JUDGMENT : AJIT SINGH, J. 1. By this common judgment and order, we are deciding Criminal Appeal Nos. 234 and 283, both of 2015, as they arise out of the same impugned judgment and order. 2. The appellants of Criminal Appeal no. 234/2015 are Abdul Rahim and Abdul Heye whereas Abdul Hussain and his brother Amir Hussain @ Babul are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 283/2015. All of them have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. However, their co-accused Jakir Hussain has been acquitted by the trial court. 3. The victim of the incident was Oshimuddin, aged about 45 years. 4. According to the prosecution case, on 07.07.2005, at about 8 a.m. Abdul Hussain came to the house of Oshimuddin and called him to examine the boundary of his land and ascertain the same so that the boundaries of the lands may be measured and determined. Son of Oshimuddin Safiqul Islam (PW-1) and daughter-Hasina Begum (PW-2) followed him. When Oshimuddin got involved in demarcating the lands, Zakir Hussain suddenly emerged from the banana bushes and attacked him with an iron axel of a push cart from behind. On receiving the blow, Oshimuddin fell down. Thereafter, the appellants assaulted him with ramdao, crow-bars etc. and caused severe injuries. Seeing this, Safiqul Islam and Hasina Begum raised hue and cry, and requested the appellants not to assault Oshimuddin but they threatened her with dire consequences and fled leaving behind injured Oshimuddin. Hasina Begum then went to the Dhing Police Station and verbally informed the matter to the police. 5. Oshimuddin was taken to Dhing Hospital and finding his condition critical, doctor referred him to Nagaon Civil Hospital. Oshimuddin, however, died en-route. Safiqul Islam then lodged Exhibit-1 - First Information Report on that day itself, at Dhing Police Station and the same was registered vide case No. 109/2005 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Cheniram Saikia (PW-11) - the then officer-in-charge of that police station immediately rushed to the place of occurrence, drew Exhibit-7 sketch map, recorded statements of witnesses and also got statements of witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Cheniram Saikia (PW-11) - the then officer-in-charge of that police station immediately rushed to the place of occurrence, drew Exhibit-7 sketch map, recorded statements of witnesses and also got statements of witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After conducting inquest over the dead body of Oshimuddin in the presence of Riyajuddin (PW-7), Turab Ali (PW-9) and Wahidur Rahman (PW-10), the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. He also arrested the appellants except Abdul Rahim and Abdul Hussain, since they absconded. Cheniram Saikia, after completing the investigation, submitted Exhibit-8 charge-sheet for an offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and Zakir Hussain. 7. Dr. O.K. Sarmah (PW-6) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Oshimuddin. He found one lacerated injury on right temporal region of scalp 2" x " x skin deep, lacerated injury on right ear, lacerated injury over right shoulder joint 2" x 1" x " and lacerated injury over right temporal region with multiple fracture over right temporal bone. According to him, death was due to head injuries which could be caused by rough edged weapon. His post mortem examination report is Exhibit-5. 8. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that in fact there is no eye witness to the incident and though Safiqul Islam, Hasina Bagum and Rabia Khatoon (PW-3) claimed to have witnessed the appellants assaulting Oshimuddin, they were actually not present at the place of occurrence and their evidence contradict one other on material particulars and as such, it is not safe to convict the appellants on the basis of their evidence without being supported by any other cogent evidence. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor defended the impugned conviction and sentence. 9. The trial court believed the evidence of Safiqul Islam, Hasina Bagum and Rabia Khatoon. The brothers of Rabia Khatoon-Nurul Amin (PW-4) and Ismail Hussain (PW-5) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Hasina Begum has deposed that Zakir hacked Oshimuddin with a ramdao on his head and on his fall, Babul and Amir Hussain also assaulted him with crow bar and axel of a push cart. After that Abdul Heye and Abdul Rahim further assaulted him with crow bar and ramdao. Seeing this, she went to the police station and verbally informed the police. After that Abdul Heye and Abdul Rahim further assaulted him with crow bar and ramdao. Seeing this, she went to the police station and verbally informed the police. But, she in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that Abul Hussain dealt the first ramdao blow on head of Oshimuddin