JUDGMENT : N.K. Das, J. - Respondents were convicted by the trial Court u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5001/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month. They were acquitted by the appellate Court. The appellate Court has held that the prosecution of the Respondents is hit by the principles of res judicata or Issue estoppel and also he has not accepted the prosecution case on merits. 2. The prosecution case is that on 3-4-1972 at about 6.30 to 7 p.m., the Respondents assaulted the complainants who were P.Ws. 1, 3 and 6. It is alleged that Respondent No. 1 dealt lathi blows on the left arm, left leg and head of P.W. 1. When his wife P.W. 6 came and intervened, she was assaulted by Respondent No. 1 on her forehead. P.W. 3, the son of P.W. 1 came to rescue the parents and at that time he was assaulted by the other two Respondents. The defence is one of total denial and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have also taken the plea of alibi. 3. The trial Court has accepted the testimony of the injured persons who are P.Ws. 1, 3 and 6 and the evidence of P.W. 2 who is said to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. The trial Court has further held that the evidence of these injured persons has been corroborated by the medical evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 7. The appellate Court has held that P.W. 2 cannot be said to be an independent witness inasmuch as he stood bailor for the complainant in several cases including the incident relating to the present case. It has also been held by the appellate Court that the injury sustained by Respondent No. 1 has not been examined. Independent witnesses who were stated to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence have also not been examined. On the whole, the appellate Court has not believed the prosecution story. 4. From Ext. B, the supervision note of D.W. 1, it appears that information were lodged at the Lalbag Police Station relating to an occurrence on 3-4-1972 at about 6.30 p.m. The occurrence in the present case also appears to be the same occurrence. Investigation was held on such information. 4. From Ext. B, the supervision note of D.W. 1, it appears that information were lodged at the Lalbag Police Station relating to an occurrence on 3-4-1972 at about 6.30 p.m. The occurrence in the present case also appears to be the same occurrence. Investigation was held on such information. It was found that there was a rioting and two groups of person, namely, the group of the present Appellants and the group of the present Respondents assaulted each other. It is stated that there was failure of electricity and the assault took place in darkness. The case was tried by a competent Court which was Case No. U.L. 3354/72 u/s 160 of the Indian Penal Code. After examination of the witnesses and after proper hearing of the case both the sides were acquitted. It may be mentioned here that the present group of Appellants and the present group of Respondents were accused in two cases. Also the investigation was in respect of the information lodged by the present Appellants against the present Respondents relating to the very same incident. After investigation, the case was tried and the Respondents were acquitted. When the Respondents have been acquitted on the very same allegation and very same incident, the principle of issue estoppel comes into operation. 5. In Masud Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, it has been held that principle of issue estoppel is that where an issue of fact has been tried by a competent Court on a former occasion and a finding has been reached in favour of an accused, such a finding would constitute an estoppel or res judicata against the prosecution not as a bar to the trial and conviction of the accused for a different and distinct offence but as precluding the reception of evidence to disturb that finding of fact when the accused is trial subsequently even for a different offence which might be permitted by law. The pre-requisite for the same is that both the cases should have been criminal cases. The effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent Court on a lawful charge and after a lawful trial is not completely stated by saying that the person acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence. To that it must be added that the verdict is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication. To that it must be added that the verdict is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication. The plea of issue estoppel is not the same as the plea of double jeopardy or autre fois acquit. If it appears by record or from evidence that the same point was determined in favour of a party in a previous criminal trial which is brought in issue in a second criminal trial of the same person, the principle of issue estoppel will come into operation. The principle is that there must be a prior proceeding determined against the prosecution necessarily involving an issue which again arises in a subsequent proceeding by prosecution against the same person. The principle of issue estoppel comes into operation if an issue or issues have been distinctly raised or found. Once that is done, then, so long as the finding stands, if there be any subsequent litigation between the same parties, no allegation legally inconsistent with the finding, may be made by one of them against the other. 6. Judging the facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the dictum of the Supreme Court stated above, I hold that the finding of the appellate Court that the present case is hit by the principle of issue estoppel is correct in law. 7. P.W. 1 was one of the complainants who made the initial statement while filing the petition of complaint. At that stage he stated that he was given one blow by Respondent Chittaranjan on his left leg; he fell down and thereafter the other Respondents assaulted him; whereas in his statement, in Court he states that it was only Chittaranjan who assaulted him on different parts of his body. P.W. 6 is the wife of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 is the son of P.W. 1. These are the injured persons. P.W. 2 is stated to be an eye-witness to the occurrence, but it is an admitted fact that this witness has been in the camp of the complainant and he has been standing as bailor for the complainant on several occasions. From Ext. B. and Ext. D, it appears that there was some mutual fight between the parties. The appellate Court has not accepted the testimony of P.W. 2 as be has found this witness not to be a disinterested witness. From Ext. B. and Ext. D, it appears that there was some mutual fight between the parties. The appellate Court has not accepted the testimony of P.W. 2 as be has found this witness not to be a disinterested witness. In the petition of complaint, the names of seven persons have been mentioned to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence, but out of them only P.W. 2 has been examined. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in consideration of Exts. B and D, as discussed above, non-examination of other independent witnesses who are said to be present at the place of occurrence casts a reflection against the prosecution case and, in my opinion, the appellate Court was correct in his view that non-examination of the independent witnesses can be a ground for drawing adverse inference against the prosecution story. As I have already found from Exts. B and D, it is clear that the prosecution story stated here is not true and the complainant and the witnesses have suppressed facts. This would show that no reliance can be placed on the prosecution evidence. It may also be mentioned that the police had investigated into the case after information was lodged by P.W. 1. It is not a fact that the police was silent over the matter and the complainants were compelled to file this case. To that extent also, the prosecution story is not acceptable. 8. On the aforesaid analysis, I hold that the prosecution has not come up with a true story and also the prosecution is hit by issue estoppel. 9. There is no merit in this appeal and is, accordingly, dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed