Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 31-3-1987 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, VI, Gaya whereby they have been convicted for the offence under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Appellant No. 3 Nanheshwar Singh and Appellant No. 4 Rajnandan Sao have further been convicted for the offence under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case is that one Bhikhari Singh gave his statement at the police station on 13-10-1979 that at about twelve noon he was irrigating the field from Harbanshpur pan. His uncle, Gudri Singh was on the pan. People of the village were also irrigating their field. Bhikhari Singh with gun, Manar Singh and Triveni Singh with bhala, Jhalku Singh with garasa, Bhagwan Sao with lathi, Nanheshwar Singh and Rajnandan Sao with spade came there. Bhikhari Singh asked Gudri Singh to leave the place which he refused. Nanheshwar Singh and Rajnandan Sao started cutting the pan. Gudri Singh proceeded and asked them not to cut the pan on which Bhikhari Singh fired on him causing in jury on his person due to which he fell down. Manar Singh, Jhalku Singh and Bhagwan Sao thereafter assaulted him with bhala, garasa and lathi respectively. He raised alarm, Halkhori Singh, Yugal Yadav Bhaglu Singh and Faudar Singh of his village came there. Triveni Singh assaulted Faudar Singh with bhala. Thereafter, many people of the village came. His uncle, Gudri Singh, died on the spot. 3. On the aforesaid statement first information report was registered, investigation was taken up and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted only against six persons. Jhalku Singh was not sent up for trial. On receipt of the charge-sheet congnizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. During the trial Bhikhari Singh and Manar Singh died. The trial court convicted the appellants as indicated above. 4. The defence of the appellants was that they had right to irrigate the field. They were innocent and had falsely been implicated in this case. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined six witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 was declared hostile. P.W. 4 was tendered. P.W. 6 is investigating officer. 4. The defence of the appellants was that they had right to irrigate the field. They were innocent and had falsely been implicated in this case. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined six witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 was declared hostile. P.W. 4 was tendered. P.W. 6 is investigating officer. P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 claimed to be eye witnesses to the occurrence. 6. The doctor, who held post-mortem, has not been examined in this case. It has been alleged in the first information report that Bhikhari Singh fired causing injury on the person of Gudari Singh, the deceased, due to which he fell down and thereafter Manar Singh assaulted with bhala, Jhalku Singh, not sent up for trial, assaulted with garasa and Bhagwan Sao assaulted with lathi. P.W. 5, the informant, also stated that Bhikhari Singh fired causing injury on the person of the deceased due to which he fell down. The other two witnesses also stated that Bhikhari Singh fired causing injury to him due to which he fell down. The doctor, who held post-mortem over the dead body has not been examined. However, post-mortem report has been brought on the record, Ext. 4. From perusal of the post-mortem report it appears that the doctor did not find any injury caused by fire arm. In the first information report it has been alleged that Triveni Singh gave bhala blow to Faudar Singh, P.W. 2 but P.W. 2 did not say that he was assaulted with bhala by Triveni Singh. P.W. 3, no doubt, has stated that Triveni Singh assaulted Faudar Singh, P.W. 2, with bhala. P.W. 2, however, stated that he was assaulted with lathi by Bhagwan Sao. Surprisingly, no injury report has been brought on the record to substantiate the assault on P.W. 2. P.W. 2 did not say in his evidence that Bhagwan Sao assaulted the deceased with lathi. P.W. 2 also could not identify one of the appellants, namely, Rajnandan Sao in the court. P.W. 3 did not identify any of the appellants in the court. P.W. 2 stated in his evidence that he came at the place of occurrence after hearing the sound of firing. P.W. 5 in cross-examination stated that he came at the place of occurrence after assault. P.W. 3 did not identify any of the appellants in the court. P.W. 2 stated in his evidence that he came at the place of occurrence after hearing the sound of firing. P.W. 5 in cross-examination stated that he came at the place of occurrence after assault. P.W. 6, the investigating officer, stated in his evidence that P.W. 2 did not say before him that Bhagwan Sao assaulted him with lathi rather he stated that Triveni Singh assaulted him with bhala. Appellant, Triveni Singh is said to have assaulted P.W. 2 with bhala but he himself denied. Moreover, injury report was not brought on the record. Further, investigating officer did not find blood at the place of occurrence. 7. Thus, on consideration of the evidence it is evident that the evidence of the witnesses is not consistent. Furthermore, there is no allegation of assault by appellants Nanheshwar Singh and Rajnandan Sao, though it has been stated that Bhagwan Sao assaulted with lathi but P.W. 2 did not say that he assaulted the deceased with lathi. However, even if it is accepted that Bhagwan Sao assaulted the deceased with lathi then also it cannot be gathered that he had intention/object to kill the deceased. 8. In that view of the matter, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence are hereby set aside and the appellants are discharged form the liability of their bail bonds.