S. B. ROY, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27/9/1995 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Sessions Trial No. 13/1995/2 of 1995 convicting the appellants under Section 302/34, IPC and sentencing each of them thereunder to suffer imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants as well as learned Government Advocate have taken us through the evidence on record. The prosecution case in brief is based on the testimony. of three eye witnesses namely, P. W. 1 Rajkishore Panda, P. W. 2 Rambha Dibya and P. W. 3 Dinabandhu Panda and the evidence of P. W. 4 Dr. Dhirendranath Sarangi who held post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. The alleged incident occurred at about 1 A. M. mid-night. The eye-witnesses version is that three appellants were armed with axe, bhujali and farsa and each of them inflicted one blow one after another on the head of deceased. Undoubtedly, the weapons allegedly used by the three appellants as per the testimony of the eye witnesses were of sharp cutting nature. However, P. W. 4 who held postmortem examination could not detect any incised wound or penetrating wound whatsoever. He found only one lacerated wound on the right side of the forehead. However, on dissection, P. W. 4 further detected that bone and brain matter under the skin were crushed. But on the surface of the skin it is just like a lacerated wound which could have been inflicted only by blunt weapon and not by sharp cutting weapon. ( 3 ) IN view of the aforesaid, the conflict between the testimony of eye witnesses as to the nature of weapon of offence used by the appellants and the medical evidence furnished by P. W. 4 on post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased that there is only one blunt weapon used with which only one blow was given we are constrained to hold that the medical evidence belies the oral account given by the three witnesses. ( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid, we are constrained to hold that the charge against the appellants under Section 302/34, IPC has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. For that reason, the conviction and sentence of the appellants cannot be sustained. ( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid, we are constrained to hold that the charge against the appellants under Section 302/34, IPC has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. For that reason, the conviction and sentence of the appellants cannot be sustained. We accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and all the appellants are acquitted from the aforesaid charge. We further direct that the appellant No. 1 Siris @ Srinibas Panda who is stated to be languishing in jail since his arrest shall be set at liberty forthwith. With regard to other two appellants, the bail bonds furnished by them shall stand discharged. The appeal is thus allowed.