L RATH, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants four in number are in appeal against their convictions under Sections 302/34, I. P. C. During the trial the appellants along with 14 others were charged under Sections 148, 149/302 and 324/149 and the appellants Fakir Majhi, Saraju Rout and Madhu Rout were also charged under Sections 302/34 I. P. C. Besides Mayadhar Majhi, Bukshi Majhi and Sarat Rout were charged under 5. 323 I. P. C. whereas tile appellant Fakir Majhi and one Bhulu Majhi were charged under Section 324, I. P. C. Appellant Pratap Rout however was not charged under Sections 302/34, I. P. C. While all the other accused persons were acquitted, the present appellants have been convicted as above. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the deceased Bairagi Mallik was a Harijan belonging to the Kandara caste whereas the appellants belong to the higher castes. On the day of occurrence 28. 7. 1981 P. W. 8, a young girl belonging to the caste of the deceased while returning from the river after taking her bath was the object of certain comments by accused Ramesh Rout (since acquitted) which she reported to the inmates of her house and thereafter some of her relations, Kamina Mallik, Fagu Mallik and Lalit Mallik (all not examined) confronted Ramesh regarding the remarks as a result of which there was altercation and accused Ramesh threatened that he would see them. Thereafter at 12 noon the appellant Madhu Rout while returning to his house threatened Kamina Mallik abusingly that he shall set right that night the few families belonging to his sect. On the same night at about 9 P. M. while the informant (P. W. 1), P. W. 2 and PW5. 4 and 5 were sitting on the verandah of the Bhagabat Tungi of their street the deceased Bairagi went to the river for attending natures call and while he had proceeded about 7 to 8 cubits from the Bhagabat Tungi all the appellants and others came armed with deadly weapons like Lathis. Munas, Bhalis abusing the deceased and one Bharat Mallik. Munas, Bhalis abusing the deceased and one Bharat Mallik. The deceased questioned such persons why they were abusing him and at that moment the appellant Madhu, who had a cycle chain with him all on a sudden gave a blow with the cycle chain to Bairagi and soon thereafter appellant Saraju gave a lathi blow on his head due to which Bairagi fell down. Appellant Fakir and Pratap gave Muna blows to the deceased and the other accused persons dealt Lathi blows, kicks and fist blows on him. The informant P. W. 1 on seeing the assault on Bairagi rushed to the occurrence. P. W. 4 tried to rescue the deceased from the assailants but he was given a knife blow by one Bhulu Majhi for which he received a cut injury and he also received fist blows and lathi blows from other persons including appellant Saraju. P. W. 1 had also received some injuries. P. W. 4 raised hulla, which attracted other people who saw the deceased lying almost dead. He was taken to the Hospital where the Medical Officer declared him to be dead. P. Ws. 1 and 4 also were treated for their injuries. While they were at the Hospital the police came there and P. W. 1 narrated the incident to the Officer-in-charge which was reduced to writing by P. W. 11, a constable at the direction of the Officer-in-charge. The report was read over and explained to P. W. 1 who signed the same and it was treated as the F. I. R. Ext. 1. ( 3 ) MR. D. Nayak appearing for the appellants commented upon certain peculiar features of the case. In the trial Investigating Officer could not be examined since by the time of the trial, he was dead. It is the admitted case of the prosecution as disclosed in the evidence of P. W. 11 that the F. I. R. which was drawn up on 28. 7. 1981, was sent to the Court on 30. 7. 1981. On the F. I. R. which was scribed by the P. W. 11, the date 29th was changed to 28th Such change of the date though was specifically put to P. W. 11, he was not able to explain It. Ext. 6 is the seizure list. 7. 1981, was sent to the Court on 30. 7. 1981. On the F. I. R. which was scribed by the P. W. 11, the date 29th was changed to 28th Such change of the date though was specifically put to P. W. 11, he was not able to explain It. Ext. 6 is the seizure list. But however there also the date was changed from 29th to 28th Similarly the 161 statements of the eyewitnesses P. Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 were also antedated from 29th to 28th It was urged that such admitted manipulations raise great suspicion as regards the prosecution case and that the interspoliations were caused for some ulterior motive. The prosecution story as disclosed in the evidence is not the correct version and that hence the appellants should be acquitted. ( 4 ) BEFORE however the effect of such manipulations in the records are considered, It will be of profit to examine as to how far the prosecution is able to establish the case against the appellants. P. W. 9 is the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination. He found, on external examination, five injuries on which the injury No. 1 was one incised wound over the second inter costal space on left side of mid-line on front of the chest the injury was penetrating one with a spindle shape a appearance and was of the size x. The injury No. 2 was a penetrating wound over the back right to the midline alongside the 7th verebra 1/2 x. Injuries nos. 3, 4 and 5 were bruises and a lacerated one. On dissection he found, corresponding to the external injury No. I, four internal injuries of the strenus being cut, the parietal plura punctured, pericardaum punctured and pulmonary artery punctured both anteriority and Posteriorily. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. According to him the external injury No. 1 and the corresponding internal injuries were sufficient to cause the death. The external injuries Nos. 2 to 5 were simple in nature and could not have caused death either cumulatively or collectively. Besides he also opined that the external injury No. 1 being a frontal one was only possible when the assailants and the deceased were standing face to face. The external injuries Nos. 2 to 5 were simple in nature and could not have caused death either cumulatively or collectively. Besides he also opined that the external injury No. 1 being a frontal one was only possible when the assailants and the deceased were standing face to face. ( 5 ) THE charge under Sections 302/34, I. P. C. is sought to be established through the evidence of the eye witnesses P. Ws 1, 2, 4 and 5. P. W. 1 describing the occurrence said that appellant Madhu Rout who had a chain in his hand struck on the left shoulder of the deceased Bairagi and appellant Saraju gave a lathi blow to his head as a result of which Bairagi fell down on the ground and appellant Pratap and Fakir stabbed the back of the deceased with a Muna blow. P. W. 2 likewise stated that appellant Madhu gave a stroke with a chain to Bairagi and appellant Saraju standing from behind of Bairagi gave a lathi blow on his head as a result of which he fell down with face downwards and that thereafter appellants Pratap and Fakir gave Muna blows on his back. Similarly, P. W. 4 also stated that Madhu hit the deceased with a chain and Saraju gave a lathi blow on his head as a result of which Bairagi fell down and thereafter Pratap and Fakir gave Muna blows to him. The evidence of P. W. 5 does not state any thing different. Even if such evidence is accepted in toto, yet the appellants Pratap and Fakirs inflicting the external injury No. 1, which was responsible for the death of Bairagi is completely Improbabilised. So far as appellant Madhu's hitting the deceased with a chain is concerned, such evidence is not acceptable since there is absolutely no injury which could have been caused by a chain. P. W. 9, the Doctor explained that when injuries are caused by a chain such injuries would have some gap or interval and cannot be continuous and hence he opined that he did not find any injury on the body of the deceased which could have been caused by a chain. P. W. 9, the Doctor explained that when injuries are caused by a chain such injuries would have some gap or interval and cannot be continuous and hence he opined that he did not find any injury on the body of the deceased which could have been caused by a chain. Similarly, the specific evidence being that Muna blows were dealt with on the back of the deceased after he fell with face downwards due to the assault on his head by a lathi by the appellant Saraju. It is apparent that injury No. 1 which is responsible for the death could not have been caused by such Muna blows being given from the back. The medical evidence is to the same effect that injury No. 1 was only possible if assailants and the deceased were standing face to face. The external injury No. 2 is at the back and possibly such injury might have been caused by the Muna blow stated to have been dealt with in the back. ( 6 ) BESIDES so far as implication of the appellant Pratap is concerned, his involvement seems to be an afterthought. In the F. I. R. there was no statement that Pratap gave any Muna blow to the deceased and on the contrary, it had been stated that Fakir stabbed the deceased with the Muna which had been held by Pratap. The statements of all the eye witnesses P. Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 before the police were also to the same effect. It is also improbable that both Pratap and Fakir gave a Muna blow to the deceased while Pratap was holding the Muna. ( 7 ) IN view of this state of evidence, it cannot be said that there is any legal evidence against the appellants for having caused the death of the deceased and hence their convictions under Section 302/34 I. P. C. cannot be sustained. Our conclusion is reinforced by the very suspicious circumstances in which the Case Diary as also the F. I. R. have been tampered with by antedating the dates therein. ( 8 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the convictions and sentences against the appellants are set aside. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by appellants Nos. 3 and 4 be cancelled, The appellants Nos. 1 and 2 be set at liberty forthwith. Appeal allowed.