JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. We have already heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. V.K. Vashistha, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. Instant criminal appeal arises out of judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants dated 20.02.2020 and 26.02.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge - II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. Case No.200 of 2014 arising out of Goilkera P.S. Case No.30 of 2013 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.321 of 2013), whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 20.08.2013 at about 08:30 p.m. in the night one Toko Laguri came to the house of the informant, Bamai Surin (P.W.5) and called her husband and accompanied with him started going outside, then informant asked her husband as to where he is going in the night, then he replied to return very soon and left the house along with Toko Laguri. It is further alleged that informant's husband did not return till half an hour then she went to the house of Toko Laguri and Rame Laguri then wife of Rame Laguri disclosed that her husband has gone to the house of Damu Surin (appellant No.1) along with Toko Laguri. The informant went to the house of Damu Surin where she saw Rame Laguri, Toko Laguri and Charan Surin were standing on the door of Damu Surin armed with axe and danda. The informant asked them about her husband then they replied that her husband was inside the house of Damu Surin. The informant knocked the door and was raising loud alarm for about half an hour but door was not opened. In the meantime, Rame Laguri, Toko Laguri and Charan Surin returned back to their houses. The informant asked them about her husband then they replied that her husband was inside the house of Damu Surin. The informant knocked the door and was raising loud alarm for about half an hour but door was not opened. In the meantime, Rame Laguri, Toko Laguri and Charan Surin returned back to their houses. Thereafter, informant also returned back to her home and on the next day morning again she went to the house of Damu Surin in search of her husband and asked from Jiramuni (appellant No.2) daughter of Damu Surin about her husband then she told that her husband had come to her house in the night along with some miscreants to commit their murder, hence, they have killed them and dead bodies are lying in her house, then she went inside the house of Damu Surin and saw her husband Besra Surin and one Mukhoram Surin were lying dead under pool of blood. There were injuries on neck, back, waist and arm caused by axe. The informant has attributed no motive against the accused persons for causing murder of her husband rather she gave information to the Village Munda. Police arrived at the place of occurrence and her fardbeyan was recorded on 21.08.2013 at about 11:30 hours at Village Baraibir near house of Damu Surin. 4. On the basis of above fardbeyan, Goilkera P.S. Case No. 30 of 2013 dated 21.08.2013 was registered for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. against named accused Damu Surin, his son Lal Singh Surin and two daughters Jiramuni and Anita Surin. Lal Singh Surin and Anita Surin were found juvenile on the date of occurrence, hence, their case was split up and sent to Juvenile Justice Board. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the four accused persons for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of sessions where S.T. Case No.200 of 2014 was registered. The present appellants did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. After conclusion of trial impugned judgment and order has been passed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant No.2 (Jiramuni Surin) was released on bail after custody of 9 years and the appellant No.1 (Damu Surin) aged more than 80 years old and still under custody. 6. After conclusion of trial impugned judgment and order has been passed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant No.2 (Jiramuni Surin) was released on bail after custody of 9 years and the appellant No.1 (Damu Surin) aged more than 80 years old and still under custody. It is vehemently argued that the prosecution story starts with calling the husband of informant by Toko Laguri in the night. P.W.5, informant-cum-wife of deceased, although she is not eye witness of occurrence but categorically testified that when her husband did not return till half an hour then she went to the house of Toko Laguri and Rame Laguri who were not found in their houses rather wife of Rame Laguri told that they have gone to the house of Damu Surin along with her husband. She again went to the house of Damu Surin in the night itself and saw that Rame Laguri, Toko Laguri and one Charan Surin were standing at the door of house of Damu Surin armed with danda and axe who also told that informant's husband is inside the house of Damu Surin but door was not opened and she returned. The above three miscreants Toko Laguri, Rame Laguri and Charan Surin have not been arrayed as an accused in the F.I.R. nor they have been cited as a witness otherwise true facts might have been revealed. No valid explanation has been offered by the prosecution as to why these three persons namely Toko Laguri, Rame Laguri and Charan Surin have not been made an accused or the witnesses of the case. It is further submitted that except a single circumstance that two dead bodies of deceased persons were found in the house of appellants, there is no iota of evidence to connect the appellants with the alleged offence of murder. The learned trial court has miserably failed to consider that for the same occurrence a case was also lodged by present appellants about two dead bodies lying in his house after commission of murder elsewhere by some unknown miscreants, which has not been believed by the learned trial court without assigning any sound reasons. It is further submitted that there are general and omnibus allegation against the appellants only on the basis of confessional statement before