ORDER : 1. Heard Mrs. Alpana Verma, learned amicus curiae and Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned APP for the State. 2. The appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code by Judgment dated 10.06.1992, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 85 of 1985, and upon hearing on the point of sentence, by an order passed on the same date, he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.500/- and he has also been sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs.200 for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, against which this appeal is filed. 3. The FIR was lodged on the basis of a written information given by the Officer-In-charge of Bokaro Steel City Police Station, addressed to SDJM, Chas, wherein it was informed that on 19.10.1984, he was informed that in quarter No. 605 of Sector 1/C, Bokaro, some person had committed suicide, whereupon he went there along with other police officials and found the front door of the quarter locked from inside. The Police Officer went to the rear side of the quarter where also there was a door and upon pushing the door, it opened. The police party entered the drawing room of the quarter, where the dead body of the deceased was found lying in the pool of blood with several injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon. The occupant of the quarter also came there and he informed that the deceased was his younger brother who had come to Bokaro on 15.10.1984 along with his nephew Arvindpuri Goswami, the appellant. On the date of occurrence, the brother of the deceased went on duty in the Bokaro Steel Plant where his nephew made a telephonic call informing that his uncle was not opening the door in spite of all efforts. Thereafter, he came and found the door locked. He saw from window of the drawing room that his brother was lying in pool of blood. The Officer-In-charge who had given written information to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chas, also stated in the written information that he inspected the place of occurrence and all the house hold articles were in place. Thereafter, he came and found the door locked. He saw from window of the drawing room that his brother was lying in pool of blood. The Officer-In-charge who had given written information to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chas, also stated in the written information that he inspected the place of occurrence and all the house hold articles were in place. Suspecting that the murder had been committed by some family member, the FIR was lodged by the Officer-In-charge of Bokaro Steel City Police Station, on the basis of which Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 301 of 1984 corresponding to G.R. No. 1047 of 1984 was instituted and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused. 4. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, the accused was put to trial. 5. In course of trial, nine witnesses were examined including the and the Doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the deceased. One Court witness has also been examined, being the Judicial Magistrate, who had recorded the statement of the brother of the deceased under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The FIR, the inquest report and the post-mortem report, as also the seizure list have been proved in the case and marked as exhibits. 6. It may be stated that according to the prosecution case, it is alleged that the accused appellant, who is the nephew of the deceased, had confessed before the police stating that he had committed murder of the deceased by axe and, thereafter, he had thrown the iron portion of the axe in the lake in the city park and he had broken the handle of axe and thrown the broken pieces of the handle in forest of the said park. Since the underwear of the accused was blood stained, he tore and threw his underwear also in the said park. It is alleged that on the basis of the confessional statement of the accused, the broken handles of axe and torn underwear of the accused with blood stains were seized and the seizure list was prepared. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. 7. It is alleged that on the basis of the confessional statement of the accused, the broken handles of axe and torn underwear of the accused with blood stains were seized and the seizure list was prepared. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. 7. Since there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the witnesses examined by the prosecution have stated practically nothing against the accused, there is no use of discussing the evidence of other witnesses in detail, except the evidence of P.W.-9 Indradeo Pathak, the I.O. of the case and P.W.-7 Dr. R.S. Prasad, the Doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.-7, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the deceased, has proved the ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased caused by sharp cutting weapon and he has stated that these injuries might have been caused by dagger. He has also proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Ext.-4. 8. The other only important evidence to be discussed is the evidence of P.W.-9 Indradeo Pathak, the I.O. of the case. He has stated about the investigation made by him and he has stated that during the course of investigation, the accused confessed before him about committing the crime and on the basis of his confession, the broken handles of axe and the torn underwear were recovered and he had prepared the seizure list. In his cross examination, this witness has clearly admitted that he had neither obtained the signature of the accused on the seizure list nor had he given the copy of the seizure list to the accused. 9. Admittedly, even the alleged confessional statement has not even been proved by the prosecution in the case. Though the only evidence against the accused, if any, was that there was some recovery on the basis of his confession, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no such question was put to him to be explained by him. The accused appellant, upon trial was however found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced for the same. 10. The accused appellant, upon trial was however found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced for the same. 10. Learned amicus curiae as also learned counsel for the appellant have submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in as much as, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and no witness has stated anything against the accused. The only evidence against the accused being evidence of P.W.-9 Indradeo Pathak, who is the I.O., who has stated that in course of investigation the appellant confessed his guilt and on the basis of his confession the alleged recovery had been made. However, this witness has clearly stated in his cross-examination that he had neither taken the signature of the accused on the seizure list nor had he handed over the copy thereof to the accused and as such, this evidence of the I.O. cannot be taken into consideration. Indeed even the confessional statement of the accused has not been proved and no question has been put to the accused while recording his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., about these circumstances against him. Learned counsels accordingly, submitted that conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 11. Learned APP, on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts in view of the fact that it was this accused who had come to Bokaro along with his uncle and as per the FIR he was alone with the deceased at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the fact that he also confessed his guilt, which had led to some recovery, the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against him beyond all reasonable doubts, and the appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the Court below. 12. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we are unable to find any evidence to show that the accused was present along with the deceased at the time of occurrence. 12. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we are unable to find any evidence to show that the accused was present along with the deceased at the time of occurrence. Indeed there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the only circumstance against the accused is the evidence of P.W.-9, the I.O. of the case that the accused had confessed his guilt and on the basis of his confession, blood stained underwear and the broken handles of the axe were recovered. The I.O. has also admitted in his cross-examination that though he had prepared the seizure list which he had also proved during trial, but he admitted that the signature of the accused was not taken on the seizure list, nor the copy thereof was given to the accused. In that view of the matter, this piece of evidence cannot lead to finding the appellant guilty and his conviction. We are of the considered view that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and this is practically a case of no evidence against the accused appellant. Consequently, the impugned Judgement of conviction and the Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charge. 13. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 10.06.1992, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 85 of 1985, are hereby, set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges. The appellant is on bail, and he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond and set at liberty. 14. In the result, this appeal stands allowed. 15. We have been given valuable assistance by learned amicus curiae and as such, she shall be entitled for her admissible fees payable by JHALSA. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Member Secretary, JHALSA, Ranchi, for the needful. 16. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this Judgment. Appeal allowed.