JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. The case relates to brutal killing of a former minister of Assam, Late Nagen Neog and as many as 9 (nine) persons, including body guards and staff. The incident took place on 06.05.1996, at about 07:30 pm on a public road at Village Singijan, in the district of Golaghat. At the relevant time, the minister was returning home after participating in the election. Thereafter, his convoy was ambushed by the terrorists with sophisticated fire arms. The ambush was so dedicated, severe and pre-planned that not a single person of the convoy could survive. The police officer in-charge of Farkating Outpost heard the sound of fire. Immediately, he rushed to the place of occurrence only to find that the former minister and his companions were gunned down by the militants. Accordingly, he lodged a written FIR at the Police Station, whereupon, a case of murder with conspiracy was registered. Initially, the case was investigated by the Assam police officers. Subsequently, it was handed over to the CBL After long investigation, the charge sheet was submitted on 24.10.2002 against 3 (three) accused persons, including the appellant Out of the remaining two accused persons, one accused, namely, Pranjal Saikia, had already died and the third accused, Ananta Saikia, was shown absconder in the charge sheet. In this way, only the appellant was tried for the offence of murder and other offences. 2. After full length trial, the accused has been convicted under Sections 302 /120(B) and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter, in short, IPC) read with Section 27(3) of the Arms Act as well as under Section 13(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and different sentences have been awarded to the appellant The maximum sentence is that of Life Imprisonment for the offence of murder and under the Arms Act. Only 3 (three) years' RI has been imposed for the offence under the UA(P) Act Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence, the sole accused has preferred this appeal. 3. We have heard Sri N.J. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Sri P.N. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). We have also gone through the impugned Judgment, charge sheet and the oral evidence of the witnesses proffered in the trial Court by the CBI. 4. 3. We have heard Sri N.J. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Sri P.N. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). We have also gone through the impugned Judgment, charge sheet and the oral evidence of the witnesses proffered in the trial Court by the CBI. 4. Only 14 (fourteen) witnesses were examined by the CBI to establish the aforesaid offence. Out of them, PWs-2 and 5 are the autopsy doctors; PW-7 is a witness from the FSL to prove his ballistic report; PW-9 is the MVI; PWs-3, 4, 12 and 14 are the police officers, who had lodged the FIR and taken part in the investigation and PWs-1, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 13 are non-official witness. 5. PW-1 is a retired teacher. He is also the father of PW-11 and father-in-law of PW-10. His son-in-law, i.e., PW-10 was a police constable and, at the relevant time, he was attached to the deceased minister as a security guard. According to PW-1, the accused was known to him and two days prior to the incident the accused came to his house and reported that the life of the minister was under threat. By saying so, the accused also advised PW-1 to withdraw his son-in-law from the escort duty. The advice of the accused was followed and PW-10 was withdrawn from the duty. PW-1 has clarified that the information of the threat to the minister was given to his wife and not to him directly. In the cross-examination, PW-1 has deposed that his wife did not tell him about any such information from the accused. Besides this, the wife of PW-1 was not examined by the prosecution. In this way, the testimony of PW-1 remained uncorroborated. 6. PWs-10 and 11 have corroborated their father/father-in-law with regard to withdrawal of PW-10 from the escort duty on the plea of illness of PW-11. These two witnesses are totally silent to give any incriminating evidence against the appellant. 7. PW-6 is a distantly related uncle of the accused and he has been declared hostile. In the cross-examination, the prosecution tried to elicit that the accused had kept concealed some arms and ammunitions in a box in his house. However, there is no evidence regarding any recovery of arms and ammunitions from the house of PW-6. 7. PW-6 is a distantly related uncle of the accused and he has been declared hostile. In the cross-examination, the prosecution tried to elicit that the accused had kept concealed some arms and ammunitions in a box in his house. However, there is no evidence regarding any recovery of arms and ammunitions from the house of PW-6. In this way, the statement of PW-6 before the Investigating Officer is also of no consequence. 8. PW-8 has spoken about hearing of a bomb blast and the death of a minister. Beyond this, she has stated nothing as to who had perpetrated the crime, far less, about the involvement of the appellant in the ambush. PW-13 also appears to have given hearsay evidence that the accused was a militant. His testimony is not supported by any other evidence. 9. During the arguments, Sri Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel for the CBI submitted that in the 'sanction order', it has been clearly mentioned that the accused was an active member of the militant organization (ULFA). The learned counsel also referred to the deposition of the Investigating Officer (PW-14), wherein, the police officer has stated that one Nayan Saikia had disclosed that the appellant, who was also known as Amar Singh @ Tutu had stored excess ammunitions and other war equipments in the house of PW-6. We have already recorded earlier that no ammunition or fire arms were recovered from the house of PW-6. Besides this, Nayan Saikia was neither cited as a witness in the charge sheet nor examined by the prosecution in the trial Court. Even otherwise, any version given before the police officer is not a legally admissible evidence. 10. What crystallizes from the aforesaid discussions is that the prosecution failed to adduce any legal evidence in the trial Court to convict him in any of the offences. It is also not on the record whether any evidence was also collected from the accused at the time of arrest to show that he was actively engaged in militant activities of the ULFA nor any arms and ammunitions were recovered from his possession. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The appellant is set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in any other case. The Registry is directed to issue release order(s) accordingly, 12. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The appellant is set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in any other case. The Registry is directed to issue release order(s) accordingly, 12. The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI prayed for suspension of the operation of this judgment for a period of 30 (thirty) days to enable the CBI to file appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The prayer is allowed. In view of this direction, the release order(s) shall be issued from the Registry only after 30 (thirty) days.