JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted u/s. 326/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for ten years and a fine of Rs.2,000/-each, in default of which sentenced to R.I. for six months by a judgment dated 6.9.1994 passed by the 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No.261 of 1989/124 of 1991. The prosecution case is that on 12.3.1989 at 10.30 P.M. when P.W.11, the informant, was returning home, the accused persons came there and the appellant no.2 and one Kamta started to cut his neck by Hasuli and when he resisted he was badly injured on other places. The reason for the occurrence is land dispute between the parties. 2. During trial the prosecution has examined as many as -2- thirteen witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10 did not support the case of the prosecution and were either tendered or declared hostile. P.W.12 is not an eye witness to the occurrence and, therefore, the evidence of the prosecution solely rested on P.W.11, the informant himself and P.W.13 is the doctor, who had examined the informant. The Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution and, therefore, the Court is bereft of all objective evidence, which would have been required to prove the place of occurrence as well as manner of occurrence. On going through the evidence of P.W.11 and P.W.12, I find that there are material contradictions in their evidence with regard to the manner of occurrence and since there is no corroborative evidence in regard to the same this Court finds it unsafe to rely on the evidence of the sole eye witness. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 6.9.1994 passed by the 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No.261 of 1989/124 of 1991 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.