C.R. Sarma, J.;- This appeal is directed against the judg­ment and order dated 7.4.05, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suf­fer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default suffer impris­onment for another period of six months for his conviction under Section 302 IPC. 2. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with the present appeal. The prosecution case, as revealed at the trial, in brief, may be stated as follows: On 9.12.03 Sri Bikram Das (hereinafter called, 'the deceased'), after playing cricket in Girls' School field at about 4.30 p.m. went behind the school field along with his friend Surajit Gope (PW 23) for washing his hands and feet. While the deceased was pumping the tubewell and P W 3 was washing his hands, Sri Anup Malla @ Tuton (hereinafter called the 'accused-appellant') gave a dao blow on the neck of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained injury and fell down on the ground. On being called by PW 23, many people assembled in the place of oc­currence and took the injured to the hospital in a auto rickshaw and the injured Bikram Das succumbed to his injuries. Sri Bappa Das, P W 1, i.e. the elder brother of the deceased lodged an FIR with the Police, which was registered as ST Case No. 44 of 2003 under Section 302 IPC. During the investigation, police conducted inquest, prepared the in­quest report, recorded the statement of the witnesses, recoveied and seized the dao on being produced by the accused-appellant, prepared a hand sketch map of the place of occurrence and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. At the close of the in­vestigation, Police submitted chargesheet against the accused-appellant and Sri Sujit Biswas for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 109IPC and forwarded them to the Court to stand trial. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused-appellant and Sri Sujit Biswas under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused-appellant and Sri Sujit Biswas under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecu­tion examined as many as 25 witnesses, in­cluding the Medical Officer, who performed the autopsy and the Investigating Officer. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused-appellant Sri Anup Malla was examined under Section 313 CrPC. He de­nied the allegations brought against him and declined to adduce evidence. The learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting the accused Sri Sujit Biswas, for want of sufficient evi­dence, convicted the accused-appellant un­der Section 302 IPC and sentenced him as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant taking us through the evi­dence on record submitted that there is no sufficient convincing substantive evidence against the appellant and the learned trial Judge committed error by recording the con­viction and sentence against the appellant. 6. Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appear­ing for the appellant, in support of his conten­tion has relied on the decisions held in the fol­io wing cases:- (1) State of U.P. Vs. Arun Kumar Gupta: AIR 2003 SC 801 . (2) Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel Vs. Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel: (2004) 10 SCC 583 . (3) Ganesh Bhavan Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra: AIR 1979 SC 135 . (4) Raja Ram Vs. State of Raj as than: (2005) 5 SCC 272. (5) Kunju Muhammed Vs. State of Kerala: (2004) 9 SCC 193. (6) State of Karnataka Vs. Venkatesh: 1992 Supp (1) SCC 539. (7) Javed Masood Vs. State of Rajasthan: 2010 AIR SCW1656. (8) State of Orissa Vs. Mr. Brahmananda Nanda: AIR 1976SC 2488. 1. In the case of State of U. P. (supra), the plea regarding appreciation of circumstantial evidence has been laid down. In the above referred case, it was observed that the failure of the prosecution to send blood stained ma­terial to chemical examiner raises reasonable doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecu­tion case in regard to the recovery of such materials. In the above referred case, it was observed that the failure of the prosecution to send blood stained ma­terial to chemical examiner raises reasonable doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecu­tion case in regard to the recovery of such materials. It was also held in the above re­ferred case that if the defence succeeds in throwing a reasonable doubt on the prosecu­tion case, the prosecution version should be rejected. 8. In the case of Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel Vs. Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel (supra), it was noticed that there was a delay of two days in examining the eye witnesses and the said lapse was treated to be a serious mis­take on the part of the prosecution for want of explanation from the Investigating Officer in respect of such delay. 9. In the case of Ganesh Bhavan Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), it was observed that delay in recording statement of material witnesses was found to cast a cloud of suspi­cion on the credibility of the entire worr and woof of the prosecution story. 10. In the case of Raja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), it was observed that the statement made by the prosecution witness who is not declared hostile would be binding on the prosecution. 11. In the case of Kunju Muhammed Vs. State of Kerala (supra), it was observed that the prosecution witness if not treated hostile by the prosecution and if his evidence helps the defence, the benefit of such evidence should go to the accused and not to the prosecution. 12. In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Venkatesh (supra), it was observed that fail­ure of the prosecution witness to disclose in­formation at the earliest opportunity raises doubt about credibility of such witness. 13. In the case of Javed Masood Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), it was observed by the Supreme Court that if the prosecution wit­nesses, who are not declared hostile, support the defence, then the accused can rely on the evidence given by such prosecution witnesses. 14. In the case of State of Orissa Vs. Mr. 13. In the case of Javed Masood Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), it was observed by the Supreme Court that if the prosecution wit­nesses, who are not declared hostile, support the defence, then the accused can rely on the evidence given by such prosecution witnesses. 14. In the case of State of Orissa Vs. Mr. Brahmananda Nanda (supra), the evidentiary value of the eye witnesses who did not dis­close the name of the assailants for a day and a half was discussed and it was observed by the Supreme Court that the said lapse on the part of the prosecution witnesses was a seri­ous infirmity which was sufficient to destroy the credibility of the evidence of the witnesses. 15. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, supporting the impugned judgment and order aforesaid submitted that the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses and the circumstantial evidence surfaced therefrom conclu­sively established that the appellant had committed the offence and as such the learned Sessions Judge committed no error by recording conviction and sentence as aforesaid. He further submitted that the evidence of hostile witnesses can be relied upon to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version. 16. In the backdrop of the above prin­ciples of law laid down by the Apex Court and in view of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties in order to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, we feel it ap­propriate to, briefly, re-capitulate the evidence on record. 17. Sri Bappa Das, who deposed as PW1, was the first informant and he lodged the FIR. He exhibited the FIR as Ext.P/1. He was present at the time of conducting the inquest on the dead body and he signed the inquest report as witness. This witness did not see the occurrence himself. He stated that Sri Surajit Gope, i.e. PW 23 told him that while he along with the deceased went to the tube-well someone had hit the deceased from be­hind with a dao. 18. Sri Dulal Nandi, who deposed as PW2, was a witness to the seizure of the dao. He stated that police had shown him a dao, which was seized by the police. He further stated that he did not know from where the dao was recovered. This witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. 18. Sri Dulal Nandi, who deposed as PW2, was a witness to the seizure of the dao. He stated that police had shown him a dao, which was seized by the police. He further stated that he did not know from where the dao was recovered. This witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. Though this witness was cross-examined, nothing could be elicited against the accused-appellant. 19. Sri Manik Pal was examined as PW3, He stated that on being asked by the po­lice, he had identified the house of Sri Paresh Biswas and proceeded towards the gate of Sri Paresh Biswas. He further stated that, on being asked by him, the O.C. had told him that a dao was recovered from the house of Sri Paresh Biswas. The said dao was seized by a seizure list and the seizure list was signed by PW 3. His signature has been marked as Ext.P/2/2. This witness was also declared hostile and cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. But no substantive evidence could be elicited against the accused persons. 20. Sri Abhijit Mog Choudhury, PW 4 stated nothing against the accused persons. This witness was also declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution. He de­nied the suggestion that he had given false evidence. From the evidence of this witness, nothing material could be found against the accused persons. 21. Sri Bikram Acharjee was examined as PW 5. He stated that he found the injured lying in the place of occurrence and on being requested by Sri Abhij it Mog Choudhury (PW 4), he along with PW 4 carried the deceased to Shantirbazar PHC and that he came to know that the deceased had died. This wit­ness was also declared hostile and cross-ex­amined by the prosecution. But no incrimi­nating evidence could be elicited from the cross-examination of this witness. 