ORDER : D.N.Patel, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.12.2006 and 13.12.2006 respectively, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 165/05/46/05, whereby, this appellant has been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 27.02.2005 at 1.30 hrs (i.e 1.30 A.M) the informant Rutuj Hembram informed, police that on 26.02.2005 in the evening when ox of informant did not return from the field to his house, then his elder brother Churka Hembram (deceased) went out in search of ox in the village. When Churka Hembram reached in front the house of Suni Ram Hembram (accused) while searching his ox, then Suni Ram Hembram (accused) asked Churka Hebram that why have you come here. Upon this he replied that he is searching his ox and has not come to commit theft of cattles of Suni Ram Hembram. In the meantime Suni Ram Hembram shot an arrow at Churka Hembram. As a result, he sustained injury in his chest, so, he raised alarm. Thereafter the informant and other villagers reached there. It was further alleged by the informant that Suni Ram Hembram had again shot arrow at him in his chest. Thereafter informant brother Churka Hembram fell down on the ground then accused Suni Ram Hembram and his wife brought the dead body in the veranda of their house. In the meantime villagers assembled at the place of occurrence and they found that Churka Hembram died after sustaining bleeding injuries in his chest by bow and arrow. Thereafter Suni Ram Hembram tried to flee away from there but the villagers caught him and tied him with rope. Nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution: PW-1 Dipti Hembram He is a Hearsay witness. PW-2 Sufal Hembram He is an Eye witness of occurrence. PW-3 Baijnath Tudu He is a Hearsay witness. PW-4 Birju Hembram In para-1 of his deposition he deposed that he had seen the occurrence but in para-2 he deposed that he heard about the occurrence. PW-5 Biti @ Biwo Murmu She is a wife of deceased Churka Hembram. PW-2 Sufal Hembram He is an Eye witness of occurrence. PW-3 Baijnath Tudu He is a Hearsay witness. PW-4 Birju Hembram In para-1 of his deposition he deposed that he had seen the occurrence but in para-2 he deposed that he heard about the occurrence. PW-5 Biti @ Biwo Murmu She is a wife of deceased Churka Hembram. She deposed that accused Suni Ram Hembram assaulted her husband twice by arrow one in his chest and other in his leg. PW-6 Dr. Narendra Kumar He is the Medical Officer at Gopikander P.H.C. He examined injured Suni Ram Hembram and his wife Chunkuij Hansda and has proved their injury reports i.e marked as Ext.1 and 1/1 respectively. PW-7 Jai Prakash Toppo He is an Investigating officer of (officer-in-charge) this case. PW-8 Dr. Ramesh Pd. Verma He is a Doctor who has conducted the Post-mortem of deceased Churka Hembram and has proved the Post-mortem report i.e marked as Ext.2. PW-9 Jagat Mohan Ram (S.I) He is also the Investigating officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan in his writing and has also proved the endorsement upon the fardbeyan i.e marked as Ext.3 and 3/1 respectively. He has proved the formal FIR and Inquest report i.e marked as Ext.4 and 5 respectively. Exhibits Ext.1 Injury report of Suni Ram Hembram; Ext.1/1 Injury report of Chunkuij Hansda; Ext.2 Post-mortem report of deceased Chunka Hembram; Ext.3 Fardbeyan in the writing of Jagat Mohan Ram; Ext.3/1 Endorsement of Jagat Mohan Ram in Fardbeyan; Ext.4 Formal FIR. Ext.5 Inquest report. 3. It is submitted by the amicus curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder committed by this appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is also submitted by the amicus curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant that so-called witness PW-2, who is the only eye-witness, has, in fact, not seen the occurrence at all. It is submitted that PW-2 has never stated in his deposition that he has seen the appellant causing injuries upon the body of the deceased when he was returning from Hatia. Looking to the first sentence of this prosecution witness, he has stated that he returned at his home by 6 O'clock and then he stated that deceased had gone in search of his ox. How he can presume and who informed him that deceased was searching of his ox. Looking to the first sentence of this prosecution witness, he has stated that he returned at his home by 6 O'clock and then he stated that deceased had gone in search of his ox. How he can presume and who informed him that deceased was searching of his ox. This is nothing, but, tutored witness. Once he has reached at his home and from home this witness has presumed that the appellant was causing injuries by bow and arrow. In cross-examination, this PW-2 has stated in paragraph-2 that before evening he has reached at his home where incident has taken place after setting of the Sun. It is further submitted that PW- 1, PW-3 and PW-4 are the hearsay witnesses. So far as PW-5 is concerned, she is the wife of the deceased. She has never stated in her examination-in-chief that she has seen the occurrence. On the contrary, looking to cross-examination of PW-5, in paragraph-2, she has stated that when she reached at the place of occurrence, her husband has fallen down and has expired. Thus, PW-5 is also not an eye-witness at all. It is further submitted that, in fact, this appellant and his wife, both, were seriously injured. There are several injuries upon the appellant and his wife. PW-6 Dr. Narendra Kumar has examined the appellant as well as the wife of this appellant. Injuries upon the body of this appellant as well as upon the body of his wife have been proved. These injuries have not been explained by the prosecution at all. 4. Amicus curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Mohar Rai v. State of Bihar [ (1968)3 SCR 525 ]; (ii) Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar [ AIR 1976 SC 2263 ]; (iii) State of Rajasthan v. Madho [ AIR 1991 SC 1065 ]; (iv) Dashrath Singh v. State of U.P. [ (2004) 7 SCC 408 ]; (v) Raghubir Singh v. State of Rajasthan [ (2011) 12 SCC 235 ]; (vi) Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P. [ AIR 1976 SC 2423 ]; (vii) Ritesh Chakarvarti v. State of M.P. [ (2006) 12 SCC 321 ]. 