JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. In Sessions Trial No. 159 of 2010, Harish Pan @ Second Guard (hereinafter referred to as “Second Guard"), Khageshwar Pan @ Mahali @ Batu and Mahati Chatomba (Ojha) are convicted and sentenced to RI for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code; SI for one year each under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, and; RI for two years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code - with a default stipulation to undergo further SI for six months. 2. A First Information Report was lodged on 4th February 2010 against two unknown persons being Gua (Bara Jamda) PS Case No. 13 of 2010. Dasma Kui Birua is the mother of Suru Birua who was found dead on 6th January 2010. She gave her fardbeyan before the officer-in-charge of Bara Jamda OP that on the previous night two persons assaulted her with knife and abducted her daughter. She was taken to Primary Health Centre, Bara Jamda and from there she was referred to Nawamundi hospital for treatment. The case of the prosecution is that in course of the investigation complicity of Second Guard, Khageshwar Pan and Mahati Chatomba transpired. Second Guard who was arrested by the Investigating Officer on 11th March, 2010 gave his disclosure statement and on that basis one iron tangi with bloodstains was recovered from his house. Ghasi Ram Chatomba who is a co-villager informed the Investigating Officer that in the night of 3rd February, 2010 he had seen Second Guard forcibly taking away and committing murder of Suru Birua and his statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded before the Magistrate. The Investigating Officer collected bloodstained grass and earth from the place where dead body of Suru Birua was found lying near a banyan tree and sent the seized articles for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi. On the basis of the materials collected by him the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the above-named accused who faced the trial on the charge of committing murder of Suru Birua; assaulting Dasma Kui Birua and causing disappearance of the dead body. On the basis of the materials collected by him the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the above-named accused who faced the trial on the charge of committing murder of Suru Birua; assaulting Dasma Kui Birua and causing disappearance of the dead body. Vide order dated 4th June 2011, a common charge under sections 302, 324, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 was framed against them. The prosecution has examined fourteen witnesses in Sessions Trial No.159 of 2010. 3. PW13-Dr. Siva Lal Kunkal who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Suru Birua on 6th February 2010 has found the following antemortem injuries. “External Injury: (i) incised wound in left and right breast 1"x1/2"x1/2" and 1"x1/2"x1/2"respectively. (ii) lacerated wound in chin 2"x 1" x deep to bone. with fracture of lower maxilla bone. (iii) lacerated wound in throat 2" x1"x deep to bone with fracture of tràchea.” 4. The learned trial Judge held that the accused persons connived together and entered the house of the informant under a conspiracy and committed murder of Suru Birua and caused injuries to her mother with a knife. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa came to a conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove the charges under sections 302, 324, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, however, the charge under section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 was not proved. 6. Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashishtha, the learned APP, informs the Court that he received instruction vide letter dated 14th September 2021 that Mahati Chatomba (Ojha) died during pendency of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 959 of 2013 and accordingly an affidavit was filed in this regard. No application for substitution by legal heir(s)/successor(s) of Mahati Chatomba was filed. On 21st September 2021, Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, the learned counsel for the appellants, made a statement that he received no instruction to file substitution application on behalf of the legal heir(s)/successor(s) of Mahati Chatomba (Ojha). 7. For the aforesaid reasons, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 959 of 2013 was dismissed as not pressed qua Mahati Chatomba vide order dated 21st September 2021. 8. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, the learned counsel for the appellants, made a statement that he received no instruction to file substitution application on behalf of the legal heir(s)/successor(s) of Mahati Chatomba (Ojha). 7. For the aforesaid reasons, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 959 of 2013 was dismissed as not pressed qua Mahati Chatomba vide order dated 21st September 2021. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are co-villagers of the informant but they were not named in the First Information Report and, moreover, the informant herself admitted in the cross-examination that her vision was so poor that she could not see in the night and while so, the appellants were implicated in the case on mere suspicion. The learned counsel would further submit that no part of so-called confessional statement of Second Guard is admissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly in view of admissions by the seizure witnesses. 9. According to the prosecution, the informant was assaulted in the night of 3rd February 2010 and her fardbeyan was recorded at 10:00 AM, the next day. The trial Judge observed that the informant is a rustic villager and must have been under great stress and, therefore, omission on her part not to mention name of the accused in her fardbeyan is not material. 