PALOK BASU, J. ( 1 ) RAM Yash, Bhola; Shiva Nath and Paras Nath have filed this appeal against their conviction and sentence passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, in Sessions Trial No. 187 of 1977 whereby every one of them stands convicted and sentenced under sections 302/34, I. P. C. to life imprisonment and under sections 323/34, I. P. C. to six months rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) THE charge against the appellant was that on 15th November, 1976, at about 5-30 P. M. the appellant in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Asha Ram by intentionally causing his death and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302, I. P. C. Further, in the same incident they voluntarily caused hurt to Siw Ram Roop, Sewa Lal and Km. Sursatia thereby committing an offence punishable under section 323, I. P. C. ( 3 ) IN order to prove the prosecution case P. W. 1 Meva Lal and P. W. 4 Km. Sursatiya are the eyewitnesses P. W. 1 Mewa Lal is the informant, being father of the deceased, Asha Ram. The other witnesses are P. W. 5 Surya Bhan Yadav who carried the dead body of Asha, Ram to the mortuary for post-mortem examination, S. I. Misra, the Medical Officer incharge, Chila, who examined the injuries of Sewa Lal and Km. Sursatia, P. W. 8 Rana Pratap Singh is the Investigating Officer but P. W. 9 Raja Ram S. I. filed the charge-sheet against the appellants, P. W. 10 Dr. D. D. Tripathi is the Medical Officer, Mirzapur, who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Asha Ram. ( 4 ) THE statement of P. W. 1 Mewalal is that he had lodged the F. I. R. at the police station Chilh on 15/11/1976 at 9. 05 P. M. There is no doubt that from the evidence on record it is overwhelmingly established that the F. I. R. stood lodged on 15/11/1976 at 9. 05 P. M. The statement of P. W. 1, Mewalal further is that the incident had happened at 5. 30 P. M. in village Kajngawan, P. W. Chila, district Mirzapur. 05 P. M. There is no doubt that from the evidence on record it is overwhelmingly established that the F. I. R. stood lodged on 15/11/1976 at 9. 05 P. M. The statement of P. W. 1, Mewalal further is that the incident had happened at 5. 30 P. M. in village Kajngawan, P. W. Chila, district Mirzapur. It is, however, worth mentioning here that in the said First Information Report there is a clear verment (the informant had dictated the First Information Report) that the prosecution side had plied lathis and dandas in self- defence. However, in the statement made in the Court Mewa Lal had clearly denied having made any such statement in the First Information Report. It may further be stated here that Mewa Lal had, also emphatically denied causing of any injury to any of the accused-appellants or anyone on their side. However, it is admitted to Mewa Lal that a crosscase had been initiated by the appellants in, which he along with other eyewitnesses was accused and the trial was going on. ( 5 ) IT may now be mentioned here that the accused have examined three witnesses in their defence. D. W. 1 is Dr. S. N. Varma while D. W. 2 is Dr. D. D. Tripathi. These two doctors have proved the injuries sustained by Ram Yash, Bhola, and Shiva Nath. They have also proved the injury of another person on the defence side, namely, Ram Nath. The appellants have examined this Ram Nath as D. W. 3 who has narrated the cross version of the incident. ( 6 ) AT this moment it will be relevant to notice the detailed number of injuries sustained on either side. Asha Ram deceased had three injuries whereas Sita Ram and Ram Roop had two injuries each, who belonged to the prosecution side allegedly but had not been produced. The trial Judge bas, therefore, rightly not considered the effect of their injuries. Sewa Lal (P. W. 2) had two braises while Km. Surastia had six abrasions. ( 7 ) ON behalf of the appellants it was rightly contended that Ram Nath had two injuries, Ram Yash had two injuries, Bhola had one injury, Shiva Nath had one injury and, therefore on a comparative study of the injuries the number would be more or less the same except some abrasions of Km. Surastia may be in excess. ( 7 ) ON behalf of the appellants it was rightly contended that Ram Nath had two injuries, Ram Yash had two injuries, Bhola had one injury, Shiva Nath had one injury and, therefore on a comparative study of the injuries the number would be more or less the same except some abrasions of Km. Surastia may be in excess. ( 8 ) IN fact, in this connection emphasis by the, learned counsel for the appellants was that in the First information Report the only weapon assigned to all the appellants is Lathi whereas in the statement of Mewa Lal, Shiva Natli appellant is said to have been armed with a Tangari so as to tally with the injuries sustained. ( 9 ) COMING to statements of the other two eyewitnesses it may be stated that they also do not admit of the injuries sustained by the appellants. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that the prosecution evidence has explained of offered reasonable explanations for the injuries sustained by the appellants. Therefore, it is not known as to how the marpit had originated. Consequently, the defence evidence furnished by the eyewitness, Ram Nath, and supported by the two doctors can very well be true. ( 10 ) IT, therefore, follows that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. ( 11 ) THE result is that this appeal succeeds and is allowed. Their conviction and sentence are set aside. They are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds. Their bail and surety bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed. .