JUDGMENT : KAILASH PRASAD DEO, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Nilesh Kumar Gupta assisted by Mr. Kumar Udayan, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Vikash Kishore, Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 10.12.1996, passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 619 of 1993 where by the sole accused/appellant has been convicted for offence committed and punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution case has unfolded on the basis of fardbeyan of Kaithu Oraon (P.W.-1), informant recorded by Sub-inspector of police R.P. Dubey, officer-in-charge, Bero police station at 18:00 Hours on 24.04.1993 at village Nehalu Bartoli. The informant has stated that at around 10:00 A.M. co-villager Dhucha Munda (accused/appellant) son of Mangra Munda, who is son-in-law of the informant, came to the house of informant after taking advice from some Ojha and started abusing informant at his door and disclosed that mother of the informant namely Bhukhli Urain (deceased) wife of Late Khambha Uraon, who was sitting at the door is practicing black magic being a Daain and killed his son. It is further stated that Dhucha Munda caught hold hand of the mother of the informant and dragged her towards South of village and assaulted her by means of lathi and danda (weapon of assault) indiscriminately causing serious injuries. The informant has further stated that when his mother was about to die, Dhucha Munda left her and fled away. The informant has claimed that he went there and brought his injured mother under the jackfruit tree and provided some water and after drinking water, the mother of the informant died. The informant has claimed that occurrence has been witnessed by Sukra Oraon (P.W.-2), Mangra Oraon (P.W.-6) both sons of Dhusa Uraon, Gowa Uraon son of Tangra Oraon and wife of the informant Birsi Urain (P.W.-4). The informant has claimed that accused/appellant Dhucha Munda has assaulted his mother and caused her death. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, the police has registered Bero P.S. Case No. 45 of 1993, dated 24.04.1993, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/appellant namely, Dhucha Munda. 5. The informant has claimed that accused/appellant Dhucha Munda has assaulted his mother and caused her death. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, the police has registered Bero P.S. Case No. 45 of 1993, dated 24.04.1993, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/appellant namely, Dhucha Munda. 5. After completion of investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide No. 20 of 1993, dated 30.06.1993, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 16.07.1993 and the case has been committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 06.09.1993. 7. The charge has been framed against accused Dhucha Munda under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 06.10.1993, which was explained to the accused in Hindi to which accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether eight witnesses and also exhibited documentary evidence up to exhibit-5. 9. Kaithu Oraon informant and son of the deceased has been examined as P.W.-1, Sukra Oraon nephew of the deceased, has been examined as P.W.-2, Sumia Urain relative of the deceased has been examined as P.W.-3, Birsi Urain wife of the informant (P.W.-1) has been examined as P.W.-4, Fagua, hearsay witness, has been examined as P.W.-5, Mangra Oraon, another hearsay witness, has been examined as P.W.-6, Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary, who has conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased has been examined as P.W.-7, Bhola Das, a police constable, who has proved the formal documents has been examined as P.W.-8. Signature of Sukra Oraon (P.W.-2) on the inquest report has been proved by Sukra Oraon (P.W. 2) and marked as exhibit-1, postmortem report of the deceased proved by Dr. Signature of Sukra Oraon (P.W.-2) on the inquest report has been proved by Sukra Oraon (P.W. 2) and marked as exhibit-1, postmortem report of the deceased proved by Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary (P.W.-7) has been marked as exhibit-2, fardbeyan of informant in the handwriting of officer-in-charge, Rajan Prasad Dubey has been proved by Bhola Das (P.W.-8) and marked as exhibit-3, formal First Information Report bearing handwriting and signature of the then officer-in-charge Bero police station, Rajan Prasad Dubey has been proved by Bhola Das (P.W.-8) has been marked as exhibit-4, inquest report prepared by Rajan Prasad Dubey in his handwriting and signature proved by Bhola Das (P.W.-8) has been marked as exhibit-5, though this witness (P.W.-8) has categorically stated during cross-examination that he is knowing Rajan Prasad Dubey since last four years but has never worked with him nor his written/signed document is with him and is not able to say the age of Rajan Prasad Dubey and these documents have not been signed in his presence. 10. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/appellant has been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., (Section 281 old Cr.P.C.) on 14.10.1996, where he has denied to the materials confronted to him and has also denied about his involvement in the alleged offence. He has nothing to say with regard to the occurrence but no defence witness or exhibit has been brought on record on behalf of the defence. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of materials available on record, learned trial court has convicted Dhucha Munda (accused) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal before this Court, assailing the same. 12. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Nilesh Kumar Gupta assisted by Mr. Kumar Udayan, Advocate. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 12. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Nilesh Kumar Gupta assisted by Mr. Kumar Udayan, Advocate. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that altogether eight prosecution witnesses have been examined in this case but all of them are not only related witnesses rather they are also interested witness in the case, as such the learned trial court without scrutinizing the evidence of related and interested witnesses, adduced on behalf of prosecution, has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that there is vital contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. If the evidence of P.W.-1 Kaithu Oraon and P.W.-2 Sukra Oraon are taken to be true and compared the same with evidence of P.W. 3 Sumia Urain, then their presence at the place of occurrence being an eye witness to the occurrence is doubtful. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that from perusal of the evidence brought on record, it appears that the dispute as mentioned in the First Information Report regarding death of son of the appellant caused by black magic of the deceased, Bhukhli Urain is not supported by evidence of other prosecution witnesses including wife of the informant, P.W. 4 Birsi Oraon. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that other prosecution witnesses have stated that one girl of the caste of the informant, was kept by the appellant Dhucha Munda as his concubine and as such occurrence has taken place in the village in which all the villagers have caused injury due to which the deceased died. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towards the evidence of P.W.-3 Sumia Urain where this witness has stated that Bhukhli Budhiya (old lady) was dragged by the people. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are scrutinized properly, then it will be apparent that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt against the accused/appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are scrutinized properly, then it will be apparent that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt against the accused/appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that from perusal of fardbeyan which was recorded at the village and comparing the same with evidence of P.W.-2 Sukra Oraon at paragraph 2, it appears that initial fardbeyan was recorded by the police officer at the police station but the prosecution has not brought the same on record for the reason best known to them. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that fardbeyan, which was recorded in the village on 24.04.1993 at around 06:00 P.M. in the evening at Nihalu Bartoli, bears the signature of Sukra Oraon (P.W.-2) and thumb impression of Bisu Oraon there but said Bisu Oraon, has not been examined in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that this First Information Report seems to be concocted, if reliance is put upon the evidence of P.W.-2 Sukra Oraon. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that in the First Information Report which was on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Kaithu Oraon (P.W. 1), it appears that informant has categorically stated that accused/appellant Dhucha Munda came to his house after taking some advice from Ojha and called his mother ‘Daain’ and alleged that she has killed his son and thereafter caught hold of her hand, dragged her towards the Southern side of the village but while examining as P.W.-1, this witness has categorically stated in his evidence that accused has dragged the mother of the informant towards his own house. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that prosecution has not adduced any evidence to substantiate the same, that the house of the accused/appellant Dhucha Munda is situated towards the South of the house of informant where mother of informant was sitting as alleged in his fardbeyan. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that informant has categorically stated in his fardbeyan that after he brought his mother under the jackfruit tree, she was provided with water, which she has consumed and subsequent thereto she has died. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that informant has categorically stated in his fardbeyan that after he brought his mother under the jackfruit tree, she was provided with water, which she has consumed and subsequent thereto she has died. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that this evidence has been contradicted by the informant himself at paragraph 4 of his cross-examination, where he has categorically stated that near the jackfruit tree his mother has not taken any water nor he has stated this fact before the police officer. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted, that there are vital contradictions in the evidence of the informant as P.W. 1 from his fardbeyan (Exhibit-3), so far as the direction of taking of the victim/deceased is concerned as well as drinking water, after the occurrence are concerned. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted, that informant himself is not an eye witness to the occurrence, which has been substantiated by the evidence of P.W.-3 Sumia Urain, who has categorically stated at paragraph 4 of her cross-examination that near the jackfruit tree other co-villagers were assembled but she has not met Sukra Oraon (P.W.-2) and Kaithu Oraon (P.W.-1) there, rather this witness Sukra Oraon (P.W. 2) has categorically stated at paragraph- 2 of her cross-examination that in the courtyard only the old lady was present apart from the witness Sumia Urain (P.W.-3) and her sister-in-law but non-else. As such learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that P.W-1 Kaithu Oraon and P.W.-2 Sukra Oraon are not eye witnesses to the occurrence as per evidence of Sumia Urain (P.W.-3), who has not been declared hostile by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that evidence of P.W.-3 Sumia Urain clearly proves that P.W.-1 Kaithu Oraon and P.W.-2 Sukra Oraon have not seen the occurrence as they were not present in the courtyard. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that P.W.-2 Sukra Oraon has stated at paragraph 2 of his cross-examination that he went to the house of Dhucha on being called by Dhucha Munda where in presence of this witness, the appellant Dhucha Munda has assaulted Bhukhli Urain and killed her at the spot. The occurrence has been witnessed by half of the villagers. The occurrence has been witnessed by half of the villagers. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this witness P.W.-2 Sukra Oraon has categorically stated in his evidence, that he was accompanied by Kaithu Oraon in lifting the dead body of Bhukhli Urain from courtyard to bring the dead body under the jackfruit tree and thereafter went along with Kaithu to the police station, where the police officer has recorded the statement. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the evidence of P.W.-2 Sukra Oraon is not corroborated by fardbeyan of the informant, Kaithu Oraon or evidence of the informant recorded as P.W.-1 or other prosecution witnesses. None of the prosecution witnesses have said that deceased died in the courtyard of Dhucha Munda and the dead body was lifted by P.W.-1 Kaithu Oraon and P.W.-2 Sukra Oraon from the courtyard to bring the same under the jackfruit tree near the house of the informant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that if the evidence of P.W.-2 Sukra Oraon is taken to be true, then the present First Information Report based on the fardbeyan of Kaithu Oraon (P.W. 1) recorded in the village is doubtful, meaning thereby that the First Information Report, which was given to the police at the police station has not been brought on record as such the present First Information Report is hit under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Sumia Urain (P.W.-3) has categorically stated that Bhukli Budhiya (old lady) was dragged by people. This witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution. If the evidence of this witness is taken to be true, then the occurrence has been committed by the villagers and not by the appellant alone as the victim was dragged by the co-villagers. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Birsi Urain (P.W.-4) wife of the informant has been tendered by the prosecution who has categorically stated that daughter of Kunna, nephew of this witness has been kept by Dhucha Munda for which panchayati was held or not, she has no knowledge but they were not in terms of eating and drinking together but they were in talking terms. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that when evidence of Birsi Urain (P.W.-4) is taken note of then, it is apparent that Birsi Urain (P.W. 4) is none else than the wife of the informant Kaithu Oraon (P.W.-1), who has stated in his fardbeyan that as the accused/appellant was alleging against the victim Bhukhli Urain to be a Daain and by black magic she has killed the son of the appellant. This witness (P.W. 4), who is non else than wife of the informant has not stated this fact rather as per the evidence of P.W.-4 Birsi Urain, the occurrence took place as Dhucha Munda (appellant) has kept daughter of Kunna as his concubine for which there was animosity between Munda and Uraon communities in the village. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that P.W.-5 Fagua, being a hearsay witness has categorically stated that he has no knowledge, how the victim died. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that he went to Kapariya alongwith other persons including Kaithu Oraon (P.W. 1) and Sukra Oraon (P.W. 2). This witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that if the evidence of P.W.-5 Fagua, is taken into consideration, then it is apparent that informant P.W.-1 Kaithu Oraon and P.W.-2 Sukra Oraon are not the eye-witness to the occurrence and this statement of Fagua (P.W.-5) get strengthened from the evidence of P.W.-3 Sumia Urain, who has also stated in the court, that at that time, she has not met the informant Kaithu Oraon (P.W.-1) and Sukra Oraon (P.W.-2) near the jackfruit tree. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that on the basis of evidence of P.W. 3 Sumia Urain, P.W. 5 Fagua Oraon and the contradictions as submitted above, the presence of informant Kaithu Oraon (P.W. 1) and presence of P.W. 2 Sukra Oraon at the place of occurrence being an eye-witness to the occurrence is highly doubtful. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Mangra Oraon has been examined as P.W. 6. This witness has stated that he was in his house, when he heard the brawl and saw Bhukli was assaulted by Dhucha by means of fist and slap but he has not seen the accused dragging the victim. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Mangra Oraon has been examined as P.W. 6. This witness has stated that he was in his house, when he heard the brawl and saw Bhukli was assaulted by Dhucha by means of fist and slap but he has not seen the accused dragging the victim. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that if the evidence of P.W. 6 Mangra Oraon, is taken note of, then, entire evidence brought by the prosecution from P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 are doubtful. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the evidence of P.W. 6 Mangra Oraon, who has not been declared hostile by the prosecution, Bhukli (deceased) was assaulted by means of fist and slap by the accused/appellant Dhucha Munda and has not seen the accused dragging the victim Bhukli Oraon. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that this statement of the witness is itself doubtful for considering him to be eye-witness to the occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that during cross-examination P.W. 6 Mangra Oraon has admitted that daughter of Kunna namely Paike has been kept as concubine by the accused/appellant Dhucha, who belongs to Munda caste whereas other side is Uraon and as such, a panchayati held. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of such contradictory evidence of the prosecution, the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary, Medical Officer who has conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Bhukli Orain on 25.04.1993 has found two types of injury (i) abrasion (ii) Bruises which are quoted hereunder: 1. ABRASIONS (i) 3 x ½ c.m. on the right angle of mouth. (ii) 1 x 1 c.m. over front of chest right side. (iii) 2 x 1 c.m., 1 x ½ c.m. and 1 x ½ c.m. over right gluteal region. (iv) 3 x 2 c.m. and 3 x 1 c.m over left gluteal region. (v) 3 x 1 c.m. over left forearm (vi) 6 x 4 c.m. and 6 x 3 c.m over front of left knee. 2. (iii) 2 x 1 c.m., 1 x ½ c.m. and 1 x ½ c.m. over right gluteal region. (iv) 3 x 2 c.m. and 3 x 1 c.m over left gluteal region. (v) 3 x 1 c.m. over left forearm (vi) 6 x 4 c.m. and 6 x 3 c.m over front of left knee. 2. BRUISES (i) 10 x 3 c.m, 10 x 2 c.m, 10 x 2 c.m, 10 x 3 c.m, 10 x 2 c.m., 10 x 3 c.m and 10 x 4 c.m over back of chest. Doctor has opined that all the injuries are ante mortem caused by hard and blunt substance and death was due to above noted injury. Time elpased since death was between 12 to 36 hours. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the post mortem report has been marked as exhibit-2 and the Doctor has opined that death has been caused because of ante mortem injury caused by hard and blunt substances but during cross-examination, the doctor has categorically admitted that there was no brain haemorrhage. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that if a person is assaulted by means of lathi, such injury will not cause on the right side of the face of the deceased unless and until the prosecution comes specially with an evidence that the perpetrator of the crime is a person who has assaulted by means of left hand to cause injury on the victim on the right side of her face. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused serious prejudice to the appellant, as the appellant has not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the Investigating Officer, so far the contradictions in the prosecution case has cropped up. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case and as such the appellant could not examine the Police Officer with respect to recording of the fardbeyan at police station or at the village and with regard to the place of occurrence and manner of occurrence and the motive which has come in the prosecution evidence are contradictory to each other. As per P.W. 1 the occurrence took place as appellant Ducha Munda was alleging that the victim Bhukli Urain is knowing black magic and acted as a daain to kill his son but as per the evidence of the wife of the informant, Birsi Urain (P.W. 4) the occurrence took place for taking away the daughter of Kunna of Oraon community by the appellant Dhucha of Munda community. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that weapon of assault i.e. lathi/danda has not been recovered or seized or produced in the court. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that from the conjoint reading of the prosecution evidence brought on record, the appellant cannot be convicted for the charge and offence committed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in absence of examination of the Investigating Officer, the entire prosecution document has been proved by a constable Bhola Das, who has been examined as P.W. 8 though said Bhola Das has categorically stated that he has never worked with the Officer-in-Charge Rajan Prasad Dubey, nor the document has been written in his presence. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that Bhola Das (P.W. 8) is not a competent witness to prove exhibit- 3, 4 and 5 i.e. fardbeyan, formal F.I.R. and the inquest report prepared by Rajan Prasad Dubey. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that without being any legal material against the appellant, the learned trial court has wrongly convicted the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that these witnesses are related and interested witnesses and they have direct or indirect interest in seeing, the accused implicated due to prior enmity or other reason and thus have a motive to falsely implicate the accused (See State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Kalki & Anr. as reported in (1981) 2 SCC 752 ). Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that these related/interested witnesses have motive to falsely implicate the appellant Dhucha Munda as they have prior enmity as because the daughter of Kunna namely Paike of Uraon community has been kept by the appellant Dhucha Munda of Munda community as his concubine and as such, these witnesses being the related and interested witnesses have motive to falsely implicate the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned trial court without having any material and as such while re-appreciating the evidence, this Court may interfere with the same and may set aside the impugned judgment by extending benefit of doubt in favour of the accused/appellant Dhucha Munda by acquitting him from the charge and conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. Heard learned counsel for the State Mr. Vikash Kishore, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed on the basis of the materials available on record. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that Kaithu Oraon, son of the deceased has been examined as P.W. 1 and is an eye-witness to the occurrence. Sukra Oraon, cousin of the informant and nephew of the deceased has been examined as P.W. 2 and he has also claimed himself to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that Sumia Urain, wife of P.W. 2 has claimed herself to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Birsi Urain (P.W. 4) is wife of the informant and she has also claimed herself to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Fagua (P.W.-5) and Mangra Oraon (P.W.-6) though being hearsay witnesses have seen the dead body of the deceased Bhukli Urain under the jackfruit tree soon after the occurrence and the Medical Officer Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary who has been examined as P.W. 7 has conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased and has found that deceased died because of assault made by hard and blunt substances. The doctor has found altogether six abrasions and one bruises on the person of the deceased which are sufficient to cause death. The official document such as fardbeyan, formal F.I.R. and the Inquest Report have been proved by a constable in absence of inscriber of the document S.I. Rajan Prasad Dubey and as such the same are admissible under the law. The official document such as fardbeyan, formal F.I.R. and the Inquest Report have been proved by a constable in absence of inscriber of the document S.I. Rajan Prasad Dubey and as such the same are admissible under the law. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not warrant any interference by this Court as the accused/appellant Dhucha Munda when was confronted with the evidence of the prosecution has not explained during his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., why prosecution is falsely implicating him nor has given any satisfactory reply to prove himself to be an innocent nor Dhucha Munda has examined any defence witness or adduced document before the learned trial court. As such, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 14. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Nilesh Kumar Gupta assisted by Mr. Kumar Udayan, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Vikash Kishore, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials brought on record including the F.I.R., framing of charge, evidence of eight prosecution witnesses, five prosecution exhibits, statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as well as the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court while examining the prosecution witnesses who are claiming themselves to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence, has taken note of the entire evidence brought by the prosecution and compared the same with the fardbeyan as well as with the evidence of other prosecution witnesses. From perusal of the fardbeyan which was recorded on the basis of the statement of Kaithu Oraon (P.W.-1), law was put into motion but from comparing the fardbeyan with the statement of Kaithu Oraon recorded in the Court as P.W. 1, it appears that there is vital contradictions with regard to contents of the allegation. As per fardbeyan of the informant Kaithu Oraon, the occurrence took place towards South of the darwaja (door) of the informant where the victim Bhukli Urain was sitting where the accused Dhucha has assaulted the victim by means of lathi/danda causing injury which led to death of the deceased. As per fardbeyan of the informant Kaithu Oraon, the occurrence took place towards South of the darwaja (door) of the informant where the victim Bhukli Urain was sitting where the accused Dhucha has assaulted the victim by means of lathi/danda causing injury which led to death of the deceased. The conduct of the informant has not satisfied the conscience of the Court, as being a son of victim, he instead of trying to rescue his mother or saving his mother, became an idle eye-witness to the occurrence only for the purpose of deposing in the Court. When the evidence of the informant is taken note of, it appears that P.W. 1 Kaithu Oraon has categorically stated that appellant Dhucha Munda has taken the deceased Bhukli Urain in his courtyard and assaulted her till she breathed last and she was lifted by the informant Kaithu Oraon under the jackfruit tree where she could not take a drop of water and died. There are vital contradictions in his statement. As per fardbeyan the deceased took water under the jackfruit tree but as per the evidence of the informant, when he has been examined as P.W. 1, the deceased has not taken a drop of water under the jackfruit tree. This Court has also taken note of the fact that in the fardbeyan, it is alleged that accused has dragged the victim towards the South of the village but prosecution has not led any evidence to establish that the house of the accused/appellant Dhucha Munda is situated South to the house of the informant to corroborate this fact which creates doubt about the place of occurrence. This Court has also taken note of the evidence of Sukra Oraon (P.W. 2). As per evidence of P.W. 2, fardbeyan was recorded at the police station where Sukra Oraon has accompanied the informant Kaithu Oraon but from perusal of the fardbeyan, it appears that the same has been recorded in the village in which thumb impression of one Bishu Urain is also there and has not been examined in this case. This creates a serious doubt whether the present First Information Report is the first information of a cognizable offence before the Police. This creates a serious doubt whether the present First Information Report is the first information of a cognizable offence before the Police. The present fardbeyan which has been brought on record and marked as Exhibit- 3 is not the First Information Report as per the evidence of P.W. 2 Sukra Oraon and as such the present First Information is hit under Section 162 CrPC. This fact is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 8 Bhola Das, a constable, who has categorically stated that these documents have never been written in his presence nor he has worked with the inscriber of the document i.e. Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajan Prasad Dubey, who was Officer-in-Charge of Bero Police Station. 15. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court has serious doubts about the genuineness of the present First Information Report. This Court has also examined the evidence of Birsi Urain (P.W. 4) who is none else than the wife of the informant Kaithu Oraon. As per Kaithu Oraon the occurrence took place as the accused/appellant Dhucha Munda has doubt that his son has been killed by black magic performed by the victim Bhukli Urain as disclosed to him by an ojha, on the other hand, wife of the informant Birsi Urain (P.W. 4) has not stated all these facts as motive to the crime rather, as per Birsi Urain (P.W. 4), the daughter of Kunna has been kept by Dhucha Munda (appellant) as his concubine. This creates an impression that there was animosity between Oraon and Munda community due to which the occurrence has taken place. The said daughter of Kunna was none else than own niece of Birsi Urain (P.W. 4). This Court has also taken note of the evidence of P.W. 3 Sumia Urain who has categorically stated that the victim was dragged by the co-villagers and she has further stated that when the victim was dragged by the co-villagers she was present along with her sister-in-law and at that time presence of P.W. 1 Kaithu Oraon and P.W. 2 Sukra Oraon have not been mentioned by P.W. 3 Sumia Urain. As such, motive is also not proved by the prosecution. 16. As such, motive is also not proved by the prosecution. 16. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that from the evidence laid by the prosecution witnesses, who are claiming themselves to be an eye-witness to the occurrence, there are vital contradictions which goes to the root of the prosecution case. The one eye-witness is not showing the presence of other eye-witness. As such, this Court has reason to believe that these persons (prosecution witnesses) are not the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, had it been so, there would not have such vital contradictions in their evidence. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the evidence adduced by these eye-witnesses are not safe to be relied upon for convicting the appellant as they are all related and interested witnesses and they have reason to falsely implicate the appellant as they have direct/indirect interest in seeing that the accused should be punished due to prior enmity or other reason, which is there in the present case as Paike daughter of Kunna and niece of Birsi Urain (P.W. 4) has been kept as concubine by the appellant Dhucha Munda. 17. In view of the materials as discussed above, this Court is of the view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. None of the co-villagers who are independent witnesses have been examined in this case coupled with the fact that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused serious prejudice to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt, as place of occurrence, manner of occurrence and motive for the occurrence have not been proved by the prosecution to establish the charge against appellant. 18. In the result, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 10.12.1996, passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 619 of 1993, arising out of Bero P.S. Case No. 45 of 1993, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 1208 of 1993, is hereby set aside by extending the benefit of doubt in favour of appellant and the appellant is acquitted of the charge and conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 19. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from liability of her bail bonds. 20. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed. 21. 19. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from liability of her bail bonds. 20. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed. 21. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.