JUDGMENT : (R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.06.1998 (sentence passed on 09.06.1998) passed by Shri Birendra Singh, Learned First Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in S.T. No. 188/1996, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C and has been sentenced to R.I. for life. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbayan of Mariam Guria recorded on 11.10.1995 in which it has been stated that on 10.10.1995 at about 6 p.m., the informant was collecting leaves beneath the jackfruit tree situated in front of her house when Somra Guria (appellant) and Suleman Guria came and dragged her to her house and asked about the whereabouts of her father-in-law. It has been alleged that the accused persons entered into the courtyard, caught hold of the father-in-law of the informant and assaulted him with Mungra and Lathi. The reason for the occurrence is that the wife of Somra Guria had given birth to a child two months back and in course of delivery she died. The accused blamed the father-in-law of the informant for the death as he practiced exorcism. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Torpa P.S. Case No. 68 of 1995 was instituted under Sections 302 / 34 I.P.C. 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. 188 of 1996. Charge was framed under Section 302 / 34 I.P.C against the accused persons which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case. 5. P.W. 1 Soma Munda has proved the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1. 6. P.W. 2 Lalgi Guria did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution. 7. P.W. 3 Mariam Guria is the informant who has stated that on 10.10.1995 it was dusk and she was accumulating leaves below the jackfruit tree situated near her house. In the meantime, Somra came and caught hold of her hand. P.W. 2 Lalgi Guria did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution. 7. P.W. 3 Mariam Guria is the informant who has stated that on 10.10.1995 it was dusk and she was accumulating leaves below the jackfruit tree situated near her house. In the meantime, Somra came and caught hold of her hand. There was another person with Somra whom she could not recognize. Somra had a Mungra in his hand while the other person did not carry any weapon. Somra wanted to know the whereabouts of her father-in- law and while saying so, he had dragged her inside her house and started assaulting her father-in-law with the Mungra. Somra had thereafter dragged her father-in-law to the courtyard where he was once again assaulted with Mungra leading to his death. Before dragging out her father-in-law, Somra had also dragged out her mother-in-law. When her father-in-law was being dragged out, she and the others had raised a cry of alarm but nobody had come as all the persons residing nearby had either gone to the jungle or had gone to graze cattle. When the villagers and her husband had returned, she had disclosed to them the manner of occurrence and the assailants who had taken part in the assault. She has stated that her niece Dumki Gudiya is also an eyewitness to the occurrence. Her father-in-law was murdered as the wife of Somra had died during childbirth and exorcism was done by her father- in-law at the time of childbirth. She has proved her signature in the Fardbayan which has been marked as Exhibit-2. She has accepted the fact that she had stated before the Police about Suleman and Somra dragging out her father-in-law and assaulting him with Lathi and Mungra. In cross-examination, she has deposed that only two persons had come in her courtyard and she could identify Somra. Somra after committing the assault had left the Mungra besides the dead body but when the Police came, the Mungra was not found in the said place. 8. P.W. 4 Dumki Gudiya did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution. 9. P.W. 5 Shishir Gudiya has proved his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-2/1. 10. 8. P.W. 4 Dumki Gudiya did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution. 9. P.W. 5 Shishir Gudiya has proved his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-2/1. 10. P.W. 6 Chamra Gudiya has stated that he had gone to Saude Bazar and when he returned home in the evening, he saw the dead body of his father lying in the courtyard. His wife had disclosed that his father was assaulted by Somra Gudia with Lathi and Mungra. He has stated that the wife of Somra was in the family way and his father was called to use his powers of exorcism, but after some time, though a child was born but the wife of Somra died. In cross-examination, he has deposed that there was no outsider present in the house when he had returned home and had seen the dead body of his father. Prior to the occurrence, there was no animosity between him and the accused. 11. P.W. 7 Shaligram Chaudhary has proved the Fardbayan and formal F.I.R. which have been marked as Exhibit 4 and 5 respectively. The case diary from page 1 to 43 has been marked as Exhibit-6. 12. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which he has denied his complicity in the murder of the father-in-law of the informant. 13. It has been submitted by Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, learned Amicus Curiae that the prosecution case suffers from inherent contradictions and incongruities. The Fardbayan speaks about the involvement of two named accused persons including the appellant in the murder of the father-in-law of the petitioner, but in her evidence as P.W.3, the informant has conveniently ignored the presence of Suleman Guriya, though at the same time admitted about her disclosure to the Police regarding the presence of Suleman Guriya. There is a discrepancy with respect to the place where the dead body was found. The doctor and the I.O have not been examined and there are no independent witnesses also who would corroborate the version projected by P.W. 3 and in absence of any independent material, such allegation would dilute the case of the prosecution. 14. Mrs. There is a discrepancy with respect to the place where the dead body was found. The doctor and the I.O have not been examined and there are no independent witnesses also who would corroborate the version projected by P.W. 3 and in absence of any independent material, such allegation would dilute the case of the prosecution. 14. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P has submitted that the evidence of P.W. 3 gains credence from the evidence of P.W. 4 who, though was declared hostile but was only with respect to non-identification of Suleman Guriya. P.W. 4 has supported the specific role played by the appellant and the learned trial court has appropriately dealt with such evidence while convicting the appellant. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 16. The Fardbayan of the informant reveals about the present appellant and Suleman Guriya dragging the father-in-law of the informant to the courtyard and committing indiscriminate assault upon him with Lathi and Mungra leading to his death. The Fardbayan specifies Etwari Guriya and Dumki Guriya as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The mother-in-law of the informant, namely, Etwari Guriya was dragged out from the house of the accused persons but she has not been examined by the prosecution. P.W.4 though has been declared hostile by the prosecution as she has stated about the appellant committing assault upon her grandfather. She, however, has absolved Suleman Guriya of participating in the assault as it has been emphatically stated that the appellant acted alone in the incident and there was no one with him. The evidence of P.W. 4 contradicts the testimony of the informant (P.W.3) who has deposed about the appellant being accompanied by another person and both had committed a concerted assault upon her father-in-law. P.W. 3 at the same time has admitted about disclosing to the Police the name of Suleman Guriya as one of the assailants. Any minor contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses would not dent the case of the prosecution as it is a natural phenomenon but when the evidence speaks of discrepancies in the number of participants in the assault and the resiling of P.W. 3 of naming Suleman Guriya though admitting to have taken his name before the Police, would create a grave doubt over the case projected by the prosecution. Moreover, even though the incident had taken place in the evening but it seems that nobody had come to the assistance of P.W. 3 when she had raised a cry of alarm. The justification for the absence of the independent witnesses as highlighted by P.W.3 seems to tread on shallow waters as it was dusk in the month of October with winter setting in and it is expected that whosoever had gone to graze cattle or to the jungle, must have returned back by then. The evidence of P.W.3 cannot be said to be cogent, consistent and corroborative in view of the inherent discrepancies and apparent contradictions when considered in the back drop of the evidence of P.W. 4. In such circumstances the benefit of doubt would accrue to the appellant. 17. We, therefore, in view of the discussions made herein above, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.06.1998 (sentence passed on 09.06.1998) passed by Shri Birendra Singh, Learned First Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in S.T. No. 188/1996. 18. This appeal is allowed. 19. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 20. We take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, learned Amicus Curie and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fees to Mr. Tiwari within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. 21. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order be handed over to the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee.