ORAL JUDGMENT DHARNIDHAR JHA, J. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 18.6.1991 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial no. 182 of 1990 by which the two appellants were held guilty of offences under Sections 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Md. Safiullah @ Safullah was also convicted of offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. The appellants were heard on sentence on the 27th of June, 1991 and both of them were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and for life under each of two respective counts. Appellant Md. Manjul @ Md. Mozool was not sentenced under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and it was directed that the sentence passed upon the appellants was to run concurrently. 2. To challenge their conviction and the order of sentence passed upon them, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. The case, as appears, from the initial line of the impugned judgment is related to the tragic incidence of communal rights having taken place in and around the vicinity of the township of Bhagalpur. As per prosecution story, which was contained in Ext. 2, the fardbeyan of P.W. 4 Haricharan Mandal, he had gone to one of his relatives Chaitu Mandal in village Khutaha and while he and P.W. 5 Sukar Mandal were returning, they met deceased Brahmdeo Mandal, Bhagwat Mandal and Jagdeo Mandal and the five started together. When they were on the western bank of river Katariya, they saw about 30 to 35 persons of Muslim community assembled there near a Jamun tree. Some of them were standing up, some had squatted on the ground while some persons were hiding in the paddy field. Seeing the group of Muslims, the informant put a question to them as to whether they were there to kill them, on which some one from the crowd replied that, that could not be the case; the informant and his companions might merely be searched and let off. However, as per allegation, the crowd of accused persons crossed over to the side of the informant and it is stated that Md. Telha ( not appellant ) put his country made gun over the right temple of deceased Brahmdeo Mandal and kept him standing, seeing which the informant and his companions started running away. However, as per allegation, the crowd of accused persons crossed over to the side of the informant and it is stated that Md. Telha ( not appellant ) put his country made gun over the right temple of deceased Brahmdeo Mandal and kept him standing, seeing which the informant and his companions started running away. While the informant and his companions were running, it was alleged, the accused persons who were chasing them, threw a bomb targeting deceased Bhagwat Mandal but that did not detonate. Appellant Md. Safiullah was alleged to have thrown the other bomb which detonated and Bhagwat Mandal fell into the paddy field. 4. The informant stated that he and his companion Sukar Mandal (P.W. 5) managed to escape but his other companion Jagdeo Mandal, the other deceased, could not run and as such he attempted to conceal himself in the paddy field, but sometimes after the informant heard the sound of two shots, and by that time, the informant had reached the village and narrated about the incident to another Muslim of the village and came to his relative Chaitu Mandal in village Khutaha where they stayed overnight. The next morning at about 9 A.M. some of his villagers, like, Jagdish Mandal (P.W. 1), Bhola Mandal (P.W.2), Ayodhi Mandal (not examined) and Jito Mandal (not examined) came in search of the informant and others when he narrated the incident to them and further came to the police station with them to lodge the case. 5. The fardbeyan (Ext. 2) was recorded in presence of the above named persons, who had come in search of the informant, is justified by the signatures of Mohan Prasad Mandal, Jagdish Mandal and Chamru Mandal on the document. 6. As may appear from the evidence of P.W. 7 Birendra Prasad Sinha, A.S.I., who on the relevant day was the officer-in-charge of Lodhipur Outpost, that after recording the fardbeyan he drew the F.I.R. and himself took up investigation. He came with P.Ws. 4 and 5 to the river bank and found that the fields were ploughed up on one side of the river and on other side of it and around the Jamun tree, it was all paddy fields and nothing else in which the searches were made for finding out the three dead bodies. He came with P.Ws. 4 and 5 to the river bank and found that the fields were ploughed up on one side of the river and on other side of it and around the Jamun tree, it was all paddy fields and nothing else in which the searches were made for finding out the three dead bodies. Ultimately, P.W. 5 could find out some raised soil which was fresh and indicated of some concealment of human body and on search of such raised soil level of field two dead bodies of Brahmdeo and Bhagwat were unearthed while the dead body of Jagdeo Mandal could not be traced out. Inquest proceedings were held and the dead bodies were dispatched for post mortem examination and post mortem examination was conducted by P.W.6. Witnesses were examined and after finding material sufficient, the accused were sent up for trial. 7. The defence of the appellants was of no participation and also of their innocence. 8. P.W.1 Jagdish Mandal, P.W.2 Bhola Mandal and P.W. 3 Ranjit Mandal on being produced before the court below appeared either not supporting the prosecution charges or being simply tendered for cross examination as appears from the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. P.W.1 Jagdish Mandal did not support the prosecution story though he stated that he was coming with the informant and others but from recital of his statement it is revealed that he had not seen and identified Muslim persons forming a group of unlawful assembly. The informant and his companion Sukar Mandal supported the prosecution story. 9. On having perused the evidence of two witnesses what has struck us is that while running for their lives they were looking back to see what was happening behind their backs. This appears half natural and half unnatural. A man who was simply running for his life may immediately look back to find out as to whether he was beaten by his predators who were in rush for their life. This may be possible but the description as to how Jagdeo Mandal in order to securing himself, hide himself in the paddy plants or the precise description of use of a particular weapon by the accused persons, to us appears a lot exaggerated. This may be possible but the description as to how Jagdeo Mandal in order to securing himself, hide himself in the paddy plants or the precise description of use of a particular weapon by the accused persons, to us appears a lot exaggerated. The informant might be correct and right when he was pointing out to the court that he had heard the sound of gun shots and he may be perfectly justified in narrating to the court that some shots had been fired to kill some of the companions. Likewise, detonating the bomb and the explosion might give information to the informant that another life had been slaughtered on account of the attack set up by the accused persons but who could have done those acts, who had committed those acts, could not be disclosed, in our opinion, as precisely and exactly as was narrated by P.Ws. 4 and 5. This inference gets support from the medical evidence which was completely dislodging the claim of P.Ws. 4 and 5 of being eye witnesses to the occurrence as regards the manner and execution of crime. The doctor, who held post mortem examinations on the two dead bodies of Brahmdeo Mandal and Bhagwat Mandal, had at all not found a gun shot wound or any wound caused by detonating a bomb. On the dead body of Bhagwat Mandal there were two incised wounds on his neck, one a bit above the root of the neck while the other was at the root of the neck, but it appears that the description given by the Dr. H. I Ansari who held post mortem examination on the dead bodies is that the wounds could have been caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon as regards killing of Bhagwat Mandal. Likewise, the dead body of Brahmadeo Mandal was also bearing two incised wounds, one on the left side of face which was extended up to the left ear and the other on the lateral surface of the neck. These two injuries of Brahmadeo Mandal had also been caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. The accused persons were named in the F.I.R. and it is found that the two appellants and Md. Telha were never armed with any sharp cutting weapon. The definite case of the prosecution through evidence, was that the two appellants either used bomb or fired shot. The accused persons were named in the F.I.R. and it is found that the two appellants and Md. Telha were never armed with any sharp cutting weapon. The definite case of the prosecution through evidence, was that the two appellants either used bomb or fired shot. We have already referred to the evidence of the doctor and the purpose of our juxtaposing the evidence both ocular and medical is only to point out our initial view that the witnesses could not have looked back to see the actual manner of occurrence. It is the only probability which arises out of their evidence. 10. As we have noted above, the most unfortunate aspect of our social life is when the two communities clash with each other and bloodshed result during those unfortunate days. Such incidence occurs, our experience says, on account of suspecting the conduct of the other community by the one community. Such disturbing atmosphere had ultimately resulted into such narratives which may not stand judicial scrutiny. This is one of chains of cases in which accused persons are implicated on a mere suspicion. 11. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The two appellants are acquitted of the charges they had been found guilty of by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.