JUDGMENT : Subhash Chand, J. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 20.02.2014 and order of sentence dated 24.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 752 of 2011/753 of 2011, whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo RI for three years and for the offence under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months and also for the offence under section 201/149 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellants have been sentenced for three years imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they will also suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The brief facts leading to this criminal appeal are that on 14th May, 2011 the informant namely, Kishnu Mahto had given the written information with the police station concerned Silli (Ranchi), with these allegations that on 14th May, 2011, he along with his elder brother Vishnu Mahto had left the house from Bundu to attend a marriage party at village Banta in house of Kartik Koiri. In the marriage ceremony the singing and dancing was going on. At 12 O'Clock in the night a dispute arose between the two sides of marriage party. His elder brother Vishnu Mahto intervened and pacified the dispute. After some time at 12:15, Rajan Singh Munda of village Banta along with his brother Rajiv Singh Munda and four to five aide armed with weapons came and Rajan Singh Munda assaulted to Vishnu Mahto with the sword while Rajiv Singh Munda assaulted with farsa and his brother was cut brutally. In the stampede, all the persons began to flee away. He also fled away in order to save himself. Later on, he came to know that his brother was murdered and deadbody was thrown away somewhere else in order to save themselves from the punishment of murder. 3. In the stampede, all the persons began to flee away. He also fled away in order to save himself. Later on, he came to know that his brother was murdered and deadbody was thrown away somewhere else in order to save themselves from the punishment of murder. 3. On this written information, Silli P.S. Case Crime No. 80 of 2011 was registered against the accused Rajan Singh Munda, Rajiv Singh Munda and four to five unknown persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 325, 326, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigating officer conducted the investigation and filed charge-sheet against the accused Rajendra Singh Munda and Gandho Singh Munda, Rajiv Singh Munda, Rudru Singh Munda and Jitan Singh Munda for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 325, 326, 302 and 201 of IPC to the Court of Magistrate concerned who took the cognizance on the charge-sheet and committed the case for trial to the Court of the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi who further transferred the same for trial to the Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III, Ranchi. 4. The Trial Court framed charge against all the five accused for the offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 and 201 of IPC and the same was read over and explained to all the accused persons who denied the charge and claimed to face the trial. 5. On behalf of prosecution in oral evidence examined 13 witnesses: PW1- Mantu Koiri, PW2- Kartik Koiri, PW3- Nabakunj Koiri, PW4-Machhindra Mahto, PW5- Dirpu Mahto, PW6- Brajeshwar Mahto, PW7-Kishnu Mahto (informant), PW8- Santosh Kumar Gupta, PW9-Sanjay Gupta, PW-10-Bhajan Baraik, PW-11-Mohan Kumhar, PW12-Kaushalendra Kumar Jha, investigating officer and PW-13, Dr. Samrina Kamal. 6. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused in documentary evidence adduced Exhibit-1 fardbeyan, Exhibit-2 to 2/5 seizure list, Exhibit-3 endorsement on written report, Exhibit-4 Formal FIR, Exhibit-5 seizure list of Relaxo slipper (chappal), Exhibit-5/1 seizure of blood stained soil, Exhibit-5/2 seizure of 2 lt. Kerosine oil in a plastic container, Exhibit-6 Confessional statement of Rajendra Singh Munda and Exhibit-7 postmortem report. 7. The statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded. All the accused persons denied the incriminating circumstances in evidence against them and stated themselves to be innocent. Kerosine oil in a plastic container, Exhibit-6 Confessional statement of Rajendra Singh Munda and Exhibit-7 postmortem report. 7. The statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded. All the accused persons denied the incriminating circumstances in evidence against them and stated themselves to be innocent. On behalf of accused persons in defense evidence examined DW1-Birendra Mahto, DW2- Hemant Kumar Bhagat, DW3- Kamdeo Koieri, DW4- Rudu Singh Munda, DW5- Gandho Singh Munda, PW6- Rajendra Singh Munda @ Rajan Munda (accused) and DW7- Rajiv Singh Munda (accused). 