JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. Heard learned counsel for appellant Mr. Nilesh Kumar as well as Mr. Pankaj Kumar learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. Instant criminal appeal directed against the judgment and order of Conviction and sentence dated 16.06.2004 and 18.06.2004 respectively passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Lohardaga in S.T. Case No. 85 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. We have already heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Nilesh Kumar and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Factual Matrix 4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 28.03.2002 at about 10:30, informant Shanti Kumari (P.W.7) went to forest area for collecting firewood and returned to her home at about 01.00 hours, then saw that her father (Sukhnath Nagesia) was lying sustaining injuries on head. The informant enquired from the villagers regarding the incident and came to know that Laldeo Nagesia (present appellant) who is uncle of the informant had assaulted her father by an axe on back portion of the head. It was also disclosed by the villagers that her father and uncle were quarreling due to land dispute, in the meantime her uncle gave massive axe stroke on head of her father. The injured was brought to Lohardaga Hospital by ambulance where doctor declared him dead. 5. On the basis of above information Kisku P.S. Case No. 23 of 2002 was registered for the offence under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE on 28.03.2002. The case was committed the court of Sessions where the appellant did not plead guilty and claim to be tried. After conclusion of trial, the appellant has been held guilty and sentenced as stated above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that altogether 08 witnesses were examined by the prosecution out of them Shanti Kumari (P.W.7) the informant-cum-daughter of the deceased. The informant has tried to project herself to be an eye-witness of the occurrence during trial, therefore, her testimony to the extent of eye-witness cannot be relied upon. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that altogether 08 witnesses were examined by the prosecution out of them Shanti Kumari (P.W.7) the informant-cum-daughter of the deceased. The informant has tried to project herself to be an eye-witness of the occurrence during trial, therefore, her testimony to the extent of eye-witness cannot be relied upon. The learned trial court has given much emphasis to the hearsay statement of the informant as well as the evidence of P.W.1 (Seplu Nagesia), P.W.2 (Sukhdeo Nagesia) and P.W.3(Lalku Nagesia), who have simply stated that in the noon they were at their home and heard some hue and cry, then rushed towards to the house of Sukhnath Negasia and found he was lying in his Verandah in injured condition. They have also claimed that they have seen the appellant Laldeo Nagesia fleeing away towards jungle along with an axe. The learned trial court has interwoven the aforesaid circumstances along with post-mortem report of the deceased, where incised injuries were found at backside of the head and held the appellant guilty. The approach of the learned trial court is absolutely illegal and beyond the settled principles of law. Mere fleeing away of present appellant with an axe without any other linked evidence, it cannot be inferred that appellant has committed a crime. Moreover, this incriminating circumstance was also not put to the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. simple question relating to land dispute and demand of money with the deceased by the accused has been asked which has been denied. therefore, impugned judgment of conviction of the appellant is liable to be set aside. He deserves acquittal from the charge leveled against him. Therefore, this appeal is fit to be allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellants and submitted that learned trial court has very wisely and aptly considered the entire aspects of the case and culpability of the appellant in commission of murder of the deceased, therefore, there is no merits in this appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. 8. 8. The only point for determination in this appeal is that "as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence suffers from any error of law, calling for any interference in this appeal? 9. We have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment as well as contentions raised on behalf of both sides. 10. Prosecution has examined altogether 08 witnesses in this case and we have to apprise with the testimony of witnesses examined by the prosecution:- P.W.1 Seplu Nagesia has claimed to heard hulla, then went to the house of Laldeo Nagesia where he saw Sukhnath lying in the Verandah sustaining head injury caused by tangi. Sukhnath was unconscious. He also saw Laldeo Nagesia was fleeing away with tangi. In his cross-examination he has stated that before he reached there, 2-3 female members and other family members of Sukhnath Nagesia were also present. He did not talk with Laldeo Nagesia about the occurrence and as to why he was fleeing, who was at a distance of 300-400 yards. It appears that this witness in statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that he came to know from son and daughter-in-law of Sukhnath that Laldeo Nagesia has killed the sukhnath. P.W.2 Sukhdeo Nagesia has also claimed to heard hulla and went to the house of Sukhnath and saw him lying unconscious sustaining head injuries caused by an axe. He has also claimed to see Laldeo Nagesia was fleeing away with tangi towards jungle. In his cross-examination this witness admits that his house is situated about 1.50 to 02 kilometers from the place of occurrence and he reached there within 15 minutes. There was crowd of 40 to 50 persons. He also admits that in the village, male members also used to go forest area for cutting firewood. P.W.3 Lalku Nagesia has also claimed to have heard hulla coming from the house of Laldeo Nagesia and went there, then he saw that Laldeo Nagesia was going towards forest and Sukhnath was lying in Verandah sustaining head injuries under unconscious state. He also admits in his cross-examination when he reached at the place of occurrence, several villagers were already present. He saw Laldeo Nagesia with axe from a distance of 400 yards. He has not seen any scuffle between the accused and deceased. He also admits in his cross-examination when he reached at the place of occurrence, several villagers were already present. He saw Laldeo Nagesia with axe from a distance of 400 yards. He has not seen any scuffle between the accused and deceased. P.W.4 & 5 Madhusudan Sharma & Yogendra Mandal are the witnesses of inquest report. P.W.6 S.I. Krishnanath Safi is the investigating officer of the case. He has proved the fardbeyan which is marked as Exhibit-1. Marked inquest report as Exhibit-2. He further recorded the re-statement of the informant and statements of other witnesses. He has further proved/endorsement on Fardbeyan as exhibit-1/2. He also visited the place of occurrence which is the house of Sukhnath Nagesia situated in village Pakhar. He has also arrested the accused Laldeo Nagesia on 03.04.2002 and also recorded his confessional statement. After receiving post-mortem report, he submitted charge-sheet against the sole accused for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that no blood stained earth or axe was seized by him. P.W.7 Shanti Kumari is informant and daughter of the deceased. According to her evidence, on the date of occurrence at about 10-11 A.M, she was in her house meanwhile accused Laldeo Nagesia who is her uncle started demanding money from her father Sukhnath. She has further deposed that when her father denied to give money, then her uncle Laldeo Nageseia gave tangi blow on the backside of head of her father due to which he fell down and died. She raised alarm, then several villagers namely Lalku, Sukhdeo and Seplu and others arrived and managed an ambulance of Hindalco and her father was brought to hospital where he was declared dead. Her fardbeyan was recorded at Sadar hospital which was read over and explained to her then, she put her thumb impression. In her cross-examination she also reiterates that at the time of the occurrence she was present at her home and she has denied that in her fardbeyan, she has stated that at that time she had gone to forest area and when she returned, her father was lying in injured condition on earth and when she raised alarm, then other villagers told that Laldeo Nagesia has assaulted to her father. P.W.8 Dr. P.W.8 Dr. Hemant Kumar has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found following:- i) Rigor mortis:- Present in both upper and both lower limbs. Injury:- Incised wound size 3” x 1” x brain deep over middle occipital region of the head. On dissection:- There was fracture of underline occipital bone. Brain matter cut. Blood clot present. He has further opined that the above injury was ante- mortem in nature and caused by sharp cutting weapon and grievous in nature and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further opined that the death caused due shock and hemorrhage cause by sharp cutting weapon like tangi. 11. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of the defence is denial from occurrence and false implication only on the basis of suspicion and accused has pleaded his innocence. 12. The testimony of witnesses as discussed above, particularly P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have claimed to have only seen the deceased in injured condition lying in Verandah of his house as well as accused Laldeo Nagesia was fleeing away with a tangi. The witnesses have also stated some land dispute regarding partition of property between the deceased and the accused, but no such material has been brought on record to establish such dispute. Therefore, the claim of P.W.1, 2 and P.W.3 regarding seeing the appellant fleeing away with a tangi itself is not a crucial circumstance to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused. Moreover P.W.7 who is the informant-cum-daughter of the deceased, although, in her earliest version at the time of recording fardbeyan was a hearsay witness and without disclosing the name of any villager stated that villagers have told her that her uncle Laldeo Nagesia has assaulted to her father due to some land dispute, but during trial she has materially improved her version and stated just like an eye-witness of occurrence showing her presence at the time of incident of assaulted to her father caused by the appellant. She also categorically states that when she raised alarm then other witnesses like P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 arrived. Therefore the claim of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 that they have seen the accused fleeing away with an axe towards forest area also appears to be doubtful. She also categorically states that when she raised alarm then other witnesses like P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 arrived. Therefore the claim of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 that they have seen the accused fleeing away with an axe towards forest area also appears to be doubtful. Not only this, the circumstance alleged by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 about seeing the accused fleeing away with a tangi has also not been put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, it cannot be used against him as an incriminating circumstance. It also appears from the deposition of Investigating Officer (P.W.6) of the case that no incriminating materials were seized from the place of occurrence nor the weapon used by the appellant was recovered. 13. We have given anxious consideration to overall aspects of the case and arrived at conclusion that the learned trial court has miserably failed to appreciate the case based on circumstantial evidence. The "Panchsheel" principles of circumstantial evidence has been propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 153 of the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda versus State of Maharashtra (1984)4 SCC 116 :- 1. Fully Established circumstances: The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn must be fully established and not merely suggested. 2. Consistent with Guilt:- The facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt. 3. Conclusive Nature:- The circumstances must be conclusive in nature. 4. Exclusion of other Hypotheses:- They must exclude every hypothesis other than the one to be proved (i.e. the guilt of the accused) 5. Complete Chain: There must be a complete chain of evidence, leaving no reasonable ground for doubt about the innocence of the accused. 14. In the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any motive behind the occurrence. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence leading to conclusion of guilt of appellant. The circumstances brought on record appears to be insufficient and does not form a complete chain leading towards guilt of the appellant. Therefore, we find substance in the argument raised on behalf of the appellant and merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from serious error of law and based upon scanty circumstances which is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed. 15. Therefore, we find substance in the argument raised on behalf of the appellant and merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from serious error of law and based upon scanty circumstances which is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed. 15. Appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 16. Pending I.As, if any stand disposed of. 17. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the concerned court forthwith for information and needful.