JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 27th August, 2007, passed in Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2000 by learned Presiding Officer, F.T.C.-III, Gumla, whereby the appellants herein have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 148 and 302 of Indian Penal Code-and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, as has been projected on the basis of fardbeyan of informant-Yugal Singh (P.W. 5) given on 26.5.1999 is that, on 25.5.1999 i.e. the alleged date of occurrence altogether 11 accused persons including these appellants armed with deadly weapons entered into the house of deceased and assaulted him, besides this, two other family members of the informant, namely, Bablu Singh and Pankaj Singh have also been assaulted by the accused persons and both of them were confined by them in the room of one school of that village. It has further been stated that subsequently when the matter was reported to police, both the boys were released from the school. It has been further stated that on the next day i.e. on 26.5.1999, the informant came to know from his daughter, namely, Anita Kumari that when the accused persons were beating them, out of fear, she climbed up on a tree located near the house in order to escape from assault, wherefrom she could watch all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. assaulting her uncle Charku Singh (deceased) and out of severe assault, deceased sustained injury and thereafter, they carried the deceased in the night, which was later on found near 'Bargad' tree of the village. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, an F.I.R. being Sisai (Bhamo) P.S. Case No. 51 of 1999 was lodged, corresponding to G.R. No. 314 of 1999, under Sections 143, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the accused persons including the present appellants, whereupon the court after taking cognizance committed the case to the Court of- Sessions and the matter was numbered as S.T. No. 87 of 2000. 4. During trial, the prosecution, in order to bring home the charges examined altogether five witnesses, out of which, P.Ws. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the accused persons including the present appellants, whereupon the court after taking cognizance committed the case to the Court of- Sessions and the matter was numbered as S.T. No. 87 of 2000. 4. During trial, the prosecution, in order to bring home the charges examined altogether five witnesses, out of which, P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 & 5 are close relations of the deceased and P.W. 3 is the Doctor, who conducted Post Mortem on the dead body of the deceased. 5. P.W. 1-Basanti Devi, who is the wife of the deceased, in her evidence has deposed that on the fateful night at about 8 A' clock, when she was present in her house along with her grandmother and children, all of a sudden, accused persons breaking open the door of the house entered there and started beating her husband and carried her husband towards river side and murdered him. She further deposed that the matter was reported to the police by the elder brother of her husband. In her cross-examination, she has stated that accused Lalu was armed with Tangi and Budhu was armed with Baluwa. 6. P.W. 2-Anita Devi, who is niece of the deceased, corroborated the testimony of P.W. 1 and has deposed that accused persons entered in the house and caught hold of her uncle and carried him outside of house with beating. She further deposed that remaining family members fled away from the house towards Pond and hide themselves in a pit and she somehow managed to climb up on a tree and remained there whole night. 7. P.W. 3-Dr. Nawal Kishore Sinha, had conducted Post Mortem Examination on the dead-body of the deceased and found the following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound 3" x 1/2" x 1" over/middle part of left ear. 2. Incised wound 3" x 1/2" x 2" over left mandibular region. 3. There was fracture of mandible. 4. There was a lacerated wound 3" x 1/2" x 2" extending from left angle of mouth to niaxilary region. 5. There was fracture of left maxilla. 6. There was a lacerated wound 3" x 1/2" x 2" over chin region. 7. There was a fracture of left mandible near anterior end. 8. There was dislocation of teeth of left lower Jaw Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4. 9. 5. There was fracture of left maxilla. 6. There was a lacerated wound 3" x 1/2" x 2" over chin region. 7. There was a fracture of left mandible near anterior end. 8. There was dislocation of teeth of left lower Jaw Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4. 9. There was a lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" below right side of lower lip. 10. There was a fracture of left radius and ulna near lower end. 11. There was a bruise of size 4" x 3" over external region. 12. There was fracture of sternum near base. Heart:-Both shaded chambers were empty. Stomach:-Semi digested food. He has stated, the cause of death was shock due to hemorrhage. 8. P.W. 4-Shankar Singh, who is brother of the deceased, has testified that accused persons armed with deadly weapons entered into the house of the deceased and assaulted the deceased and carried the dead body of his brother near 'Bargad' tree near city Sarna river. 9. P.W. 5-Yugal Singh, who is the informant in this case and reiterated the statement made in the fardbeyan. 10. After closer of prosecution case, the appellants were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the, incriminating materials, to which they denied. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have stated that incidence took place at about 8 P.M., but they are silent about the source of light and in this situation, there is ample possibility of wrong identification and false implication. Furthermore, none of the witnesses have seen the entire occurrence, rather they have corroborated this aspect that accused persons came and took the deceased assaulting towards the river and there in, the alleged murder was done, which clearly reveals that none of them can be said to be eyewitnesses. It has further been submitted that in spite of the place of occurrence being the middle of the village not a single independent witness was examined, rather all interested witnesses were examined, which casts serious doubt upon the truthfulness of the prosecution case. Learned counsel further submitted that from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is manifestly clear that it lacks motive of killing and nobody has deposed that there was animosity between the parties. Learned counsel further submitted that from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is manifestly clear that it lacks motive of killing and nobody has deposed that there was animosity between the parties. It has further been submitted that though there is omnibus and general allegation against all the accused persons and there is no specific allegation of overt act but police submitted final Form against other accused persons and submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. 12. As against this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State submits that in view of overwhelming and unimpeachable evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 & 4 being corroborated by medical evidence, learned trial court has rightly found the. appellants guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and in that view of the matter, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not warrant interference. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the materials available on record, we are of considered view that the learned trial court has lost sight of the fact that incident occurred during night and none of the prosecution witnesses have disclosed about the source of light or which was source of illumination to see the occurrence, therefore, identification by P.Ws. 1 & 4 in absence of any definite source of light appears to be doubtful and evidence of prosecution evidence could not have been accepted with certitude. Furthermore, from the depositions of the witnesses, it appears that when the accused persons came and assaulted the deceased, rest family members fled away meaning thereby none of the witnesses had seen the entire occurrence. In her deposition, P.W. 1 has stated that at the relevant point of time, the accused persons were holding weapons like tangi, balua, arrow and bow etc. but the medical evidence suggest only one incised wound was found on the body of the deceased, but, if the deceased was assaulted by various deadly weapons, there could have been more incised injuries. These facts clearly suggest that medical report does not support or corroborate the statement of the witnesses and creates a doubt over the veracity of those testimonies. 14. These facts clearly suggest that medical report does not support or corroborate the statement of the witnesses and creates a doubt over the veracity of those testimonies. 14. To sum-up; in a case like the present one, where there are serious contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution witnesses have contradicted each other on material aspects, neither crime weapon has been produced and there is a doubt on the place of occurrence; in our opinion, evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon to convict the appellants. for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 15. To strengthen our view, it would be profitabl e to quote relevant paragraphs of case law. enunciated in the case of 'The State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh, Baljit Singh and Karam Singh' reported in [ (1974)3 SCC 277 ] : "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." 16. In the light of the yardstick for scrutinizing and evaluating the evidence as indicated in Jagir Singh's case (supra), when we examined the evidence led by the prosecution for sustaining the charge under, Section 302 I.P.C. against the appellants, we conclude that the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, it is held that the prosecution had failed to prove charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against the appellants. 17. Accordingly, it is held that the prosecution had failed to prove charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against the appellants. 17. In the result, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 27.8.2007 under Section 302 of the I.P.C. passed by the learned Presiding Officer, F.T.C.-III, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2000 is hereby set aside. The appellants, namely, Lalu Oraon and Budhu Oraon are directed to be released from the custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case and for that the convicting/successor court shall issue appropriate direction, if 'needed. 18. The present Criminal Appeal stands allowed.