JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants, Jagdish, Durjan, Mahendra, Basanta, Umrao, Bhim, Deepa, Moti, Gurdial, and Niranjan along with 12 other accused, were tried jointly by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, on charges of rioting armed with deadly weapons, voluntarily causing hurt, and grievous hurt to four persons, murder of one Lal Singh and criminal trespass, punishable under section 147, 148, 323, 149, 324, 149, 325, and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. By his judgment, dated, October 28, 1976, the learned judge came to the conclusion that none of the charges was proved against the twelve co-accused who were consequently acquitted by him. Out of the ten appellants before us, he convicted and sentenced Jagdish and Durjan, inter alia for the murder of Lal Singh, awarding to them, the lesser penalty of imprisonment for life. These two and the other eight appellants were also separately convicted and sentenced under section 147,323, 323-149, 324, 324-149, 325 and 325-149 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the ten appellants as aforementioned may be shortly stated here. On February 17,1974, at about noon time, PWs. Babu Singh, Dewan Singh and Badan Singh sons of Ghisi Singh were busy harvesting their mustard crop from two different fields situate in close proximity with each other with just a road dividing them. They had engaged 25 or 30 labourers to help them in the harvesting operations. A tractor trolly was kept ready in the fields to remove the harvested crop from there. The version as given in the F.I.R., lodged at the instance of PW Hukam Singh at 3.05 P.M. later that day, is that 24 persons, including the 10 appellants, 12 co-accused who have been acquitted and Salig Ram (who had since died) and one Kaptan who is said to be absconding, armed with lathis, pharsas and ballams arrived there in the fields shouting threats to kill Babu Singh and others. They surrounded Babu Singh, Badan Singh, Padam Singh and Lal Singh and belaboured them, with their respective weapons. Lal Singh who was one of the persons working as a labourer in the fields of the complainant party was killed on the spot. The other four, namely, Babu Singh, Badan Singh, Dewan Singh, and Padam Singh sustained injuries in the course of the transaction. Lal Singh who was one of the persons working as a labourer in the fields of the complainant party was killed on the spot. The other four, namely, Babu Singh, Badan Singh, Dewan Singh, and Padam Singh sustained injuries in the course of the transaction. The F.I.R. also mentions that Ratna, Charna, Randhir, Nawab and Padam II who were present there in the fields of the complainant party interceded and saved the aforementioned persons from further injuries. The F.I.R. also contains the accusation that the culprits robbeed the members of the complainant party of their watches and gold chains. 3. During the trial, the prosecution examined among others, Hukam Singh, Babu Singh, Dewan Singh, Padam Singh, Badan Singh, Charna, Randhir, Nawab and Ratna as witnesses in support of its case. Ratna did not support the prosecution story with the result that he was declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution, As for the other witnesses, the trial court felt that they had falsely roped in Dhundar, Nathu, Jomdar, Ganpat, Gopal, Kalyan, Hetram, Daulat, Sardar, Girraj, Gulab and Sampat who were therefore acquitted of all the charges framed against them. It further held that the motive of the crime appeared to be old enmity resulting in previous litigation, both civil and criminal between the parties. It was not inclined to accept the theory that the accused came there to kill Lal Singh to take revenge for the alleged elopement of accused Dhundars daughter-in-law with Lal Singh's son. The trial court agreed that the F.I.R. is a document suffering from some infirmities but the infirmities, in its opinion, are not of such a nature as to render the evidence produced untrustworthy. It further held that none of the accused carried any fire arm and that the evidence produced in that behalf is not reliable. 4. The trial court partly relied on the evidence of PWs. Babu, Badan, Dewan, Padam, Randhir, Nawab and Charan and held on that basis that Jagdish and Durjan had killed Lal Singh, that Jagdish and Bhim had voluntarily caused hurt to Babu, that Gurdial, Deepa, Durjan, Umrao, Mahendra, and Basanta had voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Padam, that Moti, and Umrao had voluntarily caused hurt to Dewan Singh, and that Nirjo had voluntarily caused hurt to Badan. Hence the order of conviction and sentence against them as mentioned above. They have appealed. 5. Hence the order of conviction and sentence against them as mentioned above. They have appealed. 5. In the forefront of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the F.I.R. in the case in a highly suspicious document inasmuch as it was caused to be registered by the S.H.O. concerned in a manner leaving enough scope for filling in the material details subsequently depending upon the evidence as may be available to the prosecution. It will be seen that the F.I.R. was registered at the police station Nadbai on the basis of a report in writing submitted to the S.H.O. Nadabai in the Civil Hospital, Nadbai by Hukam Singh (PW.l) who is admittedly not an eye witness of the occurrence. The circumstances in which this report in writing was got prepared by Hukam Singh make this document highly suspect. Hukam Singh says that from the hospital he went to the Police Station to inform the police about the occurrence and that he was sent back from there without the F.I.R. being registered with instructions to wait for the S. H. O. in the hospital itself where the F.I.R. will be registered. Hukam Singh deposed that he took a petition writer with him to the hospital and waited there till the arrival of the S.H.O. before getting the report scribed by the petition writer. He further stated that since he did not know the details of occurrence and the names of the accused, such details and names were furnished by Babu Singh, and Charan Singh, PWs who had witnessed the occurrence. We are satisfied on the evidence on record that all the four injured persons namely, Badan Singh, Babu Singh, Dewan Singh and Padam Singh, were present at the time of writing of the report (Ex.l) by the petition writer. In fact they seem to have kept prompting Hukam Singh at whose instance the report purports to have been prepared. The S.H.O Nadbai was also present at that time except for giving the names of the alleged participants in the commission of this crime and making general allegations that they had given the beating to Babu Singh, Lal Singh, Padam Singh, Badan Singh, and Dewan Singh, as a result of which Lal Singh died and the other four sustained different injuries, the report did not explain as to how the occurrence started and who beat whom. An attempt was made to explain the omission of these material facts from the report. It was written in the last sentence of the report that the injured persons, namely Badan Singh. Dewan Singh, Padam Singh, and Babu Singh, would furnish further details on regaining consciousness. It transpired on evidence that none of the injured persons could possibly be unconscious at the time the report was being written by the petition writer. On the other hand Babu Singh, one of the injured persons, made it clear that he was quite conscious and that all the details of the occurrence were disclosed by him and by Charan Singh, PW to the petition writer and the S.H.O. before the report was written. We are, therefore, convinced that the report (Ex. 1) is a document which wars managed and doctored in this manner by the S.H.O. who was present at the time it was being written by the petition writer. All the four injured persons were present at that time and in a position to give the details of the occurrence and in fact some of them admittedly gave the details of the occurrence to the S.H.O. and the petition writer. Even then the S.H.O. preferred to get the report written at the instance of a person who had not witnessed the occurrence. The reason why lie chose this course is not far to seek. Obviously, he did not want any of the alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence to commit himself to any definite version in the report. He clearly wanted scope for himself and the alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence to make out a story which could be proved in the court with the help of evidence as may be easily procured. 6. For all these reasons we cannot place any reliance on the F.I.R. in the case as a corroborative piece of evidence. On the other hand the circumstances attending the registration of the F.I.R. would naturally require us to scrutinise the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence with extra care. 7. It will be recalled that the trial court acquitted 12 of the co-accused in this case mainly on the ground that the witness had falsely roped them in due to previous enmity. We are satisfied as to the soundness of the reasoning of the trial court which led it to the acquittal of the co-accused. 7. It will be recalled that the trial court acquitted 12 of the co-accused in this case mainly on the ground that the witness had falsely roped them in due to previous enmity. We are satisfied as to the soundness of the reasoning of the trial court which led it to the acquittal of the co-accused. It will be seen that the alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence had made material improvements in their depositions in the trial as compared to their statements recorded during the investigation with the object of implicating some innocent persons in the commission of this crime. All the witnesses are mutually related. PWs. Babu Singh, Dewan Singh, and Badan Singh, are real brothers. PW. Charan Singh admitted that he is closely related to PW. Babu Singh, PW. Randhir is a nephew of PW Babu Singh but was at pains to conceal this fact in his deposition in the trial. He went to the length of pleading ignorance about the name of his father's brother so that he could conceal from the court the fact that he is a nephew of PW Babu Singh. Similarly PW Nawab is a first cousin of PW Padam Singh. He however made a brazen denial of this fact. The cross-examiner was able to bring home to him that Padam Singh, is a grand son of Daryao and that he himself is a grandson of Daryao. 8. There is a material variance between the version as given in the F.I.R. and thereafter in the trial. The version as given in the F.I.R. is that all the 23 accused surrounded Lal Singh, Badan Singh, Dewan Singh, Padam Singh, and Babu Singh, in the field and inflicted injuries to them there. The story put up in the trial is entirely different inasmuch as the occurrence is said to have taken place in four different phases. All the alleged eye-witnesses would have us believe that Babu Singh, had left the field and was on his way to the village for taking his meals when he was attacked and injured. After causing injuries to him the accused are alleged to have directed their attention who was said to Lal Singh, who was said to have been working at that time at some distance from the place where Babu Singh, was injured. After causing injuries to him the accused are alleged to have directed their attention who was said to Lal Singh, who was said to have been working at that time at some distance from the place where Babu Singh, was injured. In the third phase of the occurrence, the accused are alleged to have attacked and injured Padam Singh. In the fourth and last phase of the occurrence Badan Singh, and Dewan Singh were chased and injured. 9. The witnesses have given evidence which is materially discrepant and contradictory. It was mentioned in the F. I. R. that the accused were armed with two types of weapons viz. lathis and bullams. PW. Babu Singh deposed in the trial that Daulat and Girraj carried guns, Sardar a pistol, Basanta and Mahendra Singh carried Ballams, Durjan was armed with a kassi & all others were armed with lathis. PW Charan Singh, on the other hand, stated that four of the accused were armed with fire arms. According to him, three of them carried guns and one was armed with pistol. The trial court has disbelieved their evidence and came to the conclusion that none of the accused who committed this crime was carrying a fire arm. We are inclined to agree. If any of the accused had been armed with a gun or pistol there is no reason why he would not have used it. 10. According to PW. 6. Babu Singh, Dewan Singh and Badan Singh, Charana, Randhir & Nawab, Jagdish accused was one of the assailants of Lal Singh deceased and had struck a lathi blow on his head. PW. Padam Singh however substituted the name of Sardara accused for Jagdish and stated that it was Sardara who had struck lathi blow on the head of Lal Singh. When Padam Singh was confronted with that part of his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., he denied that he had told the police that Jagdish had given a lathi blow on the head of Lal Singh. 11. Babu Singh stated that after sustaining injuries at the hands of the accused in the initial phase of the occurrence, he had fallen on the ground. 11. Babu Singh stated that after sustaining injuries at the hands of the accused in the initial phase of the occurrence, he had fallen on the ground. He would however have us believe that Charna and Ratna immediately came to him & helped him to sit so that he could see the second & third phase of the occurrence in which Lal Singh was killed and Padam Singh was injured. It is significant to note that Ratna and Charna do not say that they had gone to Babu Singh injured and helped him sit in a position so that he could see the occurrence. The evidence of Babu Singh in this behalf is on the face of it impossible to believe. 12. It will thus be seen that none of the alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence can be described as independent ora wholly reliable witness. Each of them tried to implicate as many innocent persons as he could. They obviously did so out of previous enmity with the accused which they have admitted in their evidence. They are materially discrepant. They tried to improve their version in the trial as compared to the one given by them during the investigation. It will therefore not be safe to convict any of the accused on the basis of such unreliable evidence. 13. All the prosecution witnesses have admitted that a large number of labourers were working in the field of the complainant party at the time of the occurrence. None of them has been produced as a witness. The non-production of independent witnesses who were available to the prosecution, in the facts and circumstances of this case, gives rise to an inference that if produced, they would have deposed against the prosecution. 14. For all these reasons, we find that none of the charges framed against the appellants stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. We would accordingly allow their appeal, set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against them and instead acquit them. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are hereby discharged.Appeal allowed. *******