JUDGMENT By Court.-By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.4.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-V, Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 24 of 2001, the appellant on being found guilty for committing murder of his mother, Kaushalya Devi and also Shila Devi, wife of his younger brother was convicted under Sections 302/34, 452 and 1208 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for each of the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 1208 of the Indian Penal Code. Further the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default clause under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 8.7.1994, the appellant in order to get employment. in place of his father, who was in service committed murder of his father with the help of others. After committing murder, the appellant confessed his guilt and was sent to jail. When he came home after being released from the custody, he insisted upon his. mother and brother to allow him to have -employment in place of his father. On account of that, there used to be altercation. The matter then came to Panchayat where it was decided that the appellant will have employment in place of his father whereas the properties including the house would go to the share of his younger brother, Surendra Kumar Mahto (informant) and in lieu of that, he would maintain his mother. 3. It is also the case of the prosecution that the appellant never wanted his brother (informant) to get married. Therefore, at the time of marriage of the informant, the appellant had altercation with his brother. After 15 days of the marriage, when Chatur Mahto (P.W. 7) father-in-law of the informant came to see his daughter alongwith others, the appellant got angry and asked Chatur Mahto as to why did he get his daughter married to the informant. He even asked him to take away his daughter, otherwise she "Y0uld be killed. 4. After 15 days of the marriage, when Chatur Mahto (P.W. 7) father-in-law of the informant came to see his daughter alongwith others, the appellant got angry and asked Chatur Mahto as to why did he get his daughter married to the informant. He even asked him to take away his daughter, otherwise she "Y0uld be killed. 4. After some days on 12.7.2000, while the informant Surendra Kumar Mahto (P.W. 3) was sleeping in a room attached to shop and his wife was sleeping in another room and the mother was sleeping on Verandah, he heard sound of screaming at about 12.30 in the night. On hearing it, when he tried to open the door connected with the Verandah, he found it closed. Then he peeped through a hole of the door and saw this appellant inflicting chhura injury on the person of his mother whereas one unknown person was inflicting chhura injury on the person of his wife who was lying on the ground besides the cot on which Kaushalya Devi was struggling for life. On seeing this, the appellant became scared and ran away towards outside where he found two unknown persons who chased him but did not succeed in apprehending him. Ultimately, the informant came to Gurutand Tola where he raised alarm. Upon it, several persons including Vijay Mahto (P.W. 2), Harichandra Mahto (P.W. 4) came from their houses with whom the informant came to his house and found his mother as well as his wife dead, on whose bodies, several injuries were there. Thereupon, Sarpanch of the Village as well as father-in-law of the informant were informed about the occurrence. In the next morning, i.e. 13.7.2000 Tuleshwar Karmali, Choukidar informed about the occurrence to the police station. The Officer-in-Charge, Vijay Ranjan Kumar (P. W. 1) came to the house of the informant where he recorded the Fardbeyan (Ext.-1) of Surendra Kumar Mahto (P.W. 3). Upon which a case was registered. The said Vijay Ranjan Kumar took up the investigation and held inquest on the dead bodies of the deceased and then sent the dead bodies for post mortem examination which 'was conducted by Dr. Amitabh Ganguli (P.W. 5) on 14.7.2000. On examination he found following injuries on Shila Devi:- . Upon which a case was registered. The said Vijay Ranjan Kumar took up the investigation and held inquest on the dead bodies of the deceased and then sent the dead bodies for post mortem examination which 'was conducted by Dr. Amitabh Ganguli (P.W. 5) on 14.7.2000. On examination he found following injuries on Shila Devi:- . (i) Incised wound 1" x 1" x deep to chest on lower side of chest at the level of breast; (ii) Incised wound 2" x 2" x muscle of left side of abdomen; (iii) Incised wound W' x W' X W' over dorsum of left wrist. Left lung was found fractured. 5. On the same day, the P.W. 3 conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Kaushalya Devi and found the following injuries:(i) Incised wound 2" x W X W' over right ankle; (ii) Incised wound 2" x W' x deep to the chest right mid-axillary line; (iii) Incised wound %" x W' x 2" below aforesaid second wound; (iv) Incised wound 2" x %" x deep to the abdomen over right lateral abdomen. On dissection, right lung was found incised. 6. Accordingly, Dr. issued post mortem reports (Exts. 3 and 3/1) with an opinion that death occurred due to haemorrhage and shock on account of aforesaid injuries over lung. 7. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against this appellant as well as Jhumri Devi and Govind Baitha, who subsequently were put on trial. 8. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses. Of them P.W. 3, Surendra Kumar Mahto is the informant whereas P.W. 2 Vijay Mahto is the person who on being informed by the informant about the occurrence came to the place of occurrence and claimed to have seen the appellant running away. P.W. 4, Haricharan Mahto to whom the informant also informed about the occurrence did not support the case of the prosecution was declared hostile. P.W. 7 . Chatur Mahto, father-in-law of the informant and also other witnesses, namely, P.W. 6 Kanu Munda and P.W. 8 Nagendra Singh have testified that when they had come to the place of informant after the marriage, the appellant warned them to take the girl with them otherwise she would be killed. 9. The trial court placing reliance on the testimonies of the witnesses did find only the appellant guilty and hence, was convicted and sentenced. 9. The trial court placing reliance on the testimonies of the witnesses did find only the appellant guilty and hence, was convicted and sentenced. Other two accused were acquitted. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though the trial court found the informant P.W. 3 to be trustworthy but in view of the fact divulged by him during cross-examination, P.W. 3 never seems to be an eye witness to the occurrence. In this respect learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed it out that after the occurrence when uncle of the informant Raghu Mahto and Sarpanch, Gulger Ali came to the house of the informant, the appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto also accompanied them and this fact alone suggests that the appellant never committed murder of his mother and the wife of the informant as had that fact been true, the appellant would not have dared to come to the house of the informant. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that only P.W. 2 who is a close friend of the informant has claimed to have seen this appellant running away when he came near the house of the informant but this fact has never been stated by other witnesses and as such, neither the PW. 3 nor P.W. 2 on whose testimonies the order of conviction is based are worth reliable. Thus, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is fit to be set aside. 12. Having heard the parties, we do find that the trial court after placing implicit reliance on the testimonies of P.Ws. 2 and 3 has recorded the order of conviction. PW. 3 has claimed to have seen the appellant committing murder of his mother whereas P. W. 2 came to know about the occurrence from P.W. 3. The question is as to whether testimonies of the aforesaid two witnesses inspire confidence to be believed? 13. According to P.W. 3, who had been sleeping in a room adjacent to his shop, when heard sound of screaming, he peeped through hole of the door, as per the statement made in the F.I.R. but, according to his evidence, through the hole of a window. He saw this appellant inflicting knife injuries upon the mother, who was lying on the cot and beneath the cot, the wife was lying injured. P.W. 3 having seen it, ran away outside the house and raised alarm. He saw this appellant inflicting knife injuries upon the mother, who was lying on the cot and beneath the cot, the wife was lying injured. P.W. 3 having seen it, ran away outside the house and raised alarm. On hearing such alarm, Vijay Mahto (P.W. 2), Lalku Mahto (not examined), Harichandra Mahto (P.W. 4) and Sukhdeo Mahto (not examined). came to the house of the informant where they found both the persons dead. Thereafter P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence to his uncle, Raghu Mahto and Sarpanch, Gulger Ali with whom the appellant also came near the house but he fled from there, whereas his uncle and Sarpanch entered into the house and saw the persons dead. This fact of coming of this appellant with his uncle and Sarpanch to the house of the informant creates strong doubt over the testimony of the P.W. 3 that he saw the appellant committing murder of his mother. Had that been true, the appellant would have never come to the house of the informant alongwith others, as according to P.W. 3, when he came out of the house, raised alarm and then informed to the persons about the name of the assailant. On the contrary, this fact of coming of the appellant to the house of the. informant after the occurrence go to show his innocence. So far testimony that this appellant after having come to the house of informant fled away from there is concerned that is simply an exaggeration as this vital fact had never been disclosed by the informant in his Fardbeyan. 14. Further it be noted that occurrence took place at 12.30 A.M. in the night at the verandah of the house to which P.W. 3 claimed to have seen but he is conspicuously silent in his evidence on the point of source of illumination. In absence of any source of light, it is quite impossible for a person to see the occurrence and to identify by peeping through hole of the door/window. At the same time it be also noted that P.W. 3 had initially made out a case that he saw the appellant committing murder of his mother through a hole of the door but subsequently, P.W. 3 in his evidence has deposed that he saw through a hole of the window. At the same time it be also noted that P.W. 3 had initially made out a case that he saw the appellant committing murder of his mother through a hole of the door but subsequently, P.W. 3 in his evidence has deposed that he saw through a hole of the window. Unfortunately, the Investigating Officer in his objecting (sic) finding has never noted about the hole either in the window or in the door. The Investigating Officer has also not drawn any sketch map of the place of occurrence so as to have an idea of surrounding place of occurrence i.e. room, verandah, placement of door/window in the verandah. Hole, if any, over the door/window to test the veracity of the testimony of the informant who claimed to have seen the occurrence. Had it been there it would have a great help to count in scrutinizing the testimony of the informant. If the investigating officer would have prepared sketch map, position would have been clear as to whether hole was there or not over the door or window. 15. It be recorded that a rough sketch map prepared by the Sub-Inspector on the basis of statement made to him by the witnesses during the course of investigation and showing the place where deceased was hit and also the places where the witnesses were at the time of incident would not be admissible in evidence in' view of the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it is an effect nothing more than the statement of the Sub-Inspector that the eye-witnesses told him that the deceased was at such and such place at the time when he was hit. But this sketch map would be admissible so far as it indicates all that the Sub-Inspector saw himself at the soot. 16. Our experience is that in whole of the State in most of the cases the Investigating Officer in discharge of the statutory duty does refrain himself from drawing sketch map of the place of occurrence, as a result of which, the court some times becomes quite handicap in coming to just decision of the case. 16. Our experience is that in whole of the State in most of the cases the Investigating Officer in discharge of the statutory duty does refrain himself from drawing sketch map of the place of occurrence, as a result of which, the court some times becomes quite handicap in coming to just decision of the case. Therefore, this is the high time to remind the State authority to direct all the Investigating Officers entrusted with the investigation of serious cases not to shirk from the statutory duty of drawing sketch map indicating therein the place where occurrence took place, the point in and around the place of occurrence where incriminating materials if any were found the distance from where the witnesses claimed to have seen the accused committing offence etc. 17. Further we do find that admittedly the appellant was living at quite a far place and not at the house where his brother (PW. 3) and the mother (deceased) and other deceased were living. The 'said house, as per the evidence of P.W. 3. does have three entry points over which either the door or iron grill had been fixed but the prosecution is quite silent as to whether in the night of the occurrence any of the entry point either door or grill was open. Ascertainment of this fact was quite vital to know about the involvement of the appellant in the alleged crime. Since the prosecution is silent on this vital point, the appellant will certainly have benefit of doubt. 18. Going further in the matter, we do find that P.W. 2 has testified that on hearing alarm when he came out, he found the informant (P.W. 3) over there who told him that the appellant is killing his mother and his wife and when he rushed to the house of the informant, he saw this appellant running away with an unknown person but the testimony of this witness never gets corroboration from the evidence of P.W. 3 who has testified that when he after seeing the mother being killed, rushed towards outside where he was chased by some unknown persons, upon which he ran towards Tola of the Village where he raised alarm, upon which Vijay Mahto (PW. 2) and other persons came out' and then persons who were chasing went away. Thereupon, all the persons carne to his house and found the dead bodies. 2) and other persons came out' and then persons who were chasing went away. Thereupon, all the persons carne to his house and found the dead bodies. Thus, from the evidence of P.W. 3, it does appear that it is not only Vijay Mahto (P.W. 2) rather three other persons came out on hearing alarm to whom P.W. 3 never disclosed about the name of the assailant. 19. Under the circumstances, neither the evidence of P.W. 2 nor the P.W. 3 inspire confidence to be believed. In spite of all these facts, the trial court has recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is quite bad and hence the same is set aside. 20. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 21. Let a copy of this judgment be sent down to the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, Jharkhand immediately so that necessary instruction be issued to the Investigating Officers entrusted with the investigation of serious cases reminding them that it is their statutory duty to draw the sketch map giving particulars indicated hereinabove. Compliance report of it be sent to the Registrar General of this Court within a fortnight.