K.S. SIDDHU, J—This judgment will dispose of two connected appeals arising out of two different trials, but relating to the crimes alleged to have been committed in! the course of the same transaction. The appellants in the first appeal are seven of the twelve accused who were convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, under Sec. 148, 447 & 302—149 IPC vide his judgment dated, March 8, 1976. The appellants in the second appeal are three in number, who were similarly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial judge subsequently on January 27, 1978. 2. The case of the prosecution which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the appellants as aforementioned may be shortly stated here. On October 16, 1973, morning, Narain, Jawahara, Lekhu, Kharga and Pokher were working in their bajra field and plucking bajra spikes from there. It appears that this field originally belonged to one Ladoo Ram who died a month or so prior to this occurrence. Jawahara, who was plucking bajra spikes of the crop standing in this field at the time of occurrence, claimed to have inherited this land from Ladoo Ram as the latters adopted son. Kana & Sukhdeva accused are sons of a brother of Ladoo Ram. They disputed Jawaharas title to, this land and instead claimed that they were its rightful owners. The prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. goes that on October 16, 1973, at about 10-00 A.M. Kana Ram along with his son, Rameshwar, wife Sikori, son-in law. Prem, two daughters-in-laws (i.e. Rameshwars wife and Bhagiraths wife), brother Sukhdeva, Bhagirath and Ram Niwas sons of Sukhdeva, Bali wife of Sukhdeva, Ganpati daughter of Sukhadeva, Naurang Ram son - in - law of Sukhdeva, Dhanna, Nazir Khan and Sukhdeva II arrived in the field armed with Lathis and Gandasis & began to abuse & threaten Jawahara and other stating that they would not let them harvest the crop. It is alleged that the men of the accused party were all carrying lathis and the women were armed with gandasis All of them began to strike indiscriminate blows on Jawahara and Naraina with their respective weapons. Jawahara sustained 23 injuries including 12 fractures. Naraina sustained 26 injuries including 12 fractures. They died on the spot. Kharga, Lekhu and Pokher who are alleged to have witnessed the occurrence escaped unhurt. PWs. Jawahara sustained 23 injuries including 12 fractures. Naraina sustained 26 injuries including 12 fractures. They died on the spot. Kharga, Lekhu and Pokher who are alleged to have witnessed the occurrence escaped unhurt. PWs. Mahadeva and Jhabar whose names were not mentioned in the F.I.R. as eye-witnesses of the occurrence were produced in the trial among the eye-witnesses. 3. The report of the occurrence was made in writing by Kharga Ram the same day at 4.45 P.M. This delay of 6 or 7 hours in lodging the FIR was sought to be explained on a number of circumstances. It is alleged that instead of going to the police station concerned, i.e. Raghunathgarh, Kharga Ram rushed to the village Dispensary and on finding that the doctor was not available in the Dispensary he went by train to Sikar, hired a jeep from there and returned to the scene of the crime and discovered that both Jawahara arid Naraina were lying dead there. It is further alleged that Kharga Ram thereafter went back to Sikar, got a report typed out from typist and submitted it to the Superintendent of Police, Sikar. The latter ordered the S.H.O. Sadar Thana, Sikar to take up the initial investigation. Virmani (PW.10) S.H.O. thana Sadar reached the scene of crime, forwarded the written report to P. S. Raghunathgarh for registration of a formal F.I.R. and carried on investigation till Madan Singh (PW. 11) S.H.O. Raghunathgarh arrived there and took over the investigation from him. 4. On investigation, the police forwarded 12 accused including 5 women, for proceedings of commitment preparatory to their trial under section 148, 447 and 302-149 IPC. The other three accused namely Nazir Khan, Prem and Sukhdeva II were reported to be absconding at the time of the presentation of the final police report in the court. They were arrested subsequently and therefore tried separately. 5. During the trial of these 12 accused, the prosecution examined, among others, Kharga Ram, Mahadeva, Lekhu Ram, Jhabarmal, Dr. Jangid, K.D. Virmani and Madan Singh as witnesses in support of its case. One of the alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence who is conspicuous by his non production is Pokhar. By and large these witnesses supported the prosecution case as narrated above. 6. The same set of witnesses were produced and examined by the prosecution in the second trial. Jangid, K.D. Virmani and Madan Singh as witnesses in support of its case. One of the alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence who is conspicuous by his non production is Pokhar. By and large these witnesses supported the prosecution case as narrated above. 6. The same set of witnesses were produced and examined by the prosecution in the second trial. Pokhar who was not examined in the first trial, was examined in the second trial but he did not support the prosecution case and was therefore declared hostile at the instance of the public prosecutor. It may also be mentioned here that Jhabarmal who had supported the prosecution case in the first trial did not support it in the second trial vis-a-vis Sukhdeva. 7. Dr. Jangid who conducted the post mortem examination found 23 and 26 injuries on the dead bodies of Jawahra and Naraina respectively. All the injuries on them were found to have been inflicted with blunt weapons. Dr. Jangid testified that both Jawahra and Naraina had died due to shock and haemorrhage caused by the said injuries. The learned trial judge therefore concluded, and rightly so in our opinion, that both Jawahra and Naraina had met with homicidal death. 8. On the question as to who had inflicted these injuries to the two deceased he learned trial judge found that since all the women accused were said to have been armed with Gandasi and since there was not a single Gandasi injury to be found on any of the deceased, the women accused deserved to be given the benefit of doubt. Consequently, he acquitted all the five women accused holding that none of the charges framed against them under sections 148, 447 and 302-149 IPC had been proved. Relying on the ocular evidence consisting of the depositions of PWs Kharga Ram, Lekhu Ram, Mahadeva and Jhabarmal, he found Kana Sukhdeva. Dhanna, Naurang, Bhagirath, Rameshwar and Ram-Niwas guilty of the offences punishable under section 148, 447 and 302-149 IPC on the basis of the evidence of PWs. Kharga Ram, Lekhu Ram and Mahadeva. The lesser punishment of imprisonment for life was awarded to each of the accused under section 302-149 I.P.C. All the three sentences in both the cases were ordered to run concurrently. 9. Kharga Ram, Lekhu Ram and Mahadeva. The lesser punishment of imprisonment for life was awarded to each of the accused under section 302-149 I.P.C. All the three sentences in both the cases were ordered to run concurrently. 9. After hearing both sides and perusing the evidence on record, we are far from satisfied that the evidence produced is of such a character on which one may put implicit reliance and convict as many as ten persons of the crime of murder. It will be recalled that the trial court itself was not prepared to place reliance on the evidence of PWs. Kharga Ram, Lekhu Ram, Mahadeva and Jhabarmal to the extent that they tried to implicate the five women accused in the commission of this crime. Jhabarmal did not support the prosecution case in the second trial The prosecution itself sot him declared hostile. We must therefore exercise extra care and caution in scrutinising the evidence of all these witnesses. 10. It will be seen that the F.I.R. in the case was lodged by Kharga Ram (PW. I) who is a brother of Jawahra and Naraina, the unfortunate victims of the crime. Kharga Ram is employed as peon in the Village school. He would have us believe that he was on leave from the school on the fateful day so that he could help Jawahara deceased gather bajra spikes from the latters field. The prosecution did not care to produce any documentary evidence from the school record to lend credence to the inherently doubtful story that a school peon would take leave to work as a farm hand and that too not on his own farm but on the farm of his brother. The entire conduct of Kharga Ram in relation to this occurrence adds to our doubts. He says that he and his son Lekhu Ram (PW. 6) escaped unhurt because they ran away immediately when the accused began to strike blows to the deceased. He would have us believe that they kept watching the marpit for about half an hour & that on hearing their hue and cry PWs Jhabar-mal and Mahadeva also arrived there and joined them in entreating the accused to spare the deceased. He further says that the accused left the scene of crime and went away to their own field after both Jawahara and Naraina had fallen. He further says that the accused left the scene of crime and went away to their own field after both Jawahara and Naraina had fallen. He admitted in cross-examination that both Jawahara and Naraina had already died when the accused left the scene of crime. Now, if all that he says is true, it is difficulty not impossible,to believe him that he would leave the dead bodies of his brothers unattended and himself go to the village and from there to Sikar just to hire and bring a jeep which could be of no use to any one in the tragedy which had striken the family. It may be mentioned here that he testified in this context that after seeing) that his brothers were lying dead at the scene of crime, he drove back to