P. K. MOHAND, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a prisoners appeal against his conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life.

( 2 ) THE incident took place on the night of 8. 8-79 at about 10 p. m. at the residential house of the deceased in village Tentulidihi under Koira Police Station in the district of Sundargarh.

( 3 ) TERSELY put and shorn of all unnecessary details, the prosecution case, as disclosed at the trial is as follows: The appellant and the deceased are co. villagers. P. W. 1 Maati Munda is the son-in-law of the deceased. Be was residing in the same village at a short distance from the house of the deceased. It was alleged that on the night of occurrence the deceased Bashadullah Munda was sleeping in a room of his house and his son (P. W. 2) and wife (P. W. 3) were sleeping at a short distance from him in the same room. At about 8 p. m in the night the appellant came there with an axe and dealt blows with it on the deceased as a result of which he died instantaneously at the spot. Hearing a sound P. W. 2 got up and found the appellant dealing axe blows on the head of his father. He went running to the house of P. W. 1 and narrated the incident before him. When P. W. 1 came to the spot and asked the appellant as to why he was killing his father-in-law he was threatened with murder. Then P. W. 1 went to the house of P. W. 5 Sridhar Munda and narrated the occurrence before him. By the time he returned to the spot, the deceased had succumbed to the injuries. On 9-8-79 at about 4 a. m. P. W. 1 lodged the F. I. R. at Koira Police Station, which is at a distance of about 3 kilometres from the place of occurrence. The Officer-in-charge of the Police Station (P. W. 8) visited the spot at 4-30 a. m. on the same day and arrested the appellant. In course of investigation, he seized the weapon of offence and the wearing cloth of the appellant which contained stains of blood. In due course, he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code.

( 4 ) THE plea of the appellant was a denial simpliciter.

( 5 ) IN order to prove the alleged complicity of the appellant in the crime, prosecution relied mainly on the evidence P. W s. 1, 2 and 3 who are said to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence and some circumstantial evidence about recovery of the weapon of offence (M. O. I.) and the wearing cloth (M. O. II) of the appellant. The trial court believed the prosecution case and held the appellant guilty. In the petition of appeal presented through the Superintendent of Jail, the appellant challenges the order of conviction and sentence and pleads innocence. He has not taken any specific ground in support of his appeal.

( 6 ) THAT the death of the deceased was homicidal is clearly established by the medical evidence. No objection has been raised on this ground. Hence, we need not discuss this aspect of the case.

( 7 ) THE main question for consideration is whether the conviction of the appellant could be sustained on the basis of the materials available on the record. The trial court has based the conviction primarily upon the testimonies of P. W5t. 1, 2 and 3. There are, however, certain broad features of the case, which create considerable doubt regarding veracity of the evidence of the witnesses and in our opinion it would not be safe to maintain the conviction on the basis of that evidence. P. Ws. 1,2 and 3 having made in consistent statements on material aspects of the case it is not possible to place implicit reliance on their evidence.

( 8 ) P. W. 1 Maati Munda gave evidence that on the night of occurrence while he was taking meal in his house P. W. 2 Panu Munda went running and asked him to go to his house as his father was being killed by the appellant. He stated that he went to the house of the deceased and found that the appellant was giving blows with an axe on the head of the deceased. When he protested the appellant threatened him with murder. So