ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant Karam Singh Munda. According to the report received from the concerned Police Station, all other appellants are dead and as such the appeal is abetted as against the other appellants. 2. The appellant Karam Singh Munda is aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 25.6.1992, passed by the learned rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi (Camp Kunti), in S.T. No. 515 of 1987/129 whereby, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 148 and 302/34 IPC. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC. No separate sentence was passed for the offence under Section 148 of the IPC. 3. The FIR was lodged by Patras Purti, the son of the deceased, stating that on 27.3.1987 at about 10 a.m. Jiut Munda and Lodra Munda came to his house and took his father along with them stating that there was a feast. Thereafter his father did not return and the informant was informed on 28.3.1987 by one Tenga Munda that the dead body of his father was lying near a river with injuries, whereupon he went there and found the dead body of his father. Stating that the murder was committed by unknown persons, the FIR was lodged, on the basis of which, Murhu P.S. Case No. 11 of 1987 corresponding to G.R. No. 147 of 1987 was instituted and investigation was taken up. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet in the case against six accused persons, including the appellant. 4. Upon commitment of the case to the court of Session, charge was framed against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 148 and 302 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial eight witnesses were examined in the case, but the prosecution case is based only on the evidence of PW-2 Jiut Pahan, who has claimed to be the eyewitness to the occurrence. 5. PW-1 Patras Purti is the informant and son of the deceased and has only supported his case as stated in the FIR and he also proved the signature in the FIR which was marked as Ext.-1. 5. PW-1 Patras Purti is the informant and son of the deceased and has only supported his case as stated in the FIR and he also proved the signature in the FIR which was marked as Ext.-1. He has also stated that bloodstained earth was also seized by the police and the seizure list was prepared on which he and one witness had put signatures, which were marked as Exts.-2 and 2/a. He has also identified his signature and the signature of witness on the inquest report which were marked as Exts.-3 and 3/a. He has stated that the witness Lodra Pahan has died. He has also identified accused persons in the Court stating that there was enmity with them. Apparently this witness is not the eyewitness to the occurrence. 6. PW-2 is Jiut Pahan, who is the eyewitness to the occurrence. This witness has stated that he had gone wth Lodra to the house of the deceased, and along with him had gone to the house of his son-in-law Kedar Munda. At about 4 p.m. when they were returning and reached near the river, suddenly six person started pelting stones and thereafter those accused persons, including the appellant, surrounded the deceased and assaulted him by Tangi, Bhala etc., due to which he died. This witness has also stated that he along with Lodra went to another place and stayed over-night there. Next day they came to the house of the informant and informed the wife of the deceased about the occurrence and at that time the informant had gone to the Police Station. He has also stated that the deceased had informed that there was enmity between the accused persons and the deceased. In his cross-examination this witness has admitted that he is in jail in connection with the murder of Lodra Munda, who was his cousin, and with whom he had gone to the house of informant. 7. PW-3 Kande Pahan and PW-5 Goma Munda were only tendered by the prosecution. PW-4 Kedar Munda was only informed about the murder of the deceased. He has not stated anything against the accused persons. PW-6 Tenga Munda had only seen the dead body. He had informed the informant about the dead body. He has also not stated anything against the accused persons. 8. PW-7 is Dr. PW-4 Kedar Munda was only informed about the murder of the deceased. He has not stated anything against the accused persons. PW-6 Tenga Munda had only seen the dead body. He had informed the informant about the dead body. He has also not stated anything against the accused persons. 8. PW-7 is Dr. S.N. Prasad, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and had found ante-mortem injuries leading to the death of the deceased. 9. PW-8 is a formal witness who has only proved the FIR which was marked as Ext.-5. I.O. has not been examined in the case. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case there is only one eyewitness to the occurrence, who according to the FIR had taken the deceased along with him and this witness has only become the eyewitness to the occurrence to say that the murder of the deceased was committed by six named accused persons, including the appellant. It is submitted that this witness did not inform the police, if he is the eyewitness to the occurrence, rather he stayed at different place for the whole night and on the next day he went to the house of the informant to give information. Learned counsel submitted that in absence of any other corroborative evidence it is not at all safe to rely upon the evidence of this witness. Learned counsel further submitted that no other witness has named the appellant and even I.O. has not been examined in this case. Learned counsel submitted that it is fit case for giving benefit of doubt to the appellant. 11. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer but it is admitted that the entire prosecution case is based only upon the evidence of PW-2. 12. Having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that admittedly according to the FIR at the time of occurrence the deceased had gone along with Jiut Munda and Lodra Munda. Lodra Munda has also been murdered and Jiut Munda, who has claimed to be the eye witness to the occurrence, is an accused in the murder case of Lodra Munda, and he was in jail. Lodra Munda has also been murdered and Jiut Munda, who has claimed to be the eye witness to the occurrence, is an accused in the murder case of Lodra Munda, and he was in jail. Though he has claimed to be the eye witness and has named the accused persons, including the appellant, but taking into consideration his criminal antecedent, it is not at all safe to rely on his sole testimony. The I.O. has not been examined in this case and no other witness has named the appellant. In our considered view the defence has been vitally prejudiced by non-examination of the I.O. in this case, and even otherwise it is not safe to rely on the evidence of the sole eyewitness, who had taken the deceased with him, and who himself is an accused in a murder case. In the facts, of this case we are of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt. 13. In view of the aforementioned discussions the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 25.6.1992, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi (Camp Kunti), in S.T. No. 515 of 1987/129, are hereby, set aside. The appellant Karam Singh Munda is given benefit of doubt and he is acquitted of all the charges. The appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. 14. This appeal is accordingly allowed. Let LCR be sent back to the Court below, along with the copy of this Judgment.