JUDGMENT : It is submitted that the appellant No.-3 Illias Uraon @ Allias Lakra died on 18.10.1994, during pendency of this appeal. The death certificate of the appellant has been brought on record by filing supplementary affidavit. In view of the death certificate, this appeal abates as against appellant No.3. 2. Heard learned counsel for remaining appellants and learned counsel for the State. 3. The appellants are aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 24.07.1992 and order of sentence dated 25.07.1992 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau, whereby the appellant Tanis Uraon @ Tanis Lakra has been found guilty for the offence under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and the other appellants have been found guilty for the offence under Sections 302, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence has been passed for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 20.01.1987 the prosecution side had gone to sow the wheat in the land of one Aigu Mission and when they were returning back after sowing the wheat, there was a sound of firing. The accused persons were chased by the mob, in which, they found the appellant Tanis Uraon @ Tanis Lakra armed with double barrel gun and the accused Illias Uraon @ Allias Lakra (since dead) was armed with Bhala, the other appellants were also armed with Tangi etc. They were chased, but they managed to flee away. When they returned back, they found one Pius Lakra dead at the spot and Clement Minz was lying injured. Written information to the aforesaid effect was sent to the police station by one Barnabas Minz, who was also Ex-Mukhiya of the village, on the basis of which, Netarhat P.S. Case No.2 of 1987 was instituted and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet in the case. 5. Written information to the aforesaid effect was sent to the police station by one Barnabas Minz, who was also Ex-Mukhiya of the village, on the basis of which, Netarhat P.S. Case No.2 of 1987 was instituted and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet in the case. 5. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, the appellant Tanis Uraon @ Tanis Lakra was charged for the offence under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, whereas the other accused appellants were charged for the offence under Sections 302, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon denial of the charge, they were put on trial. 6. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and also proved the fardbeyan, F.I.R., inquest report, seizure list, injury report of the injured as also post-mortem report of the deceased. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are P.W.-9 Barnabas Minz, who is the informant in the case, P.W.-1 Billasius Khalko, P.W.-3 Manual Minz, P.W.-4 Sushil Minz, P.W.-6 Clement Minz, the injured in the case, and P.W.-8 Julias Karketta, are the material witnesses in the case. None of these witnesses have stated that they had seen either of the accused appellants assaulting either the deceased or the injured. They have stated that they only heard the sound of firing, whereupon the accused persons were chased, who were armed. P.W.-3 Manual Minz has admitted in his cross examination that there was dispute between the parties for the land in question and there were proceedings under Sections 107 and 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure between the Aigu Mission and the accused persons. Even P.W.-6 Clement Minz, who is the injured in the case, has admitted that he had not seen as to who had assaulted them. The other witnesses are only the hearsay witnesses or have been tendered. P.W.-12 Dr. Narendra Kumar Mishra, had conducted post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased and he has proved the post mortem report. P.W.-14 is Dr. Nicholas Bara, who had proved the injury report of the injured, who was examined by one Dr. C.M. Singh. P.W.-13 Mahendra Nath Pandey, is the I.O. of the case, who has proved the F.I.R., inquest report, the seizure list etc. and he has stated about the investigations made by him. P.W.-14 is Dr. Nicholas Bara, who had proved the injury report of the injured, who was examined by one Dr. C.M. Singh. P.W.-13 Mahendra Nath Pandey, is the I.O. of the case, who has proved the F.I.R., inquest report, the seizure list etc. and he has stated about the investigations made by him. This witness has stated that double barrel gun of the accused was produced before him and he had prepared the production-cum-seizure list of the gun which was the licensed gun of the accused. He has also stated that he had sent the licensed gun to Forensic Science Laboratory for its examination and he had also received the F.S.L. report. However, the F.S.L. report has not been proved by the prosecution. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case due to admitted land dispute between the parties, which is supported by P.W.-3 Manual Minz. It is further submitted that none of the witnesses have stated that they saw the appellants making assault upon the deceased or the injured, rather, the witnesses have only stated that they heard the sound of firing and thereafter accused persons were chased. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that though the double barrel gun of the accused appellant was seized by the police and it is also admitted to have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for forensic examination and further admitted that the report was also received from the F.S.L., but the said report has been withheld by the prosecution and has not been proved by the prosecution for the reasons best known to the prosecution, and withholding of F.S.L. report goes against the prosecution and makes the prosecution case doubtful. It is submitted that in absence of any specific allegation against the accused persons, the accused appellants are entitled at least benefit of doubt. 8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submitted that the witnesses have stated that upon hearing sound of firing, they chased the accused persons in which the appellant No.-1 Tanis Uraon @ Tanis Lakra was armed with double barrel gun and the other appellants were armed with other weapons. 8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submitted that the witnesses have stated that upon hearing sound of firing, they chased the accused persons in which the appellant No.-1 Tanis Uraon @ Tanis Lakra was armed with double barrel gun and the other appellants were armed with other weapons. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that the firearm injuries on the deceased as well as the injured have been proved by the doctors examined on behalf of the prosecution and the post mortem report has also been proved and marked exhibit in the case, which also corroborates the ocular evidence of the witnesses. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that since no one was there except the accused persons armed with weapons, the Court below has rightly found the appellants guilty for the offence and has convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 9. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that none of the material witnesses have made any specific allegation against accused persons. They have stated that after hearing sound of firing, accused appellants were chased, and when they returned back they found the dead body of the deceased and the injured lying at the place of occurrence. Even the injured Clement Minz, who was examined as P.W.-6, has stated that he had not seen who had assaulted them. The land dispute between Aigu Mission and the appellants is admitted by the prosecution witness, and it is settled principle of law that enmity cuts both ways. The double barrel gun allegedly used in the offence was seized by the police and was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and the Forensic Science Laboratory report was also received, but that report has not been proved by the prosecution. Withholding the report by the prosecution certainly goes against the prosecution and makes the prosecution case doubtful. The cumulative effect of all these is that, the appellants are entitled at least to the benefit of doubt. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 24.07.1992 and Order of sentence dated 25.07.1992 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau, in Sessions Trial No.150 of 1988, are hereby, set aside. The appellants are given the benefit of doubt and they are acquitted of the charges. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 24.07.1992 and Order of sentence dated 25.07.1992 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau, in Sessions Trial No.150 of 1988, are hereby, set aside. The appellants are given the benefit of doubt and they are acquitted of the charges. The appellants are on bail and they are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 11. This appeal is accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back forthwith to the Court concerned along with a copy of this Judgment.