ORDER : 1. The sole appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction under section 302/34 IPC and section 450 IPC and the order of sentence of R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under section 302 IPC and R.I. for seven years for the offence under section 450 IPC, both dated 11.05.2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 269 of 2005. 2. The appellant-Khira Lohra was arrested on 10.05.2005 and since then he is in judicial custody, serving the aforesaid sentence inflicted upon him in S.T. No. 269 of 2005. 3. The prosecution's case, as narrated by the informant namely, Khairi Kerketta in her fardbeyan recorded at 10 a.m. on 08.05.2005 at village-Kamta, is that in the night of 07.05.2005, at about 8 p.m. she along with her father and 8 years' old son of her sister had gone to bed. Three persons entered her house at 9 p.m. and enquired from her father about Khairi Kerketta, her sister. They started assaulting her father and took him inside a room. She has claimed that she has seen the appellant-Khira Lohra and Ghanshyam Lohra, both armed with baluwa, assaulting her father on his neck. She, however, could not identify the third person who was holding a lathi. She has further stated that previously the accused- Ghanshyam Lohra used to visit her house in the evening to which her father had objected. Once when her sister namely, Basanti Kongari had come home from her in-law's house (sasural) the accused-Ghanshyam Lohra along with his friend had come there and at that time also her sister had raised an objection. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Khairi Kerketta, Kamdara P.S. Case No. 17 of 2005 was registered against Ghanshyam Lohra, Khira Lohra and one unknown person under section 302/34 IPC for causing death of Dayal Kerketta. During the trial, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses; the informant is PW-4 and her co-villagers namely, John Kerketta, Chendya Kerketta, Andherious Kerketta, Dukhwa Lohra, Etwa Lohra and Andherious Kerketta have been examined during the trial to prove death of Dayal Kerketta. 5. Dr. R.S. Gupta, who has conducted autopsy, has found the following injuries on Dayal Kerketta: “(i) Ante mortem sharp cutting wound 10 cm x 6 cm into muscles deep. Cutting major blood vessels on right side of neck. 5. Dr. R.S. Gupta, who has conducted autopsy, has found the following injuries on Dayal Kerketta: “(i) Ante mortem sharp cutting wound 10 cm x 6 cm into muscles deep. Cutting major blood vessels on right side of neck. (ii) Ante mortem sharp cutting wound 10 cm x 6 cm x muscles deep situated 2 cm below the Ist wound. (iii) Ante mortem sharp cutting wound 8 cm x 4 cm bone deep on right shoulder encroaching on right side of neck.” 6. In the opinion of the doctor the aforesaid injuries were caused by a sharp cutting weapon like baluwa. 7. Referring to the confessional statement of the appellant namely, Khira Lohra and recovery of a baluwa, the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla has recorded a finding that the evidence of the informant and the doctor eliminates any chance of suspicion on complicity of the accused-Khira Lohra in the crime and, accordingly, convicted him under section 302/34 IPC and section 450 IPC. 8. Admittedly, the prosecution's case is founded on the evidence of the informant namely, Khairi Kerketta who has been projected as an eye-witness. PW-1 namely, John Kerketta is a co-villager. He is a seizure-list witness which has been marked as Exhibit-1. During his cross-examination, he, however, admits that when he reached the place of occurrence the blood-stained soil was already collected by the investigating officer and he, in fact, did not read the seizure-memo. PW-2 namely, Chendya Kerketta is a formal witness. He says that when someone had raised alarm several villagers had assembled there. In paragraph no. 4 of his cross-examination, he states that statement of about 20-30 persons were recorded by the police and in the night of the incident he along with several co-villagers had stayed at the place of occurrence. The aforesaid statement of PW-2 is relevant for testing the truthfulness of the evidence of the informant, in as much as, the informant says that when she raised alarm the villagers were sleeping. She has not claimed that villagers had assembled to her house in the night. It is also a matter of record that none of the co-villagers, except PW-2, has deposed that they had come to the place of occurrence in the night of 07.05.2005. She has not claimed that villagers had assembled to her house in the night. It is also a matter of record that none of the co-villagers, except PW-2, has deposed that they had come to the place of occurrence in the night of 07.05.2005. The informant has claimed that she has seen the accused-Ghanshyam Lohra and appellant-Khira Lohra, both armed with baluwa assaulting her father, however, at the same time she says that she had hidden herself behind the stack of paddy. She has stated that both the accused persons had taken her father inside a room and in her cross- examination she admits that due to fear she had covered her head with towel (gamchha). It is also relevant to record here that in her fardbeyan she has alleged that three persons had entered her house and assaulted her father; one unknown person was holding lathi and the First Information Report was lodged against the accused-Ghanshyam Lohra, Khira Lohra and one unknown accused person. 9. We find that PW-5 has deposed that baluwa was seized from a place near the house of Khira Lohra and baluwa is a weapon generally carried by the villagers. During his cross-examination, he has stated that there was no blood mark on the baluwa and he put his signature on the seizure-list outside the house of Khira Lohra. Another witness namely, Etwa Lohra-PW-6 has, however, stated that baluwa was recovered from the courtyard of the accused; it was concealed beneath the earth, and baluwa is generally found with the villagers. However, in the cross-examination he says that he does not know from where the police has recovered baluwa. The inquest witness PW-7 has stated in his cross- examination that he had not read what the police had written on the inquest report and the police did not make him understand what was written by him. 10. In the aforesaid state of evidence when we consider the evidence of investigating officer who has stated that he had seized blood-stained soil and baluwa and prepared the seizure-list, we find that seizure of the blood-stained soil and baluwa is not proved by the prosecution. Confessional statement of the accused, thus, has become irrelevant. The investigating officer admits that he did not record statement of the second daughter of the deceased namely, Basanti Kongari and he was not handed over any paper of Panchayati. Confessional statement of the accused, thus, has become irrelevant. The investigating officer admits that he did not record statement of the second daughter of the deceased namely, Basanti Kongari and he was not handed over any paper of Panchayati. He further admits that he did not send the blood-stained soil and baluwa for Forensic examination. 11. In our opinion, the aforesaid contradictions and lacuna in the prosecution's case substantially erode stratum of the prosecution's case. 12. Another accused namely, Ghanshyam Lohra is absconding and what would be his defence is not known to the Court today. What was the role played by the third accused, unknown accused, has not been disclosed by the informant rather she has substantially changed her story in the court when she has alleged specific role of the accused namely, Ghanshyam Lohra and the appellant, but conveniently remained silent about the third accused. 13. Another aspect of the matter is that it was a dark night, at about 9 p.m. on 07.05.2005, when the accused persons had entered the house of the informant. Neither in her fardbeyan nor in her statement in the court the informant has disclosed the source of light. She has simply said that she had identified the accused-Ghanshyam Lohra and the appellant-Khira Lohra. In our opinion, such bald statement of the informant is not reliable and trustworthy evidence to record conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC and the appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt. Augustine Saldanha vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 10 SCC 472 . 14. In the above facts, having examined the record of S.T. No. 269 of 2005, we hold that conviction of the appellant under section 302/34 IPC and section 450 IPC and sentence of R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under section 302/34 IPC and R.I. for seven years for the offence under section 450 IPC, both dated 11.05.2005, passed in S.T. No. 269 of 2005 are unsustainable and, accordingly, these are set-aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under section 302/34 IPC and section 450 IPC framed against him. 15. The appellant namely, Khira Lohra, son of Pratap Lohra shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. 16. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 427 of 2011 is allowed. 17. The able assistance rendered by Mr. 15. The appellant namely, Khira Lohra, son of Pratap Lohra shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. 16. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 427 of 2011 is allowed. 17. The able assistance rendered by Mr. Manindra Kumar Sinha, the learned Amicus is highly appreciated by the Court. He has prepared a list of events and short synopsis on the prosecution's evidence. The assistance rendered by Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned Spl. P.P. is also appreciated. 18. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bills. He shall be paid Rs. 5500/- for each effective date of hearing, but subject to the cap as provided under the Notification dated 23.11.2017. 19. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX. 20. Let the lower-court records be sent to the court concerned, forthwith.