of the informant has found one stitch wound and he clearly stated, the caused of death is due to head injury, causing to shock and hemorrhage which was sufficient to cause to death in normal course of nature. At present, there was three types of injuries is available before me, 1) as per oral version of the witness including the informant (deceased), himself, that the accused persons have assaulted him on the left ear and left side of neck, but the doctor who attended the first injured in alive condition has not found such injuries rather he has clearly stated that there is no head injury at all. The next morning after the death of the injured, the postmortem was conducted on the deadbody of the informant, the doctor who conducted the postmortem has found one stitch injury and also found fracture in right leg. It is clear from the perusal of careful reading of the record that the witnesses have not stated about any injury on right leg of the injured(deceased). Now a question raised how and where the injured has sustained the head injury and the same head injury was caused the death of the deceased, as per finding of the P.W.1., Dr.Suresh Kumar. One more thing that where the patient was treated and who gave stitch to the informant (deceased). The prosecution has to stand on his own leg and he has to explain about the stitch injury, head injury and right side of the injury, but the prosecution is absolutely mum in this regard. Though it is duty of prosecution to explain such injury. Moreover, there is vital contradictions in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, as per fardbeyan on hulla only one witness namely Sita Ram Masat came and informed to the family members of the injured but the said Sita Ram has appeared before the court as P.W.5 and he has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Moreover, the prosecution has not been able to establish the place of occurrence too as per fardbeyan, the occurrence had taken place near Mahuwa Tree in Dhamna forest. I.O. of this case has described the place of occurrence in Bari of Sushil Kisku at village Barathal Santhal Tola. On the basis of above all the facts and circumstances of the case, considering different in between ocular evidence and medical evidence, contradictions in his statements, different in medical evidence and place of occurrence of this case a great cloud of doubt caste on the truthfulness of the prosecution story. It is settled principle of law, whenever doubt is created on the truthfulness of the prosecution story, benefit of doubt will go in favour of defence.”
