JUDGMENT : S. Chandrashekhar, J. 1. Against the judgment of conviction u/s 302 I.P.C and order of sentence, both dated 18.02.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No.294 of 2004, the appellant-Budhu Oraon has preferred this criminal appeal u/s 374(2) Cr.P.C. 2. A first information report being Mandar P.S. Case No.76 of 2003 was registered against the sole accused, on the allegation that after cutting the head of informant's wife by a tangi, the accused fled away. This case was registered on the basis of the ferdbeyan given by the informant-Birsa Oraon before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mandar police station at about 4.00 p.m. on 02.12.2003. He has stated that while returning from Bazara market along with his nephew-Raju Oraon at about 12.00 noon, when he reached near the garden (Bagicha) of Bandhu Bhagat he heard the cries of his wife. And then he saw the accused-Budhu Oraon assaulting his wife with a tangi. By the time they reached there, the accused decapitated his wife with tangi and started fleeing, taking away her head. When they tried to apprehend the accused, he threatened them with the tangi and fled away. On receiving the information about the incident, his daughter and other family members along with Chaukidar came there and chased the accused who fled away, throwing the deceased's head there. A charge-sheet was submitted against the accused u/s 302 I.P.C and charge was framed against him for committing murder of Telia Orain. During the trial the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. The informant-Birsa Oraon was examined as P.W.1, his nephew Raju Oraon as P.W.3 and his daughter-Mangri Orain has been examined as P.W.2. The doctor who has conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body is Dr. Sambhu Sharan-P.W.8 and Officer-in-charge of Mandar police station is P.W.9. The investigating officer-Rajendra Paswan has been examined as P.W.10. The inquest report which was signed by Raju Oraon-P.W.3 and Lachhu Oraon (not examined) has been marked as Ext.5. P.W.8 has identified the post-mortem report which has been marked as Ext.2. The investigating officer after collecting blood-soaked earth near the dead body prepared seizure memo which was signed by Raju Oraon and Lachhu Oraon. The investigating officer has deposed that on receiving a telephonic information on 02.12.2003, he made entry vide Sanha No.32 dated 02.12.2003 and proceeded for village Bazara where he recorded ferdbeyan of the informant. The investigating officer after collecting blood-soaked earth near the dead body prepared seizure memo which was signed by Raju Oraon and Lachhu Oraon. The investigating officer has deposed that on receiving a telephonic information on 02.12.2003, he made entry vide Sanha No.32 dated 02.12.2003 and proceeded for village Bazara where he recorded ferdbeyan of the informant. He has stated that he found the head of the deceased severed from the dead body, placed near the neck and huge blood spilled on the earth near the dead body. The crime weapon was not recovered and blood-soaked earth from the place where the accused had thrown the head of the deceased was not collected by him. Report of Serologist on the blood collected from the place of occurrence was also not produced by the prosecution during the trial. There was no enmity between the informant and the appellant, and even a quarrel had never happened between them. 3. Dr. Sambhu Sharan-P.W.8, who conducted the post-mortem examination, has found the following injuries on the dead body: (i) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x soft tissue left forearm front. (ii) Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep right palm cutting the underlying bone. 4. P.W.8 has opined that the injuries on the deceased were ante-mortem in nature and those were caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. It was found that the body was decapitated through the neck from 5th cervical vertebra. The decapitated wound indicated minimum three blows. There was infiltration of blood and blood clot was found in the soft tissues. 5. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner believed P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 and came to a conclusion that the evidence of eye witnesses is supported by medical evidence and it was the accused who committed murder of Telia Orain. Accordingly, the accused-appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 302 I.P.C and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life u/s 302 I.P.C. 6. Dr. Accordingly, the accused-appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 302 I.P.C and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life u/s 302 I.P.C. 6. Dr. H. Waris, the learned counsel for the appellant assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.02.2009 has raised three fold contentions; (i) presence of eye witnesses near the place of occurrence is highly doubtful, (ii) the manner of occurrence when examined in the light of medical evidence makes it highly improbable and almost impossible, and (iii) contradiction in the evidence of eye witnesses and serious lacuna in the prosecution case entitle the appellant for benefit of doubt. 7. At the outset, it needs to be recorded that one of the witnesses (Lachhu Oraon) to the ferdbeyan, inquest report and seizure memo has not been examined by the prosecution. Bandhu Bhagat or any of his family member has also not been examined during the sessions trial. The informant has claimed that the appellant killed his wife near the garden of Bandhu Bhagat. Distance from the place of occurrence and his garden is 200 yards (P.W.10). Other independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. P.W.5 and P.W.7 were declared hostile and P.W.6 is a hearsay witness. The learned trial Judge has, however, recorded a factually incorrect finding that P.W.5 has stated that the appellant killed the wife of the informant. 