JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Ashish Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned APP. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 10.11.2009 and order of sentence dated 17.11.2009 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 479 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of three (3) months. 3. The prosecution story arising out of the fardbayan given by Vikki Munda (P.W.1) is to the effect that on 15.02.2006 the deceased had left his house to go to Chunwa Toli to collect Rs. 300/- from Motu. It is alleged that at about 7.30 A.M. informant heard hulla that the appellant is causing assault to his grandfather (deceased). Thereafter he rushed to the place of occurrence and saw that the deceased was lying with injuries, near a drain and the appellant was present there having a Bhujali in his hand. Thereafter, appellant fled away to Khadgarha Bus Stand. Subsequently the injured was taken to hospital and on the way, he had succumbed to his injuries. 4. On the basis of aforesaid allegation Chutia P.S. Case No. 17 of 2006 was instituted for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet and after cognizance was taken on 24.4.2006 by the learned CJM, the case was committed to the court of sessions on 25.7.2006 wherein charges were framed under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. In course of trial, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. P.W. 1 Vikki Munda is informant and he has stated that on 15.2.2006 his grandfather at about 6 A.M. had left home to collect money from Motu. He has stated that he had followed him after a while. When his grandfather reached near a drain at village Makchun Toli, the appellant, all of a sudden, appeared and assaulted his grandfather indiscriminately with Bhujali. He has stated that on seeing such incident, he had raised alarm, returned to his village and informed the family members and again returned back to the place of occurrence and saw the appellant fleeing away towards Khadgarha Bus Stand. He has stated that on seeing such incident, he had raised alarm, returned to his village and informed the family members and again returned back to the place of occurrence and saw the appellant fleeing away towards Khadgarha Bus Stand. The injured was taken to Chutia Police Station and on the way to R.M.C.H, he had breathed his last. In the cross examination, this witness has stated that the appellant had built a house in the land belonging to the deceased and he was being pressurized to vacate the land. He has also stated that in 10 minutes the distance is covered from the place of occurrence to his house. He has further stated that when he returned back to the place of occurrence he was accompanied by 15-16 persons out of whom he had named Bablu, Akchay, Mangal, Chuiya. 6. P.W. 2 Shanti Tigga is the daughter of the deceased. She has stated that on 15.2.2006 her father had left home for Chunwa Toli to collect Rs. 300/- from Motu. She has stated that at about 7 a.m. her mother told P.W. 1 to go to see Ram Das Munda (deceased). P.W. 1 saw the deceased near a drain in an injured condition and appellant was having a Bhujali in his hand. She has said that thereafter appellant had fled away towards the Bus Stand and P.W. 1 had returned home and reported about the incident. This witness as well as other persons went to the place of occurrence and saw Ram Das Munda in an injured condition. Thereafter injured was taken to Chutia Police Station on a Rickshaw and thereafter on way to hospital, he died. This witness had disclosed the reason behind the occurrence as land dispute. 7. P.W. 3 Rupan Mundain is the wife of the deceased. She has supported the prosecution case and stated that when she rushed to the place of occurrence she found her husband lying in an injured condition. The cause of assault according to this witness was on account of land dispute. She has further stated that Bhujali was recovered at the instance of the appellant. 8. P.W. 4 Hari Munda as well as P.W. 5 Budhram Munda did not support the prosecution case and both were declared hostile. However, they have stated about the land dispute existing between the parties. 9. PW. 6 Dr. She has further stated that Bhujali was recovered at the instance of the appellant. 8. P.W. 4 Hari Munda as well as P.W. 5 Budhram Munda did not support the prosecution case and both were declared hostile. However, they have stated about the land dispute existing between the parties. 9. PW. 6 Dr. Tulsi Mahto is the doctor who has proved the postmortem report which has been marked as Ext.-2. This witness had found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:- Externally-(A) Abrasions 1. 6 c. m. x 1 c.m. Over left chick 2. 5 c.m. X 1 c.m. Over left shoulder top 3. 4 c.m. X 3 c.m. Over right side of forehead (B) Incised wounds 1. 5 c.m. X 1 c.m. x soft tissue over left side of the frong of abdomen cutting the abdominal wall only 2. 4 c.m. X1 c.m. x bone deep over left chick lower part cutting the underline mandible bone. 3. 5 c.m. x 2.c.m.x bone deep over left temporal and mastoid region of head cutting the underline bone and brain matter. 4. 5 c.m. x 2 c.m. x bone deep on the left perital region of head cutting the underline bone and brain matter 5. 