Order P.P. Bhatt, J. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated-18th March, 2002, passed by the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 205 of 2000, whereby the learned trial court has convicted the appellant for the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant's daughter, Basanti Gorain, aged about 25 years was married to the appellant, Niranjan Gorain of village-Bhadudih. The appellant always used to assault his daughter compelling her to do domestic work and therefore, his daughter left her matrimonial home and had come to her parental home about three years back and after staying for about two years, she had returned to her matrimonial home about a year ago. In the meantime, the informant had deposited Rs.5,000/- in the name of his daughter, Basanti Gorain in the Bank of India, Chandil Branch. It has further been alleged that on account of continuation of mental and physical harassment by the appellant, the informant's daughter again left the matrimonial home and had come to her parental home about three months ago. On 09.03.2000, at about 6 P.M., the appellant came to his house by Barkakana Passenger train and asked his daughter to return to his house, but she declined and told that she would come later. Thereafter, in the night at about 8 P.M. after taking food, the appellant told Basanti Devi to withdraw Rs. 5,000/- from the Bank but she declined and told that she would withdraw this amount at the time of marriage of her daughter. On account of this, there was quarrel between them and then the appellant assaulted Basanti Devi with a knife, causing injury on her neck, which resulted into her death. 3. According to the Fard beyan, which was given on 10th March, 2000, by P.W. 5, being the father of the deceased-lady, Basanti, the date of occurrence is 09.03.2000 at about 8 P.M. and the place of occurrence is 45 Kms. away from the Police Station. 4. 3. According to the Fard beyan, which was given on 10th March, 2000, by P.W. 5, being the father of the deceased-lady, Basanti, the date of occurrence is 09.03.2000 at about 8 P.M. and the place of occurrence is 45 Kms. away from the Police Station. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and order of conviction mainly on the following grounds :- (i) That the learned trial court has not properly considered the evidence brought on record by either side and committed error in passing the impugned judgment. (ii)That no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution, although the same were available. (iii)That the whole prosecution story, rests upon the testimony of highly interested witnesses, Gokul Gorain (P.W. 5) and Shanti Gorain (P.W. 6), who are none other than the father and mother of the deceased respectively. (iv)That the close scrutiny of the evidence of the two highly interested witnesses would show that they have made contradictory statements on material aspects of the case, which has remained uncorroborated by the other material evidences. (v)That P.W. 5, Gokul Gorain renders himself, totally unreliable as he kept silent and did not disclose any facts to anybody relating to the occurrence for about 12 hours, till his Fard Beyan was recorded by the Investigating Officer. In Para 6, P.W. 5 has categorically stated that he had sent Shivram (P.W. 2) to the Police Station for giving information, where the Police took his statements. P.W. 5 is directly falsified on this point by his own wife, P.W. 6, Shanti Gorain who stated in Para 3 that her husband and Dewar had gone to the Police Station at night to lodge report about the occurrence and Police came to their house on that very night and at that time, the villagers were present in her house. (vi)It is submitted that P.W. 7 has also contradicted both P.Ws. 5 and 6 in his deposition. It is also submitted that Shivram Gorain, the younger brother of P.W. 5 has been examined as P.W. 2, but he did not utter a word about the involvement of the appellant in the murder and he has stated that he is not aware about the occurrence, in his oral evidence. (vii)Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there is contradictory version in the testimony of P.Ws. (vii)Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there is contradictory version in the testimony of P.Ws. 5 and 6 about the date, time and place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that P.W. 5 cannot be treated as an eye-witness as he has not seen the actual occurrence and the said fact reveals from the evidence of P.W. 5 itself. Likewise, P.W. 6, Shanti Gorain also cannot be treated as an eye-witness, as she has admitted this fact in her cross-examination. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant was physically handicapped as he was suffering from 'Polio' and therefore, he was not in a position to run away. It is submitted that the said fact is also admitted by P.W. 5, in his deposition. It is further submitted that according to P.W. 6, he caught hold the appellant-accused, but he fled away. But looking to the physical handicappedness of the appellant, it might not be possible for him to run away when the other family members and the neighbourers and villagers could have very well catch him, while he was trying to escape from the place of occurrence. Therefore, the story made by the prosecution is not probable one. (viii)It is further submitted that the prosecution has also failed to establish the motive and no evidence on that aspect had been brought on record. It is submitted that according to P.W. 5, since he has not deposited any money in the Bank, there was no motive behind the occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Investigating Officer has also not made any investigation, whether there was any Bank account in the name of the deceased or whether the informant had deposited any money in his Bank account. (ix)Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the aforesaid important aspects of the matter and