JUDGMENT : This jail appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 13th April 2006 and Order of sentence dated 18th April 2006, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C), Dumka, in S.C Case No.146 of 2004, whereby, the sole appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for five years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the State. No one has appeared for the appellant, as such, we have gone through the records of the case. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of Dheneshwar Pahariya, who is the son of the deceased. He has stated in the fardbeyan that on 10.12.2003 at about 4:00 P.M, the accused, Parsuram Tuddu came to his house and took his father Shyamlal Paharia along with him for wine and dine, on the pretext that he had performed worship of harvesting. His father went with Parsuram Tuddu, but he did not return back in the night. On the next morning, near a bush, his dead body was found with some injuries on the face and some teeth were broken. The smell of wine was also coming from the mouth. Alleging that the accused Parsuram Tuddu had committed the murder of his father, the fardbeyan was recorded, on the basis of which, Saraiyahat P.S Case No.180 of 2003, corresponding to G.R No. 1225 of 2003, was instituted for the offence under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused appellant under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and upon the accused pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. In course of trial, eleven witnesses were examined for the prosecution, including the informant, the wife of the deceased, and the doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. In course of trial, eleven witnesses were examined for the prosecution, including the informant, the wife of the deceased, and the doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The I.O of the case was not examined. 5. The impugned Judgment and the LCR show that though the witnesses examined by the prosecution, have stated that the appellant had taken the deceased along-with him and on the next day, the dead body was found, but the fact remains that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. There is only last seen evidence against the appellant and it is an admitted fact that the deceased had taken wine and when the dead body was found, the smell of wine was there in his mouth. 6. P.W-11 is Dr. Chandeshwar Prasad Sinha, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 12.12.2003 and had found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person : (I) Diffused swelling over left temporal region ( left cheek). (II) Diffused swelling over left eye-brow on left side of forehead -on dissection blood clot found beneath the swelling. On further dissection frontal bone found fractured on left side near junction of left parietal bone. On further dissection brain meninges found lacerated and collection of blood found inside the cranium. (III) Two central incisor and one left lateral incisor teeth in upper jaw were missing and socket was full of blood clot. The viscera of the deceased were preserved for chemical analysis for examination of alcohol. This witness has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-3. In his cross-examination, this witness has clearly stated that the injuries were possible, if a person falls on a hard earth in drunken condition under the influence of alcohol. 7. The impugned Judgment clearly shows that the defence is the denial of the charge and the plea was taken that the deceased had sustained injuries due to fall on earth under the influence of alcohol and had died. The Court below, on the basis of evidence on record, particularly, the last seen evidence, has found the appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and has convicted and sentenced him for the same. 8. Upon going through the medical evidence of P.W-11 Dr. The Court below, on the basis of evidence on record, particularly, the last seen evidence, has found the appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and has convicted and sentenced him for the same. 8. Upon going through the medical evidence of P.W-11 Dr. Chandeshwar Prasad Sinha, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext-3, we are of the considered view that no such injury was found on the deceased to suggest that he was assaulted by any deadly weapon. It is an admitted fact that the deceased had consumed wine and the doctor has clearly stated that the injuries were possible, if a person falls on hard earth under the influence of alcohol. As there was smell of alcohol, the viscera of the deceased were also preserved for chemical analysis for examination of alcohol. Thus, the possibility of the death of the deceased due to fall on hard surface under the influence of alcohol, cannot be ruled out, and in our considered view, the benefit thereof ought to have been given to the accused appellant. There is no eye witness to the occurrence of murder, and there is only last seen evidence against the accused. Indeed the in their cross-examination the informant P.W.-7 Dheneshwar Pahariya and his mother P.W.-6 Shanti Devi have admitted that the deceased and the accused were in friendly and in visiting terms. P.W.-6 Shanti Devi has also stated that there was no reason behind the occurrence. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view, that in the facts of this case, the appellant is entitled to the benefits of doubt, and the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 13th April 2006 and the Order of sentence dated 18th April 2006, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C), Dumka, in S.C. No.146 of 2004, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, which is hereby, set aside. The appellant Parsuram Tuddu @ Pasiya Tudu is given the benefits of doubt and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is in custody. Let him be released and set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not wanted in any other case. 10. This appeal is accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith to the Court concerned, along-with a copy of this Judgment.