8. The learned trial court after hearing the rival submissions of the parties passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants. While acquitting the rest of the three accused, sentenced to convict Rajiv Singh Munda and Rajan Singh Munda under section 148, 302 r/w 149 and 201 r/w 149 of IPC. 9. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the instant criminal appeal has been directed on behalf of the appellants Rajiv Singh Munda and Rajendra Singh Munda on the ground that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court is based on wrong appreciation of the evidence. The learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. There is no cogent evidence in regard to murder of the brother of informant. The learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence based on conjecture and surmises. In view of the above prayed to allow the criminal appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. In order to decide the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution is reproduced hereinbelow for reappreciation: 11.1 PW1- Mantu Koiri in his examination-in-chief says deceased Vishnu Mahto was his brother-in-law. His maternal uncle’s son Dhirendra Koiri had gone to village Banta taking his marriage party. How Vishnu Mahto died, he is not aware. This witness was declared hostile and in cross-examination by the prosecution, he denied the statement given to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and he also denied to identify the accused persons in dock. In cross-examination by defence, this witness stated police did not interrogate him. How Vishnu Mahto died, he is not aware. This witness was declared hostile and in cross-examination by the prosecution, he denied the statement given to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and he also denied to identify the accused persons in dock. In cross-examination by defence, this witness stated police did not interrogate him. 11.2 PW2- Kartik Koiri in his examination-in-chief says that Savitri was his daughter whose marriage was solemnized on 14.05.2011. The boy with whom the marriage was solemnized was Dhirendra Koiri. He is not aware in regard to the occurrence. This witness was also declared hostile and in cross-examination by the prosecution, this witness denied the statement given to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and he denied to identify the accused Rajendra Singh Munda and Rajiv Singh Munda. In cross-examination by the defence, this witness says that the police did not interrogate him. 11.3 PW3- Nabakunj Koiri in his examination-in-chief says that the marriage of his son was solemnized on 14th May, 2011. He knows nothing in regard to the occurrence. This witness was also declared hostile and in cross-examination by the prosecution, he denied the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C given to the Investigating Officer. He also refused to identify any of the accused in dock. In cross-examination by the defence, this witness says he was present in the marriage party. No marpit was done in the marriage party. He does not know Vishnu and Kishnu as well.. 11.4 PW4- Machhindra Mahto, in his examination-in-chief says that the occurrence was of 14th May, 2011, he had come in barat to the village Banta which came from the house of Kartik Mahto. The music and dancing was going on in the marriage. In the meantime, Rajan Singh Munda and Raghu Singh both quarreled. The persons present in the marriage intervened and ultimately the marriage party reached to the house of bride’s house and dinner was going on. In the meantime, Rajan Singh Munda armed with the sword and Raju Singh Munda armed with farsa came along with three to four persons who were armed with lathi. Rajan Singh Munda assaulted with the sword to Vishnu Mahto which hit to his shoulder and his shoulder was cut, the blood was oozing from there. Vishnu fled away from there towards petrol pump. He also fled away from there. Rajan Singh Munda assaulted with the sword to Vishnu Mahto which hit to his shoulder and his shoulder was cut, the blood was oozing from there. Vishnu fled away from there towards petrol pump. He also fled away from there. Ultimately, all the persons who had came in the marriage party began to flee away. Next day in the morning, it came to know that Vishnu had died. No whereabout was known of the dead body. Rajan Singh was nabbed by the police and at his confessional statement and pointing out the dead body was recovered. He identified Rajan Singh Munda and Raju Singh Munda in dock. In cross-examination, this witness says, the invitation card was given to him by Dhirendra, whether Vishnu had also got the invitation card he is not aware. Vishnu Mahto is resident of the very village in which he resides. The quarrel which took place between Vishnu and Rajan was not seen by him but was heard from the persons who had come in the marriage party. He having heard the hue and cry saw the occurrence and thereafter Vishnu fled away towards the petrol pump. The dead body was recovered at the behest of Rajan apprised to him by the darogaji. The informant Kishnu Mahto had come with him. . 