22. Sri Amalendu Chakraborty was ex­amined as P W 6. He stated that he along with Surajit and the deceased played cricket in the Anandamela and found the deceased with bleeding injury. He further stated that he helped PW 4 in carrying the deceased to the hospital. This witness was also declared hos­tile by the prosecution. In his cross-examination, he did not state anything against the ac­cused persons. He stated that he along with Surajit and the deceased played cricket in the Anandamela and found the deceased with bleeding injury. He further stated that he helped PW 4 in carrying the deceased to the hospital. This witness was also declared hos­tile by the prosecution. In his cross-examination, he did not state anything against the ac­cused persons. Sri Pranab Bhowmik, who deposed as PW 7, stated that hearing hue and cry, on the day of occurrence, he rushed behind Shantir Bazaar Girls' School and found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood. He further stated that he saw PW 4 in the place of occurrence and that he along with PW 4 carried the deceased to hospital. This witness was also examined by the prosecution, after declaring him hostile. In his cross-examination, he did not state anything posi­tive against the accused-persons. He denied the suggestion that he gave false evidence for the purpose of saving his friend Sri Anup Malla i.e. the accused-appellant. 23. Sri Narayan Sarkar, who was exam­ined as PW 8, also did not state anything against the accused persons. He was a wit­ness to the seizure of the dao and he exhib­ited his signature on the seizure list as Ext.P/ 2/3. 24. Sri Prasenjit Karmakar, who was a auto rickshaw driver, was examined as PW 9. He stated that on 9.12.03 at about 5 p.m., he had carried the deceased from the school ground to hospital and that there was bleed­ing injury in the person of the deceased. Though this witness was cross-examined by the prosecution after declaring him hostile, he did not state anything against the accused persons. Of course, he stated that from the police, he came to know that Sri Anup Malla i.e. the accused-appellant had hit the deceased with a dao. 25. Sri Rati Majumder, who was exam­ined as PW 10, was a witness to the seizure of wearing apparels. He exhibited the seizure list and his signature thereon as Ext.P/2/5. He stated nothing against the accused persons. 26. Sri Mithu Choudhury, who was ex­amined as PW 11, stated that one injured was taken to the hospital from the school field in an auto rickshaw and that he did not know the person, who was taken to the hospital. 27. He exhibited the seizure list and his signature thereon as Ext.P/2/5. He stated nothing against the accused persons. 26. Sri Mithu Choudhury, who was ex­amined as PW 11, stated that one injured was taken to the hospital from the school field in an auto rickshaw and that he did not know the person, who was taken to the hospital. 27. Sri Rajib Shil, who was examined as PW 12, stated that on 9.12.03 while he was gossiping along with others in the school field, he heard hue and cry and saw one injured being taken in an auto rickshaw towards the hospital. He stated that he came to know that the deceased was taken to hospital and that he had succumbed to the injuries. He further stated that he came to know from the people that the deceased was killed by the accused-appellant. He failed to disclose the identity of the person who had told him that the accused-appellant had hit the deceased with a dao. This witness was also declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. From the cross-examination of this witness, no evidence could be elicited against the accused per­sons. The evidence that PW 12 heard from somebody, regarding the assault caused by the accused-appellant, was nothing but a hear­say evidence and he even failed to disclose the identity of the person from whom he came to know about the involvement of the ac­cused-appellant. Therefore, we find no sub­stance in the evidence of PW 12 to believe that the accused-appellant had caused the injury to the deceased. 28. Sri Rash Mohan Debnath, who de­posed as PW 13, stated that on 9.12.03, in the afternoon, when he along with others was gossiping in the school field, Sri Surajit came running and informed them that the son of Sri Badal Malla had hit Bikram i.e. the deceased with a dao. He further stated that he neither saw the dead body nor visited the hospital. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that though Sri Badal Malla was known to him, the son of Sri Badal Malla was not known to him. From the evidence of this witness, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the ac­cused-appellant was the son of Sri Badal Malla or not. 29. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that though Sri Badal Malla was known to him, the son of Sri Badal Malla was not known to him. From the evidence of this witness, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the ac­cused-appellant was the son of Sri Badal Malla or not. 29. Sri Surajit Gope, who was examined as PW 23 stated that, while he along with the deceased went to the tube-well behind the school for washing, after playing in the school field, someone had suddenly hit Bikram and that the assailant had run away holding a dao in his hand. This witness also stated that his statement was recorded by the Magistrate. He exhibited his signature in the said state­ment as Ext. 17/1. He admitted that before the Magistrate, he had stated that the accused-appellant Sri Anup Malla came from the uri­nal point and hit the deceased with a dao. He also admitted that he stated before the Magistrate, at the time of making statement, that the deceased was hit on the back side of his head and that the accused-appellant had chased him (PW 23) also. He further stated that on the day of occurrence itself, he was arrested by police and released on the next day. PW 23 stated that he deposed before the Magistrate in the said way on being tortured by police. Therefore, it appears, as stated by PW 23, that he implicated the accused-appellant on being tortured by police. Admittedly, this witness was arrested by police. That apart, this witness in his in-chief examination clearly stated that someone had hit the deceased from behind. The use of the word "someone" indicates that PW 23 did not see the assailant. Hence, it is quite doubt­ful if he could identify the assailant to be the accused-appellant. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that PW 23 had implicated the de­ceased falsely at the instance of police. This witness was duly cross-examined by the pros­ecution after declaring him hostile. He denied the suggestions that he was not pressurised by police and that he made the statement be­fore the Magistrate voluntarily. He also de­nied the suggestion that he could identify the accused-appellant as the assailant of the de­ceased. In his cross-examination, made on behalf of the defence, P W 23 stated that af­ter his arrest, he was pressurised by police to tell the name of the accused-appellant. He also de­nied the suggestion that he could identify the accused-appellant as the assailant of the de­ceased. In his cross-examination, made on behalf of the defence, P W 23 stated that af­ter his arrest, he was pressurised by police to tell the name of the accused-appellant. He further stated that he was released by police only after he made the statement as tutored by police. He also stated that as the learned Magistrate did not ask him about the threat given by police, he did not tell him regarding any inducement made by police. He further stated that police had threatened him that in the event of his failure to make statement, as per their instruction, he would be tortured. In view of the above statement made by PW 23 alleging that he was threatened by police and in view of the contradictory evidence given by PW 23, we do not find it safe to rely on the evidence of P W 23 to conclusively hold that the accused-appellant had caused the injury. PW 23 did not support PW 13 i.e. Sri Rash Mohan Debnath that he had informed the latter that the son of Sri Badal Malla had hit the deceased with a dao. The contradic­tory statement given by this witness does not inspire confidence to believe that PW 23 he had seen the accused-appellant inflicting the dao blow on the person of the deceased. Therefore, we find no corroboration in the evidence of PW 13 to believe that PW 23 had told him regarding involvement of the accused-appellant. 30. Sri Makhan Sur, who deposed as PW 14, stated that, on 9.12.03, in the afternoon, he was gossiping with Rash Mohan Debnath (PW 13) near the school field and that at that time, Debu had rushed to them and told them that son of Sri Badal Malla had hit the deceased with a dao. He further stated that they suggested Debu to inform the father of the deceased and arranged hospitalisation of the injured. A careful reading of the PWs 13 and 14 indicates that both of them were gossiping together at the relevant time. He further stated that they suggested Debu to inform the father of the deceased and arranged hospitalisation of the injured. A careful reading of the PWs 13 and 14 indicates that both of them were gossiping together at the relevant time. But according to PW 13, it was Surajit i.e. PW 23, who had informed that the deceased was hit by the son of Sri Badal Malla, but according to PW 14, it was Debu who had told that the deceased was hit by the son of Sri Badal Malla. Therefore, it is quite doubtful if Sujit or Debu had informed PWs 13 and 14 about the involvement of the accused-appellant. That apart, as discussed above PW 23 did sup­port the evidence of PWs 13 and 14 and as such the evidence of PWs 13 and 14 regard­ing involvement of the appellant is nothing but a hearsay evidence which cannot be the ba­sis for conviction. 31. PW 15 Sri Subrata Majumder stated nothing against the accused persons. He was also declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. But no evidence could be brought out from his cross-examination re­garding involvement of the accused-appellant. 32. Sri Prasanta Roy was examined as PW 16. He did not state anything against the accused persons. 33. Sri Babul Karmakar was examined as PW 17. He stated that the police had asked him if he had sold a dao to Sujit Biswas. Ac­cording to this witness, he replied that he did not sell any dao to Sujit Biswas. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that he did not tell the darogababu i.e. Investigating Of­ficer that he had sold a dao to Sujit Biswas. 34. Sri Samir Das, PW 18 stated that he came to know that Bikram Das was mur­dered. He was a witness to the inquest con­ducted by police and he signed the inquest report and exhibited his signature thereon as Ext.P/3/2. 