JUDGMENT 1. - Ranga and others, 23 in number, were jointly tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk on the charges of rioting, murder, causing grievous hurt and simple hurt to several persons, punishable under sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149, 325, 325/149, 324, 324/149, 323 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code. One of the accused, namely, Sukhdeva died during the trial. The remaining 22 were acquitted by the trial judge, vide his judgment, dated, July 28, 1972, on the view that the evidence produced by the prosecution is, as the learned Judge put it, "discrepant and exaggerated", making it difficult for him to sift truth from falsehood. The State Government filed the present appeal from the order of acquittal of the 22 accused.By its order, dated, December 11, 1972, this Court refused leave to the State Government for appealing against the acquittal of 15 out of the 22 accused. Leave was granted and the appeal wrs entertained only in respect of the other 7, namely, Ranga, Badri, Punia son of Ranga, Bhanwaria, Shri Narain, Ram Chandra son of Natha and Ram Chandra son of Sukha. 2. After hearing both sides and perusing the evidence on record, we find ourselves in agreement with the trial court in its opinion that the oral evidence, which is the only evidence produced by the prosecution in an attempt to connect the accused with the crimes charged against them, is unreliable and in case of some witnesses, patently false. We cannot therefore interfere with the acquittal of even the re-meaning seven accused against whom this Court had entertained this appeal earlier. We may briefly give our reasons why this appeal against acquittal should be dismissed as a whole. 3. The Prosecution story, as Elven in the F.I.R , may first be recapitulated here. We cannot therefore interfere with the acquittal of even the re-meaning seven accused against whom this Court had entertained this appeal earlier. We may briefly give our reasons why this appeal against acquittal should be dismissed as a whole. 3. The Prosecution story, as Elven in the F.I.R , may first be recapitulated here. Sheo Karna (P.W. 5), a resident of village Kheda, lodged an oral report with police station Barauni, District Tonic, on December 27, 1969, at 8.15 A.M. complaining that on December 26, evening at about 5 30 p.m. while they were on their way back home after sowing their allotted land situate in Banda Gopal pura alias Tapar-ka-Banda, he and his companions Sua deceased, Chhitter (P.W 6) Moolia Kalian (P.W. 8), Govind Narain (P.W. 9), Har Narain (P.W. 10), Siri Kishan (P.W. 12), Kalu (P.W. 13) Sri Narain (P.W. 18), Ram Sahai, Bhoria and other residents of village Kheda were attacked by 23 accused, who are residents of village Bheru Bodia and who were armed with deadly weapons like gandasis, lathis and sword. The accused surrounded Sua deceased and struck blows to him with lathis gandasis and sword. Sua fell dead on the spot. Govind Narain, Har Narain Sri Kishan, Chhittar Moolia, Shri Narain, Kalian, Kalu, Ram Sahai, Bhoria and Sheo Karna himself are alleged to have suffered injuries in ihe course of the same attack. Sheo Karna further mentioned that a large number of villagers from his own village Kheda and a nearby village Bhed arrived there, and witnessed the occurrence. According to him, it was on hearing the lalkaras of the said witnesses that the accused ran away carrying their respective weapons with them. 4. Sheo Karna appeared as a witness in the trial and gave evidence which does not inspire any confidence. He admitted in cross-examination that he had carried will him to the police station a written report of the occurrence, scribed at his instance by Radha Kishan son of Ram Chandra of his village, and that he had given that report to the station house officer for registering the F.I.R. on that basis. He further stated that the S.H.O. had rejected the written report as incorrect and had asked him to make an oral recoil. He added in this context that he bad mentioned the names or some other accused in that report but not of all. He further stated that the S.H.O. had rejected the written report as incorrect and had asked him to make an oral recoil. He added in this context that he bad mentioned the names or some other accused in that report but not of all. For example, he admitted that he had not mentioned the names of Lala and Ganga Dhar accused in 'he written report. SHO Beni Prasad (P.W. 28) made confusion worse confounded by denying that Sheo Karna had shown him a writ ten report of the occurrence and that he had rejected the same and instead that Sheo Karna must make an oral report Under the circumstance, the F.I.R. in the case apart from the fact that it suffers from the defect of delay, is obviousely a document of dubious nature. It is not safe to place any reliance I on this report for any purpose whatever. The prosecution has thus deprived the court of assistance of the first information report, which as observed by the Supreme Court in Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu A,I.R 1973 S.C. 501 , "is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial". 5. Sheo Karna listed the names of 11 persons who, according to his version at the trial, were accompanying him at the time of occurrence. His attention was then drawn by the cross-examiner to the F I.R Ex. P6, wherein he is said to have mentioned that some other persons of his village were also with them at that time. He denied having told the S.H.O. that besides the 11 listed persons there was any other person from his village who had been accompanying him at that time. As for the injury alleged to have been suffered by him during the course of this transaction, Sheo Karna deposed in the trial that it had been inflicted by Ramsi. Earlier, in his statement (Ex. D. 1) recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. he had told the investigating officer that it had been inflicted by Kanhya. He also gave conflicting account about the injuries suffered by Sua deceased. Earlier, in his statement (Ex. D. 1) recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. he had told the investigating officer that it had been inflicted by Kanhya. He also gave conflicting account about the injuries suffered by Sua deceased. His deposition in the trial is that Badri and Ranga opened the attack and inflicted gandasi blows on the head of the deceased as a result of which he fell down and that thereafter Punia and Bhonria inflicted lathi blows to the deceased. In his statement, Ex. D. 2, recorded during the committal proceedings, he told the committing magistrate that Punia and Bhonria opened the attack with the infliction of lathi blows to the deceased and that Badri and Ranga inflicted gandasi blows thereafter. The cross-examiner was able to expose the unreliable character of the testimony of this witness when the witness clearly betrayed his ignorance about the occurrence inasmuch as he began to indulge in conjecturs stating that the four accused namely, Badri, Ranga, Punia and Bhonria,"might have" inflicted 2 to 3 blows each to the deceased. Now if he is to be believed, Sua must have suffered 10 to 12 injuries in all. However, in post-mortem examination, Sua was found having two cut wounds in the head region, contused wound on the scalp and fracture of the 3rd and 4th vertebra of the neck. In other words, he had only 4 external injuries on his body. 6. Sheo Karna further stated that they had six ploughs and two tongas with them at the time of the occurrence and that the bullocks ran away getting themselves under unharassed from the ploughs and the tongas. He would have us believe that the ploughs and tangas were thus left behind at the scene of the crime, i.e., in or around Dadi Sa's field. The site plan, Ex. P17, would however reveal that in all seven ploughs were recovered by investigating officer laying on the way from the fields of Banda Gopal pura (where, according to Sheo Karna, they had been sowing with these ploughs throughout the day) to Dhani Nawalpura, Sheo Karna admitted that Dhani Nawalpura is situate at a distance of nearly 11/2 miles from Dadi 'Sa's field, the so-called scene of crime. The site plan shows that the ploughs were recovered from a place on the way to Dhani Nawalpura and that the place of recovery is very close to the said Dhani. This means that the complainant party were on their way from the ploughed land to Kheda via Dhani Nawalpura. Io fact, the site plan further reveals ,hat the land which was ploughed by the complainant party earlier that day is situate very near Dhani Nawalpura and the ploughs were discovered lying near that land. It i difficult, if not impossible, to believe Sheo Karna that they reached Dadi Sa's field on their way from the ploughed land to their village Kheda. If the occurrence took place in Dadi Sa's field and the ploughs were se trsoned there by the bullocks, one fails to understand as to in what circumstances the ploughs reached the place of recovery which is situate at a distance of nearly 11/2 miles in the opposite direction of Dadi 'Sa's field. We are thus quite clearly of opinion that Sheo Karna was not telling the whole truth as to the genesis of the occurence and the exact scene of the crime. 7. We have also examined and carefully considered the evidence of other witnesses and find that none of them, including Sheo Karna, knew all the accused by their respective names and faces prior to the occurence and that they named the accused in the during the investigation and in the trial, because, in the meantime, the investigating officer and they themselves had made their own enquires and decided upon the said names. It will be seen that the witnesses belong to village Kheda and the accused belong to village Bheru Bodia. The F I R. lodged by Sheo Karna of village Kheda, contains detailed description of each accused giving his name and father's name. Sheo Karna admits that he does not know the name of the father of any of the accused and that he did not supply such details to the S.H.O. who registered the F.I.R. Sher Karna tried to explain in his deposition that the S.H.O. must have given the father's name of each accused in the F.I.R. after ascertaining this fact from the accused themselves. obviously after their arrest. This incidentally is another circumstances depriving the F.I.R. of all value as a piece of evidence in this case. 8. obviously after their arrest. This incidentally is another circumstances depriving the F.I.R. of all value as a piece of evidence in this case. 8. Chhitar (P.W. 6) one of the witnesses who is said to have suffered injuries in the course of the same transaction, admitted that none of the accused was known to him by name to prior to the occurrence. He therefore pointed his finger from the witness stand towards Badri, Bhonria, Ranga and Punia as the assailants of Sua deceased and towards Kanhya as his own assailant. Similarly, Moolia (P.W. 7), Kalian P.W. 8), Kalu (PW. 13), Sheo Nath (P.W. 14) Sri Narain (P W. 18) admitted that the accused. were not known to them prior to the occurrence and that they could identify them only by their faces. Even then. Moolia could not identify Poonia accused and instead pointed towards Morpal accused as Poonia. Kalian expressed his inability to identify any of the accused in the court on the plea that his eye, sight bad gone weak alter the occurrence Kalu was unable to identify a number of accused in the court. He stated that except for a couple of them he did not know any of the accused prior to the occurrence. His statement, Ex.D7, recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. does not contain the name of any of the assailants of the deceased. Slaw Nath was also unable to identify quite a few of the accused when he was asked to do so in the court. Sri Narain pleaded inability to identify any of them on the plea, like Kalian's, that his eye-sight has become weak after the occurrence. 9. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we cannot place any reliance on the testimony of PWs. Moolia, Klian, Kalu, Sheo Nath and Sri Narain. In fact, the investigating officer who recorded their statements under section 16 Cr.P.C. know it too well that they were not giving the names of the accuse because they did not knew them. It was therefore his duty to put the accused in a test identification parade to enable these witnesses to identify them. if they could, during the investigation. It is a matter of regret and surprise that the investigating officer did not do his obvious duty and filed the challan in the court without testing the ability of the witnesses to identify the accused. if they could, during the investigation. It is a matter of regret and surprise that the investigating officer did not do his obvious duty and filed the challan in the court without testing the ability of the witnesses to identify the accused. The Supreme Court recently pointed out in State (Delhi Administration) v. V.C. Shukla, AIR. 1980 S.C. 1382 , that identification by a witness for the first time in the court without being tested by a prior test identification parade is valueless. 10. Gobind Narain (P.W. 9) who is said to have suffered gandasi blows at the hands of accused Bilasia, Ganga Dhar and Kalyan, who have been eequitted and against whose acquittal this court was not persuaded to entertain the appeal of the State, also gave unsatisfactory evidence. In his statement, Ex. D 4, before the committing court, he asserted that none of the accused inflicted any injury to Sua deceased after he had fallen. There after in the trial, he can e out with a story that Badri had given a gandsi blow to the deceased alter be had fallen. Pressed by counsel to state exactly the name or names of the assailants or assailants of each member of the complainant party, Gobind Narain deposed that all the accused inflicted injuries to all the members of the complainant party He further stated that earlier that day the accused had been showing the land allotted to them near the land in dispute and that they had left there in the afternoon. If Sheo Karna and Har Narain are to be believed, the accused did not sow any land around there that day. According to them, they appeared on the scene only at 5.30 P.M. 11. Badri (P.W. 9), Sheo Nath (P.W. 14) and Chhittar (P.W. 20) are alleged to be witnesses of the occurrence who were not members of the complainant party, consisting of 12 persons. They are said to have been following the members of the complainant party on their way to village Kheda. Their evidence is equally unsatisfactory. Badri stated they were half a mile behind the members of the complainant party. If so, it is difficult to believe that they caught up with the members of the complainant party so as to be able to witness the occurrence. Their evidence is equally unsatisfactory. Badri stated they were half a mile behind the members of the complainant party. If so, it is difficult to believe that they caught up with the members of the complainant party so as to be able to witness the occurrence. Badri would have us believe that Punia accused was armed with a gandsi and Ranga with a lathi, whereas other witnesses deposed Punia was armed with a lath; and Ranga with a gandasi. He also confessed to his inability to identify the accused except,as he put it, "two or four". Badri was confronted with his statement, Ex. D.6, recorded by the committing magistrate in which he deposed that he had reached the scene of occurrence only after receiving information from children in 'he village that there was a fight between the two parties in the fields of Banda Gopalpura. He of course denied that he had made the said statement. His denial dogs not cut much ice. Obviously, he was not present there at the time of the occurrence. 