JUDGMENT By Court.- The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2nd September, 2002 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C., Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1995/T.R. No. 220 of 2002. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence is dated 2nd September, 2002 whereby the present appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment. 2. It is a case of the prosecution that on 28th March, 1994 which is a day of festival of 'Holi' at about 7 p.m. informant-Shanti Devi (P.W. 1) wife of deceased Dilmohan Gope gave fardbayan to police that on 27th March, 1994 at about 7.30 p.m. when she was working in her house, her husband Dilmohan Gope rushed to house with shouting to save him. Behind him Ram Lakhan Gope, Balindra Gope, Jalesh Gope (appellant no. 2), Dilesh Gope (appellant no. 1) and Rameshwar Gope entered into the house and they caught her husband then the informant (P.W. 1) raised alarm and on her alarm Ramu Gope (P.W. 2), Lallindar Gope (P.W. 3) and Keshav Gope (P.W. 4) came there and tried to save the deceased. Meanwhile, Dilesh Gope (appellant no. 1) and Jalesh Gope (appellant no. 2) assaulted the husband of the informant with 'Knife' at several part of his body. The accused persons were putting pressure on the neck of Dilmohan Gope with intention to kill him then husband of the informant (P.W. 1) died and the accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence. The motive is also alleged that there was a dispute for partition of tree between the parties upon recording of this fardbayan and thereafter investigation was carried out. Statements of several witnesses were also recorded and the charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions being S.T. No. 30 of 1995 and on the basis of Defence (sic-Prosecution?) Witness No. 1 to Defence (sic-Prosecution?) Witness No. 3 the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 34 thereof for life imprisonment. Rest of the 8 accused have been acquitted. Present appellant no. 1 Dilesh Gope is the original accused no. 8 and present appellant no. Rest of the 8 accused have been acquitted. Present appellant no. 1 Dilesh Gope is the original accused no. 8 and present appellant no. 2 Jalesh Gope @ Dinesh Gope @ Jaleshwar Gope is the original accused no. 10 in Sessions Trial. Thus out of 10 accused were tried in the Sessions Trial but 8 accused have been acquitted. 3. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C., Ranchi dated 2nd September, 2002 in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1995, the present appeal has been preferred. 4. Ms. Pragati Prasad, Counsel appearing for the appellants has argued out at length and submitted that looking to the F.I.R., P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are not the eye witness at all. They came later on. Moreover, P.W. 1, who is alleged to be the eye witness has also not put any allegation upon appellant no. 1. Moreover, this P.W. 1 in her deposition has also stated that when her husband entered into the house by shouting, several accused persons were behind him and P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 came upon raising alarm by PW. 1 and when P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 came, by that time, husband of P.W. 1, who is Dilmohan Gope, has already been murdered. Looking to the depositions of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 there are lot of inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution. P.W. 3 has also not alleged anything against appellant no. 1 and PW. 3 has also not alleged anything against appellant no. 2. It is also submitted by the Counsel for the appellants that all these three witnesses have clearly put allegation against accused Balesh, who is original accused no. 6, has caused injuries but he has been acquitted. Thus out of total 10 accused, 8 have been acquitted and for these two appellants also there are major omissions contradictions and improvements in the case of the prosecution. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and hence the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and hence the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. It is further submitted by the Counsel appearing for the appellant that the prosecution witnesses have also stated that accused persons were putting pressure on the neck of Dilmohan Gope but there are no corresponding injuries as per the deposition given by P.W. 6, who is Dr. Niranjan Minz, who has carried out post mortem of the deceased. Thus, there is also major contradictions in the ocular evidence and the medical evidence and therefore also the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted by the Counsel appearing for the appellants that the Investigating Officer has not been examined, which has caused a serious prejudice to these appellants because it has been stated in the cross-examination that several statements which were made before the police but, in fact, those statements are crucial. Had the I.O. been examined, the major omissions, contradictions and improvements could have been proved by the defence. 6. We have heard the counsel appearing for the State, who has vehemently submitted that the case of the prosecution is based upon several eye-witnesses, who are P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and they all have seen these two appellants causing murder of the deceased by sharp .cutting instrument like 'Knife' or 'Chura' and the medical evidence given by P.W. 6 is giving enough corroboration to the deposition of P.W. 1, PW. 2 and P.W. 3. P.W. 1 is the wife of the deceased. The murder had taken place in house and she has clearly stated the role played by these two appellants in causing murder of the deceased. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and hence no error has been committed by the trial court in convicting the present appellants for the offence of murder of the deceased and the prosecution has proved the murder committed by the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, appeal may not be allowed by this Court. 7. 7. Having heard both the sides and looking to the depositions on record, it appears that the incident had taken place on 27th March, 1994 at about 7 p.m. which was the day of festival of 'Holi'. When P.W. 1 Shanti Devi-informant was at her home, her husband Dilmohan Gope rushed into the house and the several accused persons were chasing him. The present appellants caused injuries by 'Knife' and other caused helping the deceased. She raised alarm and upon hearing alarm of informant-P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 rushed at the house of the informant thus P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are the eye-witnesses as per the case of the prosecution. The injuries have been sustained caused by the appellants by 'Knife' as per the case of the prosecution. Therefore, this Court has to look closely the evidence given by P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4. Looking to the deposition given by P.W. 1-Shanti Devi-informant and looking to cross-examination, it appears that she has stated in paragraph No. 4 that one Balesh, who is original accused no. 6 in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1995, and Dinesh had caused injury to her husband by sharp cutting weapon like 'Chura'. Thus, name of appellant no. 2 has not been given by this witness for causing injuries upon the body of the deceased. Moreover, she stated in paragraph no. 5 of her cross-examination that PW. 2, PW. 3 and P.W. 4 came later and when they arrived at the scene of offence, Dilmohan Gope had already expired. This fact has been reiterated in paragraph no. 19 of the cross-examination that Ramu Gope-P.W. 2, Lallindar Gope-P.W. 3 and Keshav Gope-P.W. 4 came after the death of the husband of P.W. 1. Thus, P.W. 1 has clearly stated that P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are not the eye-witnesses. Similarly, there is no allegation upon the appellants because Balesh has already been acquitted by the trial court, who is original accused no. 6 in Sessions Trial, whereas there is nobody like Dinesh and only allegation is putting upon the present appellant no. 2 (who is original accused no. 10). Thus, looking to the Examination-in-Chief and cross-examination of these witnesses, it appears that this witness has not put any allegation against the present appellant no. 1. 6 in Sessions Trial, whereas there is nobody like Dinesh and only allegation is putting upon the present appellant no. 2 (who is original accused no. 10). Thus, looking to the Examination-in-Chief and cross-examination of these witnesses, it appears that this witness has not put any allegation against the present appellant no. 1. Other witnesses are, in fact, not the eye-witnesses at all. However, cross-examination of this witness in paragraph no. 12 P.W. 1 has stated that she was also injured but prosecution has failed to prove such injuries. Thus she is not injured eye-witness at all. In paragraph No. 22 she has narrated about appellant no. 1 and appellant no. 2. However, looking to paragraph nos. 23, 24 and 27 in which appellant no. 2 has been referred by this witness. Thus she is not inspiring confidence and looking to overall evidence given by this witness and also looking to her F.I.R. she is not a reliable and trustworthy witness consistently this witness is putting allegation against accused Balesh, who is original accused no. 6 but he has been acquitted by the trial court and there is no Acquittal Appeal has been preferred by the State. 8. Looking to deposition of P.W. 2, it appears that this P.W. 2 has also not giving the name of appellant no. 1 in paragraph no. 4 of his deposition. Name of several other accused have been given including the appellant no. 2 and it is stated in paragraph no. 4 that total 8 accused had pressed the neck of Dilmohan Gope but looking to the medical evidence given by P.W. 6 there is no corresponding injury at all. Moreover, looking to the deposition of P.W. 1 she is not eye-witness at all who came later on after the death of Dilmohan Gope. Looking to paragraph No. 14 of the cross-examination of this witness it has been stated by this witness that the deceased was chased by the accused persons. He was running around his house. This fact has never been stated by PW. 1, who is informant and wife of deceased. The manner of occurrence is also not consistent in the prosecution witness. The genesis of occurrence has also not been proved by the prosecution. Looking to the evidence of this witness also he is untrustworthy and unreliable witness and his deposition is inspiring no confidence at all. 1, who is informant and wife of deceased. The manner of occurrence is also not consistent in the prosecution witness. The genesis of occurrence has also not been proved by the prosecution. Looking to the evidence of this witness also he is untrustworthy and unreliable witness and his deposition is inspiring no confidence at all. Looking to the deposition given by P.W. 3 in paragraph no. 4 of the deposition of this witness he has put allegation against appellant no. 1 and accused Balesh, who is original accused no. 6 in the Sessions Trial. This accused Balesh has already been acquitted. Now looking to the deposition of P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 there is no allegation upon appellant no. 1 whereas this witness is putting allegation against appellant no. 1. Further, looking to the Examination-in-chief of this witness he has not given name of the appellant no. 1 nor role played by appellant no. 2. Thus, looking to the overall deposition of the prosecution witness viz. P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 there are lot of in consistencies in the case of the prosecution. Some are putting allegation against appellant no. 2 and Balesh whereas some are not referred appellant no. 1 at all and P.W. 3 is putting allegation against appellant no. 1 and not giving even name of appellant no. 2 in his Examination-in-chief. Moreover, looking to the deposition of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 they are not the eye-witness at all and there is inconsistency in the case of the prosecution. Thus, neither P.W. 1 nor P.W. 2 nor P.W. 3 is inspiring any confidence and they are not trustworthy witness. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. 9. Looking to the deposition given by these three eye-witnesses they have stated that the accused, who are total 10 in number had pressed the neck of Dilmohan Gope but looking to the medical evidence given by P.W. 6 Dr. Niranjan Minz, who has carried out post mortem there is no such injury on the neck of the deceased. Moreover, looking to the deposition of P.W. 3 in paragraph. No. 56 of his cross-examination, Balesh had given knife blow on the chest of the deceased. Thus, fatal injury was caused by Balesh, who is original accused no. 6, who has been acquitted. Moreover, looking to the deposition of P.W. 3 in paragraph. No. 56 of his cross-examination, Balesh had given knife blow on the chest of the deceased. Thus, fatal injury was caused by Balesh, who is original accused no. 6, who has been acquitted. Thus, looking to the overall evidence given by P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 to be read with deposition given by P.W. 6 Dr. Niranjan Minz the prosecution has failed to prove offence of murder committed by the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. 10. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, this criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2nd September, 2002 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, FTC., Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1995/T.R. No. 220 of 2002 is quashed and set aside. Appellant No. 2 Jalesh Gope @ Dinesh Gope. @ Jaleshwar Gope is acquitted from the charges leveled against him. Since the appellant no. 1 Dilesh Gope is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds and his sureties is also discharged from liability. Since the appellant no. 2 Jalesh Gope @ Dinesh Gope @ Jaleshwar Gope is in judicial custody, he is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.