JUDGMENT (Per: V.K. Bist, J.) This Jail Appeal, preferred under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2012, passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2012, whereby said court has convicted accused/appellants Roshan Lohar and Shyam Munda under Section 302/34 I.P.C., sentenced them imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of ‘ 2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine the convicts are directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. 2. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 28.10.2011, P.W.1 Kishore Chand made a written complaint to the Station Officer Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal, with the assertion that in village Udkhanda, he has taken rosin contract from the Forest Department for which he use to engage labour. He is tenant of Hoshiyar Singh S/o Tua Singh Negi resident of village Pipleth. He reported that on 27.10.2011, his three labourers, namely, Ratiya S/o Suren Ram, Roshan Lohar S/o Suprem Lohar and Shyam Munda S/o Sunil Munda, all residents of Central Department, Basra Division Tea Estate, Post Pana Basti, Jalpai Gudi, West Bengal came to his residence in the night. He was cooking food in the kitchen. Meanwhile, at about 09:30 p.m., he heard some noise coming from the adjoining room. He went there and saw that on some pretext, accused/appellants were beating Ratiya(deceased). Both were having sticks in their hands and were beating Ratiya on his head and face. He tried to interrupt, but they pushed him out. Both the assailants took his mobile as well as sticks (used in crime) with them and fled away. After their parting, he saw that Ratiya was dead. Due to night and due to fear of attackers as well as of wild animals, he could not report the matter in the night. In the morning, he informed the same to his known and thereafter, he went to the police station. On the basis of said written complaint, F.I.R. was lodged on 28.10.2011 at 10:10 a.m. and Crime No.8 of 2011 was registered in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. against accused/appellants Roshan Lohar and Shyam Munda. In the morning, he informed the same to his known and thereafter, he went to the police station. On the basis of said written complaint, F.I.R. was lodged on 28.10.2011 at 10:10 a.m. and Crime No.8 of 2011 was registered in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. against accused/appellants Roshan Lohar and Shyam Munda. They were arrested on 28.10.2011 about 11:45 a.m. near ticket window of Railway Station, Rishikesh. Investigation was taken up by P.W.6 S.O. Om Veer Singh, who interrogated the witnesses and started investigation. After completion of investigation, the said Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused/appellants Roshan Lohar and Shyam Munda, for their trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302 I.P.C. 4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, on receipt of the charge sheet, committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. The learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, framed charge of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C to which both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W.1 Kishore Chand (complainant), P.W.2 S.I. Jagdamba Prasad Kukreti, P.W.3 Dr. Radha Kishan Lal Srivastava (Medical Officer), P.W.4 H.C.P. Narendra Singh, P.W.5 S.I. Abhinav Sharma and P.W.6 S.O. Om Veer Singh Rawat (Investigating Officer). Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which they alleged that the evidence adduced against them is false. After hearing the parties, the trial Court found the accused/appellants Roshan Lohar and Shyam Munda guilty of charge of offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., and convicted them accordingly. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 31.08.2012, passed by the Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 2012, this jail appeal is preferred by the convicts Roshan Lohar and Shyam Munda. 5. The learned Sessions Judge by relying on the statement of P.W.1 and finger print report convicted the appellants. It is true that P.W.1 in his statement has stated that deceased was beaten by the accused/appellant by sticks. Post mortem report also suggests the death of the deceased due to anti mortem injury. But testimony of this witness has to be examined very carefully. Death occurred inside his room. It is true that P.W.1 in his statement has stated that deceased was beaten by the accused/appellant by sticks. Post mortem report also suggests the death of the deceased due to anti mortem injury. But testimony of this witness has to be examined very carefully. Death occurred inside his room. In his F.I.R. this witness reported that after commission of crime the accused/appellants took away the sticks with them which were used in crime. In his examination-in-chief this witness has stated that sticks were kept in the room and when police came with the accused, same were taken into possession by the police. In his cross examination this witness again changed his stand and said that accused took away sticks with them and police recovered both the sticks at the instance of the accused from a place Bemunda. Therefore, this witness cannot be said a reliable witness. This witness also stated that his mobile phone was taken away by the accused but the prosecution failed to prove that the mobile recovered from one of the accused is the same mobile which was taken from the complainant. No reason/motive was given for commission of crime by the accused. Undisputedly, the complainant (P.W.1) was residing on rent in the house of one Hoshiyar Singh, Village Piplet. While the deceased was being beaten up, the complainant could have taken help of his landlord and other villagers and thus life of deceased could be saved. It is not the case of the defence that the said house was in isolated place. P.W.4 Head Constable Narendra Singh stated that there is a house at nearly place. Nothing was done by the complainant and he waited for whole night. In normal circumstance, if murder takes place inside a house, the occupant of the house living alone cannot keep quite for whole night and will certainly move towards his neighbours and will inform them about the incident. All these facts are bound to create doubt in the mind of a prudent person. In our view the accused/appellants cannot be convicted on the testimony of P.W.1. Learned Sessions Judge also relied upon the finger print report submitted by Forensic Lab which suggests that finger prints of one of the accused/appellants Roshan Luhar matched with the sample finger print. The articles which were sent for chemical examination are glass, container, jerkin and box. In our view the accused/appellants cannot be convicted on the testimony of P.W.1. Learned Sessions Judge also relied upon the finger print report submitted by Forensic Lab which suggests that finger prints of one of the accused/appellants Roshan Luhar matched with the sample finger print. The articles which were sent for chemical examination are glass, container, jerkin and box. These articles are not shown by the Investigating Officer in site map nor the said articles have been shown on the inspection note of the spot. Even these articles were not produced in the Court. Therefore, finger print report cannot be used against the appellants. 6. In view of above discussion, in our view, the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubts. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and order under appeal is set aside. The appellants are in jail. They are directed to be released forthwith, unless their custody is necessary in connection with any other case. 7. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the court below alongwith the lower court record.