5. 5. It is submitted by the amicus curiae that informant of this case has not been examined, who is the brother of the deceased, nor I.O. has explained the injuries upon the body of the appellant and upon the body of the wife of this appellant. This appellant has already remained in custody for 12 years, 6 months and 9 days as on today. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence alleged to have been committed by this appellant. Hence, judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.12.2006 and 13.12.2006 respectively, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 165/05/46/05 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Addl. P.P., appearing on behalf of the State, has submitted that immediate is the FIR and this appellant has been named in the FIR. In the FIR, it has been clearly narrated that when the deceased had gone to the residence of this appellant in search of his ox, this appellant was causing injuries by bow and arrow and two injuries were caused, which have been reflected in the post-mortem report. As per medical evidence given by PW-8 Dr. Ramesh Prasad Verma, it is submitted by Addl. P.P. that PW-2, who is the eye-witness, has clearly narrated the role played by this appellant in causing murder of the deceased. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. Prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt committed by this appellant and hence, this appeal may not be entertained by this Court. REASONS 7. Having heard both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.12.2006 and 13.12.2006 respectively, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 165/05 | 46/05 deserves to be quashed and set aside mainly for the following reasons: (i) Incident has taken place on 26.02.2005 at about 7:00-8:00 p.m. FIR was lodged on 27.02.2005. From FIR, it appears that the deceased Churka Hembram had gone in search of his ox at the house of this appellant and this appellant has caused him injuries. Initially, one injury was caused and thereafter, he was dragged into the house and second injury was caused to him by bow and arrow. From FIR, it appears that the deceased Churka Hembram had gone in search of his ox at the house of this appellant and this appellant has caused him injuries. Initially, one injury was caused and thereafter, he was dragged into the house and second injury was caused to him by bow and arrow. Deceased Churka Hembram has expired on the spot. (ii) Whole incident has been narrated clearly by PW-2. Neither in examination-in-chief nor in cross-examination, this witness has stated that he has seen this appellant causing injuries by bow and arrow to the deceased. On the contrary, in the deposition of PW-2, he has stated that he has reached his house by 6 O'clock. This witness has never stated that when he was coming from market towards his residence, he has seen the whole incident. On the contrary, it has been narrated by PW-2 that he reached his house at first and thereafter, he has given deposition as if he is an eyewitness. Looking to the over all deposition given by PW-2, it appears that he is untrustworthy and unreliable witness. Looking to the cross-examination, it appears that he has reached to his house or home prior to twilight. In paragraph-3 of his deposition, this witness has never stated that this appellant has caused injuries to the deceased by bow and arrow. This PW-2 is not an eye-witness at all and it appears that he is a tutored witness. (iii) Looking to the depositions of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4, it appears that they are hearsay witnesses. (iv) Looking to the depositions given by PW-5, who is the wife of the deceased, it appears that she is also not an eye-witness. She is the closest relative of deceased. Looking to paragraph-1 of her deposition, it appears that she has never stated that she has seen this appellant causing murder of the deceased by arrow. In paragraph-1 of her deposition, especially, last line thereof, she has stated that when she has reached at the place of occurrence, her husband has fallen down and has expired. Thus PW-5 is not an eye-witness at all. (v) Looking to the deposition given by PW-6 Dr. Narendra Kumar, it appears that this appellant as well as wife of this appellant had sustained several injuries. Thus PW-5 is not an eye-witness at all. (v) Looking to the deposition given by PW-6 Dr. Narendra Kumar, it appears that this appellant as well as wife of this appellant had sustained several injuries. These injuries have not been explained by I.O. When the appellant as his wife have sustained injuries, it was the duty of the I.O. to explain the injuries; otherwise, we will presume that some incident must have occurred, prior to injuries sustained by the deceased, which may be a free-fight or which may be an assault by the deceased. Correct story has been suppressed by the prosecution, especially when 4-5 injuries sustained by the appellant and 4-5 injuries sustained by wife of the appellant have not been explained by the prosecution. Total injuries are nine, sustained by husband and wife. (vi) It further appears from the evidences on record that the informant, who is an important and vital prosecution witness and has narrated himself as eye-witness, has not been examined. When the prosecution is having such reliable eye-witness, prosecution ought to have examined this most important witness. Injuries upon the body of this appellant and his wife have not been explained and the most important eye-witness (informant) has also been suppressed by the prosecution, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 8. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Miran Bux v. Laloo, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 379, as under: “4. Apart from these infirmities, there is one other major drawback in this case. Manzoor Ahmed who gave the FIR putting forward this story has not been examined on the ground that his presence could not be secured as he was abroad. It must be noted that the version given by him in his report is being repeated by all the eye-witnesses. In a case of this nature unless the version given in the FIR, is found to be reliable, the same version repeated by these eye-witnesses cannot be accepted out rightly. At any rate in this case, it is difficult to accept the evidence of the other witnesses who are all relatives and whose version suffers from many infirmities, unless the court is satisfied that the version given in the FIR is true. The High Court has considered in great detail under what circumstances the report was given by Manzoor Ahmed. At any rate in this case, it is difficult to accept the evidence of the other witnesses who are all relatives and whose version suffers from many infirmities, unless the court is satisfied that the version given in the FIR is true. The High Court has considered in great detail under what circumstances the report was given by Manzoor Ahmed. (Emphasis Supplied) It has further been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. v. Gian Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71 , as under: “14. So far as non-examination of other witnesses and an adverse inference drawn by the High Court therefrom is concerned, here again we find ourselves not persuaded to subscribe to the view taken by the High Court. The prosecutrix, PW 7 has stated that soon before the incident she was playing with three girl-children of the same age as hers and they were present when the accused committed rape on her. One of the girls picked up a broom and had tried to scare away the accused by striking the broom on him. This little friend of the victim had also raised a hue and cry but none from the neighbourhood came to the spot. These girls were none else than daughters of her uncle. What the High Court has failed to see is that these girls were of tender age and could hardly be expected to describe the act of forcible sexual intercourse committed by the accused on PW 7. Secondly, these girls would obviously be under the influence of their parents. We have already noted the co-sister of PW 1 turning hostile and not supporting the prosecution version. How could these little girls be expected to be away from the influence of their parents and depose freely and truthfully in the court? Non-examination of a material witness is again not a mathematical formula for discarding the weight of the testimony available on record howsoever natural, trustworthy and convincing it may be. The charge of withholding a material witness from the court levelled against the prosecution should be examined in the background of facts and circumstances of each case so as to find whether the witnesses were available for being examined in the court and were yet withheld by the prosecution. The court has first to assess the trustworthiness of the evidence adduced and available on record. The court has first to assess the trustworthiness of the evidence adduced and available on record. If the court finds the evidence adduced worthy of being relied on then the testimony has to be accepted and acted on though there may be other witnesses available who could also have been examined but were not examined. However, if the available evidence suffers from some infirmity or cannot be accepted in the absence of other evidence, which though available has been withheld from the court, then the question of drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution for non-examination of such witnesses may arise. It is now well settled that conviction for an offence of rape can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances such as the report of chemical examination etc. if the same is found to be natural, trustworthy and worth being relied on. “If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations….” — is the law declared in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (SCC p. 403, para 21). (Also see State of Rajasthan v. N.K., State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj and Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey.) In the present case we are clearly of the opinion that in view of the accused being a relation of the in-laws of the mother of the prosecutrix and the other young girls who are alleged to have been not examined being from the family of such in-laws, it is futile to expect that such girls would have been allowed by their parents to be examined as witnesses, and if allowed, could have freely deposed in the court. The question of drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution for such non-examination does not arise.” (Emphasis Supplied) It has further been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana, (2014) 11 SCC 335 , as under: “40. In the case at hand, non-examination of the material witnesses is of significance. It is so because PW 11 is really an interested witness though the High Court has not agreed with the same. It appears from the material brought on record that he had an axe to grind against the appellant. That apart, Chander, who was present from the beginning, would have