JUDGMENT Anant Bijay Singh, J. - This appeal has been heard by this Division Bench specially constituted on 16.09.2017 (Saturday). 2. This appeal has been preferred by the the sole appellant Pitru Munda, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction dated 06.05.2006 and order of sentence dated 09.06.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No. 365 of 2005 by Sri Nishat Haider, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, III, Khunti, Ranchi whereby and where under, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner held the appellant Pitru Munda guilty for the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further on 09.06.2006 has sentenced the appellant for life imprisonment under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs. 5,000/-. 3. The case of prosecution as unfolded in the fardbeyan of Budhu Munda(P.W. 4), son of Chamo Munda, recorded by S.I, K.D. Mishra of Khunti P.S. on 14.11.2004 at village Jojohatu alleging therein that on 13.11.2004 at about 6.30 p.m, he and the deceased Rana Singh Munda were going to village Utlung on the occasion of Sohrai festival for dancing. It is further alleged that when they reached some distance away from the village Jojohatu at about 19 Hrs, all of a sudden the accused Pitru Munda son of Sadho Munda (appellant) came having a sharp weapon i.e Balua in his hand and hurled the Balua on Rana Singh Munda, when Rana Singh Munda reached upon the field of one Manohar Hansda of village Jojohatu, the appellant attacked him with Balua in his hand and killed him. It is further alleged that informant tried to save him but the appellant ran away, otherwise he will also be killed. The motive of aforesaid murder assigned is that about 3 to 4 months back, the tamarind crop of the appellant was destroyed by the cattle of the deceased Rana Singh Munda, due to which altercation between them had taken place and it is alleged that the accused Pitru Munda had threatened the informant to kill him. 4. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, Khunti P.S.Case No. 94 of 2004 dated 14.11.2004 has been instituted and after completion of investigation, final form was submitted and charge was framed in this case against the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. 5. In support of the case, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses, out of which P.W.4 Budhu Munda, who is eyewitness and informant of this case. 6. Counsel for the defence during course of argument referring to the evidence of P.W. 4 who is informant and eyewitness of this case has submitted the evidence of this witness has not been supported by the doctor in postmortem examination in as much as it is not ocular evidence. Further, it has been submitted that in examination-in-chief, P.W.4 has stated that while he was going to attend festival in the village Utlung, the appellant assaulted on the back of Rana Singh (deceased) and fled away therefore he cut the neck of the deceased by Balua. It has been submitted that this fact regarding first assault on the back of the deceased by him not recorded in the fardbeyan. Further, P.W.4 has only knowledge of language Mundari but the fardbeyan has been recorded in Hindi language and it has not been mentioned that the fardbeyan was read over and explained to the appellant in Mundari language hence, this fact casts serious doubt against the case of prospection that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case as there is not certificate given by the Investigating Officer P. W.5 of this case that Exhibit 4 fardbeyan was recorded in Hindi through translator and this fact has not been proved by the prosecution. In para 16 the I.O has stated that he does not know Mundari language and it has been stated that none of the witnesses is of the village Jojohatu have been taken evidence and all the witnesses are from the village of the deceased and this fact has given in para 13 of the cross-examination of the I.O. It has been submitted by the counsel for the appellant that in para 3 of cross-examination I.O has mentioned the place of occurrence village Jojohatu was deceased and exhibit was prepared. In para 8 of his examination-in-chief it has been categorically stated by this witness that he has not sent the blood stained for F.S.L report. In was submitted that neither Balua nor the blood stained soil was sent for F.S.L report and neither the same has been brought on record. In para 8 of his examination-in-chief it has been categorically stated by this witness that he has not sent the blood stained for F.S.L report. In was submitted that neither Balua nor the blood stained soil was sent for F.S.L report and neither the same has been brought on record. Further, it has been submitted that evidence of P.W.4 has to be tested at the back drop of the fact that there is enmity between the parties as has been admitted in the fardbeyan. so the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. On the other hand, referring the evidence of P.W.7 doctor learned A.P.P has submitted that this witness has conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased on 15.11.2004 in which following injuries were found: i. Abration 17" x 1" and 9" 1cm on left forearm back. ii. 3" x 1 & x 2" x " on right lateral neck incised wound 5" x 2" x Bone deep on left scepular region cutting the underline bone. iii. 7" x 2" x left tissue upper part front of neck situated traversely and blood clot at the site of injury" and this witness has proved the cause of death of the deceased. Learned A.P.P relied on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of " Tapas Das @ Bhambal v. State of West Bengal" reported in 2016 CRI L.J. 1121 in which the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "11. It is well settled that the Court may act on a testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated, provided that the testimony of single witness is found reliable. Trial Court which had the opportunity of seeking and hearing P.W.6 found him wholly reliable and trustworthy and held that evidence of Sandipan Majumdar P.W.6 cannot be doubted as far as the role attributed to A1 to A6 except Jishu Jain is concerned, which was affirmed by the High Court. We find no ground to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below as to the reliability of P.W.6 and to record the conviction. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it is evident that there was prior concert and that the appellants have acted in furtherance of common intention. As seen from the evidence of P.W.6 all the appellants and another co-accused Sk. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it is evident that there was prior concert and that the appellants have acted in furtherance of common intention. As seen from the evidence of P.W.6 all the appellants and another co-accused Sk. Kochi were doing illegal business of extorting money from the flat owners. On the date of occurrence, all the appellants and anther co-accused S.K. Kochi came together and Sudip Kumar Sen @ Biltu (A3) started abusing the deceased and A;u Chatterjee (A6) exhorted others that if the men of Khoka were not killed, there would be no peace. On such exhortation, Tapas Das and Sankar Das (A2 and A4) caught hold of the deceased and Goutam Ghosh and Sk. Koch (A1 and A5) fired at the deceased. Facts and circumstances clearly establish meeting of minds and common intention of the appellants in committing the murder of Saikat Saha and the appellants were rightly convicted under section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. No ground for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is made out. 16. In the result, all the appeals failed and are dismissed accordingly." 8. Learned counsel for the defence by distinguishing the aforesaid judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court has submitted that if close scrutiny of the judgment relied upon by the learned A.P.P is done, admittedly single witness was examined soon after the occurrence 23 persons nearby locality have come and corroborated the evidence of witness in totality and under these circumstances the conviction was upheld and the appeal was dismissed but in the instant case, no single witness of the locality has been examined where the deceased was murdered and further enmity is admitted. Ratio of judgment is not applicable in this case. Ratio of judgment is not applicable in this case. Further, learned counsel for the defence has relied upon a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in " State of Rajasthan v. Teja Singh & Others" reported in 2001(3) SCC 147 in which it has been observed that: "B. Criminal Trial Appreciation of evidence Murder Prosecution failed to produce the available independent corroborative evidence to support the evidence of interested witnesses one of the eyewitnesses was a very old persons having problems with his eyes which made it difficult to believe that he was really in a position to identify the accused persons Evidence of another eyewitness became suspect because of the fact that though he was available in the village, his evidence was recorded only after 5 days of the crime for which the explanation given by the investigating officer was not satisfactory Presence of the third eyewitness also doubtful because of the fact that even though she stated that she had lifted the body of the deceased which was bleeding and her clothes had become bloodstained, the Investigating Officer failed to recover the said clothes Fact that Sarpanch of the village in his evidence stated that when he was told about the incident these eyewitnesses did not mention the name of the accused persons to him, also makes the prosecution case doubtful Held on facts, High Court was justified in not placing any reliance on the evidence of these 3 eyewitnesses without any independent corroboration Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302/34." 9. After close scrutiny of the evidence and the material available on record following facts emerges: (i) That there is contradiction in evidence of P.W.4 as stated in fardbeyan and in the evidence in Court regarding the manner of occurrence which is not corroborated by the Doctor P. W.7 in medical evidence as was stated that deceased received injury on the back and also neck was cut but the P.W.4 in his fardbeyan has categorically stated that the appellant assaulted by Balua on back and neck. (ii). The nature of weapon Balua was not seized nor produced in the Court. As per evidence of the P.W.5I. (ii). The nature of weapon Balua was not seized nor produced in the Court. As per evidence of the P.W.5I. O he has collected the blood stained soil and proved the seizure list (Exhibit 5) but reason best known to him, the same was not sent for F.S.L. Neither the record has been brought by the prosecution to suggest that the blood collected by the I.O from the place of occurrence was of the deceased. (iii) The Investigating Officer P. W.5 admitted that he does not know Mundari language. There is no certificate given in the fardbeyan that the fardbeyan was recorded in Hindi through translator and this fact has not been proved by the prosecution. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and the evidences both oral and documentary, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant. So, benefit of doubt is given to the appellant. 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed as to no costs and the judgment of conviction dated 06.05.2006 and the order of sentence dated 09.05.2006 passed by the trial court against this appellant is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The appellant, Pitru Munda, who is in custody for more than 12 years, is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.