JUDGEMENT PRABHAT KUMAR SINHA, J.:-The Appellants aforesaid stand convicted under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellants Doma, Lathua @ Laduwa, Ibrahim and Abdul Samad stand 'also convicted under section 147 of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a year. The remaining appellants have also been convicted under section 148 of the Code and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment Further, appellants Amiruddin, Ekram, Nazmul Hoda, Nawab Arfin and Sarif have been convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years' each. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution as coming out from the Fardbayan of Sk. Noor Alam (Exhibit-1) is that on 14.3.1985 at about 9.30 A.M. when he was harvesting the standing crop on the plots mentioned in the first information report, the appellants, variously armed with lathi, bhala, gun and pistols, reached there and started shooing away the labourers. Nizam Pahalwan and Md. Butan, two 'Sipahis' of the informant, tried to stop them at which appellant Abdul Samad ordered his sons, Nazamul and Ekramul, to fire upon the 'Sipahis'. At this appellant Sarif started firing from his country made pistol which was followed by fleeing away of the labourers and the 'Sipahis'. Sipahi Nizam fled towards east who was followed by Nazmul with gun and by Sarif and Mantu. About 150 yards away Nizam fell down who was hit by Mantu with bhala. Butan was being chased by Nawab Arfin with pistol and Nizam (Nizamuddin) with bhala. Butan also fell down at which he was injured by Nizam with bhala. In the meantime eight to ten shots were fired. The witnesses also came at which the appellants fled away. 3. The defence of the accused/appellants in course of trial was denial of their complicity in any such occurrence. 4. Exhibit-A was proved by the defence witness which was Sanha entry at Amdabad Police Station made on the written statement given by the appellant Abdul Samad at 11.00 A.M. on the date of occurrence claiming that on his lands, description of which was given, which were lands other than those mentioned in the first information report, wheat crop was standing which (informant) Noor Alam, Zahoor Alam and others had gone to loot. A prayer was made to stop the occurrence. As a matter of fact it was at this Sanha entry that the Investigating Police Officer had proceeded to the place of occurrence with Abdul Samad but on reaching there he was confronted with two dead bodies, as aforesaid where after he recorded fardbayan of Noor Alam. It has been argued before us that since the informant side had gone to loot away the crops standing on the land of the appellants aforesaid, if any occurrence thereafter had taken place, that was in exercise of right of private defence. 5. In course of trial a total of twelve witnesses were examined by prosecution and three by the defence. Out of them three prosecution witnesses at serial 2, 4, and 5 had turned hostile and did not fully Support the prosecution case. P.W.1, Umed Ali a labour, not related to the informant, has though named the appellants to have come at the place of occurrence, variously armed and said about the commencement of the firing, he did not support the prosecution story thereafter, claiming that he had fled away but he returned back one and half hours afterwards when he saw two 'Sipahis' dead. He was told by the informant that accused had killed his 'Sipahis'. P.W.3, Zahoor Alam, brother of the informant, P.W.6, Lal Mohammad, cousin of the informant and P.W.7, Manzoor Alam, another brother of the informant, have supported the occurrence as eye-witnesses, apart from P.W.8, Noor Alam, the informant. 6. In this case fardbayan of Noor Alam was recorded by the police at the spot at 1.30 P.M. where as occurrence has been claimed to have taken place at 9.30 A.M. This fardbayan was recorded after the entire incident had finished and Nizam and Butan said to be the two 'Sipahis' of the informant, had already been killed. From the first information report it will be clear that by the time the police reached there both the 'Sipahis' had succumbed to their injuries. Therefore, the informant had time at his hand before the fardbayan was recorded to recollect the different stages of the occurrence and to have seen how the two 'Sipahis' were killed. Indeed in the first information report specific persons are said to have chased either of the two 'Sipahis' and it also has been stated as to how assault on them had taken place. Indeed in the first information report specific persons are said to have chased either of the two 'Sipahis' and it also has been stated as to how assault on them had taken place. Though first information report cannot be considered to be the repository of every minute detail of the occurrence but its importance cannot be undermined, its being the first version of the incident, particularly when in the present fardbayan various details of the incident have been given. It has not been claimed in this Exhibit-1, nor it has been specifically claimed by the eye witnesses, that the appellants or some of them had chased anyone else other than the two 'Sipahis'. The informant and his witnesses were present at the spot who