Order :- This is a revn. directed against an order of the learned Ses. J. Churu, confirming, in appeal, the convictions of the appcts. under S. 325, B. P. C. by the Munsif-Mag. Sardarahahi. The Mag. had convicted thirteen accused persons, including the appcts. of an offence under S. 147, B. P. C. for rioting, sentencing each to 3 months R. I. On appeal the learned Ses. J. upheld the convictions of the present appcts only under S. 325, B. P. C. while acquitting them as well as the remaining accused persons of the offence under S. 117, B. P. C. He, however, reduced the sentences of Hir Singh and Jasia accused persons from rigorous imprisonment to simple in view of their old age. 2. The case started on a report, made at Thana Sujangarh, on 30-8-47 at 4 P. M. by Ganesha Brahmin and Sukharam Jat of Malusar alleging that, of the preceding night-fifteen persons (named in the report), who were armed with guns and lathies broke into the house of Ganesha informant and after one of them had injured him, demanded from him the keys of his Kotha, on pain of death. It was further alleged that having also beaten Ganeshas brother Duda and his wife and caused grievous injuries to Mangha another of his brothers, the accused persons forcibly took out Rs. 5000 belonging to the informant (Ganesha) and Rs. 500 belonging to Mangha. The accused, it was said, then entered the house of Sukhram, informant 2 and after beating him, they forcibly took away cash worth Rs. 535 belonging to him. From there the accused were said to have passed due into the house of Sohanlal Brahmin from where they looted cash amounting to Rs. 200 belonging to him and Rs. 400 belonging to his son-in-law Ramlal, then the party entered successively, the houses of Bhoma Shyjama and Rekha Jats and of Malu Chamar and Amichand Brahmin and inflicted injuries on the inmates, including the wives of Bhoma, Shyjama and Amichand. The Police charge-sheeted all these 15 persons, including two who were absconding, under Ss. 200 belonging to him and Rs. 400 belonging to his son-in-law Ramlal, then the party entered successively, the houses of Bhoma Shyjama and Rekha Jats and of Malu Chamar and Amichand Brahmin and inflicted injuries on the inmates, including the wives of Bhoma, Shyjama and Amichand. The Police charge-sheeted all these 15 persons, including two who were absconding, under Ss. 325 and 148, B. P. C. Medical evidence was to the effect that Mangha (P. W. 2) received three grievous injuries and three simple ones, and Ganesha (P. W. 1) one grievous injury while Duda Ram (P. W. 1), Baluram (P. W. 2) and Sukhram (P. W. 2) received, respectively, five two and two simple injuries, all by blunt weapons. 3. There was also a cross case under S. 147, B. P. C. against twelve persons, including Ganesha and Sukhram, which was based on an almost simultaneous report by Hirsingh at the same police station in which it was alleged that the informant (Hirsingh) and two companions were attacked and injured by these 12 persons, because he was preparing to send, to the cattle pound, 60 cows, belonging to these persons, which had trespassed into Gausala land, under his charge. In this case also, the Munsiff-Mag. convicted all the twelve accused persons under S. 147, B. P. C. but the learned Ses. J. disbelieving the prosecution story acquitted eleven of the convicted persons who had appealed to him and recommended Sukhram, the remaining convict, who had not preferred any appeal to the H. C. for acquittal. 4. In the present case, the Munsif-Mag. disbelieved the prosecution story, as to the alleged looting of cash from Gunesha, Duda and other persons. According to him, there was a quarrel over the cows, between Hir Singh and his companions, on the one hand and Ganesha etc., on the other in the morning, prior to the occurrence, as stated by Hir Singh, Kalu Singh, Ramzan and Jasia accused. To arrange this Hir Singh and his friends formed their plans in day time and collected their men and at night made attacks on Ganesha and others, while they were asleep in their houses. If that was so, it is strange that neither the police nor the Mag. charged the accused with the offence of house breaking or house-trespass at night. If that was so, it is strange that neither the police nor the Mag. charged the accused with the offence of house breaking or house-trespass at night. In any case the Mag.s view of the facts of the occurrence, or rather occurrences, seem to have been the looting of money. 5. The learned Sess J. went a step further. He doubted if in the absence of the motive of loot which had been already discarded by the Mag. all the accused persons had any common object in furtherance of which they could have constituted an unlawful assembly and joined in beating the complainants. From the fact that some of the prosecution witnesses had not alleged the presence of some of the accused persons and others had not given evidence as to the specific part played by each accused he discarded the theory of an unlawful assembly. Sajan Singh, Jivan, Sujan Singh and Bhagwan Singh accused belonged to a different village. According to the Sess J. it was unnecessary for Hir Singh and his friends to invite helpers from outside the village when there were enough people in the village itself to help them and moreover according to him the injuries caused to the complainants, individually, would have been much more serious and numerous if so many persons had joined the attack. 