Judgment D.N. Patel, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Commissioner, Chotanagpur, Ranchi in S.T. No. 572 of 1995 dated 31.01.2004 whereby these appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. to be read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. for life imprisonment and accused, Rambilash Sahu has been further sentenced to undergo for rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C. Both the sentences against Rambilash Sahu are ordered to be run concurrently. 2. It is a case of the prosecution that on 24.05.1995 at 9 A.M. the informant Dharamdeo Sahu (P.W.13) gave fardbeyan to police at R.M.C.H, Hospital that he was going from his house to irrigate his field then Rambilash Sahu, Beni Sahu and Saroj Sahu who were holding Bomb and Sword in their hand were standing there. Thereafter Rambilash Sahu assaulted informant in thigh by knife due to which he get injured and then Beni Sahu, Rambilash Sahu and Saroj Sahu assaulted informant's brother Munna Sahu (deceased) with Bomb and Sword due to which informant's brother fell down and get unconscious. Thereafter when informant family member were taking the informant and his brother Munna Sahu to R.M.C.H, Hospital for treatment then in the way informant brother Munna Sahu died and treatment of informant is going on in Hospital. Thirteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution: PW1 Bimla Devi She is the wife of deceased Munna Sahu and is the eye witness of the occurrence. PW2 Gonda Sao He is the father of deceased Munna Sahu and is eye witness of the occurrence. PW3 Sahodra Devi She is the mother of deceased Munna Sahu and is eye witness of the occurrence. PW4 Suraj Sao He has proved his signature in the fardbeyan i.e. marked as Ext.1 PW5 Ratan Sahu He is the eye witness of the occurrence PW6 Nandlal Sahu He has proved his signature in the seizure list i.e. marked as Ext.2 PW7 Dr. PW4 Suraj Sao He has proved his signature in the fardbeyan i.e. marked as Ext.1 PW5 Ratan Sahu He is the eye witness of the occurrence PW6 Nandlal Sahu He has proved his signature in the seizure list i.e. marked as Ext.2 PW7 Dr. Niranjan Minz He is the doctor who has conducted the postmortem of the dead body of Munna Sahu and has proved the postmortem report i.e. marked Ext.3 PW8 Laxman Sahu He has proved his signature in the inquest report i.e. marked as Ext.4 and has also proved his signature in the seizure list i.e. marked as Ext.5 PW9 Raju Sah He is the eye witness of the occurrence PW10 Balchand Sahu He has proved his signature in the seizure list i.e. marked as Ext.2/1 PW11 Fagu Sahu He is the hearsay witness PW12 Sanjay Kumar Sahu He is the eye witness of the occurrence P.W13 Dharamdeo Sahu He is the informant of this case and is injured eye witness of the occurrence. He has proved his signature in the fardbeyan i.e. marked as Ext.4/1 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that there was major omissions, contradictions and improvements in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. 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 trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the so called eye witnesses of the prosecution are in fact not the eye witnesses at all and they have not proved the place of occurrence, the manner of occurrence, the weapon alleged to have been in the hands of the accused in use of the weapons and fact about the explosion of the Bomb. There is inconsistencies in every aspect of the matter between the so called eye witness, if in fact they are the correct eye witness and truthful reliable eye witness there would have been consistency in their deposition which is thoroughly lacking in their depositions. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the medical evidence given by P.W.7 is also grossly inconsistent with the depositions given by so called eye witness. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the medical evidence given by P.W.7 is also grossly inconsistent with the depositions given by so called eye witness. It has been stated by the P.W.7Dr. Niranjan Minz that the injuries cannot be caused by sword and dagger, if this is the evidence of P.W.7 then the eye witnesses are absolutely false and unreliable and there is no bomb injury whatsoever. Thus, the occular evidence and the medical evidence are absolutely inconsistent and in contradiction with each other. It is further submitted by the counsels for the appellants that the F.I.R is ante dated. Looking to the deposition given by P.W.13, who is the informant and the so called eye witness as per paragraph No.8, cross examination of the P.W.13. It is further submitted by the counsels for the appellants that the prosecution has not examined the investigating officer, thus when there is allegation about the ante dated F.I.R. and when there is evidence of ante dated F.I.R given by the informant the prosecution should have examine the investigating officer. No such investigating officer has ever been examined by the prosecution which is also fatal to the prosecution case. Moreover, looking to the evidence given by P.W.1, 3, 5, 9 and 13 there were several persons at the time of occurrence other than close relatives of the deceased. Not a single independent witness has been examined by the prosecution nor their statements have been recorded by the investigating officer nor they have been cited as prosecution witness in the chargesheet and the character of so called eye witnesses is narrated by P.W.13 in paragraph No.4 of the deposition that they have gone in jail on several occasions. Para 4 of the depositions of P.W.13 speaks volume about the characters of the relatives of the deceased and therefore also independent witness ought to have been examined by the prosecution because they were present at the time of occurrence. Para 4 of the depositions of P.W.13 speaks volume about the characters of the relatives of the deceased and therefore also independent witness ought to have been examined by the prosecution because they were present at the time of occurrence. It is further submitted by the counsels for the appellants that explosion of Bomb has been pointed out by P.W.13 who is an informant, his deposition is not on the line on which others so called or alleged eye witness has given their depositions in the court nor in the F.I.R., P.W.13 had stated anything about the explosion of Bomb. The phenomena of explosion of Bomb can not be presumed to have been wiped out by efflux of time. Nobody has stated about the Bomb explosion nor in medical evidence given by P.W.7 that there were injuries sustained by the deceased because of explosion of bomb, thus the witnesses are got up witnesses. Similarly, looking to paragraph No.7 of the deposition of P.W.2 who is the father of the deceased, P.W.1Bimla Devi and P.W.3Sahodra Devi were not present at the place of occurrence. All these depositions make a clear fact that the so called eye witnesses are not the eye witnesses at all because there is gross inconsistency about the narration of the weapons in the hands of the accused as well as there is gross inconsistencies in the depositions about usage of the weapons also. There is equally gross inconsistencies so far as explosion of Bomb is concerned and over and above these entersay inconsistencies between the so called eye witnesses, there is also inconsistencies between the occular evidence and medical evidence. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the prosecution witnesses have materially improved the case in their depositions before the learned trial court. It is further submitted by the counsels for the appellants that looking to the character of P.W.13, as stated in paragraph Nos. 4 and 6 of his depositions and also looking to the fact that no injury certificate of P.W.13 has been brought on record by the prosecution. It appears that no injury has ever been sustained by him at the behest of these appellants because this fact has not been proved at all and therefore, conviction of Rambilash Sahu under Section 324 of the I.P.C. also deserves to be quashed and set aside. It appears that no injury has ever been sustained by him at the behest of these appellants because this fact has not been proved at all and therefore, conviction of Rambilash Sahu under Section 324 of the I.P.C. also deserves to be quashed and set aside. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court, hence the judgment and order of sentence passed by the trial court in Sessions Trial No. 572 of 1995 deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellants that these appellants are in jail since last more than 13 years and 9 months. 5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently submitted that no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in his evidences on record and the case of prosecution is based on eye witnesses i.e. P.Ws.1, 3, 5, 9 and P.W.13 and they have consistently stated that these appellants were armed with bomb, sword and knife. They all came together and assaulted Munna Sahu as well as P.W.13, in which P.W.13 sustained injuries on his thigh and the deceased sustained injuries more than ten incised wounds. Looking to the depositions of these eye witnesses, they have proved the date of occurrence, time of occurrence, place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence and the weapons used in causing murder of Munna Sahu (deceased) who sustained injuries, which were so grievous in nature that in ordinary course of nature these injuries were sufficient to be caused death of the deceased. It is also submitted by the A.P.P. that the investigating officer is careless though there is injury on the body of P.W.13 and though he has taken treatment in the Government hospital at Ranchi which is referred in the chargesheet also but no care has been taken to place and prove the injury certificate of P.W.13 and the learned trial court has appreciated these evidence on record and rightly punished these appellants for life imprisonment as they shared common intention to cause death of the deceased and accused Rambilash Sahu as rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and therefore, this appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 6. 6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that: (i) P.W.13 has given fardbeyan before Doranda Police at hospital on 24.05.1995 at about 11:10 a.m. that on 24.05.1995 at about 9 a.m. when he was going from his house to irrigate his field at that time these three appellants who were holding bombs in their hands and sword and knife they were standing at their field thereafter Rambilash Sahu assaulted the informant on his thigh by knife thereafter they assaulted Munna Sahu with bomb, sword and knife. He sustained injuries and his brother Munna Sahu became unconscious thereafter he was taken to the hospital and informant was also taken to the hospital and brother Munna Sahu expired on the way to the hospital and informant treatment was going on in the hospital. On the basis of this fardbeyan, the F.I.R. was registered, investigation was carried out and statements of several prosecution witnesses were recorded. Thereafter chargesheet was filed and Sessions Trial No. 572 of 1995 was committed to the Sessions Court and on the basis of evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.13, the learned trial court has convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. to be read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. for life imprisonment and accused, Rambilash Sahu has been further sentenced to undergo for rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C. Both the sentences against Rambilash Sahu are ordered to be run concurrently. Thus, it appears that from the evidence on record that P.W.13 is an informant and P.W.1, 2, 3 , 5, 9 and 13 are the eye witnesses and they all are close relatives of the deceased, they are father, mother, brother and brother-in-law, and therefore, we shall scrutinize their depositions with all circumspection and with all care and caution because witnesses are saying that there were several other persons also present at the place of occurrence and no other persons have been examined as a prosecution witness. (ii) Looking to the depositions given by P.W.1, she has stated before the learned trial court that Raj Kumar and Munni Kumari were also the accused. (ii) Looking to the depositions given by P.W.1, she has stated before the learned trial court that Raj Kumar and Munni Kumari were also the accused. These two accused who have been added by this witness, then those who are referred in the F.I.R. It has also stated by this witness that appellant No.2 was having armed with dagger and bomb, appellant No.3 was having a sword and appellant No.1 was having knife in his hand. The narration of the weapons is different than the narration in F.I.R. Moreover there is also difference of usage of the weapons as per this witness and other so called eye witness upon the deceased and upon P.W.13. This witness has also not stated that which witness has used which weapon and caused injuries on which part of the body of the deceased. Looking to paragraph No.1 of the deposition of P.W.1, she has stated that when she was running away, at that time all the three appellants caused injuries upon her husband Munna Sahu by knife and sword. She has also stated in Paragraph No.8 that newly added accused namely, Raj Kumar and Munni Kumari were standing at the place of occurrence whereas in cross examination this witness in paragraph No.12 has stated that three accused who are named in the F.I.R. and two which have been added in this deposition, all have caused injuries upon the body of the deceased. Looking to the depositions of this witness she is not a trustworthy witness at all. The so called injuries narrated by this witness upon P.W.13 is also not proved by the prosecution. In paragraph No.17 in her deposition, it has been stated by this witness that twice the bomb were thrown, this is also a new theory and which is having total deviation from the F.I.R. and total deviation from the depositions of other so called eye witness, therefore, also she is unreliable witness because there is no bomb injury at all. She has never stated that bomb was exploded whereas P.W.13 has stated that bomb was exploded. (iii) Looking to the deposition of P.W.2, this witness has also stated before the learned trial court that P.Ws.1 and 3 were not present at the time of occurrence, this is the deposition in paragraph No.7 of his deposition. She has never stated that bomb was exploded whereas P.W.13 has stated that bomb was exploded. (iii) Looking to the deposition of P.W.2, this witness has also stated before the learned trial court that P.Ws.1 and 3 were not present at the time of occurrence, this is the deposition in paragraph No.7 of his deposition. In paragraph No.10 again he says that he saw P.W.1 and P.W3 at the place of occurrence thus this witness is not giving clear deposition before the trial court about the presence of P.Ws.1 and 3. This witness has stated that he has given general narration as about the usage of weapons and injuries sustained by the deceased and he also appears to be hearsay witness as per paragraph No.1 of his deposition. This witness has also added two accused then what is referred in the F.I.R., thus there is material improvement in the deposition of this witness. There is a suggestion given in cross-examination in para 9 about his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C that he is not the eye witness at all and he was informed by the other witnesses. It was the duty of the prosecution that looking to this type of suggestion of the witnesses in the cross-examination that investigating officer should have been examined, whenever there is suggestion in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses that they are not the eye witnesses at all and there is material improvement in their deposition in comparison that their statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., in that case examination of the investigating officer is must. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court. In the facts of the present case, Investigating Officer has not been examined. (iv) Looking to the deposition given by P.W.3, she is the mother of the deceased and she has stated that Rambilash Sahu had thrown the bomb upon the deceased, but, the bomb had not hit the deceased. She has never stated that bomb had ever exploded, whereas, P.W.13 who is also claiming himself an eye witness and nearer to the deceased, he explained that there was explosion of bomb. She has never stated that bomb had ever exploded, whereas, P.W.13 who is also claiming himself an eye witness and nearer to the deceased, he explained that there was explosion of bomb. P.W.2 who is the father of the deceased also says that upon hearing noise of explosion of the bomb he rushed, such and important phenomena cannot be omitted by this witness, thus explosion of bomb has not taken place as per P.W.3 so called eye witness of the incident. It has also been stated by this witness that the deceased was assaulted by sword, but, as stated by doctor P.W.7 in his deposition that the injuries were not capable to be caused by sword. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. There is gross inconsistency in the deposition of this witness and other eye witness and with the medical evidence hence this witness is also unreliable and untrustworthy. (v) Looking to the deposition of P.W.5, this witness is the cousin brother of the deceased and there is change of weapons in the hands of the accused as per the deposition of this witness. Moreover, in paragraph No. 5 this witness has stated that there were 50 to 60 persons at the place of occurrence, some names have also been given, but, they have not cited as the prosecution witness nor they have been examined as prosecution witness, who are independent witnesses as per para 5 of the deposition of P.W.5. Moreover, it is stated by P.W.5 in para 5 of his deposition that Sahodra Devi (P.W.3) and Raju Sahu (P.W.9) was also not present at the time of occurrence thus there is doubt about the presence of this eye witness at the place of occurrence and no care has been taken by the prosecution to dispel this doubt especially in the context of change of weapons in the hands of the accused as well as for the usage of weapons upon the deceased and also keeping in mind gross inconsistencies in medical evidence and occular evidence. In this background, there was need for prosecution to get these facts be clarified whether this so called eye witness was present at the time of occurrence or there was a need of examination of the independent witness who were 50 to 60 in numbers and few names have also been given as per the deposition of P.W.5 nor the investigating officer has been examined by the prosecution. Similarly, in para No.7 of deposition of P.W.3 there is narration of presence of several other persons at the time of occurrence, none of these eye witnesses have been examined. It ought to be kept in mind by the prosecution that best evidence should have been brought before the court. In the facts of the present case, as stated about several independent eye witnesses were present has not been examined by the prosecution and the character of the witnesses have been stated by P.W.13 in paragraph No.4 and 6 that he has been involved in several offences. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court hence the judgment and order of sentence passed by Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 572 of 1995 deserves to be quashed and set aside. This witness is also untrustworthy and unreliable. This witness has also improved the manner of occurrence. This witness has narrated scuffling between the assailants, victims and the informant. No other witness has narrated about scuffling nor the informant stated in the F.I.R. about scuffling. This is also material improvement. (vi) Looking to the deposition given by P.W.7Dr. Niranjan Minz following were injuries sustained by the deceased:- Stab wounds: (1) 3 x 1cm x 5cm on right chest back, 10cm right to midline. The back is dissected medially downwards and confined to wall only. (2) 2 x 1cm x 3cm, 2 and½cm x 1cm x 3cm on back of chest lower part midline of back is confined to the chest wall only. (3) 2 x 1cm x 3 and½'' cm at right genital region. (4) 2 x 1cm x 3cm on right thigh back. (5) 3 x 1cm x 3 and½cm right thigh lateral side upper part (6) 2 x 1cm x 4cm right thigh front lower part. (3) 2 x 1cm x 3 and½'' cm at right genital region. (4) 2 x 1cm x 3cm on right thigh back. (5) 3 x 1cm x 3 and½cm right thigh lateral side upper part (6) 2 x 1cm x 4cm right thigh front lower part. (7) 2 x 1cm x 4 and½cm on right thigh medial side middle part (8) 3 x 2cm x 4cm on right leg medial side upper part (9) Perforating wound – Having wound of entrance 2 x 1cm on right forearm lateral side upper part. The weapon passed through soft tissues and made an exist wound 2 x 1cm on right forearm medial side. (10) Perforating wound having wound of entrance 2 x 1cm on right forearm back middle path the weapon passed through the soft tissue and made on exist wound 1 x½'' x ½'' on right forearm medial side. (11) 1 and½cm x 1cm x 2cm on right palm from below the right thumb. (12) 2 and½cm x 1cm into cavity deep on right chest front situated 3cm right to midline the weapon penetrated into chest cavity through right fourth inter coastal space cutting the fourth right ribpart and entered into right lung 1 and½cm deep. There is presence of blood and blood clot in right chest cavity. Incised wound4 x 2cm into skin deep on left arm front upper part. Opinion: (1) All the injuries were ante mortem (2) Caused by sharp cutting cum pointed weapon. (3) Death due to hemorrhage and shock and the time elapsed since death 6 to 24 hours from the time of postmortem examination. Looking to the further deposition of P.W.7 in paragraph No. 3 that these injuries are not capable to be caused by sword and dagger and there was no injury by bomb. Looking to these evidences and comparing this medical evidence with occular evidence there is gross inconsistency between two. (vii) Looking to the deposition given by P.W.9 who is the brotherinlaw of the deceased, has stated that there were only three accused persons. Thus he has not referred those two added accused, which have been narrated by other so called eye witnesses in para No.1 of their deposition. In paragraph No.2, it has been stated by other two added accused who are juveniles have also used sword and they have caused murder of the deceased. Thus he has not referred those two added