JUDGMENT H. C. P. Tripathi, J. - Mainoo, his brothers Zahoor Uddin and Munnoo, Mazid his uncle by village relationship, and Rajpat have filed this appeal against their convictions recorded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. All the appellants have been convicted under Sections 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to two years R. I., It years, R. I. 1 years, R. I. and six months R. I. under those counts respectively. Zahoor Uddin and Munnoo have been further convicted under Section 143, I.P.C. and sentenced to 1 years R. I. Mazid, Rajpat and Mainoo have also been further convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. and sentenced to one year's R. I. each. All the sentences have however, been directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story, in short, is as follows: It is the common case of the parties that relations between the appellants and his relations on the one hand and Faiyaz and his sons on the other hand had been seriously strained since the last one or two years. One Zahoor, an uncle of appellant Zahoor, who was acquitted by the trial court, and Mustaqim (p. w. 4) were contesting candidates at the election of Pradhan in the year 1961 and Faiyaz and his sons helped Mustaqim who was elected. Faiyaz had also filed a complaint against Zahoor Uddin under Section 397 I.P.C. which was pending trial in the court of a magistrate at Azamgarh on the date of the occurrence. The parties had criminal litigations amongst themselves at Bombay also. Faiyaz had purchased a plot No. 1210 from a lady and when he was sowing it a day before the occurrence Banarasi and Rajpat came there and objected, but no heed was paid to their objection which might have resulted in some trouble but it was averted by the intervention of the villagers. 3. On October 25, 1961 at about 7 a.m. Faiyaz and Ahsan Ullah were going with ploughs and bullocks to replough their plot No. 1210. When they reached Ifte-khars field on their way to the plot they were surrounded and attacked by an unlawful assembly consisting of the appellants, Usman and others, who had been acquitted by the trial court, out of whom Zahoor Uddin, Munno and Zahir (acquitted) were armed with spears Bashir with Pharsa and Usman and others had lathis. When they reached Ifte-khars field on their way to the plot they were surrounded and attacked by an unlawful assembly consisting of the appellants, Usman and others, who had been acquitted by the trial court, out of whom Zahoor Uddin, Munno and Zahir (acquitted) were armed with spears Bashir with Pharsa and Usman and others had lathis. They seriously belaboured Faiyaz and Ahsan Ullah with their respective weapons. On the alarm raised by the victims, Mobin and Mohammad Ali, the other sons of Faiyaz, came to their rescue and the victims and their rescuers also wielded their lathis in self defence. According to the prosecution Mohammad Ali snatched away a spear from one of the assailants and Mobin a lathi from another and weilded the same for protecting the person of Faiyaz and Ahsan Ullah. A spear blow from Mohammad Ali dropped Usman dead in the field of Iftekhar and then the occurrence came to an end on the intervention of the witnesses. Faiyaz, Ahsan Ullah, Mobin and Mohammad Ali had received injuries on the side of the complainant and Usman, Mazid and Munno were injured in the incident on the side of the appellants out of whom Usman died on the spot. 4. Both the parties lodged reports at the police station on the same date giving their own version of the incident. In the report of Zahoor Uddin, which was recorded at 8.30 p.m. (Er. Kha. 12) 8 persons were named as the culprits who had participated in committing aggression on him and in killing Usman, while the report lodged by Faiyaz at 9.05 a.m. which was the basis of the present trial 11 persons including the appellants were mentioned as having been responsible for causing injuries to him and his associates. It may be noticed here that in this report though it was specifically mentioned that Faiyaz and his son Ahsan Ullah had also wielded lathi and spear by snatching the same from the assailants, in the self-defence, Mohammad Ali was not named in this report to have participated on their behalf in the incident. 5. Faiyaz, Ahsan Ullah and Mobin were medically examined by Dr. Babu Ram Gupta (p. w. 2) on October 25, 1961 between 11 a.m. and 12 noon. Faiyaz had two contused wounds, one contusion and a fracture in the left index finger. 5. Faiyaz, Ahsan Ullah and Mobin were medically examined by Dr. Babu Ram Gupta (p. w. 2) on October 25, 1961 between 11 a.m. and 12 noon. Faiyaz had two contused wounds, one contusion and a fracture in the left index finger. One penetrating wound, one incised wound, a number of contusions and two abrasions, in all 11 injuries, were found on the person of Ahsan Ullah while Mohan had one penetrating wound, two incised wounds, one swelling and two abrasions on his person. All the injuries were simple except the injury on the left index finger of Faiyaz which was grievous, some of which had been caused by some sharp edged weapon as spear or "pharsa" others by lathis and some by friction. On the same day appellants Munnoo and Mazid were also medically examined by Dr. Gupta who found one penetrating wound, one incised wound, one contused wound, a contused swelling on the person of Munnoo and two contused swelling, on the person of Mazid out of which penetrating and incised wounds had been caused by spear and other injuries were caused by lathi blows. Usman, who too was injured on the side of the appellants, had died of the spear injury. 6. At the trial the appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges. Appellants Zahoor Uddin, Munnoo and Mazid admitted their participation in the incident but trotted out a different version of the occurrence. According to them Usman and Munnoo were returning with their baskets after throwing manure in their fields when they were attacked by Faiyaz, his son Ahsan Ullah and Mobin, who were accompanied by four others out of whom Ahsan was armed with a spear. Usman dropped down after getting a spear blow and on the alarm raised by Munnoo the appellants reached the scene out of whom Mainoo was armed with a spear and other two were armed with lathis and they weilded their respective weapons in defence of Munnoo. Thus the appellants admit to have caused injuries to Faiyaz and his sons but in exercise of their right of private defence. 