Judgment This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.11.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Fast Track Court, Giridih in S.T. Case No. 183 of 1998, wherein and whereunder the Court, having found the appellant guilty for committing murder of deceased-Surendra Singh in furtherance of the common object with other accused, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution, as it appears from the fardbeyan of the informant Naresh Singh -P.W. 10, is that on 23.11.1996, which was a day of Hatiya, the informant-Naresh Singh came to Hatiya along with his brother Surendra Singh-deceased as they were having grocery shop at the Hatiya. At about 4.00 p.m. all on a sudden several persons came after forming unlawful assembly and caught hold of his brother-Surendra Singh and started assaulting him. Meanwhile, the informant gave a lathi blow on the head of one of the miscreants. The miscreants also gave a lathi blow over the head of the informant. Thereupon the miscreants fired shot and also exploded bomb. Meanwhile, some miscreants blew whistle, upon which, 25-30 miscreants, who were in police uniform, came and took his brother to Kali Manda where his neck was severed off from his body. 3. Thereupon, Officer in-charge of Pirtand Police Station, on getting information when came to village, he recorded the fardbeyan of the informant-Naresh Singh, where he narrated the same story as has been stated above. The informant also disclosed about the motive stating therein that the miscreants had taken possession of the land forcibly and therefore, they were being asked to leave the possession. 4. On the basis of the said fardbeyan a formal F.I.R-Ext. 5 was drawn and the case was taken up for investigation by Arvind Kumar Sinha-P.W. 8, during which he seized a slip and prepared a seizure-list -Ext. 6. Subsequently P.W. 7, Srikant Singh took over the investigation during which he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report-4. Thereupon, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted by doctor B.P. Singh-P.W.-2, who on holding autopsy did find following injuries: (i) Head was separated from trunk of the level of the cervical vertebrae Edges of the wound were clean cut and even. Thereupon, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted by doctor B.P. Singh-P.W.-2, who on holding autopsy did find following injuries: (i) Head was separated from trunk of the level of the cervical vertebrae Edges of the wound were clean cut and even. (ii) Incised wound on right side forehead 2” X ½” X scalp deep. (iii) Two incised wounds on parietal region, 2/3” X 3/4” X scalp deep and 1 ½ “ X 1/2” X skin deep on both sides of scalp. (iv) Incised wound on back right side below scapular region 2” X 1/2” X muscle deep. (v) Incise wound on right hand palmer aspect – 2” X 1/2” X muscle deep. On dissection:- Complete cut of vessels of neck wind pipe. 5. The doctor-P.W.-2 issued post-mortem examination report (Ext-1) with an opinion that all the injuries were antimortem in nature and caused by sharp cutting weapon. According to him death was caused on account of shock and hemorrhage due to cutting of neck. 6. Meanwhile, the I.O. recorded the statements of the witnesses. On completion of investigation, when the charge sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offence was taken. In due course, when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial. 7. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. Of them, P.W.-1-Chhaku Barahi, P.W.-3-Narayan Bhagat, P.W.-5-Jitu Singh, P.W. 6-Bindeshwar Singh (brother of the deceased) and P.W. 10-Naresh Kumar Singh (informant) have been declared hostile, as they did not support their earlier statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, P.W. 4-Bilash Devi (mother of the deceased), did testify that when bomb was exploded there was hue and cry during which she came to know that Gokhul Teli, Kripal Rai and Ram Nath Singh (this appellant) have killed the deceased. P.W. 7Srikant Singh and P.W. 8-Arvind Kumar Sinha are the Investigating Officers whereas P.W 9 happens to be a formal witness. 8. On completion of the investigation when the police submitted charge-sheet cognizance of the offence was taken. Upon closure of the prosecution case when the incriminating evidences appearing against the appellant were put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied. 8. On completion of the investigation when the police submitted charge-sheet cognizance of the offence was taken. Upon closure of the prosecution case when the incriminating evidences appearing against the appellant were put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied. Thereupon, the court putting reliance on the testimony of P.W. 4 disclosing the name of this appellant and others to be the assailant found him guilty and, hence, recorded the order of conviction and sentence, which is under challenge. 9. Heard Mr. Awadhesh Pandey for the appellant and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P for the State. 10. From perusal of the record, we do find that P.W.4-the mother of the deceased has testified in her examination-in-chief that 3-4 years before the appellant had made her to consume night soil. On the date of Hatiya, she heard halla that this appellant, Gokhul Teli and Kripal Rai have committed murder of the deceased. But in the cross examination, she did testify that when she after taking meal was washing off her hands somebody said that the deceased has been done to death and when she went there, she found the deceased dead. She did categorically state that she cannot say as to who had disclosed the name of the appellant. 11. Thus, P.W. 4 happens to be an hearsay witness who as per her evidence came to know the name of the appellant as assailant when somebody was shouting the name of the appellant and as such her evidence does not have any evidentiary value. 12. Still the Court did rely on her evidence and thereby it committed illegality in recording the order of conviction and sentence and hence it is hereby set aside. 13. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The appellant, named above, who is in custody, is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Thus, this appeal stands allowed.