JUDGMENT Prashant Kumar, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.9.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in S.T. No. 57 of 2007 corresponding to Trial No. 37 of 2008, whereby and whereunder he convicted all the appellants under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. He further awarded a fine of Rs. 15,000/-against each of the appellants and in default of paying the said fine, directed them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. 2. Since the aforesaid appeals arose from the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence, thus , are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment 3. Sans unnecessary particulars the case of prosecution in brief is that on 25.12.2006 at about 8 p.m. while the informant (Shital Sahu) was returning from his field, he heard the cry of his son Sanjay Sahu and then ran towards his house. It is further alleged that while returning, in the light of torch he saw that his elder son Dev Kumar Sahu, Rajesh Nag, Satish Nag and Sudarshan Sahu were fleeing from the back of his house armed with sword, lathi and farsa. It is further stated that on reaching the house, he saw dead body of his younger son Devendra Sahu lying in the courtyard. He saw injuries on the head of deceased Devendra Sahu. He further states that he could not find his second son, namely, Sanjay Sahu in the house. However, his dead body was recovered in the morning in presence of police from the filed of Puru Singh. It is stated that a week before the occurrence there was some altercation between Dev Kumar Sahu and Devendra Sahu in connection with paddy and wooden logs and at that time, appellant Dev Kumar Sahu threatened Devendra Sahu. Accordingly, it is stated that Dev Kumar Sahu along with other appellants had committed present crime. 4. On the basis of aforesaid fard beyan, Bano P.S. Case No. 65 of 2006 instituted under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and police took up investigation. During the investigation, police prepared inquest report, ceased blood stained earth and prepared seizure list During the investigation, police also recovered one sword and a Douly on the confession of co-accused Satish Nag and prepared seizure list. During the investigation, police prepared inquest report, ceased blood stained earth and prepared seizure list During the investigation, police also recovered one sword and a Douly on the confession of co-accused Satish Nag and prepared seizure list. It further appears that after preparation of inquest report the dead bodies of Devendra Sahu and Sanjay Sahu sent for post mortem examination and thereafter post mortem report received by the police. It further appears that after completing the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against appellants under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned CJM, Simdega took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of Sessions as the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by a court of sessions. 5. After commitment, the records of the case received in the court of Sessions Judge, who by his order dated 30th July 2007 framed and explained the charges to the appellants under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the prosecution examined altogether 13 witnesses in support of its case. 6. The prosecution also brought on record, the inquest report, seizure list, post mortem report, fard beyan and formal FIR etc as documentary evidence. It then appear that after close of case of prosecution, the learned court below recorded the statements of appellants under section 313 of the Cr. P.C. In which their defence is of total denial. 7. It further appears that court below, after considering the evidence available on record by its judgment and order dated 22.9.2008 convicted the appellants under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and also directed them to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/-each and in default of payment of aforesaid fine, under go simple imprisonment for two months. 8. While assailing the judgment of the court below, learned counsel for the appellants Mrs. Vani Kumari submits that the entire case of prosecution hinges on the sole testimony of P.W. 11 (informant). She submits that the statement of P.W. 11 is not trustworthy, thus can not be relied upon. 8. While assailing the judgment of the court below, learned counsel for the appellants Mrs. Vani Kumari submits that the entire case of prosecution hinges on the sole testimony of P.W. 11 (informant). She submits that the statement of P.W. 11 is not trustworthy, thus can not be relied upon. She submits that in the FIR, P.W. 11 stated that he identified the appellants while they were fleeing from the back of the house, in the light of torch, but in the cross examination, P.W. 11 categorically stated that while appellants were fleeing , he did not flash torch due to fear. Accordingly, she submits that the statement of P.W. 11 is not wholly reliable and therefore on his sole testimony, conviction of these appellants not warranted. She further submits that the story of prosecution that instruments used in the commission of offence recovered on the confession of appellant Satish Nag is liable to be rejected in view of the statement of P.W. 8. She further submits that another witness of alleged recovery i.e. P.W. 10, has not supported the case of prosecution. It is submitted that there is no independent witness to support the case of prosecution that instrument, used in the commission of crime, recovered on the confession of appellant Satish Nag. She submits that P.W. 11 admitted that the relation of appellants with the deceased Sanjay Sahu is cordial. Thus, they have no reason to commit present crime. It is admitted by P.W. 11 that he had strain relation with one Ram Chandra Sahu, with whom informant is fighting a case of land dispute. Thus, there may be possibility that the said occurrence might have been committed by some other person. She submits that informant wants to re-marry after the death of his first wife and accused Dev Kumar Sahu and his two brothers namely, Devendra Sahu and Sanjay Sahu( deceased person) were opposing the informant from doing so. She submits that because of the said reason , the informant might had killed his two sons Devendra Sahu and Sanjay Sahu and falsely implicated his third son, namely, Dev Kumar Sahu in the said crime. Accordingly, it is submitted that appellants are entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 9. She submits that because of the said reason , the informant might had killed his two sons Devendra Sahu and Sanjay Sahu and falsely implicated his third son, namely, Dev Kumar Sahu in the said crime. Accordingly, it is submitted that appellants are entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 9. On the other hand, Sri Shekhar Sinha and Sri Ravi Praksh, learned Additional P.Ps submits that informant is the father of appellant Dev Kumar Sahu. Thus, it cannot be believed that he will falsely implicate his own son. It is further submitted that it had come in the evidence that the night, on the date of occurrence, is a moon lit night, thus in the moon light it is possible for a father to identify his son and other relatives from a close range. They submits that the Investigating Officer proved the seizure of instrument used in the commission of crime on the basis of confession of appellant Satish Nag and there is nothing to disbelieve him. Accordingly, it is submitted that prosecution has been able to prove the charge levelled against the accused persons beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence do not require any interference by this Court. 10. Having heard the submissions, we have gone through the record of the case. From the perusal of the inquest report, post mortem report and deposition of doctor ( P.W. 12), who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Devendra Sahu and Sanjay Sahu, it is clear that deceased Devendra Sahu had received altogether 10 injuries on his body, whereas deceased Sanjay Sahu had received altogether six injuries. According to P.W. 12 all the injuries are caused by sharp cutting weapons and are ante mortem in nature. In the opinion of doctor both deceased died due to injuries sustained by them. Therefore, we find that both deceased died a homicidal death. Thus, now the question arose for determination in this case is whether these appellants have any hand in the commission of present crime? This bring us to consider the evidence available on records. 11. P.W. 1 Damodar Singh, P.W. 2 Harishchandra Singh, P.W. 3 Ram Dhani Sahu, are hearsay witness, they have categorically stated that they did not see the occurrence from their own eyes. This bring us to consider the evidence available on records. 11. P.W. 1 Damodar Singh, P.W. 2 Harishchandra Singh, P.W. 3 Ram Dhani Sahu, are hearsay witness, they have categorically stated that they did not see the occurrence from their own eyes. P.W. 4 Ram Chandar Sahu is a witness of inquest, he stated nothing about the manner of occurrence. P.W. 5 Raghu Singh is a witness of seizure list, in whose presence the Investigating Officer had seized blood stained earth. P.W. 6 Punia Pahan is also a witness of seizure list, in whose presence blood stained earth recovered. He is hearsay on the point of occurrence. P.W. 7 Sawna Singh is also hear say on the point of occurrence. P.W. 8 Bimal Bage is seizure list witness, who stated that police had seized some articles from the house of Satish Nag and prepared seizure list. At paragraph no. 4 he stated that police recovered nothing in presence of Satish Nag. He further stated that at the time of arrest of Satish Nag, police was already possessing sword and Douly. P.W. 9 Bishram Bakhla and P.W. 10 Silvius Kullu have been declared hostile by the prosecution as they had not supported the case of prosecution. P.W. 11 is the informant, who supported the case of prosecution. P.W. 12 Dr. Krishna Kumar Sharma is the doctor, who held autopsy and P.W. 13 is the Investigating Officer of the present case. 12. Thus, from the perusal of evidence available on record, it is clear that there is no eye witness of the occurrence and entire case of prosecution rest on circumstantial evidence. First circumstance relied by the prosecution is that P.W. 11 had identified the appellants, while they were fleeing armed with Sword, Lathi and Farsa and second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is recovery of instruments used in the commission of crime on the confession of appellant Satish Nag. Thus, we are proceeding to consider as to whether the prosecution had been able to prove aforesaid circumstances beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. 13. P.W. 11 Shital Sahu in his examination in chief had stated that while he was returning from his field, at about 8 -8:30 p.m., he heard the cry of his son Sanjay Sahu and then saw that four persons were fleeing from the back of his house. 13. P.W. 11 Shital Sahu in his examination in chief had stated that while he was returning from his field, at about 8 -8:30 p.m., he heard the cry of his son Sanjay Sahu and then saw that four persons were fleeing from the back of his house. He identified them as Dev Kumar Sahu, Rajesh Nag, Satish Nag and Sudarshan Sahu (appellants). In the examination in chief, he did not disclose the source of light in which he identified appellants. However, in the FIR, he stated that he identified them in the light of torch. But in the cross examination, at paragraph no. 12 he categorically stated that at the time of fleeing of appellants he did not flash the torch due to fear. Thus, in our view, there is no source of light in which appellants could be identified. At paragraph no. 13, this witness tried to develop a story that on the date of occurrence, there was a moon lit night and he identified the appellants in the light of moon. But, this story can not be believed being developed for the first time in cross examination. From the statements of this witness, it appears that there was a boundary wall around the entire house and there are two gates one in eastern side and another in southern side for entering in the house. This witness stated that he entered in the house from the eastern gate. Under the said circumstance, it is not possible for him to identify appellants while they were fleeing from the southern side and that too in the absence of any source of light. Thus, we find that the first circumstance, has not been proved beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. 14. Now coming to the second circumstance, we find that the I.O. in his deposition at paragraph no. 8 had stated that appellants Satish Nag confessed his guilt and on the basis of his confession in presence of Bimal Bage ( P.W. 8) and Silvius Kullu ( P.W. 10), he recovered one sword and one Dauly from a pond and prepared seizure list. As noticed above, the aforesaid statement of I.O., ( P.W. 13), has not been supported by P.W. 8 Bimal Bage and Silvius Kullu ( P.W. 10). P.W. 8 categorically stated at paragraph no. As noticed above, the aforesaid statement of I.O., ( P.W. 13), has not been supported by P.W. 8 Bimal Bage and Silvius Kullu ( P.W. 10). P.W. 8 categorically stated at paragraph no. 6 that at the time of arrest of Satish Nag, police had already in possession of Sword and Dauly. It is significant to note that P.W. 8 has not been declared hostile, therefore, his statement remained intact. Under the said circumstance, the claim of Investigating Officer that he recovered Sword and Dauly on the confession of Satish Nag does not appear to be correct, because if the statement of I.O. was correct then how he was in possession of sword and dauly at the time of arrest of Satish Nag. The aforesaid statement of P.W. 8 gives a big jolt to the case of prosecution that on the confession of appellant Satish Nag, instruments used in the commission of crime had been recovered. 15. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution had also not proved beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. 16. In view of the discussions made above and looking into the evidence available on the records, we find that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges levelled against the appellants beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot be sustained in these appeals. 17. In the result, these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 2007/ Trial No. 37 of 2008 is hereby set aside. All the appellants namely Satish Nag, Dev Kumar Sahu, Rajesh Nag and Sudarshan Sahu,who are in custody are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. The court below is directed to release all the appellants, named above, forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.