were neither chased nor any attempt was made to kill or injure them. Therefore, first it may be noticed as to how the occurrence has been described in the first information report- (i) It has been claimed in Exhibit-1 that appellant Ekram and Nazmul had guns in their hands whereas Nawab Arfin had a country made pistol and appellant Amiruddin had garland of cartriges with him. Mantu is said to be having a bhala in his hand. Others including Sarif, in the first part of the first information report, are said to be having lathis in their hands. However, later it has been claimed that Sarif also had fired from his pistol and Nizamuddin (Nizam) had hit Butan with bhala. (ii) When the 'Sipahis' tried to stop the appellants when they were shooing away the labourers appellant Abdul Samad ordered his sons Nazmul and Ekramul to fire at the 'Sipahis' at which the firing first started and Sarif fired from his country made pistol. It is claimed that with this firing the labourers and 'Sipahis' fled away (iii) Nazmul with gun along with Sarif and Mantu chased “Sipahis' Nizam who fell down 150 yards away at which Mantu hit him with bhala. (iv) 'Sipahi' Butan was follwed by Nawab Arfin with pistol and Nizam with bhala and when he fell down, Nizam hit him with bhala. (v) In the meantime the appellants had indulged into eight to ten firings. 7. In the backdrop of these descriptions of the occurrence the evidence that has come on the record may be evaluated. (iv) 'Sipahi' Butan was follwed by Nawab Arfin with pistol and Nizam with bhala and when he fell down, Nizam hit him with bhala. (v) In the meantime the appellants had indulged into eight to ten firings. 7. In the backdrop of these descriptions of the occurrence the evidence that has come on the record may be evaluated. In this case the main allegation is that the appellants had killed the two 'Sipahis.' I will first take up the manner of killing of Sipahi Nizam as given out in their evidence by the witnesses. 8. P.W.1, as already stated, had not seen as to who had chased whom and who had killed whom. however, this 'witness has said that Nizam had fell down about one hundred to one hundred fifty yards away from where he was, to wards east-south. P.W. 2, Md. Faizuddin, did not support the prosecution case and was cross-examined by the prosecution. This witness, however, in cross-examination said that at the place of occurrence there were about one hundred to one hundred fifty people out of whom he had identified Amiruddin and one Samir (not accused) only. 9. P.W.3 has said that on the date of occurrence when he came to know that Amiruddin was going with unlawful assembly, he came to his brother, the informant at his wheat field where both the 'Sipahis' were also present, and informed about coming of the accused. According to this witness only the appellants had come there. He said that Amirruddin had in his neck a garland of cartridges whereas Ekramul and Nazmul had guns, Sarif and Nawab had country made pistol whereas Mantu and Nizam had bhala, rest having lathi except Abdul Samad who was empty handed. According to this witness they came on the road near his field. It has come in the evidence of the Investigating Officer that after the road there was a ditch where after the field of the informant started. 10. This witness has claimed that Abdul Samad had ordered Sarif for firing after which all the four appellants having gun and country made pistols started firing. This witness about Nizam said that he had been hit by firing but he could not say as to who had shot him but Nazmul, Sarif and Mantu had chased him, and while chasing Nazmul and Sarif were firing. This witness about Nizam said that he had been hit by firing but he could not say as to who had shot him but Nazmul, Sarif and Mantu had chased him, and while chasing Nazmul and Sarif were firing. When he fell down Mantu came and struck him with bhala on his waist. This witness has also said that they were also chased by the appellants which, however, was not the prosecution case in the first information report. As per this witness, after the occurrence they saw both the 'Sipahis' dead. He has given the same khata and khesra numbers of the land in question as given in the first information report. 11. This witness also has claimed that Nizam was with them since the year 1981 whereas Butan was with them since 1984. However, P.W.1 has said that he had seen the deceased only twice earlier, firstly about two and half years back and, secondly, about one and half years back. P.W.2 in his evidence had said that though he had heard the names of both the deceased but he had seen them for the first time on the date of occurrence. This is in context of the claim of the learned counsel for the appellants that both the 'Sipahis' were strongmen who used to be hired for committing crime and on that day also they were brought for the purpose of harvesting the crop which was why independent witnesses had not seen him regularly working for the informant. 12. P.W.3 also said during cross-examination that when Nizam was lying on his stomach he was assaulted by Mantu with bhala which bhala he shook out from his body. This witness also claimed that firing had continued for fifteen to twenty minutes. 13. P.W.6, Lal Mohammad, has also claimed that in the morning he came to know about the unlawful assembly going to the field about which he informed the informant. This witness has also named one Suleman Khan among the members of unlawful assembly who, however, was not an accused. He claimed that on order of Abdul Samad the four appellants having guns and pistols had started firing. He said that Nizam was chased by Nazmul, Sarif and Mantu out of whom the first two were also firing. This witness said that after some distance Nizam fell down where after Mantu assaulted him with bhala. He claimed that on order of Abdul Samad the four appellants having guns and pistols had started firing. He said that Nizam was chased by Nazmul, Sarif and Mantu out of whom the first two were also firing. This witness said that after some distance Nizam fell down where after Mantu assaulted him with bhala. This witness claimed that the appellants had come from western side and had fired ten to twelve shots from the road side but he neither was scared nor he had fled away. He only said that with Noor Alam he had moved backwards and also claimed that he saw the entire occurrence from the place where Noor Alam was. This evidence also shows that Noor Alam had seen the entire occurrence, not having fled away to any great distance, and was in a position to see what happened and how. 14. About Nizam this witness said that Nizam had fled towards east and he fell down after one hundred to one hundred fifty yards when he was hit with a bullet. He claimed that Nizam was also assaulted with bhala. 15. About Nizam P.W.7 has also supported as to how he came to know that appellant Amiruddin and others had planned to commit mischief at the field where after he also went to the field. He also has named the appellants including Suleman Khan, but has not named appellant Laduwa and Doma and has supported as to how on orders of Samad others resorted to firing. About Nizam he said that he had fled away, along with other 'Sipahi', and had fell down two hundred to three hundered yards away, on being chased by Nazmul, Mantu and Sarif. He said that Nazmul and Sarif, while chasing him, also had fired. After the accused fled away he went there but by that time Nizam had, died. He has said that on his back he had seen sign of bhala injury which was inflicted by Mantu. This witness was also extensively cross-examined on various points but on main points he had supported the prosecution case in the manner as above. 16. After the accused fled away he went there but by that time Nizam had, died. He has said that on his back he had seen sign of bhala injury which was inflicted by Mantu. This witness was also extensively cross-examined on various points but on main points he had supported the prosecution case in the manner as above. 16. P.W.8 is the informant himself who has said about harvesting being done on the date of occurrence, in the field which was under his possession and also said about coming of the appellants and has supported the first information report so far their arms were concerned, admitting that Sam ad was empty handed. He also has supported about order by Abdul Samad and firing by others on which the labourers and 'Sipahis' fled away. About Nizam he said that Nazmul, Mantu and Sarif had chased him who had fell down on being hit by bullet. He also supported that Mantu had, when Nizam fell down, assaulted him with bhala. 17. This witness has been asked a number of questions about his statement to the Deputy Superintendent of Police when he had come to supervise the investigation of the case which Deputy Superintendent of Police has been examined as Defence Witness no.1 About the value of the evidence of D.W.1 I will revert back latter. 18. About the place of occurrence he said that the lands were in his possession since long for which a title suit was also instituted which he had won. He has denied that both the 'Sipahis' were lathials. 19. P.W.9 is Dr. Hari Nandan Singh, who had performed post mortem on the dead body of Md. Nizam and upon him, on external examination he found one somall wound with inverted margin and excoriation, wound of entry, on the right hypocondrium. The wound of exist was found on the back of the left side with everted margin. In the opinion of the doctor the deceased had suffered gun shot injury and he had died of that. Post mortem report is Exhibit-2/1. 20. Now coming to the prosecution case about death of Butan, the other 'Sipahi', evidence of P.W.1 in general has already been discussed. P.W.2 has only said that he had seen the 'Sipahis' having fallen down. In the opinion of the doctor the deceased had suffered gun shot injury and he had died of that. Post mortem report is Exhibit-2/1. 