JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Md. Azizul Hoque @ Azizur Rahman has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation. He has also been convicted under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The jail sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The victim of the incident was Amiya Pathak, aged 60 years. 3. According to the prosecution case, on 22.7.2010, around 9 p.m., Amiya was sitting in the verandah of her house. At that time, the appellant went to her and enquired about her daughter Tepo. Amiya replied by saying that Tepo was not in the house. The appellant then repeatedly struck her with a dao and fled. Bintu Das Pathak (PW-1) is daughter-in-law of Amiya. She was present in the house and saw the appellant running away from the spot. Immediately, vehicle was arranged for taking Amiya to hospital, but she died on way. Bintu Das narrated the incident to Alok Pathak (PW-4), who, in turn, made ejahar exhibit 5 at Police Outpost Kumrikata falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Tamulpur, District Baksa. In the ejahar, Alok mentioned the name of appellant as the assailant of Amiya. 4. Dr. Hemanta Kumar Bora (PW-7) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Amiya. He found five injuries, out of which, four were cut injuries. The doctor in his post mortem examination report exhibit 7 opined that Amiya died due to multiple cut injuries. 5. Investigating Officer–Upendra Nath (PW-8) arrested the appellant on 23.7.2010 and on his disclosure statement recovered one dao from his possession in the presence of witnesses – Prakash Talukdar (PW-3) and Rajen Pathak (PW-6). The seizure of dao is exhibit 4. 6. During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. But the trial court mainly relying on the evidence of Bintu Das and also the seizure of dao from the possession of appellant convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 7. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the trial court committed an illegality in relying upon the evidence of Bintu Das to convict him. It has also been argued that the alleged recovery of dao does not in any manner connect the appellant with the murder of Amiya. 7. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the trial court committed an illegality in relying upon the evidence of Bintu Das to convict him. It has also been argued that the alleged recovery of dao does not in any manner connect the appellant with the murder of Amiya. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, defended the conviction and sentences of the appellant, as passed by the trial court. 8. Bintu Das says that on the date of incident around 9 p.m., she was sitting along with Amiya in the verandah, but went to her house because her baby was about to sleep. She further says that from her house on hearing the sound of beating she rushed to the place of occurrence and saw a boy going with a dao. According to her evidence, the people then told her that the boy was appellant. It is thus clear that this witness did not actually see the appellant causing injuries to Amiya. She only claims seeing a boy leaving the place of occurrence with a dao and the people told her that the boy was appellant. But again, which person, who disclosed the identity of boy as appellant to her, has neither been mentioned nor he has been examined by the prosecution. Also no effort was made by the police to get the appellant identified by Bintu Das in the Test Identification Parade. This being the situation, we find it wholly unsafe to convict the appellant on the evidence of Bintu Das. 9. It is true that Alok had named the appellant as an assailant of Amiya in the ejahar made by him. But Alok is not an eye witness to the incident and was informed about the incident by Bintu Das, whose evidence, we have found to be insufficient and unreliable to convict the appellant. 10. Another evidence relied upon by the prosecution is that of discovery of dao pursuant to disclosure statement of appellant. The seized dao was not sent for Forensic Science Laboratory report. There is nothing on record to show that it had blood stain. 10. Another evidence relied upon by the prosecution is that of discovery of dao pursuant to disclosure statement of appellant. The seized dao was not sent for Forensic Science Laboratory report. There is nothing on record to show that it had blood stain. Also it is well settled that disclosure statement alone does not automatically lead to conclusion that the offence was committed by the accused as the burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between the discovery of the material object and its use in the commission of crime. In the case at hand, there is no evidence to establish the use of seized dao in the commission of crime. 11. For these reasons, conviction and sentences imposed on the appellant by the trial court cannot be sustained. We accordingly set aside the impugned judgment and acquit him of the charges. The appeal is allowed.