been in a position to disclose more clearly about the genesis of the occurrence. He is the husband of the deceased and we find no reason why the prosecution had withheld the said witness. Similarly, the other three witnesses who are said to be injured witnesses when available should have come and deposed. Therefore, in the obtaining factual matrix that their non-examination gains significance.” (Emphasis Supplied) It has further been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394 , as under: “12. PW 8 Dr S.P. Jaiswal who had examined Brahmdeo deceased and had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased had also examined the accused Dasrath Singh, whom he identified in the court, on April 22, 1966 and found the following injuries on his person: “1. Bruise 3? × ½ ? on the dorsal part of the right forearm about in the middle and there was compound fracture of the fibula bone about in the middle. 2. Incised wound 1? × 2 mm × skin subcutaneous deep on the lateral part of the left upper arm, near the shoulder joint. 3. Punctured wound 1/2? × 2 mm × 4 mm on the lateral side of the left thigh about 5 inches below the hip joint. According to the doctor Injury 1 was grievous in nature as it resulted in compound fracture of the fibula bone. The other two injuries were also serious injuries which had been inflicted by a sharp-cutting weapon. Punctured wound 1/2? × 2 mm × 4 mm on the lateral side of the left thigh about 5 inches below the hip joint. According to the doctor Injury 1 was grievous in nature as it resulted in compound fracture of the fibula bone. The other two injuries were also serious injuries which had been inflicted by a sharp-cutting weapon. Having regard to the circumstances of the case there can be no doubt that Dasrath Singh must have received these injuries in the course of the assault, because it has not been suggested or contended that the injuries could be self-inflicted nor is it believable. In these circumstances, therefore, it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to give a reasonable explanation for the injuries sustained by the accused Dasrath Singh in the course of the occurrence. Not only the prosecution has given no explanation, but some of the witnesses have made a clear statement that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused. Indeed if the eyewitnesses could have given such graphic details regarding the assault on the two deceased and Dasain Singh and yet they deliberately suppressed the injuries on the person of the accused, this is a most important circumstance to discredit the entire prosecution case. It is well settled that fouler the crime, higher the proof, and hence in a murder case where one of the accused is proved to have sustained injuries in the course of the same occurrence, the non-explanation of such injuries by the prosecution is a manifest defect in the prosecution case and shows that the origin and genesis of the occurrence had been deliberately suppressed which leads to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has not come out with a true version of the occurrence. This matter was argued before the High Court and we are constrained to observe that the learned Judges without appreciating the ratio of this Court in Mohar Rai v. State of Bihar tried to brush it aside on most untenable grounds. The question whether the Investigating Officer was informed about the injuries is wholly irrelevant to the issue, particularly when the very doctor who examined one of the deceased and the prosecution witnesses is the person who examined the appellant Dasrath Singh also. The question whether the Investigating Officer was informed about the injuries is wholly irrelevant to the issue, particularly when the very doctor who examined one of the deceased and the prosecution witnesses is the person who examined the appellant Dasrath Singh also. In the case referred to above, this Court clearly observed as follows: “The trial court as well as the High Court wholly ignored the significance of the injuries found on the appellants. Mohar Rai had sustained as many as 13 injuries and Bharath Rai 14. We get it from the evidence of PW 15 that he noticed injuries on the person of Mohar Rai when he was produced before him immediately after the occurrence. Therefore the version of the appellants that they sustained injuries at the time of the occurrence is highly probabilised. Under these circumstances the prosecution had a duty to explain those injuries ... In our judgment the failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation in that regard shows that evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. Further those injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants.” This Court clearly pointed out that where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow: (1) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue; and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants. The High Court in the present case has not correctly applied the principles laid down by this Court in the decision referred to above. In some of the recent cases, the same principle was laid down. In Puran Singh v. State of Punjab which was also a murder case, this Court, while following an earlier case, observed as follows: [SCC p. 531 : SCC (Cri) p. 621, para 20] “In State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima one of us (Untwalia, J.) speaking for the Court, observed as follows: [SCC p. 13 : SCC (Cri) p. 390, para 17] In a situation like this when the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the person of an accused, depending on the facts of each case, any of the three results may follow: (1) That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right of