JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgement of conviction dated 19.12.2000 and Order of sentence dated 20.12.2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Bermo at Tenughat, in S.T. No. 312 of 1989 / 116 of 1994, whereby, the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302 / 34 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and rigorous imprisonment for one year each, for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Ganesh Mahto, the son of the deceased Chaman Mahto, recorded at the place of occurrence, in village Khetako, P.S. Petarwar, in the then District of Giridih, on 27.5.1980 at about 15:00 hours, wherein he has stated that on the same day in the morning at about 9:00 A.M., his father had gone to the paddy field and was driving out the lambs and goats from his field, when all the accused persons named by the informant, including these appellants, came there variously armed and assaulted his father by sharp cutting weapons, causing his death at the spot. Nunchand Mahto, Tuna Mahto and Bishun Mahto came to the rescue of his father, and they were also assaulted and injured by the accused persons. Stating that the occurrence had taken place due to the land dispute between the parties, the fardbeyan was given by the informant, on the basis of which Peterwar P.S. Case No. 17(5) of 1980, corresponding to G.R. No. 350 of 1980 was instituted against the named accused persons, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was taken up. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 4. From the impugned Judgement it appears that the case was pending in the Court of Giridih and the records were transferred to Bermo at Tenughat, after the creation of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge there. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 4. From the impugned Judgement it appears that the case was pending in the Court of Giridih and the records were transferred to Bermo at Tenughat, after the creation of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge there. It also appears that the trial had started very late, in as much as, even the first witness was examined after about 16 years of the occurrence. It may also be stated that during the pendency of this appeal, two appellants, namely, Budhu Mahto and Hemlal Mahto @ Dunduwa Mahto died, and accordingly, the appeal stood abated with respect to those appellants, and their names were deleted from the array of appellants. The appeal continued with respect to the surviving appellants. 5. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 302 / 34 and 148 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 8 witnesses were examined in the case. The I.O. and the Doctors conducting the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, or examining the injured persons, have not been examined, nor the post-mortem report and the injury reports were proved in the case. As the I.O. has not been examined in the case, even the F.I.R., the inquest report and the seizure list have not been proved, and it also appears that the inquest report, the seizure list and the post-mortem report were not available in the part case diary, which after much correspondence by the Court below, were sent to it. Even the post-mortem report was not made available to the Court below inspite of all correspondences made with the concerned authorities. Out of the material witnesses examined, P.W.-2 Latan Karmali, though has stated that he had gone to the place of occurrence and seen the dead body of the deceased, as also the other three injured persons, but he has denied any knowledge about the occurrence and he was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.-3 Fagu Mahto is only a witness to the seizure of the blood stained soil and one towel from the place of occurrence. He has not stated anything about the occurrence. P.W.-3 Fagu Mahto is only a witness to the seizure of the blood stained soil and one towel from the place of occurrence. He has not stated anything about the occurrence. Even the seizure list could not be produced in the Court, as the same was not available in the case diary. 7. The rest of the witnesses, namely, P.W.-1 Daulat Mahto, P.W.-4 Roshan Mahto, P.W.-5 Tuna Mahto, the injured in the case, P.W.-6 Ganesh Mahto, the informant and the son of the deceased, P.W.-7 Nunchand Yadav and P.W.-8 Bishun Mahto, both the injured in the case, have supported the case as eye witnesses to the occurrence, stating that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased by sharp cutting weapons causing his death at the spot, and had also assaulted and injured the witnesses Tuna Mahto, Nunchand Yadav and Bishun Mahto. P.W.-4 Roshan Mahto, though has supported the case as eye witness to the occurrence, but he has not named the appellant Chocha Mahto and the deceased appellant Budhu Mahto, in his evidence, nor he has identified them in the Court. Similarly, P.W.-5 Tuna Mahto, who is an injured in the case and has also supported the prosecution case as eye witness to the occurrence, naming the accused appellants to be the assaulters, but has failed to identify any accused in the Court by name, though the accused persons were present in the Court. All the eye witnesses were given the suggestion in their cross-examination that the deceased had not died and he is still alive, which they have denied. The fact, however, remains that neither the Doctor conducting the post-mortem examination has been examined in the case nor the Doctor examining the three injured have been examined, and neither the post-mortem report is proved in the case, nor the injury reports of the injured witnesses are proved. Only one entry in the hospital register has been marked Exhibit-4, treating it to be a public document, but that entry only shows the names of the witnesses Tuna Mahto, Nunchand Yadav and Bishun Mahto in the register, without giving the details of their injuries or the nature thereof. Even the I.O. has not been examined in the case. 8. Only one entry in the hospital register has been marked Exhibit-4, treating it to be a public document, but that entry only shows the names of the witnesses Tuna Mahto, Nunchand Yadav and Bishun Mahto in the register, without giving the details of their injuries or the nature thereof. Even the I.O. has not been examined in the case. 8. Thus from the materials available on record it is apparent that this is a case in which though the witnesses have supported the prosecution case with some discrepancies in their evidence, but neither the post-mortem has been proved, nor the injury reports have been proved and the fact remains that all the eye witnesses were given the suggestion by the prosecution that the deceased had not actually died in the occurrence. Even the I.O., of the case has not been examined. 9. We are of the considered view, that in the facts of this case the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts, and the accused persons were entitled to be given the benefits of doubts. As such impugned Judgement of conviction and Order of sentence, passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgement of conviction dated 19.12.2000 and Order of sentence dated 20.12.2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Bermo at Tenughat, in S.T. No. 312 of 1989 / 116 of 1994, convicting and sentencing the appellants, Jagdish Mahto @ Dhokia Mahto, Khedan Mahto, Babulal Mahto and Chocha Mahto, for the offences under Sections 302 / 34 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set aside. The appellants are given the benefits of doubt and they are acquitted of the charges. These appellants are on bail and they are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 11. This appeal is accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, alongwith the copy of this Judgement.