JUDGMENT 1. As both these appeals arise out of the same police case, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellants in both these appeals and the learned counsel for the State. 3. The appellants in both these appeals are aggrieved by the judgments of conviction dated 19.11.2011 and orders of sentence dated 21.11.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Pakur, in S.C. No. 265 of 2009 and S.C. No. 03 of 2010, whereby both these appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point sentence, both the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs.2, 000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution case was instituted on basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Wahida Bibi, the wife of the deceased Sadik Sheikh, recorded on 31.12.2006 at about 8:00 p.m., at village Sahabajpur, P.S. Pakur (Mufassil), District Pakur, near the house of one Harishankar Saha, where the dead body of the deceased was found. The informant has stated that her husband Sadik Sheikh was looking after the agriculture in the said village, and for some work he had gone to the village Sahabajpur on that day at about 10.00 a.m., in the morning. At about 7.00 p.m. in the evening, the informant was informed at her village Bhawanipur, that her co-villagers Fitu Sheikh, Sariul Sheikh, Nafis Sheikh and Naji Sheikh, who were of criminal nature, had committed the murder of her husband at village Sahabajpur. As to the cause of occurrence, she has stated that these persons were turned out from the village due to their criminal nature, and they were asking her husband to become their informer, for which her husband was not agreeable and due to the said reason her husband was murdered. Upon getting the information, she along with her brother Asraful Sheikh went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of her husband in front of the house of Harishankar Saha, with several stab injuries on the dead body. Upon getting the information, she along with her brother Asraful Sheikh went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of her husband in front of the house of Harishankar Saha, with several stab injuries on the dead body. Claiming, that the aforesaid accused persons had committed the murder of her husband, the fardbeyan was given by the informant, on the basis of which Pakur (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 292 of 2006, Corresponding to G.R. No. 01 of 2007, was instituted for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the four named accused persons, and investigation was taken up. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 5. The record shows that both these appellants have been tried in separate sessions trials. Appellant Nafis Sheikh was tried in S.C. No. 03 of 2010 and the appellant Sariul Sheikh was tried in S.C. No. 265 of 2009, but all the witnesses were examined in both the cases simultaneously, on the same dates, and both these-cases were disposed of, though on the same date, but by separate judgments and orders. 6. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against both these accused persons for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and upon the accused''s pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In course of trial eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, including the Investigating Officer and the Doctor, who had committed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.-5 Humayun Sheikh has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case at all. 7. P.W.-2 Wahida Bibi is the informant and the wife of the deceased. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place about three years eight months ago, on a Sunday. She was in her house and her husband had gone to Sahabajpur village. She heard that Nafis Sheikh, Nazi Sheikh, Fitu Sheikh, Sariul Sheikh, had committed the murder of her husband, whereupon she went to the place of occurrence along with her brother Asraful Sheikh, where she saw the dead body of her husband near the house of Harishankar Saha. The persons nearby informed that those accused persons had committed the murder. She heard that Nafis Sheikh, Nazi Sheikh, Fitu Sheikh, Sariul Sheikh, had committed the murder of her husband, whereupon she went to the place of occurrence along with her brother Asraful Sheikh, where she saw the dead body of her husband near the house of Harishankar Saha. The persons nearby informed that those accused persons had committed the murder. This witness has not disclosed the name of any person who had informed her about the occurrence. She has also stated that the accused persons were her co-villagers and due to their criminal nature, they were turned out of the village, and they were asking her husband to be their informer, which was not agreeable to her husband, due to which, they had committed the murder. She has identified the accused persons in the Court. In her cross-examination, this witness has stated that she was informed about the occurrence on the next day morning and thereafter she had gone to the place of occurrence. She has also stated that when she went to the place of occurrence, no one of village, Sahabajpur informed her about the occurrence. She has also stated in her cross-examination that the dead body of her husband was in an agricultural field, and there was no house near the dead body. She has further admitted in her cross-examination that in her village, party politics was going on, and on the pressure of the party people, she had named the accused persons. 8. P.W.-1 Asraful Sheikh is the brother of the informant and he has stated that he had gone to the place of occurrence along with his sister, where he saw the dead body of Sadik Sheikh at village Sahabajpur, near the house of Harishankar Saha, where the villagers informed them that the aforesaid accused persons had committed the murder. He has also not named any person, who had informed him about the occurrence. This witness has also stated in his cross-examination that the dead body was found in an agricultural field. 