JUDGMENT : 1. By Court. These appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.2003 and 28.02.2003 respectively, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. II, Jamshedpur, Singbhum East, in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 2000, convicting the appellants under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 16.4.1999 at about 9.15 A.M., P.W.-1-Kutubddin Ansari ( elder brother of the deceased) lodged a fardbeyan. He said that there was some dispute between the deceased-Salimuddin and the wife of the appellant-Balram Mahato about 2 and 1/2 months back regarding taking water from hand pump ( chapakal). After about 15 days, the appellant-Balram Mahto in intoxicated condition came to the house of P.W-1 and asked regarding whereabouts of the deceased. Thereafter, he threatened with dire consequences. When P.W-1 along with his brother P.W-2 and the deceased were returning from mela at about 3 A.M. in the night, the appellants assaulted the deceased by Tangi causing repeated tangi injuries on neck, temple, chest and killed him. The occurrence was witnessed by P.W-2 and other villagers. 3. Mr. Laljee Sahay, learned counsel for the appellants, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that P.W-2 has been projected as an eye witness but he himself has admitted that he is not an eye witness. It is also doubtful whether P.W-1 is an eye witness or not. He therefore submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. The evidence of P.W-1 is not corroborated by the evidence of P.W-2 and the Doctor-P.W-11 inasmuch as there is no allegation of causing any stab injury, whereas the Doctor has found stab injury also. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel for the State, supported the impugned judgement. 5. After hearing the parties at length and going through the records carefully, in our opinion, the appellants deserve benefit of doubt. 6. The conduct of P.W-1 does not inspire confidence. He said that he saw the occurrence from the distance of about 20-25 ft. but he said that he did not do anything on seeing the occurrence. Neither he intervened to save his brother, nor chased the persons committing the crime. He also said that when he reached near the deceased, he found him dead. He said that he saw the occurrence from the distance of about 20-25 ft. but he said that he did not do anything on seeing the occurrence. Neither he intervened to save his brother, nor chased the persons committing the crime. He also said that when he reached near the deceased, he found him dead. The doctor has found as many as six incised injuries caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon and two stab injuries caused by sharp cutting cum pointed weapon and one lacerated wound and abrasion on the body of the deceased. In inflicting so many injuries, few minutes must have been taken. If P.W-1 was only at about 20-25 ft., he could have reached to the place of occurrence in no time. His conduct and his statement that when he reached near his brother, he found him dead, makes it doubtful whether he is an eye witness to the occurrence. One more thing is to be noted here that P.W-1 said that he sent P.W-2 to inform the police and P.W-2 on return informed P.W-1 that the case has been lodged but no such information given by P.W-2 before the police has been brought on record. It is said in the FIR that several villagers have seen the occurrence but none of them, who could have been independent witness, have been examined. P.W-2 though projected himself as an eye witness but said clearly in his cross-examination that he heard about the incident in mela at about 2.30 A.M. in the night. P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 are hearsay witnesses. P.W-8 is a hostile witness. P.W-10 is the Investigating Officer and P.W-11 is the Doctor. The doctor has clearly said that stab injuries found on the chest could not be caused by an axe. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the prosecution has not been able to prove its beyond all reasonable doubts. 8. In the result, these appeal are allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.2003 and 28.02.2003 respectively, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. II, Jamshedpur, Singbhum East, in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 2000, is set aside. The appellants are in jail. They are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.