NORONHA, J. ( 1 ) S. C No. 5 of 1974 before the Sessions Judge, Mandya, has given rise to crl. A. No. 399 of 1974 with Crlr. C. No. 53 of 1974, and SC. No. 2 of 1974 has given rise to Crl. A, No. 396 of 1974 The two Sessions Cases relate to the same occurrence and were rightly treated by the learned Sessions judge, as cross or counter cases. He followed the prescribed method of trying the earlier case viz. , S. C. No. 5 of 1974 to its conclusion, and then the second case viz, S. C. No. 2 of 1974 was taken up and also tried to its conclusion. After hearing arguments in both the cases, the learned Sessions judge propounced judgments in them simultaneously and disposed them of. The procedure followed by him conforms to the settled position of law. ( 2 ) MY learned brother and I have also followed precisely the same procedure. In Crl. A. No. 389 of 1974 which goes along with Crl. R. C. No. 53 of 1974, arguments were addressed first. Immediately following arguments in Crl. A. No. 39$ of 1974 were addressed next. We shall be at week today pronouncing the judgment jn the first set (Crl. A. No. 399 of 1974 and Crl. R. C. No. 53 of 1974): Now we proceed to judgment in Cr. A. No 396 of 1974. ( 3 ) I am in full and respectful agreement with the detailed and well considered judgment to be rendered by my learned brother in Cr. A. No. 399 of 1974 connected with Crl. R: C. No. P3 of 1974 Therein we have dealt with the utmost caution and circumspection, every aspect of that main case in its entire amplitude. ( 4 ) SINCE the above is the position it would be entirely superfluous to reiterate the contents of that judgment except, of course, when it becomes inevitable, in the interest of trend and sequence. ( 5 ) IN this Crl. A. No. 396 of 1974 Sri M. M. Jagirdar for the appellants was very brief in his arguments. This was obviously for the reason that 'there was hardly anything for him to argue. The Advocate General appears to have taken a leaf from Mr. Jagirdar's book and addressed the Court only for a very short length of time. A. No. 396 of 1974 Sri M. M. Jagirdar for the appellants was very brief in his arguments. This was obviously for the reason that 'there was hardly anything for him to argue. The Advocate General appears to have taken a leaf from Mr. Jagirdar's book and addressed the Court only for a very short length of time. He was content with expressing his indignation and told us without mincing matters that for reasons, which we shall advert to in the next para, he was dis illusioned with this cross ease, that 00 principle had no more truck with it and that on account of his extremely indifferent health these few days he was walking out of the case leaving the conduct of it to his learned colleague Sri B. K. Ramachandra Rao to do the best he can, in an obviously losing battle. ( 6 ) THE following were the most important reasons which perturbed the Advocate-General. The investigating agency in SC. 2/74 and the investigating agency in S. C. No. 5 of 1974 was the same. The prosecution in both the cases was conducted by the same prosecutor. What is said above would aptly attract the age-old saying that a person cannot ride on two horses running in opposite directions and if he attempts to do so, the earth would! be his destination. Sri Jagirdar drew our particular attention to the commencing portion of para 46 of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, which' runs thus:- in the end I must observe that the prosecuting agency do not seem to have evinced the same interest while investigating this case right from the beginning till the end, as they have done in the cross case, though the same incident has given rise to both the cases. ( 7 ) SRI B. K. Ramachandra Rao in the delicate and embarrassing situation which he was placed in yet tried his utmost, and we appreciate it, to support the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge In S. C. No. 2 of 1974, his valiant efforts were of no avail. Sri Jagirdar did net even choose to reply, in the fitness of things. ( 8 ) WE shall now briefly refer to a few facts which in this cross case, we feel, are somewhat called far though the entire picture has been scanned in S. C. No. 5 of 1974. Sri Jagirdar did net even choose to reply, in the fitness of things. ( 8 ) WE shall now briefly refer to a few facts which in this cross case, we feel, are somewhat called far though the entire picture has been scanned in S. C. No. 5 of 1974. ( 9 ) THE learned Sessions Judge convictrd only lour of the seventeen accused persons viz. , A-2 Gooti Sanniah, A-6 Ramu, A-8 Lingappa and a-17 G. B. Basayaraju. The State has not appealed against the acquittal of the thirteen accused, and this finding remains final. ( 10 ) WE are Thus concerned only with the four convicted accused and as such, the material concerning them, to ascertain whether their convictions and sentences can be sustained or not. ( 11 ) A-2 Gooti Sanniah and A-8 Lingappa has each been convicted for an offence under S. 