JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. I.A. No. 1796 of 2024 1. Today this case has been listed for consideration of I.A. No. 1796/2024, preferred on behalf of the appellant, praying therein for suspending the sentences awarded to the appellant and to release him on bail in terms of Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued at length by referring to evidence of all the witnesses and exhibits, as the Trial Court Record is already available. 3. Learned A.P.P. has also argued at length referring to the evidences and the exhibits and other documents. 4. Considering the nature and length of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and the fact that the Trial Court Record is already available and this Appeal stood already admitted, this Court requested the parties to finally argue the entire appeal on merits. 5. Counsel for both the parties agreed and argued the entire appeal, challenging the impugned judgment. 6. Thus, when we have already heard the entire appeal on merits, we are not passing any order in this Interlocutory Application and the same is being disposed of as not pressed. Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1269 of 2022 1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2022 and 19.09.2022 respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla, whereby the learned trial court held the appellant guilty for the offence committed under Section 302 IPC, and while convicting him under the said Section, sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. for life and directed to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- only, and in default in payment of fine, he shall undergo R.I. for two years. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the only alleged eye-witness in this case is PW-6, who happens to be the daughter of the deceased. He argues that she claims to be an eye-witness in terms of Para-2 of deposition but if the same is read in continuation of para-15 of the deposition, it would be clear that she has not seen this appellant giving the fatal blow. The deposition of PW-6 is contradictory, which creates a doubt about the prosecution case and the credibility of this witness – PW-6. Once the evidence of PW-6 is demolished, nothing remains in this case as rest of the witnesses are either formal or have turned hostile. 3. The deposition of PW-6 is contradictory, which creates a doubt about the prosecution case and the credibility of this witness – PW-6. Once the evidence of PW-6 is demolished, nothing remains in this case as rest of the witnesses are either formal or have turned hostile. 3. Learned counsel further argued that as per the prosecution case, several villagers had apprehended the appellant while he was trying to flee but none of those villagers were produced as a witness, which also is a fatal to the prosecution case. 4. Learned A.P.P. submits that PW-6 is a star witness in this case as she is an eye witness who had seen the appellant committing the offence, which is evident from Para-2 of the deposition. He admits that the other witnesses have either been declared hostile or of formal in nature. 5. The prosecution case is based on the written report of one Ranjeet Kujur, who stated that the deceased was taking rest after taking meal. In the meantime, this appellant entered the house with a stone in his hand, weighing about 10-12 Kg and suddenly threw the same on the head of the deceased. The deceased succumbed to the said injuries. The appellant tried to flee from the place of occurrence but was intercepted by the villagers and was apprehended. It is alleged that this appellant was always quarreling with the informant that is why, to take revenge, he killed his mother-in-law. 6. On the aforesaid information, Gumla P.S. Case No. 48/2019 was instituted under Section 302 IPC. The Police after investigation, filed charge-sheet against this appellant under Section 302 IPC. Cognizance for the alleged offence was taken against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, he was put on trial. 7. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 07 witnesses were examined by the prosecution whose names are as here under: (i) PW-1 Dr. Manoj Surin (ii) PW-2 Juvel Toppo (iii) PW-3 Ranjeet Kujur (informant of this case) (iv) PW-4 Pramod Kumar (I.O. of this case) (v) PW-5 Uttam Sagar Rana (Ld. Judicial Magistrate) (vi) PW-6 Pushpa Kujur (vii) PW-7 Lachhu Oraon 8. Manoj Surin (ii) PW-2 Juvel Toppo (iii) PW-3 Ranjeet Kujur (informant of this case) (iv) PW-4 Pramod Kumar (I.O. of this case) (v) PW-5 Uttam Sagar Rana (Ld. Judicial Magistrate) (vi) PW-6 Pushpa Kujur (vii) PW-7 Lachhu Oraon 8. Several documentary evidences were also exhibited which are as here under: (i) Ext.-P1 Postmortem report (proved by PW-1) (ii) Ext.-P2 Inquest report (proved by PW-4) (iii) Ext.-P2/1 Signature of Ranjeet Kujur over written report (proved by PW-3) (iv) Ext.-P3 Written report (proved by PW-3) (v) Ext.-P3/1 Endorsement on written report (proved by PW-4) (vi) Ext.-P4 Memo of arrest (proved by PW-4) (vii) Ext.-P5 Seizure list (proved by PW-4) (viii) Ext.-P6 Formal F.I.R. (proved by PW-4) (ix) Ext.-P7 Statement u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. (proved by PW-5) 9. After closure of the evidences, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused-appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence. The trial court after hearing the parties, convicted the appellant for committing the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him for life. 10. After hearing the parties, we have gone through the deposition of all the witnesses and the exhibits. 11. From the record, we find that PW-1 is a Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Gumla, who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased on 21.02.2019 at 12:30 pm. He opined that the death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock due to head injury caused by hard and blunt substance. He also conducted external and internal examination on the body of the deceased and found the following: “External Examination: (a) Depressed Fracture of Right side of facial Bone with bruise of Skin. (b) Blood coming out from right ear. (c) Lacerated injury on left ear (3” lenth). Rigor mortis present in all over the body. Internal Examination: (a) Depressed Fracture of Right side Frontal and Temporal bone. (b) Cranial Cavity filled with blood. Laceration of brain. (c) Both lungs congested. (d) Stomach filled with semisolid food partical. Small and large intestine filled with gas and faecal matter.” 12. The PW-2 is the son of the deceased who admittedly was not present at the place of occurrence. He was declared hostile as he stated that no one has stated to him that who had committed the murder of the deceased. 13. The PW-3 is the informant of the case, who has also been declared hostile on the facts. The PW-2 is the son of the deceased who admittedly was not present at the place of occurrence. He was declared hostile as he stated that no one has stated to him that who had committed the murder of the deceased. 13. The PW-3 is the informant of the case, who has also been declared hostile on the facts. He exhibited his fardbeyan and the inquest report. In the cross-examination at Para-7 & 8, he stated that he signed blank papers and his statements were not recorded. 14. The PW-4 is the second Investigating Officer. He exhibited the formal F.I.R. and the Arrest Memo. He also exhibited the seizure list which suggests that blood stained stone and soil were seized. In the cross-examination at Para-12, he states that he had not seized the blood stained stone and soil. He stated that those were seized earlier. 15. The PW-5 is the Magistrate, who stated that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of PW-6 namely Pushpa Kujur, was recorded by him. 16. The PW-7, is the husband of the deceased. Though in the Examination-in-Chief, he had stated that he was there at the place of occurrence when the appellant came and struck the deceased on her head by stone but in cross-examination, he stated that he was in a different room so was his daughter who is PW-6. He also stated that the incident had not taken place in his presence nor he has seen anything. Thus, from the evidence, it is clear that he is also not an eye-witness to the occurrence. 17. Now, the star witness is PW-6, who claims to be the eye-witness. She in her statements, deposed that her mother had come to her place and after having meal, she was resting in the courtyard, when the appellant came with the stone and struck her on her head resulting in her death. 18. This statement gives a feeling that this witness (PW-6), is an eye-witness and has seen the occurrence, but when we analyzed the cross-examination, we found that in para-15, she stated that she was in the room and came out a bit late. She further stated that when she came out from the room, her mother was already dead. This statement creates a doubt in the mind of this Court, as to whether this witness was actually an eye-witness or not. She further stated that when she came out from the room, her mother was already dead. This statement creates a doubt in the mind of this Court, as to whether this witness was actually an eye-witness or not. Further, if this statement is read with the statement of PW-7, we find that she was not present at the place where the incident had taken place i.e. in the courtyard. She was in a different room and came out when the deceased already died. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence, there is a genuine doubt as to whether she was actually an eye witness or not. 19. It is the case of the prosecution that this appellant came and struck the deceased with stone and thereafter a hue and cry was made when the villagers came and apprehended him and handed him over to the Police. Surprisingly, none of the villagers were produced as a witness in this case. Withholding these material witnesses who caught the appellant while he was trying to flee from the place of occurrence, gives a fatal blow to the prosecution case. 20. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence which has been laid by the prosecution, a doubt is created as to whether this appellant had actually committed the murder or not. False implication cannot be ruled out, as the husband of PW-6 who is the informant in this case, has stated that the appellant was always quarreling with him. This means that there was some enmity between the informant and the appellant. Thus, there can be a possibility of false implication also. 21. Considering what has been held above, we are inclined to allow this appeal by giving benefit of doubt to the appellant. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2022 and 19.09.2022 respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla, are set aside. 22. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed and the appellant is acquitted. He should be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 23. Let the lower court’s record be transmitted to the Court below immediately.