JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants had faced trial in the court of Sessions Judge, Merta who by his judgment dated 10.1.1976 convicted appellant Kansingh for the offence under section 326 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and convicted appellants Roopsingh and Hemaram for the offences under sections 325 and 324 Indian Penal Code respectively and sentenced them each to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Appellants Devaram. Maddaram and Hemaram have been convicted for the offence under section 323 Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on 17.4.1975 at the time of 'Gangaur fair' at village Alai there was some quarrel between boys of the Jat community on the one hand and the Rajput community on the other. Hazariram (P.W.2), Nathuram (P.W.4), and Shankerram (P.W.5) injured intervened and sustained injuries at the hands of the appellants. On the basis of the statement of kansingh, recorded at the hospital, case against these appellants and seven others (since discharged by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta on 1.9.1975) was registered and investigation was made. After completion of investigation charge sheet against the appellants was filed in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur, who finding a prima facie case exclusively triable by the court of Sessions committed the appellants to stand their trial in that Court. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, charge-sheeted the appellants for the aforesaid offences as well as for the offences under sections 307 read with 149 Indian Penal Code and proceeded with the trial. He placed reliance on the prosecution evidence and passed the judgment of conviction and sentenced the appellants as stated earlier. 4. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings of the learned Sessions Judge on a number of grounds. it has been strenuously contended by him that all the prosecution witnesses being relatives and inimical to the appellants, the failure on the part of the prosecution to examine independent witnesses should be considered to be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. it has been strenuously contended by him that all the prosecution witnesses being relatives and inimical to the appellants, the failure on the part of the prosecution to examine independent witnesses should be considered to be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. I have carefully examined the statements of Hazari (P.W.2), Dhonkalram (P.W.7),1 Pusharam (P.W.3), Nenuram (P.W.4), Nathuram (P.W.5), and Shankerram (P.W.8), Hazari (P.W.2) has specifically stated that he was having old enmity with Kansingh, Maddaram and Hema and that, even two months prior to the occurrence the cattle of those persons having entered in the field of the witness (Hazariram) there was hot altercation. 6. Learned Public prosecutor could not refute this contention about there being old enmity between the parties. There is full force in the arguments advanced by Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants that all the eye witnesses are either injured or their near relatives having enmity with the appellants. Hazariram has stated that Nathu was his uncle, pusharam was his relative, Nathu and Nenu are the sons of Harsukh who is his grand father in relation. Dhonkalram has stated that Hazari is his real nephew and Pusaram is related to him on account of the marriage of his niece with one Hazari related to Pusa. Nenuram (P.W.4) has tried to avoid the question about his relation with Nathu who is injured and uncle of another injured Hazariram. He denied the suggestion that Nathu was his real brother, but then admitted that Bastiram and Mohan were the real brothers of Nathu injured and Mohan and Bastiram were the real brothers of the witness also and Nathu was his real brother. The court has appended a noted to the effect that the witness was intentionally trying to conceal the relationship. Nathu has admitted that Nenuram is his real brother Shanker is the real brother of Hazari. 7. From the perusal of these depositions it is clear that all these witnesses are near relatives and therefore naturally interested in the prosecution case. The court has appended a noted to the effect that the witness was intentionally trying to conceal the relationship. Nathu has admitted that Nenuram is his real brother Shanker is the real brother of Hazari. 7. From the perusal of these depositions it is clear that all these witnesses are near relatives and therefore naturally interested in the prosecution case. I am in perfect agreement with the argument advanced by the Learned Public prosecutor that relationship and the enmity between the complainant party and the accused party are not sufficient to throw aside the prosecution case and all that is required in such cases is a careful sifting and assessment of the testimony of the witnesses to find out whether they inspire confidence or not. 8. In order to form an opinion whether these related interested partisan witnesses can be relied upon about the actual occurrence and the part taken by the appellants, the statements available on record will have to be carefully looked into. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has emphatically argued that there was a cross case instituted on the information of Deva and Nena appellants against Hazari, Shanker, Nathu and others who are witnesses in this case. Those witnesses have admitted this fact. Shanker has further admitted that police has instituted a case against him and others regarding this very occurrence. Though it is not clear as to what that case actually is, but this much stands proved that a cross case regarding the same incident has been instituted against Hazari, Shanker and others. When there was this type of quarrel in which there were cross cases, it becomes all the more important to probe into the matter from the point of view as to what exactly the origin of the quarrel was. 10. Mr. Purohit has emphatically argued that the incident, even if any must not have taken place in the way prosecution alleges. The quarrel according to the prosecution witnesses had taken place on 17.4.1975 at 5.30 p.m. when Hazari, Shanker and Nathu intervened in the quarrel, between the boys of Rajputs and Jats. It is important to consider that not a single person from these two communities has been examined from the prosecution side. Lalchand, Sub Inspector (P.W.6) who had inspected the site has specifically deposed that there were no stones at the site. It is important to consider that not a single person from these two communities has been examined from the prosecution side. Lalchand, Sub Inspector (P.W.6) who had inspected the site has specifically deposed that there were no stones at the site. This falsifies the contention about there being a quarrel upon pelting stones by the Jat boys and Rajput boys towards each other. According to the prosecution there was a congregation of about two thousand persons at the 'Gangaur fair'. If it was so then some independent person should have been easily available to the prosecution to throw light on the matter as to what exactly were the circumstances which led to any quarrel. When the prosecution does not care to examine witnesses essential for unfolding prosecution case the defence has every right to question the veracity of the statements of interested witnesses and fairness of the investigation. 11. From all this discussion, I am constrained to spine that the incident, even if any, must not have taken place in the way prosecution alleges and the learned Public Prosecutor also could not convince me on this point. 12. Another infirmity pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants is regarding the place of occurrence. As observed above despite the prosecution witnesses stating that there was pelting of stones between the two groups of boys the Sub Inspector inspecting the site could not find stones there. This fact in itself is not of much importance but being taken together with the fact that the origin of the quarrel is not clear and independent witness capable of un-holding the prosecution case have not been examined it becomes worth consideration. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants next argued that the information first in time has been suppressed 13.3 the Investigating Officer. His argument is based on the statement of Hazari who has stated that he got the report scribed by Laluram and sent the same through Sohanlal to the Police Station. Sohanlal has supported this version and stated that he had taken the report to the Police Station Balaji and gave the same to the Sub Inspector. An altogether different version comes out from the Station House Officer, that when he went to the site on the next day, Sohanlal produced before him a written report. Sohanlal has supported this version and stated that he had taken the report to the Police Station Balaji and gave the same to the Sub Inspector. An altogether different version comes out from the Station House Officer, that when he went to the site on the next day, Sohanlal produced before him a written report. Prosecution did not bring that report on the record but during the cross-examination of Durgaram that report was produced and he stated that it finds place in the investigation file. It is also pertinent to note that Durgaram, Station House Officer was the Investigating Officer for two days i.e. on 18th and 19th April, 1975 and then on 19th itself he had to hand-over the investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the remaining investigation was done by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Hanuman Singh Head Constable. Charge sheet against as many as thirteen persons was filed and Durgaram could not show as to what was the reason for doing so. At this juncture it is noteworthy that in the initial statement of Hazariram on the basis of which First Information Report was chalked out, names of Kansingh and Madaram only were mentioned but subsequently increase in names went on resulting in the charge sheet against thirteen persons, out of which six appellants only were tried by the learned Sessions Judge. It is on this count that the learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the prosecution witnesses have tried to exaggerate the story and implicate innocent persons to increase the number of the assailants so that they may wreak vengeance against their enemies and their companions as well. 14. From the above discussion it becomes clear that the initial story appearing from the written report sent by Hazariram to Police Station, Balaji through Sohanlal has been suppressed and the statement of Hazariram recorded subsequently has been taken to be the First Information Report. Durga Ram, Station House Officer has tried to establish that the information given by Sohanlal was not at the Police Station rather was given to the witness on 19-4-1975 at the site but the same stands falsified by the statement of Sohanlal himself who has stated that he at the instance Hazariram, went with the report to Police Station, Balaji and gave it to the Station House Officer. The origin of the quarrel, as observed by me earlier is not clear and because of the failure of the prosecution to examine any independent witness to establish that initially there was a quarrel between the boys of Jat and Rajput community and these vishnois had sustained injuries while intervening, it cannot be said that the persons inimical to the injured got the opportunity to cause injuries to them and no independent person came to rescue them. 15. Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that it may be a case of free fight and then also the appellants would be guilty. if it was so then also the independent witnesses which must have been available at the fair should have been examined to throw light on the matter. 16. In this view of the matter despite the fact that the injuries of Hazariram, Nathu and Shanker have been proved by the medical evidence, it cannot be said that those injuries were sustained at the hands of the appellants and in the manner stated by the prosecution witnesses. The inimical, interested, partisan witnesses examined by the prosecution cannot be relied upon without there being any corroboration either by independent witnesses or even from the circumstances. Mere presence of injuries on the persons of the three witnesses does not make them witnesses of such a credence so as to base the conviction on their testimony in the face of grave infirmities in the prosecution case as noted above. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants has also argued at length on the point that there is no specific evidence about any of the injury of Hazari Ram being grievous. This point need not be discussed because the question about the classification of the injuries arises only when the prosecution succeeds in establishing that the incident had taken place in the manner alleged by it. 18. The net result of the above discussion is that prosecution could not bring the guilt home against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. I am, therefore, inclined to hold that the conviction of the appellants, based on the testimony of inimical, interested, and related witnesses against whom cross case relating to the same occurrence had been instituted by the appellants and the true picture has not been brought on record through any independent witnesses though available, cannot be said to be justified. 19. I am, therefore, inclined to hold that the conviction of the appellants, based on the testimony of inimical, interested, and related witnesses against whom cross case relating to the same occurrence had been instituted by the appellants and the true picture has not been brought on record through any independent witnesses though available, cannot be said to be justified. 19. Consequently, the appeal is accepted and the conviction and the sentences awarded to the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are all on bail and need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.Appeal Accepted. *******