JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Appellants have challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar convicting them for an offence u/s 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Avoiding unnecessary details the prosecution case in brief, is that the Appellants belong to village Narada, whereas Panchu Das (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') belonged to village Salijanga within Ramachandrapur Police Station of Keonjhar district. The deceased had a piece of land in Narada for which there was dispute and civil litigation between him on one side and the Appellants on the other. The occurrence took place on 18.5.1982. On that day at about 4 P.M. the deceased came to village Narada and challenged by Appellant Ratnakar on the village street, but nothing untoward happened between them. The deceased avoided the aforesaid Appellant and left the village in the company of P.W. 6 by passing through the Harijan Basti. While both of them were proceeding, they were joined by P.W. 3 and all of them proceeded upto the last limit of the village. The deceased himself suggested to P.W. 6 to return because of P.W. 3 accompanying him. After return of P.W. 6, both the deceased and P.W. 3, proceeded towards village Bandhagoda, but on the way near Patharbandha chak, the deceased was way laid by the Appellants both of the whom were armed with lathis. In addition Appellant Ratnakar had a long knife. They attacked the deceased despite intervention of P.W. 3 and assaulted him by means of lathis till he fell down on the ground being severely injured. Even thereafter Appellant Ratnakar stabbed him several times by means of the long knife. As a result of the injuries there was severe bleeding and the deceased died instantaneously. F.I.R. (Ext. 1) was lodged at the Police Station by the Grama Rakhi (P.W. 1) Investigation commenced during which the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. The Appellants were arrested and the weapons of offence were seized. After close of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against, the Appellants as well as another named Ratnakar Naik on the allegation that latter abetted the Appellants and as a result of such abetment the murder was committed. 3. The defence of the Appellants was denial of their participation in the alleged crime. 4. After close of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against, the Appellants as well as another named Ratnakar Naik on the allegation that latter abetted the Appellants and as a result of such abetment the murder was committed. 3. The defence of the Appellants was denial of their participation in the alleged crime. 4. The learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution evidence, particularly the evidence of the eye witnesses to the occurrence, P.Ws. 3 and 9 and found the Appellants guilty of the offence of murder. Accordingly he convicted and sentenced them. The prosecution could not, however, prove its case of abetment against the other accused Ratnakar Naik and so he was acquitted of all charges. 5. P.W. 2, an Assistant Surgeon of the Sub. Divisional Hospital of Anandapur performed the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. In all he found 14 stab, incised and lacerated injuries on different parts of the body. According to his opinion all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course on account of haemorrhage and shock. The stab and incised injuries could have been caused by a sharp cutting weapons such as M.O. I. and the lacerated injuries could have been caused by lathis such as M.Os. II and III which are blunt weapons. At this stage it is necessary to make special mention of the fact that out of the two lacerated injuries sustained by the deceased one was on the left foot of the size of 2" x 1/2" x 1/2", and the other was on the right heel of 1 1/2"x 1 1/2". There were no lacerated injuries on the head or any other part of the body. The significance of the above evidence will be explained, when the evidence of the 'eye witnesses' to the occurrence, P.Ws. 3 and 9 vis-a-vis the medical evidence shall be discussed. 6. Now coming to the oral evidence, P.W. 6, 8, 11 and 14 have stated about the land dispute between the Appellants and the deceased. This fact remains undisputed because the prosecution itself led evidence that the parties were not in amiable terms on account of such dispute. P.Ws. 3 and 6 were projected as witnesses, to the occurrence. P.W. 4 stated that he saw the Appellants proceeding towards the village tank. His evidence by itself does not incriminate them. This fact remains undisputed because the prosecution itself led evidence that the parties were not in amiable terms on account of such dispute. P.Ws. 3 and 6 were projected as witnesses, to the occurrence. P.W. 4 stated that he saw the Appellants proceeding towards the village tank. His evidence by itself does not incriminate them. P.W. 5 stated that he found two persons washing their blood stained hands in the tube well but could not identify them. His evidence also does not incriminate the Appellants with the murder of the deceased. P.W. 7 stated that he found the Appellants running away, P.W. 10 saw a weapon being wrapped with a towels the handle being visible which was carried by the Appellant Judhisthira and P.W. 15 was a witness to the seizure of the weapons of offence at the instance of the Appellants. The evidence of these witnesses alone and without the aid of the evidence of the eye witnesses P.Ws. 3 and 9 cannot incriminate the Appellants with the murder of the deceased. Therefore, in this case the prosecution will stand or fan on the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 9. If their evidence will be believed the conviction and sentence must have been maintained and if not, the Appellants are bound to be acquitted. We shall now straight proceed to discuss the evidence of these two important eye witnesses to the occurrence. 