JUDGMENT : 1. Both these appeals arise out of the same impugned Judgment, and as such they have been heard together, and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. Heard learned amicus curiae appointed by the Court on behalf of the appellants and the learned counsel for the State, in both these appeals. 3. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 25.7.2008 and Order of sentence dated 30.07.2008, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, West-Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in S.T. No.239 of 2005, whereby, both these appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302/34, 394 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- each, for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.3,000/- each, for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years each, for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Alekh Behra, the father of the deceased Paresh Kumar Behra, recorded on 12.05.2005 at about 8:30 A.M., at Jagannathpur Chowk, P.S. Jagannathpur, District West-Singhbhum, stating therein that his son Paresh Kumar Behra had left the house at about 6:00 A.M., in the morning on the same day, on a motorcycle, for going to market in village Dumargoa, for purchasing tamarind and mahua. After about one hour, the informant was informed that someone had assaulted his son by firearm and had taken away his money, and he was lying injured on the road. Upon getting the information, the informant went towards the place of occurrence on a Marshal Vehicle, along with some villagers, and when they reached near village Sirdauli, he found his son Paresh Kumar Behra in injured condition. He took his son on the vehicle and proceeded towards the hospital. His son was fully conscious and he informed him that he was assaulted near village Sirdauli by two persons by firearm and they had taken away Rs.17,400/-. He took his son on the vehicle and proceeded towards the hospital. His son was fully conscious and he informed him that he was assaulted near village Sirdauli by two persons by firearm and they had taken away Rs.17,400/-. His son also gave the descriptions of the accused persons and informed him that they were the same persons who had waylaid him and the informant, while they were going to the market on the last Thursday. The informant stated that he could identify the persons who had waylaid them. He has further stated that he was taking his son to Champua, in the State of Orissa for treatment, and the occurrence had taken place in the area of Gua Police Station. The fardbeyan of the informant was forwarded to the Gua Police Station, on the basis of which, Gua P.S. Case No. 29 of 2005, corresponding to G.R No.281 of 2005, was instituted for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, against two unknown persons, and investigation was taken up. As the son of the deceased died, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also added. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case against both these accused persons. 5. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against both these accused persons for the offences under Sections 394, 302/34 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accuseds’ pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses, including the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, and the I.O. of the case. Out of the material witnesses examined, P.W.-1 Magan Purty, P.W.-2 Krishna Gupta, P.W.-3 Sajan Sao, P.W.-4 Prahalad Sahu, P.W.-5 Ramesh Gope and P.W.-6 Suni Ram Laguri, have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. It may be stated that P.W.-2 Krishna Gupta and P.W.-3 Sajan Sao had accompanied the father of the deceased on the Marshal Vehicle and P.W.-4 Prahalad Sahu, had also accompanied them to the hospital, but they have turned hostile on the point that the deceased had informed anything to the informant, rather according to these witnesses, the deceased was unconscious and he was not in a position to speak. 6. 6. P.W.-7 Alekh Behra is the informant of the case and the father of the deceased. This witness has stated that Paresh Behra was his son and he was going to Dumargoa market on 12.5.2005, for purchasing tamarind and mahua, and he had left the house at 6:00 A.M. in the morning on a motorcycle. At about 8:00 A.M., this witness was informed that near Sirdauli village, his son was assaulted by firearm and his money was looted away. His son had gone to the market with Rs. 17.400/-. Upon getting the information, he took a Marshal Vehicle and went towards the place of occurrence, from where he took his son on the vehicle and proceeded towards Champua hospital. His son was fully conscious and he informed him that in the last week, while this witness and his son were going to the market, the two boys who had waylaid them, had committed the offence. He has stated that in the week prior to the occurrence, he was going to the market along with his son on a motorcycle and near a bridge, two boys had waylaid them. He had identified those boys. As some persons came from behind, the informant and his son could be saved. This witness has further stated that from Champua hospital, the Doctor asked him to take his son to bigger hospital, whereupon he took his son to Keonjhar hospital in Orissa, where also, the Doctor advised him to take his son to other hospital, and soon thereafter, his son died. He has identified both the accused persons, stating that they are the same persons who had waylaid them, when they were going to the market one week prior to the occurrence. He has also stated that he had identified them in the T.I.Parade also, before the Magistrate. He had given the information about the occurrence to Jagannathpur Police, who had recorded his statement. He has proved his signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked Exhibit-1. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he had not given any information about the occurrence which took place one week prior to the present occurrence. He has also stated that Krishna Gupta and Prahalad Sahu (P.Ws.-2 & 4) had also accompanied him on the Marshal vehicle. When they reached the place of occurrence, his son was sitting on the road. He has also stated that Krishna Gupta and Prahalad Sahu (P.Ws.-2 & 4) had also accompanied him on the Marshal vehicle. When they reached the place of occurrence, his son was sitting on the road. There was firearm injury on his chest and it was a lonely place. He has also stated in his cross-examination that his son had informed him that the occurrence was committed by the two boys who had waylaid them in the last week and this statement was given by his son in presence of the police also. He has denied the suggestion that he was not informed anything by his son and to have falsely implicated the accused persons in the case. 7. P.W.-8 Jagmohan Deogam is the Munda of village Dokasai. This witness has stated that on 26.5.2005, the police came to his village and apprehended the accused Bijay Purty from his in-laws' place. The in-laws' house was also searched in presence of Bijay Purty and from the hearth in the kitchen, one loaded pistol and one money bag, containing Rs. 2260/- in all, were recovered. The police seized both the articles and prepared the seizure list, on which he had put his signature. He has identified his signature as also the signature of the other witness Manoj Keshri and the same were marked Exhibit-2. He has also stated that the police had recorded the confessional statement of Bijay Purty, on which also, he and the witness Manoj Keshri had put their signatures, which also he had identified and the same were marked Exhibit- 2/1. Manoj Keshri has also been examined as P.W.-9, and he has also supported the aforesaid facts, as stated by P.W.-8 Jagmohan Deogam. Both these witnesses have identified the accused Bijay Purty in the Court. 8. P.W.-10 is Sura Purty of village Barbil, and he has stated that the police had raided the house of the accused Bijay Purty in village Barbil, and from his bed, the police had recovered seven live cartridges and had prepared the seizure list. He has identified his signature and the signature of the other witness on the seizure list, which were marked Exhibit-2/2. He has also identified the accused, Bijay Purty in the Court, stating that he is his co-villager. 9. P.W.-13 Satrunjay Kumar Singh is the Judicial Magistrate, in whose presence, the T.I. Parade was conducted. He has identified his signature and the signature of the other witness on the seizure list, which were marked Exhibit-2/2. He has also identified the accused, Bijay Purty in the Court, stating that he is his co-villager. 9. P.W.-13 Satrunjay Kumar Singh is the Judicial Magistrate, in whose presence, the T.I. Parade was conducted. He has stated that the T.I. Parade was conducted in connection with Gua P.S Case No. 29 of 2005, on 19.9.2005 in Divisional Jail, Chaibasa, in which both these accused persons were put along with eighteen other accused persons of similar physical details, and the witness Alekh Behra had identified both the accused persons. He has proved the T.I. Chart, which was marked Exhibit-8. 10. P.W.-11 is Dr. Minarwa Samal, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 12.5.2005, and had found two firearm injuries on the dead body, one in the left hand, and the other in the abdomen. Peritoneal cavity was found filled with blood. One bullet was recovered from the firearm wound in the abdomen, which was sealed and handed over to the accompanying constable. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature. He has stated that the cause of death was due to the shock and haemorrhage as a result of the bullet injuries. He has proved the photocopy of the post-mortem report, which was marked Exhibit-3 with objection. 11. P.W.-12 Maheshwar Singh is the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that on 12.5.2005, he was posted as Officer-Incharge of Jagannathpur Police Station. He has stated that at about 8:15 A.?., there was a rumour that some businessman was assaulted by firearm and upon getting the information, he proceeded towards the place of occurrence. Near Jagannathpur Chowk, he recorded the statement of Alekh Behra and he has proved the fardbeyan which was marked Exhibit-4. He gave the information to the higher official, and by the order of the Superintendent of Police, the charge of investigation was given to him. He has proved the formal F.I.R., which was marked Exhibit-5. He recorded the re-statement of the informant and inspected the place of occurrence, which is a moram road under Gua Police Station. He has given the details of the place of occurrence. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. He has proved the formal F.I.R., which was marked Exhibit-5. He recorded the re-statement of the informant and inspected the place of occurrence, which is a moram road under Gua Police Station. He has given the details of the place of occurrence. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. During investigation, he got a secret information about the implication of Joseph Purty and he arrested Joseph Purty and recorded his confessional statement, which also he has proved, and the same was marked Exhibit-6. On the basis of the confessional statement of Joseph Purty, he went to village Dokasai, and in presence of the village Munda and another witness, he conducted the raid and arrested the accused Bijay Purty, who also confessed his guilt and on the basis of his confessional statement, from the hearth of the kitchen of his in-laws' house, he recovered a country-made pistol and a purse, containing Rs. 2260/-. He prepared the seizure list. On the basis of the confessional statement of Bijay Purty, he raided his house at village Barbil, in presence of the witnesses and from his bed, he recovered seven live cartridges and he prepared the seizure list. He has stated that for the recovery of the firearm and cartridges, a separate case was instituted. He has also proved the confessional statement of the accused Bijay Purty, which was marked Exhibit-7 with objection. As the original of the seizure lists were not available, their photocopies were marked as 'X' & 'X/1' for identification. He has stated that after completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 394, 411 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He has identified the accused persons in the Court. He has also stated that he got the accused persons identified in the T.I. Parade. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had recovered the blood stained soil from the place of occurrence and a slipper, but the blood stained soil was not sent for F.S.L. examination, nor the slipper was put on T.I. Parade. He had not recovered any article from Joseph Purty. He has stated that he had arrested Joseph Purty on 26.5.2005. He has also stated that he had no talks with the deceased. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation. 12. He had not recovered any article from Joseph Purty. He has stated that he had arrested Joseph Purty on 26.5.2005. He has also stated that he had no talks with the deceased. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation. 12. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the evidence against them. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis of the materials on record, both the accused were found guilty, convicted and sentenced for the offences as aforesaid. 13. Learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellants 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, inasmuch as, admittedly there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. It is submitted that the appellants have been found guilty, only on the basis of the alleged oral dying declaration of the deceased, given before the informant, that the assailants were the same persons who had waylaid the deceased and the informant in the previous week, while going to the market, and the informant has identified these appellants to be the same persons who had waylaid them. Learned counsel submitted that this identification is also doubtful and even though there is recovery of the firearm and the cartridges as well as the alleged looted money, but there is no evidence to show that the said firearm was used in the offence, or the recovered money was the looted money. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that in the facts of this case, the appellants were entitled at least to the benefits of doubt. 14. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer, submitting that P.W.-7 Alekh Behra is the informant of the case and he has stated that his deceased son had stated before him that the assailants were the same persons who had waylaid them in the previous week and this witness has identified both the accused in the Court as well as in the T.I.P., to be the persons who had waylaid them while they were going to the market one week prior to the present occurrence. Learned counsel submitted that on the basis of the confessional statement of the accused Joseph Purty, the accused Bijay Purty was apprehended and on the basis of his confessional statement, the firearm, cartridges and the purse containing Rs.2260/- were recovered from the in-laws' house of the accused Bijay Purty, which was kept concealed in the hearth in the kitchen. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against both the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below. 15. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that admittedly there is no eye witness to the occurrence of robbery and murder. The only incriminating material against these appellants is that the informant was informed by his deceased son that the accused persons were the same persons, who had waylaid them while going to the market in the previous week and the informant has identified both these appellants to be the same persons. As such, the information given by the son to the informant can be treated as the oral dying declaration of his deceased son, but the conviction of the accused persons can be based on such oral dying declaration only in the event the same is found to be trustworthy, and corroborated by the independent witnesses, particularly, when the same is said to be made before the independent witnesses, and even before the police, as it appears from the evidence of P.W.-7 Alekh Behra, the informant of the case. We find from the evidence on record that the other persons accompanying the informant to the place of occurrence, and who had also accompanied them to the hospital, are, P.W.-2 Krishna Gupta, P.W.-3 Sajan Sao and P.W.-4 Prahalad Sahu. These witnesses have turned hostile on the point that the deceased had made such disclosure in their presence, rather according to some of them, the deceased was unconscious. The I.O., P.W.-12 Maheshwar Singh has also clearly stated in his cross-examination that he had no talks with the deceased at all. There is no other witness, except the informant, i.e., the father of the deceased, to have supported this oral dying declaration. The I.O., P.W.-12 Maheshwar Singh has also clearly stated in his cross-examination that he had no talks with the deceased at all. There is no other witness, except the informant, i.e., the father of the deceased, to have supported this oral dying declaration. We are of the considered view that such uncorroborated oral dying declaration cannot be made the basis of the conviction of the accused persons. 16. We also find from the evidence on record, that according to the evidence of P.W.-8 Jagmohan Deogam, the village Munda of Dokasai village, the accused Bijay Purty was apprehended on 26.5.2005 and the evidence of the I.O. P.W.-12 Maheshwar Singh also shows that the other accused Joseph Purty was also apprehended by him on 26.5.2005 itself. Still, according to the evidence of P.W.-13 Satrunjay Kumar Singh, the Judicial Magistrate, the T.I.P. was held on 19.9.2005, after an inordinate delay of more than 3½ months. The informant P.W.-7 Alekh Behra has stated in his evidence that in the previous week to the occurrence, i.e., in the first week of May 2005, while they were going to the market, both these accused persons had waylaid them on a bridge and they could be saved because the other villagers were coming from behind. This shows that the informant had the occasion to see the accused persons for a very short duration. In such a situation, identifying the accused persons in a T.I.P., which was held after more than 4 months, makes this identification doubtful, particularly when there is undue delay in putting the accused persons on T.I.P., after their arrests. 17. We also find from the evidence of P.W.-12 Maheshwar Singh, the I.O., that though the loaded pistol and cartridges, as well as the purse containing the money, which is said to be the part of the looted money, (as the appellants have also been convicted for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code), were recovered and seized by the I.O., but the evidence of the I.O. is completely silent on the point whether this fire arm was found to be used in this occurrence, or whether the I.O. had taken any steps for the ballistic test of the said fire arm. There is also no evidence on record that the purse or the money recovered from the in-laws' house of the appellant Bijay Purty was ever put to T.I.P., and was identified to be the looted money. 18. In the facts of this case, since there are several strings of doubt, we are of the considered view that the benefits of doubt must go to the accused appellants. 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. In fact, there is no cogent evidence at all, for conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 25.7.2008 and Order of sentence dated 30.07.2008, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, West-Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in S.T. No. 239 of 2005, convicting and sentencing the appellants, Bijay Purty and Joseph Purty for the offences under Sections 302/34, 394 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set aside. Consequently, both the appellants are given the benefits of doubt and they are acquitted of the charges. Appellant Bijay Purty is in custody undergoing the sentence. He is directed to be released and set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is no required in any other case. Appellant Joseph Purty is on bail. He is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. 20. Before parting with this Judgment, we must record that we have been given able assistance by Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned amicus curiae, appointed by this Court. We accordingly, direct the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee, to make the payment of the prescribed remuneration to the learned amicus curiae. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi, for the needful. 21. Both these appeals are accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.