Judgment M.L.Visa, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd February, 1989 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 493/86 convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo R.I. for a period of two years each under Sec. 324, I.P.C. The appellant Sheojee Rai has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Sec. 27 of Arms Act and both the sentences passed against him have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 18-3-85 at about 8.30 a.m. Ram Nath Bind (P.W. 4) went to the house of the informant Sheonarain Rai (P.W. 5) and informed him that Ramashish Rai, his sons and others armed with bhala, garasa, etc. were uprooting the vegetable plants from the informants land. On hearing this, the informant went to his field where he found the appellants along with others in his field. Appellant Sheojee Rai was carrying a country-made pistol, appellant Ram Sahay Rai was carrying a bhala and appellant Suraj Rai was carrying a garasa. The companions of the appellants were armed with country-made pistols, bhala, garasa, lathi, etc. The appellants Sheojee Rai, Ramsahay Rai, Arjun Rai including Ramjeet Rai and Bihari Rai were uprooting the vegetable plants from the field of informant while others were standing there. When the informant asked them not to do so and also told that he would get the matter settled through panchayati but appellants and their companions did not listen to him and started abusing him. On hearing the hulla, neighbouring witnesses, namely, Radha Rai (P.W. 3), Subash Rai (P.W. 1) and Lalit Rai (P.W. 2) came there and they also asked the appellants and their companions not to do so. This angered the appellants and their companions and co-accused Ramashish Rai ordered to kill the informant and his party on which the appellant Sheojee Rai fired from his pistol causing injuries to Lalit Rai (P.W. 2). Thereafter, all the members of the appellants and their companions who were carrying pistols opened fire from their pistols causing injuries to Subash Rai (P.W. 1) and Lalit Rai (P.W. 2). Radha Rai (P.W. 3) was assaulted by appellant Suraj Rai with garasa. The informant was repeatedly assaulted by accused Arjun Rai by garasa aiming at his head causing injuries to his both the hands. Radha Rai (P.W. 3) was assaulted by appellant Suraj Rai with garasa. The informant was repeatedly assaulted by accused Arjun Rai by garasa aiming at his head causing injuries to his both the hands. Appellant Ram Sahay Rai inflicted injuries to the right knee of informant with bhala, thereafter co-accused Chandradeo Rai gave a bhala blow to the informant causing injuries on the same place and appellant Suraj Rai assaulted him with garasa causing injuries on his head. The informant became unconscious and when he regained his consciousness he found himself in hospital where his fardbeyan (Ext. 2) was recorded by A.S.I. of Police B.B. Sharma(not examined) at 2.15 p.m. on 18-3-85. A formal F.I.R. (Ext. 3) was drawn. The other injured were also taken to Arrah Sadar Hospital where they were examined by Dr. M.K. Sinha (P.W. 6). After the investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants and against Dilip Rai, Chandradeo Rai, Ramashish Rai, Ram Sahay Rai, Ramjeet Rai, Lal Babu Rai, Ram Krit Rai, Arjun Rai, Bihari Rai and Hari Kishan Roy. During the trial Ramashish Rai died. Charges under Sec. 307, I.P.C. and 307/149, I.P.C. were framed against the appellants and other co-accused-persons and further charge under Sec. 27 of Arms Act against appellant Sheojee Rai and others were framed and the appellants along with other co-accused-persons were put on trial. After trial all the three appellants were found guilty under Sec. 324, I.P.C. and appellant Sheojee Rai was further found guilty under Sec. 27 of Arms Act. The appellants have been convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Other accused-persons who were tried with the appellants were not found guilty and they have been acquitted. 3. The case of appellants before the Court below, as it appears from the oral and documentary evidence adduced on their behalf as well as from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, was that it was the prosecution party which at the time of occurrence had attacked on them and committed murder of their two persons Satya Rai and Sant Vilash Rai for which appellant Sheojee Rai filed Koelwar P.S. Case No. 52/85 against the informant and others and for this reason they have been falsely implicated in this case. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. Sheo Narain Rai (P.W. 5) is the informant, Subash Rai (P.W. 1), Lalit Rai (P.W. 2), Radha Rai (P.W. 3) and Ram Nath Bind (P.W. 4) are the eye-witnesses to occurrence. Out of them, P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are injured. Dr. M.K. Sinha (P.W. 6) is the doctor who had examined the informant and other injured persons. Deoraj Singh (P.W. 7) is the I.O. Jang Bahadur Singh (P.W. 8) is a formal witness who has proved a rent receipt (Ext. 4). 5. Sheo Narain Rai (P.W. 5), the informant, in his evidence has stated that on the day of occurrence in the morning Ram Nath Bind (P.W. 4) came to him and informed him that the appellants and others were uprooting the vegetable plants from his field and then, he went to his field and found the appellants and others there and when he enquired from co-accused Ramashish Rai why he was uprooting his vegetable plants, he ordered to kill him and the appellant Suraj Rai and co- accused Arjun Rai assaulted him with garasa and appellant Ram Sahay Rai assaulted him with bhala and others assaulted him with lathis. He has said that P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 at that time were working in their adjoining fields and when they came to the place of occurrence for his rescue the appellant Sheojee Rai fired from his pistol causing injuries on the back of P.W.1 and P.W. 2 but again he has said that P.W, 2 received injury near his neck and appellant Suraj Rai assaulted P.W. 3 with garasa. In his fardbeyan, the informant had not stated that appellant Sheojee Rai fired from his pistol causing injury to P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. There he has simply stated that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 had also received injury by fire-arm and they themselves would say who caused such injuries to them. His attention to this point was drawn but he denied to have made such statement in the fardbeyan but P.W. 7 the I.O. in his evidence has stated that even in his re-examination during the course of investigation the informant had not stated the names of the assailants who caused fire-arm injuries to P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. His attention to this point was drawn but he denied to have made such statement in the fardbeyan but P.W. 7 the I.O. in his evidence has stated that even in his re-examination during the course of investigation the informant had not stated the names of the assailants who caused fire-arm injuries to P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. According to informant, he received the information of occurrence by Ram Nath Bind (P.W. 4). In this view of the matter, P.W. 4 was the first man who had seen the appellants and their companions uprooting the vegetable plants and according to the case of prosecution he thereafter went to inform the informant and brought him to the place of occurrence but P.W. 4 in his evidence has named only three persons appellants Sheojee Rai Ramashish Rai and Dilip Rai. On the point of assault, P.W. 4 has stated that when informant was being assaulted he fled away. Subash Rai (P.W. 1), Lalit Rai (P.W. 2) and Radha Rai (P.W. 3) supporting the case of prosecution have stated that on the day of occurrence they were also assaulted by the appellants and their companions. P.W. 1 has stated that appellant Sheojee Rai fired from his pistol causing injuries on his back and on the neck of P.W. 2 and appellant Suraj Rai assaulted P.W. 3 with garasa. According to him, the informant was also assaulted with garasa and lathi but he has riot named who assaulted the informant, Lalit Rai (P.W. 2) has said that appellant Sheojee Rai opened fire causing injuries to him and P.W. 1 and Suraj Rai assaulted P.W. 3 with garasa. He has further said that P.W. 3 was further assaulted by co-accused Arjun Rai with lathi. Radh Rai (P.W. 3) has said that he received injuries by the pistol of appellant Sheojee Rai and he was also assaulted by appellant Suraj Rai by garasa, P.W. 1 in his evidence has named only seven persons, P.W. 2 has named ten persons, P.W. 3 has named twelve persons and P.W. 4 has named only three persons. Sheo Narain Rai (P.W. 5) in his evidence has stated that after the occurrence villagers had carried him and other injured persons to hospital but no such villager has been examined on behalf of prosecution. Sheo Narain Rai (P.W. 5) in his evidence has stated that after the occurrence villagers had carried him and other injured persons to hospital but no such villager has been examined on behalf of prosecution. Deoraj Singh (P.W. 7) the I.O. has said that P.W. 1 had not stated before him that appellant Sheojee Rai had fired from pistol causing injuries on his back and he had also not stated that P.W. 1 received injury by fire-arm. About the informant that he was assaulted by garasa, P.W. 3 had not stated it before him. About P.W. 2 the I.O. has said that he had not stated before him that at the time of occurrence appellant Suraj Rai was carrying garasa and had also not stated that appellant Sheojee Rai fired from pistol causing injuries on his neck. The I.O. has further said that the informant in his statement before him had not stated that appellant Sheojee Rai and co-accused Dilip Rai and Lal Babu Rai were carrying pistols and in his statement, he had not stated the name of any caused and he had simply supported his fardbeyan. As stated above in the fardbeyan, the informant has not stated that who caused fire arm injuries to P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. 6. Before the Court below besides the appellants eight more persons were put on trial but they all were acquitted considering the contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The Court below in its judgment has disbelieved the case of prosecution that the appellants and their companions at the time of occurrence had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to kill the informant and his men because had it been so the persons who were armed with fire-arms would have opened fire but it was not done so. It also disbelieved that except appellant Suraj Rai anybody else was armed with garasa. It did not take into consideration the evidence of informant that co-accused Arjun Rai had given a garasa blow to him. The Court below, however, held the appellants guilty under Sec. 324, I.P.C. and further held appellant Sheojee Rai guilty under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. 7. The case of defence is that at the time and at place of occurrence their two persons, namely, Satya Rai and Sant Vilash Rai were murdered by the prosecution party. Dr. The Court below, however, held the appellants guilty under Sec. 324, I.P.C. and further held appellant Sheojee Rai guilty under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. 7. The case of defence is that at the time and at place of occurrence their two persons, namely, Satya Rai and Sant Vilash Rai were murdered by the prosecution party. Dr. B.P. Yadav (D.W. 2) in his evidence has stated that on 19-3-95 at about 8.00 a.m. he held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sant Vilash Rai and 8,30 a.m. on the same day on the dead body of Satya Rai. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 in their evidence have admitted that Satya Rai and Sant Vilash Rai died at the place of occurrence at the same time. P.W. 7 the I.O. in his evidence has admitted that he found dead bodies of Sant Vilash Rai and Satya Rai at a place 10 east from the place of occurrence and according to him, the plot number of place of occurrence is 1440 under Khata No. 254 and the dead bodies of Satya Rai and Sant Vilash Rai were found from a land bearing plot No. 1434 under Khata No. 209 but he has admitted that he did not verify the khata number and plot number by going through khatian and he has mentioned the plot number and khata number on the basis of statements given to him by the parties. His evidence that dead bodies of Satya Rai and Sant Vilash Rai were found not at the place of occurrence cannot be believed in view of admission of P.W. 3 in para 6 of his evidence that Satya Rai and Sant Vilash Rai died at the place of occurrence itself. The informant in his evidence has stated that the appellants and their companions themselves killed Satya Rai and Sant Vilash Rai. P.W. 1 more or less has given the same evidence but has added that Satya Rai and Sant Vilash Rai were killed by the appellants and their companions in a melee. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 also have said that Satya Rai and Sant Vilash Rai were killed by the appellants and their companions. P.W. 1 more or less has given the same evidence but has added that Satya Rai and Sant Vilash Rai were killed by the appellants and their companions in a melee. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 also have said that Satya Rai and Sant Vilash Rai were killed by the appellants and their companions. So from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is established that Satya Rai and Sant Vilash Rai from the side of appellants died after receiving injuries at the time of occurrence and at the place of occurrence itself. The I.O. in his evidence has said that none of the prosecution witnesses had stated before him about the death of Satya Rai and Sant Vilash Rai in their earlier statements. This clearly shows that the prosecution in this case has not come up with true version of occurrence and when prosecution witnesses came in the dock to depose for the first time they deposed that Satya Rai and Sant Vilash Rai were killed by the appellants and their companions themselves. Ext. A is the fardbeyan of appellant Sheojee Rai and Ext. B is the F.I.R. of Koelwar P.S. No. 52/85 which was lodged on the basis of this fardbeyan Ext. C and C/1 are the post-mortem examination reports prepared after the examination on the dead-bodies of Satya Rai and Sant Vilash Rai, Ext. A shows that informant and others are named in the fardbeyan of appellant Sheojee Rai which he got recorded for the murder of Satya Rai and Sant Vilash Rai and it further shows that the appellant Sheojee Rai lodged the case earlier than the present case. So I find that the prosecution has tried to conceal the murder of Satya Rai and Sant Vilash Rai in this case and it has not come up with clean hands. 8. Considering the aforesaid fact as well as considering the material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses about the number of the persons taking part in the alleged occurrence, the manner, the injuries said to have been received by informant and other injured persons, I find that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In this view of the matter, the conviction of appellants cannot be upheld. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the Court below is hereby set aside. In this view of the matter, the conviction of appellants cannot be upheld. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the Court below is hereby set aside. The appellants who are on bail are discharged from the liabilities of their bail-bonds.