7. According to the evidence of P.W. 3, he was accompanying the deceased right from the village upto the place of occurrence. He saw the Appellants being armed with Lathis coming towards them. Appellant Ratnakar in addition was holding a long knife. The deceased was proceeding ahead and he was following, The Appellants obstructed the deceased standing in his front. The witness attempted to pacify them. They did not listen and assaulted the deceased by means of the lathis. When Appellant Ratnakar dealt a lathi blow the deceased caught hold of it. So Appellant Ratnakar asked Appellant Judhisthira to assault, Appellant Judhisthira dealt a blow on the head of the deceased as a result of which the head cracked and there was bleeding. As a result of the assault, the deceased fell down on the ground. Even thereafter the Appellants assaulted the deceased. Out of fear the witnesses fled away from the place of occurrence. As a result of the assault, the deceased fell down on the ground. Even thereafter the Appellants assaulted the deceased. Out of fear the witnesses fled away from the place of occurrence. After he had proceeded upto some distance, Appellant Ratnakar called him and said that if he disclosed the events then he would meet the saws fate as the deceased. It is important to state that at this stage the witness saw that Appellant Ratnakar picked up a long knife from the ground and moving around the deceased he inflicted wounds by means of it. P.W. 9 stated that he had gone to the fields at about 6 P.M. on the date of occurrence in search of one of his goats. He saw Ratnakar standing en the land of one Budhiram Behera. At that time the deceased end P.W. 3 came from the side of village Narada. Both the Appellants assaulted the deceased with lathis. He saw the incident from a distance of about 200 yards. As a result of the assault, the head of the deceased cracked and he fell down and died. P.W. 3 fled away towards village Tigiria. Both the Appellants assaulted the deceased by means of a dagger. The evidence of both these witnesses is open to serious doubt. Both of them stated that the first major assault by the Appellants was by means of Lathis, so much so that the head of the deceased cracked resulting in a bleeding injury for which he fell down on the ground. The second phase of the assault was by means of a long knife. Assault by Lathis has been completely belied by the medical evidence which has been referred to above. According to the medical evidence there were only two injuries which could be inflicted by Lathi blows. They were on the left foot and right heel. There was no injury on the head or an any other part of the body. If the two Appellants severely assaulted the deceased by means of lathis, there would have been many more lacerated wounds on the head or on other parts of the body. The rest of the injuries were stab or incised wounds which could be inflicted by a sharp pointed weapon such as a long knife. If the two Appellants severely assaulted the deceased by means of lathis, there would have been many more lacerated wounds on the head or on other parts of the body. The rest of the injuries were stab or incised wounds which could be inflicted by a sharp pointed weapon such as a long knife. Added to this, P.W. 3 did not state before the Investigating Officer, P.W. 17 that after the deceased fell down on the ground Appellant Ratnakar moved around him dealing stabs by means of the long knife. This is a vital omission amounting to contradiction which cannot be lost sight of. Therefore, P.W. 3 was a witness who did not state truth firstly because he gave evidence that the deceased was assaulted by Lathis on the head and different parts of the body though the medical evidence is to the contrary and secondly because he did not disclose the assault by means of the long knife, when he gave his first statement u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure. P.W. 9 can be said to be a sure chance witness. He had no lands nearby. According to his version he came in search of a missing goat and saw the occurrence. He did not disclose the incident to anybody in the village much less to the Investigating Officer, P.W. 17 who arrived in the village on the next day. His statement was recorded by P.W. 17, seven days after, that is, on 25.5.1982., because on the very day he came to know that P.W. 9 was also a witness to the occurrence. It is difficult to believe the evidence of a witness to the murder who did not disclose the incident to anybody in the village soon after its commission and-kept quiet for a period of seven days. In this connection it is necessary to make a reference to a decision reported in Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai Vs. State of Gujarat, which lays down the principle as to which evidence would be preferred if there is variance between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony. It was held as follows: Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative it proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. State of Gujarat, which lays down the principle as to which evidence would be preferred if there is variance between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony. It was held as follows: Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative it proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eye witnesses, the testimony of the eye witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence. This principle is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case because according to the discussion of the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 9, there is no room to doubt that the deceased was mainly assaulted by a sharp pointed weapon and not by Lathis. Therefore, in this case the medical evidence has to be preferred not the ocular testimony of P.Ws. 3 and 9 who in our view are thoroughly unreliable witnesses. Once the evidence P.Ws. 3 and 9 is disbelieved the entire edifice of the prosecution case collapses. 8. In the ultimate analysis and in disagreement with the learned Sessions Judge we hold that the prosecution has singularly failed to bring home the charge to the Appellants. Therefore, we find them not guilty of the charge of murder u/s 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and acquit them and direct that they shall be set at liberty forthwith. The appeal is accordingly allowed. J.M. Mahapatra, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed