JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi J. As all these five appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State in all these appeals. 3. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the conviction dated 18.07.2006 and order of sentence dated 21.07.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, East Singhbhum, in S.T. No. 323 of 2003, whereby, these appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, for the offence under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbayan of the informant Ramchandra Hembrom, the brother of the deceased Naso Soren, recorded at village Kasiabera, District East Singhbhum on 13.06.2003 at 15:30 hours, wherein he has stated that his brother-in-law had died earlier and his sister was residing with her son Kandran Soren at Village Kasiabera. From last five years they were having land dispute with their co-villagers, namely, 1) Chanaram Murmu, 2) Ratan Hansda, 3) Bhola Kisku, 4) Birdu Kisku, 5) Bhajay Hansda, 6) Palu Kisku, 7) Madhu Soren, 8) Koro Soren, 9) Bora Soren, 10) Doman Murmu, 11) Raghu Murmu, 12) Surju Hansda, 13) Kanhu Murmu for which proceedings under sections 107 and 144 Cr.P.C. were also going on between the parties. On 13.06.2003 his sister’s son Kandran Soren had gone for ploughing the land and at about 10 a.m. the aforesaid named persons armed with lathi, danda and arrow came there and started assaulting him with lathi, arrow and danda. In the meantime, the informant’s sister rushed there to rescue her son, but she was also assaulted by the accused persons, causing the death of his sister and her son at the spot. He was informed about the occurrence by one of the villagers Chandral Hansda and thereafter he reached the village Kasiabera by motor cycle and saw that his sister and nephew had been murdered by the above-named persons. He was informed about the occurrence by one of the villagers Chandral Hansda and thereafter he reached the village Kasiabera by motor cycle and saw that his sister and nephew had been murdered by the above-named persons. On the basis of the fardbayan, Potka P.S. Case No. 25 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No. 978 of 2003, was instituted for the offence under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the thirteen named accused persons, including the appellants, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case, pursuant to which, the thirteen named accused persons were sent up for the trial. During the pendency of the trial accused Birdu Kisku died and as such trial against him was dropped. The appellant Bhojai Hansda, Ratan Hansda, Koro Soren, Madhu Soren and Bora Soren @ Bondha Soren died during the pendency of these appeals. 5. After commitment of the case to the court of session, charge was framed against the twelve accused persons, namely, Sarju Hansda, Kanhu Murmu, Bhojai Hansda, Bholanath Kisku, Palu Kisku, Madhu Soren, Koro Soren, Ratan Hansda, Doman Murmu, Raghunath Murmu, Chunaram Murmu and Bora Soren for offence under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and upon the accuseds’ pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. 6. In course of trial, thirteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the Doctor and the I.O. who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The Doctor has proved the post-mortem report of Naso Soren and Kandran Soren which were marked as Exhibits-1 and Exhibits-1/A respectively. P.W.-8 Rajmal Mardi has proved the inquest report marked as Exhibits-2/1 and 2/2 respectively. He has not said anything on the point of occurrence. Out of the material witnesses examined P.W.-9 Sonaram Hansda has also not stated anything about the occurrence. 7. P.W.-3 Deepuram Hansda, has stated that on hearing the alarm he rushed towards the site of the occurrence and saw that Kandran Soren had been hit by arrow by the Chana, Kanhu and Surju. In his cross examination in para 2 he has said that he saw Kanhu who hit the arrow. Kanhu, Surju and Chana had hit the arrow from the distance of about 10 hands. He has further stated that arrow hit in his stomach, chest and back. In his cross examination in para 2 he has said that he saw Kanhu who hit the arrow. Kanhu, Surju and Chana had hit the arrow from the distance of about 10 hands. He has further stated that arrow hit in his stomach, chest and back. All arrows were inserted in the body. In para 4 he has further stated that he had not told the Police Officer that he had come to the spot after hearing the noise. He further stated that for the first time he was narrating about the hitting of arrow in the Court and this he had not stated anywhere earlier. 8. P.W.-4 Sagen Hansda has said that at the time of occurrence he was in the house and upon hearing the noise he came out of the house and saw that in the field of Kanhu Soren fighting was going on, Chunaram, Surju, Bhojai, Panu, Madho, Kora, Pora, Ratan, Bhola, Birju, Raghu, Doman, Kanhu, all assaulted Kandran and his mother with lathi, axe and arrow. On examining the case-diary, it transpires that he is not an eye witness to the occurrence. 9. P.W.-5 Chandra Hansda, has stated that he saw Kandran was fallen. He was hit by arrow by Chunaram Murmu and Ratan Hansda was assaulting him with axe. He has further stated that Madho Soren, Palu Kisku, Bhojai Hansda, Surju Hansda, Kanhu Murmu, Bholanath Kisku, Raghu Murmu, Doman Murmu, all were assaulting Kandran Soren, by arrow, sword, axe and spade. In his cross-examination he has stated that except him no another person was there who saw the occurrence. In his cross examination in para 9 he has stated that the arrow was inserted in the chest of Kandran and one arrow was inserted in the neck of mother of Kandran. 10. P.W.-6 Sakhi Hansda is the sister of P.W.-5, Ram Chandra Hansda. She has supported the case as an eye witness. P.W.-7 Karmi Hansda is niece of P.W.-5. She has also supported the case as an eye witness. 11. P.W.-10 Devi Charan Hansda, he is a hearsay witness. He has not seen the occurrence. P.W.-11 Pithoram Hansda has not stated anything about the occurrence. P.W.-12 S.I. Balkisan Yadav is the second I.O. and he has only proved the fardbeyan as Exhibit-2 and inquest report as Exhibit 2/2. P.W. 13 Yogi Kharia is the I.O. of the case. 11. P.W.-10 Devi Charan Hansda, he is a hearsay witness. He has not seen the occurrence. P.W.-11 Pithoram Hansda has not stated anything about the occurrence. P.W.-12 S.I. Balkisan Yadav is the second I.O. and he has only proved the fardbeyan as Exhibit-2 and inquest report as Exhibit 2/2. P.W. 13 Yogi Kharia is the I.O. of the case. Suffice would be to state that his evidence shows that all the witnesses, who have deposed as eye witnesses in the court, have made improvements in their earlier versions made before the police 12. P.W. 1, Dr. Lalan Choudhary, had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 16.06.2003 and had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body- (i) Naso Soren (A) Lacerated wound :- (i) 8c.m. x 3c.m.x bone deep over posterior part of left temporal region. (ii) 5c.m. x 3.5c.m.x bone deep over 4c.m. back of left ear. (iii) 1c.m. x 5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. surrounded by abrasion 4c.m. x 4c.m. over front of left ear. (iv) 3c.m. x 2c.m. x muscle deep over right side of frontal scalp. (v) 3.5c.m.x2c.m. x muscle deep over right side of frontal scalp. (B) Penetrating wound of size 1c.m.x1c.m. over medial aspect of left shoulder. (C) Incised wound: of size 2c.m.x1c.m. over back of left arm. (D) Abrasion (i) 4c.m. x 4c.m. over outer aspect of left eye. (ii) Multiple abrasion over front of left shoulder and clavical region. (E) Contusions (i) Whole right side face, tissue massively contused. (ii) Massive contusion of tissue of both sculpture region. On dissection:- Skull -Both sides of frontal skull contused. Whole brain contused massively more on right half. (ii) Kandran Soren A. Lacerated Wound: (i) 5.5 c.m. x 5.5 c.m. x bone deep over right side of frontal region outer to eyebrow. (ii) 3 c.m. x whole thickness of right angle of mouth, mandible and maxilliae fracture. (iii) 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep over chin. B. Incised wound: (i) 4c.m. x 3 c.m. x muscle deep over right ear pinna and back lower part. (ii) 3 c.m. x whole thickness of left ear pinna upper. C. Abrasion. (i) 15 c.m. x 4 c.m. transversed over right side lower part of face, anterior margin of wound and merges into lacerated wound of mouth. (ii) 1 c.m. x 6 c.m. over front to right shoulder. (ii) 3 c.m. x whole thickness of left ear pinna upper. C. Abrasion. (i) 15 c.m. x 4 c.m. transversed over right side lower part of face, anterior margin of wound and merges into lacerated wound of mouth. (ii) 1 c.m. x 6 c.m. over front to right shoulder. (iii) 2 c.m. x c.m. over upper part of right side chest. (iv) Multiple small abrasion around right nipple. (v) 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. over right side of lower part of chest. (vi) Multiple abrasions over sternal area. (vii) 2 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. over right arm. (viii) 6 c.m.x 5 c.m. over right elbow. (ix) 1.5 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. over right wrist. (ixA) Multiple abrasions over right hand with contusion of inner tissues, fracture of right middle fingures bone. (x) 7 c.m. x 5 c.m. over right thigh outer and upper part. On dissection:- Both sides and middle part of skull contused, right temporal bone fractured whole brain contused. This witness has stated that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage, abrasions, contusion and lacerated wounds which are caused by hard and blunt object such as lathi and danda. Incised wound caused by sharp aged object such as arrow. 13. P.W.-2 Ramchandra Hembrom is the informant of the case and brother of the deceased Naso Soren and maternal uncle of deceased Kandran Soren. This witness has stated that he had been informed about the occurrence and thereafter he reached at the spot of the occurrence. He has proved the FIR which has been marked as Exhibit-2. Thus, he is a hearsay witness. Further, he has not stated that who informed him about the occurrence. He had not seen the occurrence. 14. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the evidence against them. The defence has also examined three witnesses, who are D.W.-1 Domo Tudu @ Domna Tudu, D.W.-2 Jitan Mardi and D.W.-3 Diwesh Manjhi. D.W.-1 and D.W.-3 have stated that Raghunath Murmu was not present in the village at the time of occurrence. D.W.-2 has stated that Bholanath Kisku was not present in the village at the time of occurrence. Thus, these D.Ws. are witnesses on the point of alibi of Raghunath Murmu and Bholanath Kisku respectively. D.W.-1 and D.W.-3 have stated that Raghunath Murmu was not present in the village at the time of occurrence. D.W.-2 has stated that Bholanath Kisku was not present in the village at the time of occurrence. Thus, these D.Ws. are witnesses on the point of alibi of Raghunath Murmu and Bholanath Kisku respectively. On the basis of the evidence on record, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, by the trial court below. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as informant is not the eye witness. P.Ws’.-3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are said to be the eye witness to the occurrence but in fact they are not the eye witness. P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 for the first time before the trial court posed as eye witness. The evidence of P.W.-5 has not been corroborated by any other witness. It transpires from the FIR the motive is land dispute and for which a proceeding under sections 107 and 144 of Cr.P.C. were going on, but none of the witnesses whispered any word about this proceeding. In para 8 of the cross examination of P.W.-5 attention was drawn in which she has stated that her house is at the distance of 60 feet from the place of occurrence. She has not gone to anybody for explaining the occurrence. She has not said anything about the occurrence to anybody of the village. The learned counsel for appellant further submitted that the place of occurrence has not been proved, blood not found on the spot, the appellants ought to have been given benefits of doubt. 16. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer, submitting that the prosecution case is fully supported by eye witnesses. There may be minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses that is due to lapse of time. Eye witnesses have described the weapons by which the assault was made. The learned counsel for the appellant relied in the case of Shivappa & Others v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2008 SC 1860 and submitted that minor discrepancies or some improvements also would not justify the rejection of the testimonies of the eye witnesses, if they are otherwise reliable. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant relied in the case of Shivappa & Others v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2008 SC 1860 and submitted that minor discrepancies or some improvements also would not justify the rejection of the testimonies of the eye witnesses, if they are otherwise reliable. 17. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and upon going through the evidence on record, we find that P.W.-2 Ramchandra Hembrom claiming to be the informant of the case, is not the eye witness to the occurrence. He has not stated as to who informed him about the incident. P.W.-5 stated that he was the only the eye witness to the occurrence, but his evidence has not been corroborated by any other witness. He has stated that on the spot the Police recovered only small knife and nothing else was recovered from the spot by the Police. P.Ws.- 6 & 7 are sister and niece of P.W.-5, are the highly interested witnesses, and enmity is an admitted fact in the FIR. Indeed, they are not the eye witness to the occurrence of murder. P.W.-9 has not stated anything about the occurrence. P.W.-3 Deepuram Hansda, for the first time stated about the hitting of arrow in the court and he has not stated this anywhere earlier. P.W.-4 Sagan Hansda claims to be an eye witness and supported the case, but the case-diary suggest that he is not the eye witness. P.W.-8 Rajmal Mardi is the witness on the point of inquest report. P.W.-11 Pithoram Hansda has not stated anything about the occurrence. P.W.-10 Devi Charan Hansda, is a hearsay witness. He has not seen the occurrence. P.W.-1, Dr. Lalan Choudhary stated that he did not find any penetrative wound on the body of Kandran Soren. The evidence of I.O. P.W. 13 Yogi Kharia shows that all the witnesses who have deposed as eye witnesses have made improvements in their earlier version made before the police. In the fact of the present case, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the accused appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and the appellants were entitled for the benefits of doubt. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the trial court below cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 18. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the trial court below cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 18.07.2006 and order of sentence dated 21.07.2006, passed by the Learned Additional Session Judge-IV, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in S.T. 323 of 2003 convicting and sentencing the appellants Palu Kisku, Doman Murmu, Surju Hansda, Kanhu Murmu, Raghunath Murmu, Bhola Nath Kisku and Chuna Ram Murmu, for offence under sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set aside. Consequently, the accused appellants Palu Kisku, Doman Murmu, Surju Hansda, Kanhu Murmu, Raghunath Murmu, Bhola Nath Kisku and Chuna Ram Murmu are given the benefits of doubt, and they are acquitted of the charges. The accused who are in custody undergoing the sentence except Palu Kisku, Raghunath Murmu and Bhola Nath Kisku, they are directed to be released and set at liberty forthwith, if their detention is not required in any other case. Palu Kisku in Cr. A. (DB) No. 1271 of 2006, Raghunath Murmu in Cr.A. (DB) No. 1173 of 2006 and Bhola Nath Kisku in Cr.A.(DB) No.1193 of 2006 are on bail, and they are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 19. All these five appeals are accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court records be sent back to the court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment. H. C. Mishra, J.:- I agree.