JUDGMENT : Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Sahani assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Pankaj Verma and Mr. Vikash Kishore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 2. Three accused persons were charged under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally and knowingly causing death of Kewla Sahu alias Kedar Sahu and also for disappearance of evidence under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No.6 of 1995, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla, out of whom accused Chakraborty Sahu alias Chakraborty Nath Sahu and Raj Kishore Nath Sahu were convicted for the charges by the impugned judgment dated 19.09.1996 while accused Raman Sahu was acquitted of the charge. Both the convicts were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code; both the sentences to run concurrently. During pendency of this appeal, appellant Raj Kishore Nath Sahu has died and his appeal stands abated by the order of the instant date. Before us is the surviving appellant Chakraborty Sahu alias Chakraborty Nath Sahu, who has questioned the impugned conviction and order of sentence. 3. The initial story of the occurrence, as narrated by the informant, Balbhadra Sahu alias Mahindra Sahu (P.W.15), Son of Sri Budhram Sahu, through his fardbeyan recorded by Sub-Inspector, Rajendra Kumar Das at 10:00 A.M. on 21.03.1994 at Khora Chiramba Tanr disclosed the following allegations: The informant asserted that on the previous Sunday 20.03.1994 at about 02:00 P.M. in the afternoon, his younger brother Kewla Sahu alias Kedar Sahu had gone for selling ready-made garments in the local weekly market at Langi. He did not return in the night. Informant thought that he had stayed back. Today i.e. 21.03.1994, the informant alongwith his father, Budhram Sahu went to search his younger brother Kewla Sahu alias Kedar Sahu and reached a point near the Gumla-Sisai Road at 06:00 A.M. where they saw the dead-body of his brother with large injuries by sharp cutting weapon on his neck. Informant thought that he had stayed back. Today i.e. 21.03.1994, the informant alongwith his father, Budhram Sahu went to search his younger brother Kewla Sahu alias Kedar Sahu and reached a point near the Gumla-Sisai Road at 06:00 A.M. where they saw the dead-body of his brother with large injuries by sharp cutting weapon on his neck. In the meantime, few people assembled there and during search at a distance of 200 yards towards North and on the East side in the bush the bicycle and a bag (jhola) of his brother and at a distance of one kilometer on the North was found the ready-made cloths and other articles half burnt. His brother had left Langi bazar at 06:00 P.M. The informant alleged that his brother has been waylaid and assaulted with a sharp-cutting weapon which caused his death and the ready-made cloths have been taken to a distance and burnt. Informant suspected that Ram Kishore Nath Sahu son of late Budhiya Sahu, Chakrawarti Sahu @ Bartu Sahu, Son of Ram Kishore Nath Sahu, both of P.S. and District Gumla and Raman Sahu, Son of unknown of village Kumba Toli, P.S. Ghagra, District-Gumla have waylaid his younger brother and killed him by sharp cutting weapon since about 4 years there was a dispute relating to gairmazarua land going on in the Gumla Court. The informant asserted that few days back, Ram Kishore Nath Sahu has threatened the informant and his brother to kill them. 4. Gumla P.S. Case No.70 of 1994 dated 21.03.1994 under Sections 394 and 302 was registered against unknown. Though the FIR was registered against unknown, but during investigation since the Police got materials as against the three accused persons on completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted by the Police vide no.72 of 1994 dated 16.06.1994 under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against three persons namely Raj Kishore Nath Sahu, Chakraborty Sahu alias Barthu Sahu and Raman Sahu. 5. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed on 06.06.1995 by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions, Judge, Gumla under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the three accused. 5. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed on 06.06.1995 by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions, Judge, Gumla under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the three accused. In order to prove the charge, prosecution examined altogether eighteen witnesses, named as under:- Ram Mohan Sao as P.W.1, Chaman Singh as P.W.2, Lakhan Prasad Sahu as P.W.3, Shyam Sunder Sao as P.W.4, Madan Sahu as P.W.5, Govind Gope as P.W.6, Ram Swerath Sahu as P.W.7, Shyam Sahara Sahu as P.W.8, Ram Sevak Sahu as P.W.9, Ram Lakhan Sao as P.W.10, Manpuran Sahu as P.W.11, Rajendra Singh as P.W.12, Smt. Gita Devi as P.W.13, Man Mohan Singh as P.W.14, Balbhadra Sahu @ Mahendra Sahu informant as P.W.15, Tapas Kumar Lal as P.W.16, Dr. A.D.N. Prasad, Medical Officer as P.W.17 and Rajendra Kumar Das as P.W.18. 6. Prosecution also adduced a number of documentary evidence up-to Exhibit-17 as under:- Signature of Ram Mohan Sao on statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit-1, signature of Chaman Singh on statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C as Exhibit-2, signature of Govind Gope on seizure list as Exhibit-3, left thumb impression of Ram Lakhan Sao on seizure list as Exhibit-3/1, signature of Ram Sevak Sahu on seizure list as Exhibit-4, signature of Manpuran Sao on seizure list as Exhibit-4/1, signature of Ram Sewak Sahu on seizure list as Exhibit-5, signature of Manpuran Sahu on seizure list as Exhibit-5/1, signature of Rajendra Singh on inquest report as Exhibit-6, signature of Manmohan Singh on inquest report as Exhibit-6/1, signature of informant Balbhadra Sahu on fardbeyan as Exhibit-7, signature of Manmohan Singh on fardbeyan as Exhibit-7/1, signature of Mahendra @ Balbhadra Sahu on the petition filed by him as Exhibit-8, signature of Tapas Kumar Lal on petition filed by informant as Exhibit-8/1, a petition of informant filed on 05.04.1994 as Exhibit-9, postmortem report as Exhibit10, fardbeyan as Exhibit-11, inquest report as Exhibit-12, seizure list of blood stained soil as Exhibit-13, seizure of hero jet cycle as Exhibit-14, seizure of ash of cloths and plastic as Exhibit-15, F.I.R. as Exhibit-16 and statement of Chaman Singh under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit-17. 7. After closure of the prosecution evidence the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., where they denied their involvement and claimed themselves to be innocent. 7. After closure of the prosecution evidence the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., where they denied their involvement and claimed themselves to be innocent. Both the convicted accused persons claimed that they were in their house and have been arrested on false implication. Accused Raj Kishore Nath Sahu also stated that his DFO and Range Officer would adduce evidence on his behalf and that he was on duty on the date of occurrence. 8. On behalf of defence, seven witnesses, named hereunder were also examined: Raj Kumar Rabidas as D.W.1, Ram Pratap Sahu as D.W.2, Kanhai Sahu as D.W.3, Binod Prasad Singh as D.W.4, Jhirua Oraon as D.W.5, Kishore Sahu as D.W.6 and Krishna Sahu as D.W.7. 9. On behalf of the defence certain documents were also adduced as Exhibits: Pay bill of Forest Department, Bihar as Exhibit-A, petition of Anil Kumar Verma dated 24.03.1994 as Exhibit-B, signature of Ramu Sao @ Ram Mohan Sao on his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit-C, map as Exhibit-D, amin report as Exhibit-E, four deeds as Exhibit-F to F/3, two maps as Exhibit-D/1 to D/2. 10. Learned trial court upon taking into consideration the entire evidence on record and the submission of the counsel for the parties recorded conviction against the two accused named above while acquitted the third accused Raman Sahu. 11. Before us in appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has urged the following grounds in support of the challenge: He submits that FIR was registered against unknown by the brother of the deceased, who has been examined as P.W.15 (Balbhadra Sahu). Later on, the prosecution has sought to buttress its case by adducing two witnesses claiming themselves as eyewitness namely, Ram Mohan Sao (P.W.1) and Chaman Singh (P.W.2). These two witnesses had recorded their statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The statement of Ram Sahu @ Ram Mohan Sao recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been proved and marked as exhibit-C whereas the statement of Chaman Singh recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been proved and marked as exhibit-17. P.W.2 (Chaman Singh) has not seen the occurrence but claims to have seen the three accused persons namely, Raj Kishore Nath Sahu carrying a garasa, Chakrawarti Sahu carrying a tangi and Raman Sahu carrying a lathi. P.W.2 (Chaman Singh) has not seen the occurrence but claims to have seen the three accused persons namely, Raj Kishore Nath Sahu carrying a garasa, Chakrawarti Sahu carrying a tangi and Raman Sahu carrying a lathi. Ram Mohan Sao (P.W.1) in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. or during trial does not attribute existence of tangi in the hands of Chakrawarti Sahu, but garasa in his hand, which was later taken by the accused Raj Kishore Nath Sahu to raze the neck of the victim. The medical evidence does not corroborate any assault by lathi and as such, the third accused was acquitted by the learned trial court. P.W.1 (Ram Mohan Sao) has during deposition completely demolished the prosecution case as set up through the informant Balbhadra Sahu (P.W.15). In his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. he has stated that in the morning of 21.03.1994 he alongwith Bhadra Sahu, who is none other than informant Balbhadra Sahu (P.W.15) had gone to the place of occurrence and brought the dead body of the victim Kewla Sahu alias Kedar Sahu back to the home. Balbhadra Sahu (P.W.15), in his fardbeyan, does not make any mention of Ram Mohan Sao (P.W.1), as an eye-witness to the occurrence or that he accompanied the informant to the place of occurrence in the next morning i.e. 21.03.1994 to bring back the dead-body to the house. The relationship of P.W.1 (Ram Mohan Sao) with the informant is that of cousin/agnate as per his own statement at paragraphs 4, 8 and 9 of his deposition. This witness P.W.1, who has been made the sheet anchor of the case of the prosecution is completely unreliable and untrustworthy to uphold the conviction. P.W.2 (Chaman Singh) is also a set up witness though he does not claim to have seen the occurrence. 12. P.W.3 (Lakhan Prasad Sahu), P.W.4 (Shyam Sunder Sahu), P.W.5 (Madan Sahu), P.W.7 (Ramswarathn Sahu), who have alleged previous enmity due to some land dispute in order to attribute motive against the accused persons. However, enmity cuts both ways. The case of the prosecution was initially set up at the time of institution of the fardbeyan as against unknown and was dependent upon circumstantial evidence but an attempt has been made later on to base the prosecution case on direct evidence/eye witness account which has miserably failed. However, enmity cuts both ways. The case of the prosecution was initially set up at the time of institution of the fardbeyan as against unknown and was dependent upon circumstantial evidence but an attempt has been made later on to base the prosecution case on direct evidence/eye witness account which has miserably failed. P.W.8 (Shyam Sahara Sahu) is a tendered witness so is P.W.10 (Ram Lakhan Sahu). P.W.6 (Govind Gope), P.W.9 (Ram Sevak Sahu), P.W.11 (Manpuran Saw) and PW.12 (Rajendra Singh) all are seizure list witnesses. They have not seen the occurrence. P.W.13 (Smt. Geeta Devi) is the widow of the deceased, a hearsay witness, who has during trial sought to buttress the case of the prosecution by attributing previous enmity due to land dispute as the motive for the crime by the accused persons. P.W.14 (Manmohan Singh) has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W.15 the informant, Balbhadra Sahu during his deposition also does not make any mention that Ram Mohan Sao (P.W.1) had seen the occurrence and narrated it to him at the time of institution of the fardbeyan or had accompanied him to bring the dead-body back from the place of occurrence to his house. He cannot have improved his case beyond what he stated in the fardbeyan. P.W.16 is an Advocate Mr. Tapas Kumar Lal, who has proved a Petition dated 05.04.1994 marked as Exhibit-9 moved by the informant making allegations against the investigating officer for not conducting investigation in a proper manner and not recording the statement of witnesses, Ram Mohan Sao (P.W.1) and Chaman Singh (P.W.2). After this petition, it appears that the statements of these two witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. on 13.04.1994 after 23 days of the occurrence. P.W.17 (Dr. A. D. N. Prasad) is the Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased and has proved postmortem report in his handwriting and signature as Exhibit-10. Postmortem report exhibited during trial showed the following injuries:- “(i) Sharp cutting injury on right side of chin longitudinally placed with fracture of lower jaw and teeth 3” x 3/4” x 1 ½”. (ii) Sharp cutting injury on the midline of anterior part of the neck, transversely placed 4” x 1” x 1 1/2” cutting on trachea, esophagus and the great vessels of neck of left side at the level of C6. (ii) Sharp cutting injury on the midline of anterior part of the neck, transversely placed 4” x 1” x 1 1/2” cutting on trachea, esophagus and the great vessels of neck of left side at the level of C6. (iv) Sharp cutting injury behind the left ear 1” x 1/2” x 1/2” cutting on left pinna also. (v) Sharp cut injury on ride side of neck posterior-laterally placed 4” x 3/4” x 1”. (vi) Sharp cut injury of left palm 3” x 1/2” x 1/2”. Doctor has opined that cause of death-haemorrhage and shock due to above injuries. Time elapsed since death-Less than 24 hours. The above sharp cutting injury may be caused by garasha and the injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course.” 13. The cause of death as per the medical officer was due to Haemorrhage and shock due to above injuries. Time since death was less than 24 hours. The postmortem was conducted at Sadar Hospital, Gumla on 21.03.1994 at 11:45 A.M. Presence of such injuries and death of the victim is not in doubt but the involvement of the appellant and the other co-accused could not be proved by the prosecution by any stretch of evidence. P.W.18 is the investigating officer (Rajendra Kumar Das), who in his statement at paragraphs 9 and 10 completely belied the claim of P.W.1 and P.W.2, as having seen the occurrence, or told or met the investigating officer. He further categorically stated that anyone else had also not spoken about witness, Ram Mohan Sao (P.W.1). This witness had proved the fardbeyan as Exhibit 11, the inquest report as Exhibit 12, seizure list of blood stained soil as Exhibit 13, Hero Jet bicycle as Exhibit 14 and some plastic articles as Exhibit 15 as also. Formal FIR as Exhibit 16. In such a case the involvement of these accused persons in the commission of murder of the victim, Kewla Sahu alias Kedar Sahu has not been proved by any eye-witness or any circumstantial evidence. The place of occurrence described by the investigating officer is also at such a distance from the house of the informant and separated from habitation that the incidence in all likelihood has not been seen by any person or no genuine person has come forward to support the prosecution case, as an eye-witness. In such circumstances, the case of the prosecution has to crumble. In such circumstances, the case of the prosecution has to crumble. There is no legal evidence on record to connect these accused persons and the surviving appellant with the offence of murder of Kewla Sahu alias Kedar Sahu. The learned trial court has completely misread the evidence on record and committed serious error in law and in the appreciation of evidence while recording the conviction. As such the appellant deserves the benefit of doubt and is fit to be acquitted. The appeal should be allowed after setting aside the impugned judgment. 14. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State, has relied upon the entire material evidence on record of the prosecution to support the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial court. According to him, the informant has supported the prosecution story, as made out, in the fardbeyan, during trial. During course of investigation, certain persons who had witnessed the occurrence or had seen the accused persons going armed came forward and supported the case of the prosecution first by recording their statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. which has been brought on record during trial and later also deposed in support of the prosecution case. P.W.1 (Ram Mohan Sahu) is an eye-witness to the occurrence and the time, place and the manner of occurrence described by him proved the charge against the accused persons. Since P.W.1 had witnessed the ghastly act of murder in-front of his eyes from a distance where he had hidden himself, he was too scared to narrate the same to his in-laws whose house was nearby or even to his wife and the informant's family immediately after the occurrence. This witness in his deposition has also stated that though his family and the family of P.W.15, the informant are descendants from a common grand-father, but they are not on good talking terms. As such, non-mentioning of the name of P.W.1 in the fardbeyan at the time of recording of the fardbeyan should not be treated to discard the evidence of a truthful eyewitness to the occurrence. The informant, during course of the investigation, had also complained to the learned court regarding faulty investigation, whereafter the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 were recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. only after 23 days of the occurrence. As such, the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are worthy to be believed. The informant, during course of the investigation, had also complained to the learned court regarding faulty investigation, whereafter the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 were recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. only after 23 days of the occurrence. As such, the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are worthy to be believed. The existence of previous enmity as a cause for commission of the murder of informant's brother has also been corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, namely, Lakhan Prasad Sah (P.W.3), Shyam Sunder Sahu (P.W.4), Madan Sahu (P.W.5), Ramswarath Sahu (P.W.7) and Smt. Geeta Devi (P.W.13), wife of the deceased. The Doctor (P.W.17), who conducted the post-mortem examination, on the dead-body of the victim on 21.03.1994, has found corroborating injuries caused by sharp-cutting weapon like 'garasa' which led to shock and haemorrhage and was found to be the cause of death. The medical evidence is not at variance with that of the prosecution evidence specially of P.W.1, who had witnessed the assault by garasa on the arm, the face and thereafter on the neck of the deceased and repetitions also. There is no reason to doubt the case of the prosecution on the grounds urged by the appellant. The findings of the learned trial court are well-considered and deserves no interference in appeal. 15. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State, the entire materials brought on record including the fardbeyan, the framing of the charge, the evidence of eighteen prosecution witnesses, seventeen prosecution exhibits, statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., statement of seven defence witnesses and defence exhibits upto Exhibits-D/2. We have also perused the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 16. We have scanned the material evidence brought on record by the prosecution in order to satisfy whether the charge has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt against the two accused persons, who were convicted including the surviving appellant. We have referred to the prosecution case, as made out in the fardbeyan in the opening paragraph of the judgment. Evidently informant suspected the involvement of the three accused persons on account of previous enmity though they were not named as the accused persons in the F.I.R. as no one had seen the occurrence. We have referred to the prosecution case, as made out in the fardbeyan in the opening paragraph of the judgment. Evidently informant suspected the involvement of the three accused persons on account of previous enmity though they were not named as the accused persons in the F.I.R. as no one had seen the occurrence. As per the fardbeyan, the deceased had left the house at 2 p.m. to sell ready-made garments at Langi Weekly Market and had not returned on that night. On the next day on search at 6:00 in the morning, informant and his father, Budhram Sahu found his dead-body at a place near Gumla-Sisai Road with serious injuries on his body/neck. Later on during investigation, the informant filed an application on 05.04.1994, alleging improper investigation and claimed two persons who had witnessed the occurrence or seen the accused persons moving with arms on the date of occurrence, had not been interrogated or their statements had not been recorded by the Investigating officer. Only thereafter on 13.04.1994, these two persons, Ram Mohan Sahu (P.W.1) and Chaman Singh (P.W.2) were produced before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate by the Investigating officer (P.W.18), where their statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Both the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. have been brought on record as Exhibit-C and Exhibit-17 by the defence and the prosecution. P.W.1, in his deposition during trial has surprisingly disowned certain vital statement made by him before the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. In his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., he categorically stated that after having seen the occurrence in the evening of 20.03.1994 while on return from Langi Market, he had hid himself in the house of in-laws, where he did not disclose the incidence to anyone as all of them have gone to sleep at 8 p.m. On the next morning, he along with Balbhadra Sahu, (informant) went to the place of occurrence and brought the dead-body to the house of the informant. Interestingly this part of his statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., is completely denied by him during trial. His statements read in entirety at Paras 8, 9 and 14 in particular totally discredit his claim as a reliable eye-witness. At Paragraph-4 he has described his relationship with the informant and deceased/ informant's brother (deceased). Their grandfather, Ludu Saw are common. His statements read in entirety at Paras 8, 9 and 14 in particular totally discredit his claim as a reliable eye-witness. At Paragraph-4 he has described his relationship with the informant and deceased/ informant's brother (deceased). Their grandfather, Ludu Saw are common. Informant and his brother are descendants from the line of Jetu Saw, S/o Ludu Saw while P.W.1 is descendant from the line of Delu Saw, S/o Ludu Saw. In such a close relationship, when both P.W.1 and the informant belong to the same village, it is unbelievable that the P.W.1 had any reason to conceal the occurrence seen by his own eye from the informant both of whom had lost cousin or a real brother. His statement at Paragraph-8 also belies his claim as an eye-witness and his statement made earlier under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., where he had categorically narrated that he along with Balbhadra Sahu, informant had gone to the place of occurrence on the morning of 21.03.1996 and brought back the dead-body to the house. His further statement at Para 9 also dents his credibility as an eye-witness, as he has not narrated the incidence for 23 days from the date of occurrence including to his wife. At Para 13 of his deposition, while narrating the manner of occurrence, he has stated that the accused persons had fled from the place with empty hands, but no weapon of assault of any description has been seized by the Investigating officer or produced during trial. At Para-14, this witness has been unable to describe the boundaries of the place of occurrence also. At the same time he further states that the accused persons were also his relatives, how it has not been explained. As such, we are not inclined to accept the testimony of this prosecution witness No.1 as an eye-witness to support the case of the prosecution. 17. Apart from him, P.W.2 has also appeared after 23 days of the occurrence to support the case of the prosecution by making statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate proved as Exhibit-17. According to this witness, accused-Raj Kishore Nath Sahu was having garasa in his hand, accused/appellant, Chakrawarti Sahu @ Chakraborty Nath Sahu was having tangi his hand and 3rd accused, Raman Sahu was having lathi in his hand. According to this witness, accused-Raj Kishore Nath Sahu was having garasa in his hand, accused/appellant, Chakrawarti Sahu @ Chakraborty Nath Sahu was having tangi his hand and 3rd accused, Raman Sahu was having lathi in his hand. He had seen these three persons moving on the road towards the place of occurrence in the evening. Apart from that, he does not say anything about the actual occurrence. Even his testimony stands contradicted by the statement of P.W.1 (Ram Mohan Sahu) who claims to have seen the occurrence, though he has been found to be an untrustworthy witness by us. Ram Mohan Sahu (P.W.1) has not found the accused, Raj Kishore Nath Sahu possessing garasa since according to him garasa was in the hands of accused, Chakrawarti Sahu @ Bartu Sahu. This P.W.1 had not found any tangi in the hands of either of the accused persons. Moreover the presence of lathi in the hands of accused, Raman Sahu, as alleged by these two prosecution witnesses has been disbelieved by the learned trial court on the basis of medical evidence of P.W.17 (Dr. A.D. N. Prasad). 18. P.W.18 (Rajendra Kumar Das), the investigating officer in his deposition in particular at Paragraphs 9 and 10 has denied that these two witnesses had stated anything about the occurrence or having seen the accused persons going armed on the date of occurrence. P.W.18 has gone on to say that Balbhadra Sahu had not even stated that Ram Mohan was a witness. We have taken note of the petition dated 05.04.1994, proved as Exhibit-9 by P.W.16 where the informant alleged improper investigation. P.W.1 was a close relative and a cousin of the informant and claims to have seen the occurrence and accompanied the informant to the place of occurrence on the morning of 21st March, 1994 to bring back the dead-body to the house. But his name does not find place in the First Information story narrated by the informant (P.W.15) in his fardbeyan. Thereafter, as earlier observed we have serious doubts about presence of P.W.1 at the place of occurrence and having seen the occurrence by his own eyes. The conduct of P.W.1 is most unnatural as a witness. 19. But his name does not find place in the First Information story narrated by the informant (P.W.15) in his fardbeyan. Thereafter, as earlier observed we have serious doubts about presence of P.W.1 at the place of occurrence and having seen the occurrence by his own eyes. The conduct of P.W.1 is most unnatural as a witness. 19. If the testimonies of these vital witnesses are not creditworthy, what we have before us, is the hearsay testimony of the prosecution witnesses, such as, P.W.3 (Lakhan Prasad Sahu), P.W.4 (Shyam Sunder Sahu), P.W.5 (Madan Sahu), P.W.7 (Ramswarath Sahu) and P.W.13 (Smt. Geeta Devi), none of whom have seen occurrence, but alleged a pre-existing enmity as the motive for the crime on the part of the accused persons. Enmity is a double edged sword which cuts both ways. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive becomes an important factor, but it is taken into account if other relevant facts in issue, are first conclusively proved by the prosecution and when they are linked together, they form a complete chain of circumstances unbroken which lead to the only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and are not consistent with the witness of the accused. We may usefully rely upon the golden rule of Panchsheel in relation to circumstantial evidence, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda versus State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 and consistently followed in the subsequent judgment such as, in the case of Subramaniam versus State of Tamil Nadu and another reported in (2009) 14 SCC 415 and also finds place in a recent judgment of the Apex Court dated 12.02.2019 in the case of Chandru @ Chandrasekhran versus State Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police CB CID and another; Criminal Appeal 1193/2011, particularly Para 9 to 11. The case of the prosecution, as projected, during trial is itself confusing, as the First Information Story narrated by the informant (P.W.15) based the allegation on circumstantial evidence which have also not been duly proved by the prosecution during trial though 18 prosecution witnesses were examined and 17 prosecution exhibits were adduced. The case of the prosecution, as projected, during trial is itself confusing, as the First Information Story narrated by the informant (P.W.15) based the allegation on circumstantial evidence which have also not been duly proved by the prosecution during trial though 18 prosecution witnesses were examined and 17 prosecution exhibits were adduced. On the other hand, if the case of the prosecution hinges upon direct evidence in the nature of eye-witness account the sole eye-witness produced by the prosecution in the nature of P.W.1 (Ram Mohan Sahu) has rendered himself wholly untrustworthy and unreliable to record a conviction for the charge of murder. Rest of the prosecution witnesses, such as, P.W.6 (Govind Gope), P.W.9 (Ram Sevak Sahu), P.W.11 (Manpuran Sao), P.W.12 (Rajendra Singh), P.W.15 (Balbhadra Sahu) and the Investigating Officer (P.W.18), who has adduced certain documents are witnesses to the seizure of certain bloodstained soil, bicycle, the ash of cloths and plastic materials or the inquest report, fardbeyan, formal F.I.R. etc., which on their own do not nail the charge, as against the accused persons including the present appellant. We find that the Investigating Officer has even failed to seize the weapon of assault and bring it on record. As such, we are unable to sustain the findings of conviction against the appellant herein, as it would be wholly unsafe to uphold the conviction on the basis of these unreliable prosecution witnesses, particularly P.W.1 and P.W.2. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, therefore, deserves interference in appeal as it suffers from serious errors in appreciation of evidence and illegality. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 19.09.1996 and order of sentence dated 20.09.1996, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla, in S. T. No.6 of 1995 is set aside. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 21. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. 22. Let the Lower Court Record be sent down to the Court concerned forthwith along with a copy of the judgment.