JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25th September 2006 whereunder the sole accused/appellant herein stands convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Gumla in Sessions Trial No.250/2005. 2. The prosecution is based on the fardbeyan of Bihani Orain (P.W.1) daughter of the deceased Biri Oraon at 5 A.M. on 9th July 2005 recorded by the Sub-Inspector Baiju Oraon, Bishunpur Police Station leading to institution of Bishunpur P.S. C ase No.29/2005. It was inter alia alleged that the informant had three brothers: (1) Keshwar Oraon (accused/appellant) the eldest brother, (2) Ram lagan Oraon the middle one and (3) Butru Oraon the youngest. Her elder sister Basanti Orain had died. She was married with Ambir Oraon (P.W.2) at village Ropakona and was living in her in-laws house. Her three brothers were living in separation in Hara Toli village. Her parents were residing with the youngest son Butru Oraon who had gone for manual labour in a brick kiln. Her elder brother used to regularly beat her father and mother and as a result of the beating, about two months back they had come to her place and were residing with her. On 07.07.2005 at around 3 P.M. accused Keshwar came to her house, fell down on the feet of her father and requested him to go back with the promise that he would not indulge in any such beating. Though the informant persuaded her father not to go, but he melted on the repeated requests and penitence shown by the accused and agreed to go with him. Both of them left her house under the same umbrella for Hara Toli at about 16 hours when it was raining. After leaving for some distance it is alleged that her elder brother Keshwar inflicted several injuries with a sharp cutting weapon (Rukhna) on the head, face and neck of her father and fled away. At the time of occurrence it was heavily raining. She came to know that he had been assaulted and thereafter proceeded towards the East where in the fields of Fere Kujur her father was found lying on the west side of the road. At the time of occurrence it was heavily raining. She came to know that he had been assaulted and thereafter proceeded towards the East where in the fields of Fere Kujur her father was found lying on the west side of the road. He was bleeding from several places in his head, face and neck on account of an assault by the sharp cutting weapon (Rukhna). Since it was heavily raining and there was a flood in the river, information could not be sent to the Police Station. On 8th July 2005 on the next day when the water level receded, then information was sent to the Police and thereafter Police came before whom she recorded her fardbeyan. She alleged that her elder brother Keshwar Oraon persuaded her father to go back from her house at village Ropakona and assaulted him on the way with Rukhna, a pointed weapon, and killed him in the fields of one Fere Kujur and thereafter fled away. This is the prosecution story on which investigation proceeded and after submission of charge sheet and cognizance was committed to the court of Sessions. Trial commenced after framing of charges under Section 302 I.P.C. against the sole accused after he pleaded not guilty. 3. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses in total out of which informant is P.W.1; P.W. 2 is the husband of the informant; P.W.3 is a co-villager of village Ropakona; P.W. 4 is the Medical Officer who proved the post-mortem report; P.W.5 is wife of the deceased; P.W. 6 is the co-villager of Ropakona; P.W.7 is son of the deceased; P.W.8 is a co-villager of Hara Toli i.e. the village of the deceased and P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer who has proved the fardbeyan (Exbt.3), inquest report (Exbt.4) and formal F.I.R. (Exbt.5) during trial. The trial court considered the case as based on circumstantial evidence as there was no eye-witness to the crime. Upon appraisal of the evidence, it came to a finding that the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused had been duly established and there were no other hypothesis which could lead to an inference of innocence of the accused. Upon appraisal of the evidence, it came to a finding that the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused had been duly established and there were no other hypothesis which could lead to an inference of innocence of the accused. It came to the finding that prior to the occurrence the accused subjected torture and assault upon the deceased; as a result of such acts the deceased left the house and was staying in the company and house of the daughter – the informant. On the date of occurrence (7th July 2005) in the afternoon he had come to the house of the informant and apologized for his conduct of torture and assault and requested his father to come back; deceased on his insistence proceeded with him towards his village home; on the way he was murdered; accused was seen absconding from the place of occurrence and the ante mortem injury in nature found during post-mortem examination showed throttling. The grievous injury no.3 resulted in shock and hemorrhage and was the cause of death. Injury no.3 is an incised wound 3” x 1” x ½” over right parietal region of the head. Learned court was of the opinion that the evidence of the informant, her mother, her brother and other villagers indicated that the accused was in a habit of assaulting the deceased which was the reason that he had left his village home and was residing with his daughter. There were no missing links in the chain of circumstances neither the accused had been able to substantiate the plea of unsoundness of mind as required under Section 84, I.P.C. by any cogent evidence. Based on these findings, the learned trial court convicted the appellant of the charges and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life. 4. On behalf of the appellant the evidence of prosecution witnesses have been placed at length in order to make good the submission that the prosecution completely failed to establish the charges beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. Statement of the informant, her husband P.W.2, widow of the deceased P.W.5 and other villagers have been subjected to scrutiny to show that they suffered from credibility and grave contradictions as well. Conviction on such flimsy evidence therefore is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned A.P.P. has argued in support of the findings recorded by the learned trial court. Conviction on such flimsy evidence therefore is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned A.P.P. has argued in support of the findings recorded by the learned trial court. He submits that each of the inferences drawn by the learned trial court, as recorded herein above, are sufficient to complete the link and the chain of circumstances to prove the charges beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. He has also placed the evidence on record in support of his submission. He submits that the nature of ante mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. Defence has miserably failed to articulate any other hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused on the same set of evidence. Therefore, no interference is required in the impugned judgment which is well reasoned and based upon proper appreciation of evidence. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully gone through the evidence on record to test the findings of the learned trial court: i.e. whether the evidence on record singularly lead to only hypothesis of guilt of the accused and no other? We proceed to deal with the material evidence on record in chronological order in which the witnesses were adduced. P.W.1 informant in her statement stated that the deceased and his wife i.e. her parents were residing in her house on account of repeated assault on the part of her elder brother the accused/appellant herein. She states that they were living with her since last 3-4 years. This statement is in consistent with her allegation made in the Fardbeyan where she stated that her parents were living with her since last about two months. She further stated that on the fateful day the accused came and sought apology from her father and wanted him to go back with him. Her father on being persuaded with his repeated entreaties, decided to go back with him. At paragraph-8 of her cross-examination she categorically stated that she had not seen any object in his hand when he had come to her house. Her father had also left the place empty-handed. Her father on being persuaded with his repeated entreaties, decided to go back with him. At paragraph-8 of her cross-examination she categorically stated that she had not seen any object in his hand when he had come to her house. Her father had also left the place empty-handed. According to her statement in paragraph-3 after her father left with the accused, her children had seen the accused fleeing away with a pointed weapon ‘Rukhna’ in his hand whereupon she proceeded to find out the reason of his fleeing on suspicion. She saw her father lying in a field belonging to Fere Oraon and had died by then. His neck, face and head had injuries which appeared to be inflicted by a pointed weapon like ‘Rukhna’. She was unable to inform the Police because of heavy rain. During cross-examination she admitted that the act of assault by her elder brother accused was not seen by her. The distance between her in-laws house and her parental house was about 1 Kos which is about 1.5 to 2 kms. At paragraph-6 of her cross-examination she states that the accused met her and also stated that my father has been killed by someone who has also fled away and that seeing blood on his father’s body, he was scared and had come to give the said information to her. P.W.1 was questioned by the Court thereafter and in reply at paragraph-7 she stated that the accused had stated nothing to her rather it was from the children of the village that she came to know that the accused had fled away. These two statements made by the informant P.W.1 are contradictory to each other and even contradict her statement made in the Fardbeyan where she had stated that she did not name any children of the village who conveyed this information to her. In her further statement at paragraph-9 she indicates the place where she found her father’s dead body at about 1 k.m. from her house. In between there were vacant lands and also orchard. At paragraph-10 she further states that it is on the basis of suspicion that she is able to say that her elder brother Keshwar committed the murder. 7. P.W. 2 who is the husband of the informant in his deposition states that he was not in the house. In between there were vacant lands and also orchard. At paragraph-10 she further states that it is on the basis of suspicion that she is able to say that her elder brother Keshwar committed the murder. 