8. There are serious discrepancies in the statement of the informant, his daughter and Raju Oraon insofar as the time of occurrence, manner of occurrence, their presence at the place of occurrence etc. are concerned. In his ferdbeyan the informant claimed that he proceeded from Bazara market for home along with his nephew-Raju Oraon, however, the said Raju Oraon-P.W.3 in his cross-examination has stated that he was returning from Bazara market alone. He has categorically admitted that no other person accompanied him when he was returning from Bazara market. He has deposed that at about 10.00 a.m. he was in the market and he reached near the garden (Bagicha) of Bandhu Bhagat at about 11.00 a.m. Distance from his house to Bazara market is 2 k.m. He reached Bagicha by walking. Whereas, in his ferdbeyanthe informant has claimed that he started from Bazara market at about 12.00 in the noon. Whereas, in his ferdbeyanthe informant has claimed that he started from Bazara market at about 12.00 in the noon. In his examination-in-chief in the Court, the informant-P.W.1 has stated that when his wife Telia Orain was going home, on the way Budhu Oraon cut her head by tangi. This fact is not mentioned in his ferdbeyan and moreover, he has not disclosed how he could know that when his wife was going home she was assaulted by the accused. The informant was returning from Bazara market and, thus, obviously he could not have known movement of his wife. The informant has contradicted himself on the point of time of occurrence also. In the cross-examination the informant states that the occurrence took place at about 10.00 a.m. whereas, the prosecution case is that the occurrence took place at about 12.00 noon. The informant has further contradicted himself during the cross-examination when he stated that his wife was with him on the date of occurrence when he was working at 'Tand'. Daughter of the informant namely, Mangri Orain has also stated that she was working in the field at the time of occurrence and her father was working along with her. In his ferdbeyan,a completely different story has been narrated by the informant. By cross-examination of the informant, the defence has completely demolished his statement in his examination-in-chief. 9. Admission of the informant and his daughter in their cross-examination that they were working in the field at the time of occurrence renders the story, narrated by the informant in his ferdbeyan for claiming himself and Raju Oraon as eye witness to the occurrence, completely false. Presence of Raju Oraon-P.W.3 near the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. The informant has stated that he was coming along with him from Bazara market whereas, P.W.2 has stated that at about the time of occurrence Raju Oraon was going to Bazara market. In his cross-examination P.W.3 has gone to the extent of saying that whether any other person has witnessed the occurrence or not, he cannot say. Evidence of these witnesses on material aspects, thus, contradict each other. 10. Now we come to the stage after the appellant allegedly severed head of the deceased by tangi. The witnesses have spoken about the accused running away with the head of the deceased which he threw after running a considerable distance. Evidence of these witnesses on material aspects, thus, contradict each other. 10. Now we come to the stage after the appellant allegedly severed head of the deceased by tangi. The witnesses have spoken about the accused running away with the head of the deceased which he threw after running a considerable distance. One witness (P.W.4) has stated that the accused was running away on a bicycle and they were chasing the accused on a motorcycle. The chase was for about 10-12 kms. Some have simply stated that they tried to apprehend the appellant, however, he succeeded in fleeing away (P.W.2 & P.W.3) and other witnesses are completely silent on this aspect. Except one witness-Raju Oraon, other witnesses have not disclosed how head of the deceased was brought at the place of occurrence. The informant has stated in his examination-in-chief that after killing his wife when the accused was fleeing away with her head, on raising cry, he threw the head and fled away. He has, however, stated that the police brought the dead body of his wife (without head) at the place of occurrence. P.W.3 has stated that when the accused was running away with head of the deceased, they tried to apprehend him, however, the accused succeeded in fleeing away. P.W.3 has failed to state that the accused when chased by the witnesses left the head and fled away. P.W.4 has further stated that on chase they could not apprehend the accused; they came back home and again went to search for the accused on a motorcycle. In his examination-in-chief P.W.4 asserts that they found the accused and recovered the from him ( mls geyksx [kkst fy, ,oa mlds ikl ls lj cjken fd;kA ),however, in the cross-examination P.W.4 contradicted himself when he stated that though they could recover head of the deceased they could not find the accused. This witness has stated that when Bhola Oraon (not examined) informed him that his brother-Budhu Oraon is assaulting Telia Orain he went to the place of occurrence, where he found decapitated body of the deceased and the accused was running away with head of the deceased. However, in his cross-examination, this witness has stated that from Bazara Tand he had seen the accused running away with the head of the deceased. Distance between the village and Bazara Tand is 2 Kms.