JUDGMENT : CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J. The present appeal is preferred challenging the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 28.09.2021 alongwith orders of sentence dated 04.10.2021 as passed in Sessions Trial No. 468 of 2018/C.I.S. No. 468 of 2018, arising out of Amdabad P.S. Case No. 39 of 2018 dated 07.03.2018, which was lodged for offence as alleged under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short I.P.C.), initially, where after the death of injured, Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. was added, as passed by Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Katihar, whereby and whereunder the appellant/convict has been convicted under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 302 of the I.P.C. and has sentenced separately as to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days with a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine for further simple imprisonment for 4 days for the offence under Section 341 of the I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for 01 year with a fine of Rs. 500/-where in default of payment of fine further undergo to simple imprisonment for 08 days for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for 01 year with a fine of Rs. 500/-wherein default of payment of fine ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 07 days for the offence under Section 504 of the I.P.C. and finally rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-where in default of payment of fine further ordered to undergo for a simple imprisonment of 02 months 15 days for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. It is further ordered that all the above sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Brief case of prosecution as per written complaint of informant, namely, Batoran Choudhary (P.W.4) that on 02.03.2018, while his brother (deceased) was returning from the sister’s house of Sonu Kumar (P.W.1) located at Ghisu Tola Chama along with Sonu Kumar (P.W.1) and Dipak Mandal (P.W.2) at about 5:30 p.m. and as they arrived near to a bridge, after crossing the damaged bridge met with Chandan Yadav (appellant/convict) Age-35 years S/o Bharat Yadav R/o Chauck Chaura, P.S. Amdabad, Dist-Katihar and other unknown persons, who started to assault them without having any reason. It is stated that on protest to said abuse, Chandan Yadav (appellant/convict) started to assault brother of informant Kanahaiya Choudhary (since deceased), Sonu Kumar (P.W.1) and Dipak Mandal (P.W.2) by means of fight and fist and further thrown the brother of informant Kanahaiya Choudhary from RCC bridge, by saying that “today he will finished him”. Consequent of throwing from the bridge brother of informant received injury in his chest and head whereas in the said occurrence, injuries was also caused to Sonu Kumar (P.W.1) and Dipak Mandal (P.W.2), developing bodily pain. It is further stated thereof that all co-accused persons along with appellant/convict run-away thereafter from the place of occurrence, whereafter Sonu Kumar (P.W.1) and Dipak Mandal (P.W.2) brought the injured brother of informant, Kanahaiya Choudhary to Primary Health Centre (PHC) Amdabad, where after giving first aid, he was referred to Sadar Hospital, Katihar, then to Katihar Medical College and finally taken to Siliguri for better treatment, where he was under treatment, struggling for his life at the time of lodging FIR. It is also stated thereof that Dipak Mandal (P.W.2) complaining pain in his leg and unable to move. Cause for lodging delayed FIR was explained in FIR itself, as informant was busy with treatment of his injured brother. 3. On the basis of aforesaid written FIR/fardbeyan of informant, namely, Batoran Choudhary (P.W.4), a case was registered against accused persons including appellant/convict at Amdabad Police Station, which was initially registered as Amdabad P.S. Case No. 39 of 2018 dated 07.03.2018 under Section 341, 323, 504 and 307/34 of the I.P.C., where after investigation of this case, charge-sheet was submitted u/s, 341, 323, 504, 307 and 302/34 of the I.P.C., as injured brother of informant (P.W.4), namely, Kanhaiya Choudhary, died during course of treatment. 4. After taking note of charge-sheet in totality, as submitted through charge-sheet No. 89 of 2018 dated 03.06.2018 by concerned investigating agency, learned Magistrate took cognizance against accused persons including appellant/convict namely, Chandan Yadav @ Chandan Kumar Yadav u/s 341, 323, 504, 307, 302/34 of I.P.C. and committed case to Session division for trial on 17.12.2018. 5. In pursuant to commitment of case charges were framed by learned Trial Court against accused Chandan Yadav @ Chandan Kr. Yadav (appellant/convict) and co-accused Jalandhar Yadav @ Julme Yadav(acquitted) on 16.01.2019 u/s 341, 323, 504, 307 and 302/34 of the I.P.C. which they pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed trial. 5. In pursuant to commitment of case charges were framed by learned Trial Court against accused Chandan Yadav @ Chandan Kr. Yadav (appellant/convict) and co-accused Jalandhar Yadav @ Julme Yadav(acquitted) on 16.01.2019 u/s 341, 323, 504, 307 and 302/34 of the I.P.C. which they pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed trial. After conclusion of trial co-accused Jalandhar Yadav @ Julme Yadav had acquitted from all charges giving benefit of doubts, whereas Chandan Yadav @ Chandan Kumar Yadav (appellant/convict) convicted for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 504, 302/34 of the I.P.C. and ordered for maximum sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 500/- 6. Hence, the present appeal; 7. To substantiate its case, prosecution altogether examined 6 witnesses before the learned Trial Court, which are namely, Sonu Kumar (P.W.1), Dipak Mandal (P.W.2), Dilip Choudhary (P.W.3), Batoran Choudhary (P.W.4), who is also the informant of this case, Hari Shankar Singh (PW-5), who is investigating officer of this case and Dr. Manoj Kumar (P.W.6), who examined the injured. 8. Following documents/exhibits were exhibited during the course of trial by prosecution in support of its case which are as: Ext.1 – Signature on fardbeyan Ext.2 - Seizure list Ext.3- Confessional statement of Chandan Yadav. Ext.4 - Formal FIR Ext.4/1” Ext.5 – Final Form Ext.6 – Chalan of dead body Ext.7- the document filed u/s 174 of the Cr.P.C. Ext.8 - Postmortem report of the deceased Ext.9 – P.R.B Form 2a-54 vide Rule 282 Ext.10 – Dr. Manoj Kumar (P.W.6) identified his signature upon injury report. 9. P.W. 1, namely, Sonu Kumar, who deposed before the learned Trial Court that he is not aware about the cause of death of deceased (Kanahiya Choudhary). He also deposed that his statement was never recorded by the police. This witness was declared hostile, who was cross-examined by learned APP and denied all the suggestions as advanced to him regarding occurrence and involvement of accused persons including Chandan Yadav (appellant/convict) in alleged crime in question. This witness also failed to identify the accused persons before the learned Trial Court, including appellant/convict. On cross examination, he deposed before the Court that he made his deposition without any coercion & undue pressure. He also deposed that he usually reside at Delhi and rarely comes to his village. 10. This witness also failed to identify the accused persons before the learned Trial Court, including appellant/convict. On cross examination, he deposed before the Court that he made his deposition without any coercion & undue pressure. He also deposed that he usually reside at Delhi and rarely comes to his village. 10. P.W. 2, namely, Dipak Mandal, who deposed before the learned Court that he know deceased (Kanahiya Choudhary) but specifically deposed that he is not aware about the cause of his death. He also deposed that his statement was never recorded by police. He was declared hostile by the learned Trial Court on the request of learned APP, which on cross examinations denied all the suggestions as advanced by learned APP regarding involvement of accused persons including appellant/convict in alleged occurrence. On his cross-examination by learned defence counsel, he deposed before learned Trial Court that he works as a labour in Delhi and his deposition is out of own free will without any undue pressure. 11. P.W. 3, namely, Dilip Choudhary, also deposed before the learned Trial Court that he does not know anything about the occurrence, and his statement was not recorded by police. This witness was also declared hostile by the learned Trial Court on the request of learned APP, where on cross examination by learned APP, he denied all the suggestions as advanced to him regarding involvement of accused persons including the appellant/convict in present occurrence. He also deposed on his cross-examination by learned APP that he is not aware that whether Kanahaiya Choudhary (since deceased) is alive or dead, he also failed to identify the accused persons including appellant/convict before the learned Trial Court. He also denied the suggestions of learned APP that he is deposing falsely before the learned Trial Court as he came in collusion with accused persons and as such concealing the true facts before the