ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The sole appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction under section 302 I.P.C dated 14.12.2001 and the order of sentence of R.I for life dated 19.12.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No.24 of 1999/04 of 1999. 2. On the basis of the fard-beyan of Shamila Murmu recorded in the morning of 26.08.1998, at about 7:35 a.m, Pakuria P.S Case No.21 of 1998 was registered against the appellant. 3. During the trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 9 witnesses; the informant-Shamila Murmu is P.W 7. 4. The prosecution has projected the informant as an eye-witness. 5. In her fard-beyan the informant has stated that last evening at about 19:00 hrs. she along with her husband and younger brother-in-law were going to village-Dumdumi to bring back their cattle (cow). When they reached near Upri Tola at village-Chirudih, the appellant-Chunda Murmu armed with lathi suddenly came there and started abusing her husband. When her husband objected to Chunda Murmu he started assaulting her husband indiscriminately with lathi. While assaulting her husband the accused was saying “I would teach you a lesson as you are acting smart”. When she and Chote Hembrom, her younger brother-in-law, raised hullah several villagers came there and thereafter the accused fled away. She found her husband unconscious and blood was oozing from his head. She brought her husband home with the help of the villagers where he was given treatment. In the morning her injured husband was taken to the police station on a cot and thereafter he was taken to Pakuria hospital; her fard-beyan was recorded at the hospital. According to the informant, the reason why the accused has assaulted her husband was an old private dispute. The informant when examined in the court has deposed that about two years back on a Tuesday, at about 7:00 p.m. in the evening, she was going to Dumdumi village along with her husband and younger brother-in-law to bring back cattle which were apprehended by the villagers as their cattle had grazed crop of someone of village-Dumdumi. She has deposed that when they reached near Chirudih village she heard hullah. The appellant had assaulted her husband with lathi due to which several villagers had assembled there and thereafter the appellant had fled away from the place of occurrence. She has deposed that when they reached near Chirudih village she heard hullah. The appellant had assaulted her husband with lathi due to which several villagers had assembled there and thereafter the appellant had fled away from the place of occurrence. Her husband was taken to Pakuria hospital on Wednesday, however, in course of treatment he has died. She has further stated that the police had come to the hospital and her statement was recorded by the police (Daroga Jee). 6. The prosecution has tried to project Babujee Murmu-P.W 5 as another eye-witness. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that at about 7:00 p.m. in the evening he was at home and when he heard hullah he came out from his house. He saw that Mahanto Hembrom was injured and Chunda Murmu had fled away. Thereafter, Mahanto Hembrom was taken to his house and the next day he was taken to the hospital where he has died. He is another brother-in-law of the deceased. 7. The other prosecution witnesses are formal or hearsay. Motilal Hembrom-P.W 2 is the inquest witness. He has stated that a Panchayati was convened in the village in which Chunda Murmu and Mahanto Hembrom were present and the said Panchayati was in respect of a quarrel between them in connection to illicit relationship of Mahanto Hembrom with the wife of Chunda Murmu. P.W 2 is a hearsay witness; he has stated that he heard about murder of Mahanto Hembrom the next day. He has further deposed that he has not gone to the place of occurrence and in his cross-examination he admits that he has not seen the occurrence. 8. Doctor Hembrom-P.W 3 is another inquest witness. He is also a hearsay witness. P.W 3 has also stated that he does not know anything about what had happened on the fateful Tuesday. He is also a hearsay witness; he has admitted that others have informed him that Chunda Murmu has killed Mahanto. 9. Gayan Tudu-P.W 4 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. He has stated that he has brought the injured Mahanto Hembrom to the police station and from there he was taken to the Government hospital for treatment. He has reached the place of occurrence on hearing hullah and seen Mahanto Hembrom injured and unconscious. In his cross-examination, P.W 4 has stated that the police has not recorded his statement. He has stated that he has brought the injured Mahanto Hembrom to the police station and from there he was taken to the Government hospital for treatment. He has reached the place of occurrence on hearing hullah and seen Mahanto Hembrom injured and unconscious. In his cross-examination, P.W 4 has stated that the police has not recorded his statement. The sister of the deceased, namely, Munu Hembrom-P.W 6 has stated that she was present in the house on Tuesday night and on hearing hullah she came out from her house. She found that Chunda Murmu has assaulted Mahanto Hembrom, her brother. She has seen blood-stains on the clothes of Mahanto Hembrom. He was injured and taken home. She has also stated that next day Mahanto Hembrom was taken to the police station and from there he was taken to Pakuria hospital where in course of the treatment he has died. In her cross-examination, P.W 6 admits that when she was cooking at home she was informed by the ladies of the village that her brother has been assaulted by Chunda Murmu. On such facts, P.W 6 is also a hearsay witness and not an eye-witness. The prosecution witness Hagu @ Fagu Murmu-P.W 8 has seen Mahanto Hembrom lying unconscious on the road and Chunda Murmu armed with lathi was standing there. 