11.5 P.W. 5- Dirpu Mahto in his examination-in-chief says the occurrence was of one year and two months ago. It was 12’o clock of night while the dinner was going on dispute arose between Vishnu and Rajan Singh and Raju Singh. Raju Singh assaulted with the sword on the shoulder of Vishnu. All the persons in the marriage party began to flee away, Vishnu also fled away what happened thereafter, he is not aware. This witness was also declared hostile and he denied the statement given to the IO under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In cross-examination by the defence, this witness says he does not know Rudu Singh Munda, Jiten Singh Munda and Gandho Singh Munda. He came to know in regard to the name of accused as stated by Machhindra to police. He did not see Vishnu dying at the petrol pump. By whom the dead body was concealed, he is not aware. He is giving statement what was told to him by Machhindra. He came to know in regard to the name of accused as stated by Machhindra to police. He did not see Vishnu dying at the petrol pump. By whom the dead body was concealed, he is not aware. He is giving statement what was told to him by Machhindra. 11.6 P.W.6- Brajeshwar Mahto in his examination-in-chief says the occurrence was of 14th May, 2011 it was 11:30 of night. The marriage was of daughter of Kartik and in that marriage, Machhindra and Vishnu and his brother were also present. Raju and Rajendra Mahto along with four to five persons armed with weapon came there. Rajendra was armed with the sword. Raju was armed with the farsa and others were armed with the sticks. All these accused persons assaulted Vishnu which hit to the shoulder of Vishnu. He and other persons fled away with the fear. Later on the dead body was searched but the same was not recovered and the accused was nabbed by the police who recovered the dead body. He identified Rajendra Mahto and Raju Munda in dock. In cross-examination this witness says beside Vishnu Mahto, his brother Kishnu Mahto and other persons were sitting in the marriage party. Machhindra was also there. He had seen Rajendra Singh Munda and Raju Singh on the date of occurrence. He saw the occurrence from his own eye. Rajendra Singh and Raju Singh who were armed with the sword and the farsa began to assault to Vishnu. He did not say to police that Vishnu in injured condition fled away towards the petrol pump and all the five accused persons also chased him. He did not say to police that Vishnu fell down on the ground and died. He has no documentary proof that he was also invited in the marriage party. . 11.7 PW7- Kishnu Mahto, in his examination-in-chief says that the occurrence was of 14th May, 2011. He along with his brother Vishnu had gone to the marriage party of Kartik Koiri to village Banta. The dispute arose between the bridegroom and bride side and the same was also pacified. After that Rajan Singh and Raju Singh both armed with sword and farsa respectively along with four to five persons came and Raju Singh and Rajan Singh both assaulted to Vishnu with the sword and the farsa and cut his shoulder. The dispute arose between the bridegroom and bride side and the same was also pacified. After that Rajan Singh and Raju Singh both armed with sword and farsa respectively along with four to five persons came and Raju Singh and Rajan Singh both assaulted to Vishnu with the sword and the farsa and cut his shoulder. In the stampede, the people began to flee away. He also fled away from there. In the morning, he came to know that Vishnu was murdered. He could not see the dead body of his brother Vishnu which was concealed somewhere else. The written information is in the pen and signature of Baleshwar Prasad. He identifies the same marked Exhibit-1. The dead body of his brother was recovered after eight days from the occurrence which was concealed in the jungle. Police recovered the dead body. His restatement was also recorded. He identified Raju Singh and Rajan Singh in the dock. He did not identify the remaining accused Guddu Singh, Jiten Singh and Dando Singh. In cross-examination, this witness says Kartik Koiri is not his relative rather is the friend of his brother Vishnu. The marriage was at the house of Kartik where he never went prior to the marriage. When the dispute arose between the persons of bride side and bridegroom side, the marriage party was just 50 feet away from the house of Kartik. Kartik had also given invitation card to Vishnu. He did not see the invitation card. From where the marriage party came, he is not aware. He denies this suggestion that he and his brother Vishnu were never invited in the marriage by Kartik. In cross-examination, this witness says the videography was also going on in the marriage party. He is not aware whether he was visible in the videography or not. Whether his photo was clicked or not, he is not aware. After hue and cry and assault being made upon Vishnu, he fled away from there. He denies this suggestion that it is wrong to say that Kartik did not invite him and even the bridegroom sides also did not invite him. 11.8 PW8- Santosh Kumar Gupta, in his examination-in-chief says what happened in the marriage party, he is not aware. Nothing was recovered in his presence. He denies this suggestion that it is wrong to say that Kartik did not invite him and even the bridegroom sides also did not invite him. 11.8 PW8- Santosh Kumar Gupta, in his examination-in-chief says what happened in the marriage party, he is not aware. Nothing was recovered in his presence. This witness was declared hostile and in cross-examination by the prosecution, he denied the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. to the Investigating Officer. In cross-examination by the defence, this witness says in the marriage party from the time when the marriage party arrived and till the adieu of the marriage party, no marpit was done there and no kind of any occurrence took place there. Rajan Singh Munda and Raju Singh Munda, both were present in the marriage party. 11.9 PW9- Sanjay Gupta, this witness in his examination-in-chief says the occurrence was of one and half years ago. It was month of summer season. He was in marriage party of Savitri and Dhirendra in village Banta at the house of Kartik Koiri. He is not aware on whose statement the dead body was recovered. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined and he denied the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. given to the Investigating Officer. In cross-examination by the defence, this witness says the videography and steal photography was also done in the marriage. He does not know Vishnu and Police did not recover the dead body in his presence. 11.10 PW 10- Bhajan Baraik, in his examination-in-chief says that nothing was recovered in his presence. The seizure memo bears his signature which is marked Ext. 2, 2/1 and 2/2. In cross-examination by defence, this witness says his signature were taken on the plain paper. 11.11 PW 11-Mohan Kumhar, in his examination-in-chief says that the seizure memo bears his signature marked Ext. 2/3, 2/4 and 2/5. In cross-examination by defence, this witness says nothing was recovered by police in his presence. 11.12 PW12-Kaushalendra Kumar Jha, investigating officer in his examination-in-chief says on 15th May 2011, he was posted as Station Officer In-charge of Police Station Silli. He received the written information from Kishnu Mahto on which he made the endorsement and put his signature thereon identifies it marked Ext. 3. The Formal FIR was prepared by munsi Vishwanath Mahali. He identifies his signature marked Ext. 4. He received the written information from Kishnu Mahto on which he made the endorsement and put his signature thereon identifies it marked Ext. 3. The Formal FIR was prepared by munsi Vishwanath Mahali. He identifies his signature marked Ext. 4. He took over the investigation himself and he recorded the restatement of informant. Thereafter, he inspected the place of occurrence which was 15 feet away from Banta Bundu Road from the pandal wherein the marriage party was being solemnized. During investigation, at the first place of occurrence he recovered the left leg Relaxo chappal which was stained with blood and the mud. Thereafter, he prepared the seizure memo of the same in presence of the independent witness Bhajan Baraik and Mohan Kumhar. He identifies the signature thereon marked Ext. 5. Thereafter he inspected the second place of occurrence which is the agriculture field of Ashok Prajapati which is in east of Silli Banta Road, in west of agriculture field of Shiv Shankar Gupta, in north is the agriculture field of Doman Prajapati and in south is the agriculture field of Ashok and Ramji Automobile Petrol Pump is there. The seizure memo of blood stained soil was also prepared by him in presence of the independent witness Bhajan Baraik and Mohan Kumhar. He identifies the another seizure memo which is marked Ext. 5/1. Thereafter he identified, the third place of occurrence which is Nagar Bandhgarha. From there in a plastic jerkin, two liter kerosene oil was found concealed in the bush. The seizure memo of the same was prepared in the presence of witness Bhajan Baraik and Mohan Kumhar. He identified the signature of them marked Ext. 5/2. He arrested the accused Rajendra Singh Munda and recorded his confessional statement which bears signature of Rajendra Singh Munda. He identifies the same marked Ext. 6. At the confessional statement and pointing out of Rajendra Singh Munda, the dead body of Vishnu Mahto was recovered from Borka Mountain which was concealed therein. The inquest report of the same was prepared and thereafter sent for autopsy examination and after concluding the investigation and recording the statement of the witnesses, he filed charge-sheet against the five accused persons. In cross-examination, this witness says that he did not mention in case diary when he did reach to the place of occurrence. The blood stained soil was never sent by him to the FSL. In cross-examination, this witness says that he did not mention in case diary when he did reach to the place of occurrence. The blood stained soil was never sent by him to the FSL. He has mentioned in the case diary that at the first place of occurrence, it was cleaned later on. The informant had identified the Relaxo chappal that it was of Vishnu Mahto. No TIP of the Relaxo chappal was conducted by him. No blood was found at the first place of occurrence. The blood was found in the agriculture field which was nearby the petrol pump. The blood was there in profused quantity. From there, he had taken in his possession the blood stained soil. He also asked from the witnesses during investigation in regard to the videography and photography but no one responded to him. The seizure memo are not placed today before the Court. The two liter kerosene was having relevancy in this case in regard to which he has mentioned. He did not make effort to recover any incriminating weapon in this case. 11.13 PW 13-Dr. Samrina Raman, in her examination-in-chief says on 22nd May, 2011, she was tutor in FMT department of RIMS. She examined the injuries of Vishnu Mahto and found following injuries: (I) Incised wound 11 x 3cm into bone deep on front of neck upper part cutting soft tissue, blood vessels, trachea, esophagus. (II) Cervical vertebra and right Side of ramus of medulla completely with infiltration of blood and blood clot in soft tissue and bone tissues at site of injuries. Opinion:- The injuries were antemortem in nature caused by the sharp cutting weapon resulting in death. Time since death one week to two weeks. The injury report is in pen and signature marked Exhibit-6. After having sustain such kind of injuries no one can run 10 to 12 feet. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that weapon of assault has not been recovered. Postmortem report and deposition of doctor coupled with absence of FSL report does not support the prosecution case linking the three occurrence in the crime. The seizure witness has not proved the factum of seizure have only identified their signature. Deposition of eyewitnesses create doubt in regard to their credibility. Postmortem report and deposition of doctor coupled with absence of FSL report does not support the prosecution case linking the three occurrence in the crime. The seizure witness has not proved the factum of seizure have only identified their signature. Deposition of eyewitnesses create doubt in regard to their credibility. While the defence evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants has created a sufficient suspicion in regard to the case of prosecution to be doubtful. The prosecution has also failed to prove the confessional statement of the appellants leading to the recovery of deadbody. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied the following case law: (I) “Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Ors. v. State of Karnataka” 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561. (II) “Subramanya v. State of Karnataka” 2022 Livelaw (SC) 887 and (III) “Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar” AIR 1966 SC 119 . 13. Per contra the learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions made by learned counsel for the appellants and contended that the eyewitness of the occurrence have proved the prosecution case. Their testimony has also been corroborated with the medical evidence. So far as the recovery and production of the weapon is concerned, same has no relevancy in case of a direct evidence. The deadbody was also recovered on the confessional statement of the appellants which is one of the strong incriminating circumstance against the appellants to convict them. 14. Prosecution case has been claimed to be based on direct evidence eye witness of the occurrence PW4- Machhindra Mahto, PW6-Brajeshwar Mahto and PW7- Kishnu Mahto, informant. 