Court by deposing falsely. On cross-examination by learned defence counsel he deposed that he resides in Delhi and came to Court only after receiving the Court’s summon and his deposition is out of his free will. 12. P.W. 4 , namely, Batoran Choudhary, is the informant of this case and also brother of deceased (Kanahiya Choudhary), deposed before the learned Trial Court that occurrence is prior of 10 to 11 months but he is not remembering the day and date. 12. P.W. 4 , namely, Batoran Choudhary, is the informant of this case and also brother of deceased (Kanahiya Choudhary), deposed before the learned Trial Court that occurrence is prior of 10 to 11 months but he is not remembering the day and date. He further deposed that he is not in position to depose about timing of the occurrence for the reason that at the time of occurrence he was in Kolkata and he came to know on 3rd day of the month (name of month not specified) that his brother Kanahiya Choudhary died due to falling from bridge. He also deposed that information as regard to occurrence was given to him by family members and thereafter he came and taken away his brother to Sadar Hospital and Siliguri. It is deposed that his brother was under treatment for 5 to 6 days thereof, where he died during the course of treatment. It is further deposed by him that he never asked his family members that how his brother had fallen from bridge. He also deposed that he can only do his signature and unable to read. It is also deposed by him that written complaint was drafted by villagers, where on their demand he put his signature. This witness identified the signature before the learned Trial Court, which on his identification exhibited as Ext. No.1. It is stated that he was interrogated by police. He further deposed that police recorded his re-statement. This witness further deposed specifically that he never stated before the police, that while his brother Kanahaiya Choudhary (since deceased) was returning from the sister’s house of Sonu Kumar (P.W.1) located in village Ghisu Tola alongwith Dipak Mandal (P.W.2) and they arrived near damaged bridge at about 05:00 p.m. accused persons including appellant/convict assaulted him by means of fight and fist and accused, Chandan Yadav (appellant/convict) thrown him from RCC bridge with intention to cause his death, which ultimately caused death of his brother as he received severe injuries over his head and chest. He also denied to give his statement to police that in said occurrence two boys also received bodily injuries who brought his brother to Primary Health Centre, Amdabad for treatment from where he was referred to Sadar Hospital, Katihar then to Katihar Medial College and finally to Siliguri hospital, where he died during course of treatment. He also denied to give his statement to police that in said occurrence two boys also received bodily injuries who brought his brother to Primary Health Centre, Amdabad for treatment from where he was referred to Sadar Hospital, Katihar then to Katihar Medial College and finally to Siliguri hospital, where he died during course of treatment. He also deposed that the persons against whom, he lodged case are standing in dock before the Court but he does not know them. He denied the suggestion of learned APP that he is deposing falsely and not identifying the accused persons before the Court as he compromised the case with accused persons. This witness was not declared hostile by the learned Trial Court. On his cross-examination by learned defence counsel, he deposed that he recorded his deposition out of his own sweet will, he also stated that he rarely remains in village and therefore he is not so familiar with villagers. A question was also asked by learned Trial Court to this witness, where it was replied by this witness specifically that he is not aware about the name of the accused persons, who are standing in dock of the Court. 13. P.W. 5, namely, Hari Shankar Singh, who is investigating officer of this case, deposed that after lodging the FIR as Amdabad P.S. Case No. 39 of 2018 dated 07.03.2018 under Section 341, 504, 323, 307 of the I.P.C., he was entrusted with investigation by S.H.O. Amdabad, Dist-Katihar and recorded the re-statement of the informant. He deposed that informant stated during the course of investigation that he received information regarding occurrence while he was in Kolkata that his brother Kanahaiya Choudhary (since deceased) is admitted in Siliguri and confirmed his version of complaint in his re-statement which is the basis of present FIR. He also deposed to record statement of Dipak Mandal (P.W.2) and Dilip Choudhary (P.W.3) who supported the occurrence, and was also stated by him that Dipak Mandal (P.W.2) received injuries during occurrence and was also examined in Primary Health Centre, Amdabad. He also deposed to visit the place of occurrence, whereof he found RCC bridge, from where Kanahaiya Choudhary (since deceased) alleged to be thrown. He also deposed to visit the place of occurrence, whereof he found RCC bridge, from where Kanahaiya Choudhary (since deceased) alleged to be thrown. He further deposed that he arrested Chandan Kumar Yadav (appellant/convict) during the course of investigation while he was returning from Katihar after selling milk on motorcycle (CD Deluxe) bearing Registration No. BR 39 R 3053, which was duly seized on his arrest by him in the presence of two (2) independent witnesses. It is also deposed by him that he recorded confessional statement of Chandan Kumar Yadav (appellant/convict) which was made before him voluntarily, where he confessed his guilt and named co-accused Julme Yadav (acquitted after trial). He identified the signature of confessional statement which was exhibited before the Court as Ext-10. It is deposed that he also arrested co-accused, Julme Yadav, during investigation. It is further deposed by him that during investigation, he came to know that dead body of Kanahaiya Choudhary (deceased) was brought to village Gopalpur by his father, and document related with U.D. Case No. 87 of 2018 dated 08.03.2018 which was lodged with Siliguri police and also of postmortem report was supplied to him by the parents of the deceased (Kanahiya Choudhary). It is also deposed that he also obtained injury report of Dipak Man-dal (P.W.2). This witness stated finally that after investigation he submitted charge-sheet under Section 341, 504, 323, 307, 302/34 of the I.P.C., after completion of investigation vide Chargesheet No. 39/2018 dated 03.06.2018. He identified handwriting of Chowkidar, Suresh Paswan, who written the formal FIR, which on his identification exhibited before the Court as Ext.4 and also identified the signature of S.H.O., namely, Amrit Kumar Sah, thereof regarding endorsement, which on his identification exhibited as Ext.4/1. It is also deposed by him that chargesheet is in his handwriting, containing his signature which on identification exhibited before the Court as Ext.5. It is also deposed by him that chargesheet is in his handwriting, containing his signature which on identification exhibited before the Court as Ext.5. On cross-examination by learned defence counsel he deposed before the Court that he recorded statement of Sonu Kumar (P.W.1) during investigation, who supported the occurrence and stated that on 02.03.2018 injured Kanahiya Choudhary (since deceased) and injured Dipak Mandal (P.W.2) went along with him to his sister’s house which is situated at Ghisu Tola and while they were returning and so arrived near to damaged bridge Chandan Yadav (appellant/convict) accompanied with one person, whom, he failed to identify, started to abuse and assault with fight and fist to them. It was also stated that Chandan Yadav (appellant/convict) with intention to cause death thrown Kanahiya Choudhary (since deceased) from RCC bridge, resultantly caused injuries in his chest and head. He also deposed that he recorded statement of Dipak Mandal (P.W.2) and Dilip Choudhary (P.W.2), where they supported the occurrence in same manner. On his cross-examination, on behalf of the accused, Julme Yadav, it was deposed by him that a U.D. case was registered at Siliguri, where death took place and he failed to disclose that why this case was lodged thereof. It is deposed by him in Para-8 of his cross-examination that he visited the place of occurrence after 5 days and did not find any mark at place of occurrence. It is also deposed by him in said paragraph that the father of Sonu Kumar (P.W.1) was available at place of occurrence at that time, who was called by him, who shown him place of occurrence. On being separately cross-examined by Chandan Yadav (appellant/convict), he deposed that statement of any witness was not recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. during investigation and he did not obtain Postmortem report of deceased from doctor of Siliguri. He deposed in Para-12 of his cross-examination, that his deposition as made before the Court is based upon hearsay input. Finally, he denied the suggestions in Para-13 of learned defence counsel that his investigation is faulty. 14. P.W. 6, namely, Dr. Manoj Kumar, who examined the injured deposed before the Court that injury report of Dipak Mandal (P.W.2) was prepared by him and its bears his signature, which was exhibited and marked before Court as Ext-10. Finally, he denied the suggestions in Para-13 of learned defence counsel that his investigation is faulty. 14. P.W. 6, namely, Dr. Manoj Kumar, who examined the injured deposed before the Court that injury report of Dipak Mandal (P.W.2) was prepared by him and its bears his signature, which was exhibited and marked before Court as Ext-10. He also deposed that Postmortem report of deceased Kanahaiya Kumar, Aged about 21 years, S/o Dukhu Choudhary, who was hospitalized in Paramount Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Silliguri, P.S. Died and Dr. Dibyakar Chhetri Demonstrator Dept. of Forensic Medicine & Toxology, North Bengal Medical College examined the dead body of said deceased on 08.03.2018 and give his signature and seal. Which is already marked as Ext-8. On cross-examination by the learned defence counsel he deposed that the injury of Deepak Kumar (P.W.2) may cause due to falling over hard surface like ground and it may also be caused by blunt object. It was also deposed by him that Dr. Dibyankar Chhetri is not known to him and he has no idea about the postmortem report given by him, which was not prepared in his presence. He further deposed that postmortem of deceased Kanahaiya Kumar was done on the basis of Siliguri. P.S. U/D Case No. 87/2018 dated 08.03.2018 15. Both accused person including applicant/convict were examined u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. where they shows their complete innocence denying incriminating evidences explained to them. No witnesses were examined in defence. ARGUMENT BY APPELLANT/CONVICT 16. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that out of 5 witnesses who were examined during trial, two witnesses i.e. P.W.5, who is investigating officer and P.W.6 who is doctor, are official witnesses and their depositions is of no much relevance, while deciding the guilt of appellant/convict. It is submitted that even the eye witness of occurrence i.e. Sonu Kumar (P.W.1) and Dipak Mandal (P.W.2), injured eye witnesses turned hostile during trial, and conviction is exclusively based upon the deposition of P.W.5 and P.W.6 who are investigating officer and doctor of this case. It is further submitted that even the informant Batoran Choudhary (P.W.4) failed to support the case of prosecution. It is further submitted that even the informant Batoran Choudhary (P.W.4) failed to support the case of prosecution. It is categorically submitted by learned counsel that with same set of evidence accused Jalandhar Yadav @ Julme Yadav was acquitted in this case, suggesting the conviction of appellant as “forced conviction”, which could not be appreciated by any stretch of argument. While concluding the argument, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole appellant/convict, namely, Chandan Yadav, submitted that prosecution miserably failed to established its case beyond all reasonable doubts, which otherwise under onus to prove the guilt of appellant/convict beyond all reasonable doubts and in support of his submissions he relied upon the report of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajiv v. State of Bihar as reported in 2015 SCC Online SC 1336. ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF STATE 17. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the conviction of appellant/convict through judgment under challenge is correct in view of the deposition of investigating officer of this case (P.W.5) and doctor who examined the injured Dipak Mandal (P.W.2) and also by taking note of the cause of death, which explained through postmortem report of deceased Kanahaiya Choudhary, exhibited in Trial Court as (Ext.8). It is submitted that learned Trial Court correctly read postmortem report under Section 32 (2) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that the conviction of appellant is also convincing in view of legal reports as discussed in impugned judgment, where reliance was made upon the report of this Court as reported in the matter of Nagina Sharma and others v. State of Bihar as reported in 1991 Cr.L.J. 1195. Learned APP also relied upon the report of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujrat as reported in AIR 1983 SC 484 . It is also submitted that non-identification of accused persons before the learned Trial Court is not the only reason on the ground of which the trial can be said vitiated and in support of his submission reliance was made upon the report of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jadunath Singh and another v. State of U.P. as reported in AIR 1971 SC 363 . Learned APP further submitted that the version of hostile witness cannot be rejected in totality and it can be relied upon to the extent of which they appear dependable and corroborating with other available evidence. In support of his submission, he relied upon the report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in the matter of Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana as reported in AIR 1976 SC 202 . CONCLUSION 18. We have carefully noted the submissions as advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/convict and learned APP on behalf of the State, we have also carefully perused the materials as available on record along with record of proceedings. 19. On careful analysis of evidences and materials as available on record, it appears to us that two eye witnesses of the occurrence, namely, Sonu Kumar (P.W.1) and Dipak Mandal (P.W.2), injured, were accompanied with deceased Kanahaiya Choudhary, while returning from the sister’s house of Sonu Kumar (P.W.1), turned hostile during the trial and did not support the prosecution case to any extent, even both these two witnesses specifically disclosed before the learned Trial Court that they are not aware about as how Kanahaiya Choudhary (since deceased) died. These two witnesses refused specifically that their statement was ever recorded by police personnel during the course of investigation. Nothing substantial appears from their cross-examination which may use as any corroborative piece of evidence qua other evidence/material available on record. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposed before the learned Trial Court that they made their statement out of their own sweet will without having any un-due pressure. 20. P.W.3, who is Dilip Choudhary also declared hostile and stated that his statement was not recorded during course of investigation and nothing surfaced in his cross-examination also which may use as any corroborating evidence qua deposition of investigating officer (P.W.5) and doctor (P.W.6) to establish the guilt of appellant/convict. 21. P.W.4, namely, Batoran Choudhary, who is informant and brother of deceased in Para-2 of his cross-exami-nation clearly deposed that he never stated before the police that while his brother Kanahaiya Choudhary (since deceased) was returning from sister’s house of Sonu Kumar (P.W.1) along with Dipak Mandal (P.W.2), were assaulted by Chandan Yadav (appellant/convict), who thrown his deceased brother Kanahaiya Choudhary from RCC bridge, with intention to cause his death where he received severe injury over chest and head. In Para-3 of his cross-examination, this witness refused to identify the appellant/convict before learned Trial Court. This witness was not declared hostile, suggesting that prosecution relied upon deposition of P.W.3 what he stated before learned Trial Court to establish its case. This witness even on Court’s question failed to identify accused person including appellant/convict before learned Trial Court, while available in Court dock. 22. It is established principles of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution must prove the charges against accused facing trial beyond all reasonable doubts to established guilt, there is no scope of any probability and imagination. 23. We are carefully visited the reports of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court as relied upon by learned APP, which are also discussed in impugned judgment and we have no hesitation to say that none of the judgments helping the prosecution in the present case so as to established the charge of murder against appellant/convict. It appears to us that conviction is on the sole basis of oral deposition of investigating officer (P.W.5) and doctor (P.W.6) who examined the injured Dipak Mandal (P.W.2) and also by taking note of postmortem report of deceased Kanahaiya Choudhary under Section 32 (2) of the Indian Evidence Act, which failed to convinced us in totality as to establish the guilt of appellant/convict beyond all reasonable doubts. We have no occasion to disbelieve the version of eye witnesses of the occurrence, namely, Sonu Kumar (P.W.1) and Dipak Mandal (P.W.2), who turned hostile. 24. Hence, the criminal appeal stands allowed. 25. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 28.09.2021 and order of sentence dated 04.10.2021 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Katihar, in Sessions Trial No. 468 of 2018/C.I.S. No. 468 of 2018 arising out of Amdabad P.S. Case No. 39 of 2018 are set aside. 26. Accordingly, above named applicant/convict is directed to release forthwith, if not required to detain further in conviction with any other case.