JUDGMENT : MIR ALFAZ ALI, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-08-2016, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, in Sessions Case No.132(J-J)/2010. By the said judgment, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants u/s 302/447 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each with default stipulation u/s 302 IPC and simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- each with default stipulation u/s 447 IPC. 2. As per prosecution case, on 01-09-2010, at about 7 O'clock in the evening, the appellants trespassed into the house of the informant (PW 1) and scolded her husband using abusive language, alleging, that he had disconnected the electricity supply and also threatened them with dire consequence. The appellants also dragged PW 3, his brother Rajiv Baruah (victim) and sister Sabitri Baruah (PW 2) to their house, fastened them with a post and inflicted multiple cut injuries to them. Later on, Rajiv Baruah succumbed to the injuries. The PW 1, Rekha Rani Baruah lodged the FIR (Ext.-l), on the basis of which, police registered Pulibar PS. Case No. 91/2010 u/s 447/294/506/342/326/304/34 IPC and commenced investigation. During investigation, statement of the witnesses were recorded by police, inquest report on the body was prepared by PW 17, Sri Ghana Konwar and post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Gautam Hazarika (PW 16). 3. Dr. Gautam Hazarika, who conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the victim found the following injuries : "In the frontal region over mid-line a 2" long scalp deep incised looking wound present. In the parietal region mid-line a 1 1/2" long scalp deep laceration present. There is depressed fracture of left frontal and parietal bones near mid-line about 3"x 2". There is laceration in the underlying membrane with clotted blood about 2"x 2" x 1" underlying the membrane at fronto-parietal region left side. Hematoma over left fronto-parietal region about 2"x 2" x 1". 4. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to shock and coma, as a result of head injuries sustained. 5. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against both the appellants u/s 447/294/323/325/302/34 IPC and eventually they stood trial. 6. In course of trial, seventeen witnesses were examined by the prosecution to establish the charges. 4. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to shock and coma, as a result of head injuries sustained. 5. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against both the appellants u/s 447/294/323/325/302/34 IPC and eventually they stood trial. 6. In course of trial, seventeen witnesses were examined by the prosecution to establish the charges. On appreciation of evidence, learned Sessions Judge convicted both the appellants u/s 302/447 read with Section 34 IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above. 7. We have heard learned counsel, Mr. B.K. Mahajan assisted by Mr. N. J. Das for the appellants and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, B.J. Dutta. We have also perused the evidence and materials brought on record. 8. Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel representing the appellants strenuously argued that the injuries causing death of the deceased were not inflicted by the appellants, and as such, the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained. 9. Out of 17 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW 14, 15, 16 and 17 were official witnesses being doctor and investigating officer respectively. PW 6, PW 7, PW 8, PW 9, PW 10, PW 11, PW 12 & PW 13 did not have personal knowledge about the occurrence, inasmuch as, they came to the place of occurrence later on, and oral testimony of these witnesses were more or less in the nature of hearsay. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge essentially relying on the oral testimony of PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 5 and the medical evidence, recorded conviction of the appellants and imposed sentence as indicated above. 10. PW 1, deposed that at about 7 O'clock in the evening suddenly electricity supply was disrupted in their locality and at that point of time, both the appellants came to their courtyard and dragged Ranjit Baruah (PW 3) to their house. Both the appellants were armed with 'dao' (knife used for household work) and they mounted assault on the PW 3 by 'dao' and caused injuries on various parts of his body. Seeing PW 3 being assaulted, Rajiv Baruah (victim) and Sabitri Baruah (PW 2) rushed to the place of occurrence, whereupon the accused/appellants also assaulted both of them. They fastened Rajiv Baruah and inflicted several cut injuries on his body. She further deposed, that when she tried to intervene, the appellants chased her and she left the place out of fear. Seeing PW 3 being assaulted, Rajiv Baruah (victim) and Sabitri Baruah (PW 2) rushed to the place of occurrence, whereupon the accused/appellants also assaulted both of them. They fastened Rajiv Baruah and inflicted several cut injuries on his body. She further deposed, that when she tried to intervene, the appellants chased her and she left the place out of fear. On the next day, Rajiv Baruah died. PW 1, however, admitted during cross-examination, that the appellants also sustained injuries and were also taken to hospital. 11. PW 2, who was also the informant, deposed, that in the evening at about 7 O'clock, deceased Rajiv Baruah, his brother Ranjit Baruah and PW 2 herself were sitting in the courtyard of their house. At that point of time, the electricity was disrupted. As soon as the electricity was disrupted, the appellants Prabhat Baruah and Promod Baruah came to their courtyard and inflicted injuries to PW 3 with 'dao'. She further deposed that the appellants also dragged Rajiv Baruah, the victim, to their courtyard and inflicted multiple cut injuries to him by 'dao'. During cross-examination, he admitted, that the appellants also sustained injuries in the same incident and they were also shifted to hospital by the same ambulance. He further admitted that there was property dispute between the two families. 12. According to PW 3, Ranjit Baruah, while he was sitting in the courtyard of his house, suddenly the electricity was disrupted and the appellants started scolding him, alleging, that he was responsible for disruption of electricity. Though, he tried to convince them, that he did not do anything with the electricity, the appellants came to his courtyard and started assaulting him. Both the appellants hit him with the blunt side of the 'dao'. When he raised alarm, Sabitri Baruah (PW 2) and Rajiv Baruah (victim), came there and the appellant fastened both of them with a post in their house and mounted assault on them. PW 3 also admitted, that their relationship with the appellants was strain due to property dispute. 13. PW 4 deposed, that it was Janmastami on the day of occurrence and while going to Namgarh, she noticed, some altercation in the house of Rajib Baruah (victim). According to PW 4, victim Rajiv Baruah inflicted cut injury on the left forearm of appellant Prabhat Baruah and ran towards his house. 13. PW 4 deposed, that it was Janmastami on the day of occurrence and while going to Namgarh, she noticed, some altercation in the house of Rajib Baruah (victim). According to PW 4, victim Rajiv Baruah inflicted cut injury on the left forearm of appellant Prabhat Baruah and ran towards his house. At that point of time, PW 3, Ranjit Baruah hit Rajiv Baruah mistakenly. 14. According to PW 5, PW 4 told him that Rajiv Baruah (victim) was hit by PW 3, Ranjit Baruah. He also stated that the accused/appellants and complainant party are cousin brothers and frequently quarrel took place between them. 15. A dispassionate scrutiny of the oral testimony of the above vital witnesses transpires, that the oral testimony of PW 1, PW 2 & PW 3 as to the genesis of the occurrence was inconsistent and contradictory. According, to PW 1, both the appellants entered the courtyard of the complainant party, dragged PW 3, Ranjit Baruah to their courtyard and inflicted injuries to him with 'dao' and seeing the incident Rajiv Baruah (victim) and Sabitri Baruah (PW 2) rushed to the place of occurrence and they were also assaulted by the appellants. According to him (PW 1), the appellants fastened the victim, Rajiv Baruah and inflicted multiple cutinjuries on his body with 'dao'. Whereas, PW 2 deposed that Rekha Moni Baruah (PW 1), Ranjit Baruah (PW 3), victim, Rajiv Baruah and PW 2 herself were sitting in the courtyard, wherefrom the appellants dragged PW 3 to their courtyard and inflicted multiple injuries with 'dao'. The appellants also dragged Rajiv Baruah to their courtyard and inflicted injuries. Whereas, according to PW 3, Ranjit Baruah, he alone was sitting in the courtyard and the accused persons came there and assaulted him. He further stated that upon his raising alarm, Sabitri Baruah (PW 2) and victim Rajiv Baruah came there and the appellants also fastened both Sabitri and Rajiv with a post in their campus and assaulted them. 16. Dr. Manab Jyoti Gohain (PW 14) & Dr. He further stated that upon his raising alarm, Sabitri Baruah (PW 2) and victim Rajiv Baruah came there and the appellants also fastened both Sabitri and Rajiv with a post in their campus and assaulted them. 16. Dr. Manab Jyoti Gohain (PW 14) & Dr. Nilutpal Borah (PW 15), who examined PW 2 & PW 3 did not find any cut injury on their body and therefore, the contradictory and mutually destructive testimony of PW 1, PW 2 & PW 3, coupled with the medical evidence, clearly suggested, that these three witnesses, either tried to suppress the real genesis of the occurrence or did not tell the truth before the court. 17. PW 4 another eye witness examined by prosecution, as indicated above, projected a completely different story of the prosecution case. According to PW 4, there was altercation and mutual fight between both the parties, in course of which, victim Rajiv Baruah inflicted injury to appellant Prabhat Baruah @Girish Baruah and after inflicting injury to Prabhat, when the victim Rajiv Baruah ran towards this house, PW 3 Ranjit Baruah, hit him mistakenly. The medical evidence of PW 16 and the P.M. report also tend to support the version of PW 4, reason being that only one major external injury was found on the head of the victim Rajiv Baruah, which caused his death and there was no cut injury on his body. Admittedly the occurrence took place at 7 O'clock in the evening due to disruption of electricity and there was no electricity at the time of occurrence. It is also an admitted position that the parties are closely related (cousin brothers) and living in the same campus. 18. What reveals from the prosecution evidence is that two stories were put forward by the prosecution, through two sets of witnesses. According to PW 4, the injury causing death of the victim, Rajiv Baruah was inflicted by PW 3 mistakenly. PW 5, though, not an eye witness, supported the version of the PW 4. On the other hand, PW 1, PW 2 & PW 3 deposed that the appellants inflicted multiple cut injuries to the victim by 'dao'. Such evidence of PW 1, PW 2 & PW 3 apparently did not find any support from the medical evidence. Evidently PW 1, PW 2, & PW 3 were members of the same family and they were admittedly inimical to the appellants. Such evidence of PW 1, PW 2 & PW 3 apparently did not find any support from the medical evidence. Evidently PW 1, PW 2, & PW 3 were members of the same family and they were admittedly inimical to the appellants. Whereas, PW 4 was an independent witness and her oral testimony appears to be more probable in view of the medical evidence as to the injuries sustained by the victim. 19. What, therefore, crystallises from the above evidence is that prosecution adduced two sets of witnesses, one set implicating the appellants and the other set exonerating the appellants and attributing the responsibility of causing injury, to the prosecution witnesses (PW 3). In view of the contradictory evidence adduced by prosecution through two sets of witnesses, it is difficult to hold confidently as to, which set of the witnesses were telling the truth. The prosecution having adduced two sets of witnesses contradicting each other, rendering it difficult to hold confidently, as to which set of the witnesses were telling the truth, both the stories, in our considered view, deserves to be rejected. 20. This Court in Budhua Mura vs. State of Assam reported in 2002 (2) GLT 103 relied by learned counsel, Mr. B.K. Mahajan, in a similar situation, where two sets of witnesses adduced by the prosecution, one set contradicting the other, observed as under: "Coupled with the above, we have to also bear in mind that when prosecution adduces two sets of witnesses, one contradicting the other, and the Court is not in a position to hold confidently, as to which set of witnesses has told the truth, then, both sets of witnesses have to be discarded, or, at least, the set of evidence, which goes in favour of the accused shall be adopted by the court. Reference may be made to Harchand Singh and Another vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1974 SC 344 ." 21. In view of the evidence discussed as above, the prosecution, can by no stretch of imagination be held to have proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and as such, conviction rendered and sentence imposed by the learned trial court cannot be maintained. Accordingly, we set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants. We also direct that the appellants be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 22. The appeal stands allowed. Accordingly, we set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants. We also direct that the appellants be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 22. The appeal stands allowed. 23. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.