35. Sri Ashok Das, PW 19 stated that the deceased was his nephew and he came to know that somebody had hit him with a dao. He further stated that he came to know from his sister and brother-in-law Sri Nama Das that the deceased was killed by Sri Anup Malla i.e. the accused-appellant. He was also a witness to the inquest conducted by police. He further stated that he came to know from his sister and brother-in-law Sri Nama Das that the deceased was killed by Sri Anup Malla i.e. the accused-appellant. He was also a witness to the inquest conducted by police. His evidence that he came to know from his sister and Sri Nama Das regarding killing of the deceased by the accused-appellant was a hearsay evidence. The sister of PW 19 and the brother-in-law Sri Nama Das have not been examined in this case. Therefore, we find no substance/corroboration in his evidence to believe that the accused-appellant had com­mitted the alleged offence. 36. Sri Gopal Chandra Kar, who was Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate deposed as PW 20. He recorded the statement of Sri Surajit Gope (PW 23) under Section 164 CrPC. He exhibited the statement recorded by him as Ext.P/17. The learned SDJM, in his cross-examination stated that the said witness was produced before him from the prosecution cell and that he did not know whether he was sent by STB P/S. He denied the suggestion that PW 23 did not make the statement voluntar­ily. We have already discussed the eviden­tiary value of the statement made by PW 23 and found that for the reasons recorded therein, the evidence of PW 23 is not believ­able. 37. Dr. Sambhu Ratan Tribedi, who per­formed autopsy in respect of the dead body of the deceased, deposed as PW 21. He stated that the deceased was brought dead. He opined that the death was caused due to damage of vital organ, brain and spinal cord on account of severe haemorrhage. In the opinion of the Medical Officer, the injury was homicidal in nature. He exhibited the post mortem report as Ext.P/18. There is no dis­pute that the deceased died due to the injury sustained by him on his head. 38. Sri Sujit Dey, who was examined as PW 22, stated that the accused-appellant, PW 23 and the deceased were known to him. He stated that the injured was taken to the hospital from the school field and that PW 23 did not tell him anything. Though this witness was declared hostile and cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution, no material evidence could be elicited against the accused persons. 39. Smt. Subhashi Biswas was examined as PW 24. She stated nothing regarding involvement of the accused persons with the alleged offence. 40. Though this witness was declared hostile and cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution, no material evidence could be elicited against the accused persons. 39. Smt. Subhashi Biswas was examined as PW 24. She stated nothing regarding involvement of the accused persons with the alleged offence. 40. Sri Bijoy Sen, who was Investigating Officer in this case, was examined as PW 25. He stated that the accused person had told him that he had kept the dao in the house of Sri Sujit Biswas and that he along with the accused person went to the house of Sri Sujit Biswas wherefrom the dao was brought out. He exhibited the dao as material exhibit No. 1. None of the witnesses supported the said statement of the Investigating Officer that the accused person had led the Investigating Of­ficer to the discovery of the offending dao. Therefore, the seizure of the dao by the In­vestigating Officer cannot be held to be suffi­cient evidence to believe that the accused-appellant had committed the alleged offence with the seized dao. That apart, the forensic report does not reveal that the seized dao contained any human blood stain. 41. Carefully considering the entire evi­dence on record, as discussed above, we find that none of the prosecution witnesses sup­ported the prosecution version that the ac­cused-appellant had caused the injury to the deceased. From the record, it appears that at the time of occurrence, none, except PW 23, was present with the deceased. As indi­cated above, PW 23 has failed to support the prosecution case. In view of the contra­dictory statement given by PW 23 regarding the identity of the assailant of the deceased, we do not find it safe to conclusively hold that none other than the accused-appellant had inflicted the injury on the deceased. 42. It is settled law that in a criminal case, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should always go in favour of the accused person. In the present case, as discussed above, in our considered opin­ion, the prosecution failed to establish, be­yond all reasonable doubt, that the accused person had committed the alleged offences and as such he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 43. In the light of above discussion, we find sufficient merit in this appeal and accordingly, the appeal is allowed. In the present case, as discussed above, in our considered opin­ion, the prosecution failed to establish, be­yond all reasonable doubt, that the accused person had committed the alleged offences and as such he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 43. In the light of above discussion, we find sufficient merit in this appeal and accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned conviction and sentence is set aside and quashed. Consequently, the accused-appel­lant is acquitted and set at liberty forthwith. His bail bond shall stand discharged. Send down the records.