JUDGMENT S.J. Hyder, J. 1. Genda Lal and six others have appealed to this court against the judgment and order dated September 26, 1977 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 148 of 1975. Genda Lal and Virpal appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 147 and 323/149 IPC. They have been sentenced to undergo one year's RI on the first count. On the second count, they have also been convicted to undergo RI for a similar period. Komal Singh, Natthu, Ramesh and Sripal have each been found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and two years' RI have been awarded to them for the said offence. A further conviction for the offence punishable under section 307/149 has been found to have been proved against them and they have been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years. Bisham Pal appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years under Section 148 IPC. He has also been found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on that count. The different sentence recorded against the appellants have been made concurrent. The initial version of the prosecution case is to be found in the first information report lodged at Police Station Nidhauli Kalan District Elah by Jawahar Singh son of Ram Charan Singh on July 26, 1974 at 9.15 p.m. In the first information report, it is, inter alia, stated that Genda Lal appellant and his partymen were being run down by the police under Section 107/117 CrPC on account of which they entertain ill-will against the first informant and his relations and supporters. On account of this ill-will, on July 26, 1974 at about 7.30 p.m. when Darbari was going from the house of Ram Singh towards his own residence, Genda Lal and Virpal armed with lathis, Komal Singh, Natthu, Ramesh carrying Kattas, Bishampal Singh armed with the gun of his own father came to the scene of occurrence and mounted an assault on Darbari. The victim cried out far help and ran towards the house of Ram Singh when he was surrounded by the appellants. Darbari was given a beating with lathis by Genda Lal and Virpal and they also stated that they will finish him once for all. The victim cried out far help and ran towards the house of Ram Singh when he was surrounded by the appellants. Darbari was given a beating with lathis by Genda Lal and Virpal and they also stated that they will finish him once for all. At this stage, Bishampal Singh, Ramesh and Natthu fired with their weapons and the gun shot found their mark on the person of one Turram Singh. On account of the noise created by this incident, Ram Singh, Nem Singh, Bhuwaneshwar Pratap, Leeladhar and Bharat Singh and many other persons of the village came to the scene of the occurrence. Wife of Turram Singh, Smt.Kamla, also arrived and she rushed to save her husband whereupon Komal Singh and Sripal fired at her with their respective weapons and she was also injured. The first information report concluded by stating that Turram Singh had died at the spot on account of the gun shot wounds sustained by him and Smt.Kamla and Darbari have received injuries. 2. Now, it is not in dispute that Genda Lal appellant, Ram Swarup and Thakur Das are three brothers. Bishampal Singh is the son of Genda Lal whereas Komal Singh appellant is the son of Ram Swarup Sripal and Ramesh appellants are sons of Thakur Das. Natthu appellant is a cousin of Genda Lal. Genda Lal had a maternal cousin named Chandan, and Virpal is the son of Chandan. It is thus the common case of the parties that all the appellants belong to the same family. PW 1 Bhuneshwar Pratap, in his evidence, has conceded that Ram Singh, Jawahar Singh, Darbari and Sonal Singh belong to the party of which Bhuneshwar Pratap is the head. Turram Singh deceased is admittedly the son of Jawahar Singh and as such was also a supporter of Bhuneshwar Pratap. The investigation of the case was taken up by Mewa Ram Lakhoria SI. He visited the scene of occurrence and performed necessary formalities which included the making of some recoveries. 3. The injuries of Smt.Kamla and Darbari Lal were examined by Dr. S. Prasad. He noted as many as 12 injuries on the person of Darbari out of which six were abrasions or abraded contusions, four were simple contusions, one was a punctured wound and another a lacerated wound. The medical examination of Smt.Kamla, wife of Turram Singh, revealed five injuries. The injuries of Smt.Kamla and Darbari Lal were examined by Dr. S. Prasad. He noted as many as 12 injuries on the person of Darbari out of which six were abrasions or abraded contusions, four were simple contusions, one was a punctured wound and another a lacerated wound. The medical examination of Smt.Kamla, wife of Turram Singh, revealed five injuries. Two of the said injuries are abrasions and another is a punctured wound. Two gun shot wounds were also noted on the person of Smt.Kamla. A description of the gun shot wounds, as stated in the medical report, is given below:- "3. Twelve gun shot wound of entrance each 0.3 cmX0.3 cmXskin remole give depth kept under observation on the front of chest and upper part of abdomen in an area of 21 cmx13cm. No scorching and blackening and dical backwards. 4. Five gun shot wounds of entrance each 0.3 cmX 3 cm. examined on the front surface left from upper part 1cmX4 cm. No scorching and blackening part and direct backward." 4. The dead body of Turram Singh was sent for post mortem examination to Etah. The autopsy was conducted by Dr. S.N. Bhatnagar, Medical Officer, Etah. The result of the external injuries sustained by the deceased Turram Singh, as given in the autopsy report, fa as follows: 1. Gunshot lacerated wound 0.7 cm diameter x deep left side face 1.5 cm below (2) G. S. wound. 