JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants in this case, 14 in number, have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judee, Churu, under sections 147, 148, 323, 319, 324, 149, 325, 149 and 326, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine. 2. The salient facts of the case of the prosecution may be stated here. On October 10, 1969, at 3 p.m., Champalal (PW. 3) made an oral report at Police Station Bhanipura, District Churu, that earlier that morning at about 8. 30 a. m. at Mauja Mehri near the residential houses of Banji and Jasji, he was intercepted by all the 14 appellants and are Magji who died during the trial and that they inflicted a number of blows to him with their respective weapons. Kesari Singh. Sheonarain, and Maliya who were armed with spears and Delu and Mohan Singh who were armed with swords, used these weapons in inflicting injuries to him and to other who came to his rescue. The other 10 accused, who were armed with clubs also participated in the commission of this crime. Hearing hue and cry raised by Champalal, Jivraj Singh (PW. 1), Bhagwan Singh (PW. 2) Hariram (PW. 4). Narain Singh (PW. 5), Bhanwar Singh (PW. 6), Bahadur Singh (PW. 7) and a number of other persons including Banji, Fateh Singh and Panji arrived there. The complainant further told the police that most of these persons who came to his rescue were also attacked and injured by the accused persons. 3. The police registered a case (F. I. R. P. 4) under sections 307-149, 324-149, 325-149 and 148 I. P. C. 4. On investigation the police found that it was a case of free fight in which members of the two opposite parties had exchanged blows with one another. Apart from the final police report which resulted in the trial and conviction of the present appellants, the Investigating Officer also submitted a separate final police report against the members of the complainant party including Bhagwan Singh, Champalal, Bhanwar Singh and Narain Singh. The accused in the said cross case have since been acquitted by the learned trial Judge. 5. During the present trial the prosecution examined among others, Jivraj Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Champalal, Hariram, Narain Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Bahadur Singh in support of its case. The accused in the said cross case have since been acquitted by the learned trial Judge. 5. During the present trial the prosecution examined among others, Jivraj Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Champalal, Hariram, Narain Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Bahadur Singh in support of its case. These witnesses of course supported the prosecution case as disclosed in the first information report. 6. In their statements under section 313 Cr. P. C. Kesari Singh, Dalu Malaram and Laxman Singh denied the allegations made against them and instead pleaded that the members of the complainant party had first attacked Kesari Singh and that they inflicted injuries to them in self defence. The other accused, namely, Sheonarain, Ganesha, Toda, Ram Singh, Mangle, Sohan, Sherji, Champalal, Birjoo and Mohan Singh pleaded alibi complaining that they had been falsely implicated on account of their friendly relations with Kesari Singh and enmity with the complainant party. 7. Dr. Ramesh Mai was examined as a defence witness to prove the injuries suffered by Laxman Singh, Mala Ram, Kesari Singh and Dalu Singb. Another witness examined in defence was Gami, who testified that Jivraj, Champalal, Askaran, Chunji, Champji, Mohan, Bhanwara, Narain Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Kesara, Banji, Jasji, Bhanwara son of Banji, Nobji, Girdhari Singh and Mohan Khan were beating Kesari near the latter's house in the street. 8. The learned trial Judge preferred to rely on the prosecution evidence. He hold on that basis that the occurrence had not taken place near Kesari Singh's house as alleged by the defence and that instead it had taken place near the house of Banji and Jasji as alleged by the prosecution He further held that the present appellants had attacked Champalal PW without any provocation on account of previous wily and that they caused a number of injuries to him with their respective weapons. He further held that the appellants also inflicted injuries to Jivraj Singb, Bhagwan Singh, Narain Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Shri Ram, Banji, Fateh Singh and Bahadur Singh, who tried to save Champalal from the appellants. According to the learned Judge Jivraj and Bhanwar Singh PWs had inflicted injuries to some of the accused-persons in self defence. It was on these findings that the learned Judge passed the impugned order of conviction and sentence. 9. According to the learned Judge Jivraj and Bhanwar Singh PWs had inflicted injuries to some of the accused-persons in self defence. It was on these findings that the learned Judge passed the impugned order of conviction and sentence. 9. After hearing both sides and scrutinising the evidence on record quite carefully, I am of opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the occurrence started near the house of Panji and Jasji with an unprovoked attack by the appellants and Nagji deceased on Champalal and that the accused appellants thereafter inflicted blows to other numbers of the complainant party who tried to intervene in an attempt to save Champalal. 