JUDGMENT : H.C. Mishra, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgement of conviction dated 15.04.1996 and Order of sentence dated 16.04.1996, passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, in S.T. No. 207 of 1993, whereby, out of the five accused persons facing the trial for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused Noor Haque Ansari @ Nurul Haque has been found guilty and convicted for both the offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The other four co-accused have been acquitted of the charges. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the sole appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of Amir Mian, the father-in-law of the deceased Aisa Bibi, recorded at State Dispensary, Bishrampur, on 30.05.1992 at about 6:00 A.M., wherein the informant has stated that on the previous night on 29.05.1992 at about 11:00 P.M., he was sleeping in front of his house on a cot. His two sons had gone out of the village and there was no other male member in the house. His daughter-in-law Aisa Bibi was sleeping in the courtyard of the house on a cot and his granddaughter-in-law Nuresha Bibi was also sleeping on the verandah nearby. He heard some noise / sounds from the house, whereupon he came to his door and knocked the door asking those inmates to open the door. When the door was not opened, he raised the alarm, whereupon, Khalil Mian, Israil Mian, Nizam Mian etc., assembled there. They entered the house scaling the wall and opened the door. Thereafter he went inside the house and saw his daughter-in-law Aisa Bibi bleeding with sharp cut injuries on her face. She was not in a position to speak. He also saw that his granddaughter-in-law was unconscious. After some time she regained consciousness and asked for water and disclosed that two persons had scaled the wall and entered the house and started assaulting her mother-in-law with farsa. She was not in a position to speak. He also saw that his granddaughter-in-law was unconscious. After some time she regained consciousness and asked for water and disclosed that two persons had scaled the wall and entered the house and started assaulting her mother-in-law with farsa. They also assaulted Nuresha Bibi by the lorha, (a stone used for grinding the spices). She disclosed that she identified Nurul Haque as one of the assailants, but could not identify the other person. Aisa Bibi and Nuresha Bibi were writhing in pains. Thereafter, the Chaukidar and other persons were called and both of them were being taken for treatment to hospital, but Aisa Bibi died on the way. Nuresha Bibi was undergoing treatment at the hospital. The informant has stated that the accused had committed the offence on account of the land dispute between the parties. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Rehla P.S. Case No. 28 of 1992, corresponding to G.R. No. 800 of 1992, was instituted for the offences under Sections 302, 307 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the sole accused Noor Haque Mian. After completion of investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against five accused persons, including the appellant and his father. 4. The case was committed to the Court of Session, and charge was framed against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial twelve witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, and the other Doctor who had examined the injured Nuresha Bibi. The I.O. has not been examined in the case and accordingly, the F.I.R., the fardbeyan, the inquest report of the dead body and the seizure list have been proved by a formal witness, P.W.-12 Fauzdar Singh, and marked Exhibits-5 to 8 respectively. 5. P.W.-5 Nuresha Bibi is the injured eye witness. She has deposed that the occurrence had taken place on 29.05.1992 at about 11:00 P.M. She was sleeping on the verandah and her mother-in-law Aisa Bibi was sleeping in the courtyard. There was no male member in the house and her father-in-law was sleeping outside the house. 5. P.W.-5 Nuresha Bibi is the injured eye witness. She has deposed that the occurrence had taken place on 29.05.1992 at about 11:00 P.M. She was sleeping on the verandah and her mother-in-law Aisa Bibi was sleeping in the courtyard. There was no male member in the house and her father-in-law was sleeping outside the house. The cots of this witness and of Aisa Bibi were at a distance of about two steps. She woke up and sat on the cot on hearing some sound and told her mother-in-law that some sound was coming from outside, but her mother-in-law did not give any reply. In the meantime one person came to her, gagged her mouth with cloth and dragged her to the courtyard and there was another accused armed with knife. She saw the accused Nurul Haque assaulting her mother-in-law on face by farsa. Her mother-in-law was asking the accused to spare her life and to take the entire property. She testified that her mother-in-law sustained bleeding injuries and she was not in a position to speak. She has deposed that after assaulting her mother-in-law, Nurul Haque left the farsa in the courtyard and took this witness to the verandah and assaulted her with the lorha on her stomach and back and fled away. One accused pushed her, whereupon she became unconscious. Thereafter some persons including her grandfather-in-law entered the house and they gave her water and they inquired about