JUDGMENT (1) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 18-1-2001 and sentence dated 19-1-2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 1998 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega convicting the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for life. (2) THE prosecution case in short is as follows. A written report (Ext. 1) was lodged by Prakash Lakra (P. W. 5) that on 9-6-1997 at about 7:00 p.m., Sunil Lakra (P. W. 8) and William Lakra (P. W. 9) came to his house and informed him that the appellant fell down his brother Habil Lakra (the deceased) near the house of Matius Lakra (P. W. 1). P. Ws. 8 and 9 wanted to intervene, but the appellant threatened them at the point of dagger on which they fled and informed the informant about the occurrence. To know the incident, as described by P. Ws. 8 and 9, the informant with others went there and saw Habil Lakra in injured condition. THEy took him to the hospital, where he died during treatment. THE motive of occurrence is said to be enmity continuing from before. Mr. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae submits as follows. P. W. 8 and P. W. 9 are witnesses with regard to the initial place of occurrence, but prosecution has not been able to prove how the deceased was found in injured condition at about 100 meters away therefrom. It has also not been proved how the fatal injury on head - incised wound causing fracture - was possible by dagger alleged to be with the appellant. The post mortem report was proved by another doctor, than the doctor who conducted the post mortem. Otherwise, he could be asked whether the fatal injuries were possible by dagger or not. Out of the two eye-witnesses, one eye-witness P. W. 9 William Lakra has become hostile. He lastly submitted that in any event, the appellant has remained in jail for about 14 years by now. (3) MR. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment. (4) WE find force in the submissions of Mr. Amarendra Kumar that the prosecution has not proved as to how the injured - the deceased was found at a distance of about 100 meters from the initial-first place of occurrence about which P. Ws. (3) MR. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment. (4) WE find force in the submissions of Mr. Amarendra Kumar that the prosecution has not proved as to how the injured - the deceased was found at a distance of about 100 meters from the initial-first place of occurrence about which P. Ws. 8 and 9 informed P. W. 5. According to the prosecution, the appellant was having a dagger in his hand. But, it could not be proved as to how the two incised fracture injuries on head, which were found fatal, could be caused by dagger. The post mortem report was proved by another doctor. The prosecution has also not asked the doctor as to whether such injuries were possible by dagger. Had the doctor who conducted the post mortem been examined by the prosecution, it could be made clear whether such fatal injuries were possible by dagger or not. One of the two eye-witnesses have become hostile. Moreover, the eye-witnesses are only to the extent that the appellant was assaulting the deceased with fists and slaps at the first place of occurrence. There is no evidence to show how the deceased reached at the second place at about 100 meters away where he was found injured. It has come in evidence that there are houses in between the two places of occurrence, but no witness has been examined to throw light on the actual manner of occurrence. Thus, in our opinion, the appellant deserves benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charges and is directed to be set free, if not wanted in any other criminal case. This appeal thus stands allowed. Appeal allowed.