ORDER Ranjan Gogoi, J. - The accused appellant who has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life is in appeal before this Court. 2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the relevant record including the judgment passed by the High Court affirming the conviction and sentence. 3. Nand Kumar (PW-1), Pintu Kumar Sao (PW-2) and Devender Singh @ Rinku (PW-3) are the three witnesses examined by the prosecution whose evidence will require a close scrutiny. 4. Nand Kumar (PW.1) in his examination-in-chief has stated that he had seen the accused appellant standing next to the dead-body with a dangerous weapon. In the cross-examination, however, PW.1 had admitted that he had seen the actual assault and had gone to say that he had seen the last assault made by the accused on the head of the deceased. 5. Pintu Kumar Sao (PW-2) who claimed to have separated the accused and the deceased a little while before the incident, while they were altercating over some issue, denied seeing Nand Kumar (PW-1) or for that matter Devender Singh @ Rinku (PW-3) at the place of occurrence. Devender Singh @ Rinku (PW-3) is another witness who had merely deposed that he had seen the accused appellant standing by the side of the dead-body with the murder weapon. 6. The above analysis of the evidence of the prosecution would go to show that there is really no direct evidence of the incident of assault leading to death. In fact, there is some amount of inconsistency in the evidence of PW.1 and some doubt with regard to the presence of PW.1 and PW.3 has also been cast by the evidence of PW.2. The prosecution has not brought on record the time difference between the PW.2 separating the accused and the deceased and the incident. 7. The aforesaid evidence casts some doubt in our minds with regard to the culpability of the accused. The benefit of the said doubt, undoubtedly, must go to the accused appellant. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the High Court under challenge and the conviction and sentence recorded and hold the accused to be not guilty on the benefit of doubt. We order accordingly. 8. Consequently and in the light of the above, the appeal is allowed. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the High Court under challenge and the conviction and sentence recorded and hold the accused to be not guilty on the benefit of doubt. We order accordingly. 8. Consequently and in the light of the above, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged.