shot injury in the inquest report (Ext.4) and in the dead body challan (Ext.7). In view of such mention about the arrow shot injury in the dead body challan, the Medical Officer must have tried to find out the arrow shot injury. If the prosecution felt that in view of decom¬position the arrow shot injury could not have been found, it was incumbent upon the learned Public Prosecutor to confront such a fact to the Medical Officer. Learned Public Prosecutor having failed in his duty, it cannot be ruled that the arrow shot injury on the body of the deceased could not be detected owing to decom¬position of the dead body. After decomposition, it could have been difficult for the Medical Officer to say about the dimension of such injury, but it could not have been difficult for him to find out the arrow shot injury. In view of such evidence of the Medical Officer (P.W.8) even if P.Ws. After decomposition, it could have been difficult for the Medical Officer to say about the dimension of such injury, but it could not have been difficult for him to find out the arrow shot injury. In view of such evidence of the Medical Officer (P.W.8) even if P.Ws. 11 and 12 are believed for the sake of argument, it is to be held that their version has been contradicted by the medical evidence inasmuch as the medical evidence has completely ruled out all possibilities whatsoever of the arrow shot injuries sustained by the deceased in the manner alleged by them (P.Ws. 11 and 12); and there is no basis, there¬fore to sustain the charge against Maya Palei (A-1). 9. The injury Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) extracted supra as found by the Medical Officer (P.W.8) might have been caused by rough and hard substance. According to P.W.8, injury No.(i), which is the fatal injury, can also be caused by fall from a tree if the head comes in contact with hard and rough stone with force. All the aforesaid injuries might have been caused by smashing of stone on the left side of the head of the deceased towards the back and such an overt act is only possible when the deceased is lying with his face downwards resting his head on the ground on the right side or with his face upward, resting his head on the ground turning the same to the right side. The stone in the case is a Mankada stone. That stone was seized and sent for chemical examination, but it was not produced before the Court during trial nor it was confronted to the Medical Office to elicit his opinion. There being no cogent evidence as discussed supra regarding the overt act of Hadu Palei (A-2), the defence case becomes more probable and it might have so happened that the deceased fell down from the jack-fruit tree and sustained the injury. P.W.1 in her cross-examination has clearly testified that the place where the dead body of Dhara (deceased) was lying is a stony place. In view of our discussion supra, we are of the view that the impugned judgment becomes vulnerable. 10. In the result, the impugned judgment and order of sentence are set aside. P.W.1 in her cross-examination has clearly testified that the place where the dead body of Dhara (deceased) was lying is a stony place. In view of our discussion supra, we are of the view that the impugned judgment becomes vulnerable. 10. In the result, the impugned judgment and order of sentence are set aside. The appellants who are stated to be in jail custody be set at liberty forthwith, if their detention is not required in any other case. The Jail Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed. L. MOHAPATRA, J. I agree. Appeal allowed.