JUDGMENT M. H. Beg, J. - There are twenty-one appellants before me, who have been awarded various sentences under Sections 147, 148, 324/149, 323, 323/149, 427 and 448 I.P.C. Separate convictions and sentences of the individual accused persons will be dealt with by me after having considered what offence, if any, has been proved against accused persons individually. 2. The prosecution case was that a construction called a ghari, 45 feet x 12 feet, lying in front of the house of Badri (P.W. 1) since a period of about 22 to 25 years had been rebuilt by Badri with brick walls and covered with thatch and Bamboos supported on beams four or five years before December 19, 1962 when the appellants, together with a very large number of other villagers, estimated between 70 to 80, demolished it after having invaded the house of Badri, armed with lathis, pharsas, and axes, at 3 p.m. on. that day, in village Jogaraj, police station Maholi, in the district of Basti, where the occurrence took place. A first information report of this occurrence was registered as late as January 7, 1963, although the application (Ex. Ka 1), which was registered as the F.I.R. at police station Maholi at 8-15 a.m. on January 7, 1963, was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Basti, on December 21, 1962. The application made by Badri against the twenty-one accused persons contained the allegation that the police of Thana Maholi was supporting the accused persons and that Ram Surat (P.W. 8) had gone to the police station on December 19, 1962 to lodge a report, but the report was not taken down. It also contained the allegation that Smt. Rajdei and Smt. Mewati, two nieces of the complainant, had been injured and deprived of their ornaments by the rioters who demolished and took away the materials of the ghari. It was alleged in this application that one Nanda of Kalupur and Haripal of Parsadipur and a number of other persons had seen the occurrence. Badri (P.W. 1), who made this application was himself absent from his house then as he had been arrested together with two other persons, Ram Harakh and Ram Laut of the party hostile to Badri. It was alleged in this application that one Nanda of Kalupur and Haripal of Parsadipur and a number of other persons had seen the occurrence. Badri (P.W. 1), who made this application was himself absent from his house then as he had been arrested together with two other persons, Ram Harakh and Ram Laut of the party hostile to Badri. These three persons had been arrested because of a F.I.R. lodged on October 21, 1962 at 5-30 p.m. by Badri against Ram Harakh, Munder, Ram Singh, Gaya Din, and Ghurpatri for having tried to threaten Badri and for having dug up a part of the foundation of the ghari which adjoined the field of Ram Harakh. The Investigating Officer had gone there and arrested even Badri and started proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. against two alleged parties. It was alleged that Jhakri, the brother of Badri, had gone to Basti in order to get Badri released on bail so that the two married nieces of Badri, and Kauleshwar, the old father of Badri, Badris nephew Ram Surat, and Badris wife and sister-in-law, were the only persons left at the house. It was alleged by the witnesses at the trial that when a large number of persons came to the ghari and adjoining Badris house, the mother and aunt of Ram Surat went inside the house and closed the door, but Smt. Rajdei (P.W. 2) and Smt. Mewati (P.W. 3) were left outside. It was alleged by Ram Surat (P.W. 8) at the trial that he, after being threatened by the rioters, ran into an Arhar field from where he saw everything. Kauleshwar, the father of Badri was said to be about 100 years old and was unable to do anything. Thus, the two women, Rajdei and Mewati who were the only persons left outside who could and did object, were attacked and deprived of their ornaments when they protested against the demolition of the ghari and the removal of the materials. 3. The trial court has considered the allegation that the ornaments of the women were removed to be doubtful in view of certain improbabilities and contradictions noticed by it. It came to the conclusion that there might be some exaggeration in making the allegation that the ornaments were also taken When the primary object of the rioters was to demolish the ghari and to take away its materials. It came to the conclusion that there might be some exaggeration in making the allegation that the ornaments were also taken When the primary object of the rioters was to demolish the ghari and to take away its materials. The trial court noticed a statement attributed to Smt. Mewati (P.W. 3), that she did not see any accused inflicting blows on her or relieving her of ornaments. The trial court found this statement to be very extraordinary and thought that the Investigating Officer had not properly I taken down the statement. The Investigating Officer Sita Ram Sharma (P.W. 9) was called in this Court to explain, in particular, this alleged statement sought to be proved through' his evidence. At the trial, he had stated that Smt. Mewati had given a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that she had not seen "any one" taking or snatching ornaments. When the Investigating Officer was examined in this Court he corrected himself and said that Smt. Mewati had only stated that she did not see any "other" persons taking away I ornaments or attacking. The names of persons who had actually attacked or snatched ornaments were mentioned by her in an earlier part of the very sentence a part of which was put to the Investigating Officer and wrongly admitted by him to be correct representation of what Mewati had told him. This part of a statement seems to have been put in that fashion by the defence counsel in order to create a misleading impression. Neither the trial Court nor the prosecuting counsel detected the error or trick. The Investigating Officer too must have failed to apply his mind to what was probably really put to him to mislead him. The result was that the Investigating Officer erroneously admitted that Smt. Mewati had stated that she had not seen "any one" striking or snatching ornaments when she had actually stated that she had not seen "any one else" doing so. 4. The Investigating Officer also stated in this Court that the statement he had made at the trial was not read out to him after his evidence and that he had not read the statement he made in the trial court before signing it so as to be able to detect his error. He also said that he had been giving evidence in that fashion generally at trials in sessions court. He also said that he had been giving evidence in that fashion generally at trials in sessions court. Below the statement of the Investigating Officer recorded in the sessions court is found an endorsement that he had heard and admitted the statement. I am afraid that the endorsement was not correctly made. It was suggested that "heard and admitted", endorsed by the Reader of the Court below the statement, meant that the Investigating Officer only heard it at the time when he was making the statement and must be demed to have admitted of the term "heard and admitted". Moreover, Section 360 Cr.P.C. does not mean that the hearing of the evidence of a witness should take place only while he is giving evidence. The section reads as follows :- "360. (1) As the evidence of each witness taken under Section 356 or Section 357 is completed, it shall he read over to him in the presence of the accused, if in attendance, or of his pleader, if he appears by pleader, and shall, if necessary, he corrected. 2. If the witness denies the correctness of any part of the evidence when the same is read over to him, the Magistrate or Sessions Judge, may, instead of correcting the evidence, make a memorandum thereon of the objection made to it by the witness, and shall add such remarks as he thinks necessary. (3) If the evidence is taken down in a language different from that in which it has been given and the witness does not understand the language in which it is taken down, the evidence so taken down shall be interpreted to him in the language in which it was given, or in a language which he understands." 5. It clearly means that, after the taking down of his evidence is complete, it shall be read over to the witness. 6. If, what the Investigating Officer in this case has stated is correct, the Investigating Officer had given evidence in innumerable trials in sessions courts in the same way as he had done in the present case. This means that Section 360, Cr.P.C. is being violated at trials in sessions courts very extensively. I must, therefore, point out that the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. are meant to be complied with. This means that Section 360, Cr.P.C. is being violated at trials in sessions courts very extensively. I must, therefore, point out that the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. are meant to be complied with. They can easily be complied with without wasting the time of the court if the completed evidence is read over at the end of the day to each witness even while the presiding officer of the court is doing ether work. The section does not require the evidence to be read out by the presiding officer of the court himself to the witnesses. The section must, however, be complied with. If it is not complied with errors such as the one which has crept in from the careless statement of the Investigating Officer in this case, probably due to the misleading manner in which a part of sentence was put to the Investigating Officer by the defence counsel, are bound to occur. 