JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2009 and Order of sentence dated 02.02.2009, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in S.T. No.57 of 2006, whereby, the sole appellant Bahadur Singh Munda @ Bahadur Pahan has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs.2,000/-for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code, and R.I. for three months for each of the offences under Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Guru Munda, husband of the deceased Ludari Mundain, recorded on 27.9.2004 at about 11.00 A.M., at the house of one Bahadur Munda, in village Pareya, P.S. Kuchai, District Seraikella, wherein he has stated that on the previous day, i.e., on 26.9.2004 at about 12.00 P.M., his wife Ludari Mundain had gone to Dalbhanga Haat, but as she did not return back till evening, the informant though that she had gone to some relative’s place. On 27.9.2004 Bahadur Munda of village Pareya came along with the chaukidar and informed him that his wife had visited his house at about 7.00 P.M., in the previous evening, while returning back from the market, and they were talking in the house. In the meantime, the accused Bahadur Pahan came armed with farsa and assaulted Ludari Mundain with farsa on different parts of her body, due to which she died at the spot and thereafter the accused fled away threatening them. The accused was also searched in the village, but he could not be found and thereafter on 27.9.2004 in the morning the said Bahadur Munda had come to inform the informant about the death of his wife. Upon getting the information, he went to the house of Bahadur Munda and found the dead body of his wife with bleeding injuries on the body. Upon getting the information, he went to the house of Bahadur Munda and found the dead body of his wife with bleeding injuries on the body. He has stated that five years ago, the wife of the accused Bahadur Pahan had died and he was alleging practice of witchcraft against the wife of informant, and it is alleged that for the said animosity, the offence had been committed. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Guru Munda, Kuchai P.S. Case No.27 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No. 707 of 2004, was instituted for the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, against the accused Bahadur Pahan 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 for the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices 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 Doctor, who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. 5. P.W.-4 Guru Munda is the informant of the case and the husband of the deceased, whereas P.W.-7 Shiv Charan Singh Munda is the son of deceased. Both these witnesses have supported the case as hearsay witness to the occurrence, stating that the deceased had gone to the market on the previous day and on the next day Bahadur Munda came to their house and informed them about the occurrence, stating that the deceased lady was murdered at his house by the accused Bahadur Pahan, assaulting her by farsa, whereupon they went to the house of Bahadur Munda and saw the dead body with bleeding injuries. P.W. 7 Shiv Charan Singh Munda has stated that the accused used to brand his mother as daain, but this fact has not been stated by P.W.-4 Guru Munda, the husband of the deceased, in his evidence. He has stated that after seeing the dead body, he informed the police and gave his fardbeyan, upon which he had put his thumb impression. He has stated that after seeing the dead body, he informed the police and gave his fardbeyan, upon which he had put his thumb impression. There is nothing of much importance in the cross-examinations of these witnesses, except to the fact that the defence had given the suggestions to the eye witnesses to the occurrence, in whose house the occurrence had taken place, that the deceased was wearing ornaments and for the greed of the ornaments she was assaulted to death in their house by the witnesses themselves, and the accused was falsely implicated. P.W.-4 Guru Munda has stated in his cross-examination that his wife had no ornaments. 6. P.W.-5 Durga Munda and P.W.-6 Lalu Singh Munda have also supported the case as hearsay witnesses to the occurrence, stating that on the next day they were informed about the occurrence, and they had seen the dead body of the deceased. P.W.-5 Durga Munda is also the witness to the inquest report of the dead body, on which he had put his thumb impression. 7. The most important witnesses in the case are P.W.-2 Goma Mundain and P.W.-3 Bahadur Munda, who are wife and husband, and in whose house the murder of the deceased was committed. Both these witnesses have stated that in the evening Ludari Mundain had visited their house and while they were talking, the accused Bahadur Pahan came armed with farsa and assaulted her, causing her death at the spot, and thereafter he fled away. He was also searched in the village, but he could not be found. Thereafter the chaukidar and the husband of the deceased were informed on the next day, who came and saw the dead body and thereafter the police was also informed. Though P.W.-2 Goma Mundain has stated that the occurrence had taken place at about 8:30 P.M., in the night, but P.W.-3 Bahadur Munda has stated that occurrence had taken place at about 7.00 P.M., in the evening. P.W.-2 Goma Mundain has also stated in her cross-examination that the distance between the house of these witnesses and the house of informant is only 1/2 Km., and Dalbhanga O.P. of Police is at the distance of 1 Km., from her house. P.W.-2 Goma Mundain has also stated in her cross-examination that the distance between the house of these witnesses and the house of informant is only 1/2 Km., and Dalbhanga O.P. of Police is at the distance of 1 Km., from her house. P.W.