the occurrence, whereupon she informed them that she had identified Nurul Haque. She came to know in the morning at about 5:00 A.M. in the hospital that her mother-in-law had died. The dead body of her mother-in-law was there in the hospital. She has identified the accused in the Court. In her cross-examination she has stated that her statement was recorded by the police on 30.05.1992 in the hospital on which she had put her thumb impression. She had no knowledge whether the statements of other witnesses were recorded or not. The dead body of her mother-in-law was there in the hospital. She has identified the accused in the Court. In her cross-examination she has stated that her statement was recorded by the police on 30.05.1992 in the hospital on which she had put her thumb impression. She had no knowledge whether the statements of other witnesses were recorded or not. She was asked whether in her statement before the police she had stated that she got up on hearing the noise and asked her mother-in-law about it but her mother-in-law did not reply and that she was taken near her mother-in-law where she found one accused with knife and whether she had stated that the accused after leaving the farsa in the courtyard, assaulted her with lorha on her stomach and her back, whereupon she became unconscious, to which she has stated that she had given these statements before the police. She has also stated that she had given the statement before the police that she had identified the accused Nurul Haque. She has also claimed to have given the statement before the police that when her mother-in-law was being assaulted, she was pleading to spare her life and to take the property. She has stated that the house of the accused persons was at a distance of about 40 steps from her house, and that except Noorul Haque, she did not identify the other accused. She has also stated that when she was brought to the courtyard she saw her mother-in-law was being assaulted by garasa. She had seen three accused persons in the house. She has denied the suggestion that they had falsely implicated the accused as they had lost the suit with respect to a land dispute. 6. P.W.-3 Amir Mian, the informant of the case has deposed that the occurrence had taken place on 29.05.1992 in the night at about 10:00-11:00 P.M. He was sleeping outside his house on a cot and his sons Sahabuddin and Allimuddin had gone out of the village and no other male member was present in the house. His daughter-in-law Aisa Bibi and granddaughter-in-law Nuresha Bibi were sleeping inside the house. He heard some sounds whereupon he came to the door and shouted, calling upon Aisa and Nuresha to open the door, but the door was not opened. His daughter-in-law Aisa Bibi and granddaughter-in-law Nuresha Bibi were sleeping inside the house. He heard some sounds whereupon he came to the door and shouted, calling upon Aisa and Nuresha to open the door, but the door was not opened. He raised alarm, whereupon Khalil Mian, Nizam Mian, Majar Mian, Kasim Mian etc., came there. They also shouted to open the door, but the door was not opened. Then the Chaukidar was also called there. Thereafter some persons scaled the wall and entered the house and opened the door, where after he and other villagers entered the house and found Aisa Bibi lying motionless with blood oozing out of the injuries on her face which was badly cut by farsa. Nuresha was also lying unconscious there and she regained her senses when water was given to her. On query she told that she had identified accused Nurul Haque, who had assaulted Aisa Bibi by farsa, and also disclosed that she was assaulted with the stone by the accused due to which she lost consciousness. Aisa died on the way to the hospital, where both of them were being taken for treatment. She was treated in the hospital. He has testified that there was a long drawn dispute between him and the father of Nurul Haque. He had gone to the Police Station, his statement was recorded by the police and he had put his thumb impression on the recorded statement. He has identified the accused persons in the Court. In the cross-examination by the defence, he has stated that at the time of occurrence he was sleeping outside the house, his daughter-in-law was sleeping in the courtyard and his granddaughter-in-law was sleeping on the verandah. There was no bleeding injury on the body of his granddaughter-in-law, but she was unconscious. He has stated that he along with 10 to 15 persons along-with the Chaukidar had entered the house and had remained in the house for about one hour. In the meantime bleeding continued from the injuries of Aisa Bibi. He has also stated that his statement was recorded at the hospital. He has again stated in his cross-examination that there was enmity between the parties for the lands belonging to Khata No. 14, but he does not remember the plot numbers. In the meantime bleeding continued from the injuries of Aisa Bibi. He has also stated that his statement was recorded at the hospital. He has again stated in his cross-examination that there was enmity between the parties for the lands belonging to Khata No. 14, but he does not remember the plot numbers. He has stated that both he and Nabi Mian (father of Nurul Haque and co-accused facing the trial) have right and title over the said land. Nabi Mian is his brother and that is why he had also the right on the said land. There was a suit between them for the said land in which Nabi Mian and this witness were parties. He had won the mutation case, but the case was remanded back in appeal. He has admitted that there was a partition suit between them which had been decided in favour of Nabi Mian and he had filed an appeal against that judgement. He has denied the suggestion that since he had lost the title suit, he had falsely implicated his brother and nephew. 7. P.W.-6 Sahabuddin Ansari is the husband of the deceased Aisa Bibi and he has stated that his wife was murdered and Nuresha Bibi is his daughter-in-law. He has stated that the occurrence had taken place in the night of 29.05.1992. On that day while he was going to his relatives' place at village Kushiyar at about 5:00 P.M., he saw the accused Nurul Haque, Naimul Haque, Nasir and Hakik Mian (all co-accused who had also faced this trial), who enquired from him as to where he was going and he told them that he was going to village Kushiyar. At that time Nabi Mian also came there and threatened him. He has stated that there was long standing land dispute with the accused persons. Idrish came to Kushiyar at about 1 O’ clock in the night, and asked him to come to hospital, whereupon he went to Bishrampur hospital and saw that his wife had died and Nuresha Bibi was undergoing treatment. Other persons were also present at the hospital and they informed him that Nuresha had told them that Nurul Haque had assaulted Aisa Bibi with farsa and she was assaulted by lorha. Other persons were also present at the hospital and they informed him that Nuresha had told them that Nurul Haque had assaulted Aisa Bibi with farsa and she was assaulted by lorha. He stated that about two months prior to the occurrence, when he was returning home from the Court, Nurul Haque and Nabi Mian had assaulted him with lathi, fists and slaps and Nabi Mian had snatched away the bag containing the documents, which was subsequently snatched back by Idrish Mian, who had come to his rescue on that day. He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination he has stated that his statement was recorded by the police on 30.05.1992. He was asked whether he had given the statement before the police that he was confronted and threatened by the accused persons on the day of occurrence while he was going to village Kushiar, whereupon he has claimed to have made such statement and had also stated before the police that he was informed by the persons present at the hospital that Nurul Haque had assaulted his wife with farsa and had assaulted Nuresha with lorha. He had also given the statement before the police regarding the assaults made upon him by lathi and about the snatching of the bag containing the documents. He has admitted, in his cross-examination, that there was a title suit between him and the accused persons, against the judgement of which, he had filed an appeal. He has admitted that he had not filed any case about the occurrence which took place with him two months prior to the occurrence. He has denied the suggestion that he had been dispossessed from the land in dispute, and the accused persons were in possession of the land and he had falsely implicated the accused persons in the case since he had lost the title suit. 8. P.W.-1 Majar Mian is the grandfather of Nuresha Bibi. He has stated that at about 9:00 P.M. in the night on the day of occurrence upon hearing the sound of garasa he had gone to the house of the informant. The door was closed. He had asked to open the door but no one opened the door. 8. P.W.-1 Majar Mian is the grandfather of Nuresha Bibi. He has stated that at about 9:00 P.M. in the night on the day of occurrence upon hearing the sound of garasa he had gone to the house of the informant. The door was closed. He had asked to open the door but no one opened the door. Chaukidar was called and thereafter the wall was scaled where after the door was opened and he along with Amir Mian and other persons entered the house and saw Aisa Bibi writhing in pain due to the injury on her neck and face. Nuresha Bibi was lying unconscious and she was given water and on query she stated that Nurul Haque had assaulted them. She also stated that she had seen two persons but she had identified only one person. The injured were taken to hospital, but Aisa Bibi died in the way. He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination he has stated that he had given the statement before the police that upon hearing the sound of garasa he went to the place of occurrence. He has stated that the house of the informant was at a distance of about 10 steps from his house. He has stated that he had not seen any injury on Nuresha Bibi and both the injured were in the courtyard. This witness has also stated in his cross-examination that the night of occurrence was a dark night. He has denied the knowledge about the decree in the title suit, but has stated that the land in dispute is in the possession of the accused persons from much before. He has again stated in his cross-examination that Nuresha Bibi was not in a position to speak and she started speaking only after reaching the hospital and whatever talks which took place with Nuresha Bibi, it was at the hospital. He has denied the suggestion to have given the false evidence. 9. P.W.