7. The Investigating Officer has explained before me that the word aur had been left out by mistake by the Reader of the Court in recording his statement so that the meaning was inverted. f am unable to accept his explanation as satisfactory. The part of the statement of Smt. Mewati which was exhibited also contains only the mutilated sentence. The Investigating Officer has, however, admitted before me that the statement attributed to Smt. Mewati, in the course of the investigation, was never actually made by her. Therefore, it is possible that the trial court may have come to a different conclusion about the snatching of ornaments if it had not been affected by this wrongly assumed feature in the evidence of Smt. Mewati. The assertion that the ornaments of the two women were snatched was made by all the prosecution eye witnesses. I do not think that it is enough, in the face of these statements, to point out that the ornaments were not actually recovered from the houses of those who are said to have snatched them. However, as there is no appeal against the acquittal of the accused persons from the charge under Section 395 I.P.C., I need not consider this matter any further. 8. However, as there is no appeal against the acquittal of the accused persons from the charge under Section 395 I.P.C., I need not consider this matter any further. 8. An argument which was advanced against the statements of the seven eye witnesses, Smt. Rajdei, Smt. Mewati, Brij Lal, Ramanand, Ramdeo, Purai, and Ram Surat, in the trial court and repeated before me, was that these witnesses were shown to have been made by them before the Investigating Officer. After having been taken through the whole evidence, I think that the trial court was right in distrusting the evidence of the Investigating Officer and of suspecting him of partiality towards the accused persons. It was for this reason that Ram Surat (P.W. 8) might very well have been afraid to contact the Investigating Officer who had already arrested his uncle Badri as a result of the report lodged by Badri himself against Ram Harakh and others. It is difficult to believe that Ram Surat (P. W. 8) would not be available at all to give evidence before the Investigating Officer on several dates on which the Investigating Officer visited the village after the commencement of the investigation on the specific orders of the Superintendent of Police, Basti, until January 25, 1963. The most serious of the so called contradictory statements of the prosecution witnesses was the alleged statement of Smt. Mewati before the f Investigating Officer which has, as I have already pointed out above, been shown to be a spurious substitute for the statement actually made by Smt. Mewati (P.W. 3) during the investigation. Smt. Mewati (P.W. 3) has been proved to be truthful, as a result of the further evidence of the Investigating Officer, Sita Ram Sharma (P.W. 9) in I this Court, when she stated that she had never made such a statement before the Investigating Officer. The intention of the defence counsel to prove "contradiction" which did not actually exist was thus evident even when Smt. Mewati appeared in the witness box which g was long before the Investigating Officer gave his evidence. Such a course of conduct is reprehensible. It is the duty of prosecuting counsel and also of the trial court to be on guard against such possible trickery or error. Such a course of conduct is reprehensible. It is the duty of prosecuting counsel and also of the trial court to be on guard against such possible trickery or error. And, of course, it is the duty of all counsels, B whether appearing for the prosecution I or the defence, not to mislead the Court. 9. The other alleged contradictions between the statements of the eye witnesses before the Investigating Officer and the statements made by them at the I trial consist of omissions or variations in names of particular accused persons whom they alleged having seen participating in the riot. When an occurrence of the dimensions alleged by the prosecution here takes place and nearly 100 villagers take part in demolishing a construction and carrying away its materials, it is certainly very difficult for the witnesses to remember the specific acts of each and every participant accurately. The occurrence is said to have gone on for about 2 or 3 hours. In the course of that time, the various participants are certain to have performed a large number of acts which could only be generally described. I, therefore, do not think that the mere omission of certain names from the statements to the Investigating Officer or the mention of a somewhat different set of names than the one given to the Investigating Officer can be sufficient to destroy the value of these witnesses altogether. The omissions cannot, in my opinion, be treated as "contradictions" at all. This feature in the statements of the prosecution witnesses could not, in my opinion, result in the acquittal of all the accused persons on the mistaken assumption that the witnesses are untruthful merely because they did not remember all names or the same names when they made their statements before the Investigating Officer and when they gave evidence at the trial. 