SHRIMAL, J. There were two rival groups in village Jaghina one of which was headed by Heera Singh and the other by Lotan Singh, acted as guiding force of the other Heera Singh attached to Bhagor Jat community, whereas Lotan Singh was connected with Sogaris Jats. There is no dispute that there was deep seated malicious prolonged hostility between the two groups. They were also involved in protracted litigation. On January 7, 1971 at about 8.00 a.m. five members of the accused party sustained injuries in a scuffle. The severs hurts caused to Karan Singh were proved to be fatal as a result whereof he died in the hospital 8 days after the accurrence. 11 persons of the complainants group also sustained injuries in the same incident. The total number of injuries sustained by them went upto 69 The injuries suggest that both the sides must have been equipped with such as spears, lathis and sharp edged weapons. Two reports were lodged with the Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur, one made by Heera Singh on which emerged in case No. 3 of the 1971 registered against 29 persons including the appellants. 2. The case disclosed in the first information report. Ex P/5, lodge 1 by Heera Singh, is that on the fateful day (i.e on January 7,1971) the informant took 7 or 8 persons on the tube well of Shivram to prod tractor for drawing out water from the well. After the tractor began working, Shivram and his son got themselves engaged in irrigating the standing crop. Soon after the accused having formed an unlawful assembly and arming themselves with lathis, spears and sharp edged weapons came on the tube well of Shivram They made violent onslaught with persistence upon the complainant and inflicted a number of injuries on their persons As many as 69 injuries were caused to them Samandar Singh, Tej Singh and Gordhan Singh tried to rescue them, but they too were not spaced. As many as 11 persons of complainants party were injured. On the information lodged by the opposite camp, case No. 4 of 1971 was registered. The report gave a conflicting version. 3. After completing investigation in case No 3 of 1971 a challan against 28 persons was submitted to the Court of Additional Munsif Magistrate, Bharatpur. As many as 11 persons of complainants party were injured. On the information lodged by the opposite camp, case No. 4 of 1971 was registered. The report gave a conflicting version. 3. After completing investigation in case No 3 of 1971 a challan against 28 persons was submitted to the Court of Additional Munsif Magistrate, Bharatpur. Learned Magistrate, after holding inquiry in accordance with the provisions of section 207-A Cr.P.C., 1898, committed all the accused to take trial in the court of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur on charges under Sections 147,307/149, 326/149 and 324 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the indictments. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses in support of their case Of these witnesses, 11 persons namely, PW 1 Heera Singh, PW 2 Sadan Singh, PW 3 Girraj Singh, PW 5 Roop Singh, PW 6 Mohan Singh, PW 8 Gordhan Singh, PW 10 Janak Singh, PW 11 Samandar Singh, PW 12 Tej Singh, PW 13 Jagan Singh and PW 15 Kishan Singh are the injured eye witness of the occurrence, PW 16 Nihal Singh was also an eye witness of the incident. PW 9 Manjiram and PW 17 Sriram Verma were the formal witnesses, who investigated the case. The depositions of Dr. D.P. Mishra and Dr. M N. Saxena recorded by the committing court were given in evidence in that rial court in accordance with the provisions of Section 509 Cr.P.C., 1896. They are marked as Exs. P/6 and P/31 respectively. On the requisition of the Medical Jurist, General Hospital, Bharatpur Dr. M N. Saxena, Radiologist conducted X-Ray examination of the injured. The accused denied their complicity in the crime and asserted that they had been falsely implicated because of the prolonged series of conflicts and bitter animosity and rescour. Some of the accused pleaded that the complainants party comprising of 15 or 16 persons assaulted Karan Singh on his field near Gablawala well. They endeavoured to rescue him, but they too were not spared. In defence they examined six witness, including D W. 6 Dr. D.P. Mishra, who had examined the injuries sustained by the accused. 4. Learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur held that both the parties had sustained injuries in the course of the same occurrence. He also concluded chat the incident had not taken place on or near the tuba well of Shivram as alleged by the prosecution. D.P. Mishra, who had examined the injuries sustained by the accused. 4. Learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur held that both the parties had sustained injuries in the course of the same occurrence. He also concluded chat the incident had not taken place on or near the tuba well of Shivram as alleged by the prosecution. The court ascertained that the field of Vijai Singh (i.e. fields Nos. 51 and 52 as shown in the site plan Ex. P/3) were the actual scene of crime. The court further reached the conclusion that the members of the complainant party were also equipped with arms. According to the trial court it is incredible that almost all the witnesses would snatch arms from the accused persons and would in flict injuries on them. Getting support from the various contradictions appearing in the statements of the eye-witness, learned judge held that the accused Lotan Singh and Sheru alias Sher Singh were innocent. They were consequently acquitted As regards the other accused, learned Judge held that their belligerent notion resulted in the numerous injuries causad to the other partys personnel. It was a predetermined attack. He accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as under: — **** TABLE **** 1. Chhitar Singh u/s 307 IPC 5 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 148 IPC 2 years R.I. u/s 326/149 IPC 2 years R. I. 2. Pauran Singh u/s 326 IPC 4 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/- u/s 148 IPC 2 years R.I. u/s 307/149 IPC 2 years R.I. 3. Basudeo, ) u/s 324 IPC 3 years R.I and a fine of ) Rs 200/ each. 4. Sheshpal, ) u/s 148 IPC 2 years R. I. each. ) 5. Karan Singh, ) u/s 307/149 IPC 2 years R. I. each. ) 6. Devi Singh, ) u/s 326/149 IPC 2 years R. I. each. ) 7. Kishan Singh, ) 8. Gang a Singh, ) 9. Prakash, ) 10. Babu Singh, ) 11. Diwan, ) 12. Shiv Lal, ) u/s 323 IPC 1 years R. I. and a fine of ) Rs. 100/- each. 13. Pyarey Lal, ) 14 Dharmi & ) Dharam Singh,) 15. Padam Singh, ) u/s 147 IPC 2 years R I. each. 16. Chbiddi, ) u/s 307/149 2 years R.I. each. 17. Hari Singh, ) IPC. 18. Hazari, ) 19. Mahendra Singh) u/s 326/149 2 years R. I. each. 100/- each. 13. Pyarey Lal, ) 14 Dharmi & ) Dharam Singh,) 15. Padam Singh, ) u/s 147 IPC 2 years R I. each. 16. Chbiddi, ) u/s 307/149 2 years R.I. each. 17. Hari Singh, ) IPC. 18. Hazari, ) 19. Mahendra Singh) u/s 326/149 2 years R. I. each. 20. Bhagwan Singh,) I.P.C. 21. Brijlal @ Birji, ) 22. Badan Singh @ ) Badnij ) 23. Bhimsen @ ) " Bhima, ) 24. Ranji Lal, ) 25. Nathi Singh, ) 26. Jangalia Singh,) 5. Aggrieved by the above verdict the convicted accused-appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence by this appeal. 6. Mr. C.L. Agarwal assisted by Mrs. Renu Chatterjes has urged that there are certain preponderant or outstanding features in this case, which are to throw genuine doubt on the prosecution case as whole. It has been urged that the prosecution witnesses have not deposed true version of the occurence. They have changed the location of the incident. The evidence of this case, counsel adds, is of a partisan character on which no reliance should have been placed. The only independent witness examined is PW 4 Devi Singh, who has not supported the prosecution story. He has rather promoted the defence plea that the fight had actually taken place near the well, known as Gulabwala, on the field where mustard crop was standing. The eye witnesses examined in this case on behalf of the prosecution are highly unscrupulous and unreliable. The evidence pertaining to the acquitted accused cannot be distinguished from that which relates to the connected culprits. 7. Mr. M.I, Khan, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, supports the conviction of the accused. He contends that from the long standing animosity between the two rival groups it could safely be inferred that both the parties were predetermined to have trial of strength. Some members of the appallants party armed with deadly weapons lay in ambush in the mus-tared field. Rest of them came from the village. The accused came after making full preparation for a fight. The irresistible inference would be that their intention was to cause injuries to the members of the other party. They indubitably constituted an unlawful assembly and the injuries inflicted on the members of the complainant party, were caused in furtherance of the common object. The accused, therefore, are individually a? The accused came after making full preparation for a fight. The irresistible inference would be that their intention was to cause injuries to the members of the other party. They indubitably constituted an unlawful assembly and the injuries inflicted on the members of the complainant party, were caused in furtherance of the common object. The accused, therefore, are individually a? d constructively liable for the crimes alleged to have been committed. In support of his contention learned Public Pro-secuter placed reliance on Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1). He also argues that it is a case of a free fight. He categorises the free fight under the following two heads; (1) where a mutual conflict develops and there is no reliable and acceptable evidence as to how it had casued and at whose instance Such a case would be one of a sudden fight. In a case of this nature each individual accused could be held responsible for the injuries caused by him; and (ii) where a free fight is the result of a pre planned preparation and attack. In such a case all the persons participating in the occurrence would be held vicariously liable. The learned counsel added that the case in hand falls into the second category. 8. We have given earnest considerations to the rival contentions of the parties, perused the record and examined it in light of the criticism levelled by the learned counsel appearing on behelf of both the parties From the acquittal of the two accused Lotan Singh and Shera alias Sher Singh, against which the State has not filed any appeal, we will proceed on the assumption that the prosecution version regarding exhortation alleged to have been made by these two accused at the time of assault has not been substantiated and the account of the occurrence given by the prosecution witnesses to that extant is apparently untrue. 