15. PW4- Machhindra Mahto has stated that the occurrence was of 14.05.2011. The marriage party has come to the house of Kartik Koiri. The singing and dancing was going on there. As the marriage party was proceeding towards the house of bride the dispute arose between the Rajan Singh Munda and Raghu Singh. The dispute was intervened and pacified. Thereafter, when the diner was going on, Rajan Singh Munda armed with sword and Raju Singh Munda armed with Farsa alongwith 3-4 unknown persons armed with lathi came there. Rajan Singh Munda assaulted with the sword which hit on the left shoulder of Vishnu Mahto and Vishnu Mahto fled away from the place of marriage ceremony towards the petrol pump. Thereafter, when the diner was going on, Rajan Singh Munda armed with sword and Raju Singh Munda armed with Farsa alongwith 3-4 unknown persons armed with lathi came there. Rajan Singh Munda assaulted with the sword which hit on the left shoulder of Vishnu Mahto and Vishnu Mahto fled away from the place of marriage ceremony towards the petrol pump. Next morning he came to know that Vishnu Mahto has died but deadbody of him was not found. He says that deadbody was recovered on the confessional statement of Rajan Singh Munda as stated by police. This witness further says that in the marriage party he was just behind the marriage party so he did not see the quarrel between Vishnu and Rajan Singh Munda but he has heard from the members of marriage party. Further he heard the hue and cry and saw Vishnu fleeing away towards the petrol pump. 16. PW6 is also claims to be the eyewitness. This witness says on 14.05.2011 at 12:30 of night he was in marriage of Kartik's daughter. Machhindra, Vishnu and his brother were also in the marriage party. Raju and Rajendra Mahto armed with the weapon. Rajendra was armed with the sword and Raju with the Farsa assaulted to Vishnu which hit on his shoulder and also other parts of body. With the fear he also fled away from there. In cross-examination this witness also says on the date of occurrence he saw Rajendra Singh Munda and Rajiv Singh Munda but he did not see the occurrence taking place. Both were having with sword and Farsa respectively. Further he says that he did not say to police that Vishnu fled away while in injured condition towards the petrol pump and all the five accused also chased him and he further says that he did not say to police that Vishnu fell down in the agriculture field and died. 17. PW7- Kishnu Mahto also claims to be eyewitness is the informant of this case and brother of deceased. He says that on 14.05.2011 at 12 O'clock he was in marriage of the daughter of Kartik Koiri. The dispute arose between the people of bride and bridegroom the matter was also pacified. After sometime in the marriage party when they were taking food Rajan Singh and Raju Singh armed with the sword and Farsa respectively alongwith four to five persons with them came. The dispute arose between the people of bride and bridegroom the matter was also pacified. After sometime in the marriage party when they were taking food Rajan Singh and Raju Singh armed with the sword and Farsa respectively alongwith four to five persons with them came. Rajan Singh and Raju Singh assaulted with Farsa and sword on the left shoulder of Vishnu. The stampede took place. He also fled away from there in order to save himself and in the morning came to know that Vishnu was murdered but his deadbody was not recovered. He lodged the written information marked as Exhibit-1. In cross-examination this witness also says that Kartik was the friend of his brother Vishnu. The dispute arose at the road which was at the distance of 50 feet from the house of bride. He was given invitation whether Vishnu was invited or not he is not aware. In cross-examination he also says the videography and photography was done in the marriage party but whether video was prepared or photo was clicked he is not aware. As soon as this stampede took place he fled away from there. 18. From the testimony of all these three eyewitnesses the first two occurrence are being proved: (i) one is the dispute which arose between the persons of bride side and the persons of bridegroom side the matter was also pacified which had taken place at the road 50 feet away from the house of bride (ii) From the testimony of these eyewitnesses this fact is also proved that Rajiv Singh Munda and Rajan Singh Munda both had come armed with sword and farsa and had given blow to Vishnu which hit on his shoulder and as soon as the blow was given all the three witnesses fled away from there and Vishnu also fled away towards the petrol pump. 19. What happened with injured Vishnu after giving blow by the appellants Rajan Munda and Rajiv Munda? Nothing has been deposed by these witnesses. 20. So far as the presence of Vishnu in the marriage party itself either from the bride side or from the side of bridegroom is also doubted in view of the testimony of PW1- Mantu Koiri who is from the side of bridegroom and Kartik Koiri PW2 who is from the side of bride. 