JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. In Sessions Trial No. 329 of 2010/ T.R. No. 132 of 2011, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to RI for life and fine of Rs.2000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Sushain Munda @ Bhotha Munda. 2. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Deban Mahto recorded on 31.12.2009, at about 8:45 AM, near Arapodham, Tetabanda Tola, Silli (P.S) Case No. 110 of 2009 was registered against the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In his fardbeyan the informant has stated that in the morning of 31.12.2009 he left home for Jaridih for breakfast at his in-law’s place. He had started for Jaridih on a tractor bearing No. BR 03C - 8458 with his friend Sushain Munda @ Bhotha Munda. At about 8:15 AM they reached near Arapodham, Tetabanda Tola. There he found the appellant wielding a farsa standing in the middle of the road. He forced stopped the tractor and started abusing them. When the informant and Sushain Munda got down from the tractor the appellant chased them. The informant somehow ran away however the appellant caught Sushain Munda and started assaulting him with farsa and thereafter fled away towards Lowadag. The informant has claimed that some villagers had assembled at the place of occurrence and they have seen the appellant assaulting Sushain Munda. 3. During the trial, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses to establish the charge framed against the appellant. 4. The prosecution has proved homicidal death of Sushain Munda with the help of inquest report, postmortem report, medical evidence and eye witness account given by Falhari Bediya, Narendra Bediya, Sukhram Bhogta and Deban Mahto, the informant. 5. Dr. Manoj Kumar Kora, PW-9, who has conducted the postmortem examination at 15:00 hrs. on 31.12.2009 at RIMS, Ranchi, has found the following injuries on Sushain Munda: “Incised wound (i) 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep front of right forehead cutting of soft tissue right parietal bone dura mater and brain. (ii) 5 cm x 1 cm x soft tissue, right forehead lateral side. (iii) 5 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep back of right occipital region cutting of soft tissue, occipital bone dura mater and brain. (iv) 8 cm x 1 cm x bone deep back of occipital lower part cutting of soft tissue partially occipital bone. (ii) 5 cm x 1 cm x soft tissue, right forehead lateral side. (iii) 5 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep back of right occipital region cutting of soft tissue, occipital bone dura mater and brain. (iv) 8 cm x 1 cm x bone deep back of occipital lower part cutting of soft tissue partially occipital bone. (v) 9 cm x ½ cm x soft tissue back of neck upper part. (vi) 10 cm x 1 cm x bone deep right lateral neck upper part cutting of soft tissue blood vessels and 3rd cervical vertebra completely. (vii) 11 cm x 4 cm x bone deep postro lateral right neck lower part cutting of soft tissue blood vessels and fourth cervical vertebra completely, trachea and esophagus. (viii) 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep left side of occipital region cutting of soft tissue and partially cut of left occipital bone. (ix) 9 cm x 1 cm x bone deep left fronto parietal region cutting of soft tissue fronto parietal bone dura mater and brain. (x) 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep left eyebrow lateral side cutting of soft tissue and left orbital bone. (xi) 9 cm x 1 cm x bone deep left cheek upper part adjoining nose cutting of soft tissue nosal bone and left maxillary bone. (xii) 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep left cheek middle part cutting of soft tissue partially left maxillary bone. There is presence of infiltration of blood and blood clot at the side of injury. Internal Defuse confusion of whole scalp. Confusion of bone and presence of thin subderal blood and blood clot both side of brain. Internal organ congested.” 6. The doctor has found infiltration of blood and blood clots at the side of injuries and dry blood stain over face, neck and clothes of Sushain Munda. The injuries on him were ante-mortem in nature and in his estimation the time elapsed since death was between 6:00 hrs. to 24:00 hrs. from the time of postmortem examination. 7. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the inconsistency in the testimony of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7 and absence of corroborative evidence to connect the appellant with the crime have shaken the foundation of prosecution case and therefore the appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt. 8. 7. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the inconsistency in the testimony of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7 and absence of corroborative evidence to connect the appellant with the crime have shaken the foundation of prosecution case and therefore the appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt. 8. The prosecution has projected Falhari Bediya PW-3, Narendra Bediya PW-4, Sukhram Bhogta PW-5 and Deban Munda PW-7 as the eye-witnesses. 9. PW-7, the informant, was accompanied by Sushain Munda at the time of occurrence. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 are the residents of Tetabanda Tola which is about 200 yards from the place of occurrence. PW- 3, PW-4 and PW-5, all have claimed that at the time of the incident they were at home and when they heard hulla they came out from their house and saw the occurrence. It was a winter's morning and going by the indisputed fact that Arapodham is about 200 yards from Tetabanda Tola, presence of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 in their house at the time of the incident can be accepted. However, a close scrutiny of their evidence reveals some facts which create doubt on their claim that they have seen the appellant committing murder of Sushain Munda. 10. A glance at the testimony of PW-4 would reveal that he has not seen the appellant committing murder of Sushain Munda. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that at about 8:30 AM on 31.12.2009 he was at home and when on hearing hulla he came out from his house he has seen the dead body of Sushain Munda lying at about 50-60 ft. away from his house, but he has not claimed that he has seen the appellant assaulting Sushain Munda. In his cross-examination, PW-4, who is the son of PW-3, has stated that on hearing hulla he and his father came out from the house together and the dead body of Sushain Munda was lying at about 50-60 ft. from his house whereas his father has deposed in the Court that he has seen the appellant assaulting Sushain Munda at about 300-400 ft. from his house. PW-3 has stated that after assaulting Sushain Munda the appellant fled away towards Tetabanda Tola but PW-5 says that he ran away towards Lowadag. from his house whereas his father has deposed in the Court that he has seen the appellant assaulting Sushain Munda at about 300-400 ft. from his house. PW-3 has stated that after assaulting Sushain Munda the appellant fled away towards Tetabanda Tola but PW-5 says that he ran away towards Lowadag. The aforesaid inconsistencies in their evidence may seem minor in the first instance but when seen in the context of the testimony of the informant and other materials on record, these abrasions in the testimony of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 have eroded the credibility of the prosecution case. And, on his own saying PW-5 is not an eye-witness. 11. There is one remarkable feature in the testimony of the informant which has hazed his claim that Sushain Munda was accompanying him and the appellant has committed his murder. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that when Sushain Munda got down from the tractor the appellant chased them but somehow he could run away. However, in his cross-examination he has stated that the appellant chased him for about half a kilometer and he came back at the place of occurrence after about 15-20 minutes. On such facts, it is unbelievable that he would have seen the appellant assaulting Sushain Munda. The statement of the informant in his cross-examination has further compounded the problems for the prosecution. In his cross-examination, the informant has stated that he has signed the FIR at the instance of the police and he cannot say who others have signed the FIR. Another statement of the informant in his cross-examination, that he had gone to the police station to lodge the case, would create further doubt whether the appellant was implicated in this case after deliberations. In his statement in paragraph no.2 of his examination-in-chief in which he has proved his fardbeyan which was marked as Ext.-1 the informant has stated that his fardbeyan was recorded at the police station whereas it is recorded in the fardbeyan that it was recorded at Arapodham, Tetabanda Tola at 8:45 AM on 31.12.2009. The prosecution has accepted his statements in paragraph no.2 and paragraph no.4 of his deposition and these are binding on it [refer, Javed Masood and another vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2010) 3 SCC 538 ]. 12. The prosecution has accepted his statements in paragraph no.2 and paragraph no.4 of his deposition and these are binding on it [refer, Javed Masood and another vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2010) 3 SCC 538 ]. 12. In the aforesaid state of affairs, we are of the opinion that PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7 are not wholly reliable witnesses. 13. Therefore, we would now turn to the other corroborative evidence, if any, produced by the prosecution in this case. 14. The place of occurrence, the manner of occurrence and registration of the First Information Report have generated considerable controversy in this case. According to the prosecution the incident has happened at about 8:15 AM on 31.12.2009 and an information about the incident was received in the police station at 8:20 AM. Sushil Kumar, the officer-in-charge of Silli police station has recorded fardbeyan of the informant in the village at 8:45 AM and inquest was conducted at 9:00 AM. In the first place, the officer-in-charge of Silli police station has not been examined during the trial and secondly, the Investigating Officer has admitted in the Court that the appellant was arrested by the officer-in-charge and brought to the police station, but the time and manner of the arrest have not been disclosed by the prosecution. It has also come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is about 10–12 km., however, the prosecution has not explained how and by whom the information about the incident was sent to the police station within five minutes of the incident and how the officer-in-charge has arrived at the place of occurrence within next 25 minutes. The Investigating Officer has not deposed in the Court that the information received in the police station was entered in the station-diary rather, a glance at FIR would reveal that the first entry in the station-diary was made at 11:00 AM. This also cannot be overlooked that in Column 3 (Gha) no number of the station diary entry has been recorded in the FIR and any station diary entry was not produced in the trial. 15. There are other inconsistencies also in the prosecution's case which have created doubt on complicity of the appellant in the crime. 16. This also cannot be overlooked that in Column 3 (Gha) no number of the station diary entry has been recorded in the FIR and any station diary entry was not produced in the trial. 15. There are other inconsistencies also in the prosecution's case which have created doubt on complicity of the appellant in the crime. 16. The number of injuries, 12 incised wounds, all on the upper part of the body would reflect that Sushain Munda was attacked with an intention to kill and the occurrence must have spilled over a considerable time but no one came forward to intervene. True, different persons may react differently in a similar situation and while some may be frightened and run away from the place of occurrence, some may hide himself but others may intervene, but then, a witness must offer an acceptable explanation for his unusual conduct. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 had claimed that they have seen the occurrence and on hearing hulla they came out from their house but they do not indicate any circumstance or a plausible reason why they did not try to save Sushain Munda. They have not tried to inform the police and in fact they have denied knowledge of the persons who had arrived at the place of occurrence. In his examination-in-chief, PW-3 has not spoken about presence of PW-4 and PW-5 and these two witnesses have also not disclosed presence of each other at the place of occurrence. In his fardbeyan the informant has stated that he was going to Jaridih with Sushain Munda for breakfast, however, the post-mortem report would reveal that 300 gms. of rice was found in the stomach of the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed about motive for the crime. In a case based on direct evidence generally motive does not play an important role in a criminal trial and it is also true that only on the basis of motive conviction of an accused cannot be recorded, but then, in a case of this nature in which the materials produced by the prosecution to prove the charge of murder against the appellant are so sketchy and sometimes inconsistent that failure of the prosecution to establish motive for the crime would definitely be fatal for the prosecution. 17. 17. The mistakes committed by the Investigating Officer during the investigation of the case have also weakened the prosecution's case against the appellant. The Investigating Officer has failed to collect material evidences which could have connected the appellant with the crime. He has stated in the Court that he has found blood stains at the place of the occurrence, however, he has not collected the blood-stained earth. He has not seized the blood-stained clothes of Sushain Munda and he has failed to recover the crime weapon. He has not made an inquiry about tractor on which the informant had allegedly proceeded with Sushain Munda for Jaridih. In his examination in the Court, he has revealed that there are fields of Fulchand Munda and Babu Lal Bhokta near the place of occurrence but he has not examined these persons during the investigation. One Makar Munda has put his thumb impression on the fardbeyan of the informant and the post-mortem report would reveal that the dead body of Sushain Munda was brought to the hospital by Lakhendra Bhokta, brother of the deceased, however, these persons have also not been examined by the Investigating Officer and they have not been produced during the trial. 18. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the prosecution evidence is lacking on the most material aspects of the case and the prosecution has failed to produce cogent and clinching materials to establish complicity of the appellant in the crime. 19. Accordingly, conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Sushain Munda are set-aside. 20. The judgment of conviction of the appellant, namely, Vijay Mahto under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code dated 26.06.2012 and order of sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code dated 18.07.2012, passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 329 of 2010 (T.R. No. 132 of 2011) are set-aside. 21. The appellant, named above, is acquitted of the criminal charges framed against him in Sessions Trial No. 329 of 2010 (T.R. No. 132 of 2011). 22. The learned APP states that the appellant, namely, Vijay Mahto is in jail custody. 23. 21. The appellant, named above, is acquitted of the criminal charges framed against him in Sessions Trial No. 329 of 2010 (T.R. No. 132 of 2011). 22. The learned APP states that the appellant, namely, Vijay Mahto is in jail custody. 23. Accordingly, the appellant, namely, Vijay Mahto shall be set free forthwith, if not required in connection to any other case. 24. In the result, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1018 of 2012 is allowed. 25. Let lower court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith. 26. Let a copy of the judgment be communicated to the trial court through FAX.