Judgment Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The three appellants have preferred this appeal against their conviction for the offences under sections 307, 452 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and three years respectively as awarded by 1st Additional Sessions judge, F.T.C., Bhojpur, Ara, on 2nd December 2009 in Session Trial No. 142/2000 arising out of Ara (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 210/99, G.R. No. 2292/99. 3. The prosecution case as reveal from Exhibit – 1 the fardbeyan of informant Radhy Shyam Prasad (P.W.3) recorded at 4.00 a.m. on 3rd October 1999 at Ara Hospital by Hasan Imam, S.I. (not examined) is that on previous night (02.10.1999) at about 8.00 p.m. the informant with his wife had gone to bed, thereafter, at about 11.00 p.m. all the three appellants entered into the room and appellant Dadan Sah had white bowl (katora) and Ram Chandra Sah had a mug and they threw Acid on Radhy Shyam Prasad and his wife causing burn injuries and he further anticipated loss of her sight also due to injuries inflicted by Acid. The reason behind such incident is quarrel between two ladies two to four days ago. Police initially instituted the case under section 307, 452 of the Indian Penal Code and section 302 of the I.P.C. was inserted after the death of wife of the informant and police after investigation submitted charge-sheet. 4. All the three appellants were charged for the offences under sections 307/34, 452/34 of the Indian Penal Code and two of them Ram Chandra Sah and Dadan Sah were further charged under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. During trial prosecution altogether five witnesses besides producing following Exhibits: Exhibit – 1 – Signature of Radhy Shyam Prasad on the Fardbeyan. Exhibit – 2 & 2/1 – Inquiry report. And there is nothing produced on behalf of the defence either oral or documentary and the trial court on consideration of the materials while acquitting the appellants from the charges under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code convicted and sentenced in the manner aforesaid. 6. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that there was absolutely no material against them but ignoring everything they have been convicted and sentenced and appellant no. 6. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that there was absolutely no material against them but ignoring everything they have been convicted and sentenced and appellant no. 3 is still behind the bars, though two other appellants have been released on bail. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor hesitantly tried to support the findings of the trial court. Out of five witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 5 Murat Ram formal witness simply proved Exhibit 3. P.W. 2 Anant Sah and P.W.3 Radhy Shyam Prasad the informant declared hostile since P.W.2 stated his ignorance about the occurrence and P.W. 3 the informant, though, stated about the occurrence abut did not claimed to identify anyone. 8. P.W.4 namely, Dr. Purshottam Singh, proved Exhibit 2 & 2/1, examined both the injured persons, i.e. informant and his wife who subsequently died. At about 00.45 a.m. he examined wife of the informant Shobha Devi and found the following injuries on her person: Blackening and charring of face eyes, neck, head, chest, back, abdomen, both upper limbs, upper thigh with varying sizes with spots of 3”x3” with charring – blackening of clothes also and nature of injury - grievous. On the same day at about 00.55 a.m. he examined Radhy Shyam Prasad the informant, and found following injuries on his person: Corrosive burnt injury by Acid involving whole body blackening and charring of skin and clothes of varying sizes 1 c.m. x 2 c.m. to 3”x4” and nature of injuries in his opinion were of grievous nature. In cross examination he has stated that charring and blackening are the distinctive marks to suggest that injuries were caused by throwing Acid. 9. Now solitary witness P.W.1 father of the informant and father-in-law of deceased female injured in the occurrence has come to say that at the relevant time he was sleeping in the Brinjal field, on alarm, flashed his torch and found six persons at his door including the three appellants and two of them threw Acid upon his son and daughter-in-law, on persuasion of remaining four and it is he who brought the injureds to hospital where statement of the informant was recorded. Injureds were provide dinitial treatment but referred to P.M.C.H. Patna, where they stayed for a month and thereafter brought to Danapur at father’s place. Wife of the informant roughly after a month died. Injureds were provide dinitial treatment but referred to P.M.C.H. Patna, where they stayed for a month and thereafter brought to Danapur at father’s place. Wife of the informant roughly after a month died. But, in cross examination he admits not giving any statement either before police or any authority, but for the first time, he got his statement recorded during trial in court and in para 11 and 16 he states that if for the first time at the hospital met with his son and daughter-in-law (both injured), contrary to his earlier statement of bringing them to the Hospital even he did not raise any alarm after findings such persons at his door. 10. In face of solitary inconsistent prosecution witness conviction and sentence of the appellants cannot be sustained and prosecution can be said he can be able to establish either of the charges. Hence, their conviction and sentence are set aside. The appeal is hereby allowed. The bail bond furnished on behalf of the appellant nos. 1 and 2 are set free from their respective bail bonds. 11. Appellant no. 3 namely, Ram Chandra Sah son of Late Mishri Sah, who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appeal allowed.