JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal of the respondents who were tried for offence under Section 302 IPC. 2. The prosecution case, as given in the First Information Report lodged by one Khairati PW 1 on February 3, 1971, is that on February 2, 1971 there was an exchange between the deceased Janshi and the accused and that when in the evening at 4. p.m. the deceased was returning from his well to his house, he was beaten by 8 persons including the present respondents when they passed infront of accused's house. The deceased was said to have died on the spot. The police, however, did not choose to challan all the persons but only challaned the present respondents. 3. After trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the case against the respondents not proved and acquitted them. The State has come up in appeal to this court. 4. The eye-witnesses, who have been examined by the police are PW 1 Khairati, PW 2 Dev Karan, PW 3 Moolya, PW 4 Dhanni and PW 5 Durga. 5. PW 1 Khairati who is the first informant deposed that he was sitting in the house of Gokul which is at a distance of about 100 feet from the verandah of one Dev Karan. According to him, the deceased was also sitting there and he saw the respondents armed with lathis, followed by Kanhaiya, Ram Sahai, Jhandu, Marliya, Laddo and Ramvati. Kanhaiya is said to have asked Shivlal and Murli to finish the deceased and on this, both of them hit the deceased with lathis, on which the deceased fell down and the accused's companions ran away. He went to the verandah of Dev Karan and thereafter Ratna, Gokul and Budha came. It is important to note that this version of the place of occurrence has now been shifted to the verandah of Dev Karan rather than the path infront of the accused mentioned by him in the First Information Report. The version that at the instigation of Kanhaiya the two respondents started beating the deceased is completely missing in the First Information Report. Not only that, there is no specific part attributed to the present respondents in the FIR. According to the first information report, several blows are said to have been given by the present respondents as well as other six persons. Not only that, there is no specific part attributed to the present respondents in the FIR. According to the first information report, several blows are said to have been given by the present respondents as well as other six persons. The first information report did not name any of the other eye-witnesses. This witness has left a very bad impression on the mind of the trial court, which has described him as an utter liar who can make any statement to suit his convenience. When confronted with the statement in the First Information Report wherein he had stated that when the deceased was beaten when he passed infront of the house of the accused, he denies having made the statement. The Investigating Officer PW 8 has clearly stated that the first information report is based on the written report given by PW 1. FIR was written by the petition writer PW 6 who has deposed that he wrote exactly what he was told by Khairati PW 1. We are not inclined to take a different view of the characterisation by the trial court of unreliability of PW 1. 6. PW 2 Dev Karan turned hostile because he stated that he, because of the darkness, could not see anything and could not say who had beaten the deceased. When confronted with his police statement that Murli and Shivlal had lathis in their hands and they had abused and beaten the deceased, he has stated that he had done so under the threat of police. Obviously the prosecution can derive no assistance from such a witness. 7. The next witness is PW 3 Moolya, who states that Murli and Shivlal came to the verandah of Dev Karan and gave blows, but he states that Khairati was not there 4t that time. In cross-examination, he has stated that he was called to the police station and was told that if he did not name Shivlal and Murli then he would be prosecuted. He further states that the police had told him to do as he was told and that if he would not do so, the police would prosecute him. He, in cross-examination, also says that he does not know who beat the deceased and he also admits that no blows were given on the chest or belly in his presence. He further states that the police had told him to do as he was told and that if he would not do so, the police would prosecute him. He, in cross-examination, also says that he does not know who beat the deceased and he also admits that no blows were given on the chest or belly in his presence. He has admitted that there was enmity between him on the one hand and Shivlal and Murli on the other. The Additional Sessions Judge did not find it possible to place any reliance on the statement of this witness and we are in agreement with him. 8. PW 4 Dhanni is the widow of the deceased who claims to have seen the occurrence from their field. According to her, she came from the field and reached the spot and found the accused giving blows on the chest of the deceased. According to her when she reached there, Dev Karan, Moolya and Khairati were also there. Now according to the evidence of Khairati he had seen the occurrence from the house of Gokul and when he reached Dev Karan's verandah, the accused had already ran away. Evidently, the statement of this witness that she saw the blows being given on reaching the place of incident i. e. verandah of Dev Kararn, is not believable because by then accused had gone away. In her police statement also, she has not mentioned that she had seen any one giving the blows to the deceased. The alleged motive that on that day Kanhaiya, the father of Shivlal had demanded Rs. 200/- from the deceased, who had refused and said that he had already returned the amount, did not find mention in her police statement, though she says she had so stated before the police, which, of course is unbelievable. Her name also was missing from the First Information Report and makes her a doubtful eye-witness, considering that she is the wife of the deceased and if she had seen the occurrence, it is not believable that Khairati would have omitted to mention her. 9. The next witness is Durga son of deceased Jhinsi. He states that when he followed his father, lie saw Murli and Shivlal going to Dev Karan's house. On seeing them, he went to the verandah and saw Shivlal giving blows on the chest of his father. 9. The next witness is Durga son of deceased Jhinsi. He states that when he followed his father, lie saw Murli and Shivlal going to Dev Karan's house. On seeing them, he went to the verandah and saw Shivlal giving blows on the chest of his father. He admits that he accompanied Khairati when the latter got the first information report recorded by the petition writer and he also heard it, but did not make any correction in the version given by Khairati nor did he care to do so. In his police statement, there is no mention that he had seen Shivlal and Murli giving lathi blows on the head of the deceased, though he says that he had stated to the police which considering the evidence of the Investigating Officer that the police statement were recorded correctly, falsifies this witness. His evidence that he had seen Shivlal and Murli giving blows on the head of deceased, is omitted in the police statement. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found grave doubt about the truthfulness of the version given by him. We are in agreement with him. 10. The recovery of the lathis has been rightly disbelieved by the learned Additional Sessions Judge because no blood-stains were found-on them. This could, therefore, not avail the prosecution. The alleged eye-witnesses are also not believable, and as the trial court, which had the benefit of watching their demeanour,- has disbelieved them, 110 compelling reason has been shown to us to persuade us to take a different view from that taken by the trial court. 11. We are, therefore, not satisfied that this is a fit case where we should interfere with the order of acquittal of the learned Additional Sessions^Judge. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. *******