JUDGMENT : By Court: Both the appellants were put on trial on the accusation of committing murder of Dinay Munda. The trial court, having found them guilty for the charge under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted them for the aforesaid offences vide its judgment dated 30th November, 2002 and sentenced each of them, to undergo imprisonment for life vide its order dated 2nd December, 2002 passed in Sessions Trial No.49 of 1999. 2. The case of the prosecution, as has been made out in the fardbeyan (Ext.3) is that on 16.03.1998 at about 11.A.M., the deceased-Dinay Munda along with his wife Mangri Kui as well as daughter and these two appellants, who happened to be the son-in-law and also Samdhi of the deceased, had gone to Jhanjhra Hot but they did not return home. On 18.03.1998, one Narayan Singh Bhumiz (P.W.2) informed to the informant-Lukesh Munda (since died) that the appellants had assaulted the deceased, who has been lying unconscious. On getting this information, informant-Lukesh Munda along with others, went to the place of occurrence and found his uncle Dinay Munda dead. 3. Thereupon, at about 3.00 P.M., the informant gave his fardbeyan to ASI namely, Sitaram of Toklo Police Station. Upon which, a formal first information report (Ext.2) was drawn and the case was registered. 4. The I.O., having taken over the investigation, did hold inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report. Thereupon the dead body was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Lalit Minz (P.W.1), who, upon holding autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, did find the following injuries:- Abrasion-right side of neck with pressure mark over neck. Blood Clots were present at right ear and right clavicle. On dissection, fracture of 2nd and 3rd vertebra (cervical) with fracture of hyoid bone was found. Brain was found intact. The Doctor issued postmortem examination report (Ext.1) with an opinion that the death was caused on account of the aforesaid injury caused by hard heavy object like lathi and big stone. 5. On completion of the investigation, when the charge sheet was submitted, the court took cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid against the appellants. 6. In due course, when the case was committed to the court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial during which, the prosecution examined five witnesses. Of them. 5. On completion of the investigation, when the charge sheet was submitted, the court took cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid against the appellants. 6. In due course, when the case was committed to the court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial during which, the prosecution examined five witnesses. Of them. P.W.2-Narayan Singh Bhumiz is the person, who had informed the informant about the deceased lying unconscious. He has testified that when he came to the deceased, he asked for water, which was provided by him but the deceased never disclosed about the name of the appellants to him. P.W.3-Mangri Kui is the widow of the deceased, who has testified that while the deceased was returning home from Jharjhara Hot along with these two appellants, who happened to be the son-in-law and Samdhi of the deceased as well as her daughter Sani Kui, some altercation took place in between the appellants and the deceased during which, the appellants assaulted with lathi and a piece of stone, as a result of which, the deceased fell unconscious. 7. After closure of the prosecution case, when the appellants were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidences appearing against them, they denied. Thereupon, the trial court, having placed its implicit reliance on the testimony of P.W.3, did find the appellants guilty for the charges as aforesaid and accordingly, recorded the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, which is under challenge. 8. Thereupon, the trial court, having placed its implicit reliance on the testimony of P.W.3, did find the appellants guilty for the charges as aforesaid and accordingly, recorded the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, which is under challenge. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the State and on perusal of the record, we do find that the trial court has based its finding on the testimony of P.W.-3 Mangri Kui, the widow of the deceased, who, as we have stated earlier, did testify that while she as well as her husband and daughter were returning home from Jharjhara Hot along with these two appellants, some altercation took place in between the appellants and the deceased during which, the appellants did assault with lathi and piece of stone, as a result of which, he fell unconscious and then, she along with her son-in-law (one of the accused) as well as her daughter, came home where she fell ill but it is surprising that P.W.3 even coming home did not inform anybody either on 16.03.1998 or 17.03.1998 and it also appears to be quite surprising as to when she did find that her husband on being assaulted, fell unconscious, she came home leaving her husband there unconscious and not informing either to the informant or anybody so that they may attend the deceased. It is only P.W.2-Narayan Singh Bhumiz, who has informed to the informant about the deceased lying unconscious. According to him, when he came to the deceased, he asked for water which he provided but the deceased never disclosed about the assailant, who had assaulted. He also does not speak about the presence of P.W.3 or her daughter in his evidence. 9. Under the circumstances, the testimony of P.W.3, appears to be quite suspicious, which never inspire confidence to be believed. The trial court. without considering the aforesaid matter, in right perspective, recorded the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, which is, hereby, set aside. 10. In the result, the appellants are acquitted of the charge and are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other cases. 11. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. Appeal allowed.