police, no other material circumstance has been brought on record to establish the guilt of the appellants. It is further submitted that there are general and omnibus allegation against the appellants only on the basis of confessional statement before police, no other material circumstance has been brought on record to establish the guilt of the appellants. No incriminating article has been proved against the appellants showing their complicity in the alleged offence of murder. Therefore, a single circumstance of presence of dead bodies in the house of accused cannot conclusively lead to a conclusion about commission of murder by them. The learned trial court has formulated very general and common questions to put from the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The circumstances so put have no tendency of implicating the appellants in any offence rather the learned trial court has misdirected itself in getting explanation and drawing attention towards the deposition of witnesses in the cross-case lodged by the accused persons in S.T. Case No.216 of 2014. The evidence of one case cannot be adduced in another case as an incriminating circumstance or for the purpose of admission or corroboration. The learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction only on the basis of suspicion, conjecture and surmises. The suspicion initially entertained against the appellants never culminated into legal proof. Therefore, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of appellants is absolutely illegal and fit to be set aside. The appellants deserve acquittal from the charges leveled against them. 8. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State defending the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of appellants has submitted that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly appraised all the materials available on record and properly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses and arrived at right conclusion about guilt of the appellants. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of appellants do not deserve any interference in this appeal which is fit to be dismissed. 9. The only point for determination in this appeal is that as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellants suffers from any error of law calling for any interference by way of this appeal and legally sustainable? 10. We have gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution and perused the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 10. We have gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution and perused the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 11. It appears that in the course of trial altogether 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution :- P.W.1 : Mukhoram Surin P.W.2 : Bagun Banra P.W.3 : Siba Taisum P.W.4 : Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandit (Medical Officer) P.W.5 : Bamai Surin (informant) P.W.6 : Walter Horo is the first I.O. P.W.7 : Girish Marandi is the second I.O. P.W.8 : Christophar Toppo is the third I.O. P.W.1 Mukhoram Surin is the father of the deceased Besra Surin and stated that he heard about his son's death, thereafter, immediately he went to the house of Damu Surin and saw the dead bodies of his son and one Mukhoram Surin with cut injuries on their bodies. He has further stated that he asked Damu Surin who killed them, he confessed that he along with Lal Singh, Anita and Jiramuni killed them. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that his evidence is hearsay, based only on what he was told. P.W.2 Bagun Banra has stated that in the night of the incident, accused Damu Surin came to his house and told him that he had killed two persons who tried to enter his house. The next morning, this witness went to Damu Surin’s house and saw the dead bodies of Besra Surin and Mukhoram Surin. This witness has further stated that the police recovered a sword and another similar weapon from Damu Surin’s house in his presence. Police recorded fardbeyan of the informant regarding this case. In his cross-examination, he has categorically stated that neither the recovered materials sealed before him nor anything wrote upon them. This witness has admitted that his evidence is based on hearsay statement. P.W.3 Siba Taisum is a private Chowkidar, who has stated that after receiving a call from the police station, he went to Damu Surin’s house and saw the dead bodies of Besra Surin and Mukhoram Surin. He has further stated that in his presence, the police seized two weapons; a sword and another sword-like iron weapon from Damu Surin’s house. In his cross-examination, he has stated that material exhibits were seized before him but did not seal before him. He has further stated that in his presence, the police seized two weapons; a sword and another sword-like iron weapon from Damu Surin’s house. In his cross-examination, he has stated that material exhibits were seized before him but did not seal before him. Nothing was written over seized material and took in open state by police. P.W.4 Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandit has conducted postmortem on the dead body of Mukhoram Surin, aged about 28 years, on 22.08.2013 at 11:50 a.m. and found following ante mortem injuries:- External and internal examination :- (I) Sharp cut on chest on left side size – 3 inch x 1/½ inch x ½ inch deep. (II) Sharp cut on left deltoid region size – 3 inch x 1 inch x2/½ inch deep. (III) Sharp cut on left jaw cutting madibular bone size – 2/½ inch x 1 inch x 3 inch deep. (IV) Sharp cut on left temple area size – 2 inch x 1 inch x 4 inch deep. (V) Sharp cut on scalp just behind left ear size – 1 inch x ¾ inch x 3 inch deep. (VI) Stomach – empty (VII) Heart – both chamber empty. Time since death - More than 36 hours. But within 72 hours as rigor mortis present in both upper and lower limb in receding stage. Cause of death is opined to be sharp object such as Axe. Injuries are ante mortem in nature. On the same day, he has conducted postmortem on