Order These two appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment and therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both the appeals have been filed by the appellants against the judgment of conviction dated 28.7.2005 and the order of sentence dated 29.7.2005 passed by Shri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC.-II, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 250 of 1992 whereby the trial court has convicted all the four accused/appellants under Sections 147/148/ 149/307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for ten years each under Sections 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for two years under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for three years under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) each. In default of fine, they shall further undergo S.I. for six months. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that fardbeyan of Nagendra Thakur (P.w. 5) has been recorded by A.S.I. Shri A. Shankar at G.R.P.S., Bokaro on 11.1.1992 at about 4.10 A.M. wherein he has stated that he alongwith Kamal Yadav, Sanjay Kumar Mahto and Ramchandra Gope were going to home on 10.1.1992 at about 11.45 P.M. and as they reached in front of electric office behind the Railway Post Office, one Tempo bearing no. BEV-9032 dashed Kamal Yadav from behind. He fell down. Yogendra Singh, BK Singh, Geeta Singh, Balindra Singh and Shaligram Mishra came out from the tempo. Thereafter, Yogendra Singh and B.K. Singh started stabbing Kamal Yadav. B.K. Singh stabbed him once from behind causing bleeding injury. Geeta Singh, Balindra Singh and Shaligram Mishra assaulted the informant with rod causing injury on his right arm. Thereafter informant Nagendra Thakur, Sanjay and Ramchandra fled away from there. Balindra Singh was driving the tempo. After ten minutes when again the informant came to the place of occurrence, found there a patrolling party was standing near the injured Kamal Yadav and the said tempo was also standing there, even all the aforesaid accused persons were also there. B.K. Singh told them that he is taking the injured to the hospital, then all the other accused persons fled away. Kamal Yadav was taken to Bokaro General Hospital by another Tempo for his treatment. B.K. Singh told them that he is taking the injured to the hospital, then all the other accused persons fled away. Kamal Yadav was taken to Bokaro General Hospital by another Tempo for his treatment. It is also alleged that in the said fardbeyan, the cause behind the occurrence is old enmity between accused persons with Kamal Yadav. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, a case has been registered against all the five persons under Sections 147/148/149/279/337/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. As Geeta Singh accused absconded, his case was split up from the other co-accused. 5. The defence is complete denial of the allegation. Even in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all the four accused have pleaded their innocence and also denied the manner of occurrence. 6. The prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses to prove its case. P.W. 1 is Santosh Yadav. P.W. 2 is Kamal Gwala, P.W. 3 is Rajesh Kumar Mishra, P.W.4 is Vijay Mukherjee, P.W. 5 is Nagendra Thakur (the informant), P.W. 6 is Dr. T.P. Singh, P.W. 7 is. Indu Devi (P.W. 4) and P.W. 8 is Lalita Devi. The documents exhibited are Exhibit-1, signature of Nagendra Thakur on the fardbeyan and the injury report of Kamal Gwala is Exhibit-2. I.O. has not been examined in this case. Among the witnesses P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.7 is wife of Brajesh Tiwari. She has not stated anything about the occurrence and she has also been declared hostile. 7. Now witnesses left to be discussed are only P.W.1 Santosh Yadav who is son of Kamal Gwala, the injured. P.W. 8 Lalita Devi who is wife of Kamal Gwala and P.W. 6 Dr. T.P. Singh who himself has not examined Kamal Gwala as expert and P.W. 2 Kamal Gwala, the injured himself. Admittedly, I.O. in this case has not been examined and for that no reason has been assigned by the prosecution. 8. P.W. 1 Santosh Yadav who is son of Kamal Gwala stated in his evidence that at about 12.00 p.m. he heard some hulla and then he reached at the place of occurrence near the post office. Admittedly, I.O. in this case has not been examined and for that no reason has been assigned by the prosecution. 8. P.W. 1 Santosh Yadav who is son of Kamal Gwala stated in his evidence that at about 12.00 p.m. he heard some hulla and then he reached at the place of occurrence near the post office. Though he has stated in his evidence that he found B.K. Singh standing with knife at the place of occurrence, but in subsequent paragraphs he has mentioned that he has not stated about this fact before the police. Admittedly, he is not an eye witness of the occurrence rather he reached at the place of occurrence on hulla after the alleged occurrence has taken place. He has further stated that he was informed about the occurrence by his mother who in turn was informed by neigh borers. 9. P.W. 8 Lalita Devi who is wife of Kamal Gwala (the injured), has stated that in the night of the alleged occurrence she was in her house but she was informed by the neighborers in the next morning that her husband was assaulted by Yogendra Singh, Baldeo Singh and Shaligram Mishra result of which one of the kidney of her husband was seriously wounded and he was admitted in Bokaro General Hospital. Therefore, P.W. 8 is also not an eye witness of the alleged occurrence. 10. Therefore, the only eye witness is Kamal Gwala who sustained Injury. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the said Kamal Gwala has stated in his further cross-examination that as he alongwith other persons were going on the road track with each other and he could not hear the horn of the tempo, the tempo hit him as a result of which the said tempo turned up side down and its glass was broken and he fell down on the broken glass of the said tempo which caused serious injury on his stomach. He has further stated in his cross-examination that he has not seen anybody giving any Chhura blow. 12. It is further contended on behalf of the appellants that the doctor who examined Kamal Gwala, the injured, could not be examined by the prosecution as he left India and went to England. P.W. 6 is the doctor T.P. Singh. He has further stated in his cross-examination that he has not seen anybody giving any Chhura blow. 12. It is further contended on behalf of the appellants that the doctor who examined Kamal Gwala, the injured, could not be examined by the prosecution as he left India and went to England. P.W. 6 is the doctor T.P. Singh. Although he has not treated Kamal Gwala but has proved the injury report: Furthermore, he has stated in his cross-examination that these injuries may be possible by falling on the broken glass or on any pointed instrument. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants, has further contended that the only eye witness is injured Kamal Gwala who also denied the prosecution case in his further cross-examination. Therefore, one cannot be convicted only on the basis of the evidence of such type of witness who denied the prosecution case in his further cross-examination. Furthermore, admittedly there is a long standing enmity between them. Therefore, there is every chance to implicate them falsely only to harass and humiliate them. 14. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, appears to be convincing. As discussed above, and considering the evidence of the P.Ws. 6 & 2, the injured himself, who denied the entire prosecution case in his cross-examination, I find that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In my view, appellants are entitled to be given benefit of doubt. 15. Accordingly, both these appeals are allowed and the judgment of conviction dated 28.7.2005 and the order of sentence dated 29.7.2005 passed by Shri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 250 of 1992 arising out of Bokaro G.R.P.S. Case No.1 of 1992 corresponding to G.R. No. 480 of 1992 are hereby set aside. As the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.