7. P.W. 2 who is the husband of the informant in his deposition states that he was not in the house. When he returned in the evening he came to know that his brother-in-law accused Keshwar had come to his house, pleaded with his father and took him along with him. He repeated the story of habitual assault earlier by the accused on his parents and also stated that he came to know about the incidence from his wife to whom the children had narrated having seen the accused leaving the place. He denied interrogation by the Police in his cross-examination. He further stated at paragraph-5 that they had gone to sleep in night. In his concluding statement in cross-examination, he also stated that the news of recovery of the dead body came on the next day. This statement of P.W.2 is another contradiction of the statement of P.W.1, as noted above. P.W.3 is a villager of Ropakona the same village of the informant who had also not seen the occurrence and seems to have repeated the story of the deceased being persuaded to go back with the accused from the house of the informant. According to him the Police had come after three days to the village on the date of occurrence since it was raining and there was flooding in the river which falls in the way. He has proved his signature on the inquest report as Exbt.1. 8. P.W.4 is the Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body on 9th July 2005 after two days. As per his deposition rigour mortis was not present in any limb. Brain not liquefied, tongue was protruded beyond oral cavity. Blisters were present over body. On examination: (i) One bruise front of neck 2” x 1” (ii) One bruise ½” x ½” on right side of neck (iii) Four bruises seized varying from ½” 1/3” to 1/3” x ¼” on left side of neck. On dissection: There was bruising and laceration of larynges, trachea, muscles and vessels in front and sides of neck; fracture of the cornea of the laryngeal cartilage. On dissection: There was bruising and laceration of larynges, trachea, muscles and vessels in front and sides of neck; fracture of the cornea of the laryngeal cartilage. (2) Incised wound 3” x 1” x ½” over left side of forehead. (3) Incised wound 3” x 1” x ½” over right parietal region of the head. On dissection: Cutting of underlined parietal bone and brain, blood clots present. (4) Incised wound 3” x 1” x ½” over middle occipital region of the head. (5) I.W. sized 3” x ¾” x ½” over left occipital region of the head. (6) I.W. sized 1½” x 1/2” x 1/3” over chin. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Injury no.1 was caused by throttling. Others were caused by sharp cutting weapon. Injury nos. 1 and 3 were grievous in nature while rest other were simple in nature. Injury nos. 1 and 3 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature either singly or in combination. Cause of death: 1. Asphyxia due to throttling and 2. Shock and hemorrhage due to injury no. 3. Time within 36 to 48 Hrs. 9. P.W.5 is wife of the deceased. She has supported the story of the prosecution, so far as her stay at her daughter’s house (informant) is concerned. She had also stated that on the fateful day, the accused had come and persuaded his father to go back. She further stated that since there was no other umbrella, she could not go along with them. She attributes knowledge of the assault through the information conveyed by the children of the village to her daughter as against the accused. She further states that she accompanied her daughter to the place of occurrence where he was found dead having injuries on his body, both on neck and head. In her statement at para-5, she states that the accused was mentally disturbed and of half mind. She could not narrate the name of the children, who had conveyed the information in her examination. According to her, the place where the dead body of her husband was found, was about 200 ft. from the house of her daughter. This statement is again contradictory to the statement made by P.W.1 about the distance where dead body was found in the field of Fere Kujur from her house. According to her, the place where the dead body of her husband was found, was about 200 ft. from the house of her daughter. This statement is again contradictory to the statement made by P.W.1 about the distance where dead body was found in the field of Fere Kujur from her house. P.W. 6 is also not an eye witness and belongs to the same village Ropakona as that of informant. In his short deposition he has only narrated the statement about the deceased going back with the accused and that he had gone to see the dead body of the deceased. He also stated in his cross-examination that the deceased was mentally abnormal. This witness had returned to his house from the forest in the evening and had gone to see the dead body on the next date. P.W. 7 Ram Lagan Oraon is the son of the deceased. He has supported the prosecution story to the extent that his father was staying in the house of the sister and brother-in-law as the accused used to threaten him off and on. On information that his father was killed, he had gone to the village Ropakona and came to know about the incidence. According to him the shepherd of the village had seen the accused fleeing away. He had seen the dead body which was lying at a distance from the village near Mahua tree and carried injuries on the face and the neck. He also stated to have asked the accused about it but he did not say anything in reply. He denied that the police had interrogated him and had ever met the police. P.W. 8 is co-villager of the deceased. He also came to know of the incidence later on. He had put his thumb impression on the inquest report prepared by the Police. P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer who has proved the Fardbeyan, Inquest Report and the formal F.I.R as Exts. 3, 4 and 5. He had gone to the place of incidence after two days on 9th July, 2005 on hearing about the news of death. He claims to have recorded the statement of several villagers and sent the body for postmortem. 3, 4 and 5. He had gone to the place of incidence after two days on 9th July, 2005 on hearing about the news of death. He claims to have recorded the statement of several villagers and sent the body for postmortem. He claims to have recorded the statement of Ambir Oraon (husband of the informant) P.W.2 but P.W. 2 in his cross examination at para-5 has categorically stated that the police had not made any interrogation with him. 10. We have consciously discussed the testimony of each and every prosecution witnesses to test the correctness and legality of the findings recorded by learned trial court. The present case is not based on direct evidence of any eye witness account of the crime but premised on circumstantial evidence. The Rule of circumstantial evidence is that the chain of circumstances should be so complete that it should lead to the only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and no other. From the scrutiny and analysis of the evidence on record, we find that the chain of circumstances have several missing links which create grave doubt about the prosecution story. Though the incidence of previous assault and threatening by the accused has been narrated from the mouth of the informant, her mother and other witnesses, but as per the statement of P.W.1 herself on the fateful day 7th July, 2005 the accused had come to her house and was not carrying any object or rather any weapon in his hand. No such weapon has either been recovered by the police after crime. Her father had also left empty handed with the accused as per the statement of P.W.1. Though the mother of the informant P.W.5 was reportedly staying together with the deceased in the house of the informant but surprisingly she had not left the place along with her husband on the persuasion of the accused. She had taken a plea that there was only one umbrella but that umbrella has not been seized or recovered by the police from the place of crime or anywhere else. There is contradiction on the source of information of the crime to the informant. She at various places asserts different things in her statement. At one place she has stated that she has got information from the children of the village, but in her fardbeyan she has not named the children. There is contradiction on the source of information of the crime to the informant. She at various places asserts different things in her statement. At one place she has stated that she has got information from the children of the village, but in her fardbeyan she has not named the children. No such children have been examined. On the other hand, she in her statement categorically named the accused himself as having come back and stated about the assault by some person upon his father and that he had fled away therefrom on being scared. But in the Court’s query she had completely denied that the accused had come back to her and narrated it. On the one hand, P.W.1 had described the place of occurrence about 1 kilometer from her house, her mother P.W 5 who also accompanied her to the place of occurrence described it as only 200 ft. away from her house. P.W.2 husband of the informant who come back in the evening and learnt about the incidence from the informant, states that the dead body was found on the hullah on the next date. These are major inconsistencies in the statement of prosecution witnesses which have caused severe dent to the prosecution story and casts a serious doubt on the circumstances which have been projected to prove its case. 11. If the evidence is considered in totality, there are several missing links in the chain of circumstances which renders the whole prosecution story doubtful. Learned Trial Court seems to have been carried with the impression of the previous habitual beating or threat by the accused upon his parents as narrated through the mouth of the prosecution witnesses, but so far as the commission of crime is concerned, there are no eye witnesses nor are the circumstantial evidence weighty and form a complete chain to come to such a finding. The theory of last seen is also not enough to bring home the charge against the accused in such circumstances. If the evidence on record is considered in entirety, it cannot be said that the circumstances proved by the prosecution leads to the only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis. We are afraid that in case of such grave doubt, the conviction of the accused appellant cannot be sustained in the eye of law and on facts. We are afraid that in case of such grave doubt, the conviction of the accused appellant cannot be sustained in the eye of law and on facts. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the findings recorded by the learned trial court. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside. Let the appellant be released from custody, if not wanted in connection with any other case.