Akhilesh Chandra, J.—Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. All the four appellants have preferred this appeal against their conviction for the offences under Section 304 part-II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years to appellant nos. 1, 2 and 4, whereas, under accompanying circumstances five years to appellant no.3 was awarded on 27th January 2001 in Sessions Trial No.101 of 2000 arising out of Keoti P.S. Case No.72/99 by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga. 3. The prosecution has come out with a case instituted on the statement of the information Halkhori Chaupal, who a day after the incident and recording of statement died. According to him, as per his statement (Ext.-2) recorded on 26.12.1999 that on the same day at about 11 A.M. while he was at his house, the appellants arrived with a complaint of some misdeeds by his daughter-in-law and started abusing. On protest, he was taken away in a lane and at the instance of only male appellant (appellant no.1), he was caught hold by the female appellants and appellant no.1 also made an attempt to give Lautha blow on his face, but anyhow, it could hit on his right hand and while he made an attempt to escape from their clutches, brick pieces followed him hitting on his chest and other parts of the body and when his son Domu Chaupal (P.W.-8) intervened in rescue he too was assaulted by Lautha by appellant no. 1 and brick pieces were thrown by the female accused inflicting some other injuries to him also. On death of the informant, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also added in the case initially instituted under Section 307 and allied sections. 4. The appellants were tried for the offences under Section 302 and other allied sections but the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner aforestated. 5. Altogether 12 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, but P.W.-1 Rajani Devi, daughter-in-law of the informant, stated as a hearsay witness was subsequently declared hostile. P.W.2, Lakhan Chaupal also appeared in the same fashion. P.W.-3, Kameshwar Bhagat appeared as formal witness, simply proved Ext.-1, his signature but that too on a blank sheet, declared hostile. P.W.-4, Manchan Chaupal and P.W.-5, Sukkan Chaupal appeared as hearsay witness, both were declared hostile. P.W.2, Lakhan Chaupal also appeared in the same fashion. P.W.-3, Kameshwar Bhagat appeared as formal witness, simply proved Ext.-1, his signature but that too on a blank sheet, declared hostile. P.W.-4, Manchan Chaupal and P.W.-5, Sukkan Chaupal appeared as hearsay witness, both were declared hostile. P.W.-6, Aghaniya Devio, daughter-in-law of the deceased informant though a bit stated about the motive behind the occurrence, but did not state about the assault etc. though found her father-in-law lying dead on a lane. She though could see some injury on her husband (P.W.8), but no injury was found by her on the person of her father-in-law. P.W.7, Ramkali Devi, the widow of the deceased informant, though stated about the death of her husband but nothing about the occurrence or causes behind his death. Consequently, these two also were declared hostile. P.W.-8, Domu Chaupal, is the son of the informant and the only witness allegedly injured besides the informant during the occurrence also since did not support the prosecution story in spite of giving a vivid statement of some sort of injury, treatment and after death of his father postmortem examination etc. but since state nothing specifically stating the prosecution version even about the injuries sustained by him, he too was declared hostile. Almost at the end of his deposition, the trial Court by putting court’s questions appears making an unsuccessful attempt to bring anything otherwise from him to arrive at any definite conclusion. P.W.-9, Prahhaw Kumar, examined as a formal witness proved Ext.-1/1, on remaining part since did not state anything, was declared hostile. P.W.-10, Rajeshwar Singh, is the Investigating Officer, who proved the remaining documentary evidences right from Ext.-2 to Ext.-11 and stated about recording fard beyan of the informant, who was at the relevant time in his full senses and also after examination of the place of occurrence and recovery of the Lautha made further statement supporting earlier version and recording the statement of all other witnesses who have been declared hostile. 6. P.W.-12, Dr. Parmeshwar Thakur, who examined the deceased informant while he was alive and has found following three injuries :— “(i) Scratches over forehead and cheek. (ii) Bruise over left thigh on lateral aspect. (iii) Vague pain all over body” Besides, examining P.W.8, upon whom also found the following injuries:— “(i) Lacerated cur injury over left parietal region. (ii) Vague swelling over left arm. (ii) Bruise over left thigh on lateral aspect. (iii) Vague pain all over body” Besides, examining P.W.8, upon whom also found the following injuries:— “(i) Lacerated cur injury over left parietal region. (ii) Vague swelling over left arm. (iii) Vague pain all over body.” P.W.-11, Dr. Akhauri Ravindra Kishore, who performed autopsy on the deceased found the following three injuries:— “(i) One 8” long graze abrasion over back of right forearm. (ii) The upper lip was found bruised and infiltrated with blood and blood clots. (iii) One bruise 4”x3” covering left side of head was detected.” Out of whom injuries 1 and 2 appeared simple though injury no.3, according to him, was grievous. During cross examination these witnesses accepted the possibility of injury no.3 being caused due to fall. 7. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that even treating Ext.-2, the fard beyan of deceased informant a dying declaration, there is nothing to show the intention or the attempt made by the appellants was to kill him. The trial Court in spite of the witness on fact being declared hostile by the prosecution, since stated absolutely nothing, held the appellants guilty on practically no material and ignored the conflicting medical evidence and also not properly appreciated Ext.-2. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecution tired his level best to support the finding of the Court below but at the same time could not be able to show any specific accusation made by the deceased informant against either of the four appellants including the appellant no.1, who though has allegedly made an attempt to give Lautha blow on the face of the deceased informant but inflicted injury on his hand (Ext.-2), but the same finds no support from either of the two report of the Doctors aforementioned. 9. The materials available and discussed above could not have been able to remove the clouds against the prosecution version. Hence, the conviction and sentence of the appellants cannot be held sustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and conviction and sentence awarded against the appellant under impugned judgment 27th January 2001 in Sessions Trial No.101 of 2000 arising out of Keoti P.S. Case No.72/99 by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, is set aside and the appellants are free from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished on their behalf.