JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant has been convicted Under Section 304 Part 11/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 10 years by a judgment dated, 27th September, 1994 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 198 of 1993/8 of 1994. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18th January, 1992 when the Informant was in his shop, his son informed him that the Accused persons were threatening his father to withdraw the cash and when he refused to do so, he was thrashed. When he went there, he learnt that the Accused persons have taken away his father from the house and later he found his father in injured condition, on account of which he was admitted in the Hospital on 18th January, 1992. The present FIR was instituted on 20th January, 1992 initially for offences Sections 147, 452, 323 and 307 I.P.C., but later on Section 302 I.P.C. was added after the death of the deceased. 3. During trial the prosecution has examined nine witnesses in all even though there were only five witnesses named in the chargesheet. It appears from the analysis of evidence that PW. 1 is the Informant, whereas the PW. 2 and PW. 3 are his sons and PW. 6 and PW. 7 are the wife and mother of the Informant respectively, whereas the PW. 4, PW. 5 and PW. 9 are formal and PW. 8 is the doctor, who held the postmortem examination. 4. From the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, l find that not a single independent witness has been examined nor is there any explanation as to why the fardbeyan was given 2 days after the occurrence. It also appears that all the witnesses have merely stated about the first part of the occurrence that the deceased had been thrashed by the Accused persons. The doctor, four days after the occurrence, found abrasions on the external parts of the body of the deceased and some fractures, which were all allegedly caused by hard and blunt substance. Since it is difficult to conclude that the Appellant alone had caused the death of the deceased more so because there is no allegation that the deceased was assaulted by the Appellant with hard and blunt object. 5. Since it is difficult to conclude that the Appellant alone had caused the death of the deceased more so because there is no allegation that the deceased was assaulted by the Appellant with hard and blunt object. 5. In the result, the Appellant deserves to be acquitted on benefit of doubt and thus this appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant on 27th September, 1994 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 198 of 1993/8 of 1994 is set aside.