2. Gunshot lacerated wound 0.7 cm diameter x bone deep (L) face 2 cm to the left of left angle of eye. 3. Gunshot lacerated wound 0.7 cm diameter (L) face 2/1-2 cm below no. 2. 4. Gunshot lacerated wound 0.7 cm diameter (L) cheek 2 cm below no. 3X bone deep. 5. Gunshot lacerated wound 0.7 cm diameter X bone deep (L) side nose 2 cm. from left bridge. Gunshot lacerated wound 3 cm X 2 cm X skin deep and cover jaw (R) side 1 cm to the right of cheek. 5. Gunshot lacerated wound 0.7 cm diameter X muscle deep (L) side neck above centre of (L) clavicle. All wounds of entry. 6. Gunshot lacerated wound 1 cm X 0.4 cmX cavity deep over occipital bone 4. 5. cm below and right of Exist wound. Ten circular abrasions each measuring about 0.2 cm diameter extending over the back side just below the last rib to the glutous region. 6. All wounds of entry. 6. Gunshot lacerated wound 1 cm X 0.4 cmX cavity deep over occipital bone 4. 5. cm below and right of Exist wound. Ten circular abrasions each measuring about 0.2 cm diameter extending over the back side just below the last rib to the glutous region. 6. In the opinion of the doctor, the death of the deceased was due to gun shot injuries caused to the brain. An important point to be noted in connection with the autopsy conducted on the dead body of Turram Singh is that as many as eight gun shot injuries were sustained by him on his face and the last injury was on the back. This is a matter to which we shall have occasion to refer later in this judgment. 7. In order to prove its case against the appellants, the prosecution examined Bhuneshwar Pratap (PW 1), Ram Singh (PW 2), Kamla (PW 3) and Darbari Lal (PW 4) to give an ocular account of the incident. Dr. S. N. Bhatnagar was produced as PW 4 and Dr. S. Prasad proved the injury reports of Darbari and Smt.Kamla as PW 5. Jawahatr Singh the first informant, gave evidence as PW 8 Mewa Ram Lakhoria, the Investigating Officer, appeared as PW 9. Constable Gopal Singh (PW 6) gave formal evidence. This exhausts the list of the witnesses examined in support of the change. 8. There is a counter version of the incident which has been supported by the evidence of Bishampal (DW 1) and Dr. R. P. Yadav (DW 2). According to this version, Natthu, Virpal, Ramesh and Sripal appellants were not present at the scene of occurrence at all, and they have been falsely implicated in the case to feed the grudge of Bhuneshwar Pratap and his partymen. It is next stated that Gajadhar Singh and Dammar Singh were two real brothers. Bhuneshwar Pratap (PW 1) is the son of Gajadhar Singh and one Smt.Leelawati is the widow of Dammar Singh who died issueless. The two brothers Gajadhar Singh and Dammar Singh owned 200 Bighas of land and in order to usurp the share of Smt.Leelawati, Bhuneshwar Pratap concealed her existence and got his name recorded against the entire holding. Genda Lal espoused the cause of Smt.Leelawati and was acting as her pairokar in different cases. The two brothers Gajadhar Singh and Dammar Singh owned 200 Bighas of land and in order to usurp the share of Smt.Leelawati, Bhuneshwar Pratap concealed her existence and got his name recorded against the entire holding. Genda Lal espoused the cause of Smt.Leelawati and was acting as her pairokar in different cases. It is also stated that on the date and time of the occurrence, Genda Lal was returning after doing pairvi in one of these cases when he was pounced upon by Ram Singh, Darbari and Ram Dayal who started beating him with lathis. Komal Singh appellant came to the assistance of Genda Lal. Jagrup and Soran also joined the fray in support of Ram Singh and others. They fired with their guns at Genda Lai and Komal Singh and Komal Singh fell down as a result of the injuries sustained by him. At this stage Bishampal felt apprehensive of the safety of his father and his cousin Komal Singh. He also fired from the gun of his father in self defence. The statements of the appellants recorded under Section 313 CrPC accords with this defence version. A first information report was also lodged by Genda Lal who went to the police station accompanied by Komal Singh appellant. There is some dispute about the time of the making of the said first information report with which we shall deal a little later. It may, however, be stated that the injuries of Genda Lal and Komal were examined by Dr. R. P. Yadav (DW 2) in the Jail. Dr. Yadav is Medical Officer, Etah and at the time of the examination, he was also holding the charge of the Jail doctor Incharge of the District Jail, Etah. The Medical examination of Genda Lal and Komal Singh was conducted by him inside the Jail on 27-7-1974. He found as many as seven blunt weapon injuries on the person of Genda Lal. He also noted a number of gun shot wounds on the person of Komal Singh. The examination of the two appellants was done between 5 and 6. p. m. In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were about 24 hours old. 9. On the basis of the FIR lodged by Genda Lal, Ram Swarup and others were also prosecuted and they stood their trial before the Court of Sessions in Sessions Trial No. 331 of 1976. p. m. In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were about 24 hours old. 9. On the basis of the FIR lodged by Genda Lal, Ram Swarup and others were also prosecuted and they stood their trial before the Court of Sessions in Sessions Trial No. 331 of 1976. Both the Sessions Trials were conducted before the same Sessions Court and the judgments in the two cases were delivered on the same date. The Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there was a free fight between the parties. In doing so, he read the evidence recorded in Sessions Trial No. 331 of 1976 along with the evidence recorded in the Sessions Trial which has given rise to this appeal. The Sessions Judge has specifically observed that he can not shut his eyes to the evidence in the cross case when he was deciding the two cases simultaneously on the same date. After making the said observation, he has freely referred to the evidence in both the cases in making out the case of free fight between the parties which had not been pleaded either on behalf of the prosecution or on behalf of the appellants. 