JUDGMENT B.K. Patel, J.-- By the impugned judgment and order dated 31.3.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepur in Sessions Trial No.21 of 2005, the two appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the I.P.C.’) for having committed murder of deceased Jadunath Singh in furtherance of their common intention. Each of them has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Informant P.W.1 is deceased’s wife. P.W.2 is deceased’s brother’s wife. P.W.8 is deceased’s son and P.W.11 is deceased’s nephew. Appellants are brothers being sons of daughter of Harishankar. Deceased was son of Harishankar’s brother Krushna. Occurrence took place on 30.11.2004 at about 10.30 A.M in a paddy field locally known as ‘Satapati’ paddy field which stands jointly recorded in the names of appellants, deceased and others. 3. Prosecution case, as is revealed from the materials on record, is that on the date of occurrence on being asked by the deceased, P.W.3, P.W.7 and others went to the occurrence field locally known as ‘Satapati’ land to reap paddy crops. Appellants prevented them from reaping crops and threatened with dire consequences. Being informed, the deceased came to the paddy field. Appellants assaulted him by means of axe M.O.I and Tabli M.O.III causing severe injuries. P.W.7 went and informed regarding the occurrence to deceased’s wife informant P.W.1. P.W.1 went to the spot along with her sister-in-law P.W.2 and son P.W.8. She administered water to the deceased but he died. P.W.1 sent P.W.8 to the police station. Appellants surrendered, confessed their guilt, and produced axe M.O.I and sickle M.O.II before P.W.12, Officer-In-Charge of Birmaharajpur Police Station. P.W.12 seized the axe and the sickle under seizure list Ext.10 and proceeded to the spot where P.W.1 submitted First Information Report Ext.1. P.W.12 sent the report for registration to the police station and took up investigation. P.W.13, Circle Inspector, Birmaharajpur took charge of investigation from P.W.12 on 3.12.2004 and on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellants for commission of offences under Sections 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. 4. Appellants took the plea of complete denial. 5. In order to substantiate the charge, prosecution examined 13 witnesses. P.Ws. 3 and 7 were examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence. Appellants took the plea of complete denial. 5. In order to substantiate the charge, prosecution examined 13 witnesses. P.Ws. 3 and 7 were examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence. Informant P.W. 1, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.8 and P.W.11 were post occurrence witnesses. Of them, P.W.4 deposed that he rushed to the spot hearing cry and saw the appellants Lalit and Bipin running away holding axe and sickle respectively. P.W.5 is a doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.6, a police constable, assisted in investigation. P.W.9 was a witness to seizure of tabli M.O.III under seizure list Ext.9 whereas P.W.10 was a witness to seizure of axe M.O.I and sickle M.O.II under seizure list Ext.10. P.Ws. 12 and 13 were the Investigating Officers. Prosecution also relied upon documents marked Exts. 1 to 22 and material objects M.O.1 to M.O.III. No defence evidence was adduced. 6. Holding the evidence of eye-witnesses P.Ws.3 and 7 to be unimpeachable and to have been corroborated by the evidence of post-occurrence circumstantial witness P.W.4, medical evidence of P.W.5, circumstance of production and seizure of axe M.O.I and sickle M.O.II as deposed to by the investigating officer P.W.12 and chemical examination report Ext.17 indicating detection of human blood stains on axe M.O.I and tabli M.O.III, the trial court found the appellants guilty of the charge. 7. In assailing the impugned judgment it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that P.Ws.3 and 7 were not consistent in their evidence. P.W.3 having deposed in her cross-examination that she did not know the accused persons prior to the occurrence, her evidence identifying the appellants to be the assailants of the deceased for the first time in court is not accepted. Moreover, P.W.3 also admitted that by the time she returned back and saw, the deceased had already fallen to the ground. So far as P.W.7 is concerned, he stated that both the appellants assaulted the deceased by means of axe and that appellant Bipin was holding a tabli also. P.W.7’s assertion to have seen appellant Bipin holding a tabli was a development of the prosecution case in course of trial as P.W.7 had not made such statement before the investigating officer P.W.12. P.W.7’s assertion to have seen appellant Bipin holding a tabli was a development of the prosecution case in course of trial as P.W.7 had not made such statement before the investigating officer P.W.12. Also version of P.Ws.3 and 7 with regard to weapons of offence used by the appellants is not consistent with the contents of the First Information Report lodged by P.W.1 on the basis of information gathered from the eye-witnesses to the effect that the deceased was assaulted by means of axe and sickle. P.W.4 also made attempt to develop the prosecution case in course of trial by alleging that he saw appellant Lalit holding an axe and appellant Bipin holding a sickle running away from the spot. P.W.4 had not stated before investigating officer P.W.13 that he had seen the appellants running away holding axe and sickle. It was strenuously contended that nobody having seen the occurrence, the story of user of tabli M.O.III was introduced to suit the medical evidence of P.W.5. It was further argued that the trial court, having rightly rejected the evidence of seizure witness P.W.10 with regard to seizure of axe M.O.I and sickle M.O.II on production by the appellants at the police station, should not have placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.12 in this regard. 8. Learned counsel for the State placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 7 as well as P.Ws.4, 5, 12 and chemical examination report supported the impugned judgment. 9. P.W.5 conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on the date of occurrence. He found the following injuries: “(i) Mutilated multiple injuries (incised and ante-mortem in nature over right knee joint level cutting the skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles, vessels (femoral poplitial and tibial arteries), bones through and through with the posterior skin attached to the cut injuries at the poplitial fossa. (ii) Cut injury incised of size 4” x 3” x ½” cutting the skin and bone on l the shin of the right tibia (above middle). (iii) Incised injury on the dorsal lateral aspect of left middle finger of size 1” x ½” x ½”. (iv) Incised injury on the antero-medial aspect of left ankle of size 3” x 1” x 1”. (iii) Incised injury on the dorsal lateral aspect of left middle finger of size 1” x ½” x ½”. (iv) Incised injury on the antero-medial aspect of left ankle of size 3” x 1” x 1”. (v) Incised injury on the lateral aspect of left mid arm of size 1” x ½” x ½”.” He opined that cause of death of the deceased was profuse incessant arterial bleeding consequent upon cutting of large vessels at the level of right knee joint leading to shock and death. P.W.5 also opined that injuries on the deceased could be caused by seized axe M.O.I and tabli M.O.III. Therefore, it is evident that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 10. Though P.W.1 stated that the occurrence took place in their paddy field, she stated in her cross-examination that the occurrence land stands jointly recorded in the names of the appellants, the deceased and their brothers. P.W.11 also stated in his cross-examination that in the current settlement names of the appellants have been mentioned in the R.O.R. Prosecution case is that the occurrence originated when the appellants prevented P.Ws.3 and 7 and their companions from reaping paddy crop from the occurrence land at the behest of the deceased. Therefore, it is obvious that the occurrence had its origin and genesis in land dispute. 11. Prosecution relied upon mainly on ocular evidence of P.Ws.3 and 7, and circumstantial evidence of P.W.4 to establish the complicity of the appellants in commission of murder of the deceased. P.W.3 testified that on the date of occurrence at about 9.00 A.M. being asked by the deceased she alongwith P.W.7 and others went to the ‘Satapati’ paddy field for reaping paddy crop. The appellants who were already present there prevented them from reaping crop. They threatened them with serious consequence if they entered into the paddy field. They returned and their companion Manorama went to call the deceased. After some time Manorama returned and the deceased asked them to go to another paddy field for reaping crop. The deceased went to the disputed land. They saw from a distance of about 100 meters that appellant Lalit struck the deceased with axe on his leg as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground. Appellant Bipin also assaulted the deceased. The deceased went to the disputed land. They saw from a distance of about 100 meters that appellant Lalit struck the deceased with axe on his leg as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground. Appellant Bipin also assaulted the deceased. She could not identify the weapon held by appellant Bipin but the weapon had a long wooden handle. In her cross-examination P.W.3 stated that the appellants are not the residents of her village and she did not know them prior to the occurrence. The appellants were reaping paddy crop when they reached at the spot. When they were going to Limba Khalia duli land, they heard the deceased shouting that the appellants killed him. They turned back and saw the deceased had already fallen on the ground. She asserted that she had seen the assault on the deceased but stated that she was unable to say the part of the body where the deceased was assaulted by appellant Bipin. Thus, in view of P.W.3’s admission that the appellants were not known to her prior to the occurrence, identification of the appellants by P.W.3 becomes doubtful. Her assertion made in examination-in-chief that appellant Lalit assaulted the deceased by means of axe on his leg as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground and appellant Bipin also assaulted the deceased, is not consistent with her evidence in cross-examination that by the time they turned back and saw, the deceased had already fallen on the ground. In her examination-in-chief P.W.3 having not alleged to have seen that appellant Lalit assaulted the deceased