JUDGMENT : S. K. Mishra, J. In this case seven accused persons were facing the trial, out of whom accused Kalidas Hasda died during pendency of the trial and hence, his name was expunged from the array of accused persons by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 30.07.1994. After the trial, the rest six accused persons were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Sessions Case No. 361 of 1992 as per the judgement dated 19.04.1995 for the offence punishable under Sections 302/120B, 149 & 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for brevity) and accused Jagai Hasda and Naryan Hasda were separately convicted for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. All the six accused persons were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and hence, no separate sentences were passed under Sections 148, 149 and 342 of the IPC. Appellant Nos. 1 to 5 died during pendency of this Criminal Appeal and hence, the appeal stood abated against them vide order dated 16.05.2019. Hence, the appeal survives only with respect to appellant No. 6 namely Narayan Hansda @ Narayan Hasda. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.05.1991 at Village – Aprol Manjhitola, P.S. – Borio, District – Sahibganj, informant Mati Tudu (PW.2) stated before the Investigating Officer (PW.10) that while she was present in her house with her husband Dhunu Hansda and her daughter Randhan Hansda at about 7-8 a.m., accused Jagai Hansda called Darang Soren for Ojha-Mantri. Accused Darang Soren disclosed that both wives of Dhunu Hansda and Dhunu Hansda himself are witches and in the meantime Kalidas Hansda, who died during trial, armed with Dao, Jagai Hansda armed with Kudal, Narayan Hansda armed with Chhipi, Doman Hansda, Bara Jagai Murmu and Chhota Jagai Murmu entered into the house of the informant and they dragged her husband Dhunu Hansda out of the house and took him to the house of Kali Hansda where they assaulted the deceased by means of the arms described above. It is further alleged that the informant and her daughter followed but they were pushed back. It is further alleged that the deceased had two wives and there were two girl children from both of them. It is further alleged that the informant and her daughter followed but they were pushed back. It is further alleged that the deceased had two wives and there were two girl children from both of them. The accused persons, allegedly, intended to grab the land belonging to the informant. After such statement made before the Investigating Officer, it was reduced into writing by said Investigating Officer (PW.10) who took up investigation of the case. At the spot he had held inquest of the dead body of the deceased, he visited spot, collected blood-stained samples from the spot, dispatched dead body for post-mortem examination by preparing appropriate dead-body challans/documents. After obtaining the post-mortem report and after recording statements of various witnesses, he submitted charge-sheet against the surviving appellant and others for the offences have been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. 3. The defence plea is total denial of the entire allegations by the prosecution. It is also submitted that ocular evidence is not consistent with the medical evidence and, therefore, the prosecution case cannot be believed. 4. One defence witness was also examined as DW.1 namely Dr. Ajit Ranjan who also participated in the conduct of post-mortem examination and stated that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased especially the puncture would cannot be caused by the instrument like Dau, Kudal and Chhewani. 5. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined ten witnesses. 6. PW.2 Mati Tude is the informant of the case and she is the sole eye-witness to the occurrence. PW.1 Padam Hansda is a formal witness to the seizure of the sickle. PW.3 Sadhu Hambrom has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.4 Hira Hansda who claims himself to be an eyewitness but PW.2, wife of the deceased and informant of the case has stated that Hira Hansda was not present at the spot. PW.5 Randhan Hansda has also not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.6 is also stated to be witness the occurrence but again PW.2 has again not stated about the presence of this witness at the time of occurrence. It may be noted herein that PW.2 has stated about her presence and the presence of her daughter but her daughter Randhan Hansda (PW.5) has not supported the prosecution case. PW.7 Abdul Wadud and PW.8 Khemlal are formal witnesses. PW.9 Dr. It may be noted herein that PW.2 has stated about her presence and the presence of her daughter but her daughter Randhan Hansda (PW.5) has not supported the prosecution case. PW.7 Abdul Wadud and PW.8 Khemlal are formal witnesses. PW.9 Dr. Ram Jiwan Prasad Sah had conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased and PW.10 is the Investigating Officer of this case. 7. Basing on the evidence of these witnesses and the documents produced the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and proceeded to convict all the accused persons. 8. In course of hearing, Ms. Anusaka Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the solitary evidence of PW.2 cannot be believed as she has made material contradictions in her statement recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’ for brevity) by the Investigating Officer. Our attention was drawn to paragraph 8 of statement of PW.10 wherein it is mentioned that Mati Tudu has not stated before him that accused Darang Soren dragged her husband and assaulted him. She has also not stated that Bara Jagai, Chhota Jagai, Darang, Doman have assaulted the deceased. She has also not taken the name of PW.4 Hira Hansda as one of the witnesses to the occurrence. 9. Evidence of PW.9 Dr. Ram Jiwan Prasad Sah, who has conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased, reveals that he found two injuries on the dead body of the deceased which are as follows – (i) One incised wound 5” x 1” x 2” on left occipital parietal region. (ii) One punctured wound 1” x 3” behind left pina. In his opinion, the death has occurred due to head injury leading to shock hemorrhage caused by sharp-cutting weapon may be possible by Dab, Kudal and Chhewani. The post-mortem report has been exhibited. However, a reference to the evidence of DW.1 who has also participated in the post-mortem examination reveals that injury like punctured injury cannot be caused by Dab, Kudal and Chhewani. It can be caused by sharp pointing objects. 10. The post-mortem report has been exhibited. However, a reference to the evidence of DW.1 who has also participated in the post-mortem examination reveals that injury like punctured injury cannot be caused by Dab, Kudal and Chhewani. It can be caused by sharp pointing objects. 10. In that view of the matter and in view of the fact that the evidence of PW.2 is not fully supported by the medical evidence and there is certain doubt regarding the nature of injuries that is stated by PW.2 in that sense that PW.2 has stated that there were three injuries on the person of the deceased whereas the doctor found two injuries and that the DW.1 has stated categorically that the punctured injuries cannot be caused by any of the weapons that has been seized or stated to have been used by any of the witnesses in commission of the crime by the accused persons, a reasonable doubt arises in this case. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that the sole appellant i.e. appellant No.6 Narayan Hansda @ Narayan Hasda is entitled to the benefits of doubt. 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 19.04.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, in Sessions Case No. 361 of 1992 arising out of Borio P.S. Case No. 117 of 1991 dated 19.05.1991, G.R. No. 396 of 1991, are hereby set aside. The only surviving appellant i.e. appellant No.6 Narayan Hansda @ Narayan Hasda is hereby acquitted of the charges. Since he is on bail, he be set at liberty by cancelling his bail bond executed before the learned Trial Judge. 12. All pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of. Urgent copies as per Rules. Records of the Trial Court be transmitted to it along with a copy of this judgment.