JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants, eight in number, were jointly tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar, on charges of rioting armed with deadly weapons and murder of one Mohanlal. By his judgment, dated, March 4, 1975, learned Judge convicted all of them under section 148 and section 302 read with section 149 IPC. He sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 148 IPC. and imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- or, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 302-149 I. P. C. 2. The case of the prosecution which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the appellants as aforementioned may be shortly stated here. Mohanlal deceased was in cultivatory possession of land comprised in field Nos. 304 and 315 situated in the area of village Ram Nagar, P. S. Tijara. district Alwar. He raised bajra crop in that land in 1973. On September 15, 1973, he went to this land to harvest the crop. His wife, Soni, and nephew, Lala also went with him. At about 1 P.M. that day, the appellants arrived there armed with deadly weapons like pharsi, lathi and ballam. They wanted to take forcible possession of the said land. Appellant Gian Chand asked Mohanlal deceased to leave the land and threatened that if he did not leave he should face the consequences. Mohanlal refused to heed the threat. Appellant Gyan Chand opened the attack inflicting a blow with sword on the neck of Mohanlal deceased. Mohanlal fell down. Appellant Suraj pierced both the eyes of the deceased, thrusting his bhala into them. Appellants Hem Chand alias Chander, Omi, Chiman and Chunni gave pharsi blows on the various parts of the body of the deceased. Mohanlal died on the way to Tijara hospital as a result of these injuries. Soni went to the police station Tijara and lodged the F. I. R. there at 6.15 P.M. that day. 3. During the trial, the prosecution examined Soni, Hukam Chand, Kishan Lal and Lala as the alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Learned trial Judge ignored the testimony of Kishanlal as unreliable, and rightly so in our opinion. He, however, relied on the evidence of P.Ws Soni, Hukam Chand and Lala and convicted all the eight accused on that basis. We have quite carefully considered their evidence and find that they too do not inspire much confidence. Learned trial Judge ignored the testimony of Kishanlal as unreliable, and rightly so in our opinion. He, however, relied on the evidence of P.Ws Soni, Hukam Chand and Lala and convicted all the eight accused on that basis. We have quite carefully considered their evidence and find that they too do not inspire much confidence. 4. Soni (P. W.3) is the widow of Mohanlal deceased. She lodged the FIR Ex. P. 5 Her first version, as disclosed in that document was that Gian Chand and his sons, Suraj and Chander and brothers, Omi, Chunni and Chiman, and three other persons whose names remained unmentioned in the F. I. R., emerged from the bajra crop and attacked her husband inflicting injuries to him with their respective weapons. She further told the police that Lala immediately went to the village and brought from there Hukam Chand and Kishanlal. According to this version in the F.I.R. Hukam Chand and Kishanlal also witnessed the occurrence. She materially improved upon this version in her deposition in the trial. She testified that instead of 9 persons as mentioned in the F. I. R., the total number of accused who attacked her husband was 10. She added the names of Sant Ram and Chunni II in the list of accused as given in her deposition. She further stated that Chunilal, one of the said 10 persons, was armed with a gun, and that, he had fired a shot immediately after the accused showed up in the field. No mention was made in the F. I. R. that any of the accused was armed with a gun. let alone anyone firing a gun In the FIR she mentioned that Lala had gone to the village and brought Hukum Chand and Kishanlal P.Ws from there In her position, she would have us believe that Hukam Chand was grazing his buffalo in the adjoining field and that Kishanlal also came that side grazing his buffalo. She denied that Kishanlal is the real brother of her deceased husband. In her anxiety to suppress the real relationship between her deceased husband and Kishanlal, she went to the length of stating that Kishanlal is a stranger who belongs to a different village. Kishanlal and Hukam Chand P. Ws. deposed that Mohanlal deceased was Kishanlal's real brother. 5. She denied that Kishanlal is the real brother of her deceased husband. In her anxiety to suppress the real relationship between her deceased husband and Kishanlal, she went to the length of stating that Kishanlal is a stranger who belongs to a different village. Kishanlal and Hukam Chand P. Ws. deposed that Mohanlal deceased was Kishanlal's real brother. 5. Soni denied in cross examination that her husband and one Lachhman who was a member of the complainant party were armed with guns and that they had fired and thereby caused injuries to Chunilal and Sant Ram accused. The learned trial Judge has recorded a finding, with which we agree, that both Chuni Lal and Sant Ram accused were fired at. and wounded by gun fire, in the course of the same transaction which resulted in the infliction of fatal injuries to Mohanlal deceased. This shows that Soni was at pains to suppress the fact that Chunilal and Sant Ram were wounded by gunfire in the course of the same transaction. 6. All said and done, Soni P. W. is not a reliable witness at all. Her statement is a tissue of lies. It would not be safe to convict so many people on the basis of such flimsy evidence. 7. P. W. Hukam Chand was being vague about the number of the accused in as much as he stated that they were 8 or 9 in number. It will be recalled that according to Soni they were 10 in all. Hukam Chand denied that he is Mohanlal deceased's sister's son. Soni, however, admitted that Hukam Chand is her husband's sister's son. Hukam Chand is, therefore, a witness who has no regard for truth. He came forward to give false evidence merely because the case involves the murder of his maternal uncle. He pleaded ignorance if Chunilal and Sant Ram accused were wounded by gun fire in the course of the same transaction. He is clearly a wholly unreliable witness. 8. Lala P. IV. is a child witness who was examined by the investigating officer after an inordinate delay of 8 days after the occurrence. His evidence does not inspire much confidence. 9. P. W. Dharam Chand. He is clearly a wholly unreliable witness. 8. Lala P. IV. is a child witness who was examined by the investigating officer after an inordinate delay of 8 days after the occurrence. His evidence does not inspire much confidence. 9. P. W. Dharam Chand. a witness examined by the prosecution deposed that the land in dispute was purchased by Gian Chand accused nearly 5 or 6 years before the occurrence, and that, it had through been in his cultivatory possession. He made it clear that Mohanlal deceased had never cultivated it. If so, it is difficult, if not impossible, to believe that Mohanlal deceased and his companions were present in the land in dispute in pursuit of their normal agricultural operations. The fact that Chunilal and Sant Ram accused were fired at and wounded seriously in the course of the same transaction would probabilities the defence version that Mohanlal deceased and Lachhman, one of the members of the complainant party were armed with guns and that they had fired at and wounded Chunilal and Sant Ram accused. It appears reasonable to believe that Mohanlal deceased and his companions were trying to take possession of the land in dispute by use of fire arms. 10. For all these reasons, we hold that the case against the accused appellants has not been beyond reasonable doubt. We allow their appeal, set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against them and instead acquit them.Appeal allowed. *******