the dead body of Besra Surin, aged about 30 years on 22.08.2013 at 11:30 am had found following injuries :- External and internal examination :- (i) Sharp cut on face on left side size – 3 inch x ½ inch x 1/1/2 inch. (ii) Sharp cut on neck on left side three in number ranging from size 4 inch x 1 inch x ½ inch to 3 inch x ¾ inch x 1/1/2 inch. Cutting wind pipe and food pipe partially. (iii) Sharp cut on scalp in occipital area on left side –2/1/2 inch x ¾ inch x bone deep. (iv) Sharp cut on scalp on temporal area on left side size – 2/1/2 inch x ¾ inch x bone deep. (v) Sharp cut on back on left side size – 2 inch x ½ inch x 1/1/2 inch deep. (vi) Stomach – digested food material present. (vii) Heart – both chamber empty. (iv) Sharp cut on scalp on temporal area on left side size – 2/1/2 inch x ¾ inch x bone deep. (v) Sharp cut on back on left side size – 2 inch x ½ inch x 1/1/2 inch deep. (vi) Stomach – digested food material present. (vii) Heart – both chamber empty. Time since death – more than 36 hours. But within 72 hours as rigor mortise present in both upper and lower limbs in receding stage. Cause of death – death is due to above mentioned injuries caused by sharp object, like Axe. Injuries are antemortem in nature. P.W.5 Bamai Surin is the informant who has categorically stated that about five years ago, her husband was called by Toko Laguri at around 8:30 p.m. and went with him despite her objection. When informant's husband did not return for half an hour then informant went in search of him to the house of Toko Laguri but her husband was not there. Then, informant asked to Rame Laguri’s wife about her husband then she told that her husband along with Rame Laguri and Toko Laguri, had gone towards the house of Damu Surin then informant reached there and saw Rame Laguri, Toko Laguri, and Charan Surin standing at the door of Damu armed with axe and danda, but her husband was not there. When she inquired them about her husband, they told her that her husband was inside the house.This witness called out for her husband but received no response. That night, she returned home at about 10:00 p.m. crying. Informant has further stated that the next morning, she again went to Damu Surin’s house, where Damu Surin’s daughter admitted that her husband, Besra Surin, along with Mukhoram Surin, had been killed inside the house as they had allegedly come to attack. This witness then saw the dead bodies of her husband and Mukhoram Surin inside the house, both bearing multiple cut injurie and also noticed blood at the spot. Both the dead bodies were lying in the house of Damu Surin. Thereafter, police came to the place of occurrence, recorded her statement (fardbeyan) and obtained her thumb impression. In her cross-examination, this witness had categorically deposed that she last saw her husband leaving the house with Toko Laguri without having dinner. Both the dead bodies were lying in the house of Damu Surin. Thereafter, police came to the place of occurrence, recorded her statement (fardbeyan) and obtained her thumb impression. In her cross-examination, this witness had categorically deposed that she last saw her husband leaving the house with Toko Laguri without having dinner. She later heard from Rame Laguri’s wife that her husband along with Toko Laguri, Mukhoram Surin and Charan Surin, had gone to the house of Damu Surin. However, she admitted that her statement about her husband going inside Damu’s house was based on what she had heard. She has further deposed that when she went searching for her husband at Damu Surin’s house, she found Rame, Toko and Charan standing outside with Rame holding an axe. She knocked at the door loudly but received no response from inside. She remained there until about 10 p.m. and then returned home. She has further deposed that no one else from the village came out, even though she was crying aloud. She has admitted that apart from Rame, Toko and Charan, no one else had said that her husband and Mukhoram Surin entered Damu’s house. She has stated that she along with her father-in-law, mother-in-law and children only in her house. She has deposed that the accused, Damu Surin, is her uncle-in-law but denied suggestions that she was giving false evidence due to family land disputes. She insisted that her testimony was true and not motivated by property issues. P.W.6 Walter Horo is the Investigating Officer of the case. Accordingly, in his examination-in-chief, he has stated that on 28.03.2014, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at Goilkera Police Station. On the same day, the officer received charge of further investigation in P.S. Case No. 30/2013 from the then Officer-In- Charge. During the investigation, accused persons Damu Surin, Jiramuni Surin, Lalsingh Surin and Anita Surin were formally arrested, their confessional statements were recorded in which they admitted their guilt and thereafter, they were sent to judicial custody. The seized bloodstained axe and soil were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi for examination. Subsequently, charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused persons under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. In his cross-examination, he has admitted certain lapses during his investigation. The seized bloodstained axe and soil were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi for examination. Subsequently, charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused persons under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. In his cross-examination, he has admitted certain lapses during his investigation. He did not record the accused’s statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., did not examine any independent witnesses, did not inspect the place of occurrence himself and did not seize any items personally. He has further stated that the seized articles were recovered on 21.08.2013 and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory only on 28.05.2014, but he could not confirm under whose custody or condition they remained