Judgment Six accused persons, namely, Pradeep Choudhary (appellant), Manoj Kumar Choudhary, Babu Lal Choudhary, Dilip Choudhary, Dinesh Choudhary and Chameli Devi were put on trial by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger after being indicted of committing the offences under sections 147 and 302/149 of the I.P.C. out of whom the present appellant Pradeep Choudhary was specifically charged for committing the offence under section 302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 2nd August, 2002 and all the accused persons were convicted of the charge under section 302/149 I.P.C. and as regards present appellant, his conviction was recorded under section 304 part-II I.P.C. After being heard on sentence the appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in case of having defaulted in making payment of fine the appellant was to suffer rigorous imprisonment additional for a period of one year. The appellant Pradeep Choudhary challenges the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence. 2. As per prosecution case, it was the day of Holika Dahan as appears from the fardbeyan (Ext.2) as also from the evidence of P.W.4 Anil Kumar Sao. The Informant stated that he along with the deceased and others were present at the site of Holika Dahan when five accused persons named in the F.I.R. except the lady accused Chameli Devi, came there armed with Pijouna (a hard and blunt wooden article like a Lathi or a Danda which is used by toddy tapers for sharpening their cutting sickle) and asked from the Informant as to why he had put the wood belonging to them into fire. The Informant and his companions stated that they did not know anything about it, upon which the accused persons started giving blows with Pijouna and Lathi to the Informant and others. As regards present appellant, he was specifically alleged to have given blow with Pijouna to the head of the deceased Sanjay Kumar, who fell unconscious. The Informant stated that other accused persons had given blows with Lathi, as a result of which, the Informant was injured on his arms and ribs and Anil Kumar Sao (P.W.4) was hit on his forehead and legs. 3. On the basis of Ext. The Informant stated that other accused persons had given blows with Lathi, as a result of which, the Informant was injured on his arms and ribs and Anil Kumar Sao (P.W.4) was hit on his forehead and legs. 3. On the basis of Ext. 2 F.I.R. of the case was initially drawn up under sections 147, 148, 323 and 307/149 I.P.C. and it appears that on the death of Sanjay Kumar section 302 I.P.C. was inserted in the F.I.R. Postmortem examination was held on the dead body by Dr. Sudhir Kumar (P.W. 9) who prepared postmortem examination report (Ext.3). 4. What appears from the evidence of P.W. 9 Dr. Sudhir Kumar is that there could not be any doubt that the deceased had succumbed to the fatal injuries which had been inflicted upon him. P.W. 9 during autopsy had found the following antemortem injuries:- (1) Lacerated wound over the left eyebrow measuring 3”x 1”x scalp deep. (2) Lacerated wound over forehead, just right and lateral to midline measuring 1-1/2”x 1/2”x scalp deep. On dissection, P.W. 9 found fracture of frontal bone, right parietal bone and occipital bone and further found that there was blood clot over the brain matter and ménages and death had occurred due to shock and hemorrhage resulting out of the injuries caused by hard and blunt substance within 24 hours of holding of postmortem examination. 5. The defence of the appellants was that they had falsely been implicated. It was pleaded that in fact no one had seen and identified the assailants of the deceased and it probably, the police, who on account of having the information that the informant had committed the murder of his sister due to suspecting her of carrying on an illicit relationship with the deceased, was forced or pressurized to lodge a false report. It was also suggested to P.W.7, the Informant that he himself killed the deceased who was having an illicit relationship with his sister and had lodged a false report. 6. In support of the charges the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses, out of whom P.W. 2 Jamuna Prasad, P.W.3 Birju Choudhary, P.W. 5 Ajay Kumar and P.W. 6 Jehal Paswan were tendered for cross examination while P.W. 10 Abdul Wahab and P.W. 11 Amrit Yadav who were probably witnesses to the seizure had, on account of not having supported the charges, were declared hostile. P.W. 8 Anant Lal was a witness of formal character. having proved the writings of the fardbeyan by stating that he was acquainted with the writings and signature of the police officer who had taken down the report (Ext.2). P.W. 12 Dr. Mrigendra Prasad Singh had examined P.WS. 4 and 7, i.e. Anil Kumar Sao and the Informant Karpuri Rajak for their injuries and had issued injury report certificates (Ext.5 and 5/1). 7. There was solitary defence witness examined by the acquitted accused Dilip Choudhary. This Court does not see any purpose to examine the merits of that evidence, because that pertained to the defence of acquitted accused Dilip Choudhary. 8. Sri Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant took the Court through the evidence of the witnesses and submitted that in fact it was a blind murder which was not seen by any one nor any one had really been identified as the person to have perpetrated the offence and probably the informant, himself an accused in a case of murder of his own sister had lodged false information report under pressure from police. 9. Three witnesses came to support the charges. They were claiming themselves to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 1 Raju Sah was stating that while he was keeping watch on his onion field, he picked up hulla emanating from the place of occurrence and he came there and found five persons giving blows to the deceased Sanjay Kumar who was lying on the ground and P.W.1 also raised hulla. Family members of the deceased came and took him to hospital by a vehicle. P.W. 1 was examined on 19.01.1996. What appears from his deposition sheet is that accused Manoj Kumar Choudhary was present in the dock on that day and other accused persons had been allowed to be represented by their counsel. The witness failed to identify Manoj Kumar Choudhary. Besides what appears from the cross-examination of P.W. 1 is that he had not stated the facts that he was keeping a watch over his onion field to the Investigating Officer. Likewise, attention of the witness was also drawn to his earlier statement made to the police, in which he appears to have stated to the Investigating Officer that he had learnt about the incident from others and had given the information to the police thereon. Likewise, attention of the witness was also drawn to his earlier statement made to the police, in which he appears to have stated to the Investigating Officer that he had learnt about the incident from others and had given the information to the police thereon. Criticism to the evidence of witness was that the defence was seriously prejudiced by not getting the above facts proved U/S 157 Evidence Act due to the non examination of the Investigating Officer. Other witness P.W. 4 Anil Kumar Sao had claimed his presence with the informant on the same place of Holika Dahan and had given an eye witness account to the occurrence by stating similar facts which were stated by P.W. 7 Karpuri Rajak, the informant of the case. However, what appears from cross-examination of P.W.4 Anil Kumar Sao was that he had never given his statement to the police. So far as evidence of P.W. 7 is concerned, he also appears faultering as regard the identification of the accused. P.W. 7 was examined on 31.05.1996 and evidence of identification of accused persons comes in para-5 of his deposition sheet wherein he stated that the accused standing in the dock was Dinesh Choudhary. The learned Judge, recording the evidence of P.W. 7 in examination-in-chief had recorded that there was a solitary accused standing in the dock on that day and he was Manoj Kumar Choudhary. 10. Thus, from the above evidence of P.WS. 1 and 7 what appears is that they are not reliable witnesses as regards identification or identity of the accused persons. This becomes more clear when one had taken a glance of the evidence of P.W.7 in para-13 where P.W. 7 had volunteered that the four accused persons were looking alike and it was extremely difficult to identify them by their names. I have already seen that the identification of accused by their face was also not correctly made by the witnesses who faulter in taking the names of accused in Court. Accused persons were non else than the very co-villagers of the informant and there could not be any difficulty for the informant in identifying them correctly. As regards source of identification, submission was that it was not available and identification of the accused person was not possible. Accused persons were non else than the very co-villagers of the informant and there could not be any difficulty for the informant in identifying them correctly. As regards source of identification, submission was that it was not available and identification of the accused person was not possible. But one aspect of the evidence shows that Holika Dahan had already been performed and as such it has to be presumed there was sufficient light at the spot to see the faces of persons, especially the persons who had come so appropriately armed to assault the Informant and others. There could not be any doubt that the witnesses could have very well seen the faces of persons who had really participated in commission of the offence, but the manner in which they faultered in identifying the accused persons in the dock who as noted above, were the very villagers of the informant, raises a serious doubt regarding participation of the accused persons being real. That doubt is further heightened by the fact that there was no lady accused named in the F.I.R. In the F.I.R. not even it had been whispered that any lady would have participated with the male-accused in the occurrence. The prosecution, however, subsequently named a lady accused, namely, Chameli Devi (since acquitted) and that implication appears brazen in view of there being no scope for inducting further name in the array which was already existing in the fardbeyan. 11. The above inferences could be enough to raise a doubt that might be the informant, finding himself in a very tight-box, after having been made an accused in the murder case of his sister, who was carrying an illicit relationship with the deceased Sanjay Kumar, was probably pressured by the police to lodge the report. The other probability which also comes evenly from the record was based on some admitted facts. The deceased Sanjay Kumar was a liquor vendor. He wad dealing in liquor and the evidence of the witnesses suggest that his liquor shop was situated just by the side of place where the occurrence had taken place on the day of Holika Dahan. Knowledge of human behavior and life style, informs the Court that there could be a few notable exceptions who could not be inebriated that night. 12. Knowledge of human behavior and life style, informs the Court that there could be a few notable exceptions who could not be inebriated that night. 12. According to the prosecution case solitary blow was being given by the appellant on the head of the deceased with that of particular hard and blunt substance which has been described as Pijouna, but the Doctor found what weapons which I have just noted in the earlier part of the present judgment and on a careful scrutiny of those two antimortem wounds what appears is that each of the wounds were identical to each other and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, as there was fracture right from frontal to back portion of the head of the deceased which smashed the brain matter. The evidence of P.W. 9 as such suggests manner of occurrence different from that it was alleged by the prosecution. These are some of the reasons on which I have some doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case and in my considered opinion benefit of doubt would also be given to the accused persons as was given to the acquitted accused persons. 13. In the result, appeal is allowed. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set aside. The solitary appellant Pradeep Choudhary, who is on bail, is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. Appeal allowed.