JUDGMENT : 1. All these three appeals arise out of the same impugned Judgment, and as such they have been heard together, and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. Heard learned counsels for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State in all these appeals. 3. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction and order or sentence dated 17th July, 2006, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in S.T No. 367 of 2004/97 of 2005, whereby all these three appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the said offence. 4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Rakesh Kumar Singh, the cousin of the deceased Rajaram Singh, recorded on 9.2.2004 at about 8:30 P.M., at the tenanted portion of one Hareram Singh, tenant of C.M. Singh, situated in Laxmi Nagar, within the TELCO Police Station, at Jamshedpur, wherein he has stated that at about 4:30 P.M., he heard the noise of his cousin Rajaram Singh being assaulted by the accused persons, namely, Kaliya, Mauntu Singh @ Malta and Sanjeeb Kumar, along with one another person, near the Pepal tree near the house of Malta, whereupon he rushed towards the place, but he did not find anyone there. Then he pushed the door of the room of Malta and saw that his cousin was lying on the bed. The things of the room was scattered and the three above named accused persons were bent upon him. Upon seeing the informant all the three accused persons fled away. He saw blood near the chest of his cousin. Thereafter he rushed towards the house of Santana Singh, the bhabhi of Rajaram Singh. She also came there and thereafter he called an auto-rickshaw and they took Rajaram to one Dr. Ajay, in the same locality, who, upon examining Rajaram, asked them to take him to some higher hospital. Thereafter they brought him to Lifeline Hospital, Sakchi, where the doctor declared him dead. Thereafter, they brought the dead body to the house of Hareram Singh, and the police was informed. Ajay, in the same locality, who, upon examining Rajaram, asked them to take him to some higher hospital. Thereafter they brought him to Lifeline Hospital, Sakchi, where the doctor declared him dead. Thereafter, they brought the dead body to the house of Hareram Singh, and the police was informed. This witness has stated that the deceased Rajaram Singh was murdered in the room of Malta by the accused persons, namely, Kaliya, Mauntu Singh @ Malta and Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, at about 4:00 P.M., assaulting him by knife in his chest. As to the cause of occurrence, he has stated that the occurrence took place due to the fact that there was some quarrel between Kaliya and the deceased Raja Ram in the same morning, and Kaliya was of criminal nature. He has also stated that the assault by the knife was made by Kaliya, and he had also cleaned the blood in the room. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, TELCO P.S. Case No. 16 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 212 of 2004, was instituted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the three named accused persons and one unknown, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case against the named accused persons. 5. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused persons' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. 6. In course of trial, 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the I.O., and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Out of the material witnesses examined, P.W.-1 Krishna Mohan Tiwari, P.W.-2 Pradeep Patro and P.W.-3 Surya Deo Singh, who is the brother of the deceased, have turned hostile. P.W.-3 Surya Deo Singh was declared hostile due to the fact that he had given his statement before the police as an eye witness to the occurrence, but he has deposed in the Court as only a hearsay witness, saying that he was informed about the occurrence by Rakesh Kumar Singh. He has also denied the suggestion that he had given the statement before the police as an eye witness to the occurrence. He has also denied the suggestion that he had given the statement before the police as an eye witness to the occurrence. He is also a witness to the inquest report, and he has proved his signature on the inquest report of the dead body, which was marked Exhibit-1/1. P.W.-1 Krishna Mohan Tiwari is a witness to the seizure list relating to be the seizure of a blood stained knife, and has identified his signature on the seizure list, which was marked Exhibit-1. This witness and P.W.-2 Pradeep Patro have not supported the prosecution case at all. 7. P.W.-7 Rakesh Kumar Singh is the informant in the case and the cousin of the deceased. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 9.2.2004, at about 4:30 P.M., and upon hearing the noise he went towards the place of occurrence, he pushed the door of Mantu Singh and saw Mantu Singh, Kaliya, and Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, bent upon his cousin. Everything in the room was scattered. When he entered the room, Kaliya, Mantu Singh, Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and one Tuntun Singh, who was also in the room, started fleeing away. Thereafter he went to the house of Santana Devi, bhabhi, situated in Bajrangi Nagar and called her. He also brought an auto-rickshaw and took his cousin to one Dr. Ajay, who advised them to take him to some higher centre. Thereafter, they brought him to Lifeline Hospital, where his cousin was declared dead. Thereafter, they brought the dead body to the house of Hareram Singh. The police was informed, which came and recorded his statement. The police took away the dead body of the deceased at about 10:00 P.M., in the night. He has proved his signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked Exhibit-3, and he has also proved the signature of one Sanjay on the fardbeyan, which was marked Exhibit 3/1. He has identified the accused persons in the Court. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that Kali Singh is his villager and a neighbour in the village. He is also related as his nephew. This witness has also stated that he had informed bhabhi Santana Singh about the occurrence at about 5:30 P.M., and thereafter he, Santana Singh and Sanjay came to the place of occurrence, and at that time, no one else was there. He is also related as his nephew. This witness has also stated that he had informed bhabhi Santana Singh about the occurrence at about 5:30 P.M., and thereafter he, Santana Singh and Sanjay came to the place of occurrence, and at that time, no one else was there. About 25 to 50 persons assembled there, but he could not name them. He has also stated that there are several houses nearby, and several tenants are there in the houses. This witness has further stated in his cross-examination that he had taken the deceased to Dr. Ajay at about 4:30 P.M., thereafter he had taken the deceased to Lifeline Hospital at about 6:00 to 6:30 P.M., and had brought back the dead body at about 7:30 P.M. Thereafter, he went to call the wife of the deceased, who was living in Bajrangi Nagar. The wife of the deceased came there along with the children. He has also stated that the accused Mantu is also his villager and he has further admitted in his cross-examination that the accused Mantu Singh had also gone to the hospital along with them with the dead body. He has also stated that from Lifeline Hospital he had taken the dead body to M.G.M. Hospital, and the accused Mantu had accompanied them to M.G.M. Hospital also. He has admitted that police was present at M.G.M. Hospital but, no statement was given there. This witness has also admitted in his cross-examination that by the time he had taken his brother to Dr. Ajay’s place, he was already dead, and he has clarified that the deceased had died at the place of occurrence itself. He has admitted that he had not given any information to the police at M.G.M. hospital or at Lifeline hospital. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seen the accused persons doing anything with the deceased. He has also stated that when the dead body was brought back from the hospital, about 200 to 400 persons had assembled there. This witness has further admitted in his cross-examination that Santana Singh was informed about the occurrence at about 4:00 to 4:30 P.M. He has denied the suggestion that he is not the eye witness to the occurrence, and to have given false evidence. 8. P.W.-4 Santana Singh, is the bhabhi of the deceased. This witness has further admitted in his cross-examination that Santana Singh was informed about the occurrence at about 4:00 to 4:30 P.M. He has denied the suggestion that he is not the eye witness to the occurrence, and to have given false evidence. 8. P.W.-4 Santana Singh, is the bhabhi of the deceased. This witness has stated that at about 3:00 to 4:00 P.M., she was at her house, when she was informed that her brother-in-law Rajaram was assaulted by Mantu, Kaliya and Sanjeeb. She came to the house of Mantu at Laxmi Nagar, where she found her brother-in-law unconscious. She has stated that Mantu Singh was present there, and an auto-rickshaw was called on which Rajaram was taken to Dr. Ajay, who advised them to take him to some higher center. Thereafter he was taken to Lifeline Hospital, where he was declared dead. Thereafter, the dead body was brought to the house of Hareram and the police was informed. She has also stated that she had heard that earlier in the morning there was some quarrel between the deceased and the accused persons. She has identified the accused in the Court. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that when the deceased was taken to hospital, the accused Mantu was also accompanying them. She has admitted that while returning back, the police was not informed and they returned back at about 5:30 to 6:00 P.M. This witness has also denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. 9. P.W.-6 Balram Singh is the brother of the deceased. He has deposed as an eyewitness to the occurrence, stating that the occurrence had taken place on 09.02.2004. He had gone to meet his brother, Rajaram at Laxmi Nagar, where he was informed that his brother was not going on work for the last several days. He went to the room of Mantu, where he saw Rajaram taking tea together with Kaliya, Mantu, Tuntun Singh and Sanjeev Kumar Sharma. He was asked by them to go and cook the food and thereafter, he went for cooking the food, and at that time it was about 10:00 A.M in the morning. At about 1:00 P.M, he went towards the house of Mantu, and when he reached near the Pepal tree, he found his brother along with the accused persons, taking liquor. At about 1:00 P.M, he went towards the house of Mantu, and when he reached near the Pepal tree, he found his brother along with the accused persons, taking liquor. He asked his brother to come to the house, whereupon all of them went to the room of Mantu. This witness thereafter returned back to Hareram's room. As till about 3:00 P.M., his brother did not return back, he again went to the room of Mantu, which was closed, and he heard some sound from the room, whereupon he peeped into the room through the window and saw that Kaliya was armed with a knife, Mantu Singh, Tuntun Singh were holding Rajaram by his leg and Sanjeev was pressing his mouth. Kaliya assaulted Rajaram by knife on his chest. Rajaram screamed, whereupon this witness also screamed. Sanjeev Kumar saw him and he said to kill this witness also. Thereafter, this witness fled away from there and went to the house of his uncle Janardan, who was living at Namdah Basti, at a distance of 2½ kilometers from the place of occurrence. His uncle was not in his house, and he returned back at about 7:00 P.M. He informed his uncle about the occurrence, and at about 10:00 P.M., he came back along with his uncle, where he was informed that his brother had been murdered and the police had taken away the dead body. He has identified the accused persons in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he has no knowledge as to who are the other eyewitness to the occurrence, but he had seen the accused persons, committing the murder. He has also stated that on the day of occurrence, he had come to Laxmi Nagar, and after cremating the dead body, he went to his village. He has again stated that after five days, he went to his village and after returning back from his village, he had not met the police. This witness has also stated that his uncle, Janardan Singh was working in the Court. He has also stated that he did not remember as to when the dead body was cremated, whether in the morning or in the evening. This witness has stated that after he returned back from his village, he learnt from his uncle that the police case was instituted. He has also stated that he did not remember as to when the dead body was cremated, whether in the morning or in the evening. This witness has stated that after he returned back from his village, he learnt from his uncle that the police case was instituted. His uncle, who was working in the Court, took him to an advocate, B.C. Singh. There was some talks with the advocate and thereafter, he had given his statement. He also stated that he had no knowledge whether the case was instituted on the day of occurrence or not, but he learnt that Rakesh had lodged the case and the police had taken away the dead body. He has specifically stated in his cross-examination that he had given his statement at the police station on 13.02.2004. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that in the night of occurrence, he had reached the place of Hareram at about 10:00 to 10:30 P.M, and he left his house at about 1:00 A.M., and between 09.02.2004 to 13.02.2004, he had not given any statement before the police. He has also stated that the room of Hareram is situated at a distance of about 10 to 15 steps from the place of occurrence. He has stated that after the occurrence, he had gone to the house of his uncle at Namdah Basti, and returned to the place of occurrence only in the night. This witness has also admitted that Rakesh Kumar Singh is his cousin, and the accused Kali Singh is also his co-villager. From the trend of the cross-examination of this witness, it appears that he has given evasive reply to all the questions put to him, and he has denied the suggestion that he was not the eyewitness to the occurrence and to have given the false evidence. 10. P.W.-8 is Sanjay Singh, who has stated that on 09.02.2004, he was at the house of his cousin Hareram Singh. There was some noise at about 4.00 to 4.30 P.M., when he came out and went towards the place of occurrence near the house of Mantu Singh, he saw Mantu Singh and Kaliya, fleeing away, and Kaliya was saying that since he was assaulted by Rajaram, he had assaulted him by knife. This witness has stated that Kaliya was a person of criminal nature. This witness has stated that Kaliya was a person of criminal nature. This witness has further stated that the deceased was taken by his bhabhi to doctor from the room of Mantu Singh, and he was declared dead. He has identified the accused persons in the Court. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he is the cousin of the deceased. It is thus, apparent that he is not an eyewitness to the occurrence of murder. 11. P.W.-9 is Dr. Ajay Kumar, to whom, it is stated by the witnesses that the deceased was taken first. This witness has stated that on 09.02.2004, he was at his clinic, when Rajaram was brought to his clinic at about 8:30 P.M in the night. He came out from his clinic and felt the pulse of Rajaram, but he could not understand anything and referred the patient to the hospital. Patient was in serious condition. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had not seen any injury on Rajaram and Rajaram had not informed him anything. The persons, who had brought him, had also not informed him anything. 12. P.W.-5 Dr. Niranjan Minz, had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 10.2.2004, and had found the following injuries on the dead body:- Incised Wound :- 2 ½ cm x ½ cm x soft tissues on right hand back, below the little finger. Stab wound :- 1½ cm x 1 cm on left chest front, 9 cm left to mid line, oval shaped. The weapon entered into the chest cavity through the left fifth inter costal space, passed through the left lung and penetrated into the left ventricle of the heart. Internal organs were pale. He has stated that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, caused by sharp cutting pointed weapon, and the death was due to hemorrhage and shock. Time elapsed since death was 12 to 24 hours from the time of post-mortem examination. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-2. 13. P.W.-10 Dhananjay Kumar Srivastava, is the I.O of the case. This witness has stated that on 09.02.2004, he was posted as Officer-Incharge of TELCO Police Station. Time elapsed since death was 12 to 24 hours from the time of post-mortem examination. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-2. 13. P.W.-10 Dhananjay Kumar Srivastava, is the I.O of the case. This witness has stated that on 09.02.2004, he was posted as Officer-Incharge of TELCO Police Station. At about 8:30 P.M, on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Rakesh Kumar Singh, the police case was instituted, and he took up the charge of investigation. He found the dead body of the deceased in the house of one Bindeshwari Singh, where he prepared the inquest report of the dead body. The dead body challan was also prepared and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. He inspected the place of occurrence, which is a room measuring 10' x 10', situated in Laxmi Nagar. He had found the bed scattered and beneath the bed, he also found one bloodstained knife and one white shirt. There was blood on the floor of the room and efforts had been made to remove the stains. That room had been taken on rent by the accused Mantu. He has stated that the window in the room was closed. This witness has also stated that he had prepared the seizure list of the bloodstained knife and the shirt. He recorded the re-statement of the informant and he recorded the statements of the witnesses. The accused, Kali Kr. Singh had surrendered in the Court on 08.04.2004. He received the post-mortem report and due to his transfer, he handed over his charge of investigation to Rajballabh Paswan. He has proved the fardbeyan of the informant which was marked Exhibit-3, and the endorsement on the fardbeyan, which were marked Exhibits-4 and 4/1. He has proved the formal FIR. He has also proved the seizure list and the inquest report, which were marked as Exhibit-5 and 6 respectively. Since there appears to be some delay in sending the FIR to the Court of the C.J.M, this witness was cross-examined on that point, and he has admitted that the C.J.M Court is situated at a distance of 8 to 10 K.Ms., from the police station and is connected with a metalled road. Since there appears to be some delay in sending the FIR to the Court of the C.J.M, this witness was cross-examined on that point, and he has admitted that the C.J.M Court is situated at a distance of 8 to 10 K.Ms., from the police station and is connected with a metalled road. He has stated that on the very next day, he had sent the FIR to the Court, but he does not remember as to when it was received there. In his cross-examination, he has also admitted that the recovery of the knife is not mentioned in the case diary, and he had not sent any recovered article for forensic examination. He has re-iterated in his cross examination that he had found the dead body in the house of Bindeshwari Singh, where the inquest report was prepared and has stated that the place of occurrence is a densely populated place. This witness has further admitted that he had recorded the statement of Surajdeo Singh in the night of the occurrence itself. He started recording his statement at about 11:30 P.M., in the night, which continued in the night until the date was changed. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation. 14. P.W.-11 Rajballabh Paswan is the other I.O. of the case, and there is nothing of much importance in his cross-examination, as he had only submitted the charge-sheet in the case against the accused persons. 15. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein the accused had denied the evidence against them. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis of the materials on record, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below as aforesaid. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as there are several discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses. It is also pointed out that though Tuntun Singh is not named in the FIR by the informant, but in his evidence, P.W.-7 Rakesh Kumar Singh, the informant, has named Tuntun Singh also. It is also pointed out that though Tuntun Singh is not named in the FIR by the informant, but in his evidence, P.W.-7 Rakesh Kumar Singh, the informant, has named Tuntun Singh also. Learned counsel submitted that even though the informant has stated that upon seeing him, all the accused persons including Mantu Singh had fled away, but P.W.-4 Santana Singh, the bhabhi of the deceased, has stated that when she went to the place of occurrence, the accused Mantu Singh was present there. She has also stated that this accused had accompanied them on auto-rickshaw to the hospital with the dead body, and this fact is also specifically admitted even by the informant in his cross-examination. Learned counsel further submitted that though it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was assaulted by knife, and he was first taken to one Dr. Ajay Kumar, soon after the occurrence, who was examined as P.W.-9, but this doctor has stated that the deceased was brought to him at about 8:30 P.M. in the night, and he could not notice any injury on his person. He has also stated that Rajaram did not inform him anything, meaning thereby, that by that time, the deceased was not dead, but the informant has stated in his evidence that the deceased had died at the place of occurrence itself. Learned counsel also submitted that there are several discrepancies in the time of occurrence, given by the other witnesses. It is also submitted that even the place where the dead body was found, is also very doubtful, inasmuch as, all the witnesses have stated that the dead body was brought to the house of Hareram Singh, but the I.O. has stated that he had found the dead body at the house of Bindeshwari Singh, which fact he has reiterated in his cross-examination also. There is nothing on record to show that Hareram Singh and Bindeshwari Singh were living together, or were related in any manner. There is nothing on record to show that Hareram Singh and Bindeshwari Singh were living together, or were related in any manner. Learned counsel also pointed out that P.W.-6 Balram Singh, who has claimed to be an eyewitness to the occurrence, is actually not the eyewitness to the occurrence, inasmuch as, had he been the eyewitness to the occurrence, he must have given his statement on the day of occurrence itself, but he has admitted that he had given his evidence after three days on 13.02.2004, and that too, after meeting an advocate in the Court. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there are several strings of doubt in the case, the benefits of which must be given to the accused and accordingly, even though, the witnesses have supported the prosecution case, the appellants ought to have been given at least the benefits of doubt. 17. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that the prosecution case is fully supported by P.W.-6 Balram Singh, the brother of the deceased as the eyewitness to the occurrence, who has given the vivid details as to how the occurrence took place, stating that the other accused persons were holding the deceased, while the accused Kalia Singh was assaulting him by knife on his chest. The informant P.W.-7 Rakesh Kumar Singh has also supported the fact that when he entered the room, the accused persons were still there, bent upon the deceased, and they fled away upon seeing this witness. The ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-5 Dr. Niranjan Minz, who had found the stab injury on the chest of dead body of the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts, and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below. 18. Having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the materials on record, we find that though this case is supported by P.W.-6 Balram Singh, the brother of the deceased as an eyewitness to the occurrence, but there are several strings of doubt in his evidence itself. 18. Having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the materials on record, we find that though this case is supported by P.W.-6 Balram Singh, the brother of the deceased as an eyewitness to the occurrence, but there are several strings of doubt in his evidence itself. According to the FIR, there was a connotation before the occurrence of assaulting the deceased to death, as according to the F.I.R., the informant claimed that he rushed to the place as he heard the noise of his cousin Rajaram Singh being assaulted by the accused persons, namely, Kaliya, Mauntu Singh @ Malta and Sanjeeb Kumar, along with one another person, near the Pepal tree near the house of the accused, but when he did not find his cousin he entered the room of Mantu Singh, pushing the door, where he found the deceased lying on the bed and he found the accused persons bent upon him, but upon seeing this witness, they fled away. The evidence of the brother of the deceased, P.W.-6 Balram Singh makes this story very doubtful, when he says that on the date of occurrence, when he went to the place of occurrence, he saw all the accused and the deceased taking tea together at about 10:00 A.M., and they asked him to go and cook food. When he came to the place of occurrence at about 1:00 P.M. again, he found all of them, taking liquor together, and thereafter, he claims that he returned back at 3:00 P.M., when he heard some sound from the room and he peeped from the window when he found the accused Kalia Singh assaulting the deceased by knife and the other accused persons holding him. This part of occurrence had taken place, according to this eyewitness, at about 3:00 P.M in the day, and thereafter, he had fled away to his uncle's place and he returned to the colony only in the night at about 10:00 P.M., along with his uncle. The evidence of this witness clearly shows that there was no quarrel between the accused persons and the deceased, prior to the occurrence, and there is nothing to show that prior to the occurrence, the deceased was being assaulted by the accused persons, as stated in the FIR., on hearing the noise of which, the informant had rushed to the place of occurrence. The informant Rakesh Kumar Singh, who has been examined as P.W.-7, though has stated that he rushed towards the place of occurrence at about 4:00 to 4:30 P.M, but in his evidence, he has omitted the story that he heard the noise of his cousin Rajaram Singh being assaulted by the accused persons, near the Pepal tree near the house of the accused. He has stated that he straight went to the room where he saw the deceased lying on the bed and the accused persons were bent upon him. This witness has stated that Mantu Singh had also fled away, but in his cross-examination, he has admitted that the accused Mantu Singh was throughout accompanying them while the deceased was being taken to the hospital, including M.G.M. Hospital, and they returned back with the dead body. It is surprising as to how the accused Mantu Singh was accompanying them while taking the deceased to the hospital, and as to how he was allowed to accompany them. There is no explanation on this point in the evidence on record. We also find from the evidence of P.W.-6 Balram Singh that he came back to the house of Hareram Singh where the dead body was kept, at 10:00 P.M in the night, but he has stated that by that time, the dead body had been taken away by the police. This is why, even the informant has stated in his evidence that the police took away the dead body of the deceased at about 10:00 P.M., in the night. P.W.-6 Balram Singh, who is the own brother of the deceased, did not give any statement to the police in the night, as from his evidence, it appears that the police was not available there, after taking away the dead body. However, he has admitted that he had left the house at about 1:00 AM in the night. The evidence of the I.O., P.W.-10 Dhananjay Kumar Srivastava, shows that he was recording the statement of Surajdeo Singh near the place where the dead body was kept, from 11:30 P.M, which continued till the date changed. This clearly shows that when P.W.-6 Balram Singh reached the place, the I.O. was still present there and he could have given his statement before the police there itself, being the brother of the deceased, and sole eyewitness to the murder. This clearly shows that when P.W.-6 Balram Singh reached the place, the I.O. was still present there and he could have given his statement before the police there itself, being the brother of the deceased, and sole eyewitness to the murder. He did not give any statement to the police and he has admitted that he went to his village and when he returned back, he gave his statement to the police only on 13.02.2004, and that too, after meeting an advocate, which makes his entire evidence extremely doubtful. 19. We also find from the record that there are several discrepancies in the timings, given by the witnesses. Though according to the evidence of P.W.-6 Balram Singh, the occurrence had taken place at about 3:00 P.M., the evidence of P.W.-7 Rakesh Kumar Singh shows that he had seen the accused persons in the room at about 4:30 P.M., when the accused persons started fleeing away after seeing him. There was no occasion for the accused persons to be present from 3:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M., and doing nothing, if they had committed the offence. This witness has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seen the accused persons doing anything with the deceased. The evidence of P.W.-4 Santana Singh clearly shows that when she came to the place of occurrence after 5:00 P.M, the accused Mantu Singh was still present there, who was throughout accompanying them while the deceased was being taken to the hospital, and they returned back with the dead body. Even though, it has come in the evidence of the witnesses that soon after P.W.-4 Santana Singh came to the place of occurrence after 5:00 P.M., an auto-rickshaw was called and the deceased was taken first to one Dr. Ajay and thereafter, to the Lifeline Hospital. The evidence of P.W.-7 Rakesh Kumar Singh, the informant, on this point is that the deceased was taken to Dr. Ajay at about 4:30 P.M, and to the Lifeline hospital at about 6:00 to 6:30 P.M and thereafter, they returned back to the house of Hareram Singh at about 7:30 P.M. The evidence of P.W.-9 Dr. Ajay Kumar shows that the deceased was brought to his clinic at about 8:30 P.M in the night, and by that time, he had not noticed any injury on the deceased. Ajay Kumar shows that the deceased was brought to his clinic at about 8:30 P.M in the night, and by that time, he had not noticed any injury on the deceased. The fact that the deceased had died at that time, is also doubtful, inasmuch as this witness says that the patient was in serious condition, and he did not inform him anything, which fact could not be stated by any medical practitioner about a dead person. 20. P.W.-3 Surya Deo Singh, who is also own brother of the deceased, has turned hostile, and though he had given his statement before the police as an eye witness to the occurrence, but he has deposed in the Court as only a hearsay witness, saying that he was informed about the occurrence by Rakesh Kumar Singh. He has also denied the suggestion that he had given the statement before the police as an eye witness to the occurrence. This also puts a big question mark on the correctness of the prosecution case. 21. Even the place where the dead body was found, is also very doubtful, inasmuch as, all the witnesses have stated that the dead body was brought to the house of Hareram Singh, but the I.O. has stated that he had found the dead body at the house of Bindeshwari Singh, which fact he has reiterated in his cross-examination also. There is nothing on record to show that Hareram Singh and Bindeshwari Singh were living together, or were related in any manner, or that C.M. Singh, the landlord of Hareram Singh, and Bindeshwari Singh were living together, or were related in any manner what so ever. Even the inquest report of the dead body, proved in the case as Exhibit-6 shows, that it was prepared in the tenanted portion of Hareram Singh, in the house of C.M. Singh. 22. We also find from the materials on record, that there was a deliberate attempt to implicate one more person, viz., Tuntun Singh in the case, as even though this accused is not named in the F.I.R., but P.W.-6 Balram Singh and P.W.-7 Rakesh Kumar Singh, the informant have named him in their evidence. 22. We also find from the materials on record, that there was a deliberate attempt to implicate one more person, viz., Tuntun Singh in the case, as even though this accused is not named in the F.I.R., but P.W.-6 Balram Singh and P.W.-7 Rakesh Kumar Singh, the informant have named him in their evidence. The evidence of the informant shows that he was knowing this accused by name, still he was not named in the F.I.R., which clearly shows that there was a deliberate attempt to falsely implicate him also in the case. 23. P.W.-7 Rakesh Kumar Singh, the informant, has admitted that police was present at Lifeline Hospital as well as M.G.M. Hospital, but the police was not informed at any of these places. When the deceased was declared dead in the hospital, and even one of the accused was also present with them, it cannot be the natural conduct not to inform the police at the earliest possible time. This is yet another suspicious circumstance in the case. 24. We also find that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R., inasmuch as, the occurrence had taken place on 09.02.2004 and admittedly, the FIR was also lodged on 09.02.2004 itself. The FIR clearly shows that it was sent to the Court of C.J.M on 11.02.2004 and bears the signature of the C.J.M on 11.02.2004. In his cross-examination, the I.O., P.W.-10 Dhananjay Kumar Srivastava has stated that he had sent the F.I.R. to the Court on the very next day and the Court was situated at a distance of about 10 K.M. only, which is fully connected with a metalled road. Thus the delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Court of C.J.M., though confronted to the I.O, has not been properly explained by the I.O. 25. In the facts of this case, we are of the considered view that there are several strings of doubts, the benefits of which must go to the accused persons and even though, two witnesses have supported the case almost as eyewitnesses to the occurrence, but their evidence is not very trustworthy. No independent witness, though several of them were there, has come forward to support the prosecution case. As such, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 26. No independent witness, though several of them were there, has come forward to support the prosecution case. As such, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 26. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order or sentence dated 17th July, 2006, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in S.T No. 367 of 2004/97 of 2005, convicting and sentencing the appellants, Kalika Singh @ Kaliya @ Kali Kr. Singh, Sanjeeb Kumar Sharma @ Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and Mauntu Kumar Singh @ Molta, for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set aside. Consequently, all these appellants are given the benefits of doubt and they are acquitted of the charge. All these appellants are in custody undergoing the sentence. They are directed to be released and set at liberty forthwith, if their detention is not required in any other case. 27. All these three appeals are accordingly allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.