-3 Bahadur Munda has stated in his cross-examination that the distance between the house of these witnesses and the house of informant is only 1 Km., and O.P. of Police is situated slightly further. Both of them have stated that the police had seized blood stained clothes and soil from their house. Both these witnesses have denied the suggestion that due to the greed of ornaments of the lady, they had committed the murder of the deceased and they had falsely implicated the appellant. 8. P.W.-1 (Dr.) Pradeep Kumar Pati had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 27.9.2004, and had found the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased:- (1) Incised wound 5” x 1” deep up to brain matter over left parietal region. (2) Two incised wounds over neck. One just below the mandible 10” x 3” of two veritable column. Other across the front of neck 10 x 3&1/2” deep up to the vertebral column, cutting trachea, esophagus, vessels and soft tissues. (3) Incised wound over anterior abdominal wall 12” x 4&1/2” deep into the abdominal cavity cutting the liver and loops of intestine. Lower ribs on both sides were also cut, i.e., 5” above the umbilicus. (4) Incised wound over left side of anterior abdominal wall 5” x 4” deep into the cavity with intestinal loops being protruded. He has stated that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by sharp cutting weapon, may be by farsa, and the injuries were grievous in nature. The death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries. This witness has also stated that time elapsed since death is within 4 hours, but it appears to be a slip of pen, as in the post-mortem report, time elapsed has been shown to be within 24 hours. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked as Ext.-1. 9. P.W.-8 Arvind Kumar Manjhi, is the I.O. of the case. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked as Ext.-1. 9. P.W.-8 Arvind Kumar Manjhi, is the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that on 27.09.2004 while he was posted as Officer-Incharge of Kuchai Police Station, he got an information by way of rumour that in village Pareya, one lady had been murdered. He made the sanha entry about this information and proceeded for the place of occurrence. He has stated that the place of occurrence is the house of Bahadur Munda, situated in village Pareya, wherein he found the dead body of the deceased and he was informed that she was murdered by the accused. He prepared the inquest report of the dead body which he has proved, and the same was marked as Ext.-2. He has also proved the fardbeyan of the husband of the deceased, which was marked as Ext.-3 and the endorsement on the fardbeyan and the formal FIR were also proved by him, which were marked as Ext.-3/1 and 3/2. He has stated that he recorded the statements of the witnesses and he received the post-mortem report and submitted the charge sheet showing the accused as absconder. This witness has stated in his cross examination that he had recorded the statements of all the witnesses on 27.09.2004 itself. He has also stated that the distance between the village of the informant and the place of occurrence is about 1 Km., and he had instituted the case on the information given by the husband of the deceased, which information he had received from the Bahadur Munda. He has stated that no one had come to the Police Station for giving the information, and Bahadur Munda or any of his family member was not made informant in the case. He has also stated that he had not seized any blood stained weapon or clothes from the place of occurrence and there was no eye witness except Bahadur Munda and his wife. He has denied about any suspicion against Bahadur Munda and his wife. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation. 10. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the accused has denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced by the defence in the case. 11. He has denied about any suspicion against Bahadur Munda and his wife. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation. 10. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the accused has denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced by the defence in the case. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, as there are only two eye witnesses to the occurrence, who are P.W. 2 Goma Mundain and P.W. 3 Bahadur Munda, in whose house the dead body was found. It is submitted that the deceased was a resident of different village and it is doubtful as to how the deceased had gone to their house and only on the basis of the evidence of these two witnesses, the present appellant has been made accused in this case, which may be the case of false implication. Learned counsel submitted that there is no other eye witness to the occurrence, and even though the O.P. of the Police and the house of the informant were situated at a distance of about 1 Km. only, no information was given either to the police or to the informant in the same night, though the occurrence had taken place at about 7.00 P.M. Learned counsel submitted that the I.O. of the case has made a perfunctory investigation, only on the basis of the information given to him by the witnesses and he had not made any independent investigation in the case. Even the blood stained soil and clothes of the deceased had not been seized by the police and even weapon of offence had not been seized. It is only on the basis of the statement of the two interested eye witnesses, in whose house the dead body of a lady of different village was found, that the charge sheet was submitted by the police. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that even though the witnesses have supported the prosecution case, it is a fit cast in which the appellant ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. 12. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that even though the witnesses have supported the prosecution case, it is a fit cast in which the appellant ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. 12. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submitted that the case is fully supported by two eyewitnesses to the occurrence, who are, P.W.-2 Goma Mundain and P.W.-3 Bahadur Munda, who are wife and husband, and in whose house the occurrence had taken place. They are the natural eye witnesses to the occurrence and even the other witnesses have supported the case as hearsay witnesses. None of the witnesses have raised any suspicion against these two eye witnesses and the ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-1 (Dr.) Pradeep Kumar Pati, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.-1, which show that several sharp cutting injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased, which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death. Learned counsel for the State, accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, worth any interference by this Court. 13. Having heard, learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the case rests only on the basis of evidence of two eye witnesses, namely, P.W.-2 Goma Mundain and P.W.-3 Bahadur Munda, in whose house the murder of the deceased lady was committed. Admittedly, the deceased lady was a resident of different village and an outsider to the family of these witnesses. She is alleged to have gone to the house of these witnesses where she was murdered. There is no evidence on record that the deceased was in any manner related to these witnesses, and in these circumstances, if the dead body with ante-mortem bleeding injuries, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death, was found in their house, the first doubt is naturally created against these witnesses themselves. These witnesses become highly interested witnesses, and it is for them to explain the circumstances in which the dead body was found in their house. These witnesses become highly interested witnesses, and it is for them to explain the circumstances in which the dead body was found in their house. If they allege that the offence is committed by an accused, who is also an outsider, the natural reaction would be that they shall inform the police and the family members of the deceased at the first instance, without loosing any time. In the present case, though the occurrence had taken place at about 7.00 P.M., in the evening, but even the husband of the deceased was not informed by the house owners though admittedly he was residing only at the distance of 1 Km. At about same distance there was a O.P. of police, but no information was given even to the police by the eye witnesses, which create considerable doubt about their version. We also find that though the informant has alleged some motive about the commission of the offence, but the motive was not an immediate motive to commit the offence, rather the motive was about 5 years old, as it is stated in the FIR that about 5 years earlier the wife of the appellant had died and he was alleging practice of witchcraft against the wife of the informant. Such a remote motive cannot be taken to form the basis of the conviction and sentence of the appellant, particularly in view of the fact that the conducts of the two eye witnesses, in whose house, the murder was committed, are very doubtful, as they had not given information either to the police or to the informant in the evening of the occurrence itself, even though, presence of both the informant and the police was only at a short distance from their house. We also find from the evidence on record that practically no investigation was made by the police in the case. The police has placed full reliance on the statement of the highly interested witnesses, and not taken any pains to test the veracity of their statements by recording the statement of persons the neighbouring houses. The time of occurrence being only in the evening at about 7.00 P.M., in a village, and the nature of the occurrence being such that much connotation must have been created at that time, non-examination of the neighbouring persons also make the prosecution case very doubtful. The time of occurrence being only in the evening at about 7.00 P.M., in a village, and the nature of the occurrence being such that much connotation must have been created at that time, non-examination of the neighbouring persons also make the prosecution case very doubtful. The police has conveniently recorded the statements of all the witnesses on the same day and without making any independent investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet. Even the blood stained soil, or cloths were not seized by the police. The investigation made by the police is absolutely perfunctory, rather there is no investigation at all, worth its name, in the present case. We are of the considered view that in the facts of the case, even though the two highly interested eye witnesses, have supported the prosecution case, the appellant was entitled at least to 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. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2009 and Order of sentence dated 02.02.2009, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in S.T. No. 57 of 2006, convicting and sentencing the appellant Bahadur Singh Munda @ Bahadur Pahan, for the offences under section 302 of the Indian Panel Code, and sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, are hereby, set aside. Consequently, the appellant is given the benefits of doubt and he is acquitted of the charges. The appellant 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. 15. This appeal is accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.