20. So far as the presence of Vishnu in the marriage party itself either from the bride side or from the side of bridegroom is also doubted in view of the testimony of PW1- Mantu Koiri who is from the side of bridegroom and Kartik Koiri PW2 who is from the side of bride. PW1-Mantu Koiri, PW2- Kartik Koiri, PW3- Nabakunj Koiri all these three are the hostile witnesses and PW1- Mantu Koiri belongs to the bridegroom side and Kartik Koiri belongs to the bride side. These witnesses have stated that no such occurrence took place in the marriage party. 21. PW8- Santosh Kumar Gupta and PW9- Sanjay Gupta both these two witnesses are also the hostile witnesses. They have denied any kind of recovery in their presence and also shown the unawareness in regard to the occurrence. 22. PW10 and PW11 are the witness of the seizure memo. In regard to recovery of Relaxo sleeper of left leg of deceased partly blood stained and partly stained with mud, both these two witnesses though have admitted their signature on the seizure memo but have stated that their signature were taken on the plain paper, nothing was recovered in presence of them. Therefore, the seizure memo of the sleeper which is alleged to be blood stained and the partly stained with the mud of the deceased is also not proved by these independent witnesses. 23. The testimony of these three eyewitnesses is to be evaluated in view of the testimony of doctor and the investigating officer. 23.1. PW13 Dr. Samrina Kamal is the doctor, he has proved the postmortem report of deceased Exhibit-7. This doctor has stated that he found the following external injury: (I) Incised wound 11 x 3cm into bone deep on front of neck upper part cutting soft tissue, blood vessels, trachea, esophagus. (II) Cervical vertebra and right Side of ramus of medulla completely with infiltration of blood and blood clot in soft tissue and bone tissues at site of injuries. Opinion:- Above noted injuries are antemortem caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon death is due to above noted injuries. Time since death one week to two weeks. Further PW13, Dr. Samrina Kamal also in cross-examination says that taking into consideration the injuries which were found on the body of the deceased no injured person can run 10 to 12 feet from the place of occurrence. Time since death one week to two weeks. Further PW13, Dr. Samrina Kamal also in cross-examination says that taking into consideration the injuries which were found on the body of the deceased no injured person can run 10 to 12 feet from the place of occurrence. 23.2 PW12 is the investigating officer Kaushalendra Kumar Jha. He has categorically stated that he found no blood from the first place of occurrence where the deceased was alleged to have been inflicted blow with the sword on his shoulder rather, he found the blood and also took the blood stained soil in his possession where the deadbody of the deceased was lying in agriculture field near the petrol pump. But this witness has also admitted that he neither sent the blood stained soil nor the blood stained sleeper of deceased for examination to FSL report. He also admits that he did not recover any incriminating weapon used in commission of the offence. PW12 investigating officer also says that he recorded the confessional statement of Rajendra Singh Munda after having nabbed him. He identifies his signature on the confessional statement of Rajendra Singh Munda as Exhibit-6 and further says that on his confessional statement and pointing out he recovered the deadbody of Vishnu Mahto from borka mountain. 23.3 From the testimony of the investigating officer PW12 Kaushalendra Kumar Jha, the most incriminating evidence against the appellants the recovery of the deadbody on his confessional statement and pointing out under section 27 of the Evidence Act is not proved. As PW12 Kaushalendra Kumar Jha has not stated what the accused Rajendra Singh Munda has stated in his confessional statement. Unless and until he proves the contents of the confessional statement of the accused which leads to recovery of any weapon or article, the same cannot be admissible in evidence simply marking as Exhibit. 23.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in “Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Ors. v. State of Karnataka” 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561 held: “64. Further, in the case of Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, it was held as under: - “82. Keeping in mind the aforesaid evidence, we proceed to consider whether the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the discoveries in accordance with law. Section 27 of the Evidence Act reads thus: “27. How much of information received from accused may be proved. Keeping in mind the aforesaid evidence, we proceed to consider whether the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the discoveries in accordance with law. Section 27 of the Evidence Act reads thus: “27. How much of information received from accused may be proved. — Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.” 