Judgment Ram Naresh Thakur, S. H. S. Abidi, JJ. 1. These two appellants along with four others were put on trial for the murder of Bharat Lal Rajak. 2. It is said that on 21st August, 1980, at about 6.45 a. m. the informant (P. W.4), who is brother of deceased Bharat Lal Rajak, was going on a cycle for marketing. His brother Bharat Lal Rajak (the deceased) was going to attend his duty in Loco-Shed. When they crossed the Nala bridge and the deceased had gone about thirty feet a head of the informant, Chhathu alias Shashi Bhushan prasad, Bijoy Kumar, Prem Kumar, Ajay Sharma, Tej Narain and one another came there. Bijoy Kumar ordered to kill Bharat Lal Rajak by a bomb. On getting this order Ajay Sharma (already acquitted) threw a bomb on Bharat Lal. Appellant Shashi Bhushan Prasad also threw another bomb on Bharat Lal. Bharat Lal fell down and became restless. Ajay Sharma then assaulted Bharat lal with a knife and thereafter all the accused persons fled away. 3. After the departure of the accused persons, the informant went to his brother Bharat Lal and removed him to a nearby quarter. Thereafter he was taken to the hospital but he died soon thereafter. After the death of the deceased the informant was returning to his quarter when on the way he met the officer-incharge of Khagaul police station to whom he gave his statement which he recorded and is Exhibit 1. P. W.9 took up the investigation and after completing the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against those two appellants and the other four accused persons. Subsequently, all the accused persons were put on trial. 4. The prosecution examined ten witnesses in support of its case. The appellants and other accused persons pleaded their innocence. After considering the entire evidence, the learned trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced both of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellant Shashi Bhushan Prasad has also been convicted under Sec.3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act but no separate sentence has been awarded under this count. The other four accused persons were acquitted. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution did not bring the correct picture of the occurrence before the court and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to acquittal. The other four accused persons were acquitted. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution did not bring the correct picture of the occurrence before the court and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to acquittal. It has been further argued that major portion of the prosecution case has not been accepted by the trying court and that the investigating officer did not investigate the case impartially. 6. Exhibit 1 is the earliest statement of the informant about the occurrence. According to it, on the order of Bijoy Kumar, Ajay Sharma threw a bomb on the deceased and thereafter the deceased fell down. Appellant Shashi bhushan then threw another bomb and the deceased became unconscious. Thereafter all the accused persons fled away. The deceased was then taken to danapur Railway hospital where he died According to this statement (Exhibit 1)Shrawan Kumar (P. W.3) and others witnessed the occurrence. In this fardbeyan (Exhibit 1) it is nowhere stated that the deceased was also assaulted by chhura. But in the court the informant (P. W.4) has stated that after appellant Shashi Bhushan threw the bomb. Ajay Sharma assaulted the deceased with chhura and after the departure of the accused persons the deceased was first taken to a quarter and from there, with the help of P. W.6 he (P. W.4) took the deceased to the hospital. 7. P. W.9, the investigating officer, has stated that on 21st August, 1980, he was the officer-incharge of Khagaul police station. He received a telephonic message that in the Loco colony bombs have been used. On the basis of this information, be came to the place of occurrence along with constables and at the place of occurrence itself he recorded the statement of the informant which is exhibit 1. But, as stated above, the informant, in the court, has said that he met the officer-incharge (P. W.9) on the way while returning from the hospital and there he gave his statement. 8. P. W.10 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 21st August, 1980 at about 3 p. m. and found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person :- "1]. Incised wound 4" x 1" muscle deep on the medial border of left forearm ; 2]. 8. P. W.10 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 21st August, 1980 at about 3 p. m. and found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person :- "1]. Incised wound 4" x 1" muscle deep on the medial border of left forearm ; 2]. Incised wound 1" X 3/4" bone deep on the upper part of the anterior aspect of left side of chest ; 3]. Incised wound, oblique " x " X muscle deep on the right esterno clavicular region ; 4]. Incised wound, curved " X " X fascia deep on the anterior aspect of right side of chest ; 5]. Incised wound 3" x 1/4" X fascia deep running across just below injury no.4 ; 6]. Punctured wound 1/4" x " soft tissue deep just about middle of right clevicle with cut margin ; 7]. Incised wound 1" - |" - fascia deep on the right side of the neck ; 8]. One ovel wound about 1" in diametre soft tissues deep on the back of upper part of right thigh with blackening of margin ; 9]. Compound fracture of lower part of left leg bones with coming out of fractured end of febula ; 10]. One punctured wound ovel in shape about 1 " in diameter with black margin on the lower aspect of the medial aspect of the lower part of left leg connecting injury no.9 ; 11]. Abrasion 4" -.1/4" on the medial aspect of left knee. " in the opinion of the doctor, injuries no.1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 were caused by sharp cutting weapon like chhura ; injury no.2 might have been caused by sharp pointed weapon like dagger and injuries nos.6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 might have been caused by some splinters after explosion. In the stomach of the deceased four ounces of digested food was found, the large intestine was loaded with gas and faceas and the bladder was also full with urine. He has further said that injuries nos.6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 may be possible by a fall on hard blunt substance. No splinter or foreign substance was found by him in any of the injuries. He has further said that injuries nos.6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 may be possible by a fall on hard blunt substance. No splinter or foreign substance was found by him in any of the injuries. In paragraph 16 of his deposition this witness (P. W.10) has admitted that injuries nos.6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 could not have been caused by explosion of the bomb on the body of the deceased. According to him death was between 6 to 36 hours from the time of post-mortem examination. He has further deposed that rice, pulse and bread take about three hours for digestion and in some cases it may take six hours. 9. Therefore, the medical evidence does not fit in with the prosecution case as stated in the earliest version (Exhibit 1) where it is not stated that the deceased was assaulted by any sharp cutting weapon. Moreover, according to the prosecution case itself, the deceased was going to attend his office in the morning at about 6.45 a. m. It was the month of August and the doctor found digested food in the stomach, the large intestine was loaded with gas and faceas and the bladder was full with urine. This objective finding of the doctor also does not corroborate the prosecution case as regards the time of occurrence is concerned. As stated above, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at 6.45 a. m. when the deceased was going to attend office. Therefore, before starting for office he must have attended the call of nature and there should not have been at that time digested food in his stomach, gas and faceas in the large intestine and urine in his bladder. A reasonable doubt is, therefore, created as regards the time of occurrence is concerned. 10. Throughout the prosecution case has been that it was Ajay Sharma who gave the first bomb blow on which the deceased fell down. According to the evidence in court Ajay Sharma also gave chhura blows to the deceased but he has been acquitted and there is no appeal against that acquittal. These two appellants are full brothers and they are also railway employees. According to the evidence in court Ajay Sharma also gave chhura blows to the deceased but he has been acquitted and there is no appeal against that acquittal. These two appellants are full brothers and they are also railway employees. The motive alleged has also not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt inasmuch as it does not stand to reason that for such petty amount of money the appellants would go to the extent of killing the deceased. 11. Taking into consideration the entire facts and the evidence on the record we find and hold that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the two appellants also. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the two appellants is set aside. They are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. Appeal allowed.