and when he fell down, Zakir Hussain and Abul Hussain assaulted him with iron rod. This is a material contradiction and her testimony in the court is totally different from her earlier statement made before police. Cheniram Saikia, the investigating officer, admitted that none informed about the incident verbally in the police station before lodging the first information report by Safiqul Islam and he went to the place of occurrence at about 2:30 p.m. after lodging of the first information report. So, we are of the view that had Hasina Begum informed the occurrence immediately at 8 a.m. itself, definitely there would have been a general diary entry to that effect. But the same is not exhibited in the present case. Besides, in that event police would have rushed immediately and not after such a long time after the occurrence. Therefore, we are of the view that Hasina Begum did not see the occurrence and her testimony is not entirely believable. 10. Rabia Khatoon has deposed that Zakir Hussain dealt a dao blow on the head of Oshimuddin and thereafter, Abul Hussain struck him on his head with an iron axle. She has also deposed that Babul, Abdul Rahim and Abdul Hai hit him on his head with crow-bars. But, in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she stated that when she came out of her house hearing hue and cry, she saw Oshimuddin lying injured smeared in blood and Zakir ussain, Abul Hussain and Babul Hussain were running towards their house. This would go to show that she did not actually see the appellants assaulting Oshimuddin and her testimony in the court is a developed one. She also stated that her two brothers-Nurul Amin and Ismail Hussain told her that Zakir Hussain, Abul Hussain and Babul Hussain assaulted Oshimuddin. This would go to show that she did not actually see the appellants assaulting Oshimuddin and her testimony in the court is a developed one. She also stated that her two brothers-Nurul Amin and Ismail Hussain told her that Zakir Hussain, Abul Hussain and Babul Hussain assaulted Oshimuddin. But, both Nurul Amin and Ismail Hussain turned hostile and they even admitted during their cross-examination that Rabia Khatoon arrived at the place of occurrence after 20/25 minutes and Safiqul Islam and Hasina Begum came even much later than Hasina Khatoon. Therefore, the evidence of Hasina Khatoon is also not believable. 11. Safiqul Islam has deposed that he saw Zakir first assaulting Oshimuddin on his head with a ramdao. Abul Hussain, Babul Hussain, Abdul Sheikh and Abdul Rahim were present. Then, Abul Hussain and Amir Hussain @ Babul assaulted him with crow-bar and axle of hand cart. But, it is very surprising that he did not go either to the police station or to the hospital accompanying his injured father and instead, he went to the office of Sub-Divisional Officer to get the first information report to be written by a professional petition writer. The time of occurrence is 8 a.m and the time of receiving the first information report is 2:10 p.m. whereas the distance from the place of occurrence and the police station is only about 6 k.m., which is not much. This witness has also admitted that he did not go to the hospital and that he has read up to class-X. So, there is no good reason as to why he did not immediately go to the police station and lodged the first information report himself and rather chose to get it written lucidly by a professional petition writer. Both Nurul Amin and Ismail Hussain have categorically admitted that Safiqul Islam reached the place of occurrence much later than Rabia Khatoon and this explains as to why Safiqul Islam did not lodge the first information report immediately after the occurrence. Safikul Islam also during his statement recorded under section 161 of the code of Criminal Procedure did not incriminate Abdul Rahim and Abdul Heye and simply said that they assisted the other appellants and as such, the subsequent testimony of Safiqul Islam implicating them in the court seems to be afterthought and developed one. Hence, it is doubtful that he actually witnessed the occurrence. Hence, it is doubtful that he actually witnessed the occurrence. There is no other independent witness to corroborate the evidence of Safiqul Islam. Besides, appellant Amir Hussain @ Babul has already been found juvenile by the trial court at the time of occurrence. 12. In view of the above, we are of the view that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants committed the murder of Oshimuddin and hence, they are entitled for the benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment of conviction is accordingly set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge. The appellants, who are in jail, are directed to be released and set at liberty forthwith, whereas the appellants, who are on bail, need not surrender to custody. 13. Appeal is allowed.