3 c.m. X 1 c.m. X 1 c.m. Over the left lateral neck upper part Internally- There was presence of blood and blood clot in the cranial cavity and contusion of soft tissues of lower part of neck. Opinion- All the injuries were antemortem. 2. Abrasions and contusions were caused by hard and blunt substance incised wounds were cause by heavy sharp cutting weapon/weapons, may be by Bhujali. 10. P.W. 7 Sahdeo Kujur is the Investigating Officer who has stated that on 15.2.2006, he was posted at Chutia Police Station. He had recorded the fardbayan of P.W. 1 leading to registration of Chutia P.S. Case No. 17 of 2006. This witness has proved the fardbayan, the formal FIR, carbon copy of inquest report, endorsement made in the fardbayan, confessional statement of the appellant and preparation of seizure list which has been marked as Ext.3, Ext.-4, Ext.-5, Ext.-3/1, Ext.-6 and Ext.-7 respectively. The recovery of Bhujali has also been marked as Ext.-1. This witness, after conclusion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant. In spite of repeated opportunity, the defence did not choose to cross examine this witness and his evidence remained unrebutted. 11. The recovery of Bhujali has also been marked as Ext.-1. This witness, after conclusion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant. In spite of repeated opportunity, the defence did not choose to cross examine this witness and his evidence remained unrebutted. 11. It has been stated by Mr. Ashish Verma, learned counsel for the appellant that the entire conviction is based upon the evidence of P.W. 1, 2 and 3 who all are interested witnesses being related to the deceased Ram Das Munda. Learned counsel submits that even though near the place of occurrence there were several houses and it is a busy place but not a single independent witness has come forward to support the case of the prosecution. Purported seizure of Bhujali is itself falsified in view of the fact that P.W. 3 being a seizure list witness is an interested person. Apart from her there are no other seizure list witnesses to prove the seizure. It was stated that recovery of Bhujali was made from the shop of another person, situated at Khadgarha Bus Stand and therefore such seizure cannot have any evidentiary value. It has been stated that there is no forensic science report with respect to the Bhujali as to whether it was the same Bhujali which was used in the commission of the murder. Learned counsel further submits that there is wide discrepancy in the statement of P.W. 1 and the fardbayan. In the fardbayan he has categorically stated that on coming to know he rushed to the place of occurrence and had seen the deceased lying near a drain in an injured condition. This witness stated that the appellant was present with Bhujali but in his evidence during trial he has come out with an altogether different picture and claimed himself to be an eye witness of the occurrence. This witness stated that the appellant was present with Bhujali but in his evidence during trial he has come out with an altogether different picture and claimed himself to be an eye witness of the occurrence. Learned counsel further submits that even if it is assumed that what has been stated by P.W. 1 is true but the time consumed cannot be true as the distance from the place of occurrence to the locality of P.W. 1 required 10 minutes time to cover and on seeing the appellant committing the murder and thereafter coming to the village to inform about the incident and returning back to the place of occurrence would consume sufficient time and it is highly improbable that after committing such crime appellant would be present on the place of occurrence with Bhujali for such a length of time. He further submits that so far P.W. 2 and 3 are concerned, their evidence does not match with the evidence of P.W. 1. It has been concluded that the appellant deserves the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. 12. On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposed the appeal and stated that it has to be kept in mind that the fardbayan was recorded by a 14 year old child and his version cannot be said to be a complete version of the informant as unfolded in the fardbayan. Learned APP further submits that the evidence of P.W. 1 has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 2 and the defence had opportunity to confront the I.O. by cross examining him on the discrepancy having been pointed out but they did not choose to confront him as such in spite of repeated opportunities. Learned counsel for the State further submits that recovery of Bhujali was made at the instance of the appellant and the seizure list was proved which has been marked as Ext.