Judgment By Court:-This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2001 and order of sentence dated 31.07.2001 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 125 of 1994 / 37 of 2001, convicting the appellants for the offences under sections 302/34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each which has to be paid as compensation to the son of the deceased, failing which the appellants had to undergo R.I. for two years. 2. It is submitted by Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, that during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant no. 1-Mahabir Mandal died on 16.07.2006 and the same has been confirmed from the report sent by the officer-in-charge, Saria Police Station, Giridih and he is not pressing this appeal on his behalf. 3. Accordingly, this appeal on behalf of the appellant no. 1-Mahabir Mandal is dismissed as not pressed. 4. Mr. Sinha further submitted that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and in any case, the appellant has remained in jail for a total period of about 13 ½ years by now, and has suffered this case from 1993. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment. 6. The prosecution case in brief is that on 16.03.1993 the appellants abused the deceased saying that the Bamboo tree standing near the house of the deceased, were disturbing 'khaprail' roof of the appellant-Babulal Yadav. Thereafter, the appellants caused brick and stone injury to Nanki Devi, wife of the deceased. When she regained consciousness, she went to the police station and then for her treatment. The deceased also went to see her. After sometime, the appellants along with one Utti Mandal assembled near the house of the deceased and waited for him. When he was returning after seeing his injured wife, PW-1 (daughter-in-law of the deceased) saw that the appellants assaulted the deceased, due to which he died at the spot. Regarding appellant no. 2-Babulal Yadav, it was also said that he strangulated the deceased. When he was returning after seeing his injured wife, PW-1 (daughter-in-law of the deceased) saw that the appellants assaulted the deceased, due to which he died at the spot. Regarding appellant no. 2-Babulal Yadav, it was also said that he strangulated the deceased. The doctor who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, opined that the injuries found at head, neck and chest were caused by hard and blunt substance which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 7. After hearing the parties and going through the materials brought on record, it appears that the conviction is based on the evidence of PW-1. She is the only eyewitness, as per the prosecution. PW-3, a relative of the deceased, said that she did not see the actual occurrence and she only saw the deceased lying injured when she reached at the place of occurrence. She also said that PW-1 reached there after her. PW-1 happens to be a chance witness. She said that she was returning with Gujuwa Devi who also saw the incidence, but Gujuwa has not been examined in this case. PW-2 who is an independent witness, has been declared hostile. Thus, it becomes doubtful whether she was an eyewitness. In the circumstances, it will not be safe to maintain the conviction only on the basis of the evidence of PW-1. 8. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the appellants deserve the benefit of doubt. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court against the appellants, is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. The appellant no. 2 (Babulal Yadav) is in custody, he is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.