10. The brother-in-law of the informant, namely, Chote Hembrom, who, according to the prosecution was an eye-witness, was not examined during the trial. 11. The defence set-up by the appellant is that Mahanto Hembrom was a man of bad character and he used to tease the village girls and that is the reason he was killed by the villagers. 12. It has come in the prosecution's evidence that several villagers had assembled at the place of occurrence but none of them has come forward claiming himself as eye-witness. All the material witnesses examined by the prosecution are related witnesses. In her examination-in-chief the informant has stated that she was walking behind and suddenly she heard hulla and in her cross-examination has stated that she heard 20-30 villagers raising hullah and therefore, afraid, she stopped there and after some time she had gone to the place of occurrence. All the material witnesses examined by the prosecution are related witnesses. In her examination-in-chief the informant has stated that she was walking behind and suddenly she heard hulla and in her cross-examination has stated that she heard 20-30 villagers raising hullah and therefore, afraid, she stopped there and after some time she had gone to the place of occurrence. Presumably to a suggestion by the defence during her cross-examination, in paragraph no.10 she has denied that the villagers have killed her husband because he had illicit relations with the wife of the appellant. The prosecution witness Doctor Hembrom-P.W 3 was also put a suggestion during his cross-examination that Mahanto Hembrom used to tease the village girls. Another suggestion given to him by the defence was that Mahanto Hembrom had teased his elder sister-in-law also. Of course, he has also denied such suggestions of the defence but in view of the prosecution's case that a Panchayati was convened regarding the illicit relationship of the deceased with the wife of the appellant, the aforesaid evidence coming during cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses cannot be brushed aside rather it should be given due consideration while testing the veracity of the prosecution story. 13. The informant in her examination-in-chief has stated that her injured husband was taken to Pakuria hospital and Daroga Jee has recorded her fard-beyan in the hospital, but no one from Pakuria hospital has been examined by the prosecution. In her fard-beyan, she has claimed that her injured husband was first taken to the police station and thereafter he was brought to Pakuria hospital. In fact, in her cross-examination she goes one step ahead and says that her statement was taken at the police station over which she has put her thumb impression. But, the statement of the informant recorded at the police station has not been brought on record. Babujee Murmu-P.W 5 who is the younger brother-in-law of the deceased and Munu Hembrom-P.W 6 who is the sister of the deceased have also stated that Mahanto Hembrom was first taken to the police station and thereafter he was taken to the hospital. In the above facts, one thing which can be safely inferred is that initial version of the occurrence has not been disclosed by the prosecution. 14. In the above facts, one thing which can be safely inferred is that initial version of the occurrence has not been disclosed by the prosecution. 14. It is the prosecution's case that Mahanto Hembrom was assaulted by the appellant at about 7:30 p.m. in the evening of 25.08.1998 and fard-beyan of the informant was recorded at Pakuria hospital at about 7:35 a.m on 26.08.1998. The post-mortem examination has been conducted by Dr. S.K. Mehrotra at 16:00 hrs. on 26.08.1998 and he has found the following injuries on Mahanto Hembrom: (i) Sharp cut 1/2” x 1/4” x 1/2” over lateral part of left supra orbital region. (ii) Diffused swelling and on dissection there was commuted fracture of left partial bone with laceration of left parietal lobe of brain tissue and blood collection in left parietal region of cranial cavity. (iii) Diffused swelling over left shoulder. 15. According to the doctor the injury no.1 was caused by a sharp cutting weapon and injury no.2 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. But, from the manner of occurrence as projected by the prosecution a sharp-cut injury cannot be caused to the deceased. The evidence which has come on record during cross-examination of the doctor suggests that different weapons might have been used for causing such injuries which have been found on Mahanto Hembrom. The medical evidence does not rule out participation of more than one person in the incident. It is inconsistent with the prosecution's case in large part and, in fact, leans towards the defence story that Mahanto Hembrom was assaulted by the villagers and that is the reason none of the villagers has testified as an eye-witness. 16. The time of death of Mahanto Hembrom has not been disclosed by the prosecution. According to the prosecution, Constable-Nawal Kumar Singh and Chowkidar-Lakhiram Murmu brought the dead body of Mahanto Hembrom for the post-mortem examination. These two persons have not been examined by the prosecution during the trial. The doctor who has treated Mahanto Hembrom in the hospital and declared him dead has not been produced and what has happened in the night in his house after the injured Mahanto Hembrom was brought home is not known. 17. These two persons have not been examined by the prosecution during the trial. The doctor who has treated Mahanto Hembrom in the hospital and declared him dead has not been produced and what has happened in the night in his house after the injured Mahanto Hembrom was brought home is not known. 17. In the aforesaid scenario; (i) statement of the informant is recorded in the police station at the first instance but not produced, (ii) serious inconsistency in the evidence of the informant and other prosecution's witness in respect of bringing the dead body to the police station first or in the hospital, (iii) who has treated the deceased at Pakuria hospital is not known, (iv) no one from the Pakuria hospital was examined during the trial to prove that the deceased was brought to the hospital and he was treated there, (v) the fard-beyan of the informant was recorded at 7:30 a.m on 26.08.1998 and at that time the deceased was alive has come in the evidence of P.W 2, however, a First Information Report has been lodged under section 302 I.P.C, (vi) the persons who have brought the dead body for post-mortem examination have not been examined during the trial, and (vii) the time of death has not been disclosed by the prosecution, we are of the opinion that a serious doubt has clouded the prosecution's case. 18. In “Mohinder Singh Vs. The State” reported in AIR 1953 SC 415 , it has been held that if the prosecution has come out with a definite case it must establish the whole of its case. Besides the aforesaid lacuna in the prosecution's case and the inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses, we find that neither the crime weapon was recovered during the investigation nor the blood-stained soil was collected from the place of occurrence. Though, according to the prosecution several villagers had gathered at the place of occurrence but, as rightly contended by the learned Amicus, independent witnesses were not examined and on the top of it no one from the village-Dumdumi has been examined to establish that the informant along with her husband and the brother-in-law, who has not been examined during the trial, were going there to bring back their cattle. In these facts, non-examination of the investigating officer has definitely caused serious prejudice to the defence. 19. In these facts, non-examination of the investigating officer has definitely caused serious prejudice to the defence. 19. In the end, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt. On extending benefit of doubt to an accused, Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, the learned Amicus has referred to the judgment in “Harijana Thirupala and Others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad” reported in (2002) 6 SCC 470 , wherein the Supreme Court has held as under: 11. In our administration of criminal justice an accused is presumed to be innocent unless such a presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by producing the evidence to show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Further if two views are possible on the evidence produced in the case, one indicating to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view favourable to the accused is to be accepted. In cases where the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused the benefit of such doubt should go in favour of the accused. At the same time, the court must not reject the evidence of the prosecution taking it as false, untrustworthy or unreliable on fanciful grounds or on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The case of the prosecution must be judged as a whole having regard to the totality of the evidence. In appreciating the evidence the approach of the court must be integrated not truncated or isolated. In other words, the impact of the evidence in totality on the prosecution case or innocence of the accused has to be kept in mind in coming to the conclusion as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused. In reaching a conclusion about the guilt of the accused, the court has to appreciate, analyse and asses the evidence placed before it by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic value and the animus of witnesses. It must be added that ultimately and finally the decision in every case depends upon the facts of each case. 12. Doubtless the High Court in appeal either against an order of acquittal or conviction as a court of first appeal has full power to review the evidence to reach its own independent conclusion. It must be added that ultimately and finally the decision in every case depends upon the facts of each case. 12. Doubtless the High Court in appeal either against an order of acquittal or conviction as a court of first appeal has full power to review the evidence to reach its own independent conclusion. However, it will not interfere with an order of acquittal lightly or merely because one other view is possible, because with the passing of an order of acquittal presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets reinforced and strengthened. The High Court would not be justified to interfere with the order of acquittal merely because it feels that sitting as a trial court it would have proceeded to record a conviction; a duty is cast on the High Court while reversing an order of acquittal to examine and discuss the reason given by the trial court to acquit the accused and then to dispel those reasons. If the High Court fails to make such an exercise the judgment will suffer from serious infirmity. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussions, having examined the materials on record we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 302 I.P.C against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, he is acquitted of the said charge framed against him in Sessions Case No.24 of 1999/04 of 1999. 21. The judgment of conviction under section 302 I.P.C dated 14.12.2001 and the order of sentence of R.I for life dated 19.12.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No.24 of 1999/04 of 1999 are set-aside. 22. The appellant, who is on bail, stands discharged of liability of the bail-bonds furnished by him. 23. In the result, Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.63 of 2002 is allowed. 24. We appreciate the assistance rendered by Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, the learned Amicus, who has prepared notes on the prosecution evidence and tendered a paper-book of typed depositions. 25. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through 'Fax'. 26. Let lower-court records be sent to the court concerned forthwith.