JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. An Ejahar dated 18-04-2011 was lodged by Md. Amir Uddin, son of late Kitab Ali before the In-Charge of Doomdomia Police Outpost stating that at about 1.30 a.m. on 18.04.2011(Monday), some unknown miscreants had killed his nephew Md. Babar Ali, while he was sleeping on his bed by dealing cut blows on his head with sharp weapon. Upon a hue and cry being raised by the children of the deceased, he immediately went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of Babar Ali lying on the bed. 3. The informant, while deposing as PW-1, had stated that his house is situated near the house of Babar Ali and on the relevant night when the occurrence took place at about 1/1.30 a.m., he went to the house of the deceased upon hearing a hue and cry. He further deposed that the daughter of the deceased Babar Ali, namely, Irfana and son Rashidul had told him that their father was murdered, but they did not say who was the murderer. PW-2, PW-5, PW6, PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11 had also deposed in a similar manner. PW-3 Habibur Rahman, who is also a neighbour, stated that upon arriving at the place of occurrence, he saw the dead body of the deceased. He further deposed that on being asked, the daughter of the deceased Irfana stated that she saw someone going out of the house, but she could not name the assailants nor she could recognize anybody. 5. PW-4, the daughter of the deceased, Irfana Khatun had stated that the incident took place some 4 years ago when she was a student of Class-VI. The incident took place at night while she was sleeping along with her father. She woke up upon hearing her mother crying and saw Motalib was leaving the room along with 3/4 other persons. She further deposed that then she called her brother Rashidul and when he arrived she told him that Motalib had assaulted their father and ran away. PW-7, Rashidul in his deposition stated that his sister Irfana told him that she noticed that some people were leaving their house and that she could identify that one of the person was Motalib. 6. PW-7, Rashidul in his deposition stated that his sister Irfana told him that she noticed that some people were leaving their house and that she could identify that one of the person was Motalib. 6. PW-14, Haren Gogoi, the Investigating Officer, in his deposition had stated as follows :- “PW-4 Irfana Khatun did not state in her previous statement before me that she had seen accused Matalib running away from their house at the relevant night of occurrence and also did not state that her mother stated before her that Matalib had killed her father and ran away. PW-4 also did not state in her previous statement before me that she had told her elder brother Rashidul that Matalib had fled away immediately after the occurrence. PW-4 also did not state in her previous statement before me that she had seen Matalib and 3/4 persons fleeing away from their house immediately after the occurrence. In her previous statement before me, PW-4 stated that she had seen one person running away who was wearing a lungi and a sadar; but she could not recognize him.” 7. From the deposition of PW-14, Investigating Officer, it is clear and apparent that PW-4 had stated before him that she saw one person, who was wearing a “lungi”, was running away, but she could not recognize him. 8. The entire prosecution case is based on the evidence of PW-4, who had deposed that she had seen the accused Abdul Motalib leaving the place of occurrence and further the evidence of PW-7, Rashidul Islam is again based on the aspect that it is the PW-4, Irfana, who had told that she saw the accused Motalib was going away from the place of occurrence. But when we look into the evidence of PW-4, we firstly take note of that PW-1 and PW-3, who immediately arrived at the place of occurrence, were not told by the PW-4 that she had seen the accused Abdul Motalib going away from the place of occurrence. On the other hand, deposition of PW-1 and PW-3 shows that PW-4 had told them that she could not recognize the persons, who had left the place of occurrence. The deposition of the Investigating Officer (PW-4) makes it further explicit that PW-4 had not stated before him that she saw the accused Abdul Motalib leaving the place of occurrence. On the other hand, deposition of PW-1 and PW-3 shows that PW-4 had told them that she could not recognize the persons, who had left the place of occurrence. The deposition of the Investigating Officer (PW-4) makes it further explicit that PW-4 had not stated before him that she saw the accused Abdul Motalib leaving the place of occurrence. The statement of PW-4 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is also inconsistent with her deposition before the court. 9. In view of the above, we are unable to accept the deposition of PW-4 that she had seen the accused Abdul Motalib leaving the place of occurrence. As the entire prosecution case is based on the said evidence being led by PW-4 and the same itself being dis-believable in view of the evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and the I.O. as well as its contradictions with the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., we are of the view that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused Abdul Motalib, son of Abdul Mannas, had committed the offence of causing death to the deceased Babar Ali. 9. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused/appellant Abdul Motalib by the judgment dated 27-10-2017 in Sessions (T1) Case No. 361(N)/2012 convicting him under Sections 302/34 IPC is set aside. The accused/appellant is set at liberty forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case. 10. Appeal stands allowed. 11. Send down the LCR.