JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal filed by Har Narain, Kishan, Chhotu, Rati Ram, Chiranji Lal and Dheera is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, dated August 30, 1975 by which the appellants were convicted and sentenced as follows:- 1. Kishan, ) under section 323, I.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to undergo six month R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer 15 days simple imprisonment. 2. Chhotia, ) 3. Har Narain, ) 4. Chiranji, ) 1. Rati Ram, ) under section 148, I.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default- of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2. Kishan ) 3. Chhotia, ) 4. Har Narain ) 5. Chiranji, ) 6. Dheera ) 2. The prosecution case against all the appellants and one Amba Lal, co-accused, was as follow: On March 27, 1975, at about 11 a.m. Gaja Nand accompanied by Kalyan had visited Sumerganj Mandi.One Chittaralso met them in the Mandi. After purchasing goods they started for their village Hardeoganj from the Mandi. When they had hardly reached near Railway Station, Indergarh then all the appellants and Amba Lal, co-accused, who has been acquitted by the trial court, came there having armed themselves with sharp-edged and blunt weapons, while shouting that persons of village Hardeoganj should be killed. Chottia appellant at that time had a Gandasa in his hand while Har Narain was armed with a Dharia and the other appellants had lathis in their hands. At the sight of the appellants, Kalyan and Gajanand turned back towards the Mandi for their safety, but Chottia appellant inflicted an '"Injury on the head of Kalyan with the sharp side of the Gandasa with an intention to kill him Thereafter, the other appellants also began to beat him as a result of which Kalyan fell on the ground then and there and was subsequently removed to Police Station, Indergarh. Gopi, Prabhu Lal and Tejmal also received injuries at the hands of the appellants. A report of this incident was lodged with the police by Gaja Nand at Police Station, Indergarh. Gopi, Prabhu Lal and Tejmal also received injuries at the hands of the appellants. A report of this incident was lodged with the police by Gaja Nand at Police Station, Indergarh. On the basis of his report the police registered a criminal case under sections 147, 148, 307 and 149, I.P.C. and took up the usual investigation into the matter. Prabhu Lal also rushed to the police Station and lodged a report with the police. The injured persons were sent for medical examination as their injuries Dr. S.P. Alians, Medical Jurist, Kota, examined Kalyan on March 29, 1975, and found the following injuries on his body:- 1. lacerated wound ⅜"x ⅓"x skin deep near outer edge of left eye-brow; 2. linear abrasion with bruise 3 in number parallel to each other in an area of 5" x 1,1/2' over left side of neck; 3. bruise with swelling 21/2"x l1/2"x near left angle of jaw; 4. bruise with abrasion 31/2 "x l" near left side of face; 5. contused wound l1/2" x ⅓"x skin deep over occipital region of scalp; 6. contused wound l"x ⅛"x 11/2" over middle of vertex. All the injuries except injury No.5 were simple in nature. In the opinion of the Doctor, the injury No. 5 was on a vital part of the body, i.e. head and could be dangerous for life. On that day Gopilal also was examined by Dr. S.P. Alians, who found as many as 4 following injuries on his person which were caused by a blunt weapon:- 1. abrasion ⅜"x ⅛" over left shoulder; 2. abrasion ⅜"x 1/4" over left shoulder l"x4" away from injury No. 1; 3. abrasion ⅝"x ⅛" over front middle of right leg; 4. abrasion ⅛"x ⅛" over right thigh distal one third. Likewise, Prabhu Lal was examined on March 30, 1975, by Dr. Rajendra Singh Shishodia, Officer Incharge, Hospital, Indergarh. Dr. Shishodia found two simple following injuries on his body:- 1. abrasion (healed) 21/2"x l mm. on middle of dorsal aspect of right forearm vertically placed; 2. contusion (blue coloured) 3"x 1/2" on middle of back of left thigh, transversely placed. The very day he examined Tejpal also and found three simple injuries on his body which are noted below:- 1. abrasion (healed) l"x 1/2" on middle of the back, over L 12 area vertically placed; 2. abrasion (healed) 1/2"x 1/2" on back of left elbow; 3. contusion (blue coloured) 3"x 1/2" on middle of back of left thigh, transversely placed. The very day he examined Tejpal also and found three simple injuries on his body which are noted below:- 1. abrasion (healed) l"x 1/2" on middle of the back, over L 12 area vertically placed; 2. abrasion (healed) 1/2"x 1/2" on back of left elbow; 3. contusion (blue in colour) 6"x 1" on middle of right side of back, transversely placed. In the course of investigation, the police attested the appellants. Out of the appellants, Ratti Ram, Chottia, Har Narain and