JUDGMENT 1. - This State appeal is directed against the judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, dated 5th August, 1970, whereby all the seven accused-respondents were acquitted of the charge under section 302/307/148 read with section 149 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case was a field Khasra No. 109 in village Badleta Bujurg, which was a bone of ^contention between one Lakhanlal and Genda. Lakhanlal happens to be an Advocate. In connection with the revenue litigation a receiver was appointed after attaching that land. Shri Rameshwar Prashad, Advocate, was appointed as the receiver by the Munsif Magistrate, Hindaun, vide his order exhibit P. 21. That order was received by the receiver on 7th November, 1967 and it is said that in the company of Patwari Jaganlai P.W.8. the possession of that land was handed over, as a Supurddar, to Prahladsingh and Supardnama was got. executed in favour of the court. The proceedings were drawn for transfer of possession to supurddar and the same was done vide exhibit P. 2. It is said that the litigation ultimately ended in favour of Genda and Lakhanlal filed a suit for declaration of his rights in the land in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Hindaun. In that matter also, Shri Rameshwar Prasad Advocate was appointed as receiver and possession of the land was again handed over' for cultivation as Supurddar to Prahladsingh. On 25th December, 1967 four ploughmen were hired by the Suppurddar to get the field No. 109 ploughed. These persons were Ramjial, Naval, Shri Kishan and Munshi. According to the prosecution case, nine persons belonging to the Rajput and Fakir community were sitting at the foothills of the hillock nearby. When the ploughmen started ploughing the field in the presence of the Supurddar, these nine persons came armed with guns and it is said that they asked the Suppurddar and the Patwari not to continue the ploughing of the field. It is alleged that the Supurddar protesed their demeanour and said that he had obtained the possession of the land from the court and, therefore, he could not be asked to refrain from ploughing. On this, it is said, the accused party opened fire with their guns with the result that Naval, Ramjilal, Shri Kishan and Munshi sustained gun-shot injuries. Prahlad Singh, the Supurddar, also received injuries during this incident. 3. On this, it is said, the accused party opened fire with their guns with the result that Naval, Ramjilal, Shri Kishan and Munshi sustained gun-shot injuries. Prahlad Singh, the Supurddar, also received injuries during this incident. 3. Next day, the first information report of the occurrence, was lodged by Prahlad. According to the prosecution story. Ramjilal died on the spot and Naval died on his way, while he was being taken to the hospital at Hindaun. 4. It is significant to note that the first information report does not disclose the name of Ramavtar and Shridhar, who also sustained injuries during the incident, probably, as urged before us by the accused party that these two persons namely. Ramavtar and Shridhar were armed with 12-bore gun and they also opened fire at the accused party with the result that two persons belonging to the accused party namely, Alladin and Sahabuddin, a boy of 13 years of age, sustained gun-shot injuries. The report was also lodged on behalf of these injured persons namely, Alladin and Sahabuddin under section 307I.P.C. and it appears from the record that no case was registered against the complainant party on that report. However, the investigation started, but the grouse of the complainant party is that the investigation officer joined hands with accused party and did not properly proceed with the investigation. Six persons namely, Hari Narayan C.W.l, Hussain Khan C.W.2, Bhondu, C.W.3, Rewadia C.W.4, Risalsingh C.W.5, and Sugan C W.6, were examined by the investigating officer the very next day and the day thereafter. But the story revealed by these witnesses was entirely different from the one disclosed by the complainant party. However, on a complaint received from the complainant party by the Home Minister of the Government of Rajasthan, the investigation was handed over to the Deputy Superintendent, of Police Shri Madanlal Pareckh. P. W. 17. Formerly Shri Girdharisingh S. H. O., P. W. 10 was handling the investigation. During the investigation, three empty cartridges of 12-bore gun were recovered from the spot of occurrence. But those cartridges have not been produced before the Court nor were they sent for examination to the ballastic expert. It is significant that not a single gun was recovered from either the complainant party or from the accused party, except one recovered from the possession of Alladin, which was a muzzle-loading gun. But those cartridges have not been produced before the Court nor were they sent for examination to the ballastic expert. It is significant that not a single gun was recovered from either the complainant party or from the accused party, except one recovered from the possession of Alladin, which was a muzzle-loading gun. A challan against seven persons was put up by the investigating agency before the Munsif-Magistrate, Hindaun, after taking committal proceedings, sent all the seven persons to trial under section 