10. The learned trial Judge has discussed the prosecution evidence in the following manner: “39. In the present case, I find that witnesses are rustic villagers and there are some minor contradictions in their evidences, but those contradictions are such a nature which can be ignored and the prosecution has fully supported the occurrence regarding the time of occurrence, genesis of occurrence, place of occurrence and manner of occurrence. 40. In the second referred decision the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to held that spade discovered pursuant to statement of the accused not sent for chemical analysis-Fatal to the prosecution. 41. In the present case it is true that tangi (recovered) was not sent for chemical analysis but in this case there is lacuna on behalf of the I.O. but from this act of I.O. victim cannot suffer. 42. 41. In the present case it is true that tangi (recovered) was not sent for chemical analysis but in this case there is lacuna on behalf of the I.O. but from this act of I.O. victim cannot suffer. 42. In the present case, I find that prosecution has fully supported the occurrence and their evidences are trustworthy and prosecution has established place of occurrence, time of occurrence and manner of occurrence and after careful scrutinization of evidences of witnesses in totality, I find that their evidences are reliable and their testimonies cannot be disbelieved regarding the occurrence committed by accused persons, In the present case, eye-witness as well as hearsay witnesses along with evidence of I.O. and Doctor, who had deposed that murder was committed and assault was committed by the accused persons in connivance with each other.” 11. Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashishtha, the learned APP, supports the Sessions Court's judgment against the appellants especially stressing on recovery of bloodstained tangi from the house of Second Guard. 12. As PW3, Dasma Kui Birua deposed in the Court that Second Guard and one unknown person had committed the crime. PW12- Ghasi Ram Chatomba who is a co-villager has also been projected as an eyewitness. He made specific allegation of forcible taking away of Suru Birua by Second Guard and Mahati Chatomba (Ojha). He made an allegation against Second Guard that he brought a tangi from his house and assaulted Suru Birua. 13. Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, the learned counsel for the appellants, states that PW12 who claimed in the Court that he saw murder of Suru Birua did not inform anybody including the Investigating Officer for long thirty-five days and for this reason alone his evidence needs to be excluded from consideration. 14. We find that PW12 in his cross-examination stated that along with Second Guard he was also arrested by the police and kept in the police station for two days. He further says that the police threatened him that if he did not give evidence in the case he would be sent to jail. He has further stated that he did not make any statement before the Magistrate that he saw Second Guard dragging Suru Birua and committing her murder with a tangi. He further said that it was a dark night and on suspicion (Andaaz se) he gave name of the accused. 15. He has further stated that he did not make any statement before the Magistrate that he saw Second Guard dragging Suru Birua and committing her murder with a tangi. He further said that it was a dark night and on suspicion (Andaaz se) he gave name of the accused. 15. The evidence of PW3 is even worse. She admitted in her cross-examination that she stated that she did not name Second Guard as an accused before the police. She further admitted that her vision is poor and she cannot see in the night. Interestingly, she denied the suggestion by the defence also that she did not name Second Guard before the police. It appears that she tried to support her evidence by saying that she could identify Second Guard because he was the one who was pressing her neck. 16. We do not agree with the reasonings of the learned trial Judge for the reason that in the fardbeyan the informant specifically stated that “two unknown persons” assaulted her and took away her daughter. As it would appear from the charge framed against the accused, the injury caused to the informant was not so serious and, therefore, we are unable to accept that she was under great stress as opined by the learned trial Judge - a charge under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is framed. Moreover, in her cross-examination, PW3 has made such contradictory statements that would render her an unreliable witness. The other witnesses have also deposed in the Court that PW3 did not reveal name of the appellants before them. Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, the learned counsel for the appellants, refers to the evidence of PW1- Jaykumar Birua and PW2-Mohan Birua who are closely related to the deceased and were living in the vicinity to submit that these witnesses also admitted in the Court that PW3 did not say anything about involvement of the appellants in the occurrence. PW14-Uday Pratap Singh, the Investigating Officer recorded restatement of PW3 on 7th March 2010 and admitted in his cross-examination that PW3 did not name any accused before him. He further said that statement of PW12 was recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but, that statement was not laid in evidence. 17. PW14-Uday Pratap Singh, the Investigating Officer recorded restatement of PW3 on 7th March 2010 and admitted in his cross-examination that PW3 did not name any accused before him. He further said that statement of PW12 was recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but, that statement was not laid in evidence. 17. A First Information Report is the first version of the prosecution and though it cannot be used as a piece of substantive evidence, the importance of First Information Report emanates from the facts that it would contain the first version of the occurrence. A First Information Report is not like an encyclopedia which must contain all necessary details about the occurrence and name of all the persons involved in the crime, but, omission of an important fact or a name which cannot be properly explained may assume materiality in a case. 18. In “Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra” (2010) 13 SCC 657 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “33. In case, the complainant in the FIR or the witness in his statement under Section 161 CrPC, has not disclosed certain facts but meets the prosecution case first time before the court, such version lacks credence and is liable to be discarded. (Vide State v. Sait.)” 19. As for admissibility of the confessional statement of Second Guard, we find that PW8- Gopal Birua deposed in the Court that Second Guard did not give any statement in the village in his presence. In his examination-in-chief, PW8 stated that Second Guard confessed before the police that he killed Suru Birua with tangi but, in his cross-examination, he said that Second Guard did not give any statement in the village in his presence. The confessional statement of Second Guard was not reduced into writing and thus not proved through any witness or by the Investigating Officer. There is no chemical examination report to establish that the bloodstains on grass and soil were of human origin. 20. PW8 and PW11 have signed the seizure memo of tangi. PW8, who identified his signature over the seizure memo, stated in the cross-examination that he put his signature at the police station. From the evidence of PW8, it further appears that he is the person who produced tangi from the house of Second Guard. 20. PW8 and PW11 have signed the seizure memo of tangi. PW8, who identified his signature over the seizure memo, stated in the cross-examination that he put his signature at the police station. From the evidence of PW8, it further appears that he is the person who produced tangi from the house of Second Guard. We further find that PW8 admitted in his cross-examination that tangi was kept by all the villagers in the house. PW11 who identified seizure memos vide Exhibits 1/4, 2/4 and 2/5 did not tell the Court how seizures were effected and from where those articles were seized by the police. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellants. 22. In Paragraph No. 43, the learned trial Judge concluded that the charge under sections 302, 324, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is proved - without any reasoning. In view of the materials on record, we do not agree with the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge. We are at pains to observe that approach of the learned trial Judge was erroneous and not in consonance with the mandate of law under sections 353 and 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 23. Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides what should be the contents of the judgment. It is a statutory requirement that every judgment should contain the point or points for determination and the decision thereof must be supported by the reasons. 24. In “Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab” (1995) 1 SCC 760 , the Supreme Court has observed as under: “10........The trial court appears to have been blissfully ignorant of the requirements of Section 354(1)(b) CrPC. Since, the first appeal lay to this Court, the trial court should have reproduced and discussed at least the essential parts of the evidence of the witnesses besides recording the submissions made at the bar to enable the appellate court to know the basis on which the ‘decision’ is based. A ‘decision’ does not merely mean the ‘conclusion’ — it embraces within its fold the reasons which form the basis for arriving at the ‘conclusions’. The judgment of the trial court contains only the ‘conclusions’ and nothing more....” 25. A ‘decision’ does not merely mean the ‘conclusion’ — it embraces within its fold the reasons which form the basis for arriving at the ‘conclusions’. The judgment of the trial court contains only the ‘conclusions’ and nothing more....” 25. For the aforesaid reasons, we set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellants, namely, Harish Pan @ Second Guard and Khageshwar Pan @ Mahali @ Batu in Sessions Trial No. 159 of 2010. 26. Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashishtha, the learned APP states that the appellant, namely, Harish Pan @ Second Guard who has by now served the sentence of more than eleven years is in jail whereas the appellant, namely, Khageshwar Pan @ Mahali @ Batu is on bail. 27. Accordingly, the appellant, namely, Harish Pan @ Second Guard shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in connection to any other case. 28. The appellant, namely, Khageshwar Pan @ Mahali @ Batu was granted bail vide order dated 8th October 2014 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court. He is discharged of the liability of bail bonds furnished by him. 29. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 959 of 2013 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 615 of 2013 are allowed. 30. Let the lower Court records be transmitted to the Court concerned, forthwith. 31. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned through FAX.