9. P.W.-3 Nurful Sheikh and P.W.-4 Nasaruddin Sheikh have claimed themselves to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. They are the residents of village Bhawanipur and village Purani Farsa respectively, and they have stated tliat at the time of occurrence, they were in the village, Sahabajpur and they claimed to see the occurrence. 9. P.W.-3 Nurful Sheikh and P.W.-4 Nasaruddin Sheikh have claimed themselves to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. They are the residents of village Bhawanipur and village Purani Farsa respectively, and they have stated tliat at the time of occurrence, they were in the village, Sahabajpur and they claimed to see the occurrence. They have made only omnibus allegation against all the four named accused persons to have assaulted the deceased by knife. They have stated that after committing the offence, the accused persons had threatened them. They have also identified the accused persons in the Court. In his cross-examination P.W.-4 Nasaruddin Sheikh has admitted that there was party politics in the village, but he has denied the suggestion to have falsely implicated the accused due to the village politics. 10. P.W.-6 Amir Hamja is only a witness to the inquest report of the dead body. He has identified his signature on the inquest report, which was marked Exhibit-1. This witness has stated nothing about the occurrence. 11. P.W.-7 Dr. Shyam Prasad Bhagat had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 1.1.2007 and had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body :- 1. Incised wound over right occipital region 3\" x 1 1/2\" x bone deep. 2. Lacerated wound mid-occipital region of scalp 3\" x 3\" x bone deep with fractured of occipital bone. 3. Multiple stabs injuries found over chest and upper abdomen. 4. Right lower chest 1 & 1/2\" x cavity deep. 5. Left lower chest penetrating wound 1\" x 1/2\" x cavity deep. 6. Left lower chest penetrating wound axillary area 1\" x 1/2\" x cavity deep. 7. Left lower chest, penetrating wound 1\" x 1/2\" x cavity deep. 8. Left mid-chest, penetrating wound 1\" x 1/2\" x cavity deep. 9. Over epigestic region of abdomen 1\" x 1/2\" x cavity deep, penetrating wound. 10. Right base of neck 1\" x 1/2\" x cavity deep, penetrating wound. 11. Based of mid-neck penetrating wound 1/2\" x 1/2\" x cavity deep. 12. Incised wound front of neck, 4\" x 3\" x muscle deep. On dissection:- Skull: Fracture of occipital bone was found. Brain and meninges were found intact. Neck:- Base of neck, penetrating wound found leading to chest cavity, and puncture of left lungs. Chest:- Chest cavity was found of full of altered blood. 12. Incised wound front of neck, 4\" x 3\" x muscle deep. On dissection:- Skull: Fracture of occipital bone was found. Brain and meninges were found intact. Neck:- Base of neck, penetrating wound found leading to chest cavity, and puncture of left lungs. Chest:- Chest cavity was found of full of altered blood. Left penetrating wound found leading to left side of heart. Mid-chest left penetrating wound found leading to heart and punctured and base of heart. Both chambers of heart found empty. Abdomen:- Lower chest wound found punctured the abdominal cavity, abdominal cavity was found of full of blood. Liver found punctured, stomach found punctured 1/2\" x 1\" at the anterior wall of stomach. Stomach found empty, spleen and kidney found ok, small and large intestine full of gases and faecal matter. Bladder empty, geneteria intact. He has stated that injury No.2 was caused by hard and blunt substance and the rest of the injuries were caused by sharp penetrating weapon and the death was caused due to the head injury and injuries on the vital organs like heart, lungs and extensive internal bleeding. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature which was marked Exhibit-1. 12. P.W.-8 Sudama Singh is the I.O of the case. He has stated that on 31.12.2006, he was posted at Pakur (Muffasil) Police Station, when he got the rumour that one person was murdered at Sahabajpur. He proceeded to the place of occurrence, where he met the wife of the deceased and recorded her fardbeyan and took over the charge of investigation. He has stated that he recorded the re-statement of the informant and he prepared the inquest report of the dead body which he has proved and the same was marked Exhibit-2. He inspected the place of occurrence and has given the details thereof. He had found the dead body at a distance of about 4 feet from the house of Harishankar Saha. After getting the post-mortem report and completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not seized any blood-stained soil from the place of occurrence and he had not recorded the statement of any villager of Sahabajpur village. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation. 13. After getting the post-mortem report and completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not seized any blood-stained soil from the place of occurrence and he had not recorded the statement of any villager of Sahabajpur village. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation. 13. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein the accused have denied the evidence against them. No defence witness was examined in the case. On the basis of the evidence on record, the appellants have been found guilty, convicted and sentenced for the offence as aforesaid. 14. Learned senior counsel 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, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned counsel submits that the informant and her brother are not the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and they have disputed even the place of occurrence. Though in their examination-in-chief, they have stated that the dead body was found near the house of Harishankar Saha in village Sahabajpur, but in their cross-examination they have stated that the dead body was found in an agricultural field, and the informant P.W.