JUDGMENT : This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.05.1995 and 17.05.1995 respectively passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in S.T. No. 690 of 1992, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court based the conviction of the appellant solely on the basis of the statement of P.W.6. P.W.6, who in fact is not a reliable witness. Her statement as a witness is contradictory to what she has narrated in her fardbeyan. He argues that the most important witness, who is son of the deceased, has not been examined by the prosecution thus giving fatal blow to the prosecution case. Further, all other witnesses are admittedly not eye witnesses to the occurrence. Those witnesses got information about the occurrence only from P.W.6. Since, P.W.6 is not a reliable witness, the evidence of other witnesses, who are hearsay witnesses, are of no relevance for the prosecution. To contradict P.W.6, the appellant states that she being the informant, in the fardbeyan implicated this appellant only to be the accused, who had committed murder of her husband, but while deposing as P.W.6, had narrated that it is not only this appellant, but there were others who actively took part in committing murder of her husband, i.e. the deceased, which is a major contradiction and total deviation, thus demolishes the credibility of this witness. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant further submits that actual place of occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution. He also argues that the alleged murder weapon was also not produced. He lastly argued that the Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined, which prejudiced the case of the appellant as the contradictions in the statement of P.W.7 could not be put forwarded to the Investigating Officer. He prays that this appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted. 3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyann of Birsi Devi (P.W.6), wife of Late sanika Kumhar. He prays that this appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted. 3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyann of Birsi Devi (P.W.6), wife of Late sanika Kumhar. In her Fardbeyan she has stated that on 01.02.1992 at about 12.00 noon, her husband was sitting near his house, when the neighbour Mangal Kumhar, son of Late Soma Kumhar came with Farsa (sharp cutting weapon) and started abusing the deceased. The said Mangal Kumhar had grudge against the deceased and he confronted the deceased because earlier at the instance of the deceased he was branded as a thief in the village. Seeing the attitude of Mangal Kumhar, the deceased Sanika Kumhar fled away. The appellant Mangal Kumhar chased him. The informant also raised alarm and started following them. After running at a distance of 200 yards, near a tamarind tree, Mangal Kumhar (appellant) assaulted the deceased with Farsa. As a result of the assault, the deceased fell down unconscious. The informant raised alarm when villagers assembled there, but Mangal Kumhar fled from the place. The deceased thereafter died. 4. After registering the F.I.R. on the statement of Birsi Devi, the police investigated the occurrence and filed charge sheet against this appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The appellant was put on trial and charge was framed on 23.08.1993. 6. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. P.W.1 Budhu Pandit Munda is a witness to the inquest and also witness to the seizure of Farsa. His signature on the inquest report carbon copy was marked as Ext.1 and his signature on the list prepared on seizure of Farsa was also marked as Ext.1/2. P.W.1 has stated that he had seen the injury on the neck of the deceased. He has stated that he had seen the dead body from a distance and could not gather courage to go there. He was declared hostile. In his cross-examination nothing important could be extracted by the prosecution. P.W.2 Raswal Munda, he is also a witness to the inquest. He identified his signature which was marked as Exhibit 1/1. His signature on seizure list was also marked as Ext. 1/3. He was also declared hostile as he could not say about the incident. P.W.3 is one Devman Munda. He was examined through interpreter. He has stated that the occurrence has taken place 1 ½ years ago. He identified his signature which was marked as Exhibit 1/1. His signature on seizure list was also marked as Ext. 1/3. He was also declared hostile as he could not say about the incident. P.W.3 is one Devman Munda. He was examined through interpreter. He has stated that the occurrence has taken place 1 ½ years ago. He had seen the dead body of Sanika Kumhar lying beneath the tamarind tree. There was injury on the neck of the deceased. He did not say a single sentence about the incident. P.W.4 is one Raut Lohar. He only stated that the incident occurred two years ago and he had heard that someone had murdered Sanika. He was declared hostile. Nothing important was extracted from his cross-examination. P.W.5 is Ratan Munda. He was a tendered witness. He states nothing about the incident. P.W.7 is one Matiyas Purty. He states that on the date and time of occurrence he was at Ranchi. After returning to his house and after hearing cry of the informant he went to the house of informant and saw the dead body of the deceased. There was sharp cutting weapon injury on the person of the deceased and blood was oozing out. Several villagers gathered there. The informant told him that Mangal Kumhar had committed murder of the deceased. In the cross-examination he admits that there was previous enmity between the family of the deceased and the accused, but there was no case pending against any of the parties. In the cross-examination he has stated that his signature was obtained on a blank paper. He also stated that blood-stained soil was seized in his presence. He denied the suggestion that the appellant and one Digam were friends and for that reason he has been falsely implicated. P.W.8 is a tendered witness. He did not say anything about the occurrence. P.W.9 is Dr. Vijay Kumar Prasad, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and had found the following injuries: (i) Sharp cut injury on the lower part of occipital bone 5”x 2 ½” x1” cutting the skin muscles bone & brain matter was out. (ii) Sharp cut injury on upper part of neck 5”x 2 ½”x 1” cutting the skin muscles & vertebrae. P.W.10 is Sahay Lakra, he only exhibited the formal F.I.R. and the seizure list and carbon copy of the inquest report. (ii) Sharp cut injury on upper part of neck 5”x 2 ½”x 1” cutting the skin muscles & vertebrae. P.W.10 is Sahay Lakra, he only exhibited the formal F.I.R. and the seizure list and carbon copy of the inquest report. In the cross-examination he admitted that all these documents were not prepared in his presence. P.W.6 is the informant. She stated in her evidence that on the date of occurrence about 9-10 A.M. the deceased was eating meal with his son when Mangal, Lakhiram and Bundi came. Mangal was armed with Farsa, Lakhiram and Bundi were armed with Axe. Mangal, Lakhiram and Bundi assaulted the deceased and the assault was made on the back side of the head resulting in fracture of the skull and blood started oozing out. The deceased fell down and thereafter accused fled away. On raising alarm villagers came, when this witness narrated the incident to them. She stated that the Investigating Officer recorded her statement. After her statement was recorded it was read over and explained to her and finding the same to be correct, she had put her thumb impression. The inquest was prepared and the dead body was taken. She stated that she does not know as to how her husband was murdered. She identified the appellant. In the cross-examination she had given details parentage of all the three accused persons, who have assaulted the deceased. She further stated that she was present at the time of occurrence and denied the suggestion that she returned from the forest. In cross-examination she also stated that Lakhiram gave the first blow and thereafter Lakhiram, Mangal and Bundi assaulted the deceased and also chased him and ultimately, he died beneath the tamarind tree. She stated that while three accused persons were assaulting and chasing the deceased, her son Karam followed them and he came and narrated to the informant that the deceased was killed by these three accused persons beneath the tamarind tree. In the cross-examination she stated that when her husband was being chased by the assailants, she remained in the house. At this juncture the Court recorded the status of this witness mentioning that she is week and was taking support of a stick while walking. She has stated that her son is 7 years old and her son came and informed that 3 assailants have committed murder of the deceased. At this juncture the Court recorded the status of this witness mentioning that she is week and was taking support of a stick while walking. She has stated that her son is 7 years old and her son came and informed that 3 assailants have committed murder of the deceased. She admitted that her statement was in mundari language and has been translated, but she could not recollect the name of the translator. In the cross-examination she further stated that her statement was not read over and explained to her. 7. After closure of the evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter on consideration of the evidence the trial Court convicted the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 8. Now the issue before this Court is as to whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt or not. 9. From the evidence, we find that there were ten witnesses. Out of these ten witnesses except P.W.6 none are eye witnesses. P.W.7 is a hearsay witness, who got information from P.W.6. Rests are either tendered or formal witnesses or witness to the seizure and inquest. 10. To prove the prosecution case as to whether conviction can be sustained, we have to deal with the statement of P.W.6 and P.W.7. If we analyse the statement of P.W.7, we find that it is admitted that this witness is not an eye witness. He himself admitted that on the date and time of occurrence he was at Ranchi. On returning to his village, he went to the house of the informant and saw the dead body. It is the informant, who informed him about the incident and has stated that the appellant has committed this murder. Thus, this witness is a hearsay witness. So, credibility of this witness depends upon the credibility of P.W.6. His statement cannot be looked into independently. 11. Now let us analyse the statement of P.W. 6, who is the informant. If we go through the F.I.R. and Fardbeyan, we find that this witness has stated that the deceased was sitting in front of his house when this appellant came armed with Farsa and started questioning the deceased. The appellant was agitating. 11. Now let us analyse the statement of P.W. 6, who is the informant. If we go through the F.I.R. and Fardbeyan, we find that this witness has stated that the deceased was sitting in front of his house when this appellant came armed with Farsa and started questioning the deceased. The appellant was agitating. Seeing the attitude of the appellant, deceased started to flee from there when this appellant chased him. As per F.I.R. the informant also followed them. When they reached near tamarind tree, where this appellant gave two Farsa blows on the deceased, as a result of which deceased fell down and died. This witness, as the informant, has stated that she has seen the entire episode. Now while deposing as P.W.6, she deviates and narrates a different story. She states that three assailants reached the house of the deceased armed with weapons. As per her statement all the three assailants had assaulted the deceased after chasing him. She further states that one Lakhiram, who made first assault on the deceased and thereafter this appellant and other. This is one of the major deviations from the Fardbeyan. In the Fardbeyan the entire allegation is against the appellant and in fact, the informant has not whispered a word against any other person either accompanied the appellant or assaulted the deceased. In fact, there is no existence of any other person than this appellant. As per the F.I.R. `there is only one accused, but while deposing, she takes the name of others, who also allegedly assaulted the deceased with sharp cutting weapon. 12. Further, in her Fardbeyan she stated that she had followed the deceased and the assailants, when the assailants were chasing the deceased. She stated that she had seen the assailants assaulting the deceased as a result of which deceased fell down near tamarind tree. Surprisingly while deposing as P.W.6, she stated that first assault was made near the house and thereafter assailants chased the deceased. She categorically stated during her cross-examination that she remained in the house and did not follow them. It is only her son who had followed the deceased and assailants and had seen the attack on the deceased. It is the son who returned and narrated the aforesaid fact to her. This is another major contradiction. She categorically stated during her cross-examination that she remained in the house and did not follow them. It is only her son who had followed the deceased and assailants and had seen the attack on the deceased. It is the son who returned and narrated the aforesaid fact to her. This is another major contradiction. As per her Fardbeyan, this witness is a witness of the entire incident, but while she was deposing in the Court as P.W.6, she admits that she has not seen the part of the occurrence which has taken place beneath the tamarind tree. 13. From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that this P.W.6 is not reliable because as the informant she only takes the name of this appellant as the assailant, but when she was deposing in the Court as P.W.6, she named other persons like Lakhiram and Bundi also as the assailants. As per her statement as P.W.6, the manner of occurrence and place of occurrence have also been changed. All these create doubt in the mind of this Court as to whether this witness (P.W.6) has actually seen the occurrence or not. We find that there is no explanation as to why in evidence she had taken the names of other two persons to be the assailants. Why out of three assailants, two were left in the Fardbeyan, was also not explained. As the Investigating Officer was not examined, no question could be put to clarify this contradiction, which has prejudiced the defence. 14. Further, we find that as per the statement of P.W.6, it is her son, who had seen the entire occurrence as he was following the deceased and assailants when the assailants were chasing the deceased, as per evidence of P.W.6 though he is a child but he had returned and narrated that his father was done to death by this appellant near tamarind tree. Surprisingly, this child witness was not produced before the Court to depose. 15. Further we find that the Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined. Non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused prejudice to the defence as P.W.7, though he is a hearsay witness, has only stated that he has only signed on the blank paper. 16. Thus, we hold that P.W.6 is not a reliable witness. As observed earlier, the entire case is based on the statement of P.W.6. Non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused prejudice to the defence as P.W.7, though he is a hearsay witness, has only stated that he has only signed on the blank paper. 16. Thus, we hold that P.W.6 is not a reliable witness. As observed earlier, the entire case is based on the statement of P.W.6. Now, if P.W.6 is not a reliable witness, the prosecution cannot seek conviction against the appellant based on the statement of this unreliable witness. Her statement creates doubt in the mind of the Court about the credibility of the sole eye witness, so, conviction cannot be sustained. The doubt, which is created in the mind of the Court about the credibility of the sole eye witness is enough to demolish the prosecution case and acquit the appellant. Thus, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of this appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 17. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.05.1995 and 17.05.1995 respectively passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in S.T. No. 690 of 1992 is set aside. 18. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 19. Let the records of the Trial Court be transmitted to it forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.