JUDGMENT : Pritinker Diwaker, J. 1. This appeal arises out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.10.2011 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Session Trial No.39/2011, convicting the appellant under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. In the present case, name of the deceased is Sahitram, cousin brother of accused/appellant Ghasiya Ram. As per prosecution case, deceased Sahitram was having illicit relation with Amitra Bai (PW-3), wife of accused/appellant. On 18.12.2010 at about 4.00 pm the accused/appellant committed murder of the deceased by axe and arrow. Dead body of the deceased was found in the house of Farari Bai (PW-2). Merg intimation (Ex-P/1) was registered on 18.12.2010 at 8.30 pm at the instance of Luran Ram (PW-1) and immediately thereafter at 8.35 pm FIR (Ex-P/2) was also lodged by Luren Ram against the accused/appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Inquest on the dead body was conducted vide Ex-P/9 on 19.12.2012 and the body was sent for postmortem examination vide Ex-P/11 which was conducted by Dr. SN Upadhyaya (PW-8) and the autopsy surgeon noticed following injuries on the body of the deceased:- (1) Incisional wound oblique in forehead from eye to root of nasal bridge to right fore had 7cm x 2 cm to bone deep fore head part cut. (2) incisional wound : complete cut of lower lip only attach with skin tag on right side with lower jaw near alveolar margin fracture mandible (3) Head separated at level of cervical region C3-C4 at neck in head side and C5-C6 at body (trunk) side (4) Penetrating incisional wound of 4cm x 2cm x 3cm triangular deep on right anterior shoulder, spinal cord, vertebra cervical region cut at above C3-C4 and below C5-C6 (5) Penetrating incisional wound of 5cm x 2cm x 2 1/2 oblique deep in right anterior shoulder (6) Meninges teared relation with incisional wound No.1 mentioned above, brain injured with laceration cut relation with injury No.1 and above lying skull bone cut sharp with fracture bone nasal bridge with medial orbital As per the postmortem report, death of the deceased was due to cut of neck which caused complete bisection of spinal cord and aretery trachea and also all vital structure bisected and the death was homicidal in nature. On 19.12.2010, memorandum statement of the accused (Ex-P/14) was recorded and based on which seizure (Ex- P/15) was effected and one axe, arrow and bow were recovered. As per the un-exhibited FSL report blood was found on the arrow and axe. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant. The trial Judge framed the charges under Sections 302 IPC against him. 4. So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 5. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of the judgment. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits: (i) that there is no eye witness to the incident and the appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Nature of the circumstantial evidence collected by the prosecution is so weak, on which basis the appellant could not be convicted. (ii) that on the memorandum of the accused certain seizures have been effected and as per the un-exhibited FSL report, blood staines were found on the seized arrow and axe but both memorandum and seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. (iii) It is further argued that though there is un-exhibited FSL report on the record, but there is no serological report confirming the origin of blood or blood group. 7. On the other hand, while supporting the impugned judgment, it has been argued by the State Counsel that the conviction of the appellant is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in it. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Luren Ram (PW-1), uncle of the appellant and the deceased, has stated that he saw the dead body of the deceased in the house of Farari Bai (PW-2) and then he lodged merg intimation and FIR. This witness has been subsequently declared hostile. Farari Bai (PW-2), in whose house the dead body was found, has also been delcared hostile. Amitra Bai (PW-3), wife of appellant, has also been declared hostile. Seetaram Paikra (PW-4), Patwari, prepared spot map (Ex- P/7). This witness has been subsequently declared hostile. Farari Bai (PW-2), in whose house the dead body was found, has also been delcared hostile. Amitra Bai (PW-3), wife of appellant, has also been declared hostile. Seetaram Paikra (PW-4), Patwari, prepared spot map (Ex- P/7). Gandhi Ram Rathia (PW-5) and Anil Kumar Rathia (PW-6) have turned hostile. CL Sirdar (PW-7) was the investigating officer. Dr. SN Upadhyaya (PW-8) conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased. Sumesh Goswamy (PW-9) assisted in the investigation. Ramcharan Rathia (PW-10) and Megal Singh Rathia (PW-11) are the witnesses of memorandum (Ex-P/14) and seizure (Ex-P/15), but they turned hostile. Ram Kumar Rathia (PW-12) also turned hostile. As per the un-exhibited FSL report, blood stain was found on the axe and arrow but there is no sere logical report confirming the blood group and origin of blood. 10. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that but for the very weak circumstantial evidence there is no other evidence against the appellant. Important witnesses have turned hostile. On the basis of the memorandum of the accused certain seizures were effected but there is no serological report confirming the blood group and origin of the blood. Dead body of the deceased was recovered from the house of Farari Bai (PW-2) which is far away from the house of the appellant. 11. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the trial Court has erred in law in convicting the appellant. 12. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him by extending him benefit of doubt. The appellant is reported to be in jail, he be released forthwith if not required in any other case.