JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years by a judgment dated 30.1.1995 in Sessions Trial No. 115/1991 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.6.1990 the informant P.W. 5 woke up on the sound of her son and when she went near him she found P.W. 6 injured who was removed to the hospital. She did not disclose the name of any person and thus the First Information Report was instituted against unknown. Subsequently during investigation P.W. 6 the injured named the present Appellant but after a week. There was no explanation as to why name of the Appellant was not disclosed at the earlier instance even though he had regained consciousness much earlier. 3. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses out of whom P.W. 1, 3, 7 and 9 are formal whereas P.W. 2, 4, 5 and 6 are on the point of occurrence; P.W. 8 is the Investigation Officer who categorically stated that none of the witnesses disclosed the name of the Appellant to him. He also disclosed that these witnesses did not say that the injured had named any accused much less the Appellant when they went to him. 4. The Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 but relied on the statement of the sole witness P.W. 6 for convicting the Appellant. To examine the evidence of P.W. 6., I have no manner of doubt that the name of the Appellant was disclosed after much deliberation and there is admittedly a dispute between the parties and the possibility of the Appellant having been named belatedly on account of this grudge cannot be ruled out positively. 5. In view of the discussions above, the appeal is allowed and conviction and sentenced of the Appellants passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 115/1991 is hereby set aside and the Appellant is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds.