JUDGMENT Pradip Kumar Mohanty, C.J. (C.A.V.) - This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11th May, 2007 and 14th May, 2007 respectively passed by Xth Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-IIIrd Special Judge C.B.I. (A.H.D. Scam Cases), Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 530 of 2006 (arising out of Bariatu P.S.Case No. 59 of 2006, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1301 of 2006), whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. However, he was acquitted from the charge under Section 27 of Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution on the basis of Fradbeyan of the informant Swati Priya is that on 18.04.2006 her parents were quarreling since evening and her father was abusing her mother. At about 11''O clock again quarrel started between her father and mother and as such she came out of the room. In the meantime she heard sound of 3-4 fire shots then she rushed to her parents room and saw that her mother was lying on bed and blood was oozing out from her head and her father was sitting on the bed with pistol. It was further alleged that instantly she informed the Bariatu Police Station and patrolling party arrived and her injured mother was taken to RIMS where she succumbed to her injuries. She further alleged that her father has shot fire on her mother due to which she became injured and later on died. 3. On the basis of aforesaid Fardbeyan, Bariatu P.S. Case No. 59 of 2006 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of Arms Act and after investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of Arms Act. Thereafter, the cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session which was registered as S.T. Case No. 530 of 2006. 4. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. and Section 27 of Arms Act for which he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined altogether Six witnesses. 6. After closer of the evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. 7. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. and Section 27 of Arms Act for which he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined altogether Six witnesses. 6. After closer of the evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. 7. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the materials available on record, found the appellant guilty for committing murder of the deceased and accordingly, recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against him which is under challenge before this Court. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that soon after arrest of appellant, the police had not recorded the statement of the accused and as such an application was sent by the appellant from jail to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi but directions of the Court has not at all been complied with by the investigating officer of the case. It is further submitted that no incriminating articles were recovered from the possession of appellant and prosecution has completely failed to prove the circumstantial evidence indicating towards guilt of the accused person. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that when the appellant has not been found guilty under the charge of Section 27 of the Arms Act then certainly there is no question of committing offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, so, benefit of doubt should be given and appellant be acquitted from the charges. He further submits that in fact in this case all the witnesses have turned hostile which means that there is no evidence against the appellant. He further submits that P.W.-4 who is the informant and the author of the F.I.R. has given totally a different version in her evidence before the Court. He submits that from her evidence it is quite clear that at the time of occurrence this appellant was in the ground-floor. He submits that it has come in the evidence that some known persons have also entered in the house. He submits that so far as the recovery of fire arm is concerned, it has not been proved as to whether the revolver which was seized belongs to the appellant and was his service revolver. He submits that it has come in the evidence that some known persons have also entered in the house. He submits that so far as the recovery of fire arm is concerned, it has not been proved as to whether the revolver which was seized belongs to the appellant and was his service revolver. It is also submitted that the arms was not sealed before sending to the forensics. He lastly submits that Court witness no. 3 stated that some other fire arm was also used in the crime. On this basis he claimed that the appellant needs to be acquitted. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument of the appellant. He submits that there are strong circumstances to show that the accused who was in possession of pistol No. 15334377 as his service pistol in course of his duty, the same pistol was used in commission of crime. Therefore, the chain of circumstances clearly suggest that the accused and no one else committed the murder of his wife Kamini Singh. He further submits that Kamini Singh was died due to fire arm injury and P.W.-6 who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body, corroborate this fact. 10. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the entire records. 11. As mentioned earlier the prosecution in order to substantiate the charges, has examined altogether six witnesses, i.e. P.W.-1 (Arun Kumar Singh). P.W.-2 (Baleshwar Singh). P.W.-3 (Manish Chandra Choudhary).P.W-4 (Swati Priya). P.W.-5 (Sri Niraj) and P.W.-6 (Dr. Tulsi Mahto). Out of Six witnesses P.W.-4 is the informant of the instant case and P.W.-6 is the doctor who conducted the post mortem on the deceased body. However, three witnesses have been examined as Court witnesses, i.e. C.W.-1 (Kameshwar Thakur), C.W.-2 (Ram Shankar Singh) and C.W.-3 (Ashutosh Kumar Sinha). 12. It is pertinent to mention here that the material witness i.e. P.Ws. 1 to 4 have been declared hostile by the prosecution. These witnesses have not supported the statement which was recorded earlier under section 161 of the Cr. P.C. In fact P.W.-4 who is the informant and daughter of the deceased has also not supported her earlier statement and in fact given a different version which is absolutely contrary to the F.I.R. 13. P.W.-5 (Sri Niraj) is the investigating officer of the case. P.C. In fact P.W.-4 who is the informant and daughter of the deceased has also not supported her earlier statement and in fact given a different version which is absolutely contrary to the F.I.R. 13. P.W.-5 (Sri Niraj) is the investigating officer of the case. He deposed that he went to the place of occurrence and saw that Kamini Singh was wounded by bullet and she was lying in the pool of blood and he immediately took her to RIMS where she succumbed to her injuries in course of treatment. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of informant Swati Priya who found the same to be correct and put her signature. He proved the written report as Ext-4 and formal F.I.R. as Ext-5. He further deposed that he again went to place of occurrence and seized one 9 mm pistol bearing serial No. 15334377 with 2 nos. of live bullets and one used bullet (Khokha) in presence of P.Ws.-1 & 2. He proved the seizure list as Ext-6. He also seized one blood stained bed sheet, 2 nos. of used bullets and one pellet and prepared a seizure list which is marked as Ext-6/1. In his cross examination he stated that none other than informant has stated before him regarding quarrel between deceased and accused. He further deposed that the pistol was recovered from the ground floor. 14. From scanning of the evidence it is clear that the material witnesses have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The doctor stated that the death occurred because of fire arm injury. Though the court below has come to the finding that the bullet was fired from the pistol which was provided to the appellant by the department but there is nothing on record to show that this pistol was provided to him by the department. Since the appellant is a police officer and a pistol was found in his possession it cannot be presumed, nor any inference can be drawn that it was the same pistol which was given to the appellant by the department. The prosecution had to prove by means of documentary evidence that this particular pistol was given to the appellant by the department which the prosecution failed to do so. 15. The prosecution had to prove by means of documentary evidence that this particular pistol was given to the appellant by the department which the prosecution failed to do so. 15. The Court below has held in the judgment that it is not in dispute that the accused who is a police officer was provided with the pistol bearing No. 15334377 by his department. After scrutinizing the evidence, this Court finds that neither there is admission on the part of this appellant nor any evidence of any of the witnesses that this pistol was given to this appellant. In absence of any such admission it was the duty of the prosecution to prove by documentary evidence that this pistol was provided to the appellant by the department. 16. Thus, the finding of the lower Court is absolutely bad. We also find that the chain of circumstances is not complete in this case. Thus, it can safely be concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the appellant guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On the basis of the hostile evidence who did not supported their earlier statement, this appellant cannot be held guilty. 17. This appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside. The appellant who is in custody since last 11 years, is directed to be released forth with, if not wanted in any other case. 18. Thus, this appeal stands allowed. Anand Sen, J. - I agree.