accused, which have been narrated by other so called eye witnesses in para No.1 of their deposition. In paragraph No.2, it has been stated by other two added accused who are juveniles have also used sword and they have caused murder of the deceased. This witness has also not stated about the bomb injuries. In medical evidence injuries was not capable of being caused by sword or chhura, thus deposition of this witness and the medical evidence is grossly inconsistent. Hence this witness is also untrustworthy and unreliable. Moreover, in paragraph No.9 this witness has also developed a new manner of occurrence that one bomb was thrown upon him and also not a single witness stated in the F.I.R. saying that one more bomb was also thrown upon P.W.9, thus looking to the other evidence on record, it appears that every witness is giving different manner of occurrence. The injured witness says about injuries sustained by him, but, the injury is not proved by the prosecution witness. Neither doctor who examined injured Eye Witness is examined nor injury certificate is proved. The bomb is exploded on P.W.13, but, there is no explosion of bomb. This witness says one more bomb was thrown upon him, but, there was no such evidence led by the prosecution either oral or documentary through the deposition of other eye witness that one more bomb was thrown upon P.W.9, therefore, also we have all reason to disbelieve the so called eye witness as there is material improvement and major contradictions in his deposition. (viii) Looking to the deposition given by P.W.13, it has been narrated and projected by the prosecution that he is the injured eye witness. Injury certificate of the so called eye witness has not been proved at all nor it has been brought on record by the prosecution. This so called injured eye witness has stated in paragraph Nos. 4 and 6 that twice he has gone in jail, once he had gone in jail for dacoity and also there are other criminal cases against him and there is suggestion about issuance of nonbailable warrant upon him. This witness has stated in paragraph No.8 of his deposition that the bomb had exploded, but, in the F.I.R. there is no reference of explosion of bomb nor the so called eye witness P.Ws. This witness has stated in paragraph No.8 of his deposition that the bomb had exploded, but, in the F.I.R. there is no reference of explosion of bomb nor the so called eye witness P.Ws. 1, 3, 5 and 9 have ever stated that they have seen the bomb exploded. This phenomena of explosion of bomb or no explosion of bomb, cannot be forgotten by any of the eye witness, if they are true and correct eye witness present at the time of occurrence. This witness has also stated in paragraph No.8 that he has signed the fardbeyan without reading the same nor the police read ever fardbeyan before him, thus he has pleaded his ignorance about contents of his fardbeyan. This witness has also stated about bleeding neither the scooter upon which he had gone to the hospital has been seized with blood stains nor his injury certificate has been proved by the prosecution. There is gross inconsistency between the deposition of this witness P.W13 along with depositions of other so called eye witness. The persons with whom he had gone to the hospital on scooter have also not been examined as prosecution witness. Thus F.I.R was signed by him without reading, his injury certificate has not been proved. The witness who has taken him to the hospital has not been examined and explosion of bomb as narrated by this witness as a manner of occurrence, is also grossly different than the manner of occurrence stated by other eye witness. Thus, this evidence on record makes this witness also untrustworthy and unreliable. Moreover, this witness has stated in paragraph No.8 about ante dated F.I.R. and the investigating officer has not been examined to correct the true fact about recording the F.I.R., this is also fatal to the prosecution. Moreover, in the F.I.R there are only three accused whereas there is a narration by the prosecution witness about five accused persons. Those two added accused have also used sword, this evidence makes this witness untrustworthy and unreliable. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. Moreover, in the F.I.R there are only three accused whereas there is a narration by the prosecution witness about five accused persons. Those two added accused have also used sword, this evidence makes this witness untrustworthy and unreliable. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. (ix) The seizure list witness, who is P.W.10 in para 12 has stated that one knife was recovered from the house of Rambilash Sahu, but, it is a new brand knife and there was no blood stains thus there is no seizure of the weapons which has been used in causing murder of the deceased. 7. Thus looking to the over all evidences on record and as a cumulative effect the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.1, 2, 3, 5, 9 and 13 are untrustworthy and unreliable. The prosecution has failed to prove the offences of murder committed by these appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Likewise the prosecution has also failed to prove the injury upon the informantP.W.13 caused by Rambilash Sahu beyond reasonable doubt. We therefore, quash and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi dated 31.01.2004 in Sessions Trial No. 572 of 1995. The appellants are in judicial custody since last more than 13 years and 9 months. Thus, if the presence of these appellants are not required in jail in any other case, they shall be released forthwith from custody. 8. This appeal is allowed and disposed of. Appeal allowed.