JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The sole appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 06.02.2001 and Order of sentence dated 07.02.2001, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla, in S.T. No. 235 of 1998, whereby, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and R.I. for seven years, for the offence under Section 201 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 the informant Ramavtar Prasad, the landlord of the deceased Dr. T.K. Adhikari, recorded on 04.11.1997 at about 8:00 P.M. at his house, situated at village Chatakpur, P.S Bishunpur, District Gumla, wherein he has stated that Dr. T.K. Adhikari was living in his house as his tenant. On 03.11.1997, his wife had gone to her parents place along with her father. On 04.11.1997 at about 5:00 P.M. when the informant returned back from Bishunpur market, he was informed that Dr. T.K. Adhikari had been murdered and his dead body was lying by the side of the river. He went towards the river and found the dead body in the pool of blood. He sent a chowkidar to the police station for informing the police, and also sent the information to the in-laws' place of the deceased. It is further stated in the fardbeyan that he was informed by the local persons that in the afternoon, three persons had come there searching the doctor, one of whom was having a defective eye and it is alleged that one of them came to the house and took the doctor along with him on the pretext of seeing some patient and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was found. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Bishunpur P.S Case No. 24 of 1997, corresponding to G.R No. 718 of 1997, was instituted for the offences under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against three unknown persons, and investigation was taken up. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Bishunpur P.S Case No. 24 of 1997, corresponding to G.R No. 718 of 1997, was instituted for the offences under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against three unknown persons, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant Rajeshwar Sao @ Rajeshwar Sahu and two co-accused, namely, Rahul Kumar @ Kastu and Lalit Prasad Gupta, who were acquitted by the Trial Court below, giving them the benefits of doubt. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused persons' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. 5. In course of trial, nine witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, including the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Neither the I.O. of the case, nor the informant has been examined and it has come in the evidence of PW-1 Bargi Oraon, that the informant had died. Out of the material witnesses examined, PW-2 Sukra Oraon, PW-3 Rabindra Oraon and PW-4 Fuleshwar Oraon have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case at all. 6. PW-1 Bargi Oraon is only a witness to the inquest report of the dead body and he has proved his signature and the signature of the informant, on the inquest report, which was marked Exhibits-1 & 1/1 respectively. He has stated nothing about the occurrence. 7. PW-7 Dr. Hemant Kumar had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 05.11.1997 and had found ten incised wounds on the dead body of the deceased, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-2. 8. PW-8 Aaditya Kumar Mishra is a Police Officer, who had only submitted the charge-sheet in the case and PW-9 Madhu Sudan Prasad is a formal witness, who has only proved the fardbeyan, inquest report, case diary and the formal FIR, which were marked Exhibits-3 to 6 respectively. 9. 8. PW-8 Aaditya Kumar Mishra is a Police Officer, who had only submitted the charge-sheet in the case and PW-9 Madhu Sudan Prasad is a formal witness, who has only proved the fardbeyan, inquest report, case diary and the formal FIR, which were marked Exhibits-3 to 6 respectively. 9. The conviction of the appellant, Rajeshwar Sao @ Rajeshwar Sahu rests on the basis of the evidences of PW-5 Kunti Devi, the wife of the deceased and PW-6 Ram Prasad Sao, the father-in-law of the deceased, who admittedly, are not the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, and have only raised suspicion against the appellant, due to the fact that the people had stated that one of the accused was having a defective eye and the appellant was also having a defective eye. The cumulative effect of the evidence of these witnesses is that the prior to her marriage, PW-5 Kunti Devi was abducted by the appellant, for which there was a police case, and he was jailed. After her marriage, he was threatening them. It has also come in their evidence that thereafter, this accused had married her younger sister. PW-5 Kunti Devi has also stated in her cross-examination that she has no personal knowledge about the occurrence, and she could not say whether the accused had committed the murder or not. There was suspicion due to the fact that this appellant was having a defective eye. She has also stated that she had given an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, stating that she had no suspicion against this appellant. 10. 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. 11. Upon going through the impugned Judgment passed by the Trial Court below, we find that though the Trial Court below has acquitted the other two co-accused persons giving them the benefits of doubt, but this appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below, only because of the fact that he was having a defective eye. In our considered view, on this basis only, the appellant could not have been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below, particularly when there is no evidence on record that the offence was committed by the person having an defective eye. In our considered view, on this basis only, the appellant could not have been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below, particularly when there is no evidence on record that the offence was committed by the person having an defective eye. There is nothing in the entire evidence on record, on the basis of which, even suspicion could be raised against the appellant. 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. 12. For the forgoing reasons, the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 06.02.2001 and Order of sentence dated 07.02.2001, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 235 of 1998, convicting and sentencing the appellant, Rajeshwar Sao @ Rajeshwar Sahu for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set aside. Consequently, the appellant is found not guilty and he is acquitted of the charges. The appellant is on bail and he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. 13. This appeal is accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.