By Court. -- The two appellants Panchu Oraon and Mohna Oraon who are full brothers have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 7.3.1992 passed by Sessions Judge. Gumla, In Sessions Trial No. 222 of 1991 whereby, learned Sessions Judge held both of them guilty finding that in furtherance of their common intention, they assaulted the deceased namely Budhram Oraon by means of Lathi with intention to cause his death and thereby committed culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced them to R.I. for life. 2. The facts in short are that Samra Oraon (P.W. 4) lodged F.I.R. (fxt.-3) alleging therein that on 10.7.1991 at about 4:30 P.M. while deceased Budhram Oraon was grazing his cattles at 'Mada Madanla Don', the appellants went there and assaulted him by means of lath, and as a result of injuries caused, the deceased died at the spot. On 'Hulla' raised by the witnesses, the accused persons fled away. The motive behind the occurrence as alleged was that it was because of the witchcraft played by the deceased, the sons of the appellants died. The informant specifically stated in the F.I.R. that it was Thembu Oraon who informed him that his uncle Budhram Oraon was killed by these two appellants by assaulting him with lathi. 3. The Police submitted charge-sheet In the case and thereafter, the appellants were put on trial, where they pleaded not guilty. 4. In order to establish the charges altogether ten prosecution witnesses were examined out of who, P.Ws. 1, 3, 7 and 8 have claimed to be the eye witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 5 is the Doctor who held Post Mortem examination whereas, P.W. 10 is the Investigating Officer, P.W. 9 Thembu Oraon who has been named as an eye witness in the F.I.R. and he is the person from whom the informant came to know about the occurrence from Thembu Oraon, has been declared hostile. 5. According to the evidence of the Doctor, who held Post Mortem examination, the following injuries were found on the person of the deceased:- Incised wound over right supra external region size 1" x 1/2 x 1" right side homothorex. Incised wound over lateral canthus of right eye 0" x 1/2' x 1/2". Incised wound over occipital region size 2" x 1/2' x 1/2' Fracture of left forearm. Incised wound over lateral canthus of right eye 0" x 1/2' x 1/2". Incised wound over occipital region size 2" x 1/2' x 1/2' Fracture of left forearm. The Doctor found Injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to be incised wound caused by sharp cutting weapon, whereas Injury No.4, which was a fracture of the left arm of the deceased, was found to have been caused by hard and blunt substance. The two Incised injuries namely 2 and 3 were found to be simple in nature. The cause of death, according to the Doctor, was Injury No.1. 6. Learned Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and materials on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as already noticed hereinabove. 7. Mr. Zaid Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, vehemently submitted that this is a case of no evidence and the learned Trial Court wrongly and illegally convicted the appellants on the basis of evidence brought on record on behalf of the prosecution which were not reliable and convincing at all. On the other hand, Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned APP, by supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that in view of the specific evidence of the eye witnesses, the prosecution has seen able to establish the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced both of them for committing murder of Budhram Oraon. 8. In order to test the rival submissions of the parties, we have minutely gone through the evidence of the witnesses and the materials on record. 9. P.W. 1 Sairni Orain, in her evidence, has stated that on the date of occurrence, at 4:30 P.M., she was going to Sursa Bazar and while she reached near 'Mahdonia Don', she saw the appellant assaulting the deceased Budhram Oraon by means of lathi. She, thereafter, ran to the village market and narrated the story to Krishna. She has further stated in examination-in-chief that the appellants assaulted the deceased since he used to play witchcraft. The deceased died due to the assault. In cross-examination, she has stated that after seeing the occurrence. She also stated that she neither raised hulla nor she went near Budhram Oraon. She further stated in cross-examination that when she came back to the village from the market, she did not disclose this fact to anyone about the occurrence. The deceased died due to the assault. In cross-examination, she has stated that after seeing the occurrence. She also stated that she neither raised hulla nor she went near Budhram Oraon. She further stated in cross-examination that when she came back to the village from the market, she did not disclose this fact to anyone about the occurrence. Even she did not inform the Chowkidar. 10. P.W. 2 Krishna Oraon is a hearsay witness and he stated that he was informed about the occurrence in the village market by P.W. 1. 11. P.W. 3 Jhabu Oraon has appeared as an eye witness to the occurrence and has stated that on the date and time of occurrence, he was grazing his cattle near the place of occurrence i.e. 'Mahdonia Don’ where the deceased Budhram Uraon was also grazing his cattle. At that time, both the appellants reached there and then snatched lathi from Budhram Oraon and started assaulting with the same. The appellant Panchu was holding the deceased whereas appellant Mohna Oraon was assaulting him with lathi. Due to said assault, Budhram Oraon died at the spot. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that after the appellants fled away, he went to the place of occurrence and when he reached at the place of occurrence, the deceased had already died. He did not disclose about the occurrence to anyone in the village. He did not even raise hulla at the time of occurrence. 12. P.W. 7 Madan Pahan has also claimed himself to be an eye witness and he has stated in his evidence that the deceased was assaulted by these two appellants by means of lathi due to which he died. He further stated that when the deceased was being assaulted, he raised hulla and on his hulla, Jhabu Oraon (P.W. 3) and Lodhu Oraon (P.W. 8) came over there but the appellants after assault fled away from there. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that the deceased Budhram Oraon was grazing his cattle near 'Medania Don'. He further disclosed that Budhram Oraon (deceased) had already died by the time the witnesses Sarani Orain (P.W. 1); Jhabu Oraon (P.W. 3) and Lodhu Oraon (P.W. 8) arrived at the place of occurrence. He admitted that he had enmity with the appellants. 13. He further disclosed that Budhram Oraon (deceased) had already died by the time the witnesses Sarani Orain (P.W. 1); Jhabu Oraon (P.W. 3) and Lodhu Oraon (P.W. 8) arrived at the place of occurrence. He admitted that he had enmity with the appellants. 13. P.W. 8 Lodhu Oraon has also examined himself to be an eye witness and he stated that while he was going fo village market, he saw the appellants assaulting the deceased and thereafter, he went to the market. He specifically stated in his cross-examination that he saw only the appellants and the deceased at the place of occurrence and none else. 14. P.W. 9 Thembu Oraon has been declared hostile since he did not support the prosecution story. 15. The most glaring fact which goes against the prosecution is that according to the Post Mortem examination, the deceased had four injuries on his person out of which three were of incised wound caused by sharp cutting weapon whereas, fourth was an injury caused by hard and blunt substance that was on his forearm. The whole prosecution case is that the appellants assaulted the deceased by means of lathi. None of the prosecution witnesses has stated anywhere that the appellants were holding any sharp cutting weapon or they assaulted the deceased by any sharp cutting weapon. Therefore, the prosecution has totally failed to explain as to how and from where and by whom, the incised wound injuries were caused to the deceased. According to the Doctor, the injury no. 1 was incised wound and that was cause of death. This vital inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence creates grave doubt on the prosecution story. The prosecution story becomes doubtful on this ground also that in the F.I.R., only Thembu Oraon (P.W. 9) was named as an eye witness but this P.W. 9 did not support prosecution story and he was declared hostile. P.Ws. 1, 3, 7 and 8, who have examined themselves to be eye witnesses to the occurrence, were not named in the F.I.R. as eye witnesses. However, they in their evidence, have admitted that after seeing the occurrence of assault made by these appellants to the deceased, they did not raise any alarm nor did they disclose this fact about the occurrence to anyone in the village. However, they in their evidence, have admitted that after seeing the occurrence of assault made by these appellants to the deceased, they did not raise any alarm nor did they disclose this fact about the occurrence to anyone in the village. This, in our opinion, is against natural human conduct and therefore, the evidence of the so-called eye witnesses are found to be not trustworthy. 16. The evidence of the so-called eye witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1, 3, 7 and 8 are inconsistent and also contradictory to each other. The eye witness P.W. 8 stated that at the place of occurrence, he saw only these two appellants and the deceased only. If his such statement is believed, then the presence of the other eye witnesses at the place of occurrence becomes very doubtful. P.W. 7, the eye witness, has stated in his evidence that the deceased had already died by the time the witnesses Jhabu Oraon, Sairni Orain and Lodhu Oraon i.e. P.Ws. 3, 1 and 8 could arrive. If this statement is accepted, then P.Ws. 3, 1 and 8 could not have witnessed the actual assault. 17. In such a situation, we find that the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and on such weak, nature of evidence lead by the prosecution, it is not safe to convict the appellants for committing murder of Budhram Oraon. In our view, the learned Trial Court committed error both in law and on facts in convicting the appellants for the aforesaid charge. 18. In view of the discussions and findings above, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the Trial Court are hereby set aside. The appellants who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.