Siker in the same jeep and lodged the report with the police during his second trip to Sikar that day. He admits that he did not disclose in the F.I.R. the names of Mahadeva and Jhabarmal as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. His explanation for this ommission to the effect that he was in such a state of trauma that he forgot to mention their names in the written report which he prepared with the help of a typist makes no impression at all If he is to be believed that he walked his way from village Koodan to railway station Dadia and caught a train from there for Sikar, that hired a jeep at Sikar and brought it all the way to village Koodan and that he drove back from Koodan to Sikar and got a written report typed out there and submitted it to the Superintendent of Police, Sikar we refuse to believe him further that he was still in a state of shock when he got the report typed out nearly 6 hours after the occurrence. Obviously, there is no satisfactory explanation for the ommission of the names of Mahadeva and Jhabarmal from the F.I.R. Such ommission is consistent and consistent only with the inference that they were not present at the time of the occurrence. 11. Thus, it is not only the F.I.R. lodged by Kharga which is suspect but his entire deposition in the trial fails to inspire any confidence. The evidence of his son, Lekhu Ram (PW. 6) is no better. 11. Thus, it is not only the F.I.R. lodged by Kharga which is suspect but his entire deposition in the trial fails to inspire any confidence. The evidence of his son, Lekhu Ram (PW. 6) is no better. He admitted that he was a student in the village school in those days, but he would have us believe, like his father, Kharga Ram, that he too had excused himself from classes to be able to work for his uncle Jawahara deceased in the latters bajra field. He would also have us believe that he went back to the village after his two uncles had dropped dead and that there in the village he did not complain about or mention the tragedy to anyone. We find that Lekhu like his father, is not a reliable witness and it will therefore be not safe to record any conviction against the accused on the basis of his evidence. 12. We have already mentioned that the name of other two alleged eyewitnesses of the occurrence namely, Mahadeva and Jhabarmal were not mentioned in the F.I.R. and that their evidence must therefore be taken with more then a pinch of salt. Jhabarmal admitted that he had been present with the police through out at the time they inspected the scene of crime and prepared various memos like Ex P/5 to Ex P/13 relating to recovery of relevant articles from the spot. He signed all these documents as a attesting witness on October 16, 1973, evening. His statement under section 161. Cr.P.C. in which he told the police that he too had witnessed the occurrence was recorded for the first time on November 2, 1973 Both K.C. Virmani and Madan Singh, the investigating officers in the case, asserted that Jhabarmal did not tell them at any time prior to November 2, that he had seen the occurrence. It is obvious therefore that Jhabarmal is a putup witness whose evidence must be ignored as unreliable. 13. Similar remarks apply to the evidence of Mahadeva. His statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded for the first time on November 3, 1973. K. C. Virmani stated that at no time during the investigation prior to November, 2, 1973, did Kharga and Lekhu mention the name of either Jhabarmal or Mahadeva as an eye witnesses of the occurrence. Both Jhabar and Mahadeva are cousins of Kharga. His statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded for the first time on November 3, 1973. K. C. Virmani stated that at no time during the investigation prior to November, 2, 1973, did Kharga and Lekhu mention the name of either Jhabarmal or Mahadeva as an eye witnesses of the occurrence. Both Jhabar and Mahadeva are cousins of Kharga. Their evidence is wholly unreliable. 14. Last but not the least, the only independent witness of the occurrence namely, Pokhar a farm labourer,who is said to have been working for Jawahara deceased at the material time has not been produced as a witness in this case. It will therefore be correct to presume that if produced he would have deposed against the prosecution. 15. For all these reasons, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt any of the charges framed against the appellants in the two appeals. We would, therefore, allow their appeals, set aside the impugned orders of conviction& sentence and instead acquit them of all the three charges, Appellants Bana, Bhagirath, Rameshwar, Niwa alias Ramniwas are on bail. Their bail bonds are hereby discharged. Appellants Dhanna, Naurang, Sukhdeva son of Dude, Sukhdeva son of Heera Ram, Pram Chand and Najeer Khan are in jail. They shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.