ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused of Sessions Case No. 115 of 2010/Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2010 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajmahal, dated 11th May 2012 and 15th May, 2015 whereby, this appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code but, no separate punishment has been imposed for this offence because already life imprisonment has been inflicted upon him, for causing murder of Prakash Mandal. Case of the Prosecution: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.1.2006 at 22.15 hours (i.e. 10.15 p.m.) the informant Lakhi Mandal, who died during the trial. gave fardbeyan to police that on 13.1.2006 at 6.30 pm, when he was watching T.V. at home, his neighbour Subesh Mandal (accused) came to his house and asked about his son Prakash Mandal (deceased). he informant told him that Prakash Mandal has gone at the house of Sharwan Mandal (P.W. 10). On this information, he moved towards the house of Sharwan Mandal. The informant also followed him. Subesh Mandal after reaching near the house of informant's nephew Sharwan Mandal, started calling his son. When his son Prakash Mandal and his nephew Pradeep Mandal (P.W. 9) came out from the house then Subesh Mandal put the pistol on the chest of his son and opened fire whereupon his son got injured and fell down. He also saw his nephew Pradeep Mandal falling there. He tried to caught Subesh Mandal, but, he flew away from there towards West. He went near his son and nephew and found both of them in injured condition and thereafter, he brought them to Referral Hospital at Rajmahal where the Doctor declared his son to be dead and the medical treatment of his nephew who sustained gun-shot injury, started going on. The informant alleged that the reason of occurrence is that his son and others used to do contract work and Subesh Mandal was also doing the contract work separately. Earlier 2-3 days before the date of occurrence, Subesh Mandal had threatened to kill his son due to contract work. The informant alleged that the reason of occurrence is that his son and others used to do contract work and Subesh Mandal was also doing the contract work separately. Earlier 2-3 days before the date of occurrence, Subesh Mandal had threatened to kill his son due to contract work. The informant claimed that due to contract work, Subesh Mandal committed murder of his son by firearm and also caused injury to his nephew Pradeep Mandal. Witnesses: 3. Following twelve witnesses were examined by the prosecution: P.W.1 Subesh Mandal Declared hostile witness. P.W.2 Shobha Devi Declared hostile witness. P.W.3 Bhuban Mandal Declared hostile witness. P.W.4 Basant Mandal Declared hostile witness. P.W.5 Satnarayan Mandal Declared hostile witness. P.W.6 Lalu Mandal Declared hostile witness. P.W.7 Manoka Devi Declared hostile witness. P.W.8 Sudhir Mandal Declared hostile witness. P.W.9 Pradeep Mandal He is the injured eyewitness of the occurrence. He has supported the case of prosecution. P.W.10 Sharwan Mandal He is the eyewitness of the occurrence. P.W.11 Pramila Bewa She is the mother of deceased Prakash Mandal and is eyewitness of the occurrence. P.W.12 Dr. Md. Allimudin Ansari He is the Doctor who has examined the injured Pradeep Mandal (P.W. 9) and has proved the injury report i.e. marked as Ext.-1 and has also proved the supplementary report of Pradeep Mandal i.e. marked as Ext.-1/1. P.W.13 Virendra Ghosh Declared hostile witness. P.W.14 Shankar Mandal He is a hearsay witness. P.W.15 Laxman Mandal Declared hostile witness. P.W.16 Dr. Sunil Kumar Sinha He is the Doctor who has conducted the Post mortem of the dead body of Prakash Mandal and has proved the post mortem report i.e. marked as Ext.-2. P.W.17 Ashok Mandal @ Ashok Kumar Mandal Declared hostile witness. He has proved his signature in carbon copy of Inquest report i.e. marked as Ext.-3. P.W.18 Pradeep Kumar Sahi (I.O.) He is the Investigating officer of the case. He has proved the Fardbeyan and Formal FIR i.e. marked as Ext.-4 and 5 respectively. He has proved the carbon copy of Inquest report i.e. marked as Ext.-6. 4. Following are the Exhibits. Ext.-1 Injury report of Pradeep Mandal Ext.-1/1 Supplementary injury report of Pradeep Mandal Ext.-2 Post mortem report Ext.-3 Signature of Ashok Mandal @ Ashok Kumar Mandal in carbon copy of Inquest report. Ext. -4 Fardbeyan Ext. -5 Formal FIR Ext. -6 Carbon copy of Inquest report. 5. Following are the Ante Mortem Injuries. 4. Following are the Exhibits. Ext.-1 Injury report of Pradeep Mandal Ext.-1/1 Supplementary injury report of Pradeep Mandal Ext.-2 Post mortem report Ext.-3 Signature of Ashok Mandal @ Ashok Kumar Mandal in carbon copy of Inquest report. Ext. -4 Fardbeyan Ext. -5 Formal FIR Ext. -6 Carbon copy of Inquest report. 5. Following are the Ante Mortem Injuries. (i) Firearm wound extending from making entrance wound at the left side of chest, middle to the left nipple and extending to the back and below right secepular region. (ii) Wound on entrance is marked by burning of skin around the wound and larger in respect to exit wound and age of skin of the exit wound is averted. (iii) The entry wound is of W' diameter about and exist would is less than W' diameter. Cause of death hemorrhage with shock caused by firearm resulting in C.R. failure. Time since death elapsed within 24 hours. Arguments of Appellant: 6. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder committed by this appellant beyond reasonable doubt. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. 7. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that there are major omissions and contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. 8. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the so-called eyewitnesses i.e. P.W.9, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11, in fact, do not appear to be the eyewitnesses at all, if their depositions are read with their cross-examination as well as with the depositions of the I.O. and the facts narrated in the F.I.R. 9. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the so-called injured eyewitness P.W. 9-Pradeep Mandal is not an eyewitness at all mainly for the reason that it is the case of the prosecution that P.W. 9 has sustained injury by bullet and the firearm was alleged in the hands of this appellant, but, looking to the medical evidence, given by P.W.12-Dr. Md. Allimuddin Ansari, it appears that he has stated that the injury sustained by the injured eyewitness is capable of being caused by hard and blunt substance. Thus, the very basis of the prosecution case has not been proved at all. Md. Allimuddin Ansari, it appears that he has stated that the injury sustained by the injured eyewitness is capable of being caused by hard and blunt substance. Thus, the very basis of the prosecution case has not been proved at all. On the contrary, several other witnesses have also stated about major omissions and contradictions. There being no injury sustained by P.W. 9 of any firearm" presence of P.W. 9 at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. 10. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that P.W.10-Sharwan Mandal, is also not an eyewitness at all, looking to para-37 of the depositions given by I.O. (P.W. 18) as well as 'looking to paragraph no. 26 of the depositions given by P.W.11. Moreover, there is also lot of discrepancies in the narration of the whole incident by this witness. 11. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that P.W. 11-Pramila Bewa, is also not an eyewitness at all, looking to her Examination-in-Chief and cross-examination wherein she has clearly stated that she heard the alarm raised by several persons when she was in the kitchen'. She has never stated in her deposition that she has seen the place of occurrence from her kitchen. Moreover, looking to her deposition and the F.I.R. there is major difference in the whole incident. F.I.R. is lodged by the father of the deceased who has stated that the deceased went at the house of Shrawan Mandal-PW-10 and called the deceased from the house of Shrawan Mandal and as soon as he came out, immediately firearm was used by this appellant. This is a narration of the occurrence in the F.I.R. whereas totally different narration has been given by P.W. 11 who is mother of the deceased. She has stated that Prakash Mandal (deceased) who is son of P.W. 11 was at the house of P.W.11. There was a hot altercation between this appellant and the deceased. Even there was a free fight between them. Nothing has been narrated in the F.I.R. nor by other witnesses. It has been stated by P.W.11 that the dead body was taken by the police. The police had reached at the place of occurrence, but, who firstly informed the police, is neither brought on record by the prosecution, nor pointed out by the prosecution witnesses. Nothing has been narrated in the F.I.R. nor by other witnesses. It has been stated by P.W.11 that the dead body was taken by the police. The police had reached at the place of occurrence, but, who firstly informed the police, is neither brought on record by the prosecution, nor pointed out by the prosecution witnesses. The real version given by the informant is also not on record whereas as per the F.I.R., fardbeyan was taken in the hospital of the father of the deceased. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that as per narration given by P.W. 11, the dead body of her son was brought at the house of P.W. 11, but, never any bloodstains were found near the house of P.W. 11, as per deposition given by P.W. 18. Thus, the very genesis of the occurrence is doubtful. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that all the witnesses have stated categorically that there were several enemies of the deceased, who was involved in several offences. These facts have also been stated by the prosecution witnesses. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. The so-called eye witnesses are not the eyewitnesses at all, as the so-called injured eyewitness has never sustained any bullet injury. 12. Thus, the, whole story of the prosecution about the occurrence is concocted one and as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder committed by this appellant, beyond reasonable doubt, this appellant who is in judicial custody since more than eight years may be released forthwith if his presence in jail custody is not required in any other case. Arguments by the State: 13. We have heard counsel for the State-A.P.P. at length, who has mainly submitted that the whole case of the prosecution is based upon three eyewitnesses i.e. P.W. 9, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11, out of whom P.W. 9 is an injured eyewitness. The prosecution has proved the offence of murder committed by this appellant, beyond reasonable doubt. 14. It has been narrated in the F.I.R. that this appellant has caused firearm injuries to Prakash Mandal (deceased) and the said bullet has also caused injury to P.W.9-Pradeep Mandal. The prosecution has proved the offence of murder committed by this appellant, beyond reasonable doubt. 14. It has been narrated in the F.I.R. that this appellant has caused firearm injuries to Prakash Mandal (deceased) and the said bullet has also caused injury to P.W.9-Pradeep Mandal. It is a case of the prosecution that the deceased was in the house of Shrawan Mandal and this appellant accused reached at the house of Shrawan Mandal, and called the deceased-Prakash Mandal, who came out of the house of Shraman Mandal where this appellant accused caused injury to him by firearm. These facts have been proved by the injured eyewitness as well as by the I.O. There is no discrepancy about the place of occurrence, as narrated by the eyewitnesses which is also corroborated by the depositions of I.O 15. It is also submitted by the counsel for the State-A.P.P. that even if there is slight discrepancies in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses or small' contradictions in their depositions, it ought to be kept in mind that they are rustic witnesses and they are giving their depositions after approximately four years of occurrence and hence, the small omissions and contradictions ought to be ignored. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned trial court while convicting this appellant for the offence of murder of the deceased. 16. It is also submitted by the counsel for the State-A.P.P. that looking to post mortem report, which is proved by Dr. Sunil Kumar Sinha-P.W.16 the deceased has sustained firearm injuries. Thus, the medical evidence given by P.W.16 is corroborative to the depositions given by the eyewitnesses P.W. 9, P.W.10, P.W.11 and hence, no error has been committed by learned trial court in convicting and punishing this appellant for the offence of murder of Prakash Mandal and hence, this criminal appeal may not be entertained by this Court. Reasons: 17. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, we hereby quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II. Raimahal District Sahibgani in Sessions Case No. 115 of 2010/ST No. 33 of 2010 dated 11th May, 2012 and 15th May, 2012, respectively. 18. Reasons: 17. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, we hereby quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II. Raimahal District Sahibgani in Sessions Case No. 115 of 2010/ST No. 33 of 2010 dated 11th May, 2012 and 15th May, 2012, respectively. 18. It is the case of prosecution that on 13th January, 2006 at about 22.15 hours, the informant Lakhi Mandal (who died during trial) who is father of the deceased, informed the police that on 13th January, 2006 at about 6.30 pm when he was watching TV at his home, his neighbor Subesh Mandal (accused) came to his house and asked about his son Prakash Mandal (deceased). This informant conveyed to him that his son Prakash Mandal has gone at the house of Shrawan Mandal (P.W. 10). Getting this information, this appellant-accused had gone at the house of Shrawan Mandal. Out of curiosity the informant, who is father of the deceased, has followed this appellant-accused. He saw that this appellant-accused reached nearby the house of Shrawan Mandal and started calling Prakash Mandal (deceased). When his son Prakash Mandal came out, this appellant-accused opened fire upon the deceased, who expired on the spot. The informant has also stated in his F.I.R. that Pradeep Mandal also sustained injuries by bullet. The motive alleges rivalry between the deceased and the appellant-accused about the work of contract. It has also been stated by the informant that he took the dead body of his son as well as injured Pradeep Mandal to Referral Hospital at Rajmahal where his statement was recorded in the hospital by the police. 19. On the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R., the criminal law was put in motion. Investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer-P.W. 18. The statements of the several witnesses were recorded. Charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court being Sessions Case No. 115 of 2010/Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2010. 19. On the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R., the criminal law was put in motion. Investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer-P.W. 18. The statements of the several witnesses were recorded. Charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court being Sessions Case No. 115 of 2010/Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2010. On the basis of the evidences of P.W. 1 to P. W. 18 and also on the basis of the documentary evidences like F.I.R., inquest report, injury certificate and the postmortem report, Additional Sessions Judge-II, Rajmahal, District-Sahibganj convicted this appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC as well as under Section 307 of IPC and as life imprisonment has been awarded to this appellant for the offence of murder of the deceased, no separate sentence has been imposed upon this appellant accused for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. 20. Looking to the overall evidences of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that P.W. 1 to P.W. 8 are hostile witnesses. 21. P.W. 9 has been narrated as injured eyewitness, by the prosecution. We have carefully gone through the depositions of this P.W. 9 including his cross-examined as well as the deposition of the doctor, who has examined this P.W. 9 and has given injury certificate, who is P.W. 12-Dr. Md. Allimudin Ansari. Injury certificate of this P.W. 9 is at Exts.-1 and 1/1. Looking to the deposition of this witness, it appears that he has clearly narrated about the bullet injury sustained by him. Even in the F.I.R. also there is narration of bullet injury sustained by P.W.9, but looking to the medical evidence given by P.W. 12. this so-called injured eyewitness has never sustained bullet injury. As per medical evidence one injury is a self-inflicted injury whereas, another injury is capable of being caused by hard and blunt substance. This falsifies the story of the prosecution. The whole story of the prosecution thus appears to be concocted one. P.W. 9. looking to his deposition to be read with medical evidence, is untrustworthy and unreliable witness. P.W. 9 has stated in paragraph no. 20 of his deposition that the bullet was in his thigh whereas no bullet injury was found by P.W. 12 and hence, there is no question of recovery of the bullet from the thigh of P.W. 9. Thus. P.W. 9 has nothing to do with the truth. P.W. 9 has stated in paragraph no. 20 of his deposition that the bullet was in his thigh whereas no bullet injury was found by P.W. 12 and hence, there is no question of recovery of the bullet from the thigh of P.W. 9. Thus. P.W. 9 has nothing to do with the truth. By hook or crook this prosecution witness wants conviction of this appellant-accused. 22. It appears that during the Examination-in-Chief and cross-examination, constantly this witness has narrated about bullet injury sustained by him whereas, the medical evidence is absolutely contradictory. It appears that this witness has nothing to do witl1 the truth or he has everything to do, except with the truth. Thus, this P.W. 9 is not an eyewitness at all nor he has sustained any bullet injury as narrated by him emphatically. 23. Looking to the depositions given by P.W. 10 who has also been narrated as eyewitness by the prosecution, it appears that the whole incident has taken place when the deceased was at the house of this P.W. 10 and he was called out of the house by the appellant-accused as narrated by the father of the deceased in the F.I.R., but it appears that this witness is also not an eyewitness mainly for the reason that looking to paragraph no. 26 of the deposition of P.W. 11-mother of the deceased. Shrawan Mandal-PW. 10 came later on after the occurrence. Similar is the narration given in paragraph no. 37 of the deposition given by I.O. P.W. 18 as well as looking to paragraph no. 62 of the deposition of I.O. P.W. 10 is not an eye-witness at all and he was never present when the occurrence was taken place. Looking to the deposition given by P.W. 10 and in light of the other evidences on record, he is untrustworthy and unreliable witness. 24. Looking to the deposition given by P.W. 11 who is Pramila Bewa, who is mother of the deceased, it appears that she is also not an eyewitness at all. Never she has stated in her Examination-in-Chief she has seen this appellant-accused causing firearm injury upon the deceased. On the contrary, looking to her deposition it appears that she was in the kitchen when the whole occurrence took place. She has never stated that she had seen the occurrence and this appellant had caused injury to the deceased by firearm. Never she has stated in her Examination-in-Chief she has seen this appellant-accused causing firearm injury upon the deceased. On the contrary, looking to her deposition it appears that she was in the kitchen when the whole occurrence took place. She has never stated that she had seen the occurrence and this appellant had caused injury to the deceased by firearm. Moreover, she has narrated the case of the prosecution entirely different than what is stated in the F.I.R. As per P.W. 11 the deceased was at her house whereas, as per F.I.R., the deceased was at the house of Shrawan Mandal-P.W. 10. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 11 the dead body was brought at the house of P.W. 11 and as per deposition given by I.O. there was no bloodstain earth found nearby the house of P.W. 11. Similarly, looking to the deposition given by P.W. 11 she has narrated that police had reached at the place of occurrence where the dead body was lying and the police had taken away the dead body whereas. F.I.R. says that the dead body and Pradeep Mandal were taken to the Referral Hospital at Rajmahal by the informant, who is father of the deceased. Thus, it appears that somebody has given First Information Report to the police whereby, the police has reached much earlier at the place of occurrence. This F.I.R. is missing in the whole case. Thus, the correct story has not been brought on surface by the prosecution. This suppression is also evident looking to the fact that P.W. 9 has consistently stated that he has sustained bullet injury whereas, doctor says that the injury sustained by him is capable of being caused by hard and blunt substance. There is a narration by P.W. 11 about the free fight between the deceased and the accused. It is also narrated by the deposition given by P.W. 11 that her son sustained bullet injury nearby the house of Shrawan Mandal, but, she has never stated that her son came out from the house of Shrawan Mandal upon call given by the appellant-accused whereas, as per• F.I.R. the narration given by the prosecution is that the accused reached at the house of Shrawan Mandal and he was calling the deceased. Thus, looking to the overall narration given by P.W. 11 in her Examination-in-Chief and cross-examination when read with other evidences on record. Thus, looking to the overall narration given by P.W. 11 in her Examination-in-Chief and cross-examination when read with other evidences on record. it appears that she is not an eyewitness at all. Her narration in Examination-in-Chief reflects that she is not an eyewitness at all. Thus, P.W. 11 is also not a trustworthy witness. In paragraph no. 26 of her deposition she has clearly stated that Shrawan Mandal came later on after the occurrence has taken place. She has also stated in her deposition that there were several cases against her son. 25. Looking to the deposition given by P.W. 12-Dr. Md. Allimudin Ansari, the following were the injury sustained by P.W.9: “(i) Abrasion over lateral left thigh about 3” x 2”. (ii) Lacerated wound left thigh inner side 2” x ½" x bone deep I advised X-ray of left thigh A/P and Lateral, pelni A/Part Lateral. Opinion reserved till X-ray report. Age of Injury-within 6 hrs. M/9-Future Scar most of wound." This witness has stated that injury no. 1 may be due to self-infliction and injury no. 2 may be caused by hard and blunt substance and court has also asked the question in para-9 of the deposition whether injury no. 2 is capable of being caused by bullet or not and categorical answer has been given by this Doctor that injury no. 2 may not be caused by bullet. Thus, the whole case of the prosecution is concocted one and P.W.9 is not an injured eyewitness of the occurrence. 