9. A perusal of the first information report Ex. P/3 shows that it had been lodged with the Police Station on January 7, 1971 at 3:30 pm i. e. after about seven hours and a half of the occurrence. As had been observed by the Supreme Court in Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (2) delay in first information report is fatal to the prosecution It is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence from the stand point of the accused. As had been observed by the Supreme Court in Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (2) delay in first information report is fatal to the prosecution It is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence from the stand point of the accused. The first information report also does not bear any endorsement as to when it reached the Court of learned Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of Section 187, Cr.P.C., 1898. There is also significant different version given by the witnesses in the Court vis-a-vis disclosed in the first information report. Non mention of the injuries received by some of the accused in the first information report is consequential and vital. In the first information report it has been mentioned that members of the accused party went to the field of Shivram and assaulted Roopa, Girraj Singh, Mohan Singh and others, who ran to and fro to be defended from attack or injury. Heera Singh, Shivram and Ghanshyam Singh also left the tractor and rushed for life is the opposite direction to seek shelter and got themselves hidden in the neighbouring fields The eye-witnesse examined on behalf of the prosecution except PW 4 Devi Singh have on the contrary stated that Karan Singh attempted a blow with a spear on Shivram who then snatched away the spear from his hand and inflicted three blows on his person. This suggests an infallible and positive improvement in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Such an account of the event, it appears has been introduced at the stage of the trial just to explain the fatal injuries sustained by Karan Singh (since deceased) in the course of the same incident. Shivram has also deliberately been assigned the role of assaulting Karan Singh, because by the time the prosecution witnesses could be examined in the Court, Shivram had already expired. Learned Sessions Judge, there is no manner of doubt, correctly held that the fight did not take place on or near Shivrams tube-well Had the incident occurred on Shivrams tube well, Shivram, his son Ghanshyam Singh and Heera Singh would not have been spared. The statement of the investigating officer reveals that no marks of blood marks were discovered in the field of Shivram. The statement of the investigating officer reveals that no marks of blood marks were discovered in the field of Shivram. In an occurrence where five persons were injured on the side of the accused, out of whom one sustained fatal injuries and 11 persons of the complainants party sustained 69 injuries, the blood marks, in the natural course of events, should have been visible on the field of Ghyanshyam Singh, Their total absence throws irrisistable suspicion regarding the scene of crime. The absence of blood on the alleged scene of occurrence in suggestive of the fact that the prosecution witnesses heve deliberately changed the site of the event with the ulterior motive of depriving the accused of the plausible plea of self defence. Admittedly all the ey-ewitnesses, except PW 4 Devi Singh examined on behalf of the prosecutions, are biased and inimical. Most of them were facing prosecution in relation to the same occurrence in a cross case instituted on the first information report No. 4 of 1971. When the witnesses are inimical their evidence has to be scrutinised very carefully Reference may be made to Nankhu Singh vs. State of Bihar (3). Where a large number of persons make attack, it is very difficult for a person to state as to who caused which injury on a particular part of a particular individual. If any witness attempts to do so, he may excite grave suspicion with regard to his veracity. Reference in this connection may be made to Baldeo Singh vs. State of Bihar (4). In that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that in a mob where several people give blows to the victim at one and the same time it is impossible to particularise the blows. If any witness attempts to do it, his veracity is doubtful. In the case on hand the witnesses have tried to describe not only their own injuries, but injuries sustained by other persons in surprising detail. They were confronted with their police statements and they had to admit that those details were not given by them in police. Omission of substantial nature in police statement is fatal vide Yudhishtir vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (5). Learned Sessions Judge has discussed thread bare the various contradictions appearing in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. They were confronted with their police statements and they had to admit that those details were not given by them in police. Omission of substantial nature in police statement is fatal vide Yudhishtir vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (5). Learned Sessions Judge has discussed thread bare the various contradictions appearing in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Above all, these witnesses have deliberately given a false account as to the on set quarrel. The prosecution here has not correctly put forth the genesis of the happening, which remains erratic. The prosecution cannot avail itself of its own blatant error. The benefit must go to the accused. Reference may be made to State of Bihar vs. Mohammed Khursheed (6). 