Judgment This appeal arises from the judgment of conviction dated 11th July, 2003 and order of sentence dated 14th July, 2003 passed by Shri Ravindra Prasad Ravi, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in S.C. No. 318 of 1996 convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that P.W. 4-Sua Ram Hembram lodged a Fardbayan at 20.45 hours on 28.4.1996 before the police that after taking food alongwith his wife Somi Hembram at about 5 p.m. he was going by cycle alongwith Shambhu Hembram and Pandu Hembram towards Dalma Forest for hunting. His wife remained in the house. After going at some distance from the house, his neighbours Jay Ram Hembram and Dibu Ram Hembram stopped him and told that they will not allow him to go as the informant and-his wife have practiced witch-craft on his brother due to which his brother died. Then the informant returned to his house. On his return, the appellants entered into the house and assaulted the wife of the informant with the wooden leg of cot on her head. The informant wanted to save her but he was also assaulted by them on his head and back due to which he fell down and started raising alarm. Thereafter appellant Jay Ram Hembram assaulted his wife with leg of the cot due to which she sustained bleeding injury and fell down. On this, the appellants fled away. Appellant Jay Ram Hembram pushed him and appellant Dibu Ram Hembram was exhorting to kill the informant saying that the informant and his wife were witch. The infor,mant reached in the house of P.W. 9 and told him about the occurrence then he returned to his house alongwith co-villagers and found his wife dead. The cause of incident was that about 4 months back the brother of appellant Nos. 1 & 3 died due to illness but they called the informant and his wife as witch. 3. Mr. A.K. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that P.W. 4-informant, projected by the prosecution, cannot be believed as an eyewitness. No injury said to have been sustained, has been proved. His conduct is also not natural. The appellants will not bring him home to witness the occurrence. 3. Mr. A.K. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that P.W. 4-informant, projected by the prosecution, cannot be believed as an eyewitness. No injury said to have been sustained, has been proved. His conduct is also not natural. The appellants will not bring him home to witness the occurrence. He further submitted that the appellant No.1 has remained in jail for about 12 years and the appellant Nos. 2 & 3 have remained in jail for about 9 years. 4. On the other hand, Counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment. 5. P.W. 11-Doctor found injuries caused by hard and blunt substance on the head of the deceased, which were cause of death. P.Ws. 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 & 10 are hearsay witness. P. Ws. 6 & 7 are hostile witnesses. P.W. 11 is the Investigating Officer. 6. According to the prosecution case, the informant was also assaulted by the appellants but there is nothing on the record to show that he sustained any injury. 7. As per the prosecution case when the informant was going towards forest, he was stopped and he was abused by the appellants saying him and his wife as witch then he returned to his house. After his return, the appellants said to have assaulted him and his wife with the wooden leg of cot. 8. After going through the records and after hearing the parties at length, in our opinion, it will not be safe to uphold the conviction only on the basis of P.W. 4 projected by the prosecution as an eye witness. In the facts and circumstances it is doubtful whether he is the eye-witness. The presence of P.W. 4 at the time of alleged occurrence is not supported either by the medical evidence or by the witnesses, who accompanied him as per the F.I.R. 9. In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and this Cr. Appeal is allowed. 10. Appellant No. 2-Diku @ Wasta Hembram and Appellant No. 3-Dibu Ram Hembram are discharged from their bail bond. 11. Appellant No.1-Jay Ram Hembram is directed to be released from jail forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.