20. Now coming to the prosecution case about death of Butan, the other 'Sipahi', evidence of P.W.1 in general has already been discussed. P.W.2 has only said that he had seen the 'Sipahis' having fallen down. P.W.3 has said that Nawab Arfin and Nizamuddin had chased Butan who had fallen down in the field of occurrence where after Nizamuddin assaulted him with lathi portion of bhala. Ho also said that Butan was surrounded by Doma, Laduwa and Ibrahim. P.W.6, in this context, said that Butan was chased by Nawab Arfin and Nizamuddin but later he said that all the accused persons had assaulted him with lathi out of whom Nizamuddin had given him two to four lathi blows. In further examination he had said that he had not seen anyone assaulting Butan with bhala. Here it may be recalled that in the first information report it was claimed that Butan was being chased by Nawab Arfin and Nizamuddin and when he fell down Nizamuddin injured him with bhala. No one else is said either to have chased him or to have assaulted him in the first information report. 21. P.W.6 further said in cross-examination that Doma, Laduwa and Ibrahim had surrounded Butan and had a so assaulted him. 22. P.W.7 Said that Butan was chased by Nizamuddin, Suleman Khan, Doma, Nawab Arfin, Ekram and others who surrounded him where after Nizamuddin started assaulting him with the lathi portion of bhala. This witness, however, had admitted that the 'Sipahis' were armed with lathi. This witness further said (paragraph 11) that 'Sipahi' Butan had not at all fled away rather he was assaulted at the very place where harvesting was being done and he fell down at that place. 23. P.W.8, the informant, has said that Butan was chased by Ekram, Nawab Artin, Doma, Laduwa, Ibrahim, Nizamuddin, Abdul Samad and Amiruddin who has assaulted him. This witness, however, also said that Butan had fallen down and Doma and Ibrahim with lathi and Nizamuddin with lathi portion of bhala had then assaulted him. 23. P.W.8, the informant, has said that Butan was chased by Ekram, Nawab Artin, Doma, Laduwa, Ibrahim, Nizamuddin, Abdul Samad and Amiruddin who has assaulted him. This witness, however, also said that Butan had fallen down and Doma and Ibrahim with lathi and Nizamuddin with lathi portion of bhala had then assaulted him. This witness has stated that before the Police he had said that Nizamuddin had assaulted Butan with lathi portion of bhala and denied that he had not said that all had assaulted him after having surrounded him. P.W.11, when asked about that said (paragraph 8) that Noor Alam had not told him that Nizamuddin had assaulted Butan with the other portion of bhala or that all had assaulted him after surrounding him. He also said that witness Manzoor Alam did not name Doma and Ekram in chasing Butan and that witness Lal Mohammad had not said as to who had assaulted Butan with lathi, rather he had named only Nizamuddin in assaulting Butan. 24. In so far as Butan is concerned, it has come in evidence including of P.W.11, that dead body of Butan was found in the field of the informant which was adjacent to the road, only a ditch intervening. The dead body of Butan was about three feet away from the road. As already seen a witness had said that Butan had not fled away but was assaulted in the field of harvesting. However other witnesses including the informant, as also asserted in the first information report, had said that Butan also had felid away and chased by certain persons and was killed. So far Butan is concerned, the evidence of the witnesses are contradictory as to who had chased him and who actually had assaulted, killing him. Quite different story was given in the first information report. P.W.9, the doctor, who had done post mortem on the dead body of Butan, had found following injures on him. "(1) One lacerated injury on the left mandible 1"x 1/2". (2) One lacerated wound on the forchead 3" x 1/2". (3) Fracture of left arm. (4) One lacerated injury on the right hand. on dissection the following were found:- (i) On opening the skull the frontal bone was fractured and brain matter protruding outside. Blood and blood clots were present on the manages and brain substance. (ii) Left mandible fractured. (iii) Left humorous fractured." 25. (3) Fracture of left arm. (4) One lacerated injury on the right hand. on dissection the following were found:- (i) On opening the skull the frontal bone was fractured and brain matter protruding outside. Blood and blood clots were present on the manages and brain substance. (ii) Left mandible fractured. (iii) Left humorous fractured." 25. From the aforesaid it will appear that Butan had received some injuries by hard and blunt substance which had caused his death but he had received no bhala injury which along was claimed in the first information report. 26. In so far as deceased Nizam is concerned, what has come in the evidence of witnesses, claimed to be eye-witnesses, is that he was chased by Nazmul, Sarif and Mantu, the first two firing upon him. It has come in the evidence that while being so chased, 'Sipahi' Nizam was hit by firing of either of the two and he fell down where after Mantu hit him with bhala on the back side. It has come in the evidence that on being hit by the firing, Nizam had fallen down on his abdomen. However, the witnesses in any given case may tell truth or may lie but the circumstances do never lie. This manner of assault upon Nizam is negated by the evidence of P.W.9, the doctor who had performed autopsy upon the dead body. As already said, doctor had found one entry wound on the right hypocondrium and a wound of exit on the side of the back. The doctor did not find any other injury including by bhala. It is not the prosecution case that Nizam was fired upon from the front or that while fleeing away he had turned around when a bullet had hit him. The evidence is that he had received fire arm injury while he was fleeing away while two of the appellants who were chasing, had been firing upon him. If this was the manner of assault upon him, this deceased could not have received entry wound on the front side and the exit wound on the back. 27. Ms. Anjana Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants, had argued that the prosecution has not come up with clean hands and besides concoctions, had improvised its case from stage to stage. If this was the manner of assault upon him, this deceased could not have received entry wound on the front side and the exit wound on the back. 27. Ms. Anjana Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants, had argued that the prosecution has not come up with clean hands and besides concoctions, had improvised its case from stage to stage. As example, the learned counsel argued that when the informant side saw a wound (of exit) on the back side of this deceased, they came out with the story that Mantu had hit him on the back with bhala, which he shook out. It is submitted that though in the first information report a claim had been made that Butan was assaulted with bhala but when the prosecution found that the post mortem did not support that, they immediately changed that story and said that appellant Nizamuddin had assaulted him not from the pointed side of bhala (as had been given out in the first information report) but claimed that Nizamuddin had assaulted him with the back side of bhala. 28. Medical evidence is a very important piece of evidence in a case of this nature but in all the cases it cannot be argued that the ocular evidence, if consistent and trustworthy, should be disbelieved in face of the medical evidence to the contrary. There may be cases where such consistent and trustworthy and reliable ocular evidence may prevail upon the medical evidence, but as already seen, in this case the eye-witnesses are interested witnesses who are related to each other. That there was bad blood between the two sides has also come in evidence, including institution of cases or proceedings between the two sides. In view of that the evidence of these witnesses has to be scrutinized very carefully but if from the evidence of prosecution including the medical evidence doubts about the truthfulness of the prosecution case crop up, benefit of that should go the accused. 29. Defence Witness no.1, Nalini Kant Mishra, then posted as Sub-divisional Police Officer at Katihar, had supervised the investigation in this case. Attention of witnesses including that of Noor Alam and Zahoor Alam had been brought towards their statements given before this witness in course of supervision which was done on 17.3.1985, as testified by this witness. 29. Defence Witness no.1, Nalini Kant Mishra, then posted as Sub-divisional Police Officer at Katihar, had supervised the investigation in this case. Attention of witnesses including that of Noor Alam and Zahoor Alam had been brought towards their statements given before this witness in course of supervision which was done on 17.3.1985, as testified by this witness. This witness said that the had recorded the statements of Noor Alam, Zahoor Alam and others. He said that the informant had told him that after some time all the accused had come and thereafter had retreated to the Aangan of Nawab Arfin and at about 9.30 A.M. there was a blank fire from inside the house where after another shot was fired which had hit Butan and that Butan was assaulted by Sarif, Shaukat and Fakir with lathi at which he died. This witness said that Zahoor Alam had stated before him about infliction of bhala injury to Nizam and also had said that nobody had hit him with a fir-arm, but had claimed that Nizam had died of bhala injury. 30. This witness has claimed that he had given the evidence with the help of his supervision note which typed in his office. He admitted that he had recorded the statement of witnesses in a note book on basis of which he had prepared his supervision note. That note book was not before him. In answer to a question he said that he had recorded statement of witnesses fully as told by them. 31. Learned lower court has not given much importance to the evidence of this witness also on the ground that it was doubtful whether his evidence could be considered. There is nothing in his evidence to doubt that he had taken the statements of witness in course of his supervision and had reduced that in writing which was afterwards typed into the supervision note. There is nothing in his evidence to suggest that this witness was not telling truth. When such statements have been claimed to have been given by the witnesses and attention of those witnesses have been drawn towards such statements, then the witnesses could be cross-examined as to that previous statement made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to the matters in question. When such statements have been claimed to have been given by the witnesses and attention of those witnesses have been drawn towards such statements, then the witnesses could be cross-examined as to that previous statement made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to the matters in question. If it is intended to contradict him by writing, his attention must, before writing can be proved, be drawn to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. Such a witness can be cross-examined as to his previous statement without such writing being shown to him or being proved, under the provisions of section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972. Even if much importance is not accorded to the evidence of this witness, the contradictions that have been pointed out to the witnesses, and affirmed by D.W.1, raise further doubts upon the prosecution story. 32. Therefore, I find that in so far as the murder of the two 'Sipahis' is concerned, the prosecution evidence, which is by intenerated witnesses, is full of contradictions and improvisations. 33. In so far as the first part of the offence is concerned where the appellants are said to have come on the field and resorted to firings, in the first information report it has come that eight to ten firings were done though a witness gives more number of firings and another witness said that the firings by them contend for about fifteen minutes. Though the main grudge of the appellants should have been against the informant and his relatives, it has not come in the evidence that any physical harm was caused to any of the, or even to their labourers. It is also clear from the evidence on the record that even if such initial firing had taken place, those were not intended to kill anyone as no one else, apart from the two 'Sipahis', who are claimed to have been chased and killed, had received any injury. There is nothing in the evidence, particularly in the evidence of the Investigating Police Officer, that on the spot any sign of such firing was found or even any empty cartridge was located. This is another lacuna in the prosecution case which, coupled with the evidence as already discussed, casts doubts upon the manner of occurrence as claimed by the prosecution. 34. This is another lacuna in the prosecution case which, coupled with the evidence as already discussed, casts doubts upon the manner of occurrence as claimed by the prosecution. 34. Sri G.P. Jayswal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that all the accused had come variously armed any thereafter two murders were committed, hence they all must be held responsible for those murders, having common object to commit that offence, irrespective of the fact as to which of them had actually caused those murders. But in the circumstances of the case, this argument is fallacious. Even if the prosecution case, as unfolded in the first information report is accepted, then only this much would come that the appellants had came to the field, variously armed and after a brief query with the 'Sipahis', those having fire arms had opened fire. There is no evidence, as already seen, that those combined firings were aimed at anyone, even at the informant or his relatives who were said to be there. No one was injured in that bout of firings. Thereafter different witnesses named certain persons who had fled away, and have given definite names as to who had assaulted whom, though contradicting each other as also contradicting the medical evidence. In view of such evidence when right from the first information report, to the evidence of eye-witnesses definite names have been taken in so far as the murders were concerned, it cannot be held that all the appellants had common object in killing those two 'Sipahi'. As a matter of fact, as per evidence, they had not immediately fired upon the "Sipahis" who were there but had enquired from them about harvesting and after those "Sipahis" asked them to talk with their master, they resorted to general firing which did not hurt anyone. This shows that they had no common intention, nor common object of killing the "Sipahis" when they reached at the spot but when the "Sipahis" fled away, some of them are said to have chased and killed them. Therefore, in a case of this nature it is not possible to attribute common intention or common object to all, and the case has to be scrutinized to see the individual acts of the accused. The evidence in that regard has already been discussed. 35. Therefore, in a case of this nature it is not possible to attribute common intention or common object to all, and the case has to be scrutinized to see the individual acts of the accused. The evidence in that regard has already been discussed. 35. The learned counsel for the appellants had argued on the right of private defence also as alternative argument, but in view 'of the findings, as noted above, it is not necessary to consider that argument. 36. In the result, I find that prosecution has failed to prove its charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubts. That being so this appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and the sentences awarded to the appellants are hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge. They are also directed to be discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.