JUDGMENT : PER KAILASH PRASAD DEO, J. 1. Heard, learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha and learned counsel for the State Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 06.09.2014 passed in S.T. Case No. 283/2011 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila, whereby the sole appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in case of default in payment of fine, appellant has to serve further sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. 3. Prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Lal Mohan Munda (P.W.4) recorded by S.I. Deepak Kumar, Officer-in-Charge, Chakulia P.S on 10.05.2010 at 11.30 hrs. near the house of the informant. The informant has alleged, that on Monday 10.05.2010 at about 11.30 hrs., he is giving his statement before the Officer-in-charge, Chakulia Police Station at his village Kenda Dangari in presence of the villagers. Informant has stated that he is alone having one sister whose marriage has been solemnized in Purulia (West Bengal) and now he is residing with his old father Sukracharya Munda (deceased) and mother Suku Munda (P.W.9). The informant has stated that he earn his livelihood by working as labourer. His father is also doing the work of labourer for sometime and used to graze his cattle. It is stated that on Monday 10.05.2010 at around 8.00 A.M, the informant went to the house of one Kartik Kadma (P.W.10) to work as labourer. At around 9.00 A.M while the informant was working, Daso Murmu, S/o late Buka Murmu resident of Kenda Dangari, P.S.-Chakulia, District East Singhbhum came running to the informant and disclosed that Chamtu Munda (appellant herein), son of late Kuna Munda, resident of Kenda Dangari, Munda Tola, P.S. Chakulia, District East Singhbhum has assaulted his father by means of danda, due to which he has sustained bleeding injury on the head and has fallen on the ground and died. It is also stated by the informant that at that time, Daso Murmu was with his wife. It is also stated by the informant that at that time, Daso Murmu was with his wife. Informant has further stated that after getting such information, he went to his house and saw the dead body of his father from whose head blood was oozing. The informant along with several persons, asked Chamtu as to why he has killed? Then he threatened them with lathi holding in his hand. Thereafter, co-villagers tried to catch hold of him, but he fled away towards the forest. Informant could not say, why Chamtu Munda has assaulted and killed his father? Informant has further stated that his mother Suku Munda had also gone to work as labourer and after getting information, she also came to the house and saw the dead body of her husband. Co-villagers have witnessed the occurrence and disclosed that Chamtu Munda has assaulted his father by means of danda on his head causing death. Informant has stated that roof of the house of Chamtu Munda was made up of thatched straw and when his father was taking the cattle for grazing, some of the cattle have eaten straw from the roof of Chamtu Munda. As such, without saying anything, Chamtu Munda has assaulted his father causing his death. On the basis of fardbeyan of the Informant, police has registered Chakulia P.S. Case No. 23/2010 dated 10.05.2010 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Chamtu Munda. After completion of the investigation, police has submitted charge sheet vide Charge Sheet No. 17/2010 dated 31.07.2010 against the named accused Chamtu Munda under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code citing twelve witnesses. Cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 20.11.2010 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 20.07.2011. Charge has been framed against the accused Chamtu Munda under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 18.12.2012, which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi, which was denied by the accused and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove the case, prosecution has examined altogether thirteen prosecution witnesses and also adduced number of documentary evidence up to Ext.4 series. Somwari Munda has been examined as P.W.1. He is the nephew of the deceased and brother of the appellant. He has stated that he heard that someone has killed his uncle. 5. In order to prove the case, prosecution has examined altogether thirteen prosecution witnesses and also adduced number of documentary evidence up to Ext.4 series. Somwari Munda has been examined as P.W.1. He is the nephew of the deceased and brother of the appellant. He has stated that he heard that someone has killed his uncle. Ganesh Munda has been examined as P.W.2. This witness has stated that after hearing brawl, he went to the house of Sukracharya Munda, where Chamtu Munda was standing. Chamtu Munda disclosed that because Ox of Sukracharya has eaten his straw, he has assaulted him and thereafter, Chamtu Munda fled away towards the forest. This witness has categorically stated in para-4 of his cross-examination that he has not seen the occurrence. Dev Dulal Munda has been examined as P.W.3. This witness has proved his signature on the inquest report, which has been marked as Ext.1. This witness has further stated that when he went to the place of occurrence and asked Chamtu Munda, who was having lathi in his hand, he could not understand what he has said. This witness has stated that several persons were present there and at that time, police reached there. He has further stated in para-4 of his cross-examination, that prior to him, police came earlier to the place of occurrence and thereafter he reached the place of occurrence. Lal Mohan Munda, informant of the case and son of the deceased, has been examined as P.W.4. This witness has stated that in the morning on Monday at around 8.00 A.M, he was working in the house of Kartik Kadma where wife of Daso came and informed him that Chamtu Munda is quarreling with his father. Informant has stated that he came to the house and saw the dead body of his father where co-villagers were also present. Munda of the village has informed the police, who also came there and recorded his fardbeyan, which was read over to him and finding it to be true, informant has put his signature on the same, which has been proved and marked as Ext.2 Signature of Munda on the same has also been proved and marked as Ext.2/1. This witness during cross-examination has categorically stated that he was informed by the wife of Daso. During cross-examination at para-12, this witness has stated that his signature have been obtained on blank sheet. This witness during cross-examination has categorically stated that he was informed by the wife of Daso. During cross-examination at para-12, this witness has stated that his signature have been obtained on blank sheet. Daso Murmu has been examined as P.W.5. As per the First Information Report which is based on the fardbeyan of the informant Lal Mohan Munda (P.W.4), he was informed about the occurrence by this witness, but he has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Rather, during cross-examination, this witness has stated that he has no knowledge about the occurrence. Mangal Munda has been examined as P.W.6. He is the Munda of the village. This witness has proved his signature on the inquest report, which has been marked as Ext.1/1. This witness has stated that when police came and inquired from Chamtu about the occurrence, he accepted the guilt and has stated that he has killed him. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that Chamtu is nephew of the deceased and he has never seen both of them quarreling. He could not say as to who has informed him. This witness has further stated that no paper with regard to the confession of the accused was prepared, nor his statement was recorded by the police and what has been written on the paper he has no knowledge about the same and except putting his signature on the same, he has not read the same. Ganesh Kadma has been examined as P.W.7. He is a hearsay witness who got information from the villagers that since Ox of Sukracharya Munda has eaten some straw of Chamtu, as such he has assaulted Sukracharya Munda. During cross-examination, this witness has denied the name of the person, who has disclosed such information to him. This witness has rather stated that there was no enmity between Chamtu and Sukracharya, who were nephew and uncle. Ratan Kadma has been examined as P.W.8. This witness has stated that he was working in his field and after return, he got information about the occurrence. Police also came there. Co-villagers disclosed before him that Chamtu has killed Sukracharaya. This witness has further stated that he has not seen the occurrence and police has only asked his name but did not record his statement. Suku Munda who is the wife of the deceased and mother of the informant, has been examined as P.W.9. Police also came there. Co-villagers disclosed before him that Chamtu has killed Sukracharaya. This witness has further stated that he has not seen the occurrence and police has only asked his name but did not record his statement. Suku Munda who is the wife of the deceased and mother of the informant, has been examined as P.W.9. She is a hearsay witness who came to the house and saw the dead body of her husband. This witness has stated that the village Head was informed about the occurrence. When they came there, Chamtu was present. When people tried to caught hold of him, he fled away. During cross-examination, she has stated that she has not filed the case, nor case has been filed by her son. Kartik Kadma has been examined as P.W.10. This witness has stated that Lal Mohan, informant (P.W.4) was working in his house, who disclosed that some quarrel has taken place in the house. As such, he is going to see that. This witness has further stated that he also followed Lal Mohan to see whether he will return to work or not and went to the house of the informant and saw the dead body of his father lying on the ground in pool of blood. At that time, Chamtu was present with danda. When this witness asked Chamtu behind the reason for assault, he disclosed that since Ox of the deceased had eaten straw of his roof, he has assaulted Sukracharya. In his cross-examination, this witness has categorically stated that he could not say as to who has informed Lal Mohan about the occurrence. This witness has further stated that he went straight and returned directly from that place. His statement has not been recorded by the police, nor he has seen committing such crime by Chamtu Munda. He has seen some straw lying there but there was no Ox. Pan Muni, wife of Daso Murmu, has been examined as P.W.11. She is a hearsay witness. She has stated that after hearing some brawl, she went and informed Lal Mohan and subsequently heard that Sukra has been killed by Chamtu. In her cross-examination, this witness has categorically stated that she did not went to the place of occurrence, nor she has seen the dead body. She is a hearsay witness. She has stated that after hearing some brawl, she went and informed Lal Mohan and subsequently heard that Sukra has been killed by Chamtu. In her cross-examination, this witness has categorically stated that she did not went to the place of occurrence, nor she has seen the dead body. She was never examined by the police, rather she has categorically stated that whatever she has stated, is on the basis of hearsay. Deepak Kumar, Officer-in-Charge cum Sub Inspector of Police, who has recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, has been examined as P.W.12. This witness has stated that after getting information about murder of a person, he made station diary entry and went there. He has recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Lal Mohan Munda, in his own handwriting and signature, which has been proved and marked as Ext.2/2. This witness has stated that he has read over the fardbeyan to the informant and other witnesses and thereafter informant and one witness have put their signature. He has prepared the inquest report in his own handwriting and signature in presence of two independent witnesses which has been proved and marked as Ext.1/2. This witness has further stated that during investigation, he got information that the accused Chamtu Munda who had fled away to the forest after committing murder, has returned to his house. He went there and with the help of Police Force, accused was arrested. The accused in his statement has claimed himself to be innocent. He has proved the formal FIR, in the handwriting of Clerk of Police Station Jay Prakash Yadav, bearing his signature, which has been marked as Ext.3. After completion of the investigation, he has submitted charge sheet under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. At para-18 of his cross-examination, this witness has stated that there was no enmity or quarrel between both parties prior to the occurrence. He reached the place of occurrence at 10.30 on 10.05.2010. At that time, he found the dead body of the deceased on the ground. This witness has further stated that he has recorded the defence statement of the accused in para-6 of the case diary, where he has claimed himself to be innocent. The confessional statement of the accused has not been recorded before the court. Dr. At that time, he found the dead body of the deceased on the ground. This witness has further stated that he has recorded the defence statement of the accused in para-6 of the case diary, where he has claimed himself to be innocent. The confessional statement of the accused has not been recorded before the court. Dr. Mankamna who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, has been examined as P.W.13. He found the following ante mortem injuries caused by hard and blunt object. “Injuries: i. Fracture left side of temporal bone of skull 3”x3”x ½” haematoma beneath lacerated injury over scalp temporal region 3”x ½”x ½” ii. Fracture Occipital bone of skull and haematoma beneath lacerated injury over scalp near occipital region horizontally 5”x1”x1” iii. Peeling of skin over back/chest/abdominal wall/shoulder.” In the opinion of the doctor, death is due to shock and haemorrhage due to above mentioned injuries. Time since death is within 48 hours. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr. PC on 26.08.2014, where he has denied about his involvement in the occurrence but did not utter any single word in his defence. No defence witness has been examined by the accused. 7. After closure of the evidence and on the basis of materials available on record including facts considered under sections 6 to 9 and 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, extra judicial confession of the accused as well as circumstantial evidence, learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in case of default in payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for six months. 8. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appellant has preferred the present appeal assailing the same. 9. Heard learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha and learned counsel for the State Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Additional Public Prosecutor. 10. Learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 9. Heard learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha and learned counsel for the State Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Additional Public Prosecutor. 10. Learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha 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 Amicus Curiae has submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence rather as per the First Information Report, which is based upon the fardbeyan of the informant Lal Mohan Munda (P.W.4), he got information about the occurrence from Daso Murmu (P.W.5) who has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that as per the fardbeyan, Daso Murmu (P.W.5) was present with his wife Pan Muni (P.W.11) when such information was given to the informant but the said Daso Murmu (P.W.5) has been declared hostile by the prosecution and Panmuni, who has been examined as P.W.11 has categorically stated that she has not seen the occurrence rather she heard the brawl and thereafter went and informed the informant, though the informant never claimed that he got information about the occurrence from the said Panmuni (P.W.11), rather she was present with Daso, who disclosed about the occurrence. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that even the evidence of the informant Lal Mohan Munda (P.W.4), Daso Murmu (P.W.5) and Panmuni (P.W.11) does not bring any material on record to prove the guilt against the accused/appellant. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that so far as the extra judicial confession of the accused is concerned, the Investigating Officer, Dipak Kumar who has been examined as P.W.12 has categorically stated that the accused has claimed himself to be innocent. His confession was never recorded rather his defence version has been recorded in para 6 of the case diary where he has claimed himself to be innocent. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that Somwari Munda (P.W.1), nephew of the deceased and brother of the appellant is hearsay witness, who heard that someone has killed Shukrachariya Munda. Ganesh Munda (P.W.2) who has claimed that the accused confessed his guilt during extra judicial confession but the said Ganesh Munda has never claimed that he is the first person who reached the place of occurrence, rather she has stated that several persons were there including the police officer. Ganesh Munda (P.W.2) who has claimed that the accused confessed his guilt during extra judicial confession but the said Ganesh Munda has never claimed that he is the first person who reached the place of occurrence, rather she has stated that several persons were there including the police officer. The Police officer has never said that the accused has confessed his guilt in his extra judicial confession. Learned Amicus Curiae has subsequently submitted that Deb Dulal Munda (P.W.3) has categorically stated that what Chamtu Munda has stated, but he could not understand rather this witness has stated that Police arrived at the place of occurrence prior to him. As such there is no occasion for this witness to be a witness to the extra judicial confession of the accused rather he has proved his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Ext.1. Lal Mohan Munda (P.W.4) informant of the case is admittedly a hearsay witness and prior to his arrival at the place of occurrence his father had already died. Daso Murmu has been examined as P.W.5 and declared hostile by the prosecution. Mangal Munda, one of the inquest witness, has been examined as P.W.6 and has proved his signature on the same which has been marked as Ext. 1/1. This witness has stated that the accused has confessed his guilt before the Police in his presence but no such evidence is brought on record by the prosecution whether the accused has confessed his guilt before the Police, rather the Police Officer Deepak Kumar (P.W.12) has categorically stated that the accused claimed himself to be innocent in his defence statement recorded in para 6 of the case diary. Ganesh Kadma has been examined as P.W.7 is admittedly a hearsay witness as co-villagers have disclosed before him that Chamtu Munda has assaulted Shukrachariya Munda but cannot say the name of co-villager who has disclosed the things before him. Ratan Kadma has been examined as P.W.8. He is admittedly a hearsay witnesses, who has categorically stated in para 7 of his cross examination that he has not stated anything before the police about the occurrence. Suku Munda is the wife of the deceased and mother of the informant who has been examined as P.W.9 and admittedly a hearsay witness. She has categorically stated that she has not filed any case nor her son has filed a case. Suku Munda is the wife of the deceased and mother of the informant who has been examined as P.W.9 and admittedly a hearsay witness. She has categorically stated that she has not filed any case nor her son has filed a case. Kartik Kadma has been examined as P.W.10. He has stated that Informant Lal Mohan Munda was working in his house as labourer and has informed him that some altercation took place in his house and went to the house. This witness has followed the informant Lal Mohan Munda so that he could be sure, that Lal Mohan Munda will return for work. This witness has stated that when he went to the place of occurrence and asked from Chamtu Munda, he disclosed that Ox of the deceased Shukracharya Munda has eaten his straw, then he assaulted Shukracharya. This witness has further stated that his statement has not been recorded by the police nor he has seen the occurrence nor any of the ox at the place of occurrence. Panmuni is the wife of Daso Murmu (P.W.5) who has been examined as P.W.11. She has categorically stated that her statement was not recorded by the police. She has not gone to the place of occurrence, nor seen the dead body, rather on the basis of hearsay material, she has disclosed about the occurrence. Deepak Kumar, Officer-in-Charge of Chakulia Police Station has been examined as P.W.12. This witness has proved the fardbeyan of the informant which has been marked as Ext.2/2. He has prepared the inquest report in his handwriting and signature which also bears signature of two independent witnesses, which has been proved and marked as Ext.1/2. This witness has categorically stated that after getting information that the accused Chamtu Munda has returned to his house, he went there and with the help of Police Force, arrested him. The accused in his defence has claimed himself to be innocent. This witness has proved the formal FIR in the handwriting of clerk of Police Station Jai Prakash Yadav bearing his signature, which has been marked as Ext.3. This witness has categorically stated that there was no enmity or quarrel between the parties prior to the occurrence. He reached the place of occurrence at 10.30 on 10.05.2010 and saw the dead body of the deceased. Dr. This witness has categorically stated that there was no enmity or quarrel between the parties prior to the occurrence. He reached the place of occurrence at 10.30 on 10.05.2010 and saw the dead body of the deceased. Dr. Mankamna who has been examined as P.W.13, has proved the postmortem report of the deceased, which has been marked as Ext.4. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that even lathi, the alleged weapon of assault, has not been recovered from the possession of the appellant. Learned Amicus Curiae has thus submitted that extra judicial confession, as claimed by some of the witnesses, are weak piece of evidence and remains uncorroborated by any of the prosecution witnesses. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that none of the witnesses have claimed that he was the first person to arrive at the place of occurrence, in whose presence the extra judicial confession was recorded, rather witness namely, Ganesh Munda (P.W.2) has stated at para-4 of his cross-examination that after hearing about the occurrence, he went there where large number of persons were present including police officer, but police officer has not stated that there was extra judicial confession of the accused. Similarly, P.W.6 Mangal Munda has claimed that the accused has confessed his guilt before the police, though Investigating Officer has not supported the extra judicial confession of the accused before him. Kartik Kadma (P.W.10) has also claimed that he followed the informant and went to the place of occurrence where on query from Chamtu Munda, he has confessed that he has assaulted Sukracharya Munda as Ox of Sukracharaya has eaten his straw. But admittedly, informant has reached prior to this witness as this witness has stated that he followed the informant, but no such statement has been made by the informant that the accused has confessed his guilt before him. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the extra judicial confession which is a weak piece of evidence, seems to be doubtful in the present case and the same cannot be accepted in view of absence of any corroborative material and in view of the statement of the police officer Deepak Kumar, who has been examined as P.W.12 whose presence is not under cloud and has stated that the accused has pleaded himself to be innocent. Learned Amicus Curiae has thus submitted that the appellant may be acquitted from the charge and conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant as none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution are eyewitnesses to the occurrence. Extra judicial confession has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, section 6 to 9 of the Indian Evidence Act has wrongly been relied by the learned Trial Court, even though the accused was not apprehended at the spot, nor the alleged weapon of assault has been recovered from the possession of the accused, nor the same was seized and brought on record to substantiate that the deceased Sukracharaya Munda was assaulted by means of lathi. Learned counsel has further submitted that the deceased has sustained two injuries on the head and the prosecution has failed to prove that both injuries were caused by lathi and the same has not been seized by the police. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in view of the lacuna in the prosecution case, appellant deserves to be acquitted from the charge and conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the case of the appellant and submitted that appellant was seen near the dead body of the deceased having lathi in his hand by several witnesses, though there is no eye witness to the occurrence. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the accused has confessed his guilt before the witnesses namely Ganesh Munda (P.W.2), Mangal Munda (P.W.6) and Kartik Kadma (P.W.10) who have supported the version of extra judicial confession of the accused. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the post mortem report of the deceased has been brought on record, which has been proved and marked as Ext. 4. Under the aforesaid circumstances, appellant has been rightly convicted by the learned Trial Court on the basis of extra judicial confession and relevant facts in issue under Section 6 to 9 of the Indian Evidence Act proved by prosecution witnesses. As such, this Court may not interfere with the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court. 12. Heard, learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha; learned counsel for the State Mr. As such, this Court may not interfere with the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court. 12. Heard, learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha; learned counsel for the State Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Additional Public Prosecutor; perused the materials brought on record including the First Information Report; framing of the charge; evidence of 13 prosecution witnesses; 4 prosecution exhibits; statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 13. While re-appreciating the evidence, this Court has minutely scrutinized the evidence of prosecution witnesses. None of the prosecution witnesses are eye witness to the occurrence. As per the First Information Report, the Informant got information from Daso Murmu (P.W.5) but the said Daso Murmu has been declared hostile by the prosecution. His wife Pan Muni examined as P.W.11, has also not supported the case of the prosecution, rather she has claimed that she has not seen the dead body, nor went to the place of occurrence and only on the basis of hearsay material, she has disclosed the occurrence. Ganesh Munda (P.W.2), Mangal Munda (P.W.6) and Kartik Kadma (P.W.10) are the three witnesses who have propounded the theory of extra judicial confession of the accused, but from conjoint reading of the evidence of these three witnesses, it appears that Police Officer was present at the place of occurrence when such extra judicial confession was made. The extra judicial confession has not been corroborated by the Police or any of the witness. The Police Officer Deepak Kumar who has been examined as P.W.12. has categorically stated that the accused has claimed himself to be innocent when he was apprehended. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court has reason to believe that extra judicial confession has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution against the appellant in absence of any corroborative evidence. So far as the relevant facts in issue under Section 6 to 9 of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the same. The weapon of assault lathi has not been seized nor recovered from the appellant, nor the blood stained lathi has been sent for forensic examination after seizing the same so as to establish it as a weapon of assault. The weapon of assault lathi has not been seized nor recovered from the appellant, nor the blood stained lathi has been sent for forensic examination after seizing the same so as to establish it as a weapon of assault. The house of the accused is adjacent to the house of the deceased and both were nephew and uncle. Under the aforesaid circumstances, even if the presence of Chamtu Munda at the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence is proved, this does not goes in favour of the prosecution to establish that he is the person who has assaulted the deceased causing his death Even if we accept the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence, it will not suffice the purpose for upholding the conviction of the appellant. 14. This Court while re-appreciating the evidence, has taken note of the fact that police officer after hearing rumour went to the place of occurrence on 10.05.2010 at 10.30 a.m. At that time, other villagers also came. The accused was not apprehended at that place, meaning thereby that there is no legal evidence so far as presence of the accused at the place of occurrence is concerned, rather as per the evidence of Deepak Kumar (P.W.12) particularly in para 8, he has stated that on being informed that the accused Chamtu Munda, who has fled away towards the forest after committing the murder, has returned to the house, he went there and with the help of police force, arrested the accused who claimed himself to be innocent. Under the aforesaid circumstances, even the relevant facts in issue under Section 6 to 9 of Evidence Act, as considered by the learned Trial Court on the principles of res gestae, has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court requires interference by this Court. As such, we are interfering with the same because of the above discussion. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 06.09.2014 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila in S.T. Case No. 283 of 2011 is hereby set aside. Appellant is in custody, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 06.09.2014 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila in S.T. Case No. 283 of 2011 is hereby set aside. Appellant is in custody, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. Let the lower court records along with a copy of judgment be sent to the court below forthwith. 17. Before parting with the judgment, we appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha in assisting the Court during the course of hearing. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to release the legal admissible remuneration of learned Amicus Curiae within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the judgment along with an application.