Judgment M.L.Visa, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.2.87 passed by 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Munger in S.T. No. 106 of 1984 convicting and sentencing all the four appellants to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code). 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that on 23.8.83 Medi Singh, deceased brother of informant Nakchedi Singh (P.W. 4) had gone to see his field situated towards north of village Sirsia Bandh. At that time, the informant was at his Basa (a sitting place). At about 3.00 p.m., the informant heard hulla and when he ran towards the direction from where hulla was coming he found that all the four appellants were assaulting his brother Medi Singh with lathis in a field situated towards north of his basa. He also found that the appellants had let their buffaloes enter in his field where Channi and Kelai crops had been grown. On hearing hulla, the informant along with his villagers namely Mahendra Singh (P.W. 1), Dileshwar Singh (P.W. 2), Kamleshwar Singh (not examined), Dhoria Yadav (not examined and others ran to the place of occurrence and found that his brother Medi Singh after receiving injuries was lying down on the ground. The appellants on seeing the informant and witnesses fled away along with their buffaloes. When the informant went near his brother Medi Singh, he told him that all the four appellants had assaulted him with lathis. Later on the informant came to know that the buffaloes of appellants had entered his field and when his brother Medi Singh had driven out those buffaloes the appellants assaulted him with lathis. Medi Singh became unconscious and he was then taken to State Dispensary, Khagaria for treatment where on the same day at about 11.45 p.m. the fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of informant was recorded by S.I. Sri R.S. Singh of Khagaria police station (not examined). On the basis, of fardbeyan of informant a case by drawing an F.I.R. under Secs. 323/325/307 of the Code was registered against all the four appellants. On the next date, the injured Medi Singh succumbed to injuries in the hospital and thereafter Sec. 302 of the Code was added to the instant case. On the basis, of fardbeyan of informant a case by drawing an F.I.R. under Secs. 323/325/307 of the Code was registered against all the four appellants. On the next date, the injured Medi Singh succumbed to injuries in the hospital and thereafter Sec. 302 of the Code was added to the instant case. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against all the four appellants under Sec. 302/34 of the Code. 3. After cognizance the case was committed to the Court of Session where charge under Secs. 302/34 of the Code was framed against the appellants who denied the charge. The case of the appellants before the Court below was that deceased Medi Singh was a veteran criminal involved in a number of cases of dacoity and he was most probably received injuries while committing dacoity or at the time of sharing the booty of dacoity and the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case because of informants enmity with them on account of land dispute. After the trial the appellants were found guilty under Sec. 302/34 of the Code and were convicted and sentenced as indicated above. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses. Nakchedi Singh (P.W. 4) is the informant. Mahendra Singh (P.W. 1) and Dileshwar Singh (P.W. 2) are said to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Om Prakash Sinha (P.W. 3) is the doctor who had examined the deceased Medi Singh when he was injured and had also conducted autopsy after the death of Medi Singh. Shasi Kant Lal (P.W. 5) is a police officer who had simply submitted charge-sheet in this case without conducting investigation of the case. 5. Om Prakash Sinha (P.W. 3) in his evidence has stated that, on 23.8.83 at about 10.15 p.m. he examined injured Medi Singh and found the following injuries on his person: (i) One lacerated wound 3" x 1" x bone deep over right parietal region of head. (ii) One diffused swelling on right thigh. (iii) One diffused swelling on left thigh. (iv) Multiple bruises of different shapes and sizes on the back of trunk. (v) One bruise 6" X 1" over injury No. (ii). (vi) Two bruises of sizes 5" x 1" and 4" x 1" over injury No. (iii). (ii) One diffused swelling on right thigh. (iii) One diffused swelling on left thigh. (iv) Multiple bruises of different shapes and sizes on the back of trunk. (v) One bruise 6" X 1" over injury No. (ii). (vi) Two bruises of sizes 5" x 1" and 4" x 1" over injury No. (iii). According to him all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance and injury No. (i) was grievous in nature and the age of injuries was within 12 hours from the time of examination. He has further stated that alter the death of deceased he held autopsy on the dead body of deceased Medi Singh on 25.8.83 at 11.30 a.m. and found the same injuries as stated above. In his opinion, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by above injuries mainly due to injury No. (1) which according to him was deep causing fracture of right parietal bone. Time of death according to him was within 24 hours. He has found injuries when the deceased was in injured condition and in post-mortem examination (Ext. 1). From his evidence, it appears that the deceased died of injuries caused by hard and blunt substance and the death was homicidal. Now, it has to be seen what evidence has been led by the prosecution against the appellants in order to prove that appellants were responsible for causing injuries found on the body of the deceased. 6 Nakchedi Singh (P.W. 4), the informant, in his evidence has stated that at the time of occurrence he was at his Basa situated at Sirsia Bandh and he heard hulla and saw that his deceased brother was driving out buffaloes of appellants Suvuklal Singh and Jagdish Singh from his field where Channi and Kelai crops had been grown and thereafter, all the four appellants came running there from their Basa and by that time the deceased had reached the field of one Sukhram where all the appellants assaulted him with lathis and the deceased after receiving injuries fell down and the appellants, fled away. He has said that he had a talk with the deceased who told him that all the four appellants had assatilted him and thereafter the deceased became unconscious and was brought to State Hospital for treatment but he did not regain consciousness and on the next day he died in the hospital. He has said that he had a talk with the deceased who told him that all the four appellants had assatilted him and thereafter the deceased became unconscious and was brought to State Hospital for treatment but he did not regain consciousness and on the next day he died in the hospital. In cross-examination, he has stated that his Basa from where he first saw the appellants assaulting the deceased with lathis is situated at a distance of about 500 yards from the place of occurrence. In view of this evidence, it becomes quite improbable that he could have seen the assault from his Basa. In his fardbey an (Ext. 3), the informant has stated that later on he came to know that, buffaloes of appellants had entered his field and when the deceased raised protest he was assaulted by the appellants but in his evidence he has said that from the Basa itself he saw the deceased driving away the buffaloes from the field. 7. Mahendra Singh (P.W. 1) and Dileshwar Singh (P.W. 2) as stated above are other witnesses who had claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Mahendra Singh (P.W. 1) has admitted that he is a lame man. He has stated that at the time of occurrence he was in his Basa and he saw that she-buffaloes of appellants Suvuklal and Jagdish Singh were grazing in the field of deceased and when deceased came and drove out the buffaloes, the appellants came there running and they assaulted the deceased by lathi. He has clearly stated that because he is a lame man, therefore, he could not go to the place of occurrence and he saw the occurrence by sitting in his Basa. In his examination-in-chief he has said that the place of occurrence is at a distance of about 25 Laggis from his Basa. In his cross-examination he had said that his Basa is situated at a distance of one mile from the Basa of informant. The informant in his evidence has also slated that he first saw the occurrence from his Basa, If the Basa of P.W. 1 and Basa of P.W. 4 both the situated at a distance of one mile from each other, it is not possible that both these witnesses by sitting in their respective Basa would have seen the occurrence. The informant in his evidence has also slated that he first saw the occurrence from his Basa, If the Basa of P.W. 1 and Basa of P.W. 4 both the situated at a distance of one mile from each other, it is not possible that both these witnesses by sitting in their respective Basa would have seen the occurrence. If the evidence of P.W. 1 on the point of distance between his Basa and Basa of the informant is discarded considering the fact that this witness is illiterate and perhaps may not be knowing the Actual distance of one mile even then we find that there are other contradictions in his evidence and in the fardbeyan and evidence of the informant. The informant in his fardbeyan says that at the place of occurrence P.W. 1 also came there running but P.W. 1 himself has admitted that he is a lame man and therefore, he could not go to the place of occurrence. The informant in his fardbeyan as well as in his evidence has stated that first he saw the occurrence from his Basa and thereafter he went to the place of occurrence but P.W. 1 in his evidence has stated that when the deceased raised hulla the informant did not go there and he had not seen the informant, there. So this evidence of P.W. 1 negatives the presence of informant at the place of occurrence. The another witness Dileshwar Singh (P.W. 2) who is also said to be an eyewitness to the occurrence has also in his evidence stated that he saw the occurrence by sitting in the Basa of P.W. 1. This witness has stated that at the time of occurrence he was. working in the field of informant because at that time he was a labourer of the informant. It seems very peculiar that at the time of occurrence he was working in the field and when he heard hulla he instead of going to the place of occurrence went to the Basa of P.W. 1 and remained there from where he saw the occurrence. It seems very peculiar that at the time of occurrence he was working in the field and when he heard hulla he instead of going to the place of occurrence went to the Basa of P.W. 1 and remained there from where he saw the occurrence. The informant in the fardbeyan and in his evidence has stated that when he went to the place of occurrence, the deceased told him that the appellants had assaulted him but P.W. 2 in his evidence has stated that deceased after receiving injuries became unconscious and remained so till his death and he never gave any statement to anybody. This evidence falsifies the evidence of informant that the deceased had told him about the occurrence. P.W. 2 has again contradicted his evidence that he saw the occurrence by remaining at the Basa of P.W. 1 by stating that a the time of assault he was present at the place of occurrence near the deceased. Besides this the defence has drawn attention of P.W. 2 whether he had stated the names of all the appellants and had stated that at the time of occurrence he was working in the field of informant, in his earlier statements. The prosecution has not examined the I.O. We fully agree with the submissions made by Miss Radha Rani Mitra appearing on behalf of the appellants as Amicus Curiae that none-examination of the I.O. by prosecution has seriously prejudiced the case of the appellants because the contradiction in the evidence of witnesses and in their earlier statements on which the attention of witnesses has been drawn could not be corroborated. The attention of P.W. 2 was drawn in respect of contradiction in his evidence and in his earlier statement on the point of his presence near the place of occurrence and naming all the appellants. We find these contradictions are major contradictions which could not be corroborated by the non-examination of the I.O. 8. Considering the entire evidence on record we find that out of three witnesses including the ifnromant who have claimed to be eye-witness to the occurrence the presence of none of them at the place of occurrence is established. As stated above, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have said that they saw the occurrence from the Basa of P.W. 1. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place in the field of one Sukhram. As stated above, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have said that they saw the occurrence from the Basa of P.W. 1. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place in the field of one Sukhram. Prosecution has not been able to establish where this land of Sukhram is situated either near the Basa of P.W. 1 or near the Basa of informant which are about a mile apart from each other as stated by P.W. 1. The evidence of informant that he first saw the occurrence from his Basa which is situated about 500 yards from the place of occurrence is also not convincing apart from other improbabilities and contradictions in his evidence as to the reaching of P.W. 1 who is a lame man to the place of occurrence by running which is against the own evidence of P.W. 1 that he could not go to the place of occurrence, according to fardbeyan he later on came to know that when deceased drove out buffaloes he was assaulted but in his evidence he has said that he saw the buffaloes grazing his field by sitting in his Basa itself, etc. So we, find that none of the witnesses who claim to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence including informant has given evidence which inspires confidence to hold that he had actually seen the occurrence. We, therefore, do not find it safe to uphold the conviction of the appellants on such type of evidence. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 27.2.87 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 106 of 1984, are hereby set aside. The appellants who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of of their bail-bonds. Shashank Kumar Singh, J. I agree.