JUDGMENT By Court.-Heard the parties finally. 2. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed on 29th June 2004 and 30th June 2004, respectively by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV. F.T.C., Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 13 of 2003. convicting the appellants for committing the offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 1.000/-. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on 10/09/2002 at about 8.45 p.m. Rasik Hansda, who adopted the appellant Misir Hansda as son stated that he has got land and on previous night at about 9 O' •Clock, he along with his wife Bhabani Besra (deceased) went to bed. In the midnight he woke up hearing some sound and saw that the head of his wife is hurt and there was bleeding and then she died. At that time his son-appellant Misir Hansda with lantern in his hand, was walking to and fro restlessly. The informant understood that his son has killed his step mother. He asked his son the reason for killing. There was no reply. The appellant went away from his room and slept in his room. The informant thought that if he raised alarm then the appellant would flee away. Therefore, he did not raise alarm and he went to the Chowkidar and other people of the village and informed about the occurrence. It is alleged in the F.I.R., that the appellant has apprehension that if his step mother Bhabani Besra got her own son, there would be partition in the properties al}d, therefore, he has killed her. 4. Mr. Sahid Khan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He further submitted that the appellant is in jail for about nine years and four months by now. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP supported the impugned judgment. 6. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, out of whom PW 3 the informant-Rasik Hansda is projected as eyewitness and PW 9 is the Doctor, who conducted the Post Mortem. The Doctor found three lacerated injuries on the head of the deceased caused by the hard and blunt substance. The Doctor did not find any sign of pregnancy of the deceased. 6. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, out of whom PW 3 the informant-Rasik Hansda is projected as eyewitness and PW 9 is the Doctor, who conducted the Post Mortem. The Doctor found three lacerated injuries on the head of the deceased caused by the hard and blunt substance. The Doctor did not find any sign of pregnancy of the deceased. The Investigating Officer (PW 8) seized the a blood stained stone like "Sil" which was of I feet wide and 1-1/2 feet length. 7. The Investigating Officer (PW 8) inter alia stated that the informant (PW 3) did not make any statement before him that he had seen the actual act of causing hurt to the deceased by the appellant. It appears that the informant PW 3 has changed the story completely between the fardbeyan and his deposition in Court. It .further appears that he has projected himself to be an eyewitness for the first time in Court though as per his fardbeyan he was not the eyewitness of the actual assault. 8. Thus, the sole eyewitness PW 3, who is also the informant, has given absolutely inconsistent story in his fardbeyan and before the Court. 9. After carefully examining the records. we are satisfied that the appellant deserves the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts as noticed above. 10. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, passed by the trial Court against the appellant is hereby set aside, The appellant Misir Hansda, who is in jail is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed.