JUDGMENT : Dr. S.N. Pathak, J. Heard the parties. 2. Both the Criminal Appeals have been preferred against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.06.1992, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Sessions Trial No. 159 of 1990 whereby the appellants have been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. 3. Case of the prosecution in short is that on 13.07.1989, at about 4:00 p.m., appellant Shiv Lal Sao went to house of the informant and took his father Manbodh Yadav (since deceased) to his house in order to perform Ojhai to cure ailing wife of the informant. When father of the informant did not return home in the evening, the informant went to house of the appellant Shiv Lal Sao at village Jhagraha and there he found his father and appellant Ishwar Bhuiyan sitting in house of appellant Shiv Lal Sao, who were making arrangements for feeding them. Appellant Shiv Lal Sao also insisted informant for taking meal with them but he did not agree and returned home. When father of the informant did not return home in the night, he along with his uncle Aliyar Yadav (P.W.-4) and others went to house of the appellant Shiv Lal Sao the next morning at about 7:00 a.m., in order to search out his father but found door plank of the house closed without any chain and appellant Shiv Lal Sao and his family members were missing. On suspicion, the informant and others opened door of the house and saw his father lying dead. There was bleeding from his mouth and neck was slightly swollen. The informant suspected that his father was done to death by pressing his neck by appellants. Thereafter, the informant along with his uncle (P.W.-4) went to Ranka Police Station and lodged the F.I.R. on 14.07.1989 at 10:00 a.m. 4. On the basis of fardbayan of the informant Ranka Police Station Case No. 38/1989 corresponding to G.R. No. 428/1989, under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered against unknown. The police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance was taken for the aforesaid Sections and case was committed to the Court of Session and appellants were put on trial. The police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance was taken for the aforesaid Sections and case was committed to the Court of Session and appellants were put on trial. The Charge was framed to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution in order to substantiate charges, examined altogether 8 prosecution witnesses. P.W.-1 is Chhathu Bhuiyan, P.W.-2 is Higan Prasad Yadav who is witness on the point of Inquest of the dead body and on the point of seizure of blood stained earth etc., P.W.-3 is Bisnu Prasad Yadav is important witness and informant to the instant case, P.W.-4 Aliyar Yadav is uncle of the informant, P.W.-5 Ram Shran Yadav has been tendered by the prosecution, P.W.-6 Triveni Rai is the investigating officer of the case, P.W.-7 Samai Nath Srivastava is judicial Magistrate who had recorded statement of P.W.-1 under Section 164 Cr.P.C., P.W.-8 Dr. Bharat Manjhi has proved the postmortem report of Dr. Jwala Prasad Singh in respect of the deceased. 6. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj vide Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.06.1992, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 159 of 1990 held the appellants guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. 7. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Praween Shankar Dayal, Mr. Anurag Kashyap and Ms. Supriya while assailing the impugned Judgment has argued that the statement of prosecution witnesses are contradictory to each other on material points and there is no independent witnesses to the occurrence. The appellants have further assailed the impugned Judgment on the ground that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.-1 is a witness who cannot be said to be reliable for the reason that neither the informant in his deposition nor in First Information Report has stated about his presence at alleged place of occurrence when he visited there. It is further alleged that the P.W.-3 has exaggerated the incident by making subsequent change in regard to the injuries on the person of the deceased. The impugned Judgment has further been assailed by the appellants on the ground that even the medical evidence is inconsistent with the ocular version. It is further alleged that the P.W.-3 has exaggerated the incident by making subsequent change in regard to the injuries on the person of the deceased. The impugned Judgment has further been assailed by the appellants on the ground that even the medical evidence is inconsistent with the ocular version. It is further alleged that the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination, has not been examined. The appellants have further alleged that the investigation has been done in a perfunctory manner and on that basis the appellants could not have been convicted and sentenced for life. Learned Sr. counsel further submitted that the Investigating Officer himself had stated that he had no idea of differentiating between human blood and other blood and further the investigating officer had admitted that he had not sent blood stained earth for examination. Learned Sr. counsel further submitted that the Investigating Officer has admitted that there was no chain (Sikri) in the door which contradicts and makes doubtful statement of the informant to the effect of opening of ‘Sikri’ of the door of alleged place of occurrence and finding deceased. Learned Sr. counsel further submitted that it is a clear case where manner, time and place of occurrence is missing and as such the appellants are liable to be acquitted. Learned counsel further submitted that in the circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the case is of no evidence and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Learned Sr. Counsel further pointed out that in the postmortem report the doctor has opined that cause of death was injuries due to hard blunt object whereas in the FIR the allegation was that the accused persons killed the deceased by pressing his neck which is in contrary to the post mortem report. 8. Per contra learned APP has opposed the prayer and submitted that the appellants have been rightly convicted for the offences alleged. He further submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and the accused persons committed planned murder of the deceased in the alleged house. Learned APP further submitted that there is no vital contradiction on evidence of material witnesses and therefore, their evidence is intact and cannot be discarded for arriving at the conclusion and, therefore, the accused persons/appellants have been rightly convicted by the court below. 9. Learned APP further submitted that there is no vital contradiction on evidence of material witnesses and therefore, their evidence is intact and cannot be discarded for arriving at the conclusion and, therefore, the accused persons/appellants have been rightly convicted by the court below. 9. Before reaching to any conclusion it is necessary to deal with evidence of important prosecution witnesses. Out of 8 prosecution witnesses, P.W.-5 Ram Shran Yadav has been tendered by the prosecution and therefore, his evidence has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. P.W. -7 Samai Nath Srivastava is judicial Magistrate who had recorded statement of P.W.-1 under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. Dr. Jwala Prasad Singh, who had conducted postmortem of the deceased, has not appeared and P.W.-8 Dr. Bharat Manjhi has merely proved postmortem report prepared by him in respect of the deceased. P.W.-1 is Chhathu Bhuiyan, who has deposed that on the alleged date of occurrence, deceased had gone to him at 5:00 p.m. and asked him to go to the house of Shivlal Sao for 'Ojhai' whereupon he went to his house and there he found Ishwari Bhuiyan sitting. He also deposed that he had taken dinner and he along with Manbodh and Ishwar had taken sufficient liquor. He further deposed that the informant had also gone there. He further deposed that Godown of Yadha Sao is at a distance of about 500 steps from the place of occurrence and he had not gone there for the whole night. He further deposed that he had gone in the morning and Vishun Yadav was present there. He further said that he had not informed the Mukhiya or Sarpanch nor had gone to the Police Station. At para-14 of his deposition this witness has stated that he had narrated about the incidence to the informant whereupon the informant gave information to the Police Station. The statement of this witness (P.W.-1) has not been corroborated by any evidence or even by the medical report and as such his presence at the place of occurrence is itself doubtful and resultantly it casts cloud on the entire prosecution case. At best it can be safely concluded that it is a case of last seen and in view of that the appellants deserve benefits of doubt. Even motive has not been assigned. At best it can be safely concluded that it is a case of last seen and in view of that the appellants deserve benefits of doubt. Even motive has not been assigned. Higan Prasad Yadav (P.W.-2) is witness on the point of Inquest into the dead body and on the point of seizure of blood stained earth etc.. Bisnu Prasad Yadav (P.W.-3) is important witness and informant to the instant case. While in the First Information Report he had stated about bleeding from mouth and swollen neck but in his deposition before the Court he added injury on the forehead caused by rod and sabal. He has stated that there was no enmity between his father and appellants. This witness has accepted about his being informed by P.W.-1. He further accepted that he had said before I.O. that he had found Chhathu Bhuiyan sitting at 9:00 p.m. at the house of Shivlal Sao and that he had asked Shivlal Sao and Chhathu Bhuiyan to reach his father back after dinner. However, he denied that he ever stated before the Police that he had seen injury of rod or piercing injury on the forehead of his father. He further denied that he had stated before the police that he had gone to home of Shivlal Sao with Khadu Sao to see his father. Aliyar Yadav (P.W.-4) is uncle of the informant, deposed before the Court that after seeing the dead body, he came out and raised hulla whereupon many persons assembled and to whom he stated that the appellants and Ishwari Bhuiyan had killed Manbodh Yadav. He further deposed that he had said before the police also that on seeing dead body, he had raised hulla. At para-9 of his deposition, he stated that Chhuttu Bhuiyan and Shivlal Sao had disputes arising out of Mahuwa Trees and Shivlal Sao had not allowed possession of said tree. From the deposition of P.W.-4 it seems that there has been enmity between the deceased and the accused persons. The enmity cuts both ways. Triveni Rai (P.W.-6) is the investigating officer of the case. At para-9 of his deposition he has stated that he has no idea of differentiating between human blood and other blood and he denied to have sent blood stained earth for chemical examination. The enmity cuts both ways. Triveni Rai (P.W.-6) is the investigating officer of the case. At para-9 of his deposition he has stated that he has no idea of differentiating between human blood and other blood and he denied to have sent blood stained earth for chemical examination. He further denied to have informed by the informant about injury of rod or sabal on the forehead of the deceased. He further deposed that informant had not stated before him to have seen Dewanti Devi at 6:00 p.m. in the house but had said so in the subsequent statements. At para-15, he said that he had found stone etc. at the place of occurrence but had not mentioned in the case diary. This witness has further stated that the accused/appellants reside at Maghigawan at a distance of 14 kms. and also at the place of occurrence but he specifically stated that the ladies reside in the ancestral house. P.W.-8 Dr. Bharat Manjhi has merely proved postmortem report prepared by Dr. Jwala Prasad Singh. On the basis of postmortem report, he deposed that injuries on the body of the deceased were not possible by sharp pointed weapon. He pointed out that injury nos. (i) to (iii) were not possible by fall but injury no. (iv) was possible by fall. He further opined that laceration may be possible by hard and blunt substance. He, therefore falsified the suspicion raised in the F.I.R. regarding pressing neck of the deceased. 10. From the evidence of prosecution witnesses it could be gathered that the place of occurrence is neither apparent from the First Information Report nor the informant–P.W.-3 has specifically stated so in his deposition. Even the presence of P.W.-1–Chhathu Bhuiyan at the place of occurrence is doubtful. The appellants have also raised doubts regarding trustworthiness or reliability of this P.W.-3 as he has tried to exaggerate the injuries sustained by the deceased in his subsequent statement before the Court. On a careful perusal of the materials on record, we are unable to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to established its case beyond reasonable doubt to base a conviction of appellants. There is absence of chain of events to connect the appellants with the alleged occurrence. The medical evidence is also inconsistent with the ocular version because no injury of pointed weapon (Sabal) was found. There is absence of chain of events to connect the appellants with the alleged occurrence. The medical evidence is also inconsistent with the ocular version because no injury of pointed weapon (Sabal) was found. Non-examination of blood stained earth has also raised question on the investigation. The contradictory statement of important prosecution witnesses i.e. P.Ws.-1 and 3 has proved fatal in securing conviction of the appellants as their statement before the Police and before the Court are itself contradictory. Hence we are of the opinion that the Court below has erred in coming to the contra conclusion and as such, the appellants deserve to be acquitted. 11. Considering all these aspects, the impugned Judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellants is not sustainable and the appellants deserve benefits of doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.06.1992, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Sessions Trial No. 159 of 1990 is hereby set aside and the appellants are given benefits of doubt and are acquitted of the charges. The appellants are on bail, are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds and set at liberty. In the result, this appeal stands allowed. Let the lower court record be sent back forthwith.