(P.W.3). However, in his cross-examination, this witness has stated that from Bazara Tand he had seen the accused running away with the head of the deceased. Distance between the village and Bazara Tand is 2 Kms.(P.W.3). These contradictions in evidence of prosecution witnesses are such that presence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 near the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence and immediately after the occurrence becomes highly doubtful. The trial Judge has completely failed to examine effect of these contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 11. Next we come to the evidence of the investigating officer, which would disclose that he had received telephonic instruction about death of a woman in Bazara village. The investigating officer-P.W.10 claims that he entered this information in the daily register vide Sanha No. 32 dated 02.12.2003. This Sanha entry, which would have disclosed the nature of information and the name of the informant etc., has not been produced by the prosecution. This omission by the prosecution becomes relevant when we examine the evidence of the eye witnesses. The informant has claimed that he had informed the police about the incident (para-3). P.W.3 has also claimed that he has lodged the case with the police. He has stated that after the occurrence when the accused fled away, he informed the police ( blds ckn eS Fkkuk esa eqdnek fd;kA ). Distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is said to be about 25 kms. And, as a matter of fact the police has recorded ferdbeyan of the informant in the village near the dead body. At a first glance when these facts are examined in the context of registration of a first information report at about 20.00 hrs. on the same day, this may appear irrelevant, however, when effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to produce Sanha entry dated 02.12.2003 and contradictions in the statement of P.W. 1 and P.W.3 are considered in the totality of the facts and circumstances in the case, it provides another link in the chain of circumstances which throw considerable doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case, in particular, presence of the alleged eye witnesses near the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. 12. The informant, his daughter and P.W.3 being close relatives are highly interested witnesses. 12. The informant, his daughter and P.W.3 being close relatives are highly interested witnesses. Except stating that the accused while running away from the place of occurrence was uttering that the deceased was Dian (witch), no motive has been assigned by the prosecution for murder of the deceased. Admittedly, there was no previous enmity and, in fact, not even a quarrel had taken place between the parties. Motive by itself is not a ground on which the prosecution case must fail, however, in a serious crime like murder absence of motive may become relevant when other pieces of evidence woven together would cast serious doubt on the prosecution case. It needs mention that contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and lacuna in the prosecution case when examined independently and separately may appear minor contradictions, but when effect of such contradictions and lacuna is viewed together it may cast such doubt over the prosecution case which would entitle the accused benefit of doubt, and that is where absence of motive becomes relevant. In “Nachhittar Singh Vrs. The State of Punjab” reported in (1975) 3 SCC 266 , it has been observed that when the prosecution fails to establish motive for the crime it casts a duty on the Court to scrutinize the other evidence, particularly of the eye witnesses, with greater care. In the present case the care and caution which the trial Court should have exercised in scrutinizing and evaluating the evidence of eye witnesses, apparently, are missing. 13. The prosecution evidence on the manner of occurrence is bereft of necessary details. None of the witnesses has given even bare details of assault by the accused to the deceased-Telia Orain. Injuries on the dead body of the deceased would indicate that when she was attacked she tried to save herself. There are two injuries; one each on forearm and palm of the deceased. Dr. Waris, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that decapitation of the standing body by a tangi is impossible. We find that none of the witnesses has claimed that after receiving assault by tangi the deceased fell on the ground and thereafter the appellant cut her neck. Human neck is full of veins, tissues and bones. It is admitted at bar that tangi is a heavy sharp cutting weapon with edge around 4-5” in dimension. We find that none of the witnesses has claimed that after receiving assault by tangi the deceased fell on the ground and thereafter the appellant cut her neck. Human neck is full of veins, tissues and bones. It is admitted at bar that tangi is a heavy sharp cutting weapon with edge around 4-5” in dimension. Problem for the prosecution arises because the investigating officer has failed to recover the crime weapon. On this aspect, we find that the investigation in the case and the evidence led by the prosecution during the trial do not furnish any satisfactory explanation as to why crime weapon was not recovered by the police. The learned A.P.P. has contended that once it is found that evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 is consistent with the medical evidence, conviction of the appellant u/s 302 I.P.C must be affirmed. The learned A.P.P. has relied on a decision in “RamSinghBiruaand Anr. Vrs. State of Jharkhand” reported in 2017(3) JLJR 673. In our opinion, when evidence of prosecution witnesses is found contradictory mere opinion of the doctor that death was caused due to heavy sharp cutting weapon was not sufficient to establish the prosecution's case. In a murder trial, crime weapon and report of the Serologist on the blood sample collected from the place of occurrence are vital piece of evidence, absence of which would weaken the prosecution's case considerably. To add salt to the wound, the learned trial Judge, we find, fell in serious error at the time of recording the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. None of the incriminating circumstances except, that on 02.12.2003 the accused killed the deceased by decapitating her head by tangi, has been put to the accused. Only three cryptic questions were posed to the Accused when he was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of non-compliance of the mandate under section 313 Cr.P.C [refer, “Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vrs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 ]. 14. The judgment in Sessions Trial No.294 of 2004 discloses complete non-observance of mandate under section 354 Cr.P.C. The evidence of eye witnesses is completely lacking in details. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have simply deposed that the appellant cut the neck of the deceased by tangi and fled away with her head. 14. The judgment in Sessions Trial No.294 of 2004 discloses complete non-observance of mandate under section 354 Cr.P.C. The evidence of eye witnesses is completely lacking in details. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have simply deposed that the appellant cut the neck of the deceased by tangi and fled away with her head. With such evidence, completely bereft of details on manner of occurrence, the trial Judge has concluded that the appellant is guilty for offence punishable u/s 302 I.P.C. There are serious contradictions regarding time of occurrence, manner of occurrence and the story propounded by the prosecution on chase by the witnesses to the appellant. However, a glance at the judgment and order dated 18.02.2009 bares that after extracting evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner has jumped to a conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove charge u/s 302 I.P.C against the accused-Budhu Oraon beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. Defence taken by the appellant which is reflected in the cross-examination of the witnesses and the stand taken by him in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C have been brushed aside by the trial judge by merely observing that, "in the light of the evidence available on record I find that the defence of the accused that witnesses were demanding levy from him and for non-payment of levy to the witnesses, they have deposed against him is not acceptable”. At this stage we may profitably revert to the decision in “Mukhtar Singh and another Vrs. State of Punjab” reported in (1995) 1 SCC 760 wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under: “10. …...….. The trial Court appears to have been blissfully ignorant of the requirements of Section 354(i)(b) Cr.P.C. Since, the first appeal lay to this Court, the trial Court should have reproduced and discussed at least the essential parts of the evidence of the witnesses besides recording the submissions made at the bar to enable the appellate Court to know the basis on which the 'decision' is based. A 'decision' does not merely mean the “conclusion”-it embraces/within its fold the reasons which form the basis for arriving at the “conclusions”. The judgment of the trial Court contains only the “conclusions” and nothing more.” 15. A 'decision' does not merely mean the “conclusion”-it embraces/within its fold the reasons which form the basis for arriving at the “conclusions”. The judgment of the trial Court contains only the “conclusions” and nothing more.” 15. To sum-up; in a case like the present one, where there are serious contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses(P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3) and the prosecution witnesses have contradicted each other on material aspects, neither crime weapon has been produced nor report of Serologist has been obtained, there is a doubt on the place of occurrence when the informant states that the investigating officer brought the dead body at the place of occurrence, from where head of the deceased was recovered and by whom it was brought and placed near the dead body is not established, and some of the important witnesses were either not examined or turned hostile, in our opinion, evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 cannot be relied upon to convict the appellant for an offence punishable u/s 302 I.P.C. 16. In the facts and the circumstances which have been proved by the prosecution in the sessions trial, observation in “The State of Punjab Vrs. Jagir Singh, Baljit Singh and Karam Singh” reported in (1974) 3 SCC 277 ] would be illuminating : “A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures”. 17. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures”. 17. In the light of the yardstick for scrutinizing and evaluating the evidence as indicated in Jagir Singh case, when we examine the evidence led by the prosecution for sustaining the charge u/s 302 I.P.C against the appellant, we conclude that the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove charge u/s 302 I.P.C against the appellant. 18. In the result, judgment of conviction u/s 302 I.P.C and order of sentence, both dated 18.02.2009 passed by XXth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 294 of 2004 are set-aside. The appellant-Budhu Oraon is directed to be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 19. The present criminal appeal stands allowed.