JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. Appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 21.11.1995 and Order of sentence dated 22.11.1995, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No. 195/68 of 1993-95, whereby, the sole appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. 3. The FIR was lodged on the basis of fardbeyan of one Hito Devi, who is the wife of the deceased Ratan Manjhi, recorded on 17.07.1992 at her house, wherein, it was stated that on that day, she had gone to TISCO for working on contract and when she returned back to her house at about 7.00 p.m., she found her husband Ratan Manjhi in the pool of blood, with several injuries caused by axe, on a cot in the eastern dalan of her house. Upon the alarm raised by her, her son-in-law Diku Majhi came and informed that he had seen the accused Karim Manjhi along with the deceased taking liquor. It is alleged that due to previous land dispute between the parties, murder was committed by the accused. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, TELCO (Birsanagar) P.S. Case No. 200 of 1992, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1691 of 1992 was instituted against unknown, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-appellant in this case. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, five witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The I.O. of the case has not been examined and accordingly, formal FIR was proved as Exhibit-4 and the case diary of the case was also proved as Exhibit-3, by a formal witness, PW-5 Shambhu Nath Rai. 5. PW-2 Hito Devi is the informant of this case, who has stated that her husband was murdered. At that time, she had gone to work and when she returned back to her house at about 7.00 p.m., she found her husband dead, who had been assaulted by tangi. 5. PW-2 Hito Devi is the informant of this case, who has stated that her husband was murdered. At that time, she had gone to work and when she returned back to her house at about 7.00 p.m., she found her husband dead, who had been assaulted by tangi. She has stated that prior to the occurrence, there was land dispute between the deceased and the accused-appellant. She has stated that she had put her thumb impression on her statement. 6. PW-1 Joseph Manjhi is the neighbour of the deceased. He has stated that on the date of occurrence, while he was passing through the house of the deceased, he saw Karim Manjhi, fleeing away from the house of the deceased with an axe. He has stated that he did not go to the house of the deceased nor raised any alarm. He had put his signature on the postmortem report, which he identified. In his cross-examination, this witness has clearly stated that he had not seen any occurrence with his own eyes. 7. PW-3 Diku Majhi is the son-in-law of the informant, who has come to depose that prior to the occurrence, he had seen the deceased taking liquor in the house of Karim Manjhi, who had committed the murder. He has stated that he was informed by his mother-in-law Hito Devi that his father-in-law (deceased) had been killed by the accused. He had seen the dead body. In his cross-examination, he has specifically stated that he had not seen the occurrence. 8. PW-4 is Dr. Yogendra Nath, who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 18.07.1992 and he found several ante-mortem injuries upon the dead body of the deceased, which he has proved. He has identified the postmortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked as Exhibit-2. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case without any cogent evidence. Learned counsel has submitted that there is no evidence against the appellant except that PW-3 Diku Majhi has stated that he had seen the deceased taking liquor in the house of the appellant prior to the occurrence, and PW-1 Joseph Manjhi has stated that he had seen the appellant fleeing away from the house of the deceased. Learned counsel has submitted that there is no evidence against the appellant except that PW-3 Diku Majhi has stated that he had seen the deceased taking liquor in the house of the appellant prior to the occurrence, and PW-1 Joseph Manjhi has stated that he had seen the appellant fleeing away from the house of the deceased. It is submitted by the learned counsel that there is no seizure list and no axe has been seized from the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that conviction and sentence of the appellant is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in law. 10. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence against the appellant, inasmuch as, PW-1 Joseph Manjhi has stated that he had seen the appellant fleeing away from the house of the deceased and PW-3 Diku Majhi has stated that he has seen the deceased taking liquor along with the appellant. Learned counsel for the State has, accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed against the appellant. 11. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that there is complete lack of even circumstantial evidence against the appellant in the present case. According to the evidence of PW-3 Diku Majhi, he had only seen the deceased taking liquor in the house of the appellant and not in the house of the deceased, whereas, PW-1 Joseph Manjhi, in his evidence, has stated that he had seen the appellant fleeing away from the house of the deceased with an axe. This witness has not stated that the said axe was blood stained, nor did he try to visit the house of the deceased. In fact, he did not even raise any alarm and he went to his own house. Both the witnesses have specifically stated that they had not seen the occurrence. 12. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. Non-examination of the I.O. is also very crucial in this case. There is nothing on the record to show that any axe was seized from the appellant. 12. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. Non-examination of the I.O. is also very crucial in this case. There is nothing on the record to show that any axe was seized from the appellant. In the facts of this case, we are of the considered view that on the basis of the evidence brought on record, the appellant was entitled to be acquitted from the charge. 13. For the foregoing discussions, the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 21.11.1995 and Order of sentence dated 22.11.1995, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No. 195/68 of 1993-95, are hereby, set aside. Consequently, the appellant, Karim Manjhi @ Salkhu Manjhi is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is on bail, and he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith to the Court concerned, along with a copy of this Judgment.