Judgment 1. By Court No body is appearing in these cases on behalf of the appellants. Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned panel counsel is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the court in these appeals in the second half.Later OnBoth the appeals arises out of the common judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2002 and order of sentence dated 31.07.2002 passed by 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 178 of 1997 convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302 of I.P.C. and R.I. for two years under Section 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2.The prosecution case in short is that Nanki Devi aged about 50 years who was wife of the informant Rohan Mahto was missing from his house from 4-5 months, who could not be traced in spite of all efforts. About 20-22 days ago, Akal Mahto – P. W. 1 and Nirmal Mahto – P. W. 2 informed him that he has found Nanki Devi in the house of the appellant Pushan Ganju. Nanki Devi narated to Nirmal Mahto that appellants – Jageshwar Mahto and Shiv Charan Mahto sold her to appellant – Pushan Ganju for a sum of Rs. 1,600/-. Thereafter, the informant narrated this fact to the villagers. The villagers forced the appellant Shiv Charan Mahto to bring Nanki Devi, whereupon Shiv Charan Mahto prayed for 5 days time to bring her, but subsequently Shiv Charan Mahto refused to bring her back saying that he did not know the wife of the informant. Thereafter, Nirmal Mahto, Bucheshwar Mahto, Maheshwar Mahto and the informant Rohan Mahto went to the house of Pushan Ganju on 22.07.1996, but nobody was in the house. It is further alleged that Bari Singh, Anant Singh and Kaila Singh informed the informant and others that 5 months ago, the appellants – Jageshwar Mahto and Shiv Charan Mahto had brought Nanki Devi to the house of the appellant – Pushan Ganju and Nanki Devi was living in the house of Pushan Ganju. On 16.09.1996, the appellants had carried her on the cot on the pretext that they were going to Ranchi for her treatment and on return enquiry was made from the Pushan Ganju who had stated that Nanki Devi was admitted in the hospital. On 16.09.1996, the appellants had carried her on the cot on the pretext that they were going to Ranchi for her treatment and on return enquiry was made from the Pushan Ganju who had stated that Nanki Devi was admitted in the hospital. It is then alleged that the informant came to know from the villager that the appellants had murdered his wife and concealed her dead body somewhere else. 3.During investigation, on the basis of confessional statement of appellant – Jageshwar Mahto dead body of Nanki Devi was recovered from Tungri Hill which was tied in a Sari and was kept in a Den (Khoh). 4. Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that there is no explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R. and that the confession has not been proved by the prosecution; and that the Investigating Officer has also not been examined; and that the chain of circumstances is not complete in this case. He also pointed out that the appellants have remained in jail for about 15 years by now. 5.On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment. 6.In our opinion, the appellants deserve benefit of doubt. The chain of circumstances is not complete. In the F.I.R., it is said that the witnesses saw the appellants taking away the deceased on the cot, but in the evidene they said that the appellants were taking one lady on the cot. There is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. for which there is no explanation. The alleged confession of appellant – Jageshwar Mahto has not been proved. I. O. has not been examined in this case. No motive has been shown for committing the crime. After hearing the parties at length and carefully going through the records, in our opinion, the appellants deserve benefit of doubt. In the result, these appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The appellants are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.