7. The case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of Faiyaz, Kunwar, Mustaqim and Ahsan Ullah (p. ws. 1, 3, 4, 5,) who have been examined as eyewitnesses of the occurrence. One Dr. Thus the appellants admit to have caused injuries to Faiyaz and his sons but in exercise of their right of private defence. 7. The case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of Faiyaz, Kunwar, Mustaqim and Ahsan Ullah (p. ws. 1, 3, 4, 5,) who have been examined as eyewitnesses of the occurrence. One Dr. Sen was examined as a court witness, who had examined Mohammad Ali in jail on October 28, 1961, and proved his injury report. The other evidence produced in the case is only of a formal character. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the statements of the eye witnesses with care. The prosecution version of the incident is highly incredible and the testimony of the eye-witnesses, in support of the prosecution story, suffers from serious blemishes some of which are enumerated below. (1) In the first information report lodged by Faiyaz there is no mention that his another son Mohammad Ali had also participated in the occurrence. At the trial after the death of Mohammad Ali, the main part of causing fatal injuries to Usman by a spear blow has been attributed to him by all the eye-witnesses. (2) In the first information report the allegation made was that Faiyaz and his son Ahsan Ullah had snatched a lathi and a spear from the hands of their assailants and had weilded the same. This was deliberately done to explain the spear injury which had resulted in the death of Usman and also the punctured and incised wounds which had been received by appellant Munnoo. This story of snatching away of the arms of the appellants, who according to the prosecution, were 11 in number while their victims were two in number and armless, is wholly incredible and indicates that the prosecution has not come with clean hands, at the stage of the trial there was a change in the story and there it was Mohammad Ali who was stated to have snatched the spear of Munnoo and to have struck Munnoo and Usman with it. 9. Admittedly the mar pit had taken place in the field of Iftekhar to the east of the house of Zahoor Uddin appellant at a short distance while Faiyaz and his son were alleged to have been going to plough their plot No. 1210. 9. Admittedly the mar pit had taken place in the field of Iftekhar to the east of the house of Zahoor Uddin appellant at a short distance while Faiyaz and his son were alleged to have been going to plough their plot No. 1210. Faiyaz has admitted that there was another shorter way for pedestrains to reach plot No. 1210 than the way which they were following. It is difficult to find out the reason as to why Faiyaz took this longer route specially when it lay near the house of his sworn enemy with whom he had had several incidents in the past. 10. The testimony of Faiyaz, Mustakira and Ahsan Ullah is of a dubious character which cannot be relied upon unless corroborated in its essential particulars by some independent witnesses or circumstances appearing on the record. Before the committing court Faiyaz had stated that it was Mobin who had snatched the spear from the hands of Munnoo. When confronted with this statement he denied to have made it. He also denied to have concealed the name of Mohammad Ali in the first information report as one who had caused the death of Usman. He denied the suggestion that he and the members of his party were beaten by some of the appellants in exercise of their right of private defence when they and Usman were attacked by them. 11. Mustaqim had not received any injury and is admittedly a partisan of Faiyaz, as he had contested the election of Pradahan against Zahoor uncle of Zahoor Uddin in which he was supported by Faiyaz and his men. He denied to have stated before the investigating officer that Mohammad Ali was not injured in the occurrence. 12. Ahsan Ullah (p. w. 5) is the son of Faiyaz and had received injuries in the incident. He had stated before the Investigating Officer that in the occurrence he and his father and Mobin had only taken part and had not mentioned the name of Mohammad Ali. At the trial he too stated that it was Mohammad Ali, who was then dead, to have struck spear to Usman which caused his death. 13. Kunwar (p.w. 3) is the resident of a different village. According to him he had come to Ahmadpur Asna to have handle fixed to his "Gandasa by the lack-smith and then had seen the occurrence. 13. Kunwar (p.w. 3) is the resident of a different village. According to him he had come to Ahmadpur Asna to have handle fixed to his "Gandasa by the lack-smith and then had seen the occurrence. He alleged to have seen the occurrence when he was 50 or 60 paces away from the village abadi. Before the Investigating Officer he had stated to have seen the occurrence from a distance of four or five bighas. He contradicted his previous statement recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code on a number of other points. He too did not mention earlier at any stage that Mohammad Ali had also participated in the mar-pit which he did or the first time during the course of his deposition at the trial. He is a chance witness and in all probability he was not present at the scene of occurrence. 14. In the light of the aforesaid discussion of the evidence and circumstances appearing on the record it is not possible to sustain the conviction of the appellants. 15. In a case of the present nature where both parties had received injuries and have put forward their own , version of the occurrence it is true that a serious effort should be made to find out as to which of the two versions is correct and which party is the aggressor. But it is also true that where the prosecution had not come with clean hands, the testimony furnished by the eye-witnesses suffers from serious blemishes and the grain of truth is lost in a mass of falsehood making it impossible to disengage it, there is no other option for a court of law but to acquit. 16. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences of the appellants are set aside. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. They need not surrender.