7. We consider it necessary to point out that the trial of a Civil suit is materially different from the trial of criminal cases. The procedure for the trial of a civil suit is governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure whereas a criminal trial proceeds in accordance with the adjective law outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is a truism which hardly needs to be discussed. Whereas under the Code of Civil Procedure, trial of two different suits may be consolidated and with the consent of parties, evidence in both the suits may be recorded in one case only. It is permissible in a court trying a civil suit to read such evidence while deciding the other in which the evidence has not been recorded. This is a peculiarity governing civil suits which can not be extended in the trial of criminal cases even though such trials may relate to two cross cases. It is permissible in a court trying a civil suit to read such evidence while deciding the other in which the evidence has not been recorded. This is a peculiarity governing civil suits which can not be extended in the trial of criminal cases even though such trials may relate to two cross cases. We have not been able to discover anything in the Code of Criminal Procedure which makes it permissible for a court to read the evidence in one case while deciding the other case and basing its judgment on the result arrived at by the said cumulative assessment of evidence. True it is that two cross cases may be tried by the same court one after the other. It is also permissible that judgments in both the cases may be delivered on the same date. However, the evidence recorded in each case has to be read in that case alone. It cannot be called in aid for the purpose of deciding the other case. 8. We have already stated that Bhuneshwar Pratap (PW 1) has frankly admitted that there are two factions in the village one of which is led by himself and the other by Genda Lal appellant. It is also the common case of the parties that Genda Lal was espousing the cause of a lady who claimed to be the widow of Dammar Singh, brother of Gajadhar Singh whose son is Bhuneshwar Pratap. It is also not in controversy that on the date of the incident, Genda Lal was returning from Etah after attending to one of the cases which was being fought between the alleged widow of Dammar Singh and Bhuneshwar Pratap. The prosecution witnesses are admittedly partisans of Bhuneshwar Pratap and they include Jawahar Singh, the first informant, who is the father of the deceased Turram Singh. The Sessions Judge has observed in his judgment that Turram Singh was an outsider and the said observation is not correct and is based on non reading of evidence produced in this case. In these circumstances, the rule of prudence requires that we should examine the prosecution evidence with care and caution and should not accept the ipse dixit of the prosecution witnesses on their face value. To our mind, the first, information report itself is a suspicious document. In these circumstances, the rule of prudence requires that we should examine the prosecution evidence with care and caution and should not accept the ipse dixit of the prosecution witnesses on their face value. To our mind, the first, information report itself is a suspicious document. Jawahar Singh (PW 8) in his testimony has stated that he was not present at the time of the occurrence and he dictated the first information report to Bhuneshwar Pratap after hearing the account of what had transpired from the prosecution witnesses. Bhuneshwar Pratap himself claims to be an eye witness and he goes on to say that he told about the sequence of events as they allegedly happened to Jawahar Singh. He further states that he then scribed the first information report on the dictation of Jawahar Singh and wrote the document in the manner in which it was dictated to him by Jawahar Singh. This appears to us to be highly unnatural. According to the prosecution, Bhuneshwar Pratap himself was an eye witness and so were Ram Singh (PW 2), Smt.Kamla (PW 3) and Darbari Lal (PW 7). All of these persons were not favourably disposed to the appellants and each one of them had his own axe to grind. There is no good reasons why one of the eye witnesses himself should not have gone to the Police Station to lodge the first information report. 