JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellants are aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 11th June, 2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in S.T. No. 28 of 2008, whereby, both the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, these appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- each, for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and R.I. for three years with fine of Rs. 1000/- each, for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant Barkunwar Khandait, at the Hatgamharia Police Station on 04.11.2007, in which it is stated that the deceased Diku Khandait used to live with the informant for the last two months. On 31.10.2007 at about 5:00 P.M., the informant had gone to the house of Diku Khandait, and both of them were returning together at about 7:00 P.M., when three accused persons, namely, Chandra Mohan Khandait @ Hogo Khandit, Dudu Khandait and Bonta Purty waylaid them and they started assaulting Diku Khandait. When the informant tried to intervene, he was threatened to be killed and thereafter all the three accused persons took away Diku Khandait along with them. The informant has stated that he did not inform any one in village for about 2-3 days, but they were searching Diku Khandait. On 04.11.2007 at about 9:00 A.M., they found the decomposed dead body with cut injury in the neck, in the river covered by sand, and thereafter the written information was given to the police. On the basis of the written report, Jhinkpani (Hatgamharia) P.S. Case No.52 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. No.595 of 2007, was instituted for the offences under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the three named accused persons, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. It appears from the Lower Court Records that the accused Dudu Khandait was found to be a juvenile, and his case was sent to the J.J. Board for enquiry. 4. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. It appears from the Lower Court Records that the accused Dudu Khandait was found to be a juvenile, and his case was sent to the J.J. Board for enquiry. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against both the accused for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused persons' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined five witnesses in the case, including the I.O. and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Out of the material witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.-4 Ghasiram Pingua is only a witness to the inquest report of the dead body, but even his signature could not be proved as the inquest report was not available on the day of his evidence. 5. P.W.-2 Barkunwar Khandait is the informant of the case. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place about three months ago at about 7:00 P.M., when he was returning back along with the deceased from his house. Three accused persons waylaid them and started assaulting Diku Khandait. He has stated that the accused persons wanted to assault this witness also, whereupon, he fled away from there. He did not inform any one about the occurrence and subsequently, the dead body was found near a pond under the sand. The police was informed. There were injuries on the dead body. He has identified both the accused persons in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had not seen the accused persons assaulting the deceased to death, or concealing the dead body. He has also stated that he had informed the village Munda after three days of the occurrence. 6. P.W.-3 Subhash Chandra Pingua is the village Munda. This witness has stated that he was informed about the death of the deceased on 04.11.2007 by the informant Barkunwar Khandait. He was also informed that three accused persons had taken away the deceased along with them and the informant had fled away due to fear. 6. P.W.-3 Subhash Chandra Pingua is the village Munda. This witness has stated that he was informed about the death of the deceased on 04.11.2007 by the informant Barkunwar Khandait. He was also informed that three accused persons had taken away the deceased along with them and the informant had fled away due to fear. He has identified the written report to be in his handwriting and bearing his signature, which was submitted at the Police Station, and the same was marked Ext.2. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the police had not recorded his statement and at the place where the dead body was found there was no sign of any occurrence, rather only the dead body was found in the sand. 7. P.W.-5 Raghubir Singh is the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that on 04.11.2007, the informant came to the Police Station and gave the written information, which was earlier marked Ext.2. He has proved the endorsements on the written information, and the formal F.I.R., which were marked Exts.2/1, 2/2 and 3 respectively. He took over the charge of the investigation and he had found the dead body covered by sand. He did not find any blood stains at that place. He has proved the inquest report of the dead body which was marked Ext.4. He arrested the accused Chandra Mohan Khandait, Duru Khandait and Motu, and recorded their confessional statements. He had recovered an axe in presence of the witnesses and had prepared the seizure list, which he has proved and the same was marked Ext.5. In his cross-examination, he has stated that on the seizure list there is signature of father of Chandra Mohan Khandait, and he had recovered the dead body from the river. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation. 8. P.W.-1 is Dr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 04.11.2007. The dead body was decomposed and he had found the injuries on the dead body, including one sharp cut injury on the neck, cutting all the important pipe lines and vessels. He has stated that the death was caused due to the haemorrhage and shock due to the sharp cut injury on the neck, which could be caused by tangi. The dead body was decomposed and he had found the injuries on the dead body, including one sharp cut injury on the neck, cutting all the important pipe lines and vessels. He has stated that the death was caused due to the haemorrhage and shock due to the sharp cut injury on the neck, which could be caused by tangi. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature which was marked Ext.1. 9. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein both these accused persons have denied the evidence against them. On the basis of the evidence on record, both the accused persons have been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below for the offences as aforesaid. 10. Learned 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, in as much as, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against both the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It is submitted by the learned counsel that only evidence against the appellants is the evidence of P.W.-2 Barkunwar Khandait, the informant of the case, who has stated that he had seen the accused persons taking away the deceased. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was found after 3-4 days and in the meantime no information of the occurrence was given by the informant to the police. Learned counsel submitted that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is absolutely fatal in the facts of this case, and there is no plausible explanation for delay in lodging the F.I.R., even though the informant had allegedly seen the accused persons taking away the deceased along with them. 11. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer submitting that the prosecution case is fully supported by the P.W.-2 Barkunwar Khandait, the informant of the case, who had seen the accused persons, including these appellants, taking away the deceased along with them. It was only due to the fear that he had not disclosed the occurrence to anyone. When the dead body was found on 04.11.2007, the police was informed. Similar is the evidence of the village Munda, P.W.-3 Subhash Chandra Pingua, who was informed about the occurrence by the informant. It was only due to the fear that he had not disclosed the occurrence to anyone. When the dead body was found on 04.11.2007, the police was informed. Similar is the evidence of the village Munda, P.W.-3 Subhash Chandra Pingua, who was informed about the occurrence by the informant. The ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-1 Dr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.-1, who had found ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased, including the cut injury on the neck, which was the cause of death of the deceased. The weapon of offence, i.e., the axe was also recovered from the house of the accused Chandra Mohan Khandait. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against both the accused 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. 12. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the only evidence in the case is the evidence of P.W.-2 Barkunwar Khandait, the informant of the case. The occurrence had taken place on 31.10.2007, when in the evening the informant had seen the accused persons, including these appellants, to have forcibly taken away the deceased along with them. Thereafter, he chose to keep mum and he did not inform any one about the occurrence. Though it is stated that he was under the threat given by the accused persons, but the disclosure was made by the informant only on 04.11.2007, when the decomposed dead body of the deceased was found. Such a long silence by the informant, casts considerable doubt on the prosecution case, and the explanation that this long silence was due to fear only, cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the deceased was living with the informant and not with the accused persons, and the chances of false implication of the accused persons after the recovery of the dead body, cannot be ruled out. There is absolutely no corroboration of the evidence of the informant, who is a highly interested witness, by any independent eye witness to the case. The delay in lodging the F.I.R., in the facts of this case, in our considered view, is absolutely fatal to the prosecution case. 13. There is absolutely no corroboration of the evidence of the informant, who is a highly interested witness, by any independent eye witness to the case. The delay in lodging the F.I.R., in the facts of this case, in our considered view, is absolutely fatal to the prosecution case. 13. This apart, even though the evidence of the I.O., P.W.-5 Raghubir Singh shows that he had arrested the accused persons and there was recovery of an axe from the house of the accused appellant Chandra Mohan Khandait, but it is nowhere stated by the I.O., that this recovery was made on the basis of the confessional statement of the accused, though he has stated that he had recorded the confessional statement of the accused. It is also not stated by the I.O., that the said axe was blood stained. Even in the seizure list of the axe, proved as Ext.-5, it is not mentioned that the axe was blood stained. In that view of the matter, even the recovery of axe from the house of one of the accused, which is a very common article to be kept in the house, in no way connects the appellants with the alleged occurrence. We are of the considered view that in the facts of this case, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, convicting and sentencing the appellants, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 11th June, 2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in S.T. No. 28 of 2008, convicting and sentencing the appellants Chandra Mohan @ Hogo Khandit @ Chandra Mohan Khandit and Bonta @ Motu Purty, for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set aside. Consequently, both these appellants are found not guilty and they are acquitted of the charges. Both these appellants are in custody, undergoing the sentence. Let them be released and set at liberty forthwith, if their 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 a copy of this Judgment.