Judgment SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. Both the appeals arise out of same impugned judgment and therefore they have been heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment. Out of six accused tried and convicted by the impugned judgment for the offence under Sec. 302/149 of the IPC and Sec. 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, five namely, Suresh Rai, Ram Pravesh Rai, Sjraj Ra., Brahmdeo Rai and Vinod Rai are appelants in Cr. Appeal No. 337/02 whereas accused, Nanhaku Rai @ Nanhak Rai is sole appellant in the other appeal. 2. For their conviction under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code all the appellants have been sentenced to RI for life and no separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under Sec. 304 and 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. 3. The Fardbeyan of informant Kailash Rai (PW-6) was recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police, Ahhilesh Kumar of Mahnar Police Station on 4.5.2000 at 9:00.a.m. at Mahnar hospital giving rise to Desri PS Case No. 37 of 2000 dated 4.5.2000 under Section 307 and other minor as well as ancillary sections of the IPC, Sec. 27 of the Arms Act and Sec. 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act against nine accused persons which included three female ac cused persons and the six appellants. Sec. 302 of the IPC was added on the next day when the court was informed that the injured Anandi Devi, wife of the informant, Kailash Rai died in course of treatment on the date of occurrence itself. Prosecution case is to the effect that the informant had purchased 15 Dhurs of land in front of his house about two years earlier and the same land was purchased by his uncle, appellant, Brahmdeo Rai from some other person leading to dispute between the parties. On the previous day i.e. 3.5.2000 father of the informant was harvesting maize crops in his field situated in Diar area. In the adjacent field accused, Vinod Rai, Ram Pravesh Rai and Nanhak Rai were spraying insecticide in their onion field. An young daughter of the informant kept some dried grass in the onion field of the accused persons due to which accused, Vinod Rai threw the informants daughter on the ground which was protested by father of the informant, on this, Vinod Rai threatened to kill him. An young daughter of the informant kept some dried grass in the onion field of the accused persons due to which accused, Vinod Rai threw the informants daughter on the ground which was protested by father of the informant, on this, Vinod Rai threatened to kill him. On the next date i.e. on 5.4.2000 at 8:00 when the informant was narrating and protesting against the earlier incident, the accused persons got angry. Accused, Vinod Rai came with a gun and behind him Brahmdeo Rai, Suraj Rai, Ram Pravesh Rai, Suresh Rai, Nanhak Rai came with Farsa and bomb in their hands. The three lady accused also came with pistol, bomb and bricks. They assaulted PW-5, Parmanand Rai, PW-1, Rajesh Prasad Rai with Farsa and when protest was made by the informant, Harendra Rai (PW-3) and Rajendra Rai (PW-2) then Vinod Rai fired causing injury in the abdomen of Harendra Rai who fell down. Female accused, Manju Kumar, daughter of Brahamdeo Rai fired a pistol causing injury to PW-2, Rajendra Rai in the head and he also fell down. Nanhaku Rai threw bomb which hit the thigh of informants wife, Anandi Devi. She fell down. When the informant went to help her, accused Ram Pravesh Rai assaulted the informant with Farsa on the left hand causing bleeding injury. Some other persons came to intervene and they also received injuries. Cousin sister of the informant, Rita Devi also received injuries on the head. The occurrence was witnessed by many villagers. 4. Materials on record disclosed that a counter case bearing no.41/2000 was also lodged by accused persons which was also investigated by the same I.O., PW-11. The said I.O. has also admitted in his cross-examination that he arrested accused Vinod Rai from Sadar Hospital, Bed No.6. The I.O. claims to have seized certain articles from the place of occurrence shown to him by the informant which was an onion field of one Pyare Sao whose boundary has also been mentioned by the I.O. in his deposition. He claim to have received injury reports and postmortem report of Anandi Devi and submitted chargesheet against the accused persons which donot include the three female accused. No protest appears to have been filed by the prosecution and the reason for the same is evident from deposition of PW-9, Karu Rai who has deposed that both the parties have compromised their differences. 5. No protest appears to have been filed by the prosecution and the reason for the same is evident from deposition of PW-9, Karu Rai who has deposed that both the parties have compromised their differences. 5. After cognizance and commitment to the court of sessions when charges were framed against the accused persons they pleaded not guilty to the charges but were convicted and sentenced as noticed above. 6. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined altogether eleven witnesses. Out of them PW-1, Rajesh Prasad Rai, PW-5, Parmanand Rai, who are named in the Fardbeyan as the persons who received injuries by Farsa have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. PW-7, Jaimangal Rai has also been declared hostile. PW-8, Surendra Thakur is a formal witness who has proved endorsement on the formal FIR as Exhibit-1. PW-10, Dr. Anand Kishore held the autopsy on the deceased and has proved postmortem report as Exhibit-3. PW-11, Binod Kumar Singh was the Officer Incharge of Desri PS who investigated the offence and submitted charge-sheet. 7. The remaining witnesses i.e. PW-2, Rajendra Rai, PW-3, Harendra Rai, PW-4, Ram Balak Rai and PW-9, Karu Rai have been examined to support the prosecution case as alleged by the informant Kailash Rai who has been examined as PW-6. A perusal of the evidence of PWs, 2,3,4 and 9 shows that they have not been declared hostile but have deposed in a manner so as to falsify the prosecution case itself. All of them have failed to disclose who were the assailants of the deceased. Even the injured witnesses have not disclosed who caused injuries to them and their injury reports have not been brought on record. Even the informant, PW-6 in cross (sic) has stated that he cannot say who assaulted whom and there were a large number persons at the place of occurrence. He has not been declared hostile but in cross-examination he has stated that those accused who resorted to assault could not be identified by him. He even denied to have witnessed the incident which had taken place one day prior to the alleged occurrence and which has been narrated in the Fardbeyan as the genesis of the occurrence. He has not been declared hostile but in cross-examination he has stated that those accused who resorted to assault could not be identified by him. He even denied to have witnessed the incident which had taken place one day prior to the alleged occurrence and which has been narrated in the Fardbeyan as the genesis of the occurrence. No doubt the doctor has proved two injuries on the deceased and has deposed that they appear to have been caused by explosive substance but that does not fasten the guilt of killing the deceasedagainst the accused appellants. No witness has supported the prosecution case in court and the place of occurrence shown to the I.O. as deposed by him is found to be an onion field which is not the prosecution case in the Fardbeyan. 8. On going through the impugned judgment carefully, We have noticed as appears from paragraph-18 of the said judgment that the learned trial court has taken help of statements in the case diary for relying upon the prosecution case. In view of discussions made above, We are unable to persuade ourself to agree with the findings of the trial court that the prosecution has been able to prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubts. The place of occurrence as well as manner of occurrence have not been proved beyond reasonable doubts. We are also of the view that the Investigating Officer of the case, PW-11, Binod Kumar Singh who was Officer Incharge of Desri PS on 4.5.2000 has failed to investigate the case properly. He did not make his own effort to locate the actual place of occurrence where a large amount of blood should have been found in view of nature of injury to the deceased. We are therefore recording our dissatisfaction against the investigation conducted by the said I.O. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and sentences are set aside. All the appellants of both the appeals are acquitted of the charges. Since the accused, Nanhaku Rai @ Nanhak Rai is in custody, he is directed to be released from the custody forthwith if not required in any other case. The other five appelalnts shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.