JUDGMENT 1. - Appellants Sujia son of Pola and Varda son of Khangars have preferred this appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore, dated September 16, 1974 sentencing the former under section 323 IPC to one year rigorous imprisonment and the latter under section 325 I. P. C. to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- As many as 18 persons were prosecuted on the first information report of complainant Khetia in police station Umaidpur. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the first information report was this. On 23-3-1973 in the evening at about sunset the complainant, his father Hirka, Bhakura, Sadia, Teekma, Asiyan, and Jawanriya were making conversation in their house. At that time as many as 18 accused came. Shivnath was armed with a 'dhariya' and the rest with lathis. They attacked the complainant party. Accused Pola caught hold of Hirka and Shivnath and Sujia began to beat him. Varda gave a lathi blow to his head. Other persons were also given beating. Shanti was caused injuries by Sujia, Thereafter the 'dhani' of the complainant party was set on fire. On this information a case under section 307, 147, 148, 149, 452 and 436 IPC was registered and the usual investigation was taken up in hand. Hirka succumbed to his head injury and thereafter the case was altered to one under section 302 IPC. Postmortem was conducted by Dr. Raman Verma. Other injured were also medically examined. All the accused were committed by the Munsif Magistrate, Jalore. The appellants and the other accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved most of the prosecution case but came to the conclusion that it was established that Sujia gave a lathi blow to the head of Mst. Shanti and further Varda caused a head injury which ultimately proved fatal to Hirka. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case carefully. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that as many as 16 persons were sought to be implicated false and a much exaggerated version of the incident was given out in the F.I.R. That apart, the witnesses have prevaricated in material aspects from their earlier statements given in the police. They did not afford any explanation for such prevarication. They did not afford any explanation for such prevarication. The core and substratum of the prosecution case, therefore, stood destroyed and it would be unsafe to base any conviction on their testimony. The learned Public Prosecutor however, supported the prosecution case and stated that as regards the two appellants, there was no infirmity in the prosecution case. Their role was specifically described in the F. I. R. I have considered the rival contention very carefully. The case of appellant Sujia need not detain me for a moment because his conviction is based only on the statement of P. W. 6 Mst. Shanti. None of the other witnesses are prepared to depose that Sujia gave a lathi blow on the head of Mst. Shanti. In my opinion the solitary statement of Shanti is insufficient to prove any case against Sujia. She has also prevaricated from her police statement Ex. D. 8 wherein she did not state that Varda gave a blow to the head of Hirka, and Polia caught hold of him. I am, therefore, of the opinion that looking to the F. I. R. it is not possible to believe the statement of Shanti on this point that she was given an injury by appellant Sujia when she is not deposing to the rest of the incident as disclosed in the F. I. R. on the pretext that she became unconscious. 4. In view of the omission in the police statement Ex. D. 8 that Varda gave an injury on the head of Hirka, Mst. Shanti cannot be believed to establish this act of Varda. The rest of the five other eye witnesses are giving conflicting statements in this regard P. W. 1 Sadia stated that Varda gave an injury to the head of his father with a 'dhariya'. This is not stated to by any other witness. P. W. 2 Khetiya stated that Sujia gave a lathi blow in the back of Hirka and Shivnath caused a 'dhariya' blow on the leg and Vardha appellant gave a lathi blow on the head. This is not stated to by any other witness. P. W. 2 Khetiya stated that Sujia gave a lathi blow in the back of Hirka and Shivnath caused a 'dhariya' blow on the leg and Vardha appellant gave a lathi blow on the head. P. W. 3 stated that Varda gave a blow on the head and Shivnath gave a blow on the left hand and Sujia gave a lathi blow on the neck of his father Hirka In the cross examination the witness further stated that Varda gave an injury on the middle portion of the head of Hirka and Sujia gave an injury on the right side of his head P. W. 4 week a with some contradictions has deposed similarly. P. W.5 Asiya stated that Pola caught hold of Hirka and Varda gave a lathi blow on the head of Hirka. It is very difficult to place any reliance on the testimony of these witnesses for the reason that these witnesses have given different version of the incident in their earlier police statements and sometimes they prevaricated, even on the fact as to who caused the witness a specific injury. When almost the entire prosecution case is disbelieved by the trial court, it is obvious that a correct version of the incident is not forthcoming and in such circumstances it is highly unsafe to shift the truth from the falsehood from the statement of such witnesses. It may be that injuries were caused to Hirka and Shanti. As a matter of fact injuries were also caused to other witnesses but the point for determination is who caused these injuries. They were as many as 18 persons who have alleged to have participated in the incident and the possibility cannot be ruled out that someone other than the appellants caused injuries to Hirka and Shanti. It was thus observed in In re : Burla Jayarami Reddi & Ors. (AIR 1967 Andhra Pradesh, 561). "When witnesses have deliberately implicated innocent persons or when their evidence is found to be false in regard to material particulars, it is not safe to act on the testimony of such witnesses". I, therefore, find that the witnesses have falsely implicated as many as 16 persons. The allegation that some of the accused set on fire the 'dhani' of the complainant party is false. I, therefore, find that the witnesses have falsely implicated as many as 16 persons. The allegation that some of the accused set on fire the 'dhani' of the complainant party is false. Again these witnesses were disbelieved as to who caused injuries to them as their statements at the trial and earlier police statements were contradictory. The prosecution case as to the unlawful assembly was also found false. In my opinion therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was in error in believing evidence of these witnesses to hold that Varda caused a grievous injury to Hirka. When it was found false in all other material particulars. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt any offence against the appellants. 5. In the result, accept the appeal, judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and acquit appellants Varda of the offence under section 325 IPC. and Sujia for the offence under section 323 I. P. C. They are on bail and need not surrender to their bail bonds which are hereby discharged. Fine if recovered be returned to the appellant.Appeal allowed, Appellant acquitted. *******