JUDGEMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J: The instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.09.2003 and 18.09.2003, respectively passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in S.T. No. 16 of 2003, 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 along with a fine of Rs. 250/-. Factual Matrix:- 2. Prosecution story as per the Fardbeyan of one Mikhail Munda dated 10.05.2002 recorded by S.I. Indradeo Prasad, officer-in-charge, Mahuwadar Police Station is that the informant’s younger brother Binoy Munda along with his wife Ratani Porath went to his Sasural at Village Jamkona to enjoy festival of Sarhul on the last Monday. After two days, i.e. Wednesday, father of the informant namely Bunu Munda also went to village Jamkona. It is further alleged that the informant’s sister Helena Saras is also married in Village Jamkona who came to the house of the informant on Thursday and told that her father Bunu Munda and brother Binoy Munda have been abducted from their Sasural in the night of Wednesday at about 10-11 PM by three unknown boys . Since, father and brother of the informant did not return, hence, he went to village Jamkona in search of them and also stayed in the night, in the house of his sister. On the next date, one Santri Munda came and told about two dead bodies, lying at the Deogarhi Pokhar. They went to the said place and found the dead bodies of brother and father sustaining cut injuries on neck and face. 3. On the basis of above information, Mahuwadar P.S. Case No. 10 of 2002 dated 10.05.2002 was registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC against three unknown miscreants. 4. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the present appellant along with one Ramnath Munda and Parmeshwar Munda for the offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the IPC. 5. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 16 of 2003 was registered. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of the trial, the co-accused Ramnath Munda and Parmeshwar Munda were extended benefit of doubt and were acquitted and Konda Munda (appellant) was convicted and sentenced as stated above. 6. Heard Mr. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of the trial, the co-accused Ramnath Munda and Parmeshwar Munda were extended benefit of doubt and were acquitted and Konda Munda (appellant) was convicted and sentenced as stated above. 6. Heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of sole appellant and Mr. Saket Kumar, and learned APP for the State. Submissions on behalf of appellant: - 7. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant has submitted that altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution but there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.-1 and P.W.-10 have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.-2 is the Doctor who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.-3 Smt. Ratni who is the wife of Binoy Munda (deceased) and admittedly went along with her husband to her parental home, where the occurrence has allegedly happened but surprisingly, this witness has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.-5 is the informant who has lodged the FIR against the three unknown miscreants but during the trial, he has improved that wife of Binoy Munda namely Smt. Ratni (P.W.-3) has disclosed him the name of three accused persons, could not be believed at all in the scenario depicted by the informant in his Fardbeyan. P.W.-6 Helena Saras is sister of the informant residing at Village Jamkona has stated that she was informed by her sister-in-law Smt. Ratani that three accused persons kidnapped her father-in-law and husband. If this statement is taken to be true, then, why the FIR was not lodged against the named accused persons is a moot question which has not been considered by the concerned trial Court. P.W.-4 Sukhdev Munda, father-in-law of deceased Binoy Munda and P.W.-7, Amru Munda, brother-in-law of deceased Binoy Munda who has also not categorically stated about any role of the appellant. P.W.-8 Polu Munda and P.W.-9 Atwa Munda are also hearsay witnesses. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate that none of the witnesses examined in this case have supported the prosecution story as against the appellant rather the informant and his sister came to know about the appellant from P.W.-3 who herself has not supported prosecution story as regards any role of the present appellant. Learned trial court has based his judgment only on conjecture and surmises. Learned trial court has based his judgment only on conjecture and surmises. It is trite that severely punishable offence requires strong evidence to substantiate the charge. The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence of P.W.-5, 6, 7 and 8 has observed that accused Munna Munda who has been shown absconder as well as involvement of Rakesh Munda @ Prabhat, who has not been sent up for trial in this case, due to insufficient evidence are also perpetrator of crime. Parmeshwar Munda and Ramnath Munda have also not been found guilty and acquitted. In such circumstances, none examination of the investigating officer becomes fatal to the prosecution case. The defence has seriously been prejudiced in his defence, in view of the fact that altogether 5 to 6 miscreants have been disclosed by the witnesses but simply present appellant has been convicted without sufficient evidence and fallible testimony of the witnesses. Therefore, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant is absolutely illegal and without weight of evidence, which is fit to be set aside allowing this appeal. Submissions on behalf of State:- 8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the learned trial Court has very wisely and aptly acted upon the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. Therefore, there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant calling for any interference in this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 9. We have gone through the record of case along with impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties. 10. The only point for consideration in this appeal is that “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from any error of law calling for any interference in this appeal or not?” Analysis, discussions and reasons: - 11. Before delving on merits of the case, we have to consider the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. P.W.-1 Larengu Munda and P.W.-10 Vikta Munda have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.-2 Dr. Dilip Kumar , posted as Deputy Superintendent in Sub-Div. Hospital, Lathehar has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Binoy Munda and found following ante-mortem injuries:- 1. P.W.-1 Larengu Munda and P.W.-10 Vikta Munda have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.-2 Dr. Dilip Kumar , posted as Deputy Superintendent in Sub-Div. Hospital, Lathehar has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Binoy Munda and found following ante-mortem injuries:- 1. One sharp cutting wound size 1”x1/2”x1/2” over forehead 2. Sharp Cutting of 1”x1/2”x1/4” below chin 3. Blackening of skin below both lower eyelid On dissection: Skull bone was cut and hemorrhagic inside skull cavity present. Cause of death haemorrhage and shock by sharp cutting injuries. Time since death 10-12 hours. The P.M. Report is exhibit-1. On the say day, he also conducted post mortem on the dead body of Bunnu Munda and found following injuries:- 1. One sharp cutting wound size 2”x1”x1/2” over forehead 2. Both eyeball damaged 3. Sharp cutting wound size 3”x1”x1/2” over right forearm On dissection:- Skull bone was cut and hemorrhagic present inside skull cavity. Cause of death haemorrhage and shock by sharp cutting weapon. Time since death 10-12 hours. Post-mortem report is exhibit-1/1. P.W.-3 Smt. Ratani is the wife of deceased i.e. Binoy Munda. She has deposed that on occasion of Sarhul, she along with her husband had gone to her parental home at Village-Jamkona and stated nothing about involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence of murder of her husband and father-in-law rather she after being declared hostile, has admitted that she was sleeping in her room and told to Helena Saras (sister of the informant) that she is going to sleep and in the morning, at about 8 AM, she came to know that some unknown persons have killed her husband and father-in-law. P.W.-4 Sukhdev Munda is the father of P.W.-3 and father-in-law of the deceased Binoy Munda who has also deposed that in the next morning of the occurrence, he came to know that Binoy Munda and his father were not present in the house. He informed to village Chowkidar and also proceeded in search of his son-in-law and his father and the dead bodies were found near the pond. He has explained no knowledge about who has committed the murder of the deceased persons. P.W.-5 Mikhail Munda is the informant of this case, who has deposed that his father and brother had gone to his Sasural to attend the Sarhul Festival. He has explained no knowledge about who has committed the murder of the deceased persons. P.W.-5 Mikhail Munda is the informant of this case, who has deposed that his father and brother had gone to his Sasural to attend the Sarhul Festival. In the next morning, his sister Helena Saras came to his house and told that father and brother are not present and had gone anywhere else, then, he went to village Jamkona and saw the dead bodies of his father and brother and police also arrived there and his Fardbeyan was recorded. He has proved his signature on Fardbeyan and on inquest report which is marked as Exhibt-2 and Exhibit-2/1, respectively. He has further deposed that Ratani told him that in the night, she was talking with Munnu, Prabhat and Konda. Then, her husband protested and assaulted her. Thereafter, in the night, at about 11PM, accused persons entered into the house of the Ratani, brought out Binoy Munda and his father and killed them. He stated the motive behind the murder is the illicit relationship of the Ratani with the accused persons. In his cross-examination, he admits that his Fardbeyan was read over and explained to him. Thereafter, he put his signature. P.W.-6 Helena Saras has stated that in the night of occurrence, her sister-in-law Ratani was talking with Konda, Munnu and Prabhat. Hence, his brother Binoy Munda slapped Ratani. She has further alleged that Binoy and Ratani went to sleep in the night, then, all the accused persons Prabhat, Munnu and Konda came and called upon his father and brother. She further stated that in the night itself, her sister-in-law Ratani disclosed that all the accused persons have taken away her husband and father-in-law with intention to commit murder. In the next morning, there was Halla in the village about presence of two dead bodies near the pond. Then, she went there and found dead bodies of her father and brother. In her cross-examination, she has given serious jolt to her testimony in examination-in-chief and stated that she has not seen the occurrence rather she came to know from Ratani about the incident. She identified only one accused Prabhat and other accused persons are not known to her. P.W.-7 Amru Munda is the husband of Helena Saras (P.W.-6). In her cross-examination, she has given serious jolt to her testimony in examination-in-chief and stated that she has not seen the occurrence rather she came to know from Ratani about the incident. She identified only one accused Prabhat and other accused persons are not known to her. P.W.-7 Amru Munda is the husband of Helena Saras (P.W.-6). According to his evidence, on the occasion of Sarhul, Binoy Munda along with his father had come to his Sasural where Ratani, wife of Binoy Munda was talking with some boys and she was slapped by her husband. In the night, some boys came and took away Binoy Munda and his father and killed them. He came to know this incident from Ratani but she has not disclosed the name of any miscreants and he has himself not seen the occurrence. P.W.-8 Polu Munda has deposed that he came to know from Ratani that in the night Rakesh, Munnu and Konda came to her house and took away her father-in-law and husband and have killed near the pond. Then, he went towards the pond and saw the dead bodies of her husband and her father-in-law. He has failed to identify any of the accused persons. P.W.-9 Atwa Munda is also a hearsay witness and came to know that in his village Binoy Munda and Bunnu Munda has been killed and Prabhat, Konda and one another person have killed them and disposed of the dead bodies in the pond. 12. On the other hand, no oral as well as documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence and the case of the defence is denial and false implication. 13. We have given thoughtful consideration to the evidence of the witnesses as discussed above. 14. Admittedly, the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown miscreants but as per the evidence of informant (P.W.-5), his sister Helena Saras (P.W.-6) came to his house in the next day morning and told that in the night, at about 11PM, three unknown young boys had come and on some plea or other, took away Binoy Munda and his father and both of them did not return back. Then, the informant went in search of his brother and father to village Jamkona. His Sister also stated that Binoy Munda and Bunu Munda were taken away by the accused persons. Ratani disclosed the above fact to her. Then, the informant went in search of his brother and father to village Jamkona. His Sister also stated that Binoy Munda and Bunu Munda were taken away by the accused persons. Ratani disclosed the above fact to her. She also saw the dead bodies of the deceased persons in the pond. Admittedly, on the basis of disclosure by this witness, the FIR was lodged by her brother P.W.-5 Mikhail Munda. If this witness had knowledge that whatever she has deposed, was disclosed to her by Ratani then why she has not communicated the same to her brother (P.W.-5). Therefore, anything disclosed to her by Ratani cannot be believed in this context of the case. 15. At this juncture, it is also relevant to critically examine the evidence of Ratani (P.W.-3) who has been declared hostile. Her attention has been drawn towards statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she has denied any statement before Police that on the date of occurrence, in the night, she was talking with the accused persons, and then her husband slapped her in the presence of accused persons. Therefore, in the night, all the three accused persons kidnapped her husband and father-in-law and murdered them. But the above contradiction has not been got explained from the evidence of I.O., who has not been examined in this case. Therefore, the mere suggestion of the prosecution towards her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be acted upon and taken into consideration. Other witnesses of facts are also hearsay witnesses from P.W.-3 Ratani. 16. It appears that the learned trial Court has taken the deposition of hostile and hearsay witness to be gospel truth ignoring the cardinal principle of law of evidence. The learned trial Court has also recorded findings that there are sufficient evidence showing perpetration of co-accused, who has not been sent up for trial. Even not called upon exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 17. The entire evidence as discussed above does not conclusively lead towards the guilt of the appellant for commission of murder of the deceased persons namely Binoy Munda and his father Bunu Munda. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is not justified under law and is based upon inadmissible evidence. 18. In view of the above discussions and reasons, we find merits in this appeal. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is not justified under law and is based upon inadmissible evidence. 18. In view of the above discussions and reasons, we find merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant passed in S.T. No. 16 of 2003 is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 19. The appellant is on bail; he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds and his sureties are also discharged. 20. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 21. We take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fees of Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only) to Mr. Navneet Sahay, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 22. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee. 23. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial court record be sent back to the concerned court for information and needful.