6. In the face of a conflict of such magnitude between the prosecution theory on the one hand, and the findings of the Mag. and Sess. J. on the other and between the findings of the two lower Cts. themselves, it was hardly safe to convict the present three appcts. alone, out of the 15 persons originally accused, of the offence of causing grievous injuries to Ganesha and Manghi. The charge framed by the Mag. was extremely defective. As pointed out by the learned Sess. J. himself, the charge under S. 147, B. P. C. having fallen through and there being no reference, in the charge, to the furtherance of a common intention nor to the specific act of any of the accused, it is difficult to see how the conviction of the present appcts. alone under S. 325, Penal Code, can be sustained, particularly when the prosecution evidence is so unsatisfactory and unreliable. The learned Sess. J has relied on the evidence of Ganesha and Mangha as supported by medical evidence, to sustain the conviction of the appcts. alone under S. 325, Penal Code, can be sustained, particularly when the prosecution evidence is so unsatisfactory and unreliable. The learned Sess. J has relied on the evidence of Ganesha and Mangha as supported by medical evidence, to sustain the conviction of the appcts. under S. 325, Penal Code. Ganesha, according to medical evidence, had only one injury, which was on his finger, but his own evidence is that both Mahabir Singh and Sajan Singh struck him lathi blows on his hand, fracturing a finger of his left hand. Of these Sajan Singh has been already acquitted, Mangha (P. W. 2) has given more specific evidence for he says that Hirsingh struck a lathi blow on his right arm causing a fracture, while Mahabir Singh and Jasia struck lathi blows on his left arm and fractured it. This is the only direct and specific evidence of causing grievous hurt, against these appcts. In the first information report, that lodged by Ganesha, it was clearly stated he did no know which of the accused persons - and there were so many named in the report-had caused the grievous injuries to Mangha. Had Mangha known which of his assailants had caused him the grievous injuries it was not likely that Ganesha, his own brother, living with him would have been unaware of it while making the report and would have made such a specific denial of the knowledge. Then again the existence of enmity and litigation between Mangha and his brothers, on the one hand and Hir Singh and his associates, on the other is an admitted fact. In the circumstances, it is hardly safe to rely on the solitary statement of Mangha, (P. W. 2) to sustain the conviction of the present appcts. under S. 325, Penal Code. Strangely enough, the evidence of two important witnesses, namely, Sukhram D. W. 6 and Rekha Ram D. W. 8 seem to have been ignored by both of the lower Cts. Sukhram was one of the informants who signed the first information report, in which it was alleged that the accused persons entered his house, caused him injuries and looted him of cash amounting to Rs. Sukhram was one of the informants who signed the first information report, in which it was alleged that the accused persons entered his house, caused him injuries and looted him of cash amounting to Rs. 535 This witness, who was not produced by the prosecution, denied in his evidence as a defence witness, than there was any occurrence in the house of Ganesha (P. W. 1) in the night as alleged in the prosecution story. According to him there was a quarrel and a fight in the morning only when Hir Singh and his associates collected the cows of Ganesha etc for sending them to the cattle pound, in the course of which Kalu and Ramjam accused caused him injuries. Rekha Ram (P. W. 6), who is also named in the F. I. R., as having been beaten by the accused persons, similarly denies this story and makes a statement similar to Sukh Ram. The evidence of these two witnesses creates further doubts, as to the whole basis of the prosecution story. The prosecution story having been disbelieved not only as to most of the accused persons and as to the nature of the effect, but also as to the motive of the crime and there being such conflicting theories even as to the time and place of the occurrence the conviction of the present appcts. cannot stand. As held in Phatali Singh v. Emperor, AIR (5) 1918 Pat 536 : (19 Cr LJ 877), it is recognised principle that where a party comes into Ct. with a story which cannot be believed as to its essential details, it is impossible to rely on part of the story for the purpose of convicting the accused. 7. The revn. is, therefore, accepted and the conviction and sentences of the appcts. under S. 325, Penal Code are set aside. Revision allowed.