even after he fell down on the ground, evidence of P.W.3 to have seen appellant Lalit assaulting the deceased by an axe on his leg upon which he fell down on the ground becomes doubtful. Therefore, much reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of P.W.3. P.W.7 deposed that on the date of occurrence he alongwith P.W.3 and others went to ‘Satapati’ paddy land to reap the remaining paddy crop. They saw the appellants reaping paddy from the said paddy field. They threatened P.W.7 and his companions with serious consequence if they entered into the paddy field. P.W.7 and his companions left the paddy field. His mother informed the matter to the deceased. They saw the appellants reaping paddy from the said paddy field. They threatened P.W.7 and his companions with serious consequence if they entered into the paddy field. P.W.7 and his companions left the paddy field. His mother informed the matter to the deceased. Deceased came to the paddy field and asked P.W.7 and his companions to reap crops in another paddy field known as ‘Nimba duli’. Others proceeded towards ‘Nimbakhalia duli’ but P.W.7 kept standing on the spot. When the deceased went to the paddy field, appellant Lalit dealt an axe blow on the right leg below the knee as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground. Then both the appellants dealt several blows on his leg with axe. Appellant Bipin was holding one tabli. It has been elicited in the evidence that P.W.7 had not stated before the investigating officer P.W.12 that appellant Bipin was holding a tabli. P.W.4 testified that on the date of occurrence he alongwith others were going to the paddy field for reaping paddy. They saw that the appellants were reaping paddy in the ‘Satapati’ land. One hour after reaping the crop in the land they heard commotion at the place of occurrence. They immediately rushed to the spot and saw the deceased lying on the ground with injuries on his leg. They also saw the appellants running away from the spot and appellant Lalit was holding an axe while appellant Bipin was holding a sickle. They left the spot out of fear. It has been brought out in evidence that P.W.4 had not stated before the investigating officer P.W.13 that he had seen the appellants running away holding axe and sickle. Moreover, neither P.W.3 nor P.W.7 alleged that either of the appellants was holding sickle. 12. P.W.1, the informant, is deceased’s wife. She stated that some labourers had been to the paddy field to cut paddy crop. The appellants asked them not to cut paddy crop from their field. The labourers came and informed the deceased. Then the deceased went to the paddy field. She further stated that P.W.7 came to her house and informed that appellants Bipin and Lalit had struck her husband’s leg with axe and sickle. She alongwith her sister-in-law P.W.2 and son P.W.8 rushed to the spot. They saw the deceased lying dead on the paddy field. Then the deceased went to the paddy field. She further stated that P.W.7 came to her house and informed that appellants Bipin and Lalit had struck her husband’s leg with axe and sickle. She alongwith her sister-in-law P.W.2 and son P.W.8 rushed to the spot. They saw the deceased lying dead on the paddy field. The right leg from the knee was almost completely severed and injuries were found in the fingers. She sent P.W.8 to the police station to lodge F.I.R. P.W.1 stated to have submitted First Information Report Ext.1 to police at the spot. Contents of the F.I.R. Ext.1 are in accordance with the version of P.W.1 made in court. Therefore, statement of P.W.1 that P.W.7 told her that the deceased was assaulted by means of axe and sickle is not consistent with the evidence of either P.W.7 or P.W.3. P.W.2 also deposed that the deceased went to the paddy field when he was informed that his labourers were prevented by the appellants from reaping crop. After some time P.W.7 came running to the house and informed them that the appellants had killed the deceased. She alongwith P.W.1 went to the spot and P.W.8 reached the spot later. P.W.8 stated that P.W.7 came to her house and informed P.W.1 that the appellants killed his father upon which he alongwith P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the spot and found the deceased lying dead on the paddy field. This witness further alleged that he alongwith his sister went to Birmaharajpur P.S. and saw the appellants sitting on the verandah. Police asked them to take the deceased to the hospital, threatened them and did not receive their report. It has been brought out in evidence that P.W.8 had not stated before the investigating officer P.W.12 that he saw the appellants sitting on the verandah of the police station. Evidence of P.W.6, who is a police constable, is formal in nature. P.W.9 stated that some labourers had got the tabli M.O.III from the paddy field near the occurrence land twenty days after the occurrence and informed the police. Police came and seized the tabli M.O.III under seizure list Ext.9. P.W.10 deposed that police seized the axe M.O.I and the sickle M.O.II under seizure list Ext.10 in his presence. The appellants surrendered at the P.S. and disclosed before the police that they had committed the offence with the axe and the sickle. Police came and seized the tabli M.O.III under seizure list Ext.9. P.W.10 deposed that police