Chiranji Lal had injuries on their persons which were examined by Dr. Rajendra Singh Shishodia on March 30,1975. After collecting other necessary evidence in the case,the police filed a charge-sheet against the appellants and one Amba Lal under sections 147,148, 149 and 307 read with section 34 I.P.C. in the court of the Additional Mansiff Magistrate 1st Class No. 2, Kota (South). The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon finding a prima facie case exclusively triable by the court of Session, committed the appellants and Amba Lal co-accused to the court of the Sessions Judge, Kota, for trial for the aforesaid offences. It appears that the Sessions Judge transferred this case to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, for trial is accordance with law. The learned Additional Sessions Judge tried the appellants and the co-accused after framing necessary charges against them and, upon conclusion of trial and hearing the learned Public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellants case to finding that the prosecution proved its case against all the appellants, but could not bring guilt home to Amba Lal co-accused. Consequently, he acquitted Amba Lal of all the charges and convicted and sentenced all the appellants in the manner stated above. 3. Aggrieved by their convictions and sentences the appellants have preferred this appeal. I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. V.S. Dave assisted by Mr. Anand Sharma for the appellants and Mr. G.G. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State. Firstly, it has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the trial Judge did not correctly appreciate the evidence brought on the record and went wrong in accepting the explanation given by the prosecution for presence of multiple injuries on the persons of Chottia, Har Narain Ratti Ram, and Chiranji Lal appellants. G.G. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State. Firstly, it has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the trial Judge did not correctly appreciate the evidence brought on the record and went wrong in accepting the explanation given by the prosecution for presence of multiple injuries on the persons of Chottia, Har Narain Ratti Ram, and Chiranji Lal appellants. It was further urged that the plea that they were beaten by the complainant party was probably a reasonable one and ought to have been given credence, especially when no independent eye witness was examined by the prosecution at the trial, although the incident was alleged to have taken place in broad day light on the road in the centre of the market The other contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellants was that there is an apparent conflict between the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the medical testimony regarding use of sharp-edged weapon by the appellants in inflicting injuries on the injured persons. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants further contended that the evidence of the injured and the eye-witnesses is highly discrepant and contradictory and no conviction could reasonably be based on its basis but the learned trial Judge went wrong in believing it without any corroboration thereof in essential particulars from any independent quarters. 4. Mr. G.G. Sharma, Public Prosecutor, for the State, on the other hand, contended that the prosecution has led independent and reliable evidence in support of its case and the trial Judge was justified in placing reliance upon it for the purpose of convicting the appellants. It was further urged by him that no independent witness was present at the time and place of occurrence and so the evidence of the injured cannot be discarded merely on this ground. According to the submission of the Public Prosecutor, there is no conflict between the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the testimony of the Doctors with regard to the injuries inflicted on the person of the injured. 5. I have given by anxious consideration to the relevant arguments and carefully perused the record. At the outset, I may observe that Gaja Nand PW 1, Deep Chand. 5. I have given by anxious consideration to the relevant arguments and carefully perused the record. At the outset, I may observe that Gaja Nand PW 1, Deep Chand. PW 2, Kalyan, PW 3, Prabbu Lal, PW 4, Gopi Lal, PW 5, Bhag rath PW 7, Ladu Lal, PW 10, Nam Singh PW 11, Hira Lal, PW 13, Mishri Lal, PW 14 and Tej Mai, PW 15 have been examined by the prosecution as eye-witnesses to the actual occurrence. Out of these witnesses Bhagirath, PW 7, Ladu Lal, PW 10, Nam Singh, PW 11 and Mishri Lal, PW 14 turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not implicate any appellant in the commission of the crime. They were cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor in the trial court, but nothing helpful to the prosecution could be elicited from them. Now remains to be considered the evidence of the remaining eye-witnesses with a view to ascertaining whether their statements are true and reliable qua each appellant. 6. Gaja Nand, PW 1, stated in his deposition at the trial that all the appellants begun 10 inflict blows on the head of Kalyan. He further stated that Chottia had a Gandasi in his hand while Har Narain was armed with a Dharia and the c her appellants had lathis in their hands. As the Marpeet commenced, the witness ran away from there into the shop of one Prabhu. Gaja Nand was cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the appellants in the (rial court. He admitted in his cross-examination that Kalyan injured is his real nephew. He further admitted that he cannot say which of the appellants had first struck a blow on the body of Kalyan. He could not say which injured was beaten by Chottia. The evidence of Gaja Nand cannot be believed. If all the appellants had inflicted blows on the head of Kalyan, the later would have received several injuries on his head. Dr. S.P. Alians. Medical Jurist. Kota, who examined Kalyan on March 29, 1975, found one contused wound only 1,1/2' x ⅛" x skin deep over occipital region of scalp. Hence, there is apparent irreconcilable conflict between the evidence of Gaja Nand and the testimony of Dr. S.P. Alians. Therefore, I do not feel inclined to give any weight to the statement of Gaja Nand, PW I. 7. Another eye-witness is Deep Chand, PW 2. Hence, there is apparent irreconcilable conflict between the evidence of Gaja Nand and the testimony of Dr. S.P. Alians. Therefore, I do not feel inclined to give any weight to the statement of Gaja Nand, PW I. 7. Another eye-witness is Deep Chand, PW 2. His evidence is that Ratti Ram, Chiranji, Chottu, Har Narain and one another person were beating Kalyan in the morning in Sumerganj Mandi on the next day of Holi festival. He further stated that Har Narain had a Gandasi in his hand and all the appellants were inflicting blows on different parts of the body of Kalyan, e.g. head, back etc. Deep Chand professed to have tried to rescue Kalyan but he received two lathi blows on his person. Kalyan became unconscious. Deep Chand, however, admitted that he did not see Kishan appellant and Amba Lal, co-accused, participating in the Marpeet. According to his version, Chottu struck a lathi blow on his hand. The Additional Public Prosecution or sought permission of the Court to cross-examine this witness and the permission was given. Thereafter, this witness was confirmed with portion A to B of his previous statement Ex. P. 1. When confronted with the aforesaid portion. Deep Chand stated that he did not mention any portion A to B of his statement Ex. P. 1 that Ratti Ram and Amba Lal also took part in the beating. He further admitted that Chottia had struck a blow on his body with a Gandasi. Deep Chand was further cross-examined by the learned counsel for the appellants. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there are shops of Prabhu Lal, Narsingh Lal, Mishri Lal, Birju Sindhi, Nixi Prasad, and Harish Chandra near about the place of occurrence in the market. He further admitted that Mool Singh, Arjun Mali, Brij Mohan Mali, Ramu Mali and Raj Kishan Mali have shops nearby the place of occurrence and the shops of these persons were open at the time when Kalyan and others were beaten by the appellants. Deep Chand could not say how the quarrel had started and which of the appellants had first inflicted blow on the body of Kalyan. He did not claim to have seen Gaja Nand and Gopi being beaten by any of the appellants. Deep Chand could not say how the quarrel had started and which of the appellants had first inflicted blow on the body of Kalyan. He did not claim to have seen Gaja Nand and Gopi being beaten by any of the appellants. The evidence of Deep Chand does not inspire confidence, because if he had been beaten by the appellants and if Chottia appellant had struck a blow on his hand with a Gandasa or lathi, he would have surely received injuries on his body but, curiously enough, he was not medically examined by any Doctor. Another ground for disbelieving this witness is that he claimed to have seen a sharp-edged weapon i.e.Gandasi in the hand of Har Narain with which, according to him, he was beating Kalyan along with other appellants. It is surprising that not a single injury caused by a sharp-edged weapon like Gandasi was found on the body of Kalyan by Dr. S.P. Alians, Medical Jurist, Kota, on March 29, 1975. Consequently, it appears that this witness was not an eye-witness to the actual occurrence. 8. Kalyan, P.W. 3, is one of the injured persons. His evidence at the trial was that he was beaten by the appellants at a shop of a confectioner in Sumerganj Mandi. He further stated that Chiranji had a Gandasi in his hand while Har Narain was armed with a Dharia and that he was encircled and beaten by all the appellants. The first blow fell on his head and thereafter blows were showered on him by the appellants, as a result of which he fell down unconscious. According to the version of Kalyan, he had no enmity with the appellants. The Additional Public Prosecutor sought permission of the court to cross-examine this witness also and when permission as given, be confronted Kalyan with portions A to B and C to D of his previous statement Ex. P. 3 which he gave before the police and wherein he stated that when lie was going to his village from Sumerganj Mandi, Chiranji and Basti Ram Meenas of Daulatpura threw him on the ground without any excuse and that they were drunk at that time. In portion A to B of his statement Ex. P. 3 Kalyan further admitted that on account of the aforesaid incident his relations with Chiranji and Basti Ram Meena were strained. In portion A to B of his statement Ex. P. 3 Kalyan further admitted that on account of the aforesaid incident his relations with Chiranji and Basti Ram Meena were strained. When confronted with the portion A to B of his statement Ex. P. 3 before the police, Kalyan denied to have made the above statement. When confronted with portion C to D of his referred to above statement Ex. P. 3. Kalyan denied to have made such a statement before the police. Likewise he denied to have made the statement contained in portion E to F of Ex. P. 3 before the police wherein he stated that Chottia had inflicted a blow on his head with the sharp side of a Gandasi with an intention to kill him while other appellants and Amba Lal, co-accused, beat him with sharp edged weapons like Dharia and lathis. Curiously enough, there was no injury caused by a sharp-edged weapon on his body. If Chottia and Har Narain appellants had caused injuries to his body with a sharp-edged Gandasi and Dhoria, Kalyan must have sustained incised wounds on his head and other parts of his body. In his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the appellants he claimed to have no knowledge whether the blow was inflicted on his body with sharp side or reverse side of the Gandasi, although he stated before the police the sharp side of the Gandasi was used in striking a blow on his head by Chottia and the other injuries were caused to his body by Dharia and lathis. Hence, the evidence of Kalyan also is not free from material contradictions and infirmities, as indicated above. 9. Another eye-witness is Prabhu Lal, P.W. 4. His evidence is that Kalyan was beaten by the appellants in front of his shop and that when Deep Chand rushed to the rescue of Kalyan, he also was beaten by a lathi. This witness further stated that after a short while the police came in a truck, At the sight of the police, the appellants tried to run away but they were surrounded and beaten by the police because they made efforts to assault the police. This witness further stated that after a short while the police came in a truck, At the sight of the police, the appellants tried to run away but they were surrounded and beaten by the police because they made efforts to assault the police. The evidence of this witness also is not worthy of credence, because he also stated that Chottia had a sharp-edged Gandasi in his hand while Har Narain had a Dharia with which they were beating Kalyan along with other appellants, who were armed with lathis. As I have stated earlier, there was no injury on the body of Kalyan which can be said to have been caused by sharp edged weapons like Gandasi and Dharia. 10. Another witness examined by the prosecution to prove its case is Gopi Lal, P.W 5. The statement of Gopi Lal in the trial court was that on hearing in the village from one body Ram Kishan that Kalyan had been killed, he along with Prabhu Lal started in search of the dead body. In the way they were surrounded by the appellants and Har Narain appellant inflicted a blow with his Dharia which fell on Gopi Lals shoulder. Then Amba Lal, co-accused, who has been acquitted by the trial court, threw a big stone from the behind which hit Gopi Lal's right rib and struck a lathi blow on his head also. Gopi Lal then ran away inside the house of Harbhajan Singh and came out therefrom upon arrival of the police. The evidence of this witness does not find support from the medical evidence, because the injuries found over his left shoulder were abrasions which could only be caused by a blunt weapon. If Har Narain had inflicted a blow on his shoulder with a sharp-edged Dharia, he would have surely sustained an incised wound. Apart from this, the trial court disbelieved his version that Amba Lal, co-accused, had thrown a big stone at him which hit his right rib and that Amba Lal further struck a blow on his head with a lathi. Hence, Gopi Lal, in my opinion, was not an eye-witness to the actual occurrence and his presence at the time and place of incident was highly doubtful. 11. Hence, Gopi Lal, in my opinion, was not an eye-witness to the actual occurrence and his presence at the time and place of incident was highly doubtful. 11. Likewise Prabhu Lal, son of Shri Lal, P.W. 6 is the person who had accompanied Gopi Lal on hearing in his village about beating the interested to Kalyan by the appellants. His evidence at the trial was that the appellants made an assault on him and Gopi Lal but the latter entered the shop of a contractor who closed the door of his shop after his entry. The appellants made efforts to open the door but they could not do so, Prabhu Lal further stated that Har Narain appellant had struck a blow on his hand with a Dharia which fact is not corroborated by the medical evidence, because Dr. Rajendra Singh Shishodia found two simple injuries on his body which were caused by a blunt weapon. One of the injuries was an abrasion (healed) 2,1/2" x 1 mm on middle of dorsal aspect of right fore-arm vertically placed and the other was a contusion (blue coloured) 3"x 1/2" on middle of back of left thigh, transversely placed. Hence, the evidence of Prabhu Lal, P-W. 6, is not trust-worthy and could not be relied upon for the purpose of convicting the appellants. 12. Another eye-witness examine by the prosecution is Hira Lal, PW 13. His evidence at the trial was that he was going to his village at about noon from the market. As soon as he came from the side of the depot of wine contractor, lie heard a noise and saw Ratti Ram telling in a loud tone as "where the father of Bhonria had gone", "he should be beaten" meaning thereby that he was telling that this witness Hiralal should be beaten. Thereupon, Ratti Ram, Chiranji and Har Narain surrounded him and began to hurl abuses upon him. Hira Lal claimed to have gone on the roof of his shop and requested the appellants to spare him, but they were adamant to beat him. After some time the aforesaid three appellants went away from there at the instance of the servants of the Depot. Hira Lal claimed to have gone on the roof of his shop and requested the appellants to spare him, but they were adamant to beat him. After some time the aforesaid three appellants went away from there at the instance of the servants of the Depot. After their departure, Hira Lal also came out of the Depot at 3 p.m. The evidence of Hira Lal is of no avail to the prosecution,because he did not see the appellants beating Kalyan or any oilier injured. Me did not even say that he also was beaten by the appellants. No weight can, therefore, be attached to his testimony. 13. The last eye-witness is Tejmal PW 15. His evidence at the trial was that on the next day of the festival of Holi, he was coming from his house to his grain shop situated 011 the footpath of Sumerganj Mandi. Then he saw that all the appellants except Kishan were fighting with Kalyan. Kishan came later on. Chiranji, Chottia, and other appellants had lathis in their hands. Then this witness went to his shop to sleep there after closing the doors. Thereafter he came out of his shop and went to a hotel wherein Kishan appellant came and slapped him twice. Tejmal further stated that Prabhu also received an injury 011 his hands and Kalyan injured was removed to police station from there Tejmal was cross-examined in the trial court by the learned Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination lie admitted that ail the appellants were striking with lathis. In the first instance, Chiranji and Ratti Ram used lathis and from the side of the complainant party Kalyan and Gaja Nand were using lathis and all she four fighting with each other. The above admission made by Tejmal in his deposition at the trial is quoted below in his own words:- " lkjs eqyfteku ykBh pyk jgs FksA 'kq: esa fpajth] jRrhjke pyk jgs FksA gekjh rjQ ls xtkuUn dY;k.k] ykBh pyk jgs FksA pkjksa vkil esa yM+ iM+sA ;g cktkj ds chp dh ckr gSaA " Tejmal further admitted that he had no enmity with the appellants and that he cannot say why he was slapped by Kishan. In his cross-examination, he gave an exaggerated version by stating that he was slapped three or four times by Kishan, who gave him a first blow also. In his cross-examination, he gave an exaggerated version by stating that he was slapped three or four times by Kishan, who gave him a first blow also. In this m inner, the evidence of Tejmal probabilisms the version of the appellants that they were beaten by Kalyan and his party as a result of which some of them, namely, Ratti Ram, Chottia, Har Narain and Chiranji received multiple injuries on their bodies, as is evident from the statement of Dr. Rajendra Singh Shishodia, P.W. 9. 14. Hence, upon careful review of the entire prosecution evidence on the record, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against any of the appellants. As indicated above, the evidence of eye witnesses produced by the prosecution is not free from serious infirmities and material contradictions. Moreover, the incident took place in broad day light in an open market known as Sumerganj Mandi. Near about the place of occurrence there were situated several shops which were open at the time of occurrence. Curiously enough, no independent eye witness has supported the prosecution version. Bhagirath Singh, P.W. 7, Ladu Lal, P.W. 10 and Nam Singh, P.W. 11 did not implicate any appellant in the commission of the assault on the injured persons. They were no doubt cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor but nothing could be elicited from their cross-examination which may prove the complicity of the appellants in the crime over and above all,the prosecution could I not afford any reasonable explanation for the presence of injuries on the persons of Ratti Ram, Chottia, Har Narain and Chiranji appellants. It will not be out of place to mention that Ratti Ram received one contusion on dorsal aspect of his hand and Chottia sustained as many as five injuries on his right and left arms, face and right knee. Likewise, Har Narain received three injuries on his body, out of which one was on the right frontal area of scalp. It will not be out of place to mention that Ratti Ram received one contusion on dorsal aspect of his hand and Chottia sustained as many as five injuries on his right and left arms, face and right knee. Likewise, Har Narain received three injuries on his body, out of which one was on the right frontal area of scalp. Chiranji also sustained five injuries on his body, out of which one was on right temporal area of the scalp and the other was on the middle of the occipital area of the scalp and the rest of the injuries were on right hand and right scapula The explanation given by the eye-witnesses for the presence of injuries on the persons of the aforesaid appellants was that after the incident of Marpeet was over, they were surrounded and beaten by the police, as they tried to assault them. The above explanation was accepted by the trial Judge but,in my opinion, it is not at all convincing for the simple reason that Prakash Chandra, Station House Officer, Indergarth, who arrested the appellants, did not say in his deposition that the appellants had made an attempt to assault them. He could not say that the appellants were beaten by him or the police constables. He merely stated that the constables might have beaten the appellants with lathis and he did not know whether constables had wielded their lathis. When further cross-examined, he admitted that he had not written in any memo that constables had wielded lathis or had beaten the appellants. He merely stated that the constables might have beaten the appellants with lathis and he did not know whether constables had wielded their lathis. When further cross-examined, he admitted that he had not written in any memo that constables had wielded lathis or had beaten the appellants. His statement on this point is quoted below:- " flikfg;ksa us ydM+h;ksa dks vfHk;qDrx.k ds ekjh gksxhA eqyfteku us gekjs ij dksbZ okj ugha fd;kA lc flikfg;ksa us ydM+h;kWa NqikbZ gksxh rks ugha dg ldrkA pksj gjukjk;.k dk gokyk Ex.P/ 14 esa fn;k gSA exj ;g ugha fy[kk fd etker djus ls pksV vkbZ gSA fdlh Hkh QnZ esa ;g ckr ugha fy[kh gSA " In the absence of any reasonable and convincing explanation from the side of the prosecution for the presence of multiple injuries found on the bodies of Ratti Ram, Chiranji, Har Narain and Chottia, appellants, the possibility of these persons having received injuries in the first instance by Kalyan, Gaja Nand, Gopi and others could not be ruled out altogether, and, it is likely that the appellants might have caused injuries to Kalyan, Gopi and Gaja Nand in the exercise of their right of self defence. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration and having regard to the fact that the evidence of the eye-witnesses examined in the case is highly unsatisfactory, I am of the view that convictions of Kishan, Chottia, Har Narain and Chiranji under sections 323 and 148 and that of Ratti Ram and Dheera under section 148, I.P.C. cannot be legally sustained. 15. The result of the above discussion is that accept the appeal filed by Ratti Ram and Dheera and acquit them of the charge under section 148, I.P.C. I accept the appeal of Kishan, Chottia, Har Narain and Chiranji also and acquit them of the charges under sections 323 and 148, I.P.C. All the aforesaid six appellants are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds, which are hereby cancelled.Appeal accepted. *******