JUDGMENT Lodha J 1. The facts giving rise to this appeal by the accused Rewaram who has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Vidisha under Section 147 and 325 IPC and sentenced to three months and six months R.I. respectively, are these. 2. The prosecution case is that on 13-9-1969 at about 11.00 A.M. a crowd of about one to two thousand persons collected outside the house-cum-shop of P.W.2 Jamaluddin in the town of Vidisha and started crying that the house of Mohammedans may be set on fire and their property may be looted. It is alleged that the crowd broke open the door of the complainant's house and after bringing out the complainant gave him beating as a result of which he became unconscious. Thereafter the crowd looted the complainant's property from the shop as well as the house. The first information report of the occurrence was lodged by Jamaluddin at Police Station on 15-9-1969 at 9.00 A.M. The report has been marked Ex. P-4. In this report the complainant gave eight names from among the culprits They are: 1, Satish Kumar, 2. Rewa Chamar, 3, Nathu Chamar, 4. Nonit, 5. Imrat, 6. Moharsingh, 7. Dalchand, 8 Ramesh Jain. 3. After investigation the police challenged six persons namely Moharsingh, Nonit, Rewararn, Dalchand, Satish Kumar and Nathu in the Court of A.D.M. Vidisha who by his order dated 29-9-1970, discharged Moharsingh, Nonit, and Satish Kumar but committed Rewaram, Da1chand and Nathu to the court of Sessions to stand trial for offences u/s 147, 393, 454 and 325 read with Section 149 I.P.C. 4. After trial the learned Sessions Judge, Vidisha by his judgment dated 31-8-71 acquitted Dalchand and Nathu but convicted and sentenced Rewaram as stated above. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the case of the appellant is no better than that of Dalchand and Nathu who have been acquitted. It is submitted that the evidence of jamaluddin and his wife P.W.4 Joharbai is not reliable. He has also argued that the first information report was made after a great delay and deliberations and even thereafter in the course of trial the prosecution has adopted the method of pick and choose. 6. It may be pointed out that in the first information report no specific part has been assigned to any of the eight accused mentioned therein. 6. It may be pointed out that in the first information report no specific part has been assigned to any of the eight accused mentioned therein. What has been stated therein is that the eight persons named above had given beating to the complainant. The complainant Jamaluddin was examined by Dr. R.C. Pandey on 16-9-1969. The injury report is Ex P-3. According to the Doctor Jamaluddin had the following injuries on his body:- (1) Abrasion at the dorsam of Rt. palm at 5th metacarpal bone 1/3" X 1/4". (2) Swelling and tenderness Rt. palm. (3) Bruse over Rt. shoulder 2" X 1”, purple colour simple. On X-ray examination it was found that there was a fracture of distal end of 5th metacarpal. The X ray reports are Ex. P-6 and P-7. Now, it is significant that in the first information report Jamaluddin has not mentioned as to which accused had caused which injury. On the other hand a general and sweeping statement has been made that eight persons named therein had given him beating. Thus it is clear from the first information report which was lodged on the third day of the incident, that the complainant kept it open for him to assign the individual part to any of the accused as be liked during the course of trial. The police station Vidisha is only at a distance of four furlongs from the place of occurrence and there is no satisfactory explanation for making the first information report as late as that. This is the first infirmity in the prosecution case. 7. Then, it is worthy of notice that the complainant Jamaluddin adopted the method of pick and choose during the trial and stated that only three accused Rewaram, Dalchand and Nathu beat him with lathis Very cleverly be omitted the names of other accused mentioned in the first information report. When asked to explain this discrepancy in the first information report he has stated (vide para 26 of his statement) that he had not understood the matter at the time of lodging the report and therefore he had named therein Satish Kumar, Nonit, Imrat, Moharsingh and Ramesh also in the first information report, The explanation is not at all satisfactory and the fact that he chose three persons as his assailants during the trial and left out the other five, renders the witness unworthy of belief. The first information report is an important check regarding the truthfulness of the informant who is in this case the complainant himself and it would be unsafe to leave the fate of the accused in the hands of a person who adopted the method of pick and choose. 8. Jamaluddin has stated that Rewaram beat him with a lathi and Dalchand and Nathu grappled with him. It is said that Rewaram dealt two blows-one on the hand and the other on the waist. The medical evidence, however, shows that there was no injury on the waist of Jamaluddin. The learned lower court itself came to the conclusion that the allegation that Rewaram had given a lath; blow on the waist of Jamaluddin is not supported by medical evidence. The lower court has found that the role attributed by Jamaluddin and his wife to the accused Dalchand is not correct. 9. In my opinion, the case of Rewaram is not distinguishable from that of Dalchand and Nathu. The only ground on which the learned court below has distinguished the case of Rewaram from that of the other two accused is that because according to the medical evidence there was an injury on the right palm and right shoulder of Jamaluddin and since Jamaluddin had attributed two lathi blows to the appellant one on the palm and the other on the waist, the case against the appellant may be taken to be proved. The reasoning is laconic. If Jamaluddin and his wife Johar bai cannot be considered as otherwise truthful witnesses, the mere presence of injury on the palm of Jamaluddin would not be sufficient to connect the appellant with the crime. It appears to me that Jamaluddin has tried to improve the case in the course of trial. He had enough opportunity of deliberations before lodging the first information report. The lower court itself has observed that it was not difficult for him to go to the police station immediately after the occurrence and make a report. The absence in the F.I.R. of the part assigned to the appellant during trial, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, makes the evidence of Jamaluddin and Johar Bai highly doubtful. The lower court has found both these witnesses unreliable as against Dalchand and Nathu, as also on the point of looting of property of the accused. The absence in the F.I.R. of the part assigned to the appellant during trial, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, makes the evidence of Jamaluddin and Johar Bai highly doubtful. The lower court has found both these witnesses unreliable as against Dalchand and Nathu, as also on the point of looting of property of the accused. In this view of the matter, it must be held that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the case against the appellant beyond all manner of reasonable doubt. 8. The result is that I allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence ordered against the accused and hereby acquit him. He is on bail and need not surrender. His bail bond is discharged.