83. The first and the basic infirmity in the evidence of all the aforesaid prosecution witnesses is that none of them have deposed the exact statement said to have been made by the appellant herein which ultimately led to the discovery of a fact relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 65. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein this Court held that mere exhibiting of memorandum prepared by the Investigating Officer during investigation cannot tantamount to proof of its contents. While testifying on oath, the Investigating Officer would be required to narrate the sequence of events which transpired leading to the recording of the disclosure statement.” 24. So far as the testimony of the eye witness PW4- Machhindra Mahto, PW6- Brajeshwar Mahto is concerned. PW4- Machhindra Mahto has though in examination-in-chief has supported the prosecution story yet in cross-examination he gave the retracted statement saying that since he was just behind the marriage party what quarrel took place between Vishnu and Raju he did not see and he only heard from the members of marriage party. Further he also says when the hue and cry took place he saw the occurrence and thereafter saw Vishnu fleeing away towards the petrol pump. 24.1 PW6- Brajeshwar Mahto though in his examination-in-chief corroborated the prosecution story yet in cross-examination this witness also says that he did not say to police that he had seen Vishnu in injured condition fleeing away from the place of occurrence and also the accused persons fleeing away just chasing him. He further says that he did not see Vishnu dead lying in agriculture field. Therefore, the testimony of PW4- Machhindra Mahto and PW6- Brajeshwar Mahto is not found reliable and trustworthy. He further says that he did not see Vishnu dead lying in agriculture field. Therefore, the testimony of PW4- Machhindra Mahto and PW6- Brajeshwar Mahto is not found reliable and trustworthy. 24.2 So far as the testimony of the PW7 is concerned in examination-in-chief he also corroborated the prosecution story. In cross- examination this witness also says that first occurrence he is the informant that the first occurrence took place at the road which was 50 feet away from the house of bride. Second occurrence took place when all the members of the marriage party were having food. In cross-examination this witness also says when the assault was made to Vishnu he fled away from there. 24.3 From the testimony of this PW7- Kishnu Mahto also as soon as the alleged blow of the sword of farsa was given to Vishnu, he immediately fled away from the place of occurrence and what happened thereafter he did not see the occurrence. 25. As per prosecution witnesses Vishnu also fled away from the marriage hall towards the petrol pump. But no one witnesses have seen any one of the appellants-convict chasing injured Vishnu. 26. Here it also becomes relevant that the occurrence is of 14.05.2011 and deadbody of deceased Vishnu was recovered on 22.05.2011 as the doctor received the deadbody on 25.05.2011 at 9:30 hours. There is no evidence by whom the deadbody of deceased was identified. 27. The recovery of the deadbody on the confessional statement and pointing out of appellant convict Rajan Munda is also not found admissible since the investigating officer has not proved the statement of the appellant-convict while confessing his guilt and also his disclosure statement leading to recovery of deadbody. 28. There is no evidence in regard to the third incident which took place at the agriculture field near the petrol pump. Further the identity of the deadbody was fixed on the basis of the sleeper of the left leg of deceased; but no TIP of that sleeper was conducted as per testimony of the investigating officer PW12 Kaushalendra Kumar Jha. 29. In view of the critical analysis of the evidence on record, we are of considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 29. In view of the critical analysis of the evidence on record, we are of considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court needs interference and this criminal appeal deserves to be allowed. 30. This criminal appeal is, hereby, allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the court below is, hereby, set aside. 31. During pendency of this criminal appeal, the appellant no.1 namely, Rajiv Singh Munda was directed to be released on bail. Accordingly, his bail bond is hereby cancelled and the sureties are discharged from the liabilities. 32. Let the appellant no.2 namely, Rajendra Singh Munda be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 33. Let the record of learned trial court be sent back alongwith copy of judgment for necessary compliance. Ananda Sen, J. - I agree