10. The learned trial Judge appears to think that the occurrence took place in front of the houses of Banji and Jasii because, according to him, blood which had fallen there in the course of this transaction was subsequently collected by the Investigating Officer from the spot on October 11, 1969. It may be straight away mentioned here that the learned Judge was in error in assuming that the blood which was collected from there by the Investigating Officer was human blood without there being my evidence on record to prove this fact. The learned Public Prosecutor frankly admitted that the blood collected from the spot was not sent for examination by the Serologist to determine if it was human blood or not. That being so it will not be safe to action the recovery of the blood along to return finding that the occurrence took place at or near the place from where the blood was collected. 11. A Cursory glance at the cite plan Ex. P/8 would show that the occurrence could not have possibly taken place near the houses of Banji and Jasji for the simple reason that these two houses are separated from each other by a long distance. There are other houses and a street in between these two houses. If the occurrence took place in this area, it could have taken place either near the house of Banji or Jasji and not near both the houses. 12. There are other houses and a street in between these two houses. If the occurrence took place in this area, it could have taken place either near the house of Banji or Jasji and not near both the houses. 12. It is, therefore, obvious that the learned trial Judge has in error in proceeding on the assumption that the occurrence took place near the houses of Banji and Jasji as alleged by the prosecution and not near the house of Kesari Singh accused as alleged by the defence. 13. It is significant to note that none of the two, namely Banji and Jasji, near whose houses the occurrence is alleged to have taken place was cited or produced as a witness in this case and this is so inspire of the fact that Jasji is said to have himself suffered some injuries in trying to stop the fight. 14. A reference to the statement of PW Champalal, the complainant in the case, would show that one Pane Singh alias Panji had also witnessed the occurrence. Champalal mentioned in the F. I. R. that accompanied by his guest Hariram PW, he had gone to the house of Pane Singh alias Panji in trying to convince him that his good offices were needed in putting an end to a dispute between the co-villagers, namely Mohan Singh and Sher Singh. He further mentioned in the F. I. R. that Panjt had also arrived at the scene of occurrence. It is surprising that Panji's name was not cited as a witness for the prosecution, nor was he examined as such by it. 15. The prosecution has rested content with the examination as witnesses of Jivraj Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Cnampalal, Hariram, Narain Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Bahadur Singh. None of those witnesses inspires confidence. Hari Ramis on outsider, who would have us believe that he was visiting village Mehri that day and was staying as a guest of complainant Champalal. He is obviously a partisan witness. If he is to be believed, he had accompanied Pane Singh alias Panji to the scene of occurrence from the latter's house. If so, Pane Singh alias Panji was "very important witness. Instead of picking up Hari Ram, an outsider and a partisan witness, the prosecution ought to have examined Pane Singh alias Panji for the unfolding of the true facts and circumstances leading to the occurrence. 16. If so, Pane Singh alias Panji was "very important witness. Instead of picking up Hari Ram, an outsider and a partisan witness, the prosecution ought to have examined Pane Singh alias Panji for the unfolding of the true facts and circumstances leading to the occurrence. 16. It may also be mentioned that according to the prosecution PW. Hari Ram was injured by the accused-persons while he was trying to intercede and stop the fight. No medico-legal report of the alleged injuries suffered by Hari Ram has been proved on the record. This makes the evidence of Hari Ram rather suspicious. 17. If PWs. Jivraj Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Champalal, Hari Ram, Bhanwar Singh, and Narain Singh are to be believed Laxman Singh, Kesari Singh, Narain and Dalu accused suffered injuries in the course of the none transaction at the hands of Jivraj Singh and Bhanwar Singh, who attacked and injured them in self defence. All of them asserted that Jivraj Singh and Bhanwar Singh were armed with lath is. Dr. Ramesh Mai Singhvi, who examined the injuries of the accused, stated that Laxeman Singh was having an incised wound 2, 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" on scalp right parieto occipito region and that the said injury had been Inflicted by same sharp edged weapon. This would show that Jivraj Singh or Bhanwar Singh or both were armed with sharp edged weapons. In any case at least one of the members of the complainant party must have been armed with a sharp edged weapon. It is obvious that these witnesses were at pains to suppress this fact. It would not therefore be safe to place reliance on their testimony as to genesis of this occurrence. 18. For all these reasons, held that like the accused in the cross case, the accused in the present case are also entitled to acquittal. The accused appellants in this case richly deserve the benefit of doubt. Giving such benefit to them, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of conviction and sentence and instead acquit them. The appellants are already on bail. Their bail bonds are hereby discharged.Appeal Allowed/Appellants Acquitted. *******