JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, learned amicus curiae for the appellant and learned A.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11-09-2003 passed by Sri Rama Shankar Shukla, learned 6 th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 134 of 2003/ 08 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the Appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/201 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC. No separate sentence has been passed for the offence under Section 201 IPC. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Hopan Murmu recorded on 28-11-2002 in which it has been stated that the father-in-law of the informant, namely, Chunda Hembram, was working for the last 7-8 days in the house of Vimal Mirdha as a shepherd. On 27-11-2002, Kubraj Murmu, the Pradhan of the village of the informant, had disclosed that he has received information from the Pradhan of Harna village that Chunda Hembram has been murdered by Nishikant Singh, who has hidden the dead body in Ultandi Dangal with the help of the villagers. At this information, the informant along with some villagers had gone to Ultandi Dangal where the dead body of Chunda Hembram was located and there were signs of violence in his body. The informant along with the villagers had thereafter enquired from Asahana village wherein the villagers had disclosed that Nishikant Singh had assaulted Chunda Hembram with lathi and danda on the allegation that he had taken away two oxen about two months back. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Dumka (M) P.S. Case No. 106/02 was instituted under Section 302/201/34-IPC. 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 Sessions Case No. 134/03. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302, 201/34 IPC which was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses in support of his case: P.W.1 Hopan Murmu is the informant who has stated that the Pradhan of Harna village had disclosed to her that Nishikant Singh has committed the murder of her father-in-law Chunda Hembram. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses in support of his case: P.W.1 Hopan Murmu is the informant who has stated that the Pradhan of Harna village had disclosed to her that Nishikant Singh has committed the murder of her father-in-law Chunda Hembram. She had gone to Ultandi Dangal along with the villagers and saw the body of Chunda Hembram. Her fardbeyan was recorded in the Police Station. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had seen blood on the road which was going towards the place where the dead body of her father-in-law was lying. She had not witnessed the assault. P.W.2 Ravan Rai did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.3 Kubraj Murmu is the Pradhan of village Mas Birua who has stated that about 5-6 months back, the Pradhan of Harna village had informed him that a person from his village has been murdered by Nisho Singh and the dead body has been thrown in Ultandi Dangal. He had seen the dead body of Chunda Hembram. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen the incident. P.W.4 Some Hembram has stated about the information given by the Pradhan of Harna village that a murder has been committed by Nishi Singh. He had not seen the assault so committed. P.W.5 Vinod Kumar was posted as an Officer-in-Charge of Dumka(M) P.S. and on 28-11-2002, on the basis of the fardbeyan of Hopan Murmu, he had registered Dumka (M) P.S. Case No. 106/02. He has proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Exhibit-1. He has also proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-2. After taking over the investigation of the case, he had inspected the place of occurrence which is in the kitchen garden of Khub Lal Singh of village Asahana. He had also inspected the place where the dead body was found. He has proved the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. He had recorded the statement of the informant and the statement of other witnesses and had thereafter submitted charge sheet. In cross-examination he has deposed that he cannot say as to who had given him the initial information about the occurrence. He has proved the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. He had recorded the statement of the informant and the statement of other witnesses and had thereafter submitted charge sheet. In cross-examination he has deposed that he cannot say as to who had given him the initial information about the occurrence. P.W. 6 Meghraj Rai is the Pradhan of Harna village who has stated that Dinesh Jha had disclosed to him that a scuffle has taken place in the village. He does not know anything about the incident. P.W.7 Sukhdeo Mirdha has stated that the incident is of 8 months back at 02:00-03:00PM and he had seen Nishikant Singh assaulting Chunda Hembram as a result of which Chunda Hembram died. In cross-examination, he has deposed that at the time of the incident no one else were present. He had stayed at the place of occurrence for 1-2 minutes and thereafter, he had left for the market and after making some purchases, he had returned back home. He has stated that he is giving his statement regarding the incident for the first time. P.W.8 Sukumari Mirdha has stated that he had seen Nishikant Singh committing assault upon Chunda Hembram. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had stated before the Police that he had later on come to know about the assault which took place. He had not stated before the Police that he had witnessed the assault. P.W.9 Baijnath has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W.10 Patwari Singh has stated that he had heard that Chunda Hembram has been murdered by Nishikant. P.W.11 Bimal Mirdha has also stated about coming to know of the murder of Chunda Hembram committed by Nishikant. He had not witnessed the incident. P.W.12 Raghunath Singh has stated that at 04:00PM, Nishikant Singh had committed assault upon Chunda Hembram. In cross-examination, he has deposed that at the time of the incident he was working in his Rahar field. He had gone towards the source of alarm where he found Chunda lying on the ground and several persons had already assembled by then. P.W. 13 Dr. Anant Kumar Jha was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Dumka and on 28-11-2002, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Chunda Hembram and had found the following: 1. Abrasion 2" X 1" on right arm above right elbow. 2. P.W. 13 Dr. Anant Kumar Jha was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Dumka and on 28-11-2002, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Chunda Hembram and had found the following: 1. Abrasion 2" X 1" on right arm above right elbow. 2. Abrasion on right side chest 3" X 1" placed horizontally. 3.Abrasion on right side neck 1" X 1". 4. Abrasion on lest glutted region 4" X 2". 5. Abrasion perineal region ½" X 4". 6. Abrasion Ecchymoses left side on lower and front of the chest. On dissection, subclavius collection blood was found. On further dissection there was fracture of 5th and 6th ribs. On further dissection, on opening of thoracic cavity, there was huge collection of blood on left side. The left side of lung found collapsed and punctured. The cause of death was opined to be due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury no. 6. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-4. 5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the entire incident of assault has been denied. 6. Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, learned amicus curiae has submitted that it is a case of no evidence. The implication of the appellant as having committed the murder of Chunda Hembram is totally based on rumours. Mrs. Bhagat has submitted that P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.12 claim themselves to be the eyewitnesses but a bare perusal of their evidence would reveal otherwise. The learned trial court has placed undue reliance on the evidence of these witnesses while recording a finding of guilt of the appellant. 7. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that the defence has failed to elicit any contradiction in the evidence of the eyewitnesses whose testimony has been consistent and corroborative. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 9. It all started on account of an information sourced from the Pradhan of Harna village wherein the appellant was said to have committed assault upon Chunda Hembram, the father-in-law of the informant resulting in his death and the dead body was thrown in Ultandi Dangal from where it was recovered. Though the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses, but P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.12 are the only witnesses of substance. Though the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses, but P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.12 are the only witnesses of substance. P.W.7 has witnessed the incident of assault and at that time, no one was present save and except P.W. 7. In his cross-examination, he has deposed about witnessing the incident for about 1-2 minutes. The conduct of P.W.7 after seeing the incident leaves a lot to be desired. Neither did he inform any villagers about the incident, nor did he inform the Police or the relatives of Chunda Hembram. He instead straight away went to the market and after purchasing some articles, returned back home. An incident of such magnitude wherein a murder has taken place in front of the eyes of P.W.7 did not leave him shaken and flustered, but he went about his chores in a matter-of-fact manner. In the context of the conduct of P.W.7, we may refer to the case of Amar Singh versus State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 19 SCC 165 , wherein it has been held as follows: “ 19. The unnatural conduct of Parminder Singh PW 1 and Amar Singh PW 11 the two brothers of the deceased which we have noticed from record is that though they claim to be present at the time of occurrence, no attempt was made by them to save their brother from assault. Though PW 1 has tried to explain in his examination-in-chief that when they tried to intervene and save their brother Devinder Singh alias Ladi all the three accused persons aimed their weapons at them and threatened that in case they intervened they would also be killed. It may be relevant to notice that Amar Singh PW 11 neither in statement-in-chief nor in his cross-examination by the prosecution after being declared hostile stated about any efforts made either by him or by PW 1 Parminder Singh to save their brother Devinder Singh alias Ladi when he was attacked. On the contrary, PW 11 stated in his examination-in-chief that he was not able to run because of his spinal injury. In the cross-examination he categorically stated that he never told the police that when they tried to rescue, accused Inderjeet Singh brandished the knife and accused Amar Singh and Shiv Charan brandished hockey towards them threatening to kill anyone who comes to rescue Devinder Singh alias Ladi. In the cross-examination he categorically stated that he never told the police that when they tried to rescue, accused Inderjeet Singh brandished the knife and accused Amar Singh and Shiv Charan brandished hockey towards them threatening to kill anyone who comes to rescue Devinder Singh alias Ladi. He also denied in the cross-examination having ever being given any statement to the police that he had identified the culprits or accused Inderjeet Singh has stabbed with knife and accused Amar Singh gave hockey-blows and the front portion of the hockey had broken because of assault and the 3rd accused Shiv Charan also gave hockey-blows. 20. The assailants were only armed with hockey sticks and a knife and not with any firearms. It seems very unnatural that two brothers present on the spot will not even make slightest attempt to intervene and try to save the other brother being assaulted, merely on the threat extended by the assailants armed with hockey sticks and a knife. This unnatural conduct totally against natural human behaviour casts a serious doubt of shadow on the presence of eyewitness on the spot at the time of occurrence. Moreover, the facts stated by PW 1 Parminder Singh in this regard, as already discussed above, have not been corroborated by the other brother Amar Singh PW 11. 21. The other unnatural conduct of two brothers PW 1 and PW 11 just after the incident again makes their presence on the spot extremely doubtful. There was a medical clinic of Doctor Bhardwaj just nearby the place of incident and the first endeavour of the two brothers would have been to take injured brother to the clinic for immediate medical aid or try and get some medical aid from the clinic of Doctor Bhardwaj. Admittedly, according to the statement of Parminder Singh PW 1 PCR van arrived after about 15 minutes. During this period no effort was made to either take the injured brother to the clinic or to call Doctor Bhardwaj for some first aid. This is totally against normal human behaviour.” 10. So far as P.W.8 is concerned, in his cross-examination he has denied to have stated before the Police about witnessing the incident. P.W.8 is therefore, a hearsay witness and no reliance can be placed on his evidence. This is totally against normal human behaviour.” 10. So far as P.W.8 is concerned, in his cross-examination he has denied to have stated before the Police about witnessing the incident. P.W.8 is therefore, a hearsay witness and no reliance can be placed on his evidence. The evidence of P.W.12 also seems to be hearsay in nature as though in his examination-in-chief, he claims to have seen the assault, but his cross examination reveals that after hearing a commotion he had rushed to the source of commotion and had found Chunda Hembram lying dead with several persons having already assembled by then. It would mean that when he had reached the place of occurrence, the assailant had already fled away. P.W.12, therefore, cannot be categorized to be an eyewitness. 11. Once the eyewitness account of P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.12 gets diluted by virtue of the nature of evidence we have discussed above, what remains is a fragrance of innocence of the appellant. 12. The learned trial court has not appropriately considered the materials available on record in its proper perspective and based on the discussions made by us which we have noted hereinabove, we set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11-09-2003 passed by Sri Rama Shankar Shukla, learned 6th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 134 of 2003/ 08 of 2003. 13. This appeal is allowed. 14. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 15. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed. 16. We take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat learned amicus curiae and consequently, we direct the Member Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee to extend an amount of Rs. 10,500/- to the learned amicus curiae within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Member Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee immediately and forthwith.