12. Sheo Nath (P W. 14) would have us believe that he had gone out to his wet land to see if it it had dried up to become fit for sowing and that on finding that it was still too wet for sowing he kept sitting there till evening and that he was 50 yards behind Badri (P.W. 9) on his way back to the village. His statement like that of Badri is ex facie false. No reliance can be placed on his testimony. It has already been mentioned that he was not able to identify some of the accused in the court and that no test identification had been held during the investigation. 13. Chhittar (P.W. 2) disposed that be had accompanied Badri (P W. 9) and Sheo Nath (P.W. 14) to see if their wet land had dried up to become fit for sowing. Like his so-called companions, his evidence also cannot be relied upon. Moreover, he pleaded ignorance as to who hit whom and then it must be borne in mind that he too had not mentioned the name of any of the accused in his statement recorded during the investigation. 14. Like his so-called companions, his evidence also cannot be relied upon. Moreover, he pleaded ignorance as to who hit whom and then it must be borne in mind that he too had not mentioned the name of any of the accused in his statement recorded during the investigation. 14. Kishanlal (P.W. 22) would have us believe that he had gone out in the fields that evening in search of his missing buffalo and that he happened to see the accused inflicting blows to the members of the complainant party.. He however further stated that he does not know as to who hit whom According to him, the occurrence was witnessed by him at 12 noon. The case of the prosecution is that the occurrence took place at about 5.30 P.M. which is the sunset time. 15. Panna (P.W. 19. is a witness introduced for the first time in the trial. His statement was not recorded by the investigating officer under section 161 Cr. P.C. He says he did not know any of the accused except Badri, Ranga, Punia and Bhonria. He falls in the same category of witnesses to which Kishanlal (P W. 22) belongs in as much as he too would have us believe that he was out in the fields at that time in search of his missing buffalo which had been missing for a fortnight prior to the occurrence. No reliance can be placed on his testimony. 16. Sri Narain (P.W. 81) disposed that all the four assailants of Sua deceased were armed with gandsis. It will be recalled that the other witnesses stated that Punia and Bhonria, two of the alleged four assailants of Sua were armed with lathis. Moreover, Sri Narain pleaded inability to identify the accused on the ground that his eye-sight had gone weak after the occurrence. 17. Har Narain (P.W. 10) was a partner in cultivation with complainant Sheo Karna at that time. As already stated, he denied that he had seen the accused sowing their land that day. Some her witnesses saw them sowing their land around there. He was thus trying to suppress something from the court. As contradicted other witnesses when he stated that no injury was inflicted to Sua deceased after he had fallen. 18. As already stated, he denied that he had seen the accused sowing their land that day. Some her witnesses saw them sowing their land around there. He was thus trying to suppress something from the court. As contradicted other witnesses when he stated that no injury was inflicted to Sua deceased after he had fallen. 18. Almost all the members of the complainant party including Har Narain and Sheo Karna PWs flatly denied that they had inflicted any injury to any member of the accused party. P.W. Dr. Sharma examined accused Poonia, Bhonria and Rampal on December 27, 1969 and found 6 injuries each on the body of Poonia and Rampal and two on Bhonria. No effort was made by the prosecution to explain these injuries on their bodies. This further shows that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin, of the occurrence. 19. All said and done therefore, the oral evidence produced by the prosecution to connect the accused with the crimes charged against them is unreliable and in.some cases totally false. The F.I.R. seems to have been recorded by S.H.O. Beni Prasad after he had already arrested some of the accused. No reliance can possibly be placed on such a document.We cannot therefore reverse the order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused by the learned trial judge. Consequently, the State appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******