both the sides and in the light of the facts and circumstances emerging from the prosecution’s evidences, as discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that though, in this matter, the prosecution succeeded to prove the unnatural death of the deceased (victim) by an incised wound caused on left sub diaphragmatic region in mid clavicular line causing fatal injury to the left side of the heart of the deceased but the prosecution witnesses ( P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6), who claimed themselves as eyewitnesses of the alleged occurrence, do not appear to be eyewitnesses of the occurrence for the reasons discussed above and the place as well as the time of the occurrence, as described in the prosecution’s story, are not established from the prosecution’s evidences and the initial information which had admittedly been received by the S.H.O. of the concerned P.S. was withheld by the prosecution, which creates a serious doubt in the prosecution’s allegation levelled against the appellants and also, taking into account the material discrepancies and contradictions appearing among the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, we find that both the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt and we are not persuaded to affirm the judgement of conviction of the trial court, therefore, the impugned judgment and order convicting
