JUDGMENT : Since these criminal appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Sahibganj in Sessions Case No. 53 of 2004, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 3.5.2005 and order of sentence dated 5.5.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Sahibganj in Sessions Case No. 53 of 2004 whereby these appellants, having been found guilty of the charges under Sections 302/201/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 302/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have' further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution on the basis of Jardbeyan of Shivcharan Sah is that on 13.8.2003 at about 10.00 a.m., while he was taking meal in his house, Chandmuni Devi came and told to Saraswati (deceased) to go to forest to bring woods. Thereafter, both of them went to the forest by taking Baida and rope. On the same day at about 2.30 p.m., when the informant was going to Bhairo Dhab (Bahiyar), son of Kalicharan namely, Budhan Sah informed him that his mother told him that Santhals have tied Saraswati Devi (deceased) on the bank of river and requested the informant to go there. Then the informant went to the bank of river with Budhan Sah and made hectic search but could not find any Santhal or his wife there. Thereafter, the informant returned to his borne with Budhan Sah and again went to the bank of the river along with Chandmuni, Chamaru and Dhobe and searched his wife as per the direction of Chandmuni Devi but could not find his wife. Chandmuni stated that when she and Saraswati Devi were cutting a Semal tree, then three Santhals came and obstructed them from cutting branches and pushed them due to which Chandmuni came back to her house but they caught Saraswati Devi. According to the informant, all the branches of said tree were intact. As it was evening, they returned to home. In the next morning, the informant went to the bank of the river with his son along with other villagers and searched his wife. According to the informant, all the branches of said tree were intact. As it was evening, they returned to home. In the next morning, the informant went to the bank of the river with his son along with other villagers and searched his wife. When he reached near bridge then one Badhua told him that a corpse was caught in his net and then he pushed the dead body away. Thereafter, the informant along with his companions moved towards Sanmani Ghat in search of his wife, where he saw the corpse of his wife floating in the river. The informant and his associates took out the said corpse from water and kept it at the bank of the river. The informant saw several injuries on the dead body of his wife. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid jardbeyan, the police registered an FIR being Barhet P.S. Case No. 52 of 2003 under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against six accused persons including the appellants. The police took up the investigation and after completion of the investigation, filed charge-sheet under Sections 302/20 1/34/120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons including the appellants and thereafter, cognizance of the offence was taken against the present appellants. 5. The. plea of the defence is of complete denial of the allegation. 6. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined, as many as 13 witnesses including the Doctors (PW 7 and PW 8) and the Investigating Officer (PW 2). The trial Court after going through the materials on record and also considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has found the charges levelled against the accused to be proved and thereafter sentenced them to undergo as aforesaid. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the judgment of the learned Court below on the following grounds: – (i) There is vital discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses and their statements are neither corroborative nor trustworthy; (ii) The prosecution has not been able to establish the place of occurrence, which creates doubt over the entire prosecution case; (iii) The present case is based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is not complete. (iv) Not a single weapon has been recovered from the house of the appellants, which goes to show that the circumstances have also not been established. 8. (iv) Not a single weapon has been recovered from the house of the appellants, which goes to show that the circumstances have also not been established. 8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Shared Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 . Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in the prosecution cannot be cured by a false defence or plea. In the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned trial Court has committed illegality and infirmity in convicting the present appellants under Sections 302/l20-B/34/201 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and submits that PW 1, PW 6, PW 9 and PW 12 are the most natural witnesses of the occurrence and from the deposition of the aforesaid witnesses, it is crystal clear that the deceased was residing at her parental house due to which the accused persons were not happy. PW 5 and PW 10 had seen all the appellants along with the deceased together. therefore, the circum stances has been proved and accordingly, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the present appellants and hence, there being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court, is fit to be upheld. 10. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and also perused the materials available on record. 11. PW l-Logen Sah is the son of the informant. He is a hearsay witness on the point of death. He has proved his signature on the inquest report, which is marked as Ext. 1. During cross-examination, this witness has deposed that no case was filed for the land dispute but a panchayat had taken place. He has further deposed that he had not produced any panchyati paper to the police. 12. PW 2- Deepak Prakash was the second Investigating Officer, who had submitted the charge-sheet. PW 3-Karmaniya Yadav and PW 4-Dhope Sah have turned hostile. 13. He has further deposed that he had not produced any panchyati paper to the police. 12. PW 2- Deepak Prakash was the second Investigating Officer, who had submitted the charge-sheet. PW 3-Karmaniya Yadav and PW 4-Dhope Sah have turned hostile. 13. PW 5-Fuliya Devi deposed that she had seen Chamaroo, Budhan, Mangawa, Pancha and Kalicharan walking by the side of Jumani River. This witness has further deposed that at 9.00 a.m. she had seen Chandmuni Devi and Saraswati on a road near the bank of river. This witness has further deposed that at about 2.00 to 2.30 p.m., she had inquired from Chandmuni Devi about Saraswati, upon which she told that she did not know about her. During cross-examination, this witness has deposed that she had also seen Chamru, Budhan, Mangawa, Pancha and Kalicharan, who were walking by the side of river. She further deposed that there are land of accused persons at the place where she had seen them. She did not tell about the name of other persons, who were working with her at that point of time. 14. PW 6-Ratani Devi has deposed that on the day of incident, she was going to take bath. In the meantime, she saw Chandmuni Devi, who was shivering and looking fearful and there was blood-stain on her cloth. During cross-examination, she deposed that Chandmuni was coming from the forest. She had not raised any alarm. 15. PW 7 is Dr. Ramashray Singh, who had conducted post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased. The said post-mortem report has been marked as Ext. 2. This witness has found several injuries on the body of the deceased. The Doctor has opined that some injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon like Sickle and some were caused by hard and blunt substance like gainta and cause of death was due to and haemorrhage. 16. PW 8-is Dr. Anil Kumar Marandi, has examined the injury of Chandmuni Devi and injury report, which is marked as Ext.3. He found a cut wound on the right hand in the tip of a middle finger. He opined that the injury is caused by sharp cutting weapon like sickle and injury was about 20 hours before. He found the injury as simple. 17. PW 9-Shyam Sunder Sah is the son of the deceased. He found a cut wound on the right hand in the tip of a middle finger. He opined that the injury is caused by sharp cutting weapon like sickle and injury was about 20 hours before. He found the injury as simple. 17. PW 9-Shyam Sunder Sah is the son of the deceased. This witness has deposed that on 13.8.2003 at about 10.00 a.m. when he along with his father was taking meal, Chandmuni Devi came and requested the deceased to go to forest for fetching wood and on her request, the deceased had gone with her. In the evening, when the present witness came to his house, he did not find his mother at home and then he went to the house of Chandmuni Devi, who was shivering and looking fearful. She narrated that the deceased was tied with a Semal tree by three Santhali. Thereafter, the present witness went near the Semal tree but did not find the deceased. On the subsequent date the present witness along with 4-5 persons went towards Morang River in search of the deceased. During the course of search, he found one hasua and kaida. He claimed that hasua belongs to Kalicharan and kaida belongs to Chandmuni. He has further stated that near Kaikha Pool. one person told him that one dead body was caught in his net and he pushed the dead body away with a Bamboo. He further stated that the dead body of his mother was found in Morang River. During cross-examination, this witness has deposed that for the land dispute, a panchyali had taken place at the police station. He has not produced the paper of panchyati. He has further deposed that the death of his mother was committed at Jhatka Ghat and blood was also there at the place of occurrence. The police had seized blood-stained soil from the place of occurrence. This witness has deposed that he had filed a case relating to land dispute but he did not know the number of the said case. 18. PW 10 is Mina Kisko. This witness has deposed that on the date of incident at about 12.00 a.m., she saw Saraswati and Chandmuni Devi going together by the site of Gumani River. Both the persons were holding Dabia. After that, Bichak and his two sons Budhan and Chamru went by the side of river. 18. PW 10 is Mina Kisko. This witness has deposed that on the date of incident at about 12.00 a.m., she saw Saraswati and Chandmuni Devi going together by the site of Gumani River. Both the persons were holding Dabia. After that, Bichak and his two sons Budhan and Chamru went by the side of river. Thereafter, the present witness went to the field of other person and then she saw Chandmuni Devi coming and her cloth was stained with blood. During cross-examination, this witness has deposed that she had seen Chandmuni Devi and Saraswati from the distance of 70 ft. 19. PW 11-Bhuwan Sah is the seizure list witness, who has proved the seizure list of hasua and kaida which is marked as Ext. 4. 20. PW 12-Shiv Charan Sah is the husband of the deceased and informant of this case. This witness has supported his statement given in the fardbeyan. During cross-examination, he deposed that his son Shyam Sunder Sah was also taking meal with him. He had given the panchayati paper to the Police. 21. PW 13-Md. Shamim is an Advocate Clerk, who proved the fardbeyan and FIR written by the then Sub-Inspector Shri Lalan Kumar which were marked as Exts. 5 and 6. 22. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides as well as the decisions cited by the appellants. From the evidence. it is crystal clear that PW 5 and PW 10 are the co-villagers and the witness to the fast seen theory. These witnesses only saw Chandmuni Devi [appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 192 of 2009], along with the deceased. PW 6 saw appellant Chandmuni Devi was shivering and looking fearful and there was blood-stain on' her cloth. PW 10 also corroborated the above evidence of PW 6. There is no evidence on the point whether those stains were of blood or not. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. 23. In the instant case, the appellants were examined under Section 313, Cr PC, but no question was put to them, regarding the fact that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants. No circumstances, which came against these appellants during evidence was put to the accused during their examinations under Section 313, Cr PC. 23. In the instant case, the appellants were examined under Section 313, Cr PC, but no question was put to them, regarding the fact that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants. No circumstances, which came against these appellants during evidence was put to the accused during their examinations under Section 313, Cr PC. In other words, in the instant case, the essence of accusation was not brought to the notice of the accused persons, therefore, this Court feel it proper not to utilize the said piece of evidence against them. 24. The only evidence, which is against the appellant-Chandmuni Devi, is that she was last seen with the deceased. So far as other appellants are concerned, there is practically no evidence against them. 25. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, inasmuch as, the trial Court did not take into account all the material aspects of the matter, in its right perspective and thereby, committed illegality in recording the judgment or conviction against the appellants. 26. Thus. all the criminal appeals are allowed and the judgment of conviction dated 3.5.2005 and order of sentence dated 5.5.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Sahibganj in Sessions Case No. 53 of 2014, is hereby set aside. 27. As the appellants having been found not guilty of the charges levelled against them, they are accordingly acquitted. Since all the appellants, except appellant-Chandmuni Devi, are already on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 28. Since appellant-Chandmuni Devi [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 192 of 2009), is languishing in jail custody for more than 13 years, she shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed.