Randhir Singh v. State of M. P. — 1977 DIGILAW 195 (MP)

Short Note : 1. The incident, because of which the appellants were prosecuted, is said to have taken place on 8-8-1969 in village Rampura, Police Station Chachoda, district Guna, at about 2 P. M. According to the prosecution case, the village Rampura and the adjoining village Peepalia have a common village border which is divided by the Chhapri Nala. The two fields bearing survey Nos. 2 and 12/1 are adjacent to this Nala and it is in these fields that the incident in question is said to have taken place. Ramsingh (P. W. 15) of village Tajpura had informed deceased Raghunath, Premnarain (P. W. 10) and Dhannalal (P. W. 11), both sons of the deceased, that the accused were grazing their cattle in the aforesaid two fields, in one of which there was standing crop of Jwar. The deceased and his two sons Premnarain (P.W. 10) and Dhannalal (P. W. 11) then left for the field and found accused Mahendra Singh, accused Bhujwalsingh, Balaram (D. W. 3) and a few others grazing their cattle in the Jwar field. Finding the deceased and these two prosecution witnesses coming there, some of those who were grazing their cattle ran away leaving accused Mahendrasingh and Bhujwalsingh on the spot. When the accused and their companions were challenged they raised cries, in response to which the remaining accused also came there. In the meantime, when the deceased and some of the prosecution witnesses were carrying the cattle of accused to the cattle pound the accused Mahendrasingh fired from a 12 bore gun because of which Premnarain (P. W. 10) and the deceased were hit. Because of another fire by accused Mahendrasingh. Dhannalal (P. W. 11) was hit A report of this incident was made by deceased Raghunath on the same day vide Ex- P-26 at Chachoda Police Station Subsequently, Raghunath died and all the aforesaid accused Were tried for offences under Ss. 302/149, 326/149, 324/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. 2. The defence of the appellants was that the grass land and the field in question belonged to Fateh Singh. their brother; that the cattle of the deceased had trespassed over their grass• land; that when the accused Mahendra Singh objected, deceased Raghunath assaulted Mahendrasingh and that in self-defence accused Mahendrasingh had to fire. 2. The defence of the appellants was that the grass land and the field in question belonged to Fateh Singh. their brother; that the cattle of the deceased had trespassed over their grass• land; that when the accused Mahendra Singh objected, deceased Raghunath assaulted Mahendrasingh and that in self-defence accused Mahendrasingh had to fire. So far as the remaining accused are concerned, their defence was that they were not even present when the incident in question took place. The specific defence taken by accused Mardan Singh was that from 7-8-1969, i.e., the day preceding the date of the incident, he was an indoor patient in a hospital where he was being treated by Dr. R. C. Jain (D. W. 1). The accused in support of their defence filed a number of certified copies of orders passed by revenue Courts to show that on the date of the incident the grass-land and the field in which the incident was said to have taken place were in their possession and it was the party of the deceased which had allowed their cattle to trespass over their fields. 3. The learned trial Judge rejected the defence raised by the appellants and concluded that the accused were not responsible for the death of Raghunath inasmuch as he did not die because of the gun-shot injuries received by him in this case at the hands of accused Mahendrasingh; that the accrued deceased Raghunath had only received grievous hurt because of the firing by the accused; that the accused caused hurt to the deceased Raghunath Premnarain (P. W. 10) and Dhannalal (P. W. 11) in prosecution of their common object and that the accused were guilty, as aforesaid. 4. In the High Court it was contended that there was overwhelming evidence that the grass-land and the field in question were in the rightful possession of the party of the accused; that they had every right to drive away the cattle of the deceased which had trespassed over these lands; that the first information report judged by the deceased was erroneously relied upon by the learned trial Judge as legal evidence, despite the fact that it was not admissible in evidence under section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and that appreciation of the evidence made by the learned trial Judge was very much erroneous. Learned counsel for the State, however, supported the findings of the learned trial Judge as fully justified. 5. Held: Having considered the respective contentions raised by both the parties. I am of the opinion that this appeal should be allowed to the extent and for the reasons given below. 6. Before proceeding further to examine the merits of the contentions raised by the parties in this Court, I would briefly refer to the reasons given by the learned trial Judge in coming to the conclusion about the guilt of the appellants. 7. It has been found that Premnarain (P.W. 10), Dhannalal (P W. 11) and the deceased received gun-shot injuries, but the deceased did not die because of the injuries sustained by him in this incident. The disputed fields, in which the incident in question took place, have been found to be in possession of the party of the deceased and that it was the cattle of the accused which had trespassed over these fields. (See paras 10 to 14 of the lower Court's judgment). The first information report lodged by the deceased (Ex. P-26) has virtually been treated as substantive evidence not only as a statement of the deceased but also as a statement to corroborate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses examined at the trial. (Vide paras 17 & 18). Regarding the defence raised by the appellants it has been said that neither during the course of investigation nor in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses in the committing Court, the defence raised in the trial Court was raised. The statements of some of the prosecution witnesses in the trial Court have been disbelieved in view of their previous statements in the committing Court. Lastly, it has been found that while the cattle of the accused was grazing in the field of the deceased and, thereafter, when the deceased and the prosecution witnesses Premnarain and Dhannalal were driving the cattle to the cattle pound the accused assaulted them and inflicted the injuries. 8. The question is how far the aforesaid reasoning is justified wither on facts or in law. It is an admitted fact that the deceased did not die because of the injuries received by him in this incident. Accordingly the statement made by him in the first information report (Ex. 8. The question is how far the aforesaid reasoning is justified wither on facts or in law. It is an admitted fact that the deceased did not die because of the injuries received by him in this incident. Accordingly the statement made by him in the first information report (Ex. P-26) cannot be said to be a statement of a deceased person either as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances resulting in his death. When this report was not admissible 3S the statement of a deceased under section 32 of the Evidence Act, the learned trial Judge could not rely upon it as a substantive piece of evidence or for corroborating the evidence given by the other prosecution witnesses in the trial Court, the reason being that the deceased Raghunath was not available to the accused for cross-examination and, if that statement in the first information report was not admissible under section 32 or any other section of the Evidence Act, then the same could not be used against the accused for any purpose whatsoever. 9. The learned trial Judge also erred in treating this statement in the first information report (Ex. P-26) as substantive evidence. A first information report can be used either to corroborate or contradict the maker of it in case he is examined. If the maker of the report is not available for examination and the party, against whom the report is to be used as evidence has no opportunity to cross-examine hi m, then the report cannot be used for any, purpose much less for the purpose of treating it either as substantive or as corroborative evidence. 10. The next question is as to whether the omission on the part of the accused to raise any particular defence either during the course of investigation or during cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses in the committing Court, would justify and inference that the defence raised in the trial Court is an afterthought. In para 17 of the trial Court's judgment (in fact two paragraphs have been numbered as 17), the learned trial Judge has drawn this inference. In may opinion, the inference is not at all justified. At the investigation stage the accused are not required to raise any particular defence and even if they raised, it cannot be considered unless it is admissible according to the Evidence Act. In may opinion, the inference is not at all justified. At the investigation stage the accused are not required to raise any particular defence and even if they raised, it cannot be considered unless it is admissible according to the Evidence Act. The omission to cross examine the prosecution witnesses on a particular defence in the committing Court would similarly not justify any such inference as has been drawn by the learned trial judge. At some stage the learned trial Judge even without coming to any conclusion regarding the reliability or otherwise of the prosecution evidence, had dealt with the defence evidence and rejected it. From what has been stated above it would be evident that the approach of the learned trial Judge has not been proper. 11. I, therefore, propose to consider the prosecution evidence, to decide as to what offence if any, has been made out against the accused. 