-7 and the seizure list has been supported by evidence of P.W. 3. He has further stated that Bhujali was produced as Material Ext.1. It has been stated that the evidence of P.W. 1, 2 and 3 has been corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the confessional statement of the appellant leading to recovery of the Bhujali Therefore the appellant does not deserve benefit of doubt and this appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed. 13. It has been stated that the evidence of P.W. 1, 2 and 3 has been corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the confessional statement of the appellant leading to recovery of the Bhujali Therefore the appellant does not deserve benefit of doubt and this appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed. 13. On consideration of the arguments of both the counsels and on perusal of the entire evidence available on the record of the lower court as well as the evidence of the witnesses, it appears that P.W. 1, the informant in his evidence has claimed himself to be an eye witness and has stated that after the deceased had left his house for collecting amount of Rs. 300 from Motu, P.W. 1 had followed him and near Makchun Toli the appellant was standing and all of sudden he appeared and started assaulting the deceased indiscriminately with Bhujali. The version given by P.W. 1 is in contrast with the fardbayan given by him in which he had stated that on coming to know about the fact that the appellant was assaulting his grandfather, he had rushed to the place of occurrence wherein he had seen the appellant present with Bhujali who subsequently fled away to Khadgarha Bus Stand. The evidence of P.W. 2, who happens to be daughter of the deceased also reveals that the deceased had left the house and at about 7 A.M, she was in the house along with P.W. 1 and P.W. 3. She has thereafter stated that P.W. 3 asked P.W. 1 to verify as to where his grandfather had gone but subsequently she said that P.W. 1 came running and he stated that the appellant had assaulted his grandfather. In para 8 of the cross examination of P.W. 1, he stated that he had reached the place of occurrence at about 6.20 A.M. and had seen the appellant assaulting his grandfather. He has contradicted his own version as he has stated in fardbayan that at 7.30 A.m., he came to know that the appellant is assaulting his grandfather. P.W. 1 had stated after he had seen the appellant committing assault with Bhujali and thereafter he had reached the locality and returned back to the place of occurrence with 15-16 persons out of whom few had been named. P.W. 1 had stated after he had seen the appellant committing assault with Bhujali and thereafter he had reached the locality and returned back to the place of occurrence with 15-16 persons out of whom few had been named. However, it appears that none of the said persons who had accompanied P.W. 1 to the place of occurrence has been examined by the prosecution. It has been stated by P.W. 1, 2 and 3 that there was a land dispute existing between both the sides. In fact P.W. 1 had stated that the appellant had constructed a house in the land belonging to the informant side and he was pressurized to vacate the land. P.W. 2 has also stated that the reason behind the occurrence is land dispute. So far as the recovery of Bhujali from the shop at the Bus Stand is concerned, the same appears to have been recovered on the confessional statement of the appellant as per the version of the police. However, the Investigating Officer did not take effort to get the Bhujali examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory in order to ascertain as to whether it was the same Bhujali which was used in the commission of murder. The bhujali was recovered from a shop which also does not belong to the appellant and on the seizure list, not a single independent seizure list witness, save and except P.W. 3, has been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Therefore, seizure of the Bhujali itself becomes doubtful. In fact, P.W. 3 in her cross examination had stated that she had reached the place of occurrence on hearing an alarm. She has seen the weapon which was a Dauli which is used to cut wood. P.W. 3 stated that on alarm she had reached the place of occurrence but none had actually informed her about the incident. Thus the false implication cannot be ruled out in view of the admitted land dispute existing between the parties. P.W. 1 claims himself to be an eye witness although his evidence is contradicted by P.W. 2 and 3 with respect to the timing at which he had reached the place of occurrence in search of his grandfather. Thus the false implication cannot be ruled out in view of the admitted land dispute existing between the parties. P.W. 1 claims himself to be an eye witness although his evidence is contradicted by P.W. 2 and 3 with respect to the timing at which he had reached the place of occurrence in search of his grandfather. The evidence of P.W. 1 seems only to the extent to suit the prosecution case as he has stated that the appellant had made indiscriminate assault upon the deceased, thus trying to corroborate the medical evidence with respect to the commission of crime. Since the recovery of Bhujali at the instance of the appellant itself is doubtful and coupled with the discrepancy in the evidence of P.W. 1, 2 and 3 and the animosity existing between the parties, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 14. On consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are inclined to allow this appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 10.11.2009 and order of sentence dated 17.11.2009 passed in Session Trial No. 479 of 2006 by Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi are set aside. The appellant, above named, is directed to be released forthwith from custody, if not wanted in any other case. Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands allowed.