JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellants have been convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to RI for two years by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in S. Tr. No. 820 of 1987 by a judgment dated 28.06.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant, Ramashish Singh since deceased is that on 10.07.1986 when Nanhku Singh was feeding his oxen in front of his house he asked his close agnates Ram Bhajju Singh not to flow water on his land because it caused hardship on account of which Ram Bhajju Singh gave a stick blow on Nanhku Singh. When the informant protested Ram Bhajju Singh called the other relatives and then the present Appellants came there armed with bhala and gandasa and assaulted the informant Ramashish Singh causing three injuries on left elbow and two injuries on his abdomen. The informant subsequently succumbed to his injuries on 20.07.1986 and, therefore, Section 302 IPC was added in the said case. The Appellants were charged under Section 302/34 IPC but were acquitted of the charges. The defence of the Appellants was that Ram Bhajju Singh was in fact a close neighbour of the informant and it was the informant who had assaulted some of the accused persons for which Paliganj P.S. Case No. 110/86 had been instituted. 3. During trial the prosecution examined six witnesses out of whom P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 are injured witnesses but have not supported the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are the two witnesses of the occurrence whereas P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer. 4. The defence brought Exhibits-A, B and C i.e. the FIR of counter case and paragraphs of case diary to prove the factum of the counter-version and that a free fight had taken place between the parties in which both of them had been injured. 5. The admitted position is that the accused persons were also injured and P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 did not explain injuries sustained by them in the same transaction thus causing a reasonable suspicion about the veracity of the prosecution case. It appears that the Doctor had not been examined in the case and, therefore, the injuries sustained by the informant had remained uncorroborated. It was for this reason that the Appellants were acquitted of the charges under Section 302/34 IPC. It appears that the Doctor had not been examined in the case and, therefore, the injuries sustained by the informant had remained uncorroborated. It was for this reason that the Appellants were acquitted of the charges under Section 302/34 IPC. Under the circumstances, this Court has no option but to allow the appeal and acquit the Appellants of the charges. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 28.06.1995 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in S. Tr. No. 820 of 1987 is, hereby, set aside. The Appellants are acquitted of the charges and discharged of the liability of their bail bonds.