10. Another attack levelled against the credibility of the prosecution witnesses was based on the alleged unlikelihood of their presence at the time of the occurrence. It is pointed out that Ram Surat (P.W. 8) had run away and also that he was not a reliable witness as he had, on his own showing, avoided lodging a F.I.R. at the earliest opportunity and had probably given a wrong explanation to Badri (P.W. 1). The view of the trial court that Ram Surat was frightened does not appear to be at all incorrect. The view of the trial court that Ram Surat was frightened does not appear to be at all incorrect. In any case, this is not sufficient ground for disbelieving Ram Surat. He had only taken refuge in a nearby Arhar field from where he alleged to have seen the whole occurrence. I do not think that he can be disbelieved merely because he ran away from the scene in order to avoid being injured, Ramanand (P.W. 5), a resident of Kalupur, is probably the same witness as Nandu of Kalwapur mentioned in the F.I.R. His village adjoins village Jograj with a stream separating the two. He knew the residents of village Jograj well. It is true that he said that he was going to the market of Hariharpur when he saw the occurrence and stopped there to watch it. He did not see Ram Surat (P.W. 8) probably because Ram Surat had run away to the Arhar field by that time. Even if he could be described as only a chance witness, I do not think that he can be discarded for that reason alone. Chance witnesses are not necessarily untruthful. No reason has been shown why he should favour Badri against the accused persons. It was also contended, on similar grounds, that Brijlal (P.W. 4) and Ramdeo (P. W. 6) residents of village Kaluapur, and Purai (P.W. 7), resident of village Bahrai, were not likely to be present and were merely chance witnesses. As I have already held about Ramanand, the mere fact that these witnesses belong to nearby village and could even be described as chance witnesses could not make them worthless particularly when no reason is shown why they should give evidence falsely against the appellants. The strongest criticism against these witnesses was that the names they had taken before the Investigating Officer did not tally completely with the names taken by them at the trial. As I have already held, this is not sufficient for discrediting these witnesses when such a large number of participants in the riot are involved so that lapses of memory as well as differences in the observations of different witnesses are to be expected. 11. As I have already held, this is not sufficient for discrediting these witnesses when such a large number of participants in the riot are involved so that lapses of memory as well as differences in the observations of different witnesses are to be expected. 11. The last argument on behalf of the appellants was that, where so many residents of village Jograja were alleged to have come to the scene of occurrence, it is not safe to convict them merely because their names have been mentioned unless specific parts have been assigned to them. It is true that a very large number of persons of village Jograja were said to have been involved and that no resident of village Jograja except Ram Surat, Badri and Ram Surats two sisters, have come forward to give evidence in support of the prosecution. It, however, seems to be admitted by the accused also that the ghari of Badri (P.W. 1) was demolished. The defence suggested that the demolition was carried out by members of the pariy of Badri so as to implicate the appellants. Not a single witness of the demolition of the ghari by Badri (P.W. 1) or any of ins relations' or supporters has been produced. Indeed, if Badri had a party in the village he could have produced his partisans in evidence. If the defence version had been true, it would have been possible to produce some witness of the defence allegations. The demolition of a large construction could not have been carried out secretly with all the villagers residing nearby. A photograph (Ex. Ka. 2) proved by Badri (P.W. 1) shows that the demolition was considerable. The Investigating Officer Sita Ram Sharma (P.W. 9) also found the Ghari demolished although he did not find any part of the materials said to have been removed by the accused persons, but, as the investigation was so delayed, I do not think that the mere failure to find the materials removed could adversely affect the credibility of the prosecution case. If a considerable amount of demolition was carried out, as is evident from the photograph (Ex. Ka. 2), the residents of Badris house were bound to have objected to it. It is in evidence that Ram Surat (P.W. 8) and Rajdei (P.W. 2) and Mewati (P.W. 3) had objected. Ram Surat having been threatened ran away. If a considerable amount of demolition was carried out, as is evident from the photograph (Ex. Ka. 2), the residents of Badris house were bound to have objected to it. It is in evidence that Ram Surat (P.W. 8) and Rajdei (P.W. 2) and Mewati (P.W. 3) had objected. Ram Surat having been threatened ran away. Smt. Mewati and Smt. Rajdei having stood there were subjected to maltreatment and were struck by the persons whose names are given by the prosecution witnesses. 12. Smt. Mewati and Smt. Rajdeo have concurred in stating that Munder was armed with a pharsa with which he struck Mewati and that Ram Adhar and Ganpat and Bhagwan Dass and Ram Samujh and Inder and Ghurpatri were armed with lathis with which they attacked Rajdei. Brij pal (P.W. 4) has also named the six persons, namely Munder, Ram Adhar, Ganpat, Bhagwandas, Ram Samujh, and Ghurpatri, as the assailants of Mewati. Ramanand (P.W. 5) has named Munder and Ram Adhar as the assailants of one sister and Inder and Ram Dass and Ram Samujh and Ghurpatri as the assailants of the other. Ram Deo (P.W. 6) had added the names of Jhinku and Ram Kishun, I but has omitted the name of Ganpat. Purai (P.W. 7) could only name five persons as the assailants. Ram Surat (P.W. 8) named Munder and Inder as the assailants of Rajdei, and Kara Adhare, Bhagwan Das, Ganpat, Ram Samujh, Inder and Ghurpatri as the assailants of Mewati. The fact that these women were injured is further supported by Dr. R.R. Tewari (P.W. 10) who proved that, when he examined " Smt. Mewati on December 12, 1962, he found six injuries on her person and two, including an incised wound, on Smt. Rajdei. The fact, therefore, that the riot and the demolition of the ghari and the attack on the two women took place has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The specification of parts by more than one witness has been established in the cases of M under B and Inder and Ram Adhare and Bhagwandass and Ganpat and Ram Samujh and Ghurpatri. It is, therefore, safe toll confine the convictions to these appellants because it is not possible to eliminate the possibility of other persons T having been named merely because they happened to be on the scene of occurrence. It is, therefore, safe toll confine the convictions to these appellants because it is not possible to eliminate the possibility of other persons T having been named merely because they happened to be on the scene of occurrence. Against the seven persons whose parts are specified, the charges have been established beyond all reasonable doubt and the principle laid down in the case of Baladin v. State of U. P., A.I.R. 1956 , S.C., 181 would not save them from conviction. The cases against these seven appellants are established not merely by the evidence of the injured persons but also by independent witnesses who had no axe to grind. It is corroborated by circumstances and medical evidence. 13. In the result, I allow the appeal of Ram Lal, Gaya Din, Ram Nain, Ram Kishan, Sunder, Jhinkoo, Ram Lagan, B Ram Anuj, Ramdass, Shatrughan.1 Jagannath, Vikram, Ram Pyare anil Saghir and acquit them of all the charges. I, however, maintain the con-B victions of Ram Adhare and Bhagwandass and Ganpat and Ram Samujh and Inder and Ghurpatri under Section 147, I.P.C. and reduce their sentences to one years R.I. I also maintain their convictions under sections 448 and 427 I.P.C. and a sentence of six months R. I. passed on each of them. I also maintain their conviction under Section 323 I.P.C. and the sentence of six months R.I. for this offence. I further convict them under Section 324/149 I.P.C. and sentence them to two years R.I. The appellant Munder was armed with a pharsa and he is therefore convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to eighteen months R.I., and a fine of Rs. 50/-, and, in default, to 3 months R.I. He is also convicted under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to two years R.I. His convictions under Section 448 and 427 I.P.C., and 323/149 I.P.C. and the sentences of six months R.I. for each of these offences are maintained. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. All the appellants are on bail. The fourteen acquitted persons need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled. The seven persons convicted must surrender forthwith and serve out the remaining periods of their sentences. Subject to the modification mentioned above, this appeal is dismissed.