302 I. P. C. to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses in support of its story. The Court called Hari Narayan C. W. 1, Hussain Khan C.W. 2, Bhondu C. W. 3. Rewadia C. W. 4, Risalsingh C. W. 5 and Sugan C. W. 6 as Court-witnesses, who were left out by the prosecution and recorded their statements. Except Bherusingh accused, nobody produced any defence witnesses. Bherusingh, however, came in the witness-box as D. W. i. 6. The learned trial Judge, after very carefully examining the prosecution and defence versions and turning out a very elaborate judgment, recorded the order of acquittal of all the accused persons. This order has been challenged by the State before us. 7. The judgment of the trial court was very carefully perused by us and we can say that inspite of ail the labour taken by the learned trial Judge, it does not throw much light on the crux of the matter which ought to have been considered by the trial court to arrive at the conclusions warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the learned trial Judge, after considering certain discrepancies, which are no doubt glaring on the face of the record, gave the benefit of doubt to the accused persons. 8. The statements of the eye-witnesses were read over to us. Mr. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the accused-respondents urged that bare perusal of the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot lead the Court to any conclusion, which may be just and fair to the accused party. He pointed out. that, the story as disclosed in the First Information Report is entirely different from the facts which gave rise to this incident. Mr. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the accused-respondents urged that bare perusal of the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot lead the Court to any conclusion, which may be just and fair to the accused party. He pointed out. that, the story as disclosed in the First Information Report is entirely different from the facts which gave rise to this incident. According to the accused party, the held under dispute i. e. field No. 109, was not being cultivated by the complainant party, but it was field No. 107 and 108 belonging to Genda which was being ploughed through the aid of the hired ploughmen by Prahiadsingh Supurddar. It is said that the persons belonging to the Fakir community to whom the said two fields belonged tried to pursuade Prahlad and the hire ploughmen not to carry on the ploughing operation in their field, but they persisted in their pursuit to plough to fields belonging to the Fakirs. According to the defence-version,the Patwari was sent for and a request was made by the accused party to wait till the patwari arrives. But it appears that both the parties were impatient to settle their scores and, therefore, guns were fired from both sides. Shridhar, who was a member of the complainant party, according to the accused party, had a 12-bore gun which was licenced one and it was Shridhar who opened lire at the accused party injuring both Alladin and Sahabuddin. This fact has been purposely withheld from the First Information Report and the charge of Mr. Chatterjee is that while lodging the F. I. R. . Prahlad deliberately did not give the name of Ramavtar and Shridhar, because a report was already lodged at the Police Station by the accused party that Alladin and Sahabuddn were injured by a gun-shot fire by Ramavtar and Shridhar. This fact undoubtedly finds corroboration from the prosecution witnesses that Alladin was arrested by the Station House Officer next day from the hospital where he was admitted as an injured patient having sustained injuries from the gun-fire. Of-course, there is nothing to show that Sahabuddin was also injured. However, the unexplained injuries of Alladin, according to Mr. Chatterjee, throws the light on this fact that guns were used from both sides and, therefore, the main argument of Mr. Of-course, there is nothing to show that Sahabuddin was also injured. However, the unexplained injuries of Alladin, according to Mr. Chatterjee, throws the light on this fact that guns were used from both sides and, therefore, the main argument of Mr. Chatterjee is that unless the prosecution has come out with a definite case as to which party opened the gun-fire first, it is difficult to say that the accused party, which caused injuries to six persons was an aggressor in this case. According to him, accused party could use guns only in their right of self-defence. 9. The second question urged by Mr. Chatterjee before us is that this is, ex facie a case of over implication. Jaganlal P. W. 8 was the Patwari, according to the prosecution witnesses themselves, when he was examined by Mr. Mishra who had conducted the trial before the present trial had started, the prosecution witnesses admitted that Patwari was sent for but at the trial the prosecution took a somersault and came out with a simple story that the accused party which was hiding itself behind the foothills of nearby hillock, all of a sudden came to the spot and opened fire In these circumstances, it is vehemently argued by Mr. Chatterjee that Jaganlals testimony becomes very relevant to find out as to whether Rajputs who had nothing to do with the quarrel between the complainant party and the Fakirs were really present at the spot or not. 10. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by Mr. Chatterjee. It is true that the story narrated by the prosecution witnesses examined before Mr. Mishra at the first trial was that after the accused party came to the spot, a suggestion was thrown that Patwari Jaganlal P. W, 8 may be sent for and let the land be measured by him and if the cultivation was going on in the alleged fields of the Fakirs i. e. fields No. 107 and 108, then the complainant party should fore go the ploughing. Jaganlal P.W. 3. who has appeared as witness on behalf of the prosecution, has admitted that one Ramjilal Mali was sent to call him from the village to the spot for measuring the land and resolving the dispute between the parties. When Jaganlal in the company of some other villagers, reached the spot near the place of occurrence, he heard the guns firing. who has appeared as witness on behalf of the prosecution, has admitted that one Ramjilal Mali was sent to call him from the village to the spot for measuring the land and resolving the dispute between the parties. When Jaganlal in the company of some other villagers, reached the spot near the place of occurrence, he heard the guns firing. He was hardly at a distance of two to three furlongs from the spot of occurrence and thereafter the injured party was seen going towards the village and they met Jagan on the way. When Jagan enquired from the injured eye witnesses as to what had happened, they said that the Fakirs had brought them this plight. From the Jagan's testimony it is clear that the presence of the Rajputs was not disclosed by the eye witnesses when an enquiry was made about the firing by Jagan. This conduct of the eye witnesses makes the presence of the Rajputs at the place of occurrence very doubtful and it appears that the prosecution did not disclose the connect state of facts which led to this incident. It may also be noted here that the F. I. R. was lodged by Prahlad next day. The delay has not been properly explained and, therefore, a doubt is created whether the true story was revealed in the first version of the incident while lodging the F.l.R. 11. We have very carefully perused the statements of the eye-witnesses and also the court-witnesses. It is really very deplorable affair that the investigation in this case has not been properly done and Shri Girdharisingh, S. H. O. P. W. 10 was openly charged by the complainant party for having extended a helping hand to the accused party. The State Government had intervened and the investigation was transferred from the hands of Girdharisingh to Shri Madanlal P.W. 17. Girdharisingh no doubt examined all the six court-witnesses next day, but since the statements were recorded by a person who was interested in the accused party, it is very difficult for the Court to place reliance on the testimony of these court-witnesses, who had given a twist to the story. The Court therefore, is left with a very responsible task of extracting the truth out of the falsehood which has been mixed in such a manner that great difficulty is felt to find out the truth. 12. The Court therefore, is left with a very responsible task of extracting the truth out of the falsehood which has been mixed in such a manner that great difficulty is felt to find out the truth. 12. The prosecution unfortunately has not come out with clean hands. This fact has been suppressed deliberately that gun was also fired from the side of the complainant party during this incident. We are left in doubt when we find from the testimony of Madanlal and Girdharisingh that Alladin was lying injured when he was arrested by the investigating agency and that the injuries were sustained by a gun fire. The suppression of the names of two injured persons namely, Ramavtar and Shridhar in the F.l.R. also throws light on the manoeuvring done by the prosecution to hide this fact that the complainant party had also opened fire towards the accused party. The seizure of the three empty cartridges of the 12-bore gun also indicates that the 12-bore gun was used during this incident. Shridhar had a licence for a 12-bore gun. It is the consistent case of the prosecution that the members of the accused party were armed with muzzie-loading gun. The presence of the three empty cartridges on the spot of occurrence, therefore, leaves no room for doubt that the complainant party also resorted to force by using gun towards the accused persons. 13. This fact raises a very grave question whether the gun was used by the accused party after the complainant party had already resorted to gun-firing or it was only in self-defence that the complainant party had to use their gun. Both the parties are silent about this affair. We, therefore, find it very difficult to fasten the guilt on the accused party for having used guns against the complainant party as an aggressor party 10 cause death of the two persons. This fact cannot altogether be ruled out that accused party might have been compelled to open fire against the complainant party in self-defence. In these circumstances, we feel it difficult and it is quite unsafe to convert the order of acquittal in to one of conviction. 14. The appeal of the State, therefore, fails and it is hereby dismissed. *******