-2 Wahida-Bibi, has gone to the extent of saying that there was no house nearby. Learned counsel also submitted that two eye-witnesses, namely, P.W.-3 Narful Sheikh and P.W.-4 Nasiruddin Sheikh are not the residents of the village Sahabajpur, rather one of them is the co-villager of the informant, and they are only chance witnesses, whose presence at the place of occurrence is very doubtful. The false implication of the accused persons by the prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out, as it is admitted in the cross-examination of P.W.-4 Nasaruddin Sheikh that there used to be the party politics in their village. Even the informant P.W.-2 Wahida Bibi has admitted in her cross-examination that there was party politics in her village and she had named the accused persons under the pressure of the party. Learned counsel submitted that the eye-witnesses to the occurrence are only the chance witnesses and their evidences do not inspire confidence at all. Even the informant P.W.-2 Wahida Bibi has admitted in her cross-examination that there was party politics in her village and she had named the accused persons under the pressure of the party. Learned counsel submitted that the eye-witnesses to the occurrence are only the chance witnesses and their evidences do not inspire confidence at all. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and it is a fit case in which the appellants ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. 15. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the case is fully supported by two eye-witnesses, who are P.W.-3 Nurful Sheikh and P.W.-4 Nasaruddin Sheikh and they have stated that all the accused persons, including these appellants, had assaulted the deceased to death, by knife. The other witnesses, namely, the informant P.W.-2 Wahida Bibi and P.W.-1 Asraful Sheikh are the hearsay witnesses and they were also informed about the occurrence by the villagers. The ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-7 Dr. Shy am Prasad Bhagat who had found several stab wounds on the dead body of the deceased. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused appellants 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. 16. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the record, we find that P.W.-2 Wahida Bibi, the informant and the wife of the deceased, and PW.-l Asraful Sheikh are only the hearsay witnesses. They were informed by the villagers about the occurrence, but none of them have disclosed the names of the persons who had informed them about the involvement of the accused appellants in the occurrence. The evidence of these witnesses also creates substantial doubt about the place of occurrence itself, inasmuch as, according to the fardbeyan of the informant and the examination-in-chief of both these witnesses, the dead body was found near the house of Harishankar Saha in village Sahabajpur, but both these witnesses have stated in their cross-examination that the dead body was found in an agricultural field. P.W.-2 Wahida Bibi has also gone to the extent of saying that there was no house nearby. She has also stated that she was informed on the next day morning and thereafter she had gone to the place of occurrence. Though the case is supported by two eye-witnesses, namely, P.W.-3 Nurful Sheikh and P.W.-4 Nasaruddin Sheikh, but the fact remains that they have not stated about any specific role of the appellants, rather they have made only omnibus allegation against all the four accused persons. Both these eye-witnesses are the residents of different village and they are only the chance witnesses, stating that at the time of occurrence, they were at village Sahabajpur. They have not stated as to why they were present in the said village at the time of occurrence, P.W.-4 Nasaruddin Sheikh has also admitted in his cross-examination that there is party politics in the village, and the informant P.W.-2 Wahida Bibi has also admitted this fact and she has gone to the extent of saying that under the pressure of the party people, she had named the accused persons. The evidence of the chance eye-witnesses does not inspire confidence at all. Even the I.O of the case P.W.-8 Sudama Singh has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not recorded the statement of any witness of village Sahabajpur, which also shows of perfunctory nature of investigation done in the case. He had not even collected the blood-stained soil from the place of occurrence. 17. We are of the considered view that even though the witnesses have supported the prosecution case, but the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts, and in the facts of the case, the appellants were entitled to be given the benefits of doubt. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgments of conviction dated 19.11.2011 and orders of sentence dated 21.11.2011, passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge-1, Pakur, in S.C. No. 265 of 2009 and S.C. No. 03 of 2010, convicting and sentencing the appellants Sariul Sheikh and Nafis Sheikh, for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set aside. Both these appellants are given the benefits of doubt and they are acquitted of the charge. Session Judge-1, Pakur, in S.C. No. 265 of 2009 and S.C. No. 03 of 2010, convicting and sentencing the appellants Sariul Sheikh and Nafis Sheikh, for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set aside. Both these appellants are given the benefits of doubt and they are acquitted of the charge. Both these appellants are in custody, undergoing the sentence. Let them be released and set at liberty forthwith, if their detentions are not required in any other case. 19. 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.