committed error in passing the order of conviction and sentence of R.I. for life. 5. As against that, learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned 02nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Seraikella and submitted that the Prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned counsel for the State has referred to and relied upon the oral evidence of P.Ws. 5. As against that, learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned 02nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Seraikella and submitted that the Prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned counsel for the State has referred to and relied upon the oral evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6, who are the eye-witnesses, according to the prosecution's case. Learned counsel appearing for the State has also submitted that from the oral evidence given by these two witnesses, the motive is also established and the factum of presence of appellant and his conduct and behaviour with his daughter gets corroboration from the oral evidence of P.W. 6. The medical evidence also established the type of injuries found on the body of the deceased. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State that P.W. 8, the Doctor has opined that the above injuries are ante mortem in nature and caused by sharp-cutting weapon, and the death was caused as a result of cut throat. Learned counsel has also referred to and relied upon the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who are the inquest witnesses, P.W. 7 i.e. the Investigating Officer and P.W. 8, the Doctor who had conducted the Post-mortem examination. While summing up the arguments, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the Prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence on record and the learned trial court has rightly and properly appreciated the evidence on record and passed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence to life imprisonment to the appellant and therefore, the said judgment and order, passed by the trial court may be maintained and confirmed and the appeal may be dismissed. 6. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the judgment, record and the proceedings, we find substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. The Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined eight witnesses : - P.W. 1 : Rasraj Mahto – He has been examined as an inquest witness. 6. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the judgment, record and the proceedings, we find substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. The Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined eight witnesses : - P.W. 1 : Rasraj Mahto – He has been examined as an inquest witness. He has stated in his cross examination at Paragraph 2 that there is only one train to reach village Hesalong from village-Bhadudih by Barkakana Train which reaches Hesalong at 6 P.M. P.W. 2 : Shivram Gorain – He is the uncle of the deceased and has been examined as inquest witness. At paragraph 3 of his evidence, he has stated that he did not know as to why the occurrence took place and as to who had committed the crime. P.W. 3 : - Rabilochan Gorain – This witness had not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 4 : - Baikunth Mahato – He is a hearsay witness and did not identify the appellant in dock. P.W. 5 : - Gokul Gorain – He is the father of the deceased as well as the informant of this case. At paragraph 1 of his evidence, he has stated that occurrence had taken place on 10.3.2000 at 10.30 P.M. At paragraph 3 of his evidence, he has made improvement from his statement made in the fard bayan and stated that after dinner the appellant had gone to railway station, which is about 500 yards from his house and he also stated that the appellant had gone alone. Further he has stated that there were many houses situated between his house and the railway station. In the same paragraph this witness has further stated that none had seen the appellant fleeing away. At paragraph 4 of his evidence, he has stated that he had not seen the assault, but had seen the appellant running away and that he did not try to apprehend him. Further he stated that on alarm being raised by him people arrived, but he did not tell them that the appellant had killed his daughter. At paragraph 5 of his evidence, this witness has stated that it was a fact that he had not deposited money in the Bank. Further he stated that on alarm being raised by him people arrived, but he did not tell them that the appellant had killed his daughter. At paragraph 5 of his evidence, this witness has stated that it was a fact that he had not deposited money in the Bank. Further, he has stated that it was also a fact that appellant cannot walk properly due to polio affected one leg. At paragraph 6 of his evidence, he has categorically stated that he had sent Shivram (P.W. 2) to the Police Station for giving information. P.W. 6 : - Shanti Gorain – She is the mother of deceased, but has not been named as an witness in the first information report. At paragraph 1 of her evidence, she has stated that at the time of occurrence, her husband and son were in another house. In her cross-examination at paragraph 2 she has stated that on alarm being raised by her, her husband and Dewar Shivram came. She also stated that she did not tell the villagers that she had caught hold of the appellant. At paragraph 3 of her evidence, she has stated that she did not tell her husband, Dewar and the villagers in which direction, the appellant had fled away. Further she has stated that her husband and Dewar had gone to give information in the night itself, whereafter the police had arrived on the same night and at that time villagers were present in her house. P.W. 7 : - Randhir Kumar – He is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has stated in his evidence at paragraph 3 that although he prepared the inquest report, but neither the original nor its carbon copy were available with him. At paragraph 6 he had stated that the copy of the inquest report is also not available in the case diary. He further stated that he had not sent blood stained earth for chemical examination. At paragraph 8 he had stated that he could not recover knife either from the place of occurrence or from the house of the appellant. He further deposed that he did not recover anything from the house of the appellant to connect with the murder. Further he has stated that he did not make any investigation whether money had been deposited in the bank or not. He further deposed that he did not recover anything from the house of the appellant to connect with the murder. Further he has stated that he did not make any investigation whether money had been deposited in the bank or not. At paragraph 10 he has stated that Shanti Devi had not stated before him that when she had gone, she had seen her son-in-law causing murder of her daughter by assaulting her with knife on her neck. She had also not stated that she had caught hold of the appellant. P.W. 8 : - Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Choudhary – He is the doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination on 11th March, 2000 at 11 A.M. According to his evience, the time since death was within 18 hours to 24 hours. He found two incised wounds on the neck, caused by sharp cutting weapon, like knife, and the death was the result of cut throat. 8. The defence also examined five witnesses, namely, Ram Kisto (D.W. 1), Kamal Haldar (D.W. 2), Bharat Mahto (D.W. 3), Nil Kanth Tantubai (D.W. 4) and Jayant Kumar Mahanty (D.W. 5). 9. It appears that the trial court has passed the judgment and order mainly on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6, considering them as eye-witnesses and also taking into account, the oral evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 i.e. the Doctor and the Investigating Officer. But from a minute examination of the oral evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6, it transpires that none of them can be treated as the eye-witnesses and this fact reveals from the deposition of P.Ws. 5 and 6 itself, more particularly in the cross-examination, P.Ws. 5 and 6 have admitted this fact that they have not seen the actual occurrence. Moreover, there are material contradictions in the oral evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6, regarding date, time and place of incident. P.W. 5 has stated that he was not available in the house, where the incident occurred but he was in some other house, whereas P.W. 6 has stated that they were in the same house and her husband i.e., P.W. 5 was sleeping hardly 4 to 5 ft. away from him. 10. P.W. 5 has stated that he was not available in the house, where the incident occurred but he was in some other house, whereas P.W. 6 has stated that they were in the same house and her husband i.e., P.W. 5 was sleeping hardly 4 to 5 ft. away from him. 10. The story made out by the Prosecution that on hearing Halla by her daughter, P.W. 6 immediately rushed to the place of occurrence, where she saw her daughter lying dead and she saw the appellant fleeing away and immediately she tried to catch him but he fled away, cannot be believed, because if other family members were around her or came just behind her, then the appellant-accused, who was physically handicapped, would not have been in a position to escape from the place of occurrence and the other family members or the neighbourers or the villagers, which according to Prosecution witnesses, were assembled after occurrence of the incident, might have not allowed the appellant-accused to escape. From the evidence on record, it is also an admitted position that there was no train available till the next day morning and therefore, the story made out by the prosecution, appears to be improbable. It also appears that the appellant-accused was caught after three days from his residence in his village, meaning thereby that he did not remain absconder. This conduct also creates doubts about his role in the alleged crime. The oral evidence or P.Ws. 5 and 6, who are considered to be the star witnesses in the present case, have themselves admitted in their oral evidence that they have not actually seen the occurrence. From the oral evidence of P.W.7 i.e. the Investigating Officer, it appears that there is no seizure of any article or weapons. Rather, no seizure memo is there on the record. On the other hand, the defence witnesses, D.Ws. have stated about the presence of appellant-accused in his village. Moreover, there are material contradictions in the oral evidence of these two witnesses, which creates doubt about the involvement of the appellant. The basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that on the basis of the evidence available on record, if doubt is created about the involvement of the accused in the crime, then in that case, the benefit of doubt is required to be given to the appellant-accused. 11. The basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that on the basis of the evidence available on record, if doubt is created about the involvement of the accused in the crime, then in that case, the benefit of doubt is required to be given to the appellant-accused. 11. We have carefully examined the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the State. After careful examination of record and proceedings and more particularly the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case, wherein benefit of doubt is required to be given. In the instant case, the Prosecution has miserably failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated-18th March, 2002, passed by the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 205 of 2000 is ordered to be quashed and set aside. This appeal is allowed. The appellant, who is in jail, is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.