- (1.) NO body appears for the appellants.
(2.) MR. Rajiva Sharma, learned senior counsel submitted that the appellants have taken away the file from him. These appeals arise from the common judgment of conviction dated 21.6.2003 and order of sentence dated 23.6.2003 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 189 of 1997 convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life. The prosecution case in short is that Jiru Ram (P.W. 5) lodged fard beyan on 1.8.1996 at 7:30 A.M. along with the dead body of his father aged 65 years, inter-alia to the effect that the appellants Shanichariya Devi called his father at about 3:00 A.M. in the night of 29.7.1996 saying that 'Jhar Phoonk' was being done in her house and on this, the father of the informant went there. After about one hour, on the alarm raised by Shanichariya Devi, the informant went to the house of appellants and saw them present there. He heard his father was screaming. The informant surrounded the house along with others, entered into the house and caught the appellant � Sanichar Rai, who confessed his guilt. Other accused persons fled away. The informant found his father lying unconscious with bleeding injury. When he was being taken for treatment, he died. It was further alleged that at about 6-7 years ago, Surya Rai has declared the father of the informant as witch, due to which he started living in his Sasural.
(3.) THE prosecution examined 9 witnesses. P.W. 9 is the investigating officer and P.W. 8 is the doctor who conducted post- mortem on the deceased and found one lacerated wound on his head caused by hard blunt substance to be the cause of death. None of P.W. 1 to 7 are the eye-witnesses to the actual occurrence. The conviction is based on the confession said to have been made by the appellant Sanichar Rai before the witnesses that he killed the father of the informant. But, from the evidence of the investigating officer, it appears that none of the witnesses disclosed before him about such confession. Against Shanichariya Devi the case is that she called the deceased, but it is also stated in F.I.R. that on her alarm, the informant went to her house, the place of occurrence. Nothing specific has come against the appellants Ganesh Rai and Sahdeo Rai. Therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove the manner of actual occurrence beyond all reasonable doubts. In the circumstances, we are inclined to give benefit of doubt to the appellants. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside. Appellants � Ganesh Rai, Sahdeo Rai and Shanichariya Devi are discharged from their bail bonds. It appears that the appellant � Sanichar Rai is in jail for about 14 years. He is directed to be released from the jail forthwith, if not wanted in any other criminal case. Thus, both the appeals stands allowed.;