Short Note : The facts of the case, in short, are that the relations between Devidayal (since dead) and his father Chandrika Prasad (P.W.1) on the one hand and the appellants and their associates (since acquitted) on the other hand were strained on various scores including Jageshwar alias Gilla (an associate since acquitted) having illicitly kept the mother of the appellant Gola of inferior caste in his keeping, the appellant Gola having been beaten by the deceased Devidayal Publicly on one occasion and the appellant Gola once having prevented one Halku accompanying the deceased Devidayal to Banda to buy things for his general merchandise shop in his village. 2. It was in this context that on September 28, 1972 at about 5 p.m. Devidayal (since dead) as usual went to the temple of Hanuman situated outside of his village followed by his father Chandrika Prasad (P.W.1), about fifteen minutes after for answering the call of nature at the Rahunia where there are manure pits and open space for people to answer the call of nature. In the way, Chandrika Prasad (P.W.1) on hearing someone shouting "beat him" got on the top of the platform of the well of the village shepherds (who live there) and saw that Jageshwar, Tulsidas, Krishna and Premnarayan, the associates of the appellants had caught hold of Devidayal, and the appellant Gola with a Farsa and the appellant Ramsaran with Brijraj and Rajendra with spears were be labouring Devidayal. Chandrika Prasad (P.W.1) immediately raised an alarm attracting Ramdin (P.W.2), Sheo Prasad (P.W.4), Rajaram (P.W.13) and Swamiprasad (P.W.14), among others, to the scene. On Chandrika Prasad (P.W.1) and others shouting and bidding the miscreants to stop beating, the miscreants with their weapons, leaving severely injured, bleeding and unconscious Devidayal lying on the ground, ran away. Soon after, while Devidayal on a cot was being taken to the hospital at Gaurihar, he breathed his last. Held : From the analysis of the evidence of the eye witnesses it becomes clear that neither of them is reliable. They, no doubt, appear to have reached the place of occurrence almost immediately after Devidayal had been brutally assaulted by means of spears and Farsa, it is doubtful that either of them had seen any of the assailants actually dealing blows on Devidayal. If the appellants had covered up their faces, they could not have been identified. They, no doubt, appear to have reached the place of occurrence almost immediately after Devidayal had been brutally assaulted by means of spears and Farsa, it is doubtful that either of them had seen any of the assailants actually dealing blows on Devidayal. If the appellants had covered up their faces, they could not have been identified. If Chandrika Prasad (P.W.1) had already identified the assailants particularly the appellants, there was no point in his asking other witnesses whether they had identified the assailants. If the witnesses Ramdin (P.W.2), Rajaram (P.W.13) and Swamiprasad (P.W.14) had falsely implicated the acquitted associates of the appellants there is no guarantee that they are truthful while implicating the appellants. The sole testimony of Chandrika Prasad (P.W.1) the father of the deceased, particularly in the face of other witnesses themselves casting doubt about his having identified the assailants, and the absence of any corroborative evidence in nature of the weapons allegedly discovered at the instance of the appellants being connected with the crime, will be hazardous to found a conviction of the appellants. The evidence regarding Devidayal having earlier beaten the appellant Gola publicly or the appellant Gola having once prevented one Halku accompanying Devidayal to Banda to buy things from there or the appellant Gola having laid an information for proceeding against Chandrika Prasad (P.W.1) and others under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though raise a suspicion against him to take revenge from Devidayal, the deceased, they do not in themselves furnish proof of his (the appellant Gola) having murdered Devidayal. 3. To conclude, the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly found the appellants guilty of crime punishable under section 302 IPC, read with section 34 IPC, and eventually sentenced them for it. Their appeal is allowed. Their convictions and sentences are set aside. They be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.