9. There is another aspect of the matter which can not be ignored. The Investigation Officer visited the scene of occurrence and prepared a site plan. In the said site plan at point 'kha' he has shown the place where Jawahar Singh the first informant, Leeladhar and Ram Singh were standing at the time of the incident. The site plan read with the testimony of the Investigation Officer indicates that in the first instance, the prosecution intended to include Jawahar Singh in the list of eye witnesses. This idea was subsequently abandoned for reasons which shall be dealt with in this judgment. The time of the first information report itself is doubtful. Ram Singh (PW 2) in his cross examination conceded that he stated for Etah with the injured after 10 or 15 minutes of the departure of Jawahar Singh to the Police Station. He then stated that he left for Etah at about 11 or 12 in the night. The time of the first information report itself is doubtful. Ram Singh (PW 2) in his cross examination conceded that he stated for Etah with the injured after 10 or 15 minutes of the departure of Jawahar Singh to the Police Station. He then stated that he left for Etah at about 11 or 12 in the night. The injuries of Darbari Lal and Smt.Kamla were examined by Dr. S. Prasad on 27-7-1974 after 9 a.m. In case, Ram Singh had left for Etah by midnight between 26th and 27th July, 1974 the injuries of the two persons named above would have been examined much earlier. The delay in the medical examination of the injuries is itself a pointer that Ram Singh (PW 2) may have left for Etah much after midnight. Even if it be assumed that he left for Etah between 11 p.m. and 12 in the midnight, then the conclusion is inescapable that the first information report could not have been lodged at 15 minutes past 9 on 26th of July, 1974. The distance of the police station from the village of occurrence is about two miles. The first information could not have reached the police station before 11.30 p.m. on 26th July, 1974. In our opinion, the first information report is ante timed. This is the conclusion which has been drawn by the Sessions Judge himself and we see no reason to differ from him on this point. 10. Another peculiar feature of this case is that all the prosecution witnesses are unanimous and categorical in their statements that Genda Lal and Komal Singh did not sustain any injuries at the time of the occurrence. The injuries sustained by them are too patent and pronounced to be ignored. The testimony of Dr. R.P. Yadav (DW 2) fixes the time of the injury. The said time coincides with the time of occurrence. Genda Lal was an old man of 70 years at the time of occurrence. It was not possible for him to have got fictitious injuries manufactured on his person. The injuries on the person of Komal Singh are gun shot wounds which cannot be termed as self inflicted or self suffered. The conclusion, therefore, which is inescapable is that the prosecution witnesses are withholding the truth from the court and are giving a garbled version of the incident on which no raliance can be placed. The injuries on the person of Komal Singh are gun shot wounds which cannot be termed as self inflicted or self suffered. The conclusion, therefore, which is inescapable is that the prosecution witnesses are withholding the truth from the court and are giving a garbled version of the incident on which no raliance can be placed. Moreover, it can not be doubted and it is a fact which has been conceded by the Investigation Officer that a counter version of the incident was brought to the notice of the police by Genda Lal. His report, however, is alleged to have been lodged subsequent to the first information report given by Jawahar Singh. This statement has been made on the assumption that Jawahar Singh's first information report was lodged at about 9.15 p.m. We have already held that from the evidence it is clear that the said report is ante timed. It is, therefore, difficult to say what was the difference between the lodging of the two first information reports. In any view of the matter, such difference must have been negligible. The prosecution has further introduced an embellishment in this case. The prosecution witnesses have stated mat Turram Singh was fleeing towards the house of Ram Singh when the first shot was fired at him. Injury no. 9 is attributed by the prosecution to this shot. The prosecution witnesses then said that on reaching the door step of the house of Ram Singh, two other shots were fired at him. This improvement has been made in order to explain the injuries given in the statement of Dr. S.N. Bhatnager. The case thus disclosed in the evidence is in total variance with the case disclosed in the first information report. The conduct attributed to Turram Singh of turning back and looking towards his assailants is wholly unnatural and can not be accepted. It is because of this variance in the version disclosed in the first information raport and the actual evidence led by the prosecution at the trial that it was decided to dorp Jawahar Singh form the array of the eye witnesses. It was also for this reason that a round about manner of scribing the first information report has been stated in the evidence of Bhuneshwar Pratap (PW 1). It was also for this reason that a round about manner of scribing the first information report has been stated in the evidence of Bhuneshwar Pratap (PW 1). We are constrained to say that if same thing incorrect was being dictated by Jawahar Singh, Bhuneshwar Pratap should have stopped him and reminded him about the facts which had actually happened. After all according to the prosecution, Jawahar Singh was dictating in the first information report what he had heard from others. We, therefore, do not feel impressed by the testimony offered by the prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the appellants. 11. The result is that this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment and order of the III Additional Sessions Judge dated September 26, 1977 passed in Sessions Trial no. 148 of 1975 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged, and they need not surrender. Appeal allowed.