seized the axe M.O.I and the sickle M.O.II under seizure list Ext.10 in his presence. The appellants surrendered at the P.S. and disclosed before the police that they had committed the offence with the axe and the sickle. However, in his cross-examination P.W.10 stated that police showed him the axe and the sickle and told that the appellants had produced the same at the P.S. Therefore, evidence of P.W.10 is not acceptable and the trial court is justified in not accepting his evidence. P.W.11 simply stated to have been informed over telephone that the deceased was murdered by the appellants. P.W.12, the O.I.C. of Birmaharajpur P.S. stated that on 30.11.2004 at about 12.25 P.M. the appellants appeared at the police station and produced before him one blood stained axe M.O.I and sickle M.O.II. He entered the facts in the station diary and seized the axe and the sickle under seizure list Ext.10. Admittedly, there is no allegation of use of sickle as a weapon of offence by either of the appellants by any of the eye-witnesses. Evidence of P.W.5 also does not indicate that any of the injuries on the body of the deceased could have been caused by the sickle. It appears from the chemical examination report Ext.17 that no blood stain was found from the sickle M.O.II. 13. On an appraisal of evidence of all the witnesses it is found that P.W.3 deposed to have witnessed the occurrence from a distance of 100 meters. By the time the occurrence took place she had already gone to a considerable distance from the occurrence field being directed by the deceased to reap crop in another field. Her evidence in cross-examination to the effect that she and her companions returned back and saw that the deceased had already fallen on the ground is consistent with the evidence in examination-in-chief to the effect that she saw that the appellant Lalit struck the deceased with axe on his leg as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground. Identification of the appellants by P.W.3 for the first time in court in view of her admission that the appellants were not known to her prior to the occurrence renders her allegation implicating the appellants to be the assailants unacceptable. Identification of the appellants by P.W.3 for the first time in court in view of her admission that the appellants were not known to her prior to the occurrence renders her allegation implicating the appellants to be the assailants unacceptable. According to P.W.7 both the appellants dealt several blows on deceased’s leg with axe and that appellant Bipin was holding one tabli. Moreover, P.W.7 had not alleged in his police statement that appellant Bipin was holding a tabli. It is not the case of prosecution that two axes were used as weapons of offence. In fact prosecution case as contained in the First Information Report Ext.1 at the beginning was that the deceased was assaulted by axe and sickle. Initially P.W.7 also in course of investigation did not utter a word regarding holding of tabli, much less regarding user thereof, by any of the appellants. Therefore, P.W.7 having departed from original prosecution case while deposing in court and is not found to be a firm witness who can be considered as a wholly reliable. P.W.4’s evidence to have seen the appellant Lalit holding an axe and appellant Bipin holding a sickle running away from the spot does not provide corroboration to ocular testimony of P.W.7 as he had not alleged in his police statement that he had seen the appellants running away holding axe and sickle. Also, his evidence is not consistent with the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 7 who did not allege that either of the appellants was holding sickle. P.Ws.1, 2, 8 and 11 were informed by others regarding the occurrence and, therefore, their evidence implicating the appellants is hearsay. P.W.12 deposed regarding seizure of axe M.O.I and sickle M.O.II by him under seizure list Ext.10 on production of the appellants in presence of witnesses including P.W.10. However, P.W.10 stated that police showed the axe and the sickle and told that the appellants had produced the same. Moreover, there is no evidence that the sickle M.O.II was used as a weapon of offence and evidence of P.W.5 does not indicate that any of the injuries on the deceased was caused by the sickle which was sent to him for opinion. No blood stain also found on M.O.II. Therefore, seizure of sickle M.O.II does not incriminate the appellants. Moreover, there is no evidence that the sickle M.O.II was used as a weapon of offence and evidence of P.W.5 does not indicate that any of the injuries on the deceased was caused by the sickle which was sent to him for opinion. No blood stain also found on M.O.II. Therefore, seizure of sickle M.O.II does not incriminate the appellants. In such circumstances, it is found that evidence adduced by the prosecution does not constitute a firm basis to conclude that the prosecution has established the charge against the appellants. They are entitled to be acquitted by availing benefit of doubt. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence dated 31.3.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepur in Sessions Trial No.21 of 2005 convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, is set aside. Both the appellants are acquitted of the charge. Appeal allowed.