10. Generally speaking oral testimony may be classified into three categories namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. It is in the third category of cases that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particular by reliable testimony direct or circumstantial. It may be as Mr. M. I. Khan has argued before us that there is an element of truth in the prosecution story and that considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true. But between "may be true" and "must be true" there is a long distance to travel. This distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. Reference may be made to Sarwansingh vs. State of Punjab (7j. In this case there is no cogent and reliable evidence to hold that the accused-appellants were the aggressors. The trial Court has failed to notice the obove circumstances, which throw considerable doubt about formation of unlawful assembly by the appellants. The infirmities in the prosecution case, pointed out above, make it difficult to believe that the trouble originated in the manner suggested by the prosecution. Having regard to the injuries sustained by 11 persons on the side of the prosecution and also by persons on the side of the accused it seems that there was a free fight between the two sides. The defence version of the occurrence that fight took place on the field of Karan Singh (since deceased) is also not true and the trial Court for convincing and sufficient reasons has rightly rejected, it. The defence version of the occurrence that fight took place on the field of Karan Singh (since deceased) is also not true and the trial Court for convincing and sufficient reasons has rightly rejected, it. Considering all the circumstances, we do not think it possible to say with certainly that the accused were the aggressors, though undoubtedly the prosecution witnesses sustained quite a large number of injuries. As we have already held the accused were not the aggressors, no case either under Section 147 or 148 I.P.C. can be said to have been made out against them and the conviction of the none of the accused is sustainable with the aid of Section 149 IPC. 11. The question that still remains to be answered is whether it is possible to come to a firm conclusion as to which injury was caused by which accused. Admittedly there is no reliable evidence on the record to hold as to what exactly transpired at the time of the incident and who acted as the aggressor and who dealt the first blow No doubt it is the duty of the Court to make an attempt to separate the grain from the cheff, the truth from falsehood. But where as here the two are so intermingled as to make it impossible to separate them, the evidence has to be rejected in is entirety; see K. N Virji vs. State of Gujrat (8). In the case on hand truth in so inextricably mixed up with falsehood that in the process of separation this Court will have to re-construct absolutely a new case for the prosecution by diverting the essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the contact As already mentioned above, the entire case depends upon the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses, a considerable portion of whose statements has been found to be unreliable both by the trial Court and by us Right from the beginning the prosecution witnesses have given a distorted version of the incident. The fact that the eye-witnesses, examined on behalf of the prosecution, are injured person, assures their presence on the scene of the occurrence, but that does not necessarily mean that they have given a true version. The fact that the eye-witnesses, examined on behalf of the prosecution, are injured person, assures their presence on the scene of the occurrence, but that does not necessarily mean that they have given a true version. The evidence of an infirm witness does not become reliable merely because it has been corroborated by a number of witnesses of the same fraud for evidence is to be weighed and not counted. Reference in this connection may be made to Muluwa vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (9) The story given in the first information report has been given up at the latter stage of the trial and the cars developed by the witnesses during the course of trial has been found to be untrue to a considerable extent. 12. In criminal trial it is of prime importance for the accused to know as to what the exact prosecution case is. If the pivot of the prosecution case is not accepted, a new prosecution case cannot be made to impeiil the defence. In Devilal vs. The State of Rajasthan (10) the trial Court did not accept the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and rejected the prosecution case that Brijlal and Nathu had gone to the bus stand with guns. The learned Sessions Judge in that case acquitted Brijlal, Mukhtiar Singh Bahadur and Nathu but convicted Devilal, Jagram and Bihari, The High Court found that the prosecution evidence was totally false in regard to the version of Brijlal and Nathu going to the bus stand with guns as also the version that Nathu incited the other accused to open the attack. On the above findings their Lordships of the Suprema Court observed as under:- "Counsel for the appellant was correct in raising the principal contention in the forefront that the accused did never know that this was the prosecution case. It would rightly be said that if the bedrock of the prosecution case that Brijlal and Nathu came armed with guns to throw a challenge to Motaram and his sons could not prove as a fact, the whole prosecution case would fall like a pack of cards. In criminal trials it is of prime importance for the accused to know as what the exact case is. If the pivot of the prosecution case is not accepted a new prosecution case cannot be made to imperil defence. In criminal trials it is of prime importance for the accused to know as what the exact case is. If the pivot of the prosecution case is not accepted a new prosecution case cannot be made to imperil defence. In the present case, two of the accused are held both by the trial Court and by the High Court not to have been anywhere near the scene of occurrence. The entire prosecution case was that those two persons pointed to the enemies, namely, Motaram and his son and nephew. The further prosecution case was that those two persons gave the order to the accused to attack them. Those two persons opened the gun fire. Therefore when those two persons are found both by the Sessions Court and the High Court not to have been present the whole prosecution case chenges colour and becomes unworthy of belief." The ratio decidendi of this case is applicable to the facts of the case in hand. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhagirath vs. stats of Madhya Pradesh (11) that;- "It is well settled that the prosecution can succeed by substantially proving the very story it alleges. It must stand on its own legs. It cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defence. Nor can the court, on its own make out a new case for the prosecution and convict the accused on that basis." Thus in light of the above circumstances and evidence discussed, it can safely be concluded that prosecution has faild to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Throughout the inch of the criminal jurisprudence one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoners guilt beyond doubt. 13. Now remains the statement of PW 4 Devisingh, who, no doubt, in his statement before the Court stated that the fight took place in the field where mustard crop was growing. He further stated that on the tube well of Shivam quarrel did not take place and the field where the mustard crop was standing was situated at a near distance from the well of Shivram. He also stated that blood was seized by the police form that field. He further stated that on the tube well of Shivam quarrel did not take place and the field where the mustard crop was standing was situated at a near distance from the well of Shivram. He also stated that blood was seized by the police form that field. But this witness has not identified any of the accused and has not stated as to which of the accused caused which injuries on the persons of the injured and as such this witness cannot be of any help. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has urged that the statements of the injured eye-witnesses stand corroborated to none extent by the medical evidence and they can be relied upon at least to the extent they deposed against a particular accused regarding the witnesss own injury. 15. As already stated above almost all the prosecution witnesses, examined in this case, have made purposeful improvements in their statements to such an extent that in the circumstances of the case it cannot be vouchsafe for the effect that even the injured witnesses may have been conveniently made to swift the needs of the prosecution party. The major contradiction appearing in their statements regarding the vital part of the prosecution evidence makes their statements highly doubtful. PW 4 Devisingh has failed to assign any individual injury to any of the accused persons. None of the accused can be convicted on the basis of the statement of Devi Singh. Thus from whatever angle the matter is examined, the prosecution has faild to make out a case beyond reasonable doubt against the appelaants. When the substratum of the evidence given by the eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution has been found to be false, the only prudent course, in the circumstances of the case, left to us is to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellants. 16. For the foregoing reasons we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences awarded to the accused-appellants and acquit them. The accused-appellants are on bail, they need not surrender to their bail bonds which are hereby cancelled.