during that period, nor whether they were kept in the police station malkhana, as the case diary contained no such record. He also could not confirm whether blood samples from the deceased or fingerprints from the seized axe were collected. He clarified that apart from arresting the accused and sending seized articles for F.S.L. examination, he did nothing further in the investigation. However, he denied the suggestions that he filed the charge-sheet only on orders of his superior officers. P.W.7 Girish Marandi is another Investigating Officer of this case who has stated that on 21.08.2013, he was posted as A.S.I. at Goilkera Police Station. This witness was given charge of investigation in P.S. Case No. 30/2013 by the then Officer-In- Charge. He identified the fardbeyan and formal FIR as being in the handwriting and signature of the then Officer-In-Charge, which were marked as Exhibits 3/1, 3/2 and 5 respectively. He recorded the fardbeyan and seizure list in the case diary, the seizure list being in his own handwriting and signature marked as Exhibit 1/2. He has further stated that the post-mortem reports of deceased Besra Surin and Mukhoram Surin were prepared in carbon process by the Station In-charge marked as Exhibits 2/4 and 2/5. After entering all documents in the case diary, he handed over further investigation of the case along with papers to the Station In-charge. In his cross-examination, he has stated that although he was given charge of investigation, he immediately handed it back on the same day and did not carry out any substantial work except preparing the seizure list. He has further stated that all investigative work is usually recorded in the case diary. In his cross-examination, he has stated that although he was given charge of investigation, he immediately handed it back on the same day and did not carry out any substantial work except preparing the seizure list. He has further stated that all investigative work is usually recorded in the case diary. He inspected the place of occurrence and what he found there was described in the seizure list. He admitted that he did not investigate the house from which the seized articles belonged to, nor did he record any witness statements. He did not identify the accused because he did not get opportunity to see them. P.W.8 Christophar Toppo is another Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated that on 09.09.2013, he was posted as Sub- Inspector at Goilkera Police Station and received charge of further investigation in P.S. Case No. 30/2013 under Section 302/34 IPC from the then Officer-In-Charge. He has further stated that he reached at the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of informant and witnesses (Mukhoram Surin, Besra Surin, Joba Surin and Marsa Surin), who fully supported the occurrence and the FIR. He has further stated that he inspected the place of occurrence and identified six rooms in the house of accused Damu Surin at village Baraibir, Tola Shivsai and noted multiple cut marks of axe and sword blows on the door, a window frame was broken and opened due to pushing. He has further stated that the occurrence took place in the room in which window was broken. In the North, there is boundary of the house of Toko Laguri at a distance of 50 yard, towards South after the vacant land, there is house of Charan Suin, towards East, there is bari of the accused Damu Surin and paddy field and towards West, there is house of Ladu Surin at a distance of 12 feet. He also described the surrounding landmarks. He obtained the post-mortem report and recorded it in the case diary. Due to his transfer, he handed over further investigation along with all records to the Officer-In-Charge, Patras Nag. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he visited the place of occurrence but did not prepare a rough sketch of it. He recorded statements of witnesses near the scene. He obtained the post-mortem report and recorded it in the case diary. Due to his transfer, he handed over further investigation along with all records to the Officer-In-Charge, Patras Nag. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he visited the place of occurrence but did not prepare a rough sketch of it. He recorded statements of witnesses near the scene. The place of occurrence is about 18 km north of the police station with three to four houses nearby and a dense locality about 40–50 feet away from the place of occurrence. He did not arrest the accused and did not recover any incriminating article from the place of occurrence. 12. We have meticulously examined the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced in this case as relied upon by the prosecution. The impugned judgment is based upon circumstantial evidence alone and the sole circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is recovery of two dead bodies brutally assaulted by sharp cutting weapon from the house of appellants. Besides this, there is extrajudicial confession of the appellants before the Village Munda which has also not been reduced into writing and also does not find corroborated from any other independent evidence. 13. The overall spectrum of ocular evidence manifestly envisages that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. It is also undoubted fact that two dead bodies, one of Besra Surin, husband of the informant and one Mukhoram Surin, were found in the house of appellant Damu Surin. The claim of informant Bamai Surin (P.W.5) is very specific that on 20.08.2013 at about 08:30 p.m. in the night one Toko Laguri came to her house and proceeded with her husband, she asked her husband as to where he is going, then he replied to return back soon. After half an hour, the informant went to the house of Toko Laguri where he was not found then she went to the house of Rame Laguri and asked about her husband, Rame Laguri's wife disclosed that her husband had gone to the house of Damu Surin along with Toko Laguri and her husband Rame Laguri. She went there and saw that Toko Laguri, Rame Laguri and one Charan Surin armed with axe and lathi were keeping watch on the door of Damu Surin. She went there and saw that Toko Laguri, Rame Laguri and one Charan Surin armed with axe and lathi were keeping watch on the door of Damu Surin. She also asked them about her husband then they replied that her husband is inside the house of Damu Surin, she knocked the door several times for half an hour but received no response then returned to her home. In the next day morning, she again went to the house of Damu Surin where appellant No.2 (Jiramuni Surin) disclosed that someone had come to commit murder of her father (appellant No.1) and other family members, hence, they have been killed. The above incident was informed to Village Munda Bagun Banra who informed to police and police arrived on the next day morning. The above facts have been fully corroborated in the evidence of P.W.5 during trial. She has also admitted no enmity or any animosity with the appellants furnishing any motive for alleged offence. Therefore, there is no basis for any extrajudicial confession of the appellants before Village Munda and other witnesses. The confessional statement of appellants before police is absolutely irrelevant and hit by provision of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The sole incriminating circumstance as regards recovery of two dead bodies from his house has been reasonably explained by cross- case lodged by the appellants against some unknown persons for dumping two dead bodies in his house which correspond to S.T. Case No.216 of 2014 which has also not been believed and given any weightage by the learned trial court. In this regard, the evidence of P.W.8 Christophar Toppo, one of the Investigating Officer of this case, becomes more important. According to his evidence, he inspected the place of occurrence and identified six rooms in the house of accused Damu Surin at Village Baraibir, Tola Shivsai and noted multiple cut marks of axe and sword blows on the door, a window frame was broken and opened due to pushing. He also confirms that the occurrence took place in the room in which window was broken just 50 yards towards North there is boundary of the house of Toko Laguri who admittedly came to the house of informant called upon her husband and accompanied with him. He also confirms that the occurrence took place in the room in which window was broken just 50 yards towards North there is boundary of the house of Toko Laguri who admittedly came to the house of informant called upon her husband and accompanied with him. It is very strange to conceive that a person after committing murder of someone would damage the door and window of his own house to give different colour to the crime. The plea of defence that someone else after committing murder of two persons dumped the dead bodies in his house becomes fortified with the prosecution evidence itself where P.W.5 (informant Bamai) clearly states that when she proceeded in search of her husband in the night and went towards the house of Damu Surin, she saw that Toko Laguri, Rame Laguri and Charan Surin armed with axe and lathi were present but they simply told that her husband is inside the house. The prosecution has withheld the evidence of Toko, Rame and Charan without any plausible explanation nor they have been made accused as last seen with the deceased just prior to alleged murder. Therefore, another reasonable view is also possible from the facts proved by the prosecution itself in the light of defence plea that someone causing murder of the deceased persons have dumped the dead bodies in the house of appellants. It is also to be inferred that mere existence of dead bodies in respect of which murder is alleged naturally, a suspicion can be raised against the owner/occupier of the said premises, but it cannot be conclusive proof of the guilt of the owner or occupier unless otherwise proved beyond doubt. In the instant case, neither the extrajudicial confession of the appellants can be relied upon nor the sole circumstance of recovery of two dead bodies from the house of appellants may be treated as sole basis for conviction for the offence of murder. The overall story projected by the prosecution itself speaks about different manner of occurrence at the hands of Toko Laguri and others who have not been arrayed as an accused in this case. It is settled principle of law that suspicion howsoever grave it may be, cannot take place of legal proof. It is also trite that where two views are possible regarding commission of an offence, one in favour of accused must be accepted and preferred. It is settled principle of law that suspicion howsoever grave it may be, cannot take place of legal proof. It is also trite that where two views are possible regarding commission of an offence, one in favour of accused must be accepted and preferred. Therefore, the learned trial court appears to have overlooked the material evidence available on record as well as the settled principles of law involved in this case and arrived at absolutely wrong conclusion about guilt of the appellants. 14. In view of above discussions and reasons, we are constrained to held that impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants suffers from serious error of law and beyond the weight of evidence and also based upon conjecture and surmises, therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by Additional Sessions Judge - II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. Case No.200 of 2014 arising out of Goilkera P.S. Case No.30 of 2013 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.321 of 2013). The appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Appellant No.2 is on bail, she is discharged from the liability of her bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 15. Appellant No.1 is still in custody, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 16. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 17. Let a copy of this judgment along with learned trial court record be sent back to concerned trial court for information and needful.