JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years under each count by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, in Sessions Trial No. 154 of 1983 by a judgment dated 20.8.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the Informant, Parshu Ram Singh, is that on 16.11.1982 when he was returning along with the Appellant and others to his village, suddenly the Informant started demanding him for the Rs. 5/- which the Appellant had denied and at this, an altercation and exchange of hot words took place between them, in course of which, the Appellant said to have given a dagger blow on the abdomen of the Informant. He then ran away. 3. During investigation, the name of Ashok Singh and Lal Kishore Singh were also transpired as the persons who had participated in the occurrence, on account of which, they were charge sheeted and put on trial, but acquitted of the charges by the same judgment and only the Appellant was convicted as mentioned above. 4. During trial, the prosecution examined said ten witnesses out of whom PW-3 Sheo Nath Singh and PW-4 Darbeshwar Das have been declared hostile. PW-1 Jaggan Singh and PW-2 Harihar Singh were tendered by the prosecution. PW-7 Mathura Prasad and PW-9, a Police Officer who drew all the formal First Information Report, are formal witnesses. PW-10 B.N. Singh is the Doctor who examined the injured on 17.11.1982 and found five injures on his person. The first injury was a punctured wound 1" x 3/4" into peritoneal cavity on the upper part of the abdomen whereas the next was perforation of the small gut and the next two injuries were incised wound on the right thumb and left forearm and the fifth was a punctured wound on right infra scapular region. PW-1 Jaggan Singh is a witness who came on hulla and found the injured at the place of occurrence. He stated that Chandra Ket Singh told him that Ashok Singh, Lal Kishore Singh and the present Appellant had assaulted the injured. The said Chandra Ket Singh has not been examined and, therefore, the evidence of PW-1 becomes inadmissible in law. PW-1 Jaggan Singh is a witness who came on hulla and found the injured at the place of occurrence. He stated that Chandra Ket Singh told him that Ashok Singh, Lal Kishore Singh and the present Appellant had assaulted the injured. The said Chandra Ket Singh has not been examined and, therefore, the evidence of PW-1 becomes inadmissible in law. PW-5 Birendra Singh stated that he went to the place of occurrence on a cry that the Informant had been injured and then he saw that the Appellant along with Ashok Singh and Lal Kishore Singh assaulted the Informant with dagger. 5. PW-4 the Informant stated that while he was coming along with Appellants and the co-accused persons, the Appellant demanded Rs. 5/- which was due to him which led to an altercation at which the Appellant assaulted him on the stomach with a dagger. The rest of the two persons also assaulted him on various parts of the body which he specifies. PW-8 Mathura Prasad stated that he went to the place of occurrence on a hulla where he saw the Informant injured and he was told by the Informant that the Appellant and the two co-accused persons had assaulted him. However, the Informant did not state in his evidence that he had disclosed to this witness as to how he was injured and, therefore, his evidence also become inadmissible. The Court then is left with the sole corroborative evidence of PW-5 and PW-6. PW-5 Birendra Singh and PW-6 Parshu Ram Singh, Informant, are eye witnesses. Evidently, PW-5 has not been named in the First Information Report. Also he stated that he had run to the place of occurrence on a Hulla and, therefore, it would appear quite improbable that he would be enable to see the occurrence. Both the two eye witnesses are fit to be disbelieved in light of the fact that initially the additional two co-accused persons were not named by the injured and there is a story of just a single injury having been inflicted by the Appellant with the dagger on the Informant, but later on, when the Doctor found five injuries, two more persons were roped in with specific overt act. Thus the evidence of these two witnesses in the light of this development becomes highly suspicious and untrustworthy. For the same reason, PW-4, the argument is fit to be rejected. Thus the evidence of these two witnesses in the light of this development becomes highly suspicious and untrustworthy. For the same reason, PW-4, the argument is fit to be rejected. A reasonable doubt evidently is created even about the implication of the Appellant in the occurrence. 6. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant in Sessions Trial No. 154 of 1983 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, is hereby set aside. 7. The Appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.