JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. Shubham Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned APP. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.08.1998 passed by Shri Jaywant Tiru, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 264 of 1997, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Chhotu Lohra in which it has been stated that the father of the informant, namely, Dahru Lohra @ Sitaram Lohra had gone to Village Kanakloya to bring the niece of the informant. The informant had left for his field for ploughing and after returning home at 11.30 a.m., he had his meal when Sitaram Gosai had informed him that his wife has died and therefore a request was made to the informant to inform Pandu Gosai, the son of Sitaram Gosai who works in Raja Hotel. The informant accordingly was going to Putri Toli to inform Pandu Gosai when near Karamtola besides the Banyan Tree, he had found the dead body of his father with marks of violence on his body. When the informant raised a cry of alarm several persons had assembled. The father of the informant was having a land dispute with the accused persons who used to regularly threaten his father. The informant has raised a suspicion that the accused persons have committed the murder of his father. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Kolebira P.S. Case No. 46/1997 was instituted for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the I.P.C. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 264 of 1997. Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the I.P.C. which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Initially the appellant and one Chandru Lohra had preferred by the present appeal, but since the appeal had abated as against Chandru Lohra, the same is confined to the appellant Budhu Lohra only. 5. 4. Initially the appellant and one Chandru Lohra had preferred by the present appeal, but since the appeal had abated as against Chandru Lohra, the same is confined to the appellant Budhu Lohra only. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as thirteen (13) witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1 Bhinsent Bage did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 2 Basanti Kumari has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W. 3 Sanju Kerketta did not support the case of the prosecution and was accordingly declared hostile. P.W. 4 Mangarnath Mahto has proved the formal F.I.R. which has been marked as Ext. 1. P.W. 5 Sanjay Singh, P.W. 6 Karampal Yadav, P.W. 7 Nowel Tete and P.W. 8 Bijai Topno were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 9 Arun Singh has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W. 10 Chhutu Lohar @ Chhotu Lohra is the informant who has stated that it was a Sunday and he had gone to plough his field and his father had gone to Village Kanakloya to bring his aunt Phulki Lohrain. He had returned home at 11 a.m. In the village the wife of Sitaram Gosai had died and he was going to Putri Toli to inform the son of Sitaram Gosai, when on the way he found the dead body of his father beneath a Banyan Tree. There were several marks of injury on the person of his father. His cousin brother Mangal Lohra had informed him that Budhu Lohra, Chandru Lohra, Rathu Lohra and Surendra Lohra have committed the murder of his father. There was a previous land dispute between his father and the accused persons. He has proved his signature in the Fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 2/6. In cross examination he has deposed that he had mentioned to the police about the disclosure made by Mangal Lohra regarding the role of the accused persons, but he does not know as to whether the same was incorporated in the Fardbeyan or not. P.W. 11 Mangal Lohra did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 11 Mangal Lohra did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 12 Basudeo Rai was posted as a Sub Inspector of Police in Kolebira P.S. and on information that somebody has been murdered in Putri Toli he along with the other police personnel had reached the place of occurrence where the Fardbeayn of Chhotu Lohra was recorded. He has proved the Fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 6. After taking over the investigation, he had recorded the restatement of the informant and prepared the inquest report which has been proved and marked as Ext. 4. The seizure list has been proved and marked as Ext. 5. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at Village Putri Toli in a lonely place and a Banyan Tree is situated at the place of occurrence. The body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination. He had recorded the statement of Nowel Tete, Sanjay Singh and Karampal Yadav who had stated about the murder committed by the neighbours on account of a land dispute. He had recorded the statements of other witnesses, based on which Budhu Lohra was apprehended who had confessed about the murder and had also disclosed the name of his accomplices. On the confession of Budhu Lohra a Tangi was recovered from the house of Chandru Lohra. He has proved the seizure list of Tangi which has been marked as Ext. 5/1. He has proved the confessional statement of Budhu Lohra which has been marked as Ext. 6. The seizure list of the seized shirt of Budhu Lohra has been proved and marked as Ext. 5/2. A knife was also recovered which was seized and the seizure list has been marked as Ext. 5/3. He has also proved the handwriting and signature of Dr. N. Manjhi upon the injury report which has been marked as Ext. 7/1. The seized articles were sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The witness Bhinsent Bage had stated that he had seen Dahru Lohar being caught hold of by Chhotu Lohra and Surendra Lohra and Budhu Lohra and Rathu Lohra assaulting him with Tangi and knife. A similar statement was given by Sanju Kerketta and Bijai Topno. 7/1. The seized articles were sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The witness Bhinsent Bage had stated that he had seen Dahru Lohar being caught hold of by Chhotu Lohra and Surendra Lohra and Budhu Lohra and Rathu Lohra assaulting him with Tangi and knife. A similar statement was given by Sanju Kerketta and Bijai Topno. In cross examination he has deposed that he had come to know that prior to the incident of murder, the accused persons had once committed assault upon the deceased. He had not received any report from the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the knife and Tangi sent for examination. P.W. 13 Dr. Nageshwar Manjhi was posted as a Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kolebira and on 08.06.1997 he had examined Budhu Lohra and had found the following: (i) A cut injury on the right palm region 1/3” x 1/3” cm. The age of injury was within nine days from the time of injury. (ii) The injury caused by a sharp weapon such as Tangi or knife. The injury was opined to be simple in nature. The injury report has been proved and marked as Ext. 7/1. 6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the commission of murder. 7. It has been submitted by Mr. Shubham Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that all the witnesses who have claimed to have seen the incident have been declared hostile by the prosecution. The only incriminating material as per the case of the prosecution is the recovery of a Tangi and knife based on the purported confessional statement of the appellant, but absence of any report from the Forensic Science Laboratory has failed to ascertain the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the murder. The circumstantial evidence as projected by the prosecution does not complete the chain and thus the learned trial court was in error in relying upon such circumstantial evidence while convicting the appellant. 8. Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned APP has primarily focused on the confession of the appellant and recovery of incriminating materials based on the same apart from the injury suffered by the appellant which also is a strong circumstance indicating the active participation of the appellant in committing the murder of Dahru Lohra. 9. 8. Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned APP has primarily focused on the confession of the appellant and recovery of incriminating materials based on the same apart from the injury suffered by the appellant which also is a strong circumstance indicating the active participation of the appellant in committing the murder of Dahru Lohra. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 10. The evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-12) reveals about recording of the statements of some witnesses who had seen the appellant and Rathu Lohra assaulting the father of the informant with Tangi and knife respectively while he was caught hold of by Chandru Lohra and Surendra Lohra. All the witnesses in course of trial have been declared hostile by the prosecution. It can be concluded that there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the only incriminating circumstance which remains to be considered is the purported confessional statement of the appellant implicating himself as well as the other accused persons. A Tangi and knife were seized based on such confession, but there is no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory available on record which could lead to a conclusion that the seized weapons were used in the murder of Dahru Lohra. Merely because the appellant had suffered a simple injury on right palm for whatever reasons, the same cannot be considered to be an incriminating factor specially in the backdrop of insufficiency of evidence of the prosecution. The appellant seems to have been implicated on account of a land dispute existing between the deceased and the accused persons. The learned trial court has relied upon the circumstantial evidence without taking notice of the fact that the chain of circumstances is not complete. In the background facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, the benefit of doubt would accrue to the appellant. 11. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.08.1998 passed by Shri Jaywant Tiru, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 264 of 1997. This appeal is allowed. 13. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharge from the liability of his bail bond.