JUDGMENT Ashim Kumar Roy, J. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against an order of conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment for life passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act) cum Additional District and Sessions Judge, Durgapur in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 1997. The prosecution case in short goes like this: On December 21st, 1993 between 9.30/10 hours the accused Chunnu Hembram assaulted two Adivasi women with iron rod and sharp cutting weapon. Due to such assault the said two women suffered severe bleeding injuries and the same lead to their death. In the trial the appellant was charged under sections 302/307/324 IPC and total 10 witnesses were examined from the side of the prosecution and defence examined none. 2. The PW/1 Anath Mondal did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. The PW/2 Budhan Murmu, son of one of the victim is a post-occurrence witness. The PW/3 Jadu Murmu who is the son of the other victim is also a post-occurrence witness which would be evident from his answer given in cross-examination where he admitted that he returned home at around 9/9.30 a.m. after hearing the news of assault of his mother by the appellant and one Hara Murmu informed about such facts. The PW/4 Kabilal Mandi was also declared hostile during the trial. Similarly PW/7 Manasa Murmu is a post-occurrence witness who admitted in his cross-examination that he did not see the incident of assault on Bhuji and Sukhi, the two victims. The PW/ 8 is a doctor who issued the injury reports in respect of some of the villagers. The PW/9 is the Investigating Officer of the case and PW/10 is the police officer who finally submitted charge-sheet. 3. In this case the PW/5 Moyna Hembram and PW/6 Malati Murmu are very vital witness of the prosecution. According to this witness the appellant also assaulted her and her son and in such assault both of them sustained severe bleeding injuries. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has been acquitted from the charge under sections 324/307 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injury to the PW/5 Moyna Hembram but for allegedly causing injury to his son the appellant was not charged in the trial. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has been acquitted from the charge under sections 324/307 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injury to the PW/5 Moyna Hembram but for allegedly causing injury to his son the appellant was not charged in the trial. While this witness in her deposition claimed that the appellant killed Sukhi and Bhuji, the victims but there is nothing in her evidence that she witnessed the incident in which the two victims were assaulted by the appellant which resulted in their death. Similarly, according to the PW/6 that the appellant killed both the victims but there is nothing in her evidence that she saw the incident in which the victims were allegedly assaulted by the appellant. According to this witness she was never examined by the police. Besides above no other evidence was led by the prosecution during the trial against the appellant to prove his guilt. Now, having regard to the evidence on record we do not find any material to show that the two victims were assaulted by the appellant and due to such assault they died. The witness relied upon by the prosecution never claimed that in their presence the victims were assaulted by the appellant. In fact this is a case of no evidence. There is nothing on record pointing to the guilt of the appellant. In our opinion the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the appellant and accordingly the impugned order of conviction and sentence is set aside. In the result the appeal stands allowed. The appellant who is in jail at once be released unless he is in detention in connection with any other case. The Lower Court Records also to be sent down to the Trial Court. Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgment to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible. I agree. Appeal allowed