JUDGMENT : 1. Seven accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short 'the Indian Penal Code'). One of them, A-7 was acquitted by the High Court. However, in respect of the other six who were convicted by the Trial Court for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, along with Sections 147, 148, 149 Indian Penal Code, conviction and sentence was maintained by the High Court. By orders dated 23.08.1996 and 07.10.1996, leave was refused so far as accused-appellant Nos. 1,2,3,5 and 6 are concerned. The present appeal relates to A-4 only. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence so far as appellant-accused A-4 is concerned, is not sufficient to bring home the accusations. In fact, in the dying declaration purported to have been given by the deceased before PW-8, his name was not disclosed. Additionally, PW-10 who was supposed to be an eye-witness did not ascribe any role to him. Therefore, the conviction as done by the Trial Court and maintained by the High Court clearly warrants interference. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-State of Gujarat submitted that even though PW-10 has not named the appellant and there is omission in the dying declaration to name him, in view of the evidence of PW-11, his conviction is well merited. 3. We have gone through the evidence on record and considered the judgments of the two courts below. 4. In our view, the evidence is not sufficient in view of the inconsistencies and omissions to hold the appellant, A-4 guilty of the offence, as alleged. The evidence of PW-11 is not sufficient enough to out weigh the omissions in the evidence of PW-10 and the dying declaration given by the deceased before PW-8 in implicating A-4. 5. The conviction and the consequential sentence imposed are set aside. 6. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. 7. The bail bonds of the appellant so far as this case is concerned, shall stand discharged.