342 read with S. 34 I. P. C. , and sentenced to six months rigorous Imprisonment. A-6 Ramu and A-17 G. B. Basavaraju has each been convicted of an offence under S. 326 read with S. 34 I. P. C. , and sentenced to one year's rigorous Imprisonment. ( 12 ) WITH the initial stand adopted by the prosecution itself and the acquittal of as many as 13 out of 17 persons, it is not possible to lay foundation for this frail case which, as contended by both sides, is an afterthought and cookad up with the assistance of some of the authorities who are amenable to influence. ( 13 ) IN his judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has devoted considerable time and at the cost of repetition, on the question of motive which he had already considered exhaustively in his judgment in S. C. No. 5 of 1974. We have also in our judgment in Crl. A. No. 399 of 1974 connected with crl. R. C. No. 53 of 1974, dealt with the aspect of motive in minute partieulars. As already referred to, motive looms large in the occurrence and it would be surplusage to dissect it over and over again. ( 14 ) WITH the subject-matter we are immediately involved the Sessions judge has devoted only a few brief paragraphs which do not carry conviction. It is needless to reproduce them bodily as it would be superfluous. To us, as a Court of final facts, they do not impress. ( 14 ) WITH the subject-matter we are immediately involved the Sessions judge has devoted only a few brief paragraphs which do not carry conviction. It is needless to reproduce them bodily as it would be superfluous. To us, as a Court of final facts, they do not impress. ( 15 ) PARA 36 however, can with advantage be reproduced, since Sri jagirdar who Appeared for the accused in this case in the Sessions Court also, has adopted the same stand here. In the grounds of appeal there is even further amplification. That para (36) reads thus:"36. Sri Jagirdar, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused pointed out that when P. Ws 25 and 26 appeared before P. W. 9 Dr. Rajasekhar they have not mentioned the names of the accused A-2, a-8, A-6 and A-17 as the assailants and their names are also not noted in the accident register and the certificates. The other criticism levelled against PWs. 25 and 26 may be summed up thus. PW. 25 has sustained only a small injury though cubs and spears are said to hav been used. In Ex. P-41 P. W. 27 had not stated the details regarding the assault. P. Ws. 25 and 26 have admitted that they did not go to Shivalli or mandya for treatment nor did they approach the police to get redress. P. Ws. 25 and 26 are both accused in S. C. 5 of 1974. The prosecution has not come with the whole truth inasmuch as they had not referred to the deaths of Kariyappa and Chikkabommegowda and had not stated how they died. What happened to Channappa that accompanied mantrada Bommiah is also not spoken to by the prosecution witnesses. For all these reasons and relying on the decision reported in A. I. R. , 1988 s. C. 1281 (Mohar Rai v. State of Bihar), Sri Jagirdar contended that the prosecution have failed to offer any explanation with regard to the injuries found on some of the accused which is clear from the evidence on record and when the evidence with regard to the entire incident is not before court, it will not be proper to rely and act on the evidence of P. Ws. 25 and 26. The first sentence of para 37 of the judgment reads : i am unable to agree with his contention. 25 and 26. The first sentence of para 37 of the judgment reads : i am unable to agree with his contention. Convincing reasons for disagreeing are not set out. Again, in para 37 the learned Sessions Judge says:- "having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am inclined to believe P. W. 26 and 26 one's inclination is no criterion in a criminal case. There ought to be some convincing reasons. The learned Sessions Judge has not even made a note about the demeanour of P. Ws. 25 and 26 in the witness-box ( 16 ) YET, another aspect needs to be mentioned. The prosecution alleged the recovery of two weapons of assault, M. Os. 8 and 9, as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution also alleged the abscondance of the four accused involved here. The prosecution version on both these points has been discarded by the learned Sessions Judge. This adds the last nail to the coffin of the prosecution case, which is already so frail and weak for the various reasons we have already set out, and cannot, for a moment, stand the test of scrutiny. A-2, A-6, A-8 and A-17 who have been singled out for conviction on flimsy matter collected from here and there, and on which dependence cannot be placed, with any degree of safety and have to be given the benefit of the most reasonable doubt. ( 17 ) IN the result, this appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge on the above four accused-appellantsis set aside. They are acquitted. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. --- *** --- .