Short Note : 1. The material facts are that on 25.12.1973 at about 6:30 p.m. Mansingh (PW-2) (since injured) after returning from Sagar went to the house of Mangal Singh (PW-4) from where he started for his house. In the way near a Chirol tree, Mansingh (PW-2) and Mangal Singh (PW-4) met the appellants and had a talk with them. Soon after the appellants and their companions including Khilawan, Dilip Singh, Pragi Singh, Bir Singh, Guman Singh and one Paltu caught hold of Mansingh and by means of deadly weapons like Tabbal, Katerna and heavy sticks dealt a number of blows on him, almost severing his two hands and heavy sticks dealt a number of blows on him, almost severing his two hands and rendering him unconscious. 2. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted Khilawan, Dilip Singh, Bir Singh, Pragi Singh and Guman Singh of the offences charged. He found the appellants also not guilty of the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted them of that charge, but finding them guilty of the offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and in addition finding the appellants Jagdish and Mulu Singh guilty of the offence punishable under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants Feran Singh and Chandan guilty of the offence punishable under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code has sentenced them. 3. If we compare Man Singh's (PW-2) evidence before the Court on the one hand and his statements contained in the first information report and on interrogation during the investigation of the other hand, we find a number of glaring variations. Those variations, are not only confined to minor details, but embrace important matters. The importance of the first information report cannot be overstated because it is a document which contains the first version of the incident when the memory of the constituent events is fresh. Its importance becomes greater when it is made by a person who himself was a victim of the acts of the accused (See AIR 1953 SC 122 , AIR 1952 Mad. 821 and AIR 1955 Bhopal 9). 4. In this case, Mansingh had clearly omitted to mention the names of the appellants Jagdish and Chandan as the persons present at the scene of crime. 821 and AIR 1955 Bhopal 9). 4. In this case, Mansingh had clearly omitted to mention the names of the appellants Jagdish and Chandan as the persons present at the scene of crime. We have already seen that he had not hesitated to implicate other innocent persons namely Khilawan, Dilip Singh, Bir Singh, Pragi Singh and Guman Singh also. It therefore, becomes hazardous to rely upon his evidence. It is particularly so because he is now facing the trial for the alleged murder of one Paltu (who was one of the persons named in the first information report) and one Rup Singh. He falls in that category of witnesses who are called interested or partisan. He admits in his cross-examination contained in paragraph 30 that he had a dispute with Late Paltu Singh for the past several years. The possibility of implicating his adversaries all and sundry cannot, therefore, be ruled out. I am aware that if a witness tells falsehood in relation to one matter, it does not necessarily follow that he is unreliable on other matters also, but when a witness had been found to be untrustworthy with regard to several important constituents of an episode so much so that he had even implicated some innocent persons, the task of sifting the truth from the falsehood becomes impossible. When this impossibility of isolating a grain of truth from the ocean of falsehood arises, the task has to be given up because the task if even then perused may lead to the construction of a prosecution case entirely different from one which the accused persons were called upon to face at the commencement of the prosecution. In this case, as already detailed, Man Singh (PW-2) even though he is an object of sympathy because he had been brutally injured, is totally unreliable and it will be hazardous to base a conviction on his sole testimony. The learned Session Judge has obviously been in error in relying upon the statement of Man Singh recorded by the investigating officer during investigation. Such a statement under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be ordinarily availed of by the prosecution. It is otherwise if the prosecution is allowed by the Court under section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act to put to the concerned witness questions which might otherwise be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. 5. Such a statement under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be ordinarily availed of by the prosecution. It is otherwise if the prosecution is allowed by the Court under section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act to put to the concerned witness questions which might otherwise be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. 5. Gokul Singh (PW-3) who attempts to corroborate the presence of the appellants. Mulu Singh, Feran, Jagdish and Chandan, is again unreliable. He could not have identified the fleeing persons because, admittedly, according to him, it was dusk and he had seen the fleeing persons from a considerable distance. He admits in his cross-examination that his barn (galla) is situated at a distance of three furlongs from the Chirol tree where the incident occurred. He had seen the fleeing persons from behind. It is, therefore, quite likely that this is a case of mistaken identification of the appellants. In any event, according to the first information report, he was not a person who was present at the scene. He had arrived at the scene of crime after the incident was over. 6. In the foregoing circumstances, it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellants who were the members of an unlawful assembly whose common object was to commit murder or grievously injure Man Singh. AIR 1953 SC 122 , AIR 1952 Mad. 821 and AIR 1955 Bhopal 9 relied on. Appeal Allowed.