self-defence. (2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all. The facts of the present case clearly fall within the fourcorners of either of the first two principles laid down by this judgment. In the instant case, either the accused were fully justified in causing the death of the deceased and were protected by the right of private defence or that if the prosecution does not explain the injuries on the person of the deceased the entire prosecution case is doubtful and the genesis of the occurrence is shrouded in deep mystery, which is sufficient to demolish the entire prosecution case.” It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the court can draw the following inferences: “(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.” The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. In the instant case, when it is held, as it must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh received serious injuries which have not been explained by the prosecution, then it will be difficult for the court to rely on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 6, more particularly, when some of these witnesses have lied by stating that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused. Thus neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court appears to have given due consideration to this important lacuna or infirmity appearing in the prosecution case. We must hasten to add that as held by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima there may be cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. The present, however, is certainly not such a case, and the High Court was, therefore, in error in brushing aside this serious infirmity in the prosecution case on unconvincing premises.” (Emphasis Supplied) It has further been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Padam Singh v. State of U.P., (2000) 1 SCC 621 , as under: “5. As has been stated earlier, it has been noticed by us that the judgments of Hon’ble Justice Kundan Singh as well as Hon’ble Justice Malviya suffered from the infirmity that the learned Judges have not appreciated the veracity of the four eyewitnesses and have not come to their conclusion on appreciation of the evidence on record. This approach of the learned Judges, while coming to the ultimate conclusion that the prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt has forced us to examine the evidence of the four eyewitnesses and to find out whether there is any substance in the contention of Mr Bachawat that the prosecution story, as unfolded through these witnesses is not true. It is in this context that even though the deceased Hari Singh belonging to the prosecution party died and three of the accused persons viz. Lekh Raj, Munshi and another unknown person, were found dead, but the prosecution evidence is totally silent as to how these three people died. That Lekh Raj, Munshi and the other unknown person died in course of the occurrence is established beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution evidence, excepting, indicating that Raghuraj was also firing, there is not an iota of material indicating how the three people belonging to the accused party died. That Lekh Raj, Munshi and the other unknown person died in course of the occurrence is established beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution evidence, excepting, indicating that Raghuraj was also firing, there is not an iota of material indicating how the three people belonging to the accused party died. It is too well settled that when the prosecution does not explain the injury sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of occurrence, the Court can draw the inference that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and has thus, not presented the true version. It is also well settled that where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses, then non-explanation of the injury on the accused by the prosecution assumes greater importance. Adjudged from the aforesaid standpoint and in the absence of any explanation as to how three of the people belonging to the accused party died, the testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 become vulnerable and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. That the prosecution witnesses and accused persons are inimical to each other is apparent from the evidence of the four eyewitnesses. It has also been elicited from the crossexamination of the eyewitnesses that while the accused persons were running away and the prosecution witnesses were chasing, there had been no assault by the prosecution party nor had there been any firing from them. If that be so and according to the medical evidence, the unknown male person died on receiving multiple gunshot ante-mortem injuries and he must have died an instantaneous death, then obviously, the fact that the dead body was found at a distance of four furlongs would establish that the prosecution case, as unfolded through the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is not true and the true version is not coming forward. On this ground alone, the accused is entitled to the benefit of being acquitted.” (Emphasis Supplied) 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid evidences on record and the judicial pronouncements, we, hereby, quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.12.2006 and 13.12.2006 respectively, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 165/05 | 46/05, as prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder committed by this appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant is in jail and he will be released forthwith from jail custody, if not required in any other cases. 10. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed and disposed of.\