-7 Ram Prasad Ram, is the Chaukidar, who has stated that on 29.5.1992, he was at his house, and at about 9.00 to 10.00 P.M. in the night, he was called to the house of Amir Mian where he saw that several persons has gathered and the house was closed. 9. P.W.-7 Ram Prasad Ram, is the Chaukidar, who has stated that on 29.5.1992, he was at his house, and at about 9.00 to 10.00 P.M. in the night, he was called to the house of Amir Mian where he saw that several persons has gathered and the house was closed. Some persons scaled the wall and opened the door and in the courtyard of the house, they saw Aisa Bibi with injury on her face and Nuresha Bibi was unconscious. Water was given to Nuresha Bibi where after she told that she could identify one accused Nurul Haque. The injured were brought to the hospital, but Aisa Bibi died on the way. He has identified the accused in the Court. There is nothing of much importance in his cross-examination. 10. P.W.-4 Alimuddin Ansari is only a witness to the inquest report of the dead body and has identified his signature on the inquest report, which was marked Exhibit-1. Another witness to the inquest report is P.W.-9 Idrish Ansari, who also identified his signature and the same was marked Exhibit-1/1. P.W.-8 Lal Mohammad is the witness to the seizure list of blood stained farsa, and has proved his signature thereon, which was marked Exhibit-2. He has stated that the farsa was handed over to the police by Amir Mian. 11. P.W.-2 Israil Ansari has only stated that in the courtyard he had seen Aisa Bibi writhing in pain with injuries on her face and a blood stained garasa was lying nearby, and Nuresha Bibi was unconscious. He has stated that there were no talks with Nuresha Bibi, and Aisa Bibi died on the way to the hospital. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution, as he has not named any accused. 12. P.W.-10 is Dr. Ajay Kumar Das, who had examined the injuries of Nuresha Bibi and had found the following two injuries on her person:- (1) Chest pain & whole body ache, (2) Swelling 2” in diameter over left breast. He has proved the injury report to be in his pen and signature which was marked Exhibit-3. He has stated that opinion about the nature of injury No.1 was reserved pending X-Ray report, and as per the X-Ray plate he found fracture in the fourth rib and as such injury No.1 was grievous in nature. He has proved his report regarding the nature of injury as Exhibit-3/1. 13. He has stated that opinion about the nature of injury No.1 was reserved pending X-Ray report, and as per the X-Ray plate he found fracture in the fourth rib and as such injury No.1 was grievous in nature. He has proved his report regarding the nature of injury as Exhibit-3/1. 13. P.W.-11 is Dr. Indeshwar Tiwary, who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 30.05.1995 (should be 30.05.1992) and had found following ante-mortem injuries on her person:- (i) Sharp cut 8 wounds together in 10” x 14” x mouth cavity deep cutting mandible in pieces from right angle to left angle. Teeth in lower jaw lost upper jaw on right side six inch long. Vertical wound show to cut the palate and disrupt the upper teeth, tongue 1” cut at the tip cut but attached at right margin and root of nose cut superficially. (ii) Y shaped sharp cut 3” x 1/4” x bone deep and 1 ½” x 1/4” x bone deep cutting tip of nose and left side of nose. (iii) Sharp cut 3” x 1/4” x bone deep 1¼” depth cutting apart left maxilla. (iv) Sharp cut wound 4” x 1½” x bone deep cutting left pina and mastoid process (left) 1¼”. (v) Sharp cut 5 “ x ¾ “ x bone deep cutting parietal bone upper table. (vi) Multiple linear sharp abrasion on chest about 18 in number varying from 7” to 9” in length in an area 7”x 6” on left chest. (vii) Sharp cut 1” x 1/4” x muscle deep on anterior of left shoulder joint. (viii) Sharp cut 3” x 1” x muscle deep cutting all muscles of anterior component of left forearm. (ix) Slanting cut wound on anterior part 1 ½” x 1/2” x tendon deep in lower third of left forearm. (x) Y shaped sharp cut wound 2 ½” x 3/4” x bone deep and 1 ¼” x 1/2” x bone deep on the dorsum of left palm. (xi) 3/4” x 1/4” x muscle deep and ½” x ¼” x muscle deep on ring finger and small finger base. (xii) 1” x ¼” x muscle deep on right thumb on palmer aspect. He has stated that the weapon used was sharp cutting weapon and the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage on account of the above injuries. (xii) 1” x ¼” x muscle deep on right thumb on palmer aspect. He has stated that the weapon used was sharp cutting weapon and the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage on account of the above injuries. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-4. He has stated that the injuries were possible by farsa and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 14. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the evidence against them. The defence has adduced two documents in the case, one of which is the certified copy of judgement in Partition Suit No. 52 of 1987, in which Sahabuddin Mian and another are the plaintiffs. The judgement shows that the suit was dismissed on contest. 15. On the basis of the evidence on record, the accused Nurul Haque has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, whereas the other four co-accused facing the trial, were acquitted, in absence of any evidence against them. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgement 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 has failed to bring home the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It is submitted by learned counsel that there is admitted enmity between the parties due to long standing land dispute between them, and the defence has brought on record the judgement in the title partition suit to show that the suit filed by the husband of the deceased was dismissed on contest. It is submitted by learned counsel that this fact is also admitted by the informant P.W.-3 Amir Mian, in his cross-examination stating that the partition suit was decided against him and he had filed an appeal against the judgment, and this fact is also admitted by P.W.-6 Sahabuddin Ansari in his cross-examination. P.W.-1 Majar Mian has admitted in his cross-examination that the land in dispute was in possession of the accused persons from much before. P.W.-1 Majar Mian has admitted in his cross-examination that the land in dispute was in possession of the accused persons from much before. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that in view of these facts there was no occasion for the accused to have committed the offence and there are strong possibilities of false implication of the accused due to defeat in the said land dispute. Learned counsel has submitted that the attention of all the witnesses have been drawn towards their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. given before the police, but due to non-examination of the I.O., the necessary contradictions could not be elicited from the I.O., and consequent thereto, the defence has been vitally prejudiced in the case due to non-examination of the I.O. Learned counsel further submitted that admittedly the occurrence took place at dead night, when all the persons were sleeping, and P.W.-1 Majar Mian has admitted that it was a dark night. None of the witnesses supporting the prosecution case have stated about the means or source of light for identification of the accused. Learned counsel has argued that there is variance regarding the time of occurrence because in the fardbeyan it is mentioned that the occurrence had taken place at 11:00 P.M. in the night, whereas the informant P.W.-3 Amir Mian has stated that the occurrence had taken place at about 10:00 to 11:00 P.M. and P.W.-1 Major Mian has stated that the occurrence had taken place at about 9:00 P.M. P.W.-7 Ram Prasad Ram, Chaukidar has stated that at about 9:00 to 10:00 P.M. when he was in his house, he was informed about the occurrence. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that even the time of occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, and in the surrounding facts and in view of the admitted enmity between the parties, the possibility of false implication of the accused appellant cannot be ruled out, and even though the witnesses have supported the prosecution case, it was a fit case in which the appellant ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. 17. 17. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that P.W.-5 Nuresha Bibi is the eye witness to the occurrence and she has fully supported the prosecution case stating that she saw the accused Nurul Haque was assaulting her mother-in-law by farsa on her face and thereafter he had also assaulted her with lorha (grinding stone) due to which she lost consciousness. She had given the same information to all the witnesses who had assembled in the house after the occurrence, including her grandfather-in-law P.W.-3 Amir Mian, P.W.-1 Majar Mian and P.W.-7 Ram Prasad Ram, the Chaukidar, who have stated that they were informed by Nuresha Bibi that the accused Nurul Haque had assaulted the deceased by farsa and had also assaulted Nuresha Bibi. Learned counsel submitted that the injuries on Nuresha Bibi have been proved by P.W.-10 Dr. Ajay Kumar Das and the injuries on the dead body of the deceased have been proved by P.W.-11 Dr. Indeshwar Tiwary, and the post-mortem Exhibit-4 proves that there were several sharp cut injuries on the dead body of the deceased, which could be caused by farsa. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against the sole accused beyond all reasonable doubt and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgement of conviction and Order of sentence. 18. Having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that there is admitted long standing enmity between the parties. They are closely related to each other, and the accused Nurul Haque is non-else than the own nephew of the informant Amir Mian, but this fact had been concealed by all the witnesses. It was only in his cross-examination that P.W.-3 Amir Mian revealed the fact that the father of Nurul Haque is his own brother. As noticed, enmity due to land dispute is admitted and it is also admitted that there was a partition suit for the land in dispute, and P.W.-3 Amir Mian and P.W.-6 Sahabuddin Ansari both have admitted that they had lost the partition suit and they had filed an appeal against the judgement of the partition suit. As noticed, enmity due to land dispute is admitted and it is also admitted that there was a partition suit for the land in dispute, and P.W.-3 Amir Mian and P.W.-6 Sahabuddin Ansari both have admitted that they had lost the partition suit and they had filed an appeal against the judgement of the partition suit. Though they have claimed possession over the land in dispute, but P.W.