JUDGMENT By Court.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 02.12.2003 and order of sentence dated 03.12.2012 passed by Shri B.K.Pandey, Sessions Judge, SeraikellaKharsawan at Seraikella in S.T.No.103 of 2002 convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life. They have also been convicted under Section 201 I.P.C. and further sentenced them to R.I for three years. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no eyewitness for causing death of the deceased and there is only eyewitness of ‘ Mar Pit’ between the parties. 3. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that it is a common thing that after taking liquor, the persons in intoxicated condition fight with each other but there could not be motive to kill the deceased. Appellants remained in jail for more than 9 years. 3A. Counsel for the State could not dispute the submission. 4. P.W. 1 is the hearsay witness, who saw that after taking liquor, the appellants were quarrelling with the deceased. When P.W. 1 intervened, the appellants threatened him. Then this P.W. returned and he informed other persons. In the crossexamination, he said that the ‘Mar Pit’ was with fists and slaps. P.W. 2 similarly said that he saw ‘Mar Pit’ between the parties and when he intervened, the appellants threatened him, due to which, this witnesses fled away and informed others. He saw that 2. appellant Kartik Sardar and Dasain Sardar were pressing neck of the deceased but he also said that after ‘Mar Pit’ appellants fled away. Though the Doctor has not been examined but from the postmortem report it appears that the cause of death was asphyxia caused by throttling. It further appears that the postmortem report has not been properly proved. 5. We are inclined to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no eyewitness to the actual killing of the deceased. Moreover, no question was put to the appellants that they killed the deceased by throttling in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The dead body was not recovered from the place where ‘Mar Pit’ had taken place which shows that the deceased did not die due to throttling during ‘Mar Pit’. The dead body was found afterwards at a distance place near a river. 6. The dead body was found afterwards at a distance place near a river. 6. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the appellants deserve benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside. 7. The appellants, above named, are directed to be released forthwith from jail, if not wanted in any other case.