JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The sole appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 29.02.2012 and Order of sentence dated 01.03.2012, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2005, whereby, the 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 with fine of Rs. 5000/-for the said offence. It may be stated that other co-accused facing the trial with the appellant has been acquitted of the charge. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Raghu Raj Singh, the son-in-law of the deceased Munni Devi, recorded on 07.07.2004 at RIMS, Ranchi, at about 08.45 P.M. in the night, wherein, he has stated that he had married Sita Devi, the daughter of the deceased Munni Devi about 18 years ago. He has also stated that about 15 years ago the elder sister of his wife, namely Parwati Devi, had married Suleman Mian. His father-in-law Late Chhatrapal Singh had two marriages. He had three sons from the first marriage and three daughters from his second wife Munni Devi, and in the year 1953, through some panchayati partition, he had given some land to Munni Devi. The informant has stated that the grandsons of the first wife of Late Chhatrapal Singh and Parwati Devi, the elder sister of the wife of the informant, had greedy eyes over the land given to Munni Devi, due to which he was keeping his mother-in-law with him for the last 12 years. The disputed land measuring about 50 acres in different khata numbers, mentioned in the F.I.R., was situated at Khunti, and they were pressurising Munni Devi to transfer the said land in their favour. On 07.07.2004 at about 07:45 P.M., the informant was at his house along with his family members when the accused persons, viz., Suleman Mian, Hira Lal Singh, Tirtu Singh, Somra Lohra, Bandhu Mahto and Chitranjan Mahto, all of them armed with pistols, came and they started firing pistol threatening Munni Devi that if she does not transfer the land in their favour, she would be killed, and Suleman Mian fired the pistol injuring Munni Devi on her chest. Hira Lal Singh fired pistol which injured Priya Kumari, the daughter of the informant aged about eight years, injuring her in thigh. Upon the alarm raised by the informant and family members, the neighbouring persons started assembling, whereupon, the accused persons fled away firing pistols and taking the benefit of darkness. The informant brought his mother-in-law and daughter for treatment to RIMS, Ranchi, where his mother-in-law was declared dead and his daughter was being treated. It has been stated that the occurrence had taken place at the behest of Parwati Devi, the wife of Suleman Mian, due to the land dispute between the parties. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Ranchi Sadar P.S. Case No. 101 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 1970 of 2004, was instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused persons. Since the other accused persons are not before us and only the accused Suleman Mian is before us, we are confining ourselves to the charge and the evidence against him only. Charge was framed against the accused Suleman Mian for the offences under Sections 302, 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and upon the accused’s pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. In course of trial, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the I.O. and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.-1 Dr. S.K. Sinha had examined the injuries of the daughter of the informant and since there is specific allegation against the other co-accused to have assaulted her, and the appellant has been convicted and sentenced only for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no use of detailing his evidence. 5. P.W.-7 Raghu Raj Singh is the informant of the case. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 07.07.2004 at about 07:45 P.M. in the evening. He was present in his house and it was raining. 5. P.W.-7 Raghu Raj Singh is the informant of the case. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 07.07.2004 at about 07:45 P.M. in the evening. He was present in his house and it was raining. His maid servant Etwari Kumari, who had gone outside for some work, returned back, and informed that 6 to 7 persons were entering the house. In the meantime, Suleman Mian along with other named accused persons entered the house and Parwati Devi stood near the gate. Suleman Mian started knocking the pistol on his head, demanding the money which he had received after selling the land, and threatening to kill him, if the money was not given to him. He has again stated that Tirtu Singh and Hira Lal surrounded him and one fire was shot, which hit Munni Devi on her chest. Munni Devi fell down. His daughter Priya Kumari also came there and Tirtu Singh shot fire from pistol which hit Priya in her thigh. In the meantime, some persons from the neighbourhood assembled there and within ten minutes, the police also arrived there. He brought his mother-in-law and daughter to R.M.C.H. on the police jeep itself, where his mother-in-law was declared dead and his daughter was admitted for her treatment. Subsequently she was treated at Sai Hospital. Parwati Devi was on the gate and was instigating to kill all of them. His fardbeyan was recorded at R.M.C.H., whereupon, he had put his signature. He has identified his signature and the signature of Rina Kumari on the fardbeyan, which were marked Ext. 2/a and 2/b respectively. He has stated that he has about 60 acres of land at Khunti, due to which there is dispute. He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had married Sita Devi in the year 1990 at Vishnupad Temple at Gaya, and only three persons were present in the marriage, he himself, his wife Sita Devi and mother-in-law Munni Devi. This witness has also admitted that he was already married at the time of his marriage with Sita Devi, and his first wife is also alive. This witness has also admitted in his cross-examination that was working as Jansewak, but he was under suspension since the year 1986. This witness