JUDGMENT 1. - Appellants Babulal, Madan Lal and Shanker Lal who are real brothers were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran for the offence of attempt to murder punishable under section 307 and 307-34 IPC. and convicted therein and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months.each. 2. The case of the prosecution which resulted in convictions and sentences of the appellants as aforementioned may be stated like this. The appellants suspected complainant Latoor of casting an evil eye on their sister, it is alleged that they were out to teach him a lesson for the same and that on April 1, 1977, at about 6.30 p.m. when the complainant Latoor was on his way to a neighbouring village they attacked him in furtherance of their common intention to kill him and inflicted gadansi blows to him. Latoor's version is that the appellant Madan Lal caught hold of him and Babu Lal inflicted four gadansi blows to him. He further complained that appellant Shanker Lal who was standing by exhorted his brothers to give further beating to him. It is alleged that PWs. Panna Lal and Prabhulal rescued the complainant from being injured further. 3. The report of the occurrence was lodged at the police station that very evening at 7.15 p. m. Dr. M. M. Datta examined Latoor and found four injuries wounds at his person. These injuries according to Dr. Datta were dangerous to life. 4. During the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the statement of PWs. Latoor, Dr. M. M. Datta, Panna Lal, and Prabhulal as some of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. PWs. Pannalal and Prabhu Lal did not support the prosecution story. They told the Sessions Judge that they had not seen any thing as was attributed to them. Relying on the testimony of complainant Latoor, the learned Sessions Judge recorded the findings that the appellant Madan Lal had caught hold of Latoor, that Babulal had inflicted four gadansi blows' to him and the third appellant Shanker La), who was standing by had been exhorting them to give further blows to the complainant. He, therefore, convicted Babu Lal under section 307 IPC and other two appellants under Section 307-34 IPC.All the three convicts have appealed. 5. He, therefore, convicted Babu Lal under section 307 IPC and other two appellants under Section 307-34 IPC.All the three convicts have appealed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended in the fore-front of his arguments that it is never safe to record a conviction on the self serving testimony of an injured person if the witnesses named by him as the eye witnesses of the occurrence have not supported his version. Learned counsel for the appellants also pointed out that complainant Latoor's statement is not of the type on which implicit reliance can be placed for recording a conviction. He has pointed out a number of information made by the complainant in his deposition at the trial as compared to his version in the F. I. R. It will be seen that in the F.I.R. the only part attributed to appellant Shanker Lal was that he was standing by and encouraging his brother as to give further beating to him. In his anxiety to implicate Shankar Lal completely in the commission of this crime the complainant improved his version in his deposition in the trial inasmuch as he told the learned Judge that appellant Shanker Lal had been exhorting his other two brothers to kill him. 6. Another improvement to which reference is made by the leasned counsel for the appellants is regarding the so called role played by Prabhu Lal and Panna Lal in the context of this occurrence. The complainant had told the police in the F.I.R. that PWs. Panna Lal and Prabhulal rushed to his rescue and that they had saved him from being injured further. In his deposition at the trial the complainant materially changed his version and stated that these witnesses had arrived at the scene of the occurrence at a time when the three accused were on their way out after giving the beating to him. 7. The story that the appellants had attacked the complainant in a pre-planned and concerted manner suffers from inherent improbabilities. Had the appellants any such intention as is attributed to them, all the three of them would have cared to arm themselves suitably for this purpose. It is alleged that out of the three appellants only one namely Babu Lal carried gadansi and the other two appellants were unarmed. This would indicate the possibility of false implication of one or more of the appellants by the complainant. 8. It is alleged that out of the three appellants only one namely Babu Lal carried gadansi and the other two appellants were unarmed. This would indicate the possibility of false implication of one or more of the appellants by the complainant. 8. For all these reasons I am of the opinion that the charges of which the three appellants have been convicted cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. I, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellants and instead acquit them. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. *******