26. Looking to the deposition given by P.W. 18, who is an Investigating Officer he has stated in his deposition that no bloodstain was found near the house of P.W. 11. though P.W. 11 has stated that the dead body of her son was brought nearby her house. Moreover, it has been stated by this Investigating Officer in para no. 37 of his deposition that Shrawan Mandal was informed by the informant. Thus, Shrawan Mandal was never an eyewitness of the occurrence at all. This fact has also been stated by P.W. 11 in her deposition in paragraph no. 26. PW.18 has also stated in paragraph no. 61 of his deposition that Shrawan Mandal was not at the house at all. Even cartridge has also not been recovered by the police. 27. Looking to the aforesaid evidences on record, it appears that P.W. 9 is a got up witness. 26. PW.18 has also stated in paragraph no. 61 of his deposition that Shrawan Mandal was not at the house at all. Even cartridge has also not been recovered by the police. 27. Looking to the aforesaid evidences on record, it appears that P.W. 9 is a got up witness. He has never sustained any bullet injury. Similarly, P.W. 10 is also not an eyewitness looking to paragraph no. 37 of deposition of I.O. and paragraph no. 26 of the deposition of "P.W. 11. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 11 it appears that she is also not an eyewitness looking to her Examination-in-Chief itself. Moreover, she has also not given the correct narration of the occurrence. She has stated that the dead body was brought at her house. There was blood oozing out of the dead body as per para-27 of her deposition whereas I.O. -P.W. 18 has stated that there was no bloodstains at the house of P.W. 11 as per para-25 of the deposition of I.O. P.W. 18. Thus, there are major omissions and contradictions in their depositions. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court while convicting this appellant-accused. 28. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Narain Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1975)4 SCC 497 especially in paragraph no. 14 which read as under: "14. Where the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence or the evidence of the ballistic expert. this is a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless reasonably explained it is sufficient to discredit the entire case. In Mohinder Singh Vs. State this Court observed in similar circumstances as follows: "In a case where death is due to injuries or wounds caused by a lethal weapon. it has always been considered to be the duty of the prosecution to prove by expert evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon with which and in the manner in which they are alleged to have been caused. it has always been considered to be the duty of the prosecution to prove by expert evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon with which and in the manner in which they are alleged to have been caused. It is elementary that where the prosecution has a definite or positive case, it is doubtful whether the injuries which are attributed to the appellant were caused by a gun or by a rifle." It is obvious that where the direct evidence is not supported by the expert evidence, then the evidence is wanting in the most material part of the prosecution case and it would be difficult to convict the accused on the basis of such evidence. While appreciating the evidence of the witnesses, the High Court does not appear to have considered this important aspect, but readily accepted the prosecution case without noticing that the evidence of the eyewitnesses in the Court was a belated attempt to improve their testimony and bring the same in line with the doctor's evidence with a view to support an incorrect case. (Emphasis supplied) Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder committed by this appellant, beyond reasonable doubts. 29. As a cumulative effect of the evidences on record, as discussed above, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder committed by this appellant. This criminal appeal is allowed and disposed of and the impugned judgment of conviction dated 11th May, 2012 and order of sentence dated 15th May, 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Rajmahal, District Sahibganj in S.C No. 115 of 2010/S.T. No. 33 of 2010 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Since the appellant, namely Subesh Mandal, is in judicial custody, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.