12. Admittedly, the dispute between the parties was with regard to possession of a couple of fields which on the date of incident had either so me Jwar crop or some grass. The story given by Premnarain (P. W. 10) and Dhannalal (PW. 11) is that while they and the deceased Raghunath were at their residence, Ramsing (PW. 15) came and informed them that in their Jwar field the accused were grazing their cattle. Thereafter, all of the m went there and found that the accused Mahendrasingh and two other persons were grazing about 25 or 30 cattle in their Beed and Jwar field. The accused Bhujwalsingh armed with a Farsi and accused Mahendrasing armed with a gun were than also said to be present there. Thereafter, according to them, when they started driving the cattle to the cattle pound, accused Mahenrasingh and Bhujwalsingh shouted that the cattle was being driven to the cattle pound in response to which the other five accused came armed with spear, farsi, gun, etc, and resisted them from driving the cattle to the cattle pound. Lastly according to them, when the deceased Raghunath insisted that the cattle would be taken to the cattle pound, the accused Mahendrasingh fired followed by firing by accused, the deceased Raghunath, the prosecution witnesses Premnarain and Dhannalal were hit either on the feet or on the thigh. After firing 3 or 4 times and injuring these three persons, the accused, according to the aforesaid witnesses, ran away. 13. After firing 3 or 4 times and injuring these three persons, the accused, according to the aforesaid witnesses, ran away. 13. Dhannalal (P W. 11) has also given a similar account of the circumstances in which he, his brother Premnarain (P. W. 10) and father Raghunath were in formed by Ramsingh (P W. 15) and they went to the field where they found some of the accused grazing their cattle According to him also, when he, his brother Premnarain (P.W. 10) and the deceased Raghunath were drawing the cattle to the cattle pound, the accused raised cries in response to which the other accused came to the spot armed with guns which were fired by some of the accuse resulting in injuries to the deceased and these two witnesses. Ramsingh (P.W. 15), a resident of a neighbouring village, stated that while he was returning home he saw some cattle grazing in the field of the accused Mahendrasingh, but he did not see any cattle of the accused grazing in the field of the deceased Ragunath. The witness was then confronted with his Police statement in which he is said to have made a contradictory statement, but that statement cannot be used as substantive evidence. Sukhlal (PW. 13) who is said to have come to the place of incident soon after the incident had taken place, has also not supported the prosecution Case. Amarchand (P.W.7), whose field is in the neighbourhood of the place of incident has stated that while the deceased Raghunath and the prosecution witnesses Premnarain and Dhannalal were driving some cattle from their fields there was a quarrel between them and the accused Mahendrash. Bhujwalsingh and Narainsingh who came from the village. According to him, these three accused forcibly rescued the cattle which the deceased and the aforesaid two prosecution witnesses Dhannalal and Premnarayin were trying to take to the cattled pound. This witness was also dealt with by the prosecution under section 154 of the Evidence Act and was confronted with his Police statement (Ex. P-13). 14. According to him, these three accused forcibly rescued the cattle which the deceased and the aforesaid two prosecution witnesses Dhannalal and Premnarayin were trying to take to the cattled pound. This witness was also dealt with by the prosecution under section 154 of the Evidence Act and was confronted with his Police statement (Ex. P-13). 14. From the aforesaid evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it becomes clear that the incident resulting in injuries to the deceased Raghunath and Premnarain (P.W. 10) and Dhannal (P.W. 11) took place because of an attempt either on the part of the deceased and these two witnesses or on the part of the accused to take some cattle to the cattle pound. The prosecution case is that the disputed Beed and the Jwar field were in the rightful possession of the party of the deceased and it was the cattle of the accused which had trespassed on it. The defence of the accused is that the Beed and the Jwar field were in their possession and it was the cattle of the party of the deceased that had trespassed over it, and while they were attempting to take the cattle to the cattle pound, they were assaulted and it was in self defence that firing had to be resorted to with the intention of causing the minimum harm to the deceased and the prosecution witnesses. In these circumstances, it has to be determined whether either the version of the prosecution is established beyond any reasonable doubt or the defence raised by the accused is highly probabilised. 15. Narainsingh Patwari (P.W. 2) has been examined by the prosecution to show as to who was the recorded holder of the disputed field and the Beed and who was in their possession. He has stated that survey No. 12/1 was recorded in the name of Harbaksh, father of accused Randhirsingh, who is the brother of accused Mardansingh and a close relative of the remaining accused. According to him, in Samwat year 2025-26 (1969-70), there is an entry in the Khasra that the aforesaid survey number was in unlawful possession of Premnarain and Dhannalal. According to him, in Samwat year 2025-26 (1969-70), there is an entry in the Khasra that the aforesaid survey number was in unlawful possession of Premnarain and Dhannalal. The defence story is that there was a longstanding dispute between the party of the deceased and the accused and in accordance with the decisions by the revenue Courts, as appears from Exhibits D-9 to D-13 possession of these disputed fields was delivered to the party of the accused and since then it was the party of the accused which was in possession. The accused have produced warrants of possession (Exs. D-9 and D-11). The Nazir's reports (Ex. D-10 and D-13) show that in compliance with the orders passed by the revenue Courts, the possession of the disputed field was delivered to the party of the accused. Even (P.W. 13) Sukhlal has admitted in para 9 that their was a proclamation by beat of drum in the Village that possession of the disputed land known as 'Chhaprtwala field' was given to the accused Mardansingh. Exhibits D-14 to D-17 are the Khasra entries which show that the disputed field was held by Harbakshsingh father of Randhirsingh. The prosecution witnesses Premnarain and Dhannalal were questioned at length with regard to their claim for rightful holding and possession of the disputed field and the Beed, but, they, instead of justifying their claim for rightful holding and possession, stated that they were not aware of the survey number of the disputed field and, therefore, they were unable to tell as to how they justified their claim for rightful holding and possession. (See P.W. 10 para 16 and P.W. 11 para (11). Both of them were also asked about the disputes decided by the revenue Courts and the adverse decision, but they stated that though they lost in the lower Court, but their appeals were pending is the appellate Court. The manner in which these witnesses failed to justify their claim of rightful holding and possession coupled with the fact that the decisions of the revenue Courts Were against them will go to show that though they had no title to the disputed land and their claims were negatived by the revenue Courts, but they tried to enforce their claim for possession by such means which cannot be said to be lawful. If they were the recorded holders they could produce entries from the revenue records. If they were the recorded holders they could produce entries from the revenue records. A mere endorsement in the Khasra entries about unlawful possession by the party of the deceased would not justify an inference that the party of the deceased was in rightful possession or that the disputed lands were lawfully held by them In these circumstances, it will have to be held that on the date of the incident, it was the party of the accused which was the holder and in possession of the disputed field. 16. So far as the main incident is concerned, the version given by Premmarain (P. W. 10) and Dhannalal (PW. 11), the main prosecution witnesses, also does not appear to be absolutely reliable. It is stated by Premnarain that though the accused Bhujwalsing and accused Mahedrasingh were present in the field in which the cattle had trespassed and were armed with Farsi and gun and even though when they raised cries for help the remaining five accused also came there, armed with weapons, still he, Dhannalal (PW. 11) and the deceased Raghunath-all unarmed had the courage to drive about 25 to 30 cattle heads to the cattle pound. Ordinarily, if it was true that the party of these three unarmed persons was confronted with a party of about seven persons, all armed with either fire-arms, Farsis or lathis, it would not be in a position to drive about 25 to 30 cattle heads when it was apparent that if they took the cattle to the cattle pound despite the resistance of the opposite party, they would run the risk of being subjected to serious consequences. In para 21 Premnarain (P. W. 10) had to admit that when he accompanied with the deceased Raghunath and Dhanalal (P.W. 11) went to the spot on the information given by Ramsingh (P. W. 15), the deceased Raghunath was armed with a Farsi and the other two were armed with lathis. He has further admitted that no sooner the accused Mahendrasingh and Bhujwalsingh saw them coming armed, they ran towards the village, but before they reached they called the other accused in response to which all of them came there armed with weapons. He has further admitted that no sooner the accused Mahendrasingh and Bhujwalsingh saw them coming armed, they ran towards the village, but before they reached they called the other accused in response to which all of them came there armed with weapons. Balmukund (P.W. 12) has admitted in para 12 that in the committing Court he had made a statement that it was the accused Mahendrasingh who was driving the cattle and Dhannalal (P. W. 11) was not permitting him to collect the cattle for being taken to the cattle pound, He has further stated that the deceased Raghunath, Premnarain (P.W. 10) and Dhannalal (P.W. 11) were all armed with Farsis. He has also admitted that in the committing Court he had made a statement that it was after the incident in which the accused Mahendrasingh had fired, was over, the other six accused came to the spot. When called upon to explain this statement in the committing Court (Ex. P-24 A to A) the witness stated that he had no explanation for having made such a statement in that Court. Even in the Police statement (Ex. P-23) the witness had made a similar statement. From these two statements, it would, therefore, be clear that the version of this witness both during the investigation as well as during the committal inquiry was that while the deceased Raghunath Premnarain (P.W. 10) and Dhannalal (P.W. 11) were armed with Farsis and there was some incident between them and accused Mahendrasingh, the remaining six accused were not at all present, and came to the spot only after the firing by accused Mahendrasingh. This statement further shows that it was the accused Mahendrasingh who was attempting to drive the cattle which had trespassed on their field, and the party of the deceased was resisting that attempt by him. This version appearing in the previous statement of this witness completely contradicts the version given by Premnarain (P.W. 10) and Dhannalal (P. W. 11), who, as already stated above, have come forward with a false claim with regard to the right of holding and possession of the disputed survey No. 12/1. 17. The accused have also led evidence in defence, and D.W. 3 Balram, D.W. 4 Madhosingh and D.W. 5 Fatehsingh have stated that the disputed field was not only held but possessed also by the party of the accused. 18. 17. The accused have also led evidence in defence, and D.W. 3 Balram, D.W. 4 Madhosingh and D.W. 5 Fatehsingh have stated that the disputed field was not only held but possessed also by the party of the accused. 18. In view of what I have found above, it becomes clear that the entire basis of the prosecution case which is said to give rise to the present incident, has not been correctly and truthfully given by the prosecution witnesses. On the contrary, they have come forward with false claims and have tried to give a version to show that though the deceased Raghunath and his two sons Premnarain and Dhannalal were quite innocent, yet the accused assaulted them. If the prosecution witnesses have failed to give a true and correct account of the incident and, on the contrary, told lies and attempted to build up a false claim, then certainly their evidence cannot be accepted. 19. Having found that the prosecution witnesses have not given a true and honest account of the incident, the next question that arises for consideration is as to what offences, if any, can be said to have been committed by the above-named appellants. 20. The prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of Premnarain (P. W. 10) and Dhannalal (P.W. 11). According to Premnarian, accused Bhujwalsingh and accused Mahendrasingh were already present at the place of the incident and when he accompanied with his brother and father reached there, both these accused and their servants ran away and started shouting that the cattle was being taken to the cattle pound. It is further stated by him that in response to the cries raised by these two accused, the other five accused came armed with Farsis, Lathis, etc., and thereafter the firing took place. Dhannalal (P.W. 11) also says that on the alarm raised by accused Bhujwalsingh and accused Mahendrasingh, the other accused came and then the firing took place. Because of the firing the deceased Raghunath sustained a fracture of the fibula bone in the thigh. (See P. W. 8 Dr. D. N. Datta para 1). Premnarain (P.W. 10) and Dhannalal (P. W. 11) also received simple injuries. Both these witnesses have attributed the firing to the accused Mahendrasingh and accused Mardansingh. No other specific overt act is attributed to any-of the remaining accused. (See P. W. 8 Dr. D. N. Datta para 1). Premnarain (P.W. 10) and Dhannalal (P. W. 11) also received simple injuries. Both these witnesses have attributed the firing to the accused Mahendrasingh and accused Mardansingh. No other specific overt act is attributed to any-of the remaining accused. The learned trial Judge has taken the view that all the seven accused had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing grievous hurt to Raghunath, Premnarain (P. W. 10) and Dhannalal (P.W. 11). I do not think that this view taken by the learned trial Judge is correct. 21. When it is evident from these two witnesses on whom the prosecution mainly relies, that it was only on an alarm raised by accused Mahendrasingh and Bhujwalsingh that the remaining accused came to the spot. There is nothing in their evidence that before the firing took place any or all of the accused had any talk among themselves. It would be clear from the prosecution evidence that there was no meeting of minds of these seven accused and there could thus be no community of object in their minds. If after their arrival at the place of incident, anyone of them did anything without even talking to the remaining accused, then only the person concerned will be responsible for his individual act and the remaining accused cannot be made liable on the alleged ground that he had formed an unlawful assembly with the rest and what was done by one was in prosecution of any common-object. In these circumstances, if it is found that accused Mahendrasingh and accused Mardansingh had fired, as alleged by these two prosecution witnesses, then they alone would be responsible for their individual acts, and the remaining accused cannot be made liable. 22. So far as accused Mardansingh is concerned, he has specifically pleaded that he was not even present either at the place or on the date of the incident. He has examined D.W. 1 Dr. R. C. Jain, Medical Officer of the Civil hospital as an indoor-patient on 7-8-1969 and was discharged at 6 A. M. on 9th August, 1969. According to the Doctor, this accused was suffering from acute Gastro-enteritis. He has produced the relevant entries (Ex. D-7) from the Daily Out-patients Register and the Indoor Patients Register (Ex. D-8). R. C. Jain, Medical Officer of the Civil hospital as an indoor-patient on 7-8-1969 and was discharged at 6 A. M. on 9th August, 1969. According to the Doctor, this accused was suffering from acute Gastro-enteritis. He has produced the relevant entries (Ex. D-7) from the Daily Out-patients Register and the Indoor Patients Register (Ex. D-8). The learned trial Judge has been very critical about this evidence of the witness. In my opinion, the reasons given by the learned trial Judge for disbelieving Dr. R. C. Jain cannot be accepted. Dr. Jain is a responsible officer of the State Government and it cannot be said that he had any personal interest in the accused. He has produced the registers maintained in the hospital and his evidence is fully corroborated by the en tries in Exs. D-7 and D-8. If, according to Dr. Jain, the accused Mahendrasingh was an indoor patient in Jamner civil dispensary from 7th August, 1969 at 10 A. M. to 9th August, 1969 at 6 A. M., then he could not be present at the place of incident on 8-8-1969. I am, therefore, of the opinion that there is no valid t reason to disbelieve Dr. Jain (D. W. 1) whose evidence establishes beyond any doubt that this accused could not be present at the place of incident on 8-8-1969. 23. It may be mentioned that all the seven accused are from the same family. Accused Randirsingh, Lalsingh, Mahendrasingh and Dhirajsingh are real brothers. The accused Narainsingh is son of accused Mardansingh. There is, therefore, every reason to believe that because of the longstanding dispute regarding the agricultural land and the Seed, an attempt was made by these witnesses to implicate practically the whole of the family, so that if all the adult members remain behind the bars, they would be in a position to cultivate the disputed field for a considerable long period. Accordingly, in my opinion so far as the accused Mardansingh is concerned, his plea of alibi has to be accepted for the reasons given above. 24. So far as the accused Mahendrasingh is concerned, he has specifically pleaded that while he was trying to take the cattle, which had trespassed into his field, to the cattle pound, the deceased and his two sons attempted to assault him with Farsis. 24. So far as the accused Mahendrasingh is concerned, he has specifically pleaded that while he was trying to take the cattle, which had trespassed into his field, to the cattle pound, the deceased and his two sons attempted to assault him with Farsis. Balmukund (P. W. 12) has admitted in para 13 that the deceased Raghunath and the prosecution witnesses Dhannalal and Premnarain were armed with Farsis. The accused Mahendrasingh has stated that the deceased and his two sons, viz., Premnarain and Dhannalal, were grazing their cattle in his field; that when he went there they abused and tried to assault him with Farsis. In these circumstances, he had to resort to firing with the gun which he had with him at that time. It is not alleged by the prosecution that the accused Mahendrasingh first went to the village and then returned with the gun. According to the prosecution witnesses, Mahendrasingh was already present with the gun in his hand when they reached there. All the three injured persons were hit on the lower parts of their bodies. The deceased Raghunath was hit on the thigh, and Prem Narain (P. W. 10) and Dhannalal (P. W.11) were hit on the feet. The parts of the bodies of these two witnesses which were aimed to be shot at, clearly go to show that this accused intended to cause the minimum harm in the circumstances in which he bad a reasonable apprehension of being assaulted with Farsis. 25. If his apprehension of being subjected to grievous hurt by Farsis was reasonable, then he could, in the then circumstances, resort to firing in the exercise of the right of private defence of person. I, therefore, do not think that this accused had committed any offence. 26. So far as the other five accused are concerned viz. Randhirsingh. Lalsingh Narayinsingh, Bhujwalsingh and Dhirajsingh, I have already held above that there was no unlawful assembly and, therefore, there was no common object. No individual overt act is attributed to these five accused. They cannot in these circumstances be held responsible. 27. Apart from the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses, the accused have also led evidence in defence to prove their innocence. No individual overt act is attributed to these five accused. They cannot in these circumstances be held responsible. 27. Apart from the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses, the accused have also led evidence in defence to prove their innocence. However, in the light of the view that I have taken above of the prosecution witnesses, I need not consider the evidence adduced in defence, as, in my opinion, the prosecution evidence itself does not prove that the accused are guilty. 28. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, all the above named accused are entitled to be acquitted. 29. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The convictions of the accused-appellants Randhirsingh, Lalsingh, Narainsingh, Bhujwalsingh, Mardansingh, Dhirajsingh and Mahendrasingh under section 326 read with section 149, 324 read with sections 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Cattle Trespass Act and the sentences of three years rigorous imprisonment, rigorous imprisonment for one year, R. I. for four months and the fine of Rs. 50 respectively awarded thereunder are hereby set aside and they are acquitted. All the accused-appellants are on bail. Their bail-bonds are hereby discharged.