JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mrs. Sunita Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.04.1998 (sentence passed on 16.04.1998) passed by Sri Vasudeo Ram, learned 1 st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 172/95 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302/201 IPC and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Falendra Pahan recorded on 17-10-1994, wherein it has been stated that on 16-10-1994, his brother Rajendra Pahan along with his wife and children had gone to Ghutru Mela, where he met Jagdish Munda and Karu Pahan and all had hadiya in the house of Rajendra Pahan. It has been alleged that thereafter, Jagdish Munda and Karu Pahan had taken away Rajendra Pahan with them and when till 10:00P.M. Rajendra Pahan did not return, the mother of the informant went in search of him, but he could not be found. In the morning, the informant along with the Sarpanch and village guru went to the house of Jagdish Munda to enquire regarding the whereabouts of Rajendra Pahan, but Jagdish Munda did not disclose anything. The informant found blood stains and signs of dragging from the house of Jagdish Munda up to the well of Shankar Pahan and finally the dead body of Rajendra Pahan was found in the well. The cause of the incident is that Rajendra Pahan had lost the key of the house of Jagdish Pahan entrusted to him and which occasioned breaking of the lock causing a loss of Rs. 35/- to Jagdish Pahan. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Burmu P.S. Case No. 56/94 was instituted under Section 302/201/34 IPC against unknown persons. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as S.T. No. 172/95. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302/201 IPC which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302/201 IPC which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case: P.W.1 Ganesh Mahto has identified his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1. P.W.2 Suresh Singh has identified his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. P.W.3 Paklu Devi is the wife of the deceased who has stated that she had gone to Ghutru Mela along with her husband and others and while they were returning home at 3:00-4:00P.M., they met Kariba Munda and Jagdish Pahan, who came along with them to her house and consumed hadiya. Karu and Jagdish had demanded the keys from her husband and forcibly had taken him away. She has stated that outside her house, Motua, Lengwa and Mahto were standing, who were also involved in taking away her husband. When her husband did not return in the night, she, her brother-in-law Falendra, sister-in-law Dashmi Devi and mother-in-law Birajo Devi started searching for him. In the next morning, they went to the house of Jagdish, where a trail of blood was detected leading up to the well of Shankar Pahan where with the help of an anchor, the body of her husband was taken out. A stone was found tied to the body. He has stated that Jagdish had fled away on seeing them. In cross-examination, she has deposed that Jagdish and Kariba had also gone to the fair and they had returned with her and her family. The house of Kariba is at a distance of 200 yards from her house. She does not know as to why Kariba was demanding the keys from her husband. All the five persons had forcibly taken away her husband. She did not follow them. The well from where the dead body of her husband was recovered was at a distance of 2 miles from her house. P.W.4 Birajo Devi is the mother of the deceased who has stated that in the evening, Kariba Munda and Jagdish had come to her house while Mahto, Lengwa, Bhoto remained outside the house. Kariba and Jagdish consumed liquor with Rajendra Pahan and while demanding the keys, had taken away her son with them. P.W.4 Birajo Devi is the mother of the deceased who has stated that in the evening, Kariba Munda and Jagdish had come to her house while Mahto, Lengwa, Bhoto remained outside the house. Kariba and Jagdish consumed liquor with Rajendra Pahan and while demanding the keys, had taken away her son with them. Her son did not return at night and in the next morning, she and her family members had gone to the house of Jagdish where they found a trail of blood leading up to the well of Shankar. The chowkidar had come thereafter and had taken out the dead body of her son. In cross-examination, she has deposed that Kariba alias Karu Munda stays at a distance of 200 yards from her house. She does not have any enmity with Karu. She does not know to whom the keys belonged. Her son had stated that he does not have the keys when demanded by Karu and Jagdish. P.W.5 Jagna Munda had gone for search of Rajendra Pahan in the night and in the next morning, he found a trail of blood from the house of Jagdish Munda to the well of Shankar. The Police had come and had taken out the dead body from the well. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had only witnessed the body of Rajendra Pahan being taken out from the well. P.W.6 Niranjan Kumar Ghosh was posted as an officer in charge of Burmu P.S. and on 17-10-1994, he had recorded the fardbeyan of Falendra Pahan and on the basis of which an FIR was recorded which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2. After taking over investigation, he had inspected the place of occurrence which is at village-Chelara in the well of Shankar Pahan. He has proved the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. After conducting the inquest, he had sent the body for post-mortem. He had recorded the statement of the witnesses and on completion of investigation, had submitted charge sheet. In cross examination, he has deposed that there are no houses in the vicinity of the well. He had not conducted a search either in the house of Jagdish or in the house of Karu. He had not questioned Shankar Pahan. He had not seized any blood from near the house of Jagdish. P.W.7 Dr. In cross examination, he has deposed that there are no houses in the vicinity of the well. He had not conducted a search either in the house of Jagdish or in the house of Karu. He had not questioned Shankar Pahan. He had not seized any blood from near the house of Jagdish. P.W.7 Dr. Ram Sewak Sahu was posted as a Medical Officer in the Department of Forensic Medicine, R.M.C.H., Ranchi and on 17- 10-1994, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Rajendra Pahan and had found the following: (I) Abrasions:- (a) 3cm x 4cm on the left elbow lateral side. (b) 3cm x 2cm on right elbow back. (c) 2cm x 2cm on right knee front. (d) 3cm x 2 cm and 2 x 1 cm on left knee front. (e) 4cm x 2 cm on right cheek. (f) Drag mark on the back of trunk and both buttocks. (g) Drag marks on the front side of chest both sides. (II) Lacerated wounds:- (a) 2 x 1 cm on the left side of lower lip with fracture of mandible bone underneath. (b) 5cm x 1cm x soft tissue deep on right eyebrow. (c) 1 cm x ‰ cm x bone deep on the breeze of nose with fracture of nasal bone underneath. (d) 6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the right side of forehead. (e) 3 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the centre of forehead. (f) 2cm x 1 cm x scalp deep on right front region of head. There was depressed fracture of frontal bone measuring 2 cm x 2 cm. (III) Incised Wounds: - (a) 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on right frontal region of head cutting the underlying bone. (b) 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep over right cheek cutting the underlying bone. (IV) Internal Injuries: - (a) There was subdural blood and blood clot over both side of brain. There was fracture of the sternum at right 3 rd and 5 th rib. The cause of death was opined to be on account of shock and hemorrhage as a result of the above-mentioned injuries. The post mortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4. There was fracture of the sternum at right 3 rd and 5 th rib. The cause of death was opined to be on account of shock and hemorrhage as a result of the above-mentioned injuries. The post mortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4. P.W.8 Falendra Pahan is the informant, who has stated that Rajendra Pahan had gone to Ghutru Mela and along with him were Jagdish, Karu, Bhoto Pahan, Lenga Pahan and Mahto Pahan and after watching the fair, they returned back and started consuming hadiya in the house of Rajendra Pahan. He has stated that thereafter all of them went to consume hadiya to the house of Jagdish. In the night, neither Rajendra nor the accused could be found and in the next morning, the Sarpanch and the villagers went to the house of Jagdish, but Jagdish did not disclose about the whereabouts of his brother. Some blood was found in front of the house of Jagdish and there was a trail of dragging which went up to the well of Shankar Pahan. Upon throwing an anchor, the dead body of Rajendra Pahan tied with a stone was taken out. He has proved his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-5. Jagdish Munda had given a key to his brother which got lost for which the lock had to be broken and this was the reason for the murder. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had gone to the fair on the said date. 5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the murder. 6. It has been submitted by Mrs. Sunita Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been implicated on being last seen with the deceased Rajendra Pahan. She has submitted that there appears to be no motive present so far as the appellant is concerned for having taken such drastic step. The Investigating Officer (P.W.6) did not seize any blood-stained earth from near the house of Jagdish Munda which falsifies the assertion of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.8 that a trail of blood from the house of Jagdish Munda to the well of Shankar Pahan led to the discovery of the dead body of Rajendra Pahan. 7. Mrs. The Investigating Officer (P.W.6) did not seize any blood-stained earth from near the house of Jagdish Munda which falsifies the assertion of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.8 that a trail of blood from the house of Jagdish Munda to the well of Shankar Pahan led to the discovery of the dead body of Rajendra Pahan. 7. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special P.P. has submitted that the various circumstances emanating from the evidence of the witnesses clearly indicates about the active involvement of the appellant in the commission of the murder. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 9. The incident of murder of Rajendra Pahan had unfolded in the evening of 16-10-1994 when the appellant and Jagdish Munda, after returning from the fair, had hadiya in the house of Rajendra Pahan and both had thereafter taken away Rajendra Pahan with them after which he had become traceless. In the next morning, the dead body of Rajendra Pahan was recovered from inside the well of Shankar Pahan by following a trail of blood and signs of dragging from near the house of Jagdish Munda to the well of Shankar Pahan. Though P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.8 have stated about the trail of blood, but the evidence of P.W.6 (I.O.) reveals that no blood-stained earth was seized from the said place which would lead to an inference that no blood was detected at the said spot. The evidence of the wife of the deceased who has been examined as P.W.3 reveals that her husband was forcibly taken away by the appellant and other accused persons, but such act did not have any effect on P.W.3 as neither she objected nor she followed her husband. It would, therefore, transpire that the act of the deceased in going away with the accused persons was voluntary. Moreover, there does not seem to be any motive for the appellant to have committed the murder. Jagdish Munda, who is an absconder has been attributed with a motive since the keys of the house of Jagdish Munda which was entrusted to the deceased got lost and Jagdish Munda had to sustain a loss as the lock had to be broken. Jagdish Munda, who is an absconder has been attributed with a motive since the keys of the house of Jagdish Munda which was entrusted to the deceased got lost and Jagdish Munda had to sustain a loss as the lock had to be broken. Such motive seems to be trivial in nature and would instead indicate the close relationship the deceased was having with Jagdish Munda as the keys of the house was entrusted to the deceased. Such fact, however, concerns Jagdish Munda and not the appellant. There was no incriminating article recovered from the appellant. There is no iota of corroboration, in any form, enhancing the involvement of the appellant in the murder of Rajendra Pahan to the last seen theory propounded by the prosecution. All these facets of the case having not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court, we hereby set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15-04-1998 (sentence passed on 16-04-1998) passed by Sri Vasudeo Ram, learned 1 st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 172/95. 10. This appeal is allowed. 11. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed. 12. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.