-1 Majar Mian, who is the grandfather of the injured Nuresha Bibi, has clearly stated that the land in dispute was in possession of the accused persons from much before. The occurrence had taken place in the dead night when all the persons were sleeping and it is admitted by P.W.-1 Majar Mian that it was a dark night. This fact also gets support from the evidence of P.W.-5 Nuresha Bibi, who has stated that her bed was at a distance of two steps from the bed of her mother-in-law, but upon hearing the sound she got up and sat on the bed and told her mother-in-law that some sound was coming from outside, and she did not get any reply from her mother-in-law. This clearly shows that she was not able to see what was happening at a distance of even two steps, as it was a dark night. She has stated that when she was brought near her mother-in-law, she could identify the accused Nurul Haque, assaulting her mother-in-law by farsa. The prosecution has not proved any source of light or means of identification by the witness at the time of occurrence and this casts a grave shadow of doubt on the case of the prosecution. 19. We also find from the record that this may be a case of material improvements made by the witnesses supporting the prosecution case, vis-à-vis their statements made before the police, in as much as, all the material witnesses have been cross-examined on the point whether they had made such statements before the police, and they have claimed to have made those statements before the police as deposed in the Court. It appears that P.W.-6, Sahabuddin Ansari, the husband of the deceased has also made improvements in his statement made before the police, as he has stated that on the date of occurrence while he was going to village Kushiyar, he was confronted by the accused persons and threatened of dire consequences. It appears that P.W.-6, Sahabuddin Ansari, the husband of the deceased has also made improvements in his statement made before the police, as he has stated that on the date of occurrence while he was going to village Kushiyar, he was confronted by the accused persons and threatened of dire consequences. He has also deposed about the assaults made upon him by the accused persons two months prior to the occurrence. Though he has admitted that no case was filed for that occurrence, but he has admitted to have given the statement about these facts also before the police. The I.O. has not been examined in the case, and we are of the considered view that the defence has been vitally prejudiced, as it has been deprived from eliciting the necessary contradictions in the evidence of the material witnesses due to non-examination of the I.O. We also find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the admission of the witnesses that they had lost the partition suit, as also the admission of P.W.-1 Majar Mian, the grandfather of the injured lady, that the accused persons were in possession of the land in dispute from much before, there appears to be no occasion for the accused to have committed the offence. To the contrary, the possibility and chances of false implication of the accused due to defeat in the suit relating to the land dispute, cannot be ruled out. It is evident that P.W.-2 Israil Ansari, who is one of the person who had entered the house and had opened the house, has clearly stated that Nuresha Bibi did not disclose anything about the occurrence as she was unconscious and P.W.-1 Majar Mian has also stated that whatever talks took place with Nuresha Bibi, it was only at the hospital. He has deposed that prior to that she was not in a position to speak. The fact remains that all the material witnesses supporting the prosecution case are the close relatives of the deceased and the injured lady. They are highly interested witnesses, due to ongoing long standing land dispute between the parties and the prosecution side had lost the suit in the trial court against which they had preferred an appeal. 20. The fact remains that all the material witnesses supporting the prosecution case are the close relatives of the deceased and the injured lady. They are highly interested witnesses, due to ongoing long standing land dispute between the parties and the prosecution side had lost the suit in the trial court against which they had preferred an appeal. 20. In view of the contradictions and admitted enmity between the parties, and the non-examination of the I.O., we are of the considered view that a cloud of doubt is cast over the prosecution case, even though the material witnesses have supported the prosecution case. As such, the accused appellant is entitled to the benefits of doubt. Consequently, the impugned Judgement of conviction and Order of sentence cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 21. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgement of conviction dated 15.04.1996 and Order of sentence dated 16.04.1996, passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, in S.T. No. 207 of 1993, convicting and sentencing the accused appellant Noor Haque Ansari @ Nurul Haque, for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set aside. The appellant is given the benefits of doubt and he is acquitted of the charges. The appellant is on bail, and he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. 22. This appeal is accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgement.