P. N. S. CHOUHAN, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANTS challenge their conviction under section 302 read with 34 I. P. C. and sentence of life imprisonment awarded vide judgment, dated 14/7/1986, passed in Sessions Trial No. 222/83 of Jabalpur Sessions Division. ( 2 ) THE material facts are that on 23/6/1983, at about 10. 30 p. m. , Santosh Kumar (P. W. 2), Rajkumar Deshwani (P. W. 5) and Ganesh Punjabi (the deceased) after taking tea at a stall were returning to their houses, when they reached near the house of Dr. Abdulla behind Andherdeo mosque both the appellants came from the opposite direction, stopped Ganesh Punjabi and after hurling filthi abuses at him, started stabbing him with knives. Ganesh fellliown at a short distance even then he was assaulted. In the mean time, one or two persons came that way and the appellants ran away. Both the aforesaid eye-witnesses then led from the spot. Some unknown person reported this incident to the police on telephone. The massage was recorded in Rojnamacha Sanha (Ex. P. 11. Town Inspector, Shri RC. Tiwari (P. W. 9) reached the spot with force. He sent the injured man alongwith Sub-Inspector, Vishwanath Dube (P. W. 7) to Victoria Hospital with requisition for his medical examination (Ex. P. 6/ 2 ). Where he was reported dead. Santhosh Kumar gave report which was registered as Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P. 5 ). After recording Marg, Inquest was held vide Ex. P. 6/1 and the body was sent for post-mortem examination, vide requisition Ex. P. 12. Since no report from Chemical Examiner or the Serologist is on record the seizure of allegedly blood-stained articles from the scene of Occurrence, the dead body and the possession of the appellants needs no mention having no evidentiary value. ( 3 ) DR. A. K. Yadu (P. W. 1) who performed autopsy, found vide report Ex. P. 1 19 incised wounds on various parts of the body. The heart and left lung were involved. There is not doubt that the assailants intended to kill Ganesh. The trial Judge placing reliance on the testimony of the aforesaid two eye-witnesses, recorded the impugned conviction. ( 4 ) APPELLANTS learned counsel consiled the evidence of Santosh Kumar and Rajkumar Keshwarni as unreliable in view of their suoemcuest conduct and the material inconsistency between their statements. There is not doubt that the assailants intended to kill Ganesh. The trial Judge placing reliance on the testimony of the aforesaid two eye-witnesses, recorded the impugned conviction. ( 4 ) APPELLANTS learned counsel consiled the evidence of Santosh Kumar and Rajkumar Keshwarni as unreliable in view of their suoemcuest conduct and the material inconsistency between their statements. His submission is that both these wiblesses who claim to have seen commission of murder of their friend in their very presence, instead of taking steps to inform the police and to rush the victim to the hospital, went away from the spot and slept till the arrival of the police. Since the evidence indicates that they were not terror stricken as a result of the assault this subsequent conduct of these two wiblesses becomes so unnatural that their entire testimony was liable to be thrown over board. Santosh Kumar, in paras-7 and 8 of his evidence, has stated that after seeing the assault he and Rajkumar ran to the house of this wibless which is at a distance of about one furlong from the scene of occurrence and returned to the spot after some time when they became sure that the police had arrived there. It was then, as per this wibless, that he reported the matter to the police Officer which was recorded in Ex. P. S. From his evidence it appears that the body of Ganesh was sent to the hospital thereafter. There as Rajkumar Kesharwani has stated that after the assault he and Santosh fled to the house of Shrikant and returned to the spot the same night after arrival of police. The learned counsel has tried to canvass that from the statement of this witness it appears that thepolice had arrived in the house of Shrikant where both these witnesses were hiding and they came to the spot only thereafter. Even if this interpretation is not accepted the fact remains that this wibless during his cross-examination in para-3 has given entirely different version then what he stated earlier in the Court. There he is claiming that after the assault he and Santosh were terrified and ran to their respective houses for safety. While going to his house from the scene of occurrence though this wibless has to cross Lordganj police station he failed to make a report and on reaching his house went to sleep. There he is claiming that after the assault he and Santosh were terrified and ran to their respective houses for safety. While going to his house from the scene of occurrence though this wibless has to cross Lordganj police station he failed to make a report and on reaching his house went to sleep. As per him, at about 2. 00 a. m. the same night the police sent for him and thus he became available to the police for interrogation. He claims that he reached Kotvali police station when he was called by the police where from he was taken to the scene of occurrence by the police at about 2. 45 a. m. The dead body of the deceased was sent to the hospital by the police in his presence. He has disowned portion marked A and B in his case-diary statement (Ex. D. I) to the effect that after the assault he and Santosh had gone to the house of the later wherefrom they returned to the spot It is very difficult to accept the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the aforesaid inconsistency between the statements of these two eye-witnesses is of a minor nature and should be overlooked. In our opinion, the irreconcilable divergence pointed out above in the evidence of these two witnesses coupled with their unnatural conduct in omitting to take any steps either to help the victim or to report the matter to the police renders their testimony highly doubtful. See. State of Maharashtra v. Kalu Shivram. This is more so because there is no indication that the assailants had tried to intimidate any of them. The evidence also reveals that other persons had arrived on the scene of occurrence which scarred the assailants who took to their heels. As such there was nothing, which could have created such terror in the mind of these two witnesses as to incapacitate them from doing something positive to help the victim and the process of law. ( 5 ) EMPHASIS was laid on the fact that the inquest (Ex. P. 6/1) and the requisition for medical examination (Ex. P. 6 (2) which appear to have been prepare in the presence of the aforesaid two eye-witnesses, do not disclose the names of the appellants. ( 5 ) EMPHASIS was laid on the fact that the inquest (Ex. P. 6/1) and the requisition for medical examination (Ex. P. 6 (2) which appear to have been prepare in the presence of the aforesaid two eye-witnesses, do not disclose the names of the appellants. Placing reliance on Mathura Prasad v. State of M. P. , it was argued that from the omission of the names of the appellants in these two documents it has to be inferred that Dehau Nalishi is not a reliable document Admittedly, there is no evidence to indicate any motive for the crime. Therefore, in view of all this, contends the learned counsel, the learned trial Judge was in error to hold the charge proved in the face of the aforesaid infirmities in the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses. ( 6 ) WE do not see as to how the state can press that in view of Lakhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab the aforesaid to eye-witnesses were rightly held reliable by the trial Judge because is the present case there is no other incriminating circumstance like recovery of blood-stained weapon of offence or blood-stained clothes from the possession of the appellants to connect them with the crime. We agree with appellants learned counsel that the infirmities in the statements of the two eye-witnesses render their testimony so doubtful that the same could not have been used to base the conviction on. Since there is nothing else than their evidence which could be said as incriminating the appeal is liable to be allowed. ( 7 ) IN result we allow the appeal, set aside appellants aforesaid conviction and sentence and order that they be released forthwith, if still in custody. Appeal allowed. .