VISHNUDEO NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THESE appeals have been directed by the appellants, namely, Sanjay Kerketta (in Cr. Appeal No. 77 of 1996), Barnabas Topno (in Cr. Appeal No. 104 of 1996), Anil Barla @ Anil Munda @ Anil Kumar Barla (in Cr. Appeal No. 125 of 1996), Silvestar Kerketta (in Cr. Appeal No. 137 of 1996) and Ajit Barla @ Ajit Munda (in Cr. Appeal No. 201 of 1996) against the impugned judgment dated 18.04.1996 and order dated 20.04.1996 respectively passed by Shri R.P. Verma, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 197 of 1993 whereby and whereunder they were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3021 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. However, they were not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and they were acquitted in respect thereof. 2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext.3) of P.W. 9, Ghanshyam Singh recorded by P.W.13, Gupteshwar Singh, S.I. of Kamdara P.S. near Latra Panchayat Bhawan at village Latra on 21.01.1993 at 8.15 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place at Chorchuwa More in village Murumkela Khutiari Tand Jungle at about 18.30 hours on 20.01.1993 regarding the commission of the murder of Krishna Singh and Bandhan Suwashi. The case was instituted against unknown three accused persons on 21.01.1993 at 14.30 hours and the formal EI.R. (Ext.4) along with the fardbeyan was received in the court competent to take cognizance on 22.01.1993. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant had gone to Murumkela Bazar on that day at 14.30 hours for purchasing vegetables and after making the purchase he met his co -villagers, namely, Krishna Singh and Bandhan Suwashi in the said market. It is alleged that the informant had also met P.W.8 Raj Kishore Singh, the son of Krishna Singh aforesaid who used to deal in mustard oil in the said market and the said Raj Kishore Singh had gone to the market with a lantern and he had left the market at 18.00 hours after handing over the said lantern to his father Krishna Singh. The prosecution case further is that the informant along with Krishna Singh and Bandhan Suwashi left the market at6 o'clock in the evening on foot for their village Latra via Chorchuwa More and the informant was ahead of them followed by Bandhan Suwashi and, thereafter, Krishna Singh who was carrying the tern in his hand. It is alleged that when they reached near Chorchuwa More of village Murumkela Latra on R.E.O. road near a blackberry tree, three unknown persons armed with Bhujali and dagger came to them from the bush and one of them caught Bandan Suwashi from behind and he assaulted him by Bhujali and one of the rest unknown accused caught Krishna Singh and the third one ran towards the informant to catch hold of him but the informant fled away from there though he was chased up to distance of 100 yards. It is further alleged that the informant while fleeing to his house met Etwa Gope, Baneshwar Mahto near the house of Pandu Munda in village Latra and he narrated to them regarding the occurrence and the informant in their company proceeded towards the place of occurrence but he along with them could not go there because it was dark and they returned from there and, thereafter, the informant came to his house and Etwa Gope and Baneshwar Mahto also went to their respective houses. The prosecution case further is that, thereafter, the informant went to the house of Krishna Singh and, thereafter, to the house of Bandhan Suwashi and enquired from the son of Krishna Singh and the wife of Bandhan Suwashi as to whether they have returned to their houses or not and getting the reply in negative he went to P.W. 7, Kalika Singh and reported him about the occurrence and, thereafter, he in the company of P.W. 7 along with eight or ten persons of the village came to Chorchuwa More where blood stains and the broken lantern were found and they also saw Bandhan Suwashi fallen there and they also found the dead body of Krishna Singh aforesaid on the village path at Murumkela Khutiari Tand Jungle smeared with blood having several injuries. It is further alleged that Prem Pal Singh, the Sarpanch of the village Murumkela was informed about the occurrence besides the inhabitants of village Murumkela and in their company along with local chowkidar Ishaw Munda they again came to the place of occurrence where the bags of the deceased persons were found lying and there was a 10 rupees note in the bag of Bandhan Suwashi and vegetables in the bag of Krishna Singh. The informant and others as per prosecution case kept vigil for the whole night regarding the dead bodies of the deceased aforesaid and in the morning Kamdar P.S. was informed. 4. In course of investigation P.W. 13, the I.O. recovered and seized broken glass of the lantern, one pair of chappal of tyre, one pair of green Hawai chappal, two bags, blood stained Gamcha and vegetables in presence of P.W.7, Kalika Prasad Singh and P.W.3 Gundeshwar Singh and the seizure list (Ext. 6) in respect of those articles was prepared at Chorchuwa More. The I.O. (P.W.13) also recovered blood stained earth near the blackberry tree at Khutiari Tand Jungle, 20 yards west of Chorchuwa More as well as at Chorchuwa More and seized the blood stained earth from both the places and prepared seizure lists in (Ext. 6/1 and 6/2) respect thereof in presence of the aforesaid witnesses who have put their signatures thereon which are Ext. 1 series. P.W. 13, the I.O. has also prepared the inquest report of both the deceased and sent their dead bodies for postmortem. In course of investigation the complicity of the appellants Silvestar Kerketta, Barnabas Topno and Sanjay Kerketta came to light regarding the commission of the murder of both the deceased aforesaid and they were apprehended and they confessed their guilt and their confessional statements Ext. 7 series were recorded and the Bhujali in question which is said to be the weapon of assault in this case was recovered by P.W. 13, the I.O. from the house of the appellant Silvestar Kerketta in pursuance of their confessional statement in presence of P.W. 10 Prem Pal Singh and P.W.6, Gobind Prasad Singh and the said blood stained Bhujali was seized and the seizure list was prepared which is Ext. 6/3 in this case and P.Ws. 6 and 10 have witnessed the said recovery and seizure and they have put their signatures thereon. The said Bhujali is material Ext. I in this case. The said Bhujali along with the blood stained earth seized from both the places of the occurrence of this case were also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi for examination and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext.8) has confirmed the existence of human blood on the said Bhujali as well as in the earth aforesaid. The report, however, further recites that the report regarding the group of the blood in respect thereof shall follow but the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the grouping of the blood has not been brought on the record. It further appears that in course of investigation, appellants Silvestar Kerketta. Barnabas Topno and Sanjay Kerketta were put on tl. Parade and they were identified by P.W. 9, the informant as the participant in the occurrence in question. However, the test identification chart has neither been taken into evidence nor the Judicial Magistrate conducting the T.I. Parade has taken oath in this case. However, the appellants Ajit Barla @ Ajit Munda and Anil Barla @ Anil Munda @ Anil Kumar Barla have not been put on T.I. Parade in course of investigation but their names had appeared in the confessional statement of the appellant Barnabas Topno and Silvestar and Sanjay Kerketta and they were also prosecuted in this case. 5. All the appellants have pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against them and they claims themselves to be innocent and to have committed no offence and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 6. The prosecution has in all examined 13 witnesses to substantiate the charge levelled against the appellants. P.W.9. Ghyanshyam Singh, the informant claims himself to be the ocular witness of the occurrence though on the basis of his fardbeyan (Ext. 3) case was instituted against the unknown accused persons. P.Ws. 1.2,7 and 8 are the heresay witnesses of the occurrence in question. P.Ws 3.4.5.6.10 and 11 have turned hostile in course of their evidence and they do not at all support the prosecution case coupled with the fact that they have also no occasion to witness the occurrence. P.Ws. 6 and 10 are the witnesses of the seizure of the blood stained Bhujali alleged to have been recovered from the house of the appellant Silvestar Kerketta in pursuance of his confessional statement made before the police but these two seizure witnesses have also turned hostile and do not support the recovery and seizure of the said blood stained Bhujali in their evidence on oath. P.W. 12. Dr. A.D.N. Prasad has conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of both the deceased and the postmortem report in. respect of Krishna Singh and Bandhan Suwashi are Ext. 2 and 2/1 respectively. P.W. 13, Gupteshwar Singh is the I.O. of this case who has recorded the fardbeyan (Ext.3) of P.W.9. the informant and had prepared the inquest report (Ext.5) series and the seizure list (Ext.6) series and he has also recorded the confessional statement (Ext. 7) series of the appellant Silvestar Kerketta, Barnabas Topno and Sanjay Kerketta. No oral and documentary evidence has been brought on the record on behalf of the defence. 7. In view of the oral and documentary evidence on the record the learned court below has found all the appellants guilty for the commission of the murder of Krishna Singh and Bandhan Suwashi in the occurrence in question and has convicted and sentenced them as stated above. 8. Assailing the impugned judgment as perverse and against the weight of the evidence on the record it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants Ajit Barla @ Ajit Munda and Anil Barla @ Anil Munda @ Anil Kumar Barla that there is no iota of evidence at all on the record even to connect or implicate them with the occurrence in question specially in view of the fact that there is averment in the fardbeyan that only three criminals had participated in the occurrence in committing the murder of the deceased whereas chargesheet has been submitted against seven persons. It has also been submitted that the aforesaid two appellants were never put on T.I. Parade and there was no question of their identification by P.W.9, the informant, either at the place of occurrence or anywhere else and the prosecution of these two appellants is nothing but the abuse of the process of law. 9. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the rest of the appellants that according to the averment made in the fardbeyan it was dark when the incident has taken place and the lantern which Krishna Singh, the deceased was carrying was damaged and broken by the criminal and the said Krishna Singh was behind Bandhan Suwashi, the deceased and P.W. 9, the informant was ahead of them and when one of the criminals attempted to apprehend him he fled away and he was chased up to the distance of 100 yards and in view of the facts aforesaid P.W.9, the informant can have no occasion to witness the occurrence and to identify the criminals who had participated in the occurrence. It has further been contended that the testimony of P.W.9, the informant is replete with inherent contradictions and improbabilities to cast a cloud of suspicion of his being an ocular witness of the occurrence. It has also been submitted that it appears from the evidence of P.W.9 that all the three "'appellants aforesaid, namely, Silvestar Kerketta, Barnabas Topno and Sanjay Kerketta were known to him from before but it is surprising enough that what prevented him to identify them in course of commission of the offence and to name them in the fardbeyan and thus, their identification in the T.I. Parade by P.W.9 at a very belated stage has lost its relevance and the said identification of these three appellants by P.W.9 in T.I.P. is illegal and it carries no weight. It has further been contended that the Test identification Chart has neither been brought on the record nor the Judicial Magistrate conducting the T.I.Parade has taken oath in this case in support of the prosecution and in view of these legal infirmities, the evidence of P.W.9 regarding identification of these three appellants in the T.I.Parade has no legal effect. Lastly it has been submitted that there is no evidence on the record to show any motive for the appellants to commit the murder of both the deceased in this case. It has also been submitted that the I.O. got information at 7.00 hours on 20.01.1993 regarding the murder of two persons near Murumkela Khutiari Tand Jungle and throwing of their dead bodies in the bush of said jungle and S.D. No. 338 dated 20.01.1993 was recorded in respect thereof and the police, thereafter, proceeded to the place of occurrence, but surprisingly enough, the occurrence as per fardbeyan of the informant has taken place on 20.01.1993 at 18.30 hours which creates reasonable doubts regarding the authenticity of the Station Diary Entry aforesaid in respect of the occurrence in question and furthermore the said Station Diary Entry has been deliberately suppressed by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. It has also been submitted that the learned court below did not meticulously scrutinize and weigh the evidence on the record in proper perspective and has been swayed by surmises and conjectures in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellants and in this view of the matter the impugned judgment is unsustainable. 10. It will admit of no doubt that Krishna Singh and Bandhan Suwashi, i.e. both the deceased of this case along with P.W. 9, Ghanshyam Singh, the informant were returning to their village Latra from Murumkela Bazar and they had left that market at 18.00 hours on 20.01.1993 and Krishna Singh was carrying the lantern in his hand in course of his journey along with them. There is no denying the fact that they reached Chorchuwa More at 18.30 hours and in course of journey the informant, P.W. 9, was ahead of them and Krishna Singh was behind them carrying the lantern and in between them there was Bandhan Suwashi. P.W.9 has deposed that when he along with them reached near Chorchuwa More, the criminals came there all of a sudden and he caught Bandhan Suwashi and broke the said lantern. He has further deposed that one of the criminals chased him and he tied away from there. P.W.9 in his evidence does not whisper about Krishna Singh being caught by the criminals at Chorchuwa More. This evidence of P.W.9 is not at all in conformity with the manner of the occurrence as averred in the fardbeyan (Ext.3). According to the fardbeyan it was Krishna Singh who was carrying the lantern and he was first caught by one of the criminals and his lantern was damaged and broken and he was assaulted and, thereafter, the other criminal caught Bandhan Suwashi and the third criminal chased the informant who escaped from there and he was chased up to a distance of 100 yards. The inconsistent evidence of P.W.9 clearly casts a cloud of suspicion to the very credibility of the manner of occurrence of the prosecution case as averred in the fardbeyan of the informant. Furthermore, admittedly it has become dark and that was the reason that Krishna Singh was carrying the lighted lantern while returning to his village. Seeing the actual occurrence in the manner as alleged in the fardbeyan (Ext.3) by P.W.9, the informant appears to be highly improbable in the facts and circumstances of this case as the informant was ahead of both the deceased of this case in course of journey and specially when he was chased by one of the criminals in an attempt to catch him up to 100 yards. P.W.9 has further deposed that when the criminals caught Bandhan Suwashi he had fled away and, thereafter, he returned in the company of Pandu Munda,, Etwa Mansar and Mandu Munda for the place of occurrence but out of fear he along with them did not go there and, thereafter, he informed about the occurrence to the family inmates of both the deceased at their house besides P.W.7, Kalika Prasad Singh, the Mukhiya and in the company of several villagers along with them came to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased Bandhan Suwashi near Chorchuwa More and the dead body of Krishna Singh in the bush. In para 10 of his cross examination, P.W.9 has deposed in the most clear and unequivocal terms that he was acquainted with appellant Silvestar Kerketta, Barnabas Topno and Sanjay Kerketta prior to the occurrence. He has also deposed that he identified them in the T.I. Parade. The evidence of P.W.9 identifying the appellants Silvestar Kerketta, Sanjay Kerketta and Barnabas Topno in the T.I. Parade has become irrelevant and it has no legal effect in view of his evidence that they were known to him prior to the occurrence. Furthermore it also appears queer enough as to what prevented P.W.9, the informant to name the appellants as a participant in the occurrence in the fardbeyan (Ext.3) when one of them attempted to apprehend him at Chorchuwa More and also chased him to apprehend him upto a distance of 100 years. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case the testimony of P.W.9 as ocular witness of the occurrence does not at all establish the prosecution case regarding the participation of the appellants, Silvestar Kerketta Barnabas Topno and Sanjay Kerketta in the occurrence in question. Furthermore as per the prosecution case only three criminals had participated in the occurrence but it is surprising enough that seven persons have been chargesheeted in this case including the appellants Ajit Barla @ Ajit Munda and Anil Barla @ Anil Munda @ Anil Kumar Barla for which there is no iota of evidence at all on the record. Therefore, the testimony of P.W.9, the informant does not connect or implicate the appellants named above as a participant in the occurrence in question committing the murder of both the deceased of this case. 11. There is no denying the fact that Krishna Singh and Bandhan Suwashi was done to death at Chorchuwa More and their dead bodies have been recovered from that place by the witnesses as well as by the I.O. where the inquest report was prepared and incriminating articles as per seizure lists were recovered and seized. P.W.12, the doctor had deposed to have conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Krishna Singh and has found the following ante mortem injuries: (i) Sharp cut injury on right side of the face extending from the outer canthus of right eye upto the angle of mandible on right side 5"x2" x3" with clotted blood splashed all over the face, neck, chest etc. (ii) Sharp cup injury transversely placed in front of neck and also on right side 5" long, 2" wide and 4" deep cutting the great vessel of neck on right side along with trachea, oesophagus, vertible column at the level of IV cervical vertibra, the spinal chord etc. resulting to haemorrhage. (iii) Sharp cut over the right occipital perital region of the skull with depressed fracture of skull and laceration of the brain substance along with the meninges with excessive loss of blood from the wounds. (iv) Sharp cut over the medial canthus of right eye and on the bridge of the nose 2" x1" x 1" with clotted blood inside the socket of right eye ball. The medical witness has deposed that the injuries aforesaid were sufficient to cause death in the normal course and the cause of death of Krishna Singh is haemorrhage and shock leading to cardio respiratory failure as a result of the injury aforesaid. P.W. 12 has further deposed to have conducted postmortem examination on the person of Bandhan Suwashi and has found the following ante mortem injury : (i) Sharp cutting injury on the right side of skull with complete separation of skull, meninges and extensive laceration of the brain on right temporal perital region with some clotted blood present inside the cranium. The right meningal artery was torn, part of the skull was missing. (ii) Sharp cutting injury on left perital region 4" x 1" x 2" with depressed fracture of the skull. The underline meninges and brain matter were also cut and clotted blood was present around the wound. The medical witness had also deposed that the aforesaid injuries were sufficient to cause his death and his death has occurred due to haemorrhage and shock leading to cardio respiratory failure as a result of the injuries aforesaid. The postmortem report (Ext.2 and 2/1) per pen of the medical witness supports the existence of the ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased. A pertinent question arises at this stage as to whether the appellants are the assailants of the deceased or not. For this we have the confessional statement (Ext.7 series) of the appellants, Silvestar Kerketta, Sanjay Kerketta and Barnabas Topno recorded by P.W. 13, the I.O. One blood stained Bhujali as per prosecution case is said to have been recovered from the house of appellant Silvestar Kerketta as per his confessional statement and the blood stains thereon was confirmed by the Forensic Science Laboratory. Therefore, the confession of Silvestar Kerketta is only admissible in evidence so far it relates to the recovery of the blood stained Bhujali from his house. The grouping of the blood stains on the Bhujali has not so far been confirmed by the Forensic Science Laboratory to connect that the said bloodstains are of either of the blood group of the two deceased of this case. The other parts of the confessional statement of aforesaid three appellants recorded by P.W. 13, the I.O. is not admissible in evidence and has no relevancy at all in the case. P.Ws. 6 and 10 are the witnesses of the recovery and seizure of the said blood stained Bhujali alleged to have been recovered from the house of the appellant Silvestar Kerketta. P.W. 6 has deposed that the I.O. has not searched the house of Silvestar Kerketta in his presence. He has further deposed that the police obtained his signature on a paper showing the blood stained Bhujali. In his cross examination he has also deposed that he cannot say from where the I.O. has brought the said Bhujali. P.W. 10 in para 5 of his cross examination has also deposed that the house of the appellant Silvestar Kerketta was not searched in his presence by the I.O. He has further deposed that his signature was obtained by the I.O. on the seizure list in the way to the market. He has also deposed that the I.O. has not read over the contents of the said seizure list and he also could not read it because of his bad eye sight. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 10 does not at all establish the recovery of the blood stained Bhujali from the house of the appellant Silvestar Kerketta by the I.O. and the seizure in respect thereof. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 13, the I.O. regarding the recovery of the blood stained Bhujali from the house of the appellant Silvestar Kerketta does not stand substantiated in view of the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 10 in respect thereof. Therefore, the recovery of the blood stained Bhujali as per the confessional statement of appellant Silvestar Kerketta does not connect this appellant with the commission of the murder of both the deceased of this case. And last but not the least, there is no iota of evidence on the record as to why the appellants will commit the murder of both the deceased. The prosecution case is totally silent regarding the motive for the commission of the murder of both the deceased by the appellants. There is no denying the fact that two persons, namely, Krishna Singh and Bandhan Suwashi have been done to death at Chorchuwa More while they were returning to their village from Murumkela Bazar but there is total absence of any legal and reliable evidence on the record to connect or implicate or to establish the fact that the appellants am their assailants. The circumstances emanating from the evidence on the record also do not unerringly and unmistakably lead to the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants in committing the murder of both the deceased. The learned court below did not meticulously consider and scrutinize the evidence on the record and has erred in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellants. I, therefore, see substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. Viewed thus, the impugned judgment suffers with inherent illegalities requiring an interference therein. The impugned judgment, therefore, is unsustainable. 12. After meticulous consideration of all the facts, circumstances and materials on the record it is crystal clear that there is no legal evidence at all on the record to substantiate the prosecution case and to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond all shadow of doubts. 13. There is merit in this appeal and it succeeds. The appeal is hereby allowed. All the appellants are found not guilty to the charges levelled against them and they are, accordingly, acquitted and they are also discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. Lakshman Uraon, J. -I agree.;