has also admitted that he was already married at the time of his marriage with Sita Devi, and his first wife is also alive. This witness has also admitted in his cross-examination that was working as Jansewak, but he was under suspension since the year 1986. He was in custody since 1986 in connection with a murder case and subsequently has clarified that he is in custody in connection with murder of his own bhagina Jugeshwar Singh (own sister's son), but he has denied the suggestion that he had committed the murder of Jugeshwar Singh for grabbing his land and has stated that he did not sell his lands. He is still in custody in connection with the murder of Jugeshwar Singh, and has come to depose in this case from jail. This witness has also stated in his cross-examination that he had never kept Munni Devi as his wife, rather he had kept her as mother and married her daughter in the year 1990. Munni Devi had alienated her lands by executing a will in favour of Sita Devi and this witness, which was the subject matter of Probate Case No. 61 of 2005. He has denied the suggestion that Munni Devi had executed any Power of Attorney in favour of Bandhu Mahto for selling her lands. He has again admitted in his cross-examination that his father-in-law Chhatrapal Singh had two wives, and the second wife was Munni Devi. He has admitted that his wife's sister Parwati Devi did not sell any land, rather Munni Devi sold the lands to the accused persons. He has again stated that Munni Devi was selling lands to the accused persons, but he had not objected to it, nor his wife had objected to it. He has again stated that Parwati Devi was earlier married at Orissa and she had a son from that marriage. Her first husband died in the year 1977 and thereafter she had fled away with Suleman. He has admitted that he has no proof of the marriage between Parwati Devi and Suleman. The house of Suleman is in Hazaribag District, at a distance of about 100 Kms., from his house. Her first husband died in the year 1977 and thereafter she had fled away with Suleman. He has admitted that he has no proof of the marriage between Parwati Devi and Suleman. The house of Suleman is in Hazaribag District, at a distance of about 100 Kms., from his house. He has denied the suggestion to have married Sita Devi, who was of the age of his daughter, to grab the lands of Munni Devi, and to have committed her murder to prevent her from selling her lands and to have falsely implicated the accused Suleman. 6. P.W.-2 Sita Devi is the wife of the informant. This witness has supported the prosecution case stating that on 07.07.2004 while she was along with her family members in the house at about 07:45 P.M., in the night, 7 to 8 persons entered the house armed with pistols. Two-three persons surrounded her husband and they were demanding the money which was the sale proceeds of the land. She has stated that Suleman Mian fired the pistol which hit her mother in her chest, due to which she fell down. Thereafter Tirtu Singh fired pistol injuring her daughter in her thigh. Parwati was standing at the gate. She has stated that her mother was declared dead at RIMS, and her daughter was treated at RIMS and thereafter at Sai Hospital. She has stated that the occurrence had taken place due to the fact that Parwati and Suleman were threatening her mother to transfer the land in their favour, but her mother was not transferring the land in favour of Parwati, as she had married Suleman. She has stated that Suleman had killed her mother as she did not transfer the land in his favour. She has identified the accused in the Court. In her cross-examination she has stated that her sister Parwati was married in Orrisa, but she had fled away and married Suleman about eighteen years ago, but for the last two months she was not living with Suleman and was living elsewhere. She has denied to have falsely implicated the accused. 7. The other eye-witnesses to the occurrence are P.W.-3 Puja Kumari, the daughter of the informant and P.W.-5 Etwari Kumari, the maid servant of the informant. Both of them have supported the prosecution case as eye-witness to the occurrence. She has denied to have falsely implicated the accused. 7. The other eye-witnesses to the occurrence are P.W.-3 Puja Kumari, the daughter of the informant and P.W.-5 Etwari Kumari, the maid servant of the informant. Both of them have supported the prosecution case as eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W.-3 Puja Kumari has stated that 7-8 persons had entered the house, whereas P.W.-5 Etwari Kumari, has stated that some persons had entered the house. They have not stated that who had fired the pistol causing the death of the deceased, though they have identified the accused in the Court. 8. P.W.-4 Bhim Sen Manjhi is only witness to the fardbeyan and the inquest-report. He has identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked Ext. 2, but the inquest-report was not produced in the Court at the time of his examination. 9. P.W.-6 is Dr. S.S. Prasad, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Munni Devi, on 08.07.2004 and had found the following injuries on the dead body:- Fire arm injury – Wound of entrance 1 cm x 1 cm in diameter on the front of chest lower part situated 1 cm right to midline and above the xiphisternum. The projectile passed through the chest wall breaking 5th and 6th rib, perforated the right lung then passed through the 6th intercostal space on the back of right chest upper part below the right scapula where a bullet had been found lodged in the soft tissue. The track of the wound was contused and lacerated. Right chest cavity contained blood and blood clots. This witness has stated that the firearm injury was ante-mortem in nature. Death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage and he had sent the recovered bullet to the I.O. under the sealed cover. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Ext. 3. 10. P.W.-8 is Pramod Kumar Srivastava, the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that on 07.07.2004 he was posted as S.I. at Sadar Police Station and he was handed over the charge of this case. He recorded the re-statement of the informant and the statements of other witnesses. He inspected the place of occurrence, which is the house of the accused. This witness has stated that on 07.07.2004 he was posted as S.I. at Sadar Police Station and he was handed over the charge of this case. He recorded the re-statement of the informant and the statements of other witnesses. He inspected the place of occurrence, which is the house of the accused. There is nothing in the description of the place of occurrence given by the I.O., to show that he found any sign of occurrence at the said place. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and he also arrested the accused persons and submitted the charge-sheet. He has proved the fardbeyan, which was marked Ext.4, the endorsement on the fardbeyan, which was marked Ext.6, and the formal F.I.R., which was marked Ext.5. He has stated that he had received the post-mortem report also. In his cross-examination he has stated that he had not recovered any fired cartridges or blood stained earth or clothes from the place of occurrence. His attention had been drawn towards the statements of some witnesses for taking contradictions, which he has proved. He has also stated that he had not made any investigation regarding the land dispute between the parties. 11. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied the evidence against him. 12. The defence has also examined two witnesses in the case, who are D.W.-1 Mochi Ram Munda and D.W.-2 Rudranath Singh. Both these witnesses have stated that after the death of her first husband, Parwati Devi had not married the accused Suleman Mian and she was still living at Khunti. D.W.-2 Rudranath Singh has claimed to be the uncle of Parwati Devi, and no suggestion was given to him that he was falsely claiming himself to be the uncle of Parwati Devi. 13. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Trial Court below has found the appellant guilty, and convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in as much as, the prosecution case is full of contradictions and doubts. It is submitted by learned counsel that injured Priya Kumari has not been examined in this case. It is submitted by learned counsel that injured Priya Kumari has not been examined in this case. It is further submitted that the genesis of the occurrence has been changed, in as much as, in the F.I.R. it is stated that the accused persons were asking the deceased to transfer the land in their favour, and due to that Suleman Mian had fired pistol upon the deceased mother-in-law of the informant, but in his evidence, the informant has stated that at the time of occurrence the accused persons were demanding the sale proceeds of the land sold by the informant. Similar is the evidence of P.W.-2 Sita Devi, wife of the informant. Learned counsel has further pointed out that though in the F.I.R. there is direct allegation against the appellant Suleman Mian to have fired pistol upon the deceased, which ultimately proved fatal, but in the evidence, P.W.-7 Raghu Raj Singh, the informant himself, P.W.-3 Puja Kumari, the daughter of the informant and P.W.-5 Etwari Kumari, the maid servant have not stated as to who had fired upon the deceased, though they have identified the accused in the Court. Learned counsel submitted that the other co-accused person, who was facing the trial, has been acquitted by the Trial Court below. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that though in the F.I.R., it is stated that Hira Lal Singh had fired pistol upon the daughter of the informant injuring her, but in their evidence, both P.W.-2 Sita Devi and P.W.-7 Raghu Raj Singh, who are the parents of the injured girl, have stated that Tirtu Singh had fired the pistol injuring their daughter. Learned counsel submitted that the case is full of contradictions only and in view of the admitted enmity between the parties for the land dispute, even though the witnesses have supported the prosecution case, the appellant ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. 15. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that P.W.-2 Sita Devi, who is the eye witness to the occurrence, has specifically stated that the accused Suleman Mian had fired the pistol causing the death of her mother. Though P.W.-3 Puja Kumari, P.W.-5 Etwari Kumari and P.W.-7 Raghu Raj Singh have not specifically stated that who had fired the pistol upon the deceased, but they have identified the accused in the Court itself. Though P.W.-3 Puja Kumari, P.W.-5 Etwari Kumari and P.W.-7 Raghu Raj Singh have not specifically stated that who had fired the pistol upon the deceased, but they have identified the accused in the Court itself. Learned counsel submitted that the ocular evidence of these witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-6 Dr. S.S. Prasad and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.3, which shows that the deceased had died due to fire arm injury. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubts, and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and the Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below. 16. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the prosecution case is full of doubts and contradictions. The prosecution case is supported only by the most interested witnesses who are P.W.-7 Raghu Raj Singh, the informant himself, his wife P.W.-2 Sita Devi, his daughter P.W.-3 Puja Kumari and his maid P.W.-5 Etwari Kumari. No other person has come forward to support the prosecution case, even though time of occurrence is 7:45 P.M., and it is stated in the F.I.R. that when several persons started assembling there, the accused persons fled away. In his evidence also, P.W.-7 Raghu Raj Singh, the informant, has stated that at the time of occurrence when the neighbouring persons assembled, the accused persons fled away. None of them have come forward to support the prosecution case. Even the injured daughter of informant has not been examined in this case. This apart, we find that though in the F.I.R. it is stated that the occurrence had taken place as the accused persons were pressurizing Munni Devi to transfer her land in their favour and since she was not transferring the land, Suleman Mian had fired pistol upon her, which proved fatal, but this genesis has been changed both by the informant P.W.-7 Raghu Raj Singh and his wife P.W.-2 Sita Devi. Both of them have stated in their evidence that the accused persons, at the time of occurrence, were demanding the money of sale proceeds of the land. Both of them have stated in their evidence that the accused persons, at the time of occurrence, were demanding the money of sale proceeds of the land. This change of genesis appears to be for the reason that though it is stated in the F.I.R., that Munni Devi was not transferring the land in favour of the accused persons, but in his cross examination P.W.-7 Raghu Raj Singh has clearly stated that Munni Devi was transferring the lands in favour of the accused persons, though he has denied the suggestion that he was objecting to it. He has stated in his cross-examination that his deceased mother-in-law had alienated her land by executing a will in favour of this witness and his wife. In that view of the matter, there appears to be no grudge to the accused for committing the murder of the deceased and the grudge, if any, is against the informant himself, as he has admitted that his mother-in-law was selling the land to the accused persons. The prosecution case is also made very doubtful in view of the evidence of the informant P.W.-7 Raghu Raj Singh as in his evidence he has not made specific allegation of firing the pistol upon his mother-in-law against this accused, rather, he has stated that the pistol was fired and his mother-in-law fell down. He has named six persons to be armed with pistol and he has not specified as to who had fired the pistol, though in the F.I.R. he has stated that it was this accused who had fired the pistol. Even P.W.-3 Puja Kumari and P.W.-5 Etwari Kumari, who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence, have also not stated as to who had fired the pistol, though they have also identified the accused in the Court. Even P.W.-3 Puja Kumari and P.W.-5 Etwari Kumari, who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence, have also not stated as to who had fired the pistol, though they have also identified the accused in the Court. We also find from the record that the prosecution case is that Parwati Devi, who was also made an accused in the case, after the death of her first husband, had married the accused Suleman Mian, and P.W.-2 Sita Devi has gone to the extent of saying that after her first marriage in the State of Orrisa, she had fled away and married the accused Suleman Mian, but the two witnesses examined by the defence, D.W.-1 Mochi Ram Munda and D.W.-2 Rudranath Singh have come forward to say that after the death of her husband, she had not married anyone else and she is still living at Khunti. D.W.-2 Rudranath Singh claimed to be the uncle of Parwati Devi, and no suggestion was given to him contradicting his claim. Though the fact remains that Parwati Devi has not been examined as a witness, perhaps due to the fact that she was herself an accused in the case and she was not facing the trial. We also find that the evidence of the informant P.W.-7 Raghu Raj Singh is not at all trustworthy, in view of the fact that he is himself is a person of chequered character, being an accused of murder of his own sister's son, though he has denied the suggestion that the said deceased was also murdered for grabbing his land. The fact remains that he had come to the Court for deposing in this case from jail. He has admitted to have married P.W.-2 Sita Devi during the life time of his first wife, and the record itself shows the age gap between them, as at the time of giving her evidence on 3.8.2005, P.W.-2 Sita Devi was aged about 32 years, whereas P.W.-7 Raghu Raj Singh was aged about 60 years while giving his evidence on 15.9.2009. As such, in the year 1990 at the time of their marriage, the informant appears to be aged about 41 years of age, while Sita Devi appears to be of about 17 years of age only. As such, in the year 1990 at the time of their marriage, the informant appears to be aged about 41 years of age, while Sita Devi appears to be of about 17 years of age only. The marriage had taken place at Vishnupad Temple at Gaya, and only three persons were present in the marriage, he himself, his wife Sita Devi and mother-in-law Munni Devi, which also speaks volumes about the conduct and character of the informant. We find sufficient force in the suggestion given to the informant by the defence, that this marriage was only solemnised to grab the land of Munni Devi, and when she started transferring her lands in favour of the accused persons, she was done to death, and the accused was falsely implicated in the case. To cap all, the evidence of the I.O. shows that there was no mark of violence at the place of occurrence, and he had not recovered any incriminating material from the place of occurrence. We are of the considered view that in the facts of this case, since the prosecution case is supported only by the highly interested and unreliable witnesses, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and it is a fit case in which this appellant ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. As such, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 29.02.2012 and Order of sentence dated 01.03.2012, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2005, convicting and sentencing the appellant Suleman Mian for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set aside. Consequently, the appellant is given the benefits of doubt